I think this is nonsense. Why do you automatically have to layer on the lazy cynicism? (And I'm really sick of this bull about "elites" all the time. It's nearly all crap - ironically promoted by people like Trump, who is a quintessential member of the same elite he pretends to criticise. Animal Farm or what?
)
Everyone knows that energy storage is one of the biggest barriers to wider use of intermittent renewable sources of power, like wind and solar. Gravity is already used and has been for years, in the form of "pumped storge" hydro systems. We have one at Dinorwig in Wales:
Dinorwig Power Station - Wikipedia
The use of weights in old mine shafts has also been researched :
Gravity-based storage using weights in mine shafts - Integrate.
And of course grandfather clocks have used the gravity storage principle for several hundred years, so there is nothing new.
No doubt there are other systems. I don't watch videos but the system shown in the picture has the snag that you have to build a tower from which to suspend the weights. I should think using an existing mine shaft will be far less costly, and less intrusive in the landscape.
Given the dependence of electric batteries on heavy metals, some of which are only mined in a few countries, e.g. China, or Zaire, I feel quite sure that both governments and industry will want to diversify their energy storage technologies. So we can expect intense commercial competition between these technologies and many of them will have a place in the future of energy supply.
The challenge of getting new technologies off the ground is usually one of scale: the existing ones are already more optimised, so it can be hard for a new concept to be cost-competitive when it starts out. There is a role for government support at that stage, so that good new ideas do not wither.
But this is not an issue of some kind of cynical profiteering conspiracy.