Why energy storage sucks • Hacker News Board

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#11

Post by misnome » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #7

DiabloD3 wrote: post #4

So what happened to the idea of using some modern version of flywheels to store power?

They were deployed in Formula 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system I'm not aware of any building or utility-scale systems.

Laboratories such as JET (fusion research) use them, because they cannot draw enough power from the grid: https://www.euro-fusion.org/fusion/jet-tech/jets-flywheels/

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#12

Post by masklinn » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #10

DiabloD3 wrote: post #4

So what happened to the idea of using some modern version of flywheels to store power?

Flywheels target a bit of a different problem than many other energy storage solutions. They are only able to store energy for very short periods. This is valuable to counter short term changes in the power generation, but it won't help you to store solar power for longer dark periods. Wikipedia has some info about existing installations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_storage_power_system tl;dr Only a few of…

> They are only able to store energy for very short periods.

Your own link quotes self-discharge rates of 5%/day (for high-vacuum wheels I assume), that's more than sufficient for daily solar storage.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#13

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 11:50 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#14

Post by Faaak » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 11:51 AM UTC

Energy storage not only consists of batteries… Pumped hydro, for example, works well and does not decays over time.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#15

Post by kba » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 11:51 AM UTC

davedx wrote: post #3

I really want to read this article, but there are too many spelling and grammar mistakes or lack of punctuation. Please consider spellchecking it?

I absolutely agree. Already after the first sentence, I was questioning whether I was suffering from aphasia or having a stroke. It surprises me that someone would publish an article like that without having proofread it at all.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#16

Post by Cyph0n » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 12:13 PM UTC

davedx wrote: post #3

I really want to read this article, but there are too many spelling and grammar mistakes or lack of punctuation. Please consider spellchecking it?

I didn't notice anything serious. Perhaps you should try to tone down your "superior grammar" dial?

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#17

Post by sageikosa » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 12:14 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #7

DiabloD3 wrote: post #4

So what happened to the idea of using some modern version of flywheels to store power?

They were deployed in Formula 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system I'm not aware of any building or utility-scale systems.

I've seen some in data-centers, mostly to filter out noise and provide continuation between power main failure and generator kick-in.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#18

Post by anonymousDan » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 12:16 PM UTC

Cyph0n wrote: post #16

davedx wrote: post #3

I really want to read this article, but there are too many spelling and grammar mistakes or lack of punctuation. Please consider spellchecking it?

I didn't notice anything serious. Perhaps you should try to tone down your "superior grammar" dial?

Nah, he's right it's practically unreadable.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#19

Post by snorrah » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 12:16 PM UTC

davedx wrote: post #3

I really want to read this article, but there are too many spelling and grammar mistakes or lack of punctuation. Please consider spellchecking it?

If your English skills are reasonable, it's fairly easy to parse the article and fill in the gaps yourself. Probably easier than a non-native writer wrestling with a spelling or grammar checker when they might not know if the suggestions presented are good or not.

Re: Why energy storage sucks

#20

Post by paulsutter » Thu, Mar 03, 2016, 12:23 PM UTC

Pumped hydro is much cheaper than batteries per KW (max storage rate) and KWh (storage capacity) is limited only by reservoir size. The roundtrip efficiency is about 80% and it's able to store for months at a time.

Heindl Energy in Germany is developing hydraulic storage, which can work even on flat ground (basically, raising a rock formation with pumped water). They've designed capacities up to 120GWh:

http://www.heindl-energy.com/hydraulic-rock-storage/idea-fun...