Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#31

Post by contingencies »

ars wrote: post #30
contingencies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your summary. The kickstarter project was targeting 15kWh which should be more than enough for a low draw residential setting. For a one-off prototype, they asked for US$50,000 funding. Let's guestimate that with mass-manufacturing the same product could be built for US$30k, and that's going to provide a probable rated lifespan of around 20 years with zero maintenance. Contrast batteries, which might cost…

> This derives from the ability of the flywheel to perform the functions of dc-to-ac inversion and optimal impedance matching between the PV arrays and the load in addition to providing energy storage. We don't need this anymore. This stuff is easy with modern power electronics, so if this is what makes it competitive, then it's not. I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation. And it's not…

> We don't need this anymore

My understanding is that AC/DC conversion is lossy and rule of thumb figures online quote 10-15%.

> I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation.

A lot of products already on the market have 20 years lifespans quoted, eg. Socomec FLYWHEEL, Vycon.

> I've read about a large number of companies that have tried, and yet they all seem to vanish.

Sources? I am genuinely curious.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#32

Post by dredmorbius »

beambot wrote: post #2

"Energy bills would be essentially zero," he says. I'm not sure how this statement is accurate (or relevant). Flywheels do not produce energy, they store kinetic energy. Other comments... (1) I seem to recall an automobile developed in the 60s or 70s by another National Lab that siphoned off stored power from a flywheel (driven by a smaller motor). IIRC, they had hellish issues with handling since the flywheel create…

The Oil Drum has a pretty good reference on flywheel technology and reasonably recent developments as well: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8428

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#34

Post by _pmf_ »

beambot wrote: post #2

"Energy bills would be essentially zero," he says. I'm not sure how this statement is accurate (or relevant). Flywheels do not produce energy, they store kinetic energy. Other comments... (1) I seem to recall an automobile developed in the 60s or 70s by another National Lab that siphoned off stored power from a flywheel (driven by a smaller motor). IIRC, they had hellish issues with handling since the flywheel create…

> I seem to recall an automobile developed in the 60s or 70s by another National Lab that siphoned off stored power from a flywheel (driven by a smaller motor).

One possibly feasible application that comes to mind are automotive turbo chargers. Compared with current approaches, a flywheel does not actually seem that convoluted.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#35

Post by ars »

contingencies wrote: post #31
ars wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This derives from the ability of the flywheel to perform the functions of dc-to-ac inversion and optimal impedance matching between the PV arrays and the load in addition to providing energy storage. We don't need this anymore. This stuff is easy with modern power electronics, so if this is what makes it competitive, then it's not. I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation. And it's not…

> We don't need this anymore My understanding is that AC/DC conversion is lossy and rule of thumb figures online quote 10-15%. > I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation. A lot of products already on the market have 20 years lifespans quoted, eg. Socomec FLYWHEEL, Vycon. > I've read about a large number of companies that have tried, and yet they all seem to vanish. Sources? I am genuinely…

> My understanding is that AC/DC conversion is lossy

We don't need to do this all that often, and the flywheel is lossy too. And you can get 96% efficient power supplies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS

Plus you can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_converter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor-generator which are basically the same thing, minus the energy storage part.

> A lot of products already on the market have 20 years lifespans quoted, eg. Socomec FLYWHEEL, Vycon.

This could be new - I haven't been following this recently.

> Sources?

When people first started focusing on automobile energy efficiency flywheels were the thing. They eventually gave up and switched to hybrids, and/or batteries.

Note the date: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/business/flywheels-to-powe...

I don't really have any links from stories from years ago, but this one is high profile and recent:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/9/feds-call-ban...

The stores would have a pattern: Some young new company proudly showing off its new technology to the fawning journalist - and then that would be the last you would ever hear of them. (Someone once told me to put their names in a google news alert then forget about it - most of the alerts would never trigger a second time.)

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#36

Post by jacquesm »

ars wrote: post #30
contingencies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your summary. The kickstarter project was targeting 15kWh which should be more than enough for a low draw residential setting. For a one-off prototype, they asked for US$50,000 funding. Let's guestimate that with mass-manufacturing the same product could be built for US$30k, and that's going to provide a probable rated lifespan of around 20 years with zero maintenance. Contrast batteries, which might cost…

> This derives from the ability of the flywheel to perform the functions of dc-to-ac inversion and optimal impedance matching between the PV arrays and the load in addition to providing energy storage. We don't need this anymore. This stuff is easy with modern power electronics, so if this is what makes it competitive, then it's not. I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation. And it's not…

Not all of them disappeared:

http://afstrinity.com/

It looks like they pivoted to other storage systems and are now finding their way back to flywheels.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#37

Post by ars »

dredmorbius wrote: post #29
contingencies wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely if it's buried, as seems to be the general consensus for cheapest mode of safe deployment, then it doesn't shake? Also, these have been deployed successfully in cars and on various other types of vehicles (cranes, etc.) so the physical stability issue is certainly not a big one. My high school physics is terrible but the keyword vacuum might have something to do with that. Data centers would be concerned about…

"Surely if it's buried, as seems to be the general consensus for cheapest mode of safe deployment, then it doesn't shake?" The ground occasionally shakes, depending on where you are. The Earth also rotates on its axis. And with the speeds and energies with which grid storage flywheels operate, that's a significant engineering concern. The real killer though is cost / KWh of energy storage. For Beacon's designs it's a…

> The Earth also rotates on its axis. And with the speeds and energies with which grid storage flywheels operate, that's a significant engineering concern.

You can align the angle of the flywheel to match the angle of the earth at your latitude, which helps with that. However if you do that the flywheel is titled, so the bearings are uneven, and then you need some shielding above the flywheel - you can't just have the earth be the walls.

But it means that the bearings experience much less force, so it can be worth it.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#38

Post by ars »

jacquesm wrote: post #36
ars wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This derives from the ability of the flywheel to perform the functions of dc-to-ac inversion and optimal impedance matching between the PV arrays and the load in addition to providing energy storage. We don't need this anymore. This stuff is easy with modern power electronics, so if this is what makes it competitive, then it's not. I also suspect the reliability is not there yet for 20 year operation. And it's not…

Not all of them disappeared: http://afstrinity.com/ It looks like they pivoted to other storage systems and are now finding their way back to flywheels.

They are one of the early ones: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/business/flywheels-to-powe...

But it's been 20 years and no flywheels ever made it to market.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#39

Post by jacquesm »

ars wrote: post #38
jacquesm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of them disappeared: http://afstrinity.com/ It looks like they pivoted to other storage systems and are now finding their way back to flywheels.

They are one of the early ones: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/business/flywheels-to-powe... But it's been 20 years and no flywheels ever made it to market.

Actually, they did sell a whole pile of them for ride-through power in hospitals and other facilities where power availability is critical.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#40

Post by vidarh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #15
perryh2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore use a lot of software that I believe is not available to the public (e.g. scientific simulations). Mesquite is one custom LLNL software [1]. MATLAB is very common, but I didn't see much (if any) usage of Mathematica (intern last summer). [1] https://iscr.llnl.gov/annual_report/fy2005/subcontracts/kraf...

If its written by the government, its required to be in the public domain.

If it's written by the federal government, it is not protected by copyright. But that does not mean it will necessarily be released. If you can't get your hand on it, the lack of copyright protection won't do you any good.
Post reply on HN