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

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#11

Post by nitrogen »

dredmorbius wrote: post #7
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 story leaves a lot to be desired in terms of defining technology and specifying methods. Depending on how you buy/sell power, and if you have access to TOU metering, you could spin up flywheels with cheap power and sell it back when rates are higher. If you've got your own generation on site (solar PV, wind, tidal), you could bank excess energy with flywheels. In terms of storage, flywheel round-trip efficiency i…

Beacon Power produces 25KWh flywheels priced at around $1000 /Wh.

Is that really a $25mil flywheel? Or should that have been $1000/KWh?

For mobile uses (automobiles, etc.) these problems are compounded.

I'm probably demonstrating considerable mechanical naivety with this question, but could you balance multiple flywheels in different directions and orientations to mitigate these problems?

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#12

Post by ars »

DanBC wrote: post #9
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…

>Flywheels do not produce energy, they store kinetic energy. The article says, twice, that his design both stores and generates energy. Have they got something wrong? I'm aware that they're using the term 'flywheel' pretty broadly, and his newer device might not be a traditional flywheel. They use scare-quotes a couple of times when using the term flywheel, so they seem to be saying it's not a flywheel. > His latest…

You can't just generate energy from nothing. A flywheel stores energy, it doesn't create it. So yes, they got something wrong.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#13

Post by contingencies »

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 Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage claims that, in comparison to batteries, flywheels are not as adversely affected by temperature changes, can operate at a much wider temperature range, and are not subject to many of the common failures of chemical rechargeable batteries. They are also less potentially damaging to the environment, being largely made of inert or benign materials. A flywheel can potentially have an indefinite working lifespan. Flywheels built as part of James Watt steam engines have been continuously working for more than two hundred years. Another advantage of flywheels is that by a simple measurement of the rotation speed it is possible to know the exact amount of energy stored. Flywheels with Magnetic bearings and high vacuum can maintain 97% mechanical efficiency, and 85% round trip efficiency.

Why aren't these in wide deployment yet as local storage for renewable energy sources? The biggest problems seems to be overall mass, cost, and space efficiency. None are great concerns for long term energy storage solutions for off-grid buildings. In short, these things sound fantastic. Anyone know where to buy one large enough to store power for a small draw, solar sourced home?

This site explains a lot more about the concept, and engineering considerations behind two functional prototypes: http://home.earthlink.net/~fradella/homepage.htm

Flywheels in vehicles were the subject on an article in the Economist in late 2011: Road tests have shown that, thanks to modern materials and clever design, a flywheel as small as a hockey puck can reduce fuel consumption by more than one-fifth. In electric hybrids only 35% of the kinetic energy lost during braking is retrievable. With flywheels more than 70% is. http://www.economist.com/node/21540386

And someone just got funded on Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1340066560/velkess-energ... .. they claim Energy storage flywheels have been in use for over 100 years and are some of the highest performing energy storage technologies ever developed. Traditionally, they have suffered one fatal flaw... they are extremely expensive! Velkess has invented a way of making energy storage flywheels at such low cost it will be dramatically less expensive than even the most economical energy storage technologies available today. Phys.org discussion of this effort: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-velkess-flywheel-flexible-energ...

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#14

Post by whatshisface »

ars wrote: post #12
DanBC wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Flywheels do not produce energy, they store kinetic energy. The article says, twice, that his design both stores and generates energy. Have they got something wrong? I'm aware that they're using the term 'flywheel' pretty broadly, and his newer device might not be a traditional flywheel. They use scare-quotes a couple of times when using the term flywheel, so they seem to be saying it's not a flywheel. > His latest…

You can't just generate energy from nothing. A flywheel stores energy, it doesn't create it. So yes, they got something wrong.

"We said, 'To heck with electromagnetic, we're going with electrostatic,'" Post says, laughing.

It's clearly not just a normal flywheel, perhaps it can convert some other energy form into electricity? (We call them "generators" don't we?)

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#15

Post by toomuchtodo »

perryh2 wrote: post #8
jckt wrote: post #3

"laptop running a sophisticated math program" I wonder what that is? Or is it just Mathematica or something?

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.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#17

Post by gcb0 »

contingencies wrote: post #13
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 Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage claims that, in comparison to batteries, flywheels are not as adversely affected by temperature changes, can operate at a much wider temperature range, and are not subject to many of the common failures of chemical rechargeable batteries. They are also less potentially damaging to the environment, being largely made of inert or benign mate…

Because you can't shake it.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#18

Post by contingencies »

gcb0 wrote: post #17
contingencies wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage claims that, in comparison to batteries, flywheels are not as adversely affected by temperature changes, can operate at a much wider temperature range, and are not subject to many of the common failures of chemical rechargeable batteries. They are also less potentially damaging to the environment, being largely made of inert or benign mate…

Because you can't shake it.

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 safety in earthquakes, too, but flywheels like this one seem widely deployed: http://www.socomec.com/range-dynamic-energy-storage_en.html?...

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#19

Post by mc-lovin »

whatshisface wrote: post #14
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just generate energy from nothing. A flywheel stores energy, it doesn't create it. So yes, they got something wrong.

"We said, 'To heck with electromagnetic, we're going with electrostatic,'" Post says, laughing. It's clearly not just a normal flywheel, perhaps it can convert some other energy form into electricity? (We call them "generators" don't we?)

I'd guess that phrase refers to how energy is put into and taken out of the flywheel: using electrostatic force rather than electromagnetic.

Re: Livermore scientist still reinventing the wheel at 94

#20

Post by DuskStar »

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.

Unless of course it's classified... (programs that simulated nuclear weapons come to mind)
Post reply on HN