5 ms·

This is strongly false. Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive amounts of energy, and can do so quite cheaply. So can compressed air. If you look at

This is strongly false. Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive amounts of energy, and can do so quite cheaply. So can compressed air. If you look at household electricity usage, an enormous amount is taken up by refrigeration, and air conditioning. Much of the rest is taken up by appliances: washers, dryers, that sort of thing. Finally there's heating and lighting and electronics. The major energy expenses are now transport, which we're trying to address, stuff, which is hard, and air travel, which will have to be scaled down because it's polluting the environment like crazy. http://www.wattzon.org/gameplan.htm http://www.wattzon.org/gameplan.htm

DabAsteroid 18y ago
Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive amounts of energy, and can do so quite cheaply. Yet, electric utilities use lead-acid batteries, instead (providing ~30 seconds of backup power). If utility scale flywheel systems are cheap, why aren't they being added to nuclear power plants (so those plants can be used more-effectively for peak power)?
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants, but it's been slow going. Utilities are not exactly dynamic organizations; my cofounder used to consult for one, getting them to change anything was an enormous pain. There are many growing companies in this area: Beacon Power is one in particular. http://beaconpower.com/ http://beaconpower.com/ They aren't being added to nuclear powerplants because nuclear powerplants have a wide and controllable dynamic range (they can run higher or lower depending) and new ones aren't being created. There are large scale installations of flywheel systems in government use, though. The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab used a flywheel system for peak power delivery, as did many other government labs; including particle accelerators.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    They aren't being added to nuclear powerplants because nuclear powerplants have a wide and controllable dynamic range (they can run higher or lower depending) Nuclear powerplants, typically, are capital intensive. For this reason, their operators aim for high capacity-factors. Unless economic forces are being ignored, they cannot easily be throttled. They run at 100%, all of the time, except when they are being refueled. The only nation that uses its nuclear powerplants in load-following mode is France -- since such a high proportion, some 80%, of its electricity is nuclear -- and France pays a price for that. Additionally, it is not mechanically good for a nuclear-powerplant to throttle up and down. Such cycling causes parts to wear-out faster. If it is going to be used at all, it is best to keep it on, at a steady output. There are other considerations. The nature of reactor poison build-up is such that throttling-up immediately after throttling-down tends, in typical reactor designs, to be difficult to do. Unlike nuclear-powerplants, hydro and gas-turbine powerplants load-follow well (though the more-efficient gas-turbine powerplants take longer to start-up and might have to burn fuel, idling). . new [nuclear powerplants] aren't being created. The United States continuously adds nuclear capacity (through uprates, improved management, refurbishment of previously shut-down reactors, etc.). (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/images/press191_02-06-1.gif http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/images/press191_02-06-1.gi...)(http://uspowerpartners.org/images/Section2Topic-NuclearEnergy-Graph1.gif http://uspowerpartners.org/images/Section2Topic-NuclearEnerg...) Additionally, up to 33 reactor-units are expected to be on-order there, soon. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#preparing http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#preparing) Several reactor-vessels have already been ordered for new reactor-units to be built in the United States. Worldwide, 36 power-reactor-units are under construction, 97 are planned, and 221 are proposed. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html Japan's nuclear share of its total electricity production (past and projected): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html 2008 30% 2009 37% 2017 41% 2050 60% It has 3 reactor-units under construction, and 12 more are planned. South Korea's nuclear share of its total electricity production (past and projected): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html 2006 39% 2017 47% 2035 60% It has 4 reactor-units under construction, and 4 more are planned.
    - DaniFong 18y ago
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants Can you name one? Beacon Power Has Beacon Power ever made a single sale in its 11-year existence? I see it is trading at $1.25 (up from 84 cents, within the last year). The NASDAQ keeps threatening to delist it. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22beacon+power%22+delisted http://www.google.com/search?q=%22beacon+power%22+delisted
    - DaniFong 18y ago
      On making sales, the short answer is yes: they announced a sale as far back as 2001, uncovered from shallow googling. This was for a telecom utility though, not a powerplant scale utility. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5265/is_200102/ai_ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5265/is_200102/ai_ [edit: in H1 2007 they produced sales of $842,034, with $30,244 gross profit, minus substantial operating expenses of $6,443,344. Such magnitudes may or maybe not be expected in a startup company] On adding to powerplants, the intent with the beacon power demonstration plant is to actually commercially deploy the system and make revenues from regulation services. Technically this is not adding to an existing powerplant, though it is adding to the power grid. Eventually the aim to to add to existing power plants where possible, as this avoids transmission losses. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1197634&highlight= http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro... I'm not intimately familiar with the state of the two large utility scale demonstrations. The public information, posted in their stockholders 'results' release, is that they're building a 5 MW plant, have tested a 1 MW system, siting another (10 MW), and ramping up to production; following approval in open bid regulation market. Beacon expects to have frequency regulation facilities in two locations before the end of 2008 with a total of five megawatts of capacity. To that end, the Company has initiated the process of establishing up to five megawatts of frequency regulation capacity on its Tyngsboro site, and is actively pursuing potential locations in the PJM Interconnection in addition to a site in Stephentown, New York. On July 17, 2008, the Company received a land-use permit it had requested from the town of Stephentown, New York, and subsequently exercised its option to purchase the land. Pending approval of an active interconnection request to NYISO and any other implementation requirements of the NYISO, a possible location for Beacon's first 20 megawatt frequency regulation plant will be in Stephentown. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1186246&highlight= http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro... There's also Pentadyne, which manufactures smaller scale UPS systems, used, for example, in process plants. The economics are much the same though, since it competes against batteries. If anything, economies of scale should tweak toward the utility scale implementation.

DabAsteroid 18y ago

Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive amounts of energy, and can do so quite cheaply. Yet, electric utilities use lead-acid batteries, instead (providing ~30 seconds of backup power). If utility scale flywheel systems are cheap, why aren't they being added to nuclear power plants (so those plants can be used more-effectively for peak power)?

DaniFong 18y ago
Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants, but it's been slow going. Utilities are not exactly dynamic organizations; my cofounder used to consult for one, getting them to change anything was an enormous pain. There are many growing companies in this area: Beacon Power is one in particular. http://beaconpower.com/ http://beaconpower.com/ They aren't being added to nuclear powerplants because nuclear powerplants have a wide and controllable dynamic range (they can run higher or lower depending) and new ones aren't being created. There are large scale installations of flywheel systems in government use, though. The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab used a flywheel system for peak power delivery, as did many other government labs; including particle accelerators.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  They aren't being added to nuclear powerplants because nuclear powerplants have a wide and controllable dynamic range (they can run higher or lower depending) Nuclear powerplants, typically, are capital intensive. For this reason, their operators aim for high capacity-factors. Unless economic forces are being ignored, they cannot easily be throttled. They run at 100%, all of the time, except when they are being refueled. The only nation that uses its nuclear powerplants in load-following mode is France -- since such a high proportion, some 80%, of its electricity is nuclear -- and France pays a price for that. Additionally, it is not mechanically good for a nuclear-powerplant to throttle up and down. Such cycling causes parts to wear-out faster. If it is going to be used at all, it is best to keep it on, at a steady output. There are other considerations. The nature of reactor poison build-up is such that throttling-up immediately after throttling-down tends, in typical reactor designs, to be difficult to do. Unlike nuclear-powerplants, hydro and gas-turbine powerplants load-follow well (though the more-efficient gas-turbine powerplants take longer to start-up and might have to burn fuel, idling). . new [nuclear powerplants] aren't being created. The United States continuously adds nuclear capacity (through uprates, improved management, refurbishment of previously shut-down reactors, etc.). (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/images/press191_02-06-1.gif http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/images/press191_02-06-1.gi...)(http://uspowerpartners.org/images/Section2Topic-NuclearEnergy-Graph1.gif http://uspowerpartners.org/images/Section2Topic-NuclearEnerg...) Additionally, up to 33 reactor-units are expected to be on-order there, soon. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#preparing http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html#preparing) Several reactor-vessels have already been ordered for new reactor-units to be built in the United States. Worldwide, 36 power-reactor-units are under construction, 97 are planned, and 221 are proposed. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html Japan's nuclear share of its total electricity production (past and projected): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html 2008 30% 2009 37% 2017 41% 2050 60% It has 3 reactor-units under construction, and 12 more are planned. South Korea's nuclear share of its total electricity production (past and projected): http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html 2006 39% 2017 47% 2035 60% It has 4 reactor-units under construction, and 4 more are planned.
  - DaniFong 18y ago
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants Can you name one? Beacon Power Has Beacon Power ever made a single sale in its 11-year existence? I see it is trading at $1.25 (up from 84 cents, within the last year). The NASDAQ keeps threatening to delist it. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22beacon+power%22+delisted http://www.google.com/search?q=%22beacon+power%22+delisted
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    On making sales, the short answer is yes: they announced a sale as far back as 2001, uncovered from shallow googling. This was for a telecom utility though, not a powerplant scale utility. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5265/is_200102/ai_ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5265/is_200102/ai_ [edit: in H1 2007 they produced sales of $842,034, with $30,244 gross profit, minus substantial operating expenses of $6,443,344. Such magnitudes may or maybe not be expected in a startup company] On adding to powerplants, the intent with the beacon power demonstration plant is to actually commercially deploy the system and make revenues from regulation services. Technically this is not adding to an existing powerplant, though it is adding to the power grid. Eventually the aim to to add to existing power plants where possible, as this avoids transmission losses. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1197634&highlight= http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro... I'm not intimately familiar with the state of the two large utility scale demonstrations. The public information, posted in their stockholders 'results' release, is that they're building a 5 MW plant, have tested a 1 MW system, siting another (10 MW), and ramping up to production; following approval in open bid regulation market. Beacon expects to have frequency regulation facilities in two locations before the end of 2008 with a total of five megawatts of capacity. To that end, the Company has initiated the process of establishing up to five megawatts of frequency regulation capacity on its Tyngsboro site, and is actively pursuing potential locations in the PJM Interconnection in addition to a site in Stephentown, New York. On July 17, 2008, the Company received a land-use permit it had requested from the town of Stephentown, New York, and subsequently exercised its option to purchase the land. Pending approval of an active interconnection request to NYISO and any other implementation requirements of the NYISO, a possible location for Beacon's first 20 megawatt frequency regulation plant will be in Stephentown. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1186246&highlight= http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro... There's also Pentadyne, which manufactures smaller scale UPS systems, used, for example, in process plants. The economics are much the same though, since it competes against batteries. If anything, economies of scale should tweak toward the utility scale implementation.