Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:01:26 +0100 Ericp wrote :
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

Not an unknown idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Ericp wrote:

Next snake oil burner?
Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

You can certainly build a flywheel UPS, but forcing suppliers of
intermittent green energy to use one? That's a different matter.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:25:48 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

You can certainly build a flywheel UPS, but forcing suppliers of
intermittent green energy to use one? That's a different matter.

Simples, you change the rules, after all if Germany can just switch off
all their nuke generation overnight by changing the rules...

"If you want to connect and sell power to the grid you must have your
rated capacity available within the time scale and for the minimum
duration as laid out in Appendix X".

Appedix X then gives various time scales for various generation
technologies, so lets say 4 days for coal from cold. 6hrs for CCGT from
cold, 1 hr for wind. Duration being at least 12 hours.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

A number of claims are made in the video, eg half the cost of equivalent
lead acid systems, but there is nothing to back this up.

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

Andy

In article ,
Andy Champ writes:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

They have been used in the computer industry to provide the tie-over
between mains fail and generators starting up, for large uninterruptabe
supplies.

They do have some quite spectacular failure modes. I suspect that's
partly why they died out.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 15/04/13 09:20, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ writes:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.
They have been used in the computer industry to provide the tie-over
between mains fail and generators starting up, for large uninterruptabe
supplies.

They do have some quite spectacular failure modes. I suspect that's
partly why they died out.

I remember distinctly being given a 'lift' from Farnborough to IIRC
Gatwick as a guest on Deccaqs 'Elizabethan' (converted from the Shah of
Persias private transport to a radar test rig,(but the mahogany and gold
plate was still in evidence) and hearing the whine of the rotary
converters...'whats that?' 'rorarty converters for the equipment' 'why
not use a transistor inverter' 'cos when we drop the flaps or pull the
gear up, the voltage drops to half: the rotaries have enough energy to
keep the valves lit for half a minute'


Inertia is better than a capacitor, not as good as a battery except for
short duration stuff, and its extremely hazardous when you push near the
limits from more energy storage.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:20:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

They have been used in the computer industry to provide the tie-over
between mains fail and generators starting up, for large uninterruptabe
supplies.

They do have some quite spectacular failure modes. I suspect that's
partly why they died out.

The GPO installed them in 1960s & 70s telephone exchanges. The rotor
was installed underground.

On Monday 15 April 2013 09:14 Andy Champ wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

Andy

Wait until the first one throws its bearings and takes out 3 houses...

Then there'll be "Part R" "Approved Document for Installation and
Maintenance of ****off Large Spinning Machines" and 6 registered bodies to
represent the installers...


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 15/04/2013 09:14, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

Do they mention the self-discharge rate? I'd expect it to have run out,(
if built as shown on the page) of energy within a few minutes at the
most due to air friction and other losses, as against a lead acid
battery, which takes months to flatten itself. It may come in handy for
absorbing motor start surges, if you can afford to have it running "just
in case".


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 15/04/2013 14:49, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/04/2013 09:14, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

Do they mention the self-discharge rate? I'd expect it to have run out,(
if built as shown on the page) of energy within a few minutes at the
most due to air friction and other losses, as against a lead acid
battery, which takes months to flatten itself. It may come in handy for
absorbing motor start surges, if you can afford to have it running "just
in case".


Did you miss the bit about the enclosure being evacuated?

--
Rod

On 15/04/2013 14:51, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 14:49, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/04/2013 09:14, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

Do they mention the self-discharge rate? I'd expect it to have run out,(
if built as shown on the page) of energy within a few minutes at the
most due to air friction and other losses, as against a lead acid
battery, which takes months to flatten itself. It may come in handy for
absorbing motor start surges, if you can afford to have it running "just
in case".


Did you miss the bit about the enclosure being evacuated?

Obviously, though it'll still probably be flat within a day or so. Was
it in the video? I'm away from home at the moment, and I can't afford
video on 3G in this country.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:14:32 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far.

Will it deliver the 15kWh at a consistent rate?

Not my field, but I do wonder if it can deliver a lot of power when it is
spinning really fast but the output may reduce as the flywheel slows.

I presume the technology exists to smooth the generated output to give a
constantly variable output at all speeds of rotation.

I also assume that they will have to be pretty damn big as well as heavy
to store a useful amount of energy.

Possibly fine for countries/areas with a low population density but I
don't see these as an easy fit for any UK urban or suburban location.

I assume they would need to be buried to avoid damage on bearing failure
being widespread.

Cheers

Dave R

On 16/04/13 12:54, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:14:32 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far.

Will it deliver the 15kWh at a consistent rate?

Not my field, but I do wonder if it can deliver a lot of power when it is
spinning really fast but the output may reduce as the flywheel slows.

I presume the technology exists to smooth the generated output to give a
constantly variable output at all speeds of rotation.

I also assume that they will have to be pretty damn big as well as heavy
to store a useful amount of energy.

Possibly fine for countries/areas with a low population density but I
don't see these as an easy fit for any UK urban or suburban location.

I assume they would need to be buried to avoid damage on bearing failure
being widespread.

Cheers

Dave R
Your assumptions are well founded.

Yes to all the above.

Its nothing new. There IS nothing new in storage. Its all years old
ideas that are being dressed up in Green emperors new clothes because

- the assumption that renewable energy HAS to be made to work is driving
the possibility of getting massive subsidies and
- people without engineering backgrounds will believe anything and are
easily parted from their money.

The ENGINEERING reality is that far far better stores of energy exist
ready made in the form of fossil fuel and fissionable and fertile
materials.

There is no need to create it with an expensive inefficient and
physically massive and expensive transient technology and then store it
in another expensive inefficient and physically massive and expensive
(and potentially highly dangerous) technology in order to do the same job.

the energy density of atomic binding energy is at least three orders of
magnitude above anything else we know of, and can use. That means
storage is small and has little impact on other things. The fact that
its extraordinarily difficult to access it at all, makes it somewhat
expensive, to access, but inherently very safe. And as far as our
curent thunking goes, its te primary energy driving the Universe. It
doesn't get better than that.

The excess of radiation generated by nuclear power is less than one
percent of the total radiation we receive. It really is a non-issue.

Eventually these facts will be recognised, but sadly it seems, not until
every other alternative has been explored, because people like to
believe, rather than learn science, do sums, and face reality.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On Apr 16, 1:37*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/13 12:54, David.WE.Roberts wrote:







On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:14:32 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far.

Will it deliver the 15kWh at a consistent rate?

Not my field, but I do wonder if it can deliver a lot of power when it is
spinning really fast but the output may reduce as the flywheel slows.

I presume the technology exists to smooth the generated output to give a
constantly variable output at all speeds of rotation.

I also assume that they will have to be pretty damn big as well as heavy
to store a useful amount of energy.

Possibly fine for countries/areas with a low population density but I
don't see these as an easy fit for any UK urban or suburban location.

I assume they would need to be buried to avoid damage on bearing failure
being widespread.

Cheers

Dave R

Your assumptions are well founded.

Yes to all the above.

Its nothing new. There IS nothing new in storage. Its all years old
ideas that are being dressed up in Green emperors new clothes because

- the assumption that renewable energy HAS to be made to work is driving
the possibility of getting massive subsidies and
- people without engineering backgrounds will believe anything and are
easily parted from their money.

The ENGINEERING reality is that far far better stores of energy exist
ready made in the form of fossil fuel and fissionable and fertile
materials.

There is no need to create it with *an expensive inefficient and
physically massive *and expensive transient technology and then store it
in another expensive inefficient and physically massive and expensive
(and potentially highly dangerous) technology in order to do the same job..

the energy density of atomic binding energy is at least three orders of
magnitude above anything else we know of, and can use. That means
storage is small and has little impact on other things. The fact that
its extraordinarily difficult to access it at all, makes it somewhat
expensive, to access, *but inherently very safe. And as far as our
curent thunking goes, its te primary energy driving the Universe. It
doesn't get better than that.

The excess of radiation generated by nuclear power is less than one
percent of the total radiation we receive. It really is a non-issue.

Eventually these facts will be recognised, but sadly it seems, not until
every other alternative has been explored, because people like to
believe, rather than learn science, do sums, and face reality.

Still got your head up your arse.
My cat knows more science than you.
You think constant repetition creates facts.

On 16/04/13 16:19, harry wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 16/04/13 12:54, David.WE.Roberts wrote:







On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:14:32 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?
Or an old but viable system?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage
The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.
A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.
It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.
Snake oil.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far.
Will it deliver the 15kWh at a consistent rate?
Not my field, but I do wonder if it can deliver a lot of power when it is
spinning really fast but the output may reduce as the flywheel slows.
I presume the technology exists to smooth the generated output to give a
constantly variable output at all speeds of rotation.
I also assume that they will have to be pretty damn big as well as heavy
to store a useful amount of energy.
Possibly fine for countries/areas with a low population density but I
don't see these as an easy fit for any UK urban or suburban location.
I assume they would need to be buried to avoid damage on bearing failure
being widespread.
Cheers
Dave R
Your assumptions are well founded.

Yes to all the above.

Its nothing new. There IS nothing new in storage. Its all years old
ideas that are being dressed up in Green emperors new clothes because

- the assumption that renewable energy HAS to be made to work is driving
the possibility of getting massive subsidies and
- people without engineering backgrounds will believe anything and are
easily parted from their money.

The ENGINEERING reality is that far far better stores of energy exist
ready made in the form of fossil fuel and fissionable and fertile
materials.

There is no need to create it with an expensive inefficient and
physically massive and expensive transient technology and then store it
in another expensive inefficient and physically massive and expensive
(and potentially highly dangerous) technology in order to do the same job.

the energy density of atomic binding energy is at least three orders of
magnitude above anything else we know of, and can use. That means
storage is small and has little impact on other things. The fact that
its extraordinarily difficult to access it at all, makes it somewhat
expensive, to access, but inherently very safe. And as far as our
curent thunking goes, its te primary energy driving the Universe. It
doesn't get better than that.

The excess of radiation generated by nuclear power is less than one
percent of the total radiation we receive. It really is a non-issue.

Eventually these facts will be recognised, but sadly it seems, not until
every other alternative has been explored, because people like to
believe, rather than learn science, do sums, and face reality.

Still got your head up your arse.
My cat knows more science than you.
You think constant repetition creates facts.
No harry, I think the world consists of facts, and not opinions, but the
facts need advocates.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 16/04/2013 12:54, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:14:32 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage

The prototype weighs 25lb and stores 0.5kWh.

A car battery weighs about that, and stores maybe 100aH, at 12V that's
1.2kWh - so the energy density is similar to, but less than, a lead-acid
battery.

It looks as though they are having trouble scaling it to a 750lb rotor
which will store 15kWh. That would run my house for a day and a half. I
need to cover a week's calm spell so I can run on windmill power alone -
so I need 5 of these things in my basement.

Snake oil.

It could be done, but there are cheaper more reliable ways using
batteries and inverters these days. I can't recall the spec of the
largest one to date but it was in the 10-20kWh range in the 1970's.

It is a very old mechanical UPS design. Whilst there is good mains power
a clutch keeps the drive from mains to generator in - lose mains and the
flywheel keeps the generators going until it runs out with gradually
falling frequency so you have to hope the load is tolerant.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far.

Will it deliver the 15kWh at a consistent rate?

Not my field, but I do wonder if it can deliver a lot of power when it is
spinning really fast but the output may reduce as the flywheel slows.

I presume the technology exists to smooth the generated output to give a
constantly variable output at all speeds of rotation.

I also assume that they will have to be pretty damn big as well as heavy
to store a useful amount of energy.

Possibly fine for countries/areas with a low population density but I
don't see these as an easy fit for any UK urban or suburban location.

I assume they would need to be buried to avoid damage on bearing failure
being widespread.

Such things have already been successfully engineered. The I know of was
the emergency shutdown flywheel supply for the MRAO Ryle 5km aperture
synthesis telescope at Cambridge where the stored kinetic energy in the
flywheel was intended to stow the instruments back to vertical in the
event of mains power loss in a storm.

Big dish scopes have been wrecked in storms through losing power and
emergency generators failing to start. ISTR alignment of the bearing was
carefully chosen so that if the rotor broke loose it would not hit
anything in the two miles or so it was expected to travel.

The main problem with this method is that to be any good at energy
density the flywheel necessarily contains a very dangerous amount of
kinetic energy. Think robot wars Hypno-Disk on steroids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypno-Disc

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
It is a very old mechanical UPS design. Whilst there is good mains power
a clutch keeps the drive from mains to generator in - lose mains and the
flywheel keeps the generators going until it runs out with gradually
falling frequency so you have to hope the load is tolerant.

Use a DC motor/generator and use an inverter. It increases the cost, but
makes the system much less critical of rotor speed. You need more than
3000rpm at the flywheel to get a decent energy density per unit mass,
too, so you need to add gearing to keep the output frequency right on a
synchronous system, which causes its own losses.



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 16/04/13 15:27, John Williamson wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
It is a very old mechanical UPS design. Whilst there is good mains
power a clutch keeps the drive from mains to generator in - lose
mains and the flywheel keeps the generators going until it runs out
with gradually falling frequency so you have to hope the load is
tolerant.

Use a DC motor/generator and use an inverter. It increases the cost,
but makes the system much less critical of rotor speed. You need more
than 3000rpm at the flywheel to get a decent energy density per unit
mass, too, so you need to add gearing to keep the output frequency
right on a synchronous system, which causes its own losses.



exactly so. Inverters exist that are capable of working over at least a
3:1 input voltage range. You will get constant output followed by
totalshutdown, rather than a steadily falling one.


Of course everything is now bigger, heavier more expensiveand more
useless than ever...

But that's renewable energy for you...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 16/04/2013 14:13, Martin Brown wrote:


Big dish scopes have been wrecked in storms through losing power and
emergency generators failing to start. ISTR alignment of the bearing was
carefully chosen so that if the rotor broke loose it would not hit
anything in the two miles or so it was expected to travel.


ISTR that when the Hinkley Point A steam turbine came apart, one disk
went through eight brick walls and I think some bits just about made it
off site. And that was only going at a little over 3000 rpm.

On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?

--
Rod

On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?


The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.

Even in most faults (excepting vapour cloud explosions, which are not so
easy to set up) the release of energy from a tank of petrol is
relatively gentle in comparison. Similarly for a shorted lead acid battery.

On 15/04/13 10:46, newshound wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?


The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.

Even in most faults (excepting vapour cloud explosions, which are not
so easy to set up) the release of energy from a tank of petrol is
relatively gentle in comparison. Similarly for a shorted lead acid
battery.



I would disagree. I have seen batteries explode, and tankfuls of petrol

However your point is well made.

Having looked at energy storage extensively to discover whether here was
any technology that could do it, as a way to even faintly justify
renewable energy, I came to the conclusions that the safest energy store
was in fact a few tonnes of plutonium, closely followed by a few million
tonnes of coal.

heavy oil is next, then kerosene, with gasoline being very hazardous and
gas alarmingly so.

water up a hill is fine, unless you get an earthquake, or mechanical
faulure, in which case its is worse than a nuclear bomb.

What is truly alarming is the amount of energy we as a nation already
store in hazardous form, and worse the amount we would NEED to store if
renewable energy were all we had to work with.

I like to think of it in terms of 'Hiroshimas'

one 'Hiroshima' is about 160GWh. Or enough to supply the countries
electrical needs for just 4 sunless windless winter days..

One Hiroshima 'could supply as much energy as 72 wind turbines for a year'

One Hiroshima a year 'could power up to 36,000 homes' (a very small town
indeed)

as a nation we genearte and consume the equivalent of a Hirsohima every
5 days in terms of electricity. So 72 hirishiamn sizxed bangs are needed
to power the grid.

Our total energy consumption is equivalent to a Hiroshima sized bang
every day or so,

And that's just Britain.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 15/04/2013 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

water up a hill is fine, unless you get an earthquake, or mechanical
faulure, in which case its is worse than a nuclear bomb.

That's ridiculous! It depends entirely what is at the bottom of the
hill, which you are ignoring. A nuclear bomb produces fall-out, which is
bound to be harmful. A properly-sited pumped storage facility will flood
a few fields, wash some crops away ....

On 15/04/2013 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I would disagree. I have seen batteries explode, and tankfuls of petrol

Can you give more description?

I've never seen an accidental explosion of any size. I've heard of
batteries catching fire, or boiling, but that's all. Tanks FULL of
petrol tend to be quite safe - it's the ones full of petrol _vapour_
that go bang.

Andy

On 15/04/2013 10:20 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Having looked at energy storage extensively to discover whether here was
any technology that could do it, as a way to even faintly justify
renewable energy, I came to the conclusions that the safest energy store
was in fact a few tonnes of plutonium, closely followed by a few million
tonnes of coal.

I'm very curious to see how you'd go about storing energy in plutonium
or coal.

On 15/04/2013 10:46, newshound wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?


The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.

Even in most faults (excepting vapour cloud explosions, which are not so
easy to set up) the release of energy from a tank of petrol is
relatively gentle in comparison. Similarly for a shorted lead acid battery.


Interesting though that nuclear explosions tend to be in various
multiples of ton(ne)s of TNT.

Does a failing flywheel really have a similar effective brisance to
dynamite? I imagine individual lumps flying at high speed rather than
the all round outward pulse as from dynamite (or nuclear) explosions. At
a medium distance the dynamite will have run out of puff, whereas a
piece of flywheel might have a much greater range - set against the
greater possibility of it missing you entirely.

--
Rod

On 15/04/13 11:42, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:46, newshound wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a
big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they
billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?


The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.

Even in most faults (excepting vapour cloud explosions, which are not so
easy to set up) the release of energy from a tank of petrol is
relatively gentle in comparison. Similarly for a shorted lead acid
battery.


Interesting though that nuclear explosions tend to be in various
multiples of ton(ne)s of TNT.

Does a failing flywheel really have a similar effective brisance to
dynamite? I imagine individual lumps flying at high speed rather than
the all round outward pulse as from dynamite (or nuclear) explosions.
At a medium distance the dynamite will have run out of puff, whereas a
piece of flywheel might have a much greater range - set against the
greater possibility of it missing you entirely.



If you are a regular watcher of mythbusters and similar programmes, you
will will be aware that explosive power alone is not what kills people.
Yes at close range you may get literally blown apart, but the far
greater damage is shrapnel. with which military explosives are
deliberately augmented. A rifle is a carefully designed shrapnel
generator, with a kill range of up to several MILES. For very low
energy. Ther ws one case in te USA where a wmoin was killed several
miles way from where a rather short wife, was ainomg UPWARSD at water
melon targets with her husbands 45, and the bullet flew several city
blocks before killing the victim.

A bullet that would penetrate at best a few inches of soil wood or straw

A flywheel is the perfect shrapnel generator.

And dont stop to consider ice thrown off a wind turbine blade too long.
A ballistics friend estimated 'lethal up to about 200 yards'

A girl I once knew woke up in hospital with concussions and a
manufactured skull. The last thing she remembered was a lorry coming
towards her. Police found a lump of broken brake drum inside the wreck
of her car.. at only a few mph, that nearly killed her, and whe was
lucky to escape the minor wreck that happened after she was knocked out..



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

In article om,
newshound writes:
On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?


The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.

You really don't want to be around when a spinny thing loses
its bearings...

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200...a_dam_acc.html

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 15/04/13 12:10, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article om,
newshound writes:
On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage


Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.
I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

I suppose electric companies might avoid standing charges if they billed
in sticks of dynamite? Or would that be the other way around?

The thing about dynamite is that once detonated it lets all of its
energy go at once. As does a flywheel, if it breaks.
You really don't want to be around when a spinny thing loses
its bearings...
True
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200...a_dam_acc.html

but AFAICT that was not a spinny thing losing its bearings.

'killed more trout, than Chernobyl' would be nice strap-line

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 15/04/2013 10:27, polygonum wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/04/2013 03:01, Ericp wrote:
Next snake oil burner?

Or an old but viable system?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...energy-storage



Doesn't the big wheel store the energy equivalent of 50 sticks of
dynamite?
I'm not sure where I would want to put one of those other than in a big
hole well out of the way.

I am sure someone, somewhere invented a more sensible way of measuring
energy. How many "sticks of dynamite-equivalent" does it take to boil
one litre of water from 20C (assume no losses from kettle while heating
up and boiling point is 100C).

IIRC a stick of dynamite is quite a useful measure as its about one
megajoule.

On 15/04/2013 10:51, dennis@home wrote:

IIRC a stick of dynamite is quite a useful measure as its about one
megajoule.

-
I must remember that one. Not sure I will use it when writing nuclear
power station safety cases, but it gives you an idea of what might be a
safe distance!

On 15/04/13 11:12, newshound wrote:
On 15/04/2013 10:51, dennis@home wrote:

IIRC a stick of dynamite is quite a useful measure as its about one
megajoule.

-
I must remember that one. Not sure I will use it when writing nuclear
power station safety cases, but it gives you an idea of what might be
a safe distance!


safe distance from what?

nuclear power stations cant go bang.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.