32
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
32 points (88.1% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
2591 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Full disclosure, I haven't watched the video, I'm just going off of the other comments. Mechanical energy storage is definitely already a thing. Flywheels are the past, present, and future of energy storage in certain niches. My dad was a PM for IBM for many years and told me all about installing them while building out datacenters in the 90s. They're great for powering large loads while a generator spins up. They're, uh, not really that great for multi-day storage. You're going to lose energy no matter what. Magnetic bearings won't help this, they still have something analogous to friction.
Anything other than batteries or pumped hydro is probably a fool's errand when it comes to grid-level storage. You're not going to make a crane big enough to compete with millions of gallons of water pumped up a hill. You're not going to be able to make a flywheel spin fast enough to compete with millions of gallons of water pumped up a hill. Do not try to compete with the water using your giant spinning death wheel or big dumb crane. Batteries get a pass because they're dense as fuck and very simple to deploy.
Yep.
Caterpillar made/makes flywheel UPS systems, where the flywheel is in a vacuum and uses magnetic or air bearings.
It's much safer having 300 flywheel UPS racks than having 300 battery based systems. Also lifespan is much greater.
Yeah, the lifespan and ability to leave a flywheel "discharged" makes me wish I could have one for my homelab (as unrealistic as that might be). I have a solar generator as a battery backup, but it's not a true UPS with a fast transfer switch (I needed at least 3kWh of capacity for long power outages, my max draw is like 600 watts before I finish load shedding). Most of my servers can tolerate the brief voltage sag, but my R640 chokes and dies. My battery is hooked up to one of my PDUs, and I'd love to have a flywheel hooked up to the other PDU. The battery would be fully transitioned by the time the flywheel was discharged.
On the point of safety, I have a question. I feel like it's probably easier to prove that a flywheel system is deenergized, but there is the very slight risk of confinement loss. With a chemistry like Lithium Iron Phosphate that can't sustain a flame and doesn't produce flammable gasses, do you feel that batteries might begin to approach the safety of flywheels? It sounds like you have actual experience with flywheel systems, so I'm quite curious.
EDIT: holy shit, someone is actually selling a 300 KVA flywheel system on eBay for $30,000. I wonder who the hell would buy something like that used.
EDIT: I said "very slight risk" of confinement loss, and I should probably correct myself. The risk is ridiculously, stupidly small for a system like I linked above. Maybe the bigger systems that get buried and have concrete poured on them are riskier, but I don't know if people even do that anymore for datacenters.
lol I mostly know flywheels as old rollercoaster launches before LSMs were a thing