alt Hacker NewsI am still a fan of centrifugal systems. The lifecycle costs of a spinning mass seem more manageable than the complexities of chemical batteries. The mass of a block of concrete and steal isn't going to degrade over time. And bearings/motors are such mature tech that they can last decades, even a century without replacement.
Replies
If you're going mechanical, why not pumped water storage instead? Nothing has to spin super fast and hydro has a lot of maturity.
(From a guy who got burned buying stock in a centrifugal system as my first "wicked smaht" investment as a 22yo).
Maintenance on high energy movement hasn't exactly had a great track record either.
There was a giant flywheel company near me about 20 years ago. Maybe it's still there. They had one incident where a flywheel broke.
There's a very long waiting list for new synchronous condensers, almost 5 years from order to delivery.
Yup. Esp. when space is available. But thet benefit heavily from low pressure environments though so it's not just an arm and a mass in a fence.
> And bearings/motors are such mature tech that they can last decades, even a century without replacement.
This is not true at all for bearings in large industrial systems under constant load. As the mass scales up, the systems become exponentially more sensitive to vibrations from wear of the mechanical parts. Even magnetic bearings max out at about 20 years.
Flywheel systems are more complicated and expensive than simple chemical batteries. Cost also scales much more than batteries as you increase the energy storage. They are also less efficient over time due to friction even with magnetic bearings.