Flywheel energy storage alternative

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of using gravity as an energy storage mechanism, specifically through a system involving a mass on a rope connected to a motor-generator. Participants explore the practicality and efficiency of this concept compared to existing energy storage solutions like lead-acid batteries and flywheels.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a gravity-based energy storage system could be safer than flywheels, as the worst-case scenario involves a mass falling without causing fatalities.
  • Another participant points out that pumped storage hydroelectric power stations operate on a similar principle but use water instead of a solid mass, highlighting the engineering challenges of requiring either a large mass or significant height for effective energy storage.
  • Concerns are raised about the engineering difficulties associated with high tension in the rope and safety issues that could arise from such a system.
  • A participant mentions that heat storage might be a better alternative, noting that fluid-based systems are more efficient than heat storage due to their ability to retain energy until needed.
  • One participant introduces the idea of compressed-gas storage, noting its high energy density compared to flywheels and the potential for significant pressure at room temperature before liquefaction.
  • A humorous remark is made about a previous experience with a gaseous form of a hydraulic accumulator, indicating a personal anecdote rather than a technical point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of gravity-based energy storage, with some supporting the idea while others suggest alternative methods. No consensus is reached on the practicality of the proposed system.

Contextual Notes

Participants note various engineering challenges related to the proposed gravity-based system, including the need for large masses or heights, safety concerns regarding tension in the rope, and the efficiency of alternative energy storage methods.

Antiphon
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
4
Flywheels are interesting but dangerous if they malfunction because the
energy is concentrated in the vicinity of the rotor.

My question to you ME's is this- could you engineer a practical and/or
efficient energy storage system that relied on gravity?

I envision an enourmous mass on a rope. The rope is connected to
the shaft of an electric motor-generator. You "charge" the device
by running power to the motor/generator and lifting the mass. You
get energy back out in the obvious way.

It's safe because in the worst case the mass "falls" but probably doesn't
kill anyone.

Is this a feasible alternative to lead-acid batteries and flywheels?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
A similar principle is used in pumped storage hydroelectric power stations, the difference being that the mass is in liquid form. These have two reservoirs at different heights. When demand for electricity is peaking, the turbines run normally as the water goes from the top reservoir to the bottom one. When demand is low, the turbines are reversed (essentially becoming pumps), and the water is returned to the top reservoir.

Potential problems with your idea are that you'd need either an absolutely enormous mass, or an absolutely enormous height over which it can fall. Both of these scenarios have their own engineering difficulties to address, as I'm sure you can imagine. For a large energy storage capacity, you'd likely be talking extremely high numbers for things like tension in the rope, which would itself have some notable safety issues.
 
You might be best to go with some sort of heat storage or the aforementioned fluid tower approach. The weights in a grandfather clock are pretty much along the line of your original idea, but on a far smaller scale. You would indeed require some honkin' huge mass for the scale of operation that you're proposing.
The fluid approach is far more efficient than heat storage, if only by virtue of it not needing to be 'preserved'. Heat will disappear if not used in time, whereas water or mercury or whatever will wait until needed.
On the other hand, about the only hazard from a huge flywheel would be bearing failure. If you can minimize that risk, then it still might be the most practical way to go.
 
Good points.

I did some further investigating and discovered that the energy density
of compressed-gas storage is on the same order as the hydrocarbons-
or about 100 times greater than that of a flywheel.

I hadn't thought of it, but there is enourmous pressure possible for a gas at room
temperature before it liquifies and the mass is very low leading to a high energy density.
 
A gaseous form of a hydraulic accumulator...
 
FredGarvin said:
A gaseous form of a hydraulic accumulator...
Been there... done that... will never order the breakfast burritos again...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
16K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
15K