The Cost Of Miliband’s Flywheels

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Mad Miliband did no tell us how much his crazy plan to build giant flywheels up and down the country would cost, but Paul Burgess came up with these numbers:

So that 250 kW job would cost a total of about $75000, assuming $300/kW.

If we convert that to £300/kW and assume that Miliband’s flywheels would be needed to replace 30GW of gas and coal plants, we would be looking at a total of some £9 billion. The idea, after all, is that they are needed to provide system inertia, which is currently only provided by spinning generators – gas, coal and nuclear principally.

I seem to recall reading that battery storage would also be required, in order to smooth delivery of power; this could add to those theoretical costs.

It seems unlikely that flywheels would last more than a few years, certainly not without plenty of maintenance. Either way, the cost of flywheels would be considerable.

###


Here it the transcript of the above video, which is also archived on our ClimateTV page, , a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more..

Hello everyone. Well there I was peacefully making my hydrogen video, you know, explaining the myth and the delusions about hydrogen, when in came a comment on one of my videos saying what do I think of Milan’s flywheel idea. And when that came in, I didn’t know about it. I was busily working and whilst I’m aware of what flywheels are used for in the energy system, which is to really stabilize frequencies and take care of very very small time increments to smooth things out, I wasn’t aware that our energy minister Ed Miliband had completely lost the plot with claims that flywheels are going to help balance our grid in terms of storage taking and you know, uh excess energy which we still pay the full price for of course and moving it into periods of high demand.

This is a nuts idea and Ed Miliband is easily the most dangerous um person in the UK at the moment because he’s going to ruin our economies. I mean this last week we’ve closed, we know we’ve closed Tata Steel, we’ve closed our last Coal Mine, uh we’re doing away with Grangemouth um costing thousands of jobs. What we’re… we’ve stopped new um exploration of the North Sea and uh and so on and so on and so on and we are… this man is so dangerous he’s fanatical but the worst thing is he really doesn’t understand the most basic basic things about energy.

Now let me give you one of my problems when I go to research these things and like flywheels I look for how much storage, how much energy they can store. You’d think that would be a simple issue because that’s measured in megawatt hours, kilowatt hours, gigawatt hours, but it’s measured in hours. But no, all you get is oh this flywheel can do 20 megawatts. Well that’s meaningless unless I know what time it can maintain that for because that gives me the amount. And I’ve actually been in situations of public meetings when I’ve gone up to so-called experts who didn’t understand the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt hour and I find that amazing.

So the kilowatt hour is the amount of energy that means one kilowatt for 1 hour. A kilowatt is meaningless unless you know how long it can last. It it it’s meaningless and yet all the time journalists and even you know promotions videos just use the megawatts or the kilowatts without giving me the storage.

So it always takes me extra time to try to find out how much storage is in these things.

Now from the outset here I knew that flywheels can store a very little amount of energy and so I’m going to explain in this video just how stupid this man is and the idea is to avoid blackouts in Britain. Well I’m sorry to say this isn’t going to help at all with blackouts.

Well flywheels aren’t new, they’ve been used for a long time. I mean the early steam engine used them to smooth out the power as it were and that’s their role, smoothing out energy over small increments of time. And even if you look at the Modern engine here you’ll see we still use flywheels. You… this is a this is a four-cylinder engine and the flywheel helps smooth out the power. It carries the… the has the inertia between The Strokes as it were. That’s the role of flywheels.

We will now take a look at Ed Miliband’s bonkers plan. So there is the claim is to prevent Net Zero blackouts because of the intermittent nature of solar and wind. But it doesn’t do that. In fact it doesn’t do that at all.

The national Energy System operator, that’s ESO, is the brand new organization taken over from the National Grid and is publicly owned and they state: “If there’s a sudden change in system frequency” – and note the word frequency there please – “the weight and inertia of generators means they carry on spinning even if they’ve lost power. This avoids a sudden change of frequency giving time for our control room to restore the balance.” So what we’re talking about there is frequency. Yeah, tiny amounts of time to adjust tiny things as it were. That is what they saying there. They carry on.

The scale of the problem is shown by the number of contracts awarded for so-called stability Services expected to Total more than 100 by the time all are operational probably in 2026. ESO is now planning to open an entire new stability service Market to encourage the construction of more flywheels or other services that back up the grid. So we’re still talking about frequency.

But then they go on to say ESO said the schemes would save the consumer money by cutting the need for maintaining backup power stations and importing power from overseas via interconnectors. And that is what I’m going to challenge. A spokesman said the Pathfinders alone are expected to provide consumers with savings of £14.5 billion between 2025 and 2035. Wow. So it sort of saves us for importing power from overseas. Well that’s not frequency. That’s acting as a backup. There’s a huge difference between using flywheels as a frequency adjuster doing tiny little adjustments to stabilize the frequency on the network to using it as a backup to restore power because the question then becomes how much energy do flywheels store and how long can they last.

So let’s look at an example now which used to be the world’s biggest until recently when China built a slightly bigger one and let’s look at the one that’s in the USA and they call it a 20 megawatt one, a 20 megawatt flywheel system. We’ll take a look now as an example.

Let’s take this Beacon 20 megawatt flywheel plant in the USA. This is what they said to justify it: “Beacon power is building the world largest flywheel energy storage system in Stevenson New York. The 20 megawatt system marks a milestone in flywheel energy storage technology. Our similar systems have only been applied in testing and small scale applications. The system utilizes 200 carbon fiber flywheels levitated in a vacuum chamber. The flywheels absorb grid energy and can steadily discharge one megawatt of electricity for 15 minutes.” Now remember that figure – one Mega for 15 minutes. “The system takes a place of supplemental natural gas power plants that have been used to balance supply and demand in Grid activity prior boosting energy production during Peak demand and lowering production during Peak Supply.” That is utter nonsense that I will now prove.

So how much energy have we stored in that, the biggest at the time um flywheel um plant in the world?

Well it was a quarter of 1 megawatt which is… that’s all it is. One megawatt for 15 minutes is a quarter of a megawatt hour. We need 7,200 gigawatt hours for the one and day example I’ve often used when we went nine days without wind in the UK and that is 7,200,000 megawatt hours. But we’ve only a quarter of one. And I can tell you now that would support the national grid for just 1/1200th of a second. That’s it.

And even the bigger one that’s been built in China is 50% bigger so basically you still have well over… well below 100th of a second support for the Grid. In other words there is not enough storage no matter what system you use. So that’s what we’re into.

So clearly clearly there is no element of uh grid storage to balance the grid for Renewables with flywheels.

None whatsoever. All there is is the frequency adjustment.

It’s worth following up what happened to that Beacon power plant and again in this statement here they go on about it being used for the regulation of power grid operations not just for the frequency adjustment. “The storage systems are designed to help utilities match Supply with varying Demand by storing Excess power in arrays of 2,800 flywheels at off peak times for use during Peak demand.” No no no. But let’s carry on with the history.

Beacon power was founded in Wilmber Massachusetts in 97 as a subsidiary of SatCon Technology Corporation, the maker of Alternative Energy Management Systems. The company went public in 2000 and in June 2008 Beacon power opened new headquarters in Tyngsboro um with financing from Massachusetts state agency. There we are, the big subsidy.

In 2009 Beacon received loan guarantee from the United States Department of energy. There we are again for $43 million to build a 20 megawatt flywheel power plant in Stevenson New York which is what we’re talking about. The DOE loan for 43 million was awarded in 2010 with a plan to be online by 2011. It was also awarded 24 million from the DOE for a second flywheel plant. On the 30th of October 2011, the company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. As part of the bankrupt Court proceedings Beacon power agreed in November 18 to sell it Stevenson facility to repay the DOE loan.

So that one and it was the world’s largest at the time went bust the same year that it opened and it already had a total of 43 million plus a further um sum of 24 million so totaling 67 million pumped into it.

Lasted for months and went bust.

So at this point we can clearly state that flywheels have no capacity, no ability to store any significant amount of energy at all. They have a role in adjusting the frequency um of of stabilizing the frequency of the energy Supply mainly caused by by the varying amount of intermittent energy coming in. So there’s a big and growing need for that but no question of them being able to store energy to transfer it from uh um excess time to a high demand time. Not at all. We’re talking hundredths of a second uh for that plant and even the biggest one is still less less than a hundredth of a second for the UK power supply. No chance at all. But let us move on to another aspect of it just to finally put the nail in the coffin.

Looking at the cost of these flywheels, my source is from this paper “A review of flywheel energy storage rotor materials and structures”. I quote: “The capital cost per unit power of a FESS system with a rated power output of 250 kW and a maximum expected storage time of 50 minutes is $250 to $350 a kilowatt.” That’s the capital cost if you like. “But the corresponding unit energy cost is between 1,000 to $5,000 a kilowatt hour.” $1,000 to $5,000 a kilowatt hour. That is $763 to 3,816 per kilowatt hour when gas today and we’re talking wholesale prices here is 65p per kilowatt hour. That is 1173 times to 5,871 times more expensive.

But not to… the international renewable energy agency estimates that the unit energy insulation costs of FESS will decrease by 35% by 2030 from the current estimate and it’s their estimate of $1,500 to $6,000 per kilowatt hour down to $1,000 to $3,900 a kilowatt hour. Wow. So if you hang on in hope you’ll only have to pay £763 to 2,977 per kilowatt hour. Just 1173 to 4,610 times the price of gas. So putting a um 2 kilowatt fire on for an hour would only cost you around £6,000 and that is providing you’re buying those kilowatt hours at wholesale prices.

Look it doesn’t really matter what the exact price is. No matter what it is it’s exorbitant. It is totally out of the question as backup. But the capacity Factor itself, the amount of energy the flywheel system can store is so small you know a couple of seconds for the National Grid as to be inconsequential. It is not for backup storage. It is totally misrepresented in the press and frankly a lot of the advocates for it have no understanding of of The Logical background to it of the actual math, the actual calculations. And as the engineering part of me looks at these things it is natural to look at the costs and the viability things because I’m into a world that works not a theoretical world.

So now I hope this has armed you, the viewers of this, has armed you with the answers to why flywheel energy storage has backup to intermittence is actually not good, is incredibly expensive, can only be used for really frequency regulation, ironing out the frequencies and even that is very very expensive. And of course we need more of this, a lot more of this now because of the intermittent nature and the varying all over the place of all these intermittent inputs. So it’s an extra cost of the energy you know.

I’m just exasperated quite frankly at the world that puts all this forward. I can’t keep up with all the false stories coming through the Press almost every day um and just to tell you by the way uh some of you may may want to know I wear glasses because um I’ve been having a left eye trouble but I had an operation last Thursday during the making with this video actually and so maybe in a month or so I’ll be able to take the glasses off. At the moment of course it looks absolutely deplorable my eye so I don’t want to distract people with that. It’ll… people would concentrate on that rather than what I’m saying.

So um that’s it. I hope you’ve enjoyed the video and I hope it has yet again armed you um to bring the sanity back into this renewable Madness.

Just one more thing before I leave you um Brian cat the engineer physicist um this week actually passed to me a small video from Carl Sagan um which I think explains um what the danger is in the west, why all these um why all these governments so deplorable at managing all this um. I was on GB news again yesterday um and again there’s an ex-minister was on after me and someone had already met in the green room and you know clear they they know nothing of what they’re talking about. Yesterday was about The Madness of carbon capture um but um this short video I think is the nearest I’ve seen uh to explaining how the madness happens because it is madness and so I’m going to leave you with that now.

I’m going to leave you with this short video that I think is worthwhile listening to. So thank you for watching.

There there’s two kinds of dangers. One is what I just talked about that we’ve arranged a society based on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it. And the second reason that I’m I’m worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.

If if we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in Authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. It it’s a thing that Jefferson lay great stress on. It wasn’t enough he said to Shrine some rights in a in a constitution or a Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated and they had to practice their skepticism and their education otherwise we don’t run the government, the government runs us.

Never a truer word said.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.6 28 votes
Article Rating
157 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 7, 2024 10:16 pm

Follow the money, there’ll be a buck in it somewhere to feather his nest.

Quilter52
October 7, 2024 10:31 pm

Since he is using Victorian technology, I think we should use Victorian punishments Tar and feather the fool!

Bob
October 7, 2024 10:34 pm

This is a very wise man.

Westfieldmike
Reply to  Bob
October 8, 2024 2:33 am

You can see it in his expression…….

October 7, 2024 10:37 pm

Flywheels can only be used for short term frequency stabilisation.

As an grid scale energy storage device that are totally pointless.

James Snook
Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 1:35 am

Best way to store energy in a flywheel would be to build them of wood and then burn them 🤡

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 3:43 am

As an grid scale energy storage device that are totally pointless.

Yes. Someone has got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Synchronous condensers are a reasonable way to stabilise grid frequency—if you’re unreasonable enough to want to use PVs or batteries. They are not for storage in the usual sense of days or weeks of energy supply.

I don’t know if Milliband failed to explain that’s what they’re for or he didn’t know. But for the second time in quick succession Paul Homewood has mistaken the real problem.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 6:11 am

I’m a big boy; I don’t mind down-votes, especially when I have got it wrong. In this case though am curious to understand whether I’m getting them for saying synchronous condensers (“flywheels”, if you will) are a reasonable way to stabilise the grid when you’re synthesizing AC from DC, or whether it’s because I am chiding a local hero?

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 7:59 am

The problem with flywheels is their comparatively low energy density storage. Compared to hydropower or an on-line FF-powered power plant or nuclear power plant or backup battery storage, the total available load-leveling energy in theoretical flywheel storage is woefully inadequate compared to needs.

If you want to argue that flywheels can provide “instantaneous” energy to the grid, you must necessarily compare that to instantaneous energy supply capability of chemical batteries which are relatively less costly and less complex.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 8, 2024 9:48 am

Batteries supply DC. The grid needs AC. AC is synthesized from DC, but with significant losses and it needs to respond to fluctuating demand which affects the line frquency which has to be maintained quite accurately. Synchronous condensers can do that job even though they store a comparatively tiny amount of energy. Batteries cannot do the job alone.

I am NOT advocating for battery storage or a grid powered by wafts and sunshine. I am saying anyone retarded enough to try that is going to have to deal with line frequency. “Flywheels” as people seem to want to call them CAN do that.

Flywheels a solution to a problem we shouldn’t be creating.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 5:53 pm

“AC is synthesized from DC, but with significant losses and it needs to respond to fluctuating demand which affects the line frquency which has to be maintained quite accurately.”

The typical conversion loss in a well-designed solid state inverter (DC-to-AC electricity conversion) is about 5%. I don’t consider that particularly significant, but YMMV.

Solid state electronics (especially with mini-computers) can control that inverter output frequency and phase to exactly match that of the grid it is feeding.

David Wojick
Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 8:02 am

It is because you have mistaken the real problem.

Reply to  David Wojick
October 8, 2024 9:52 am

No, I really don’t think I have. I don’t normally reply to my replies but I’m not letting this one go. I am pretty sure I am the only poster here who understands you can’t run an AC grid with just DC batteries and PVs.

Tell me you understand the problem of maintaining AC line frequency under varying load when using DC storage and I’ll back down.

So far everyone, including the OP, seems to be fixated on storage. This is nothing to do with storage. The flywheels (synchronous condensers) are needed BECAUSE of the storage.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 10:21 am

I am pretty sure I am the only poster here who understands you can’t run an AC grid with just DC batteries and PVs.

I am gratified to see that after I wrote that a number of other commenters have weighed in talking sense. I apologise to you all for claiming to be the only one who understands. I can’t name you all here, but you know who you are.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 6:03 pm

“I am pretty sure I am the only poster here who understands you can’t run an AC grid with just DC batteries and PVs.”

There are an untold number of people that didn’t bother to respond to that statement because they have the real life, practical experience of running their home AC “grid” solely from their home-based batteries and PV panels (plus solid state inverters) when incoming utility power has failed or been intentionally interrupted.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 8:14 am

These are not synchronous condensers. They are flywheels, spinning at a much greater rpm. They are not tied to grid frequency, but generator output goes via inverters.

comment image

The advantage is that they can inject power rapidly, but they don’t offer other syncon benefits such as short circuit current. They are costly, with a competitive niche only in grid stabilisation on short timescales, where they might be competitive with batteries.

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30204-1

Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 8, 2024 10:06 am

These are not synchronous condensers.

Someone may have dreamed or hallucinated an energy storage system using flywheels such as you illustrate, but that doesn’t mean Mad Milliband and the national Energy System Operator (ESO) are proposing to install them. I admit that when you read around the published documents you come away shaking your head at the confused thinking and word salad, but most of them eventually do get around to admitting it is about AC frequency. Here’s what the Telegraph article said (my bold):

“The plans drawn up by Ed Miliband’s new National Electricity System Operator (NESO) will help to minimise the risk of disruption as the UK increases its reliance on wind and solar farms, the output of which can fluctuate from minute to minute with the weather. It follows warnings that the removal of coal, gas and nuclear power stations from the system will leave the grid without the secure steady baseload needed to maintain stability. Grid instability is a known cause of blackouts: more than 1m people across the UK were plunged into darkness in August 2019 during one of the worst power blackouts in more than a decade. The cause was a small change in grid frequency”

So yes, they are talking about synchronous condensers for AC frequency control, whether they use the term or not.

And to repeat what I seem to have to add a lot on this thread, synchronous condensers are reasonable mitigation to a self-inflicted problem, not a breakthrough that will make renewable energy and Net Zero a roaring success. At best they will help us get so far into trouble we may have no way back.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 11:06 am

Here’s the diagram from the article

comment image

These are flywheels, not synchronous converters (though the grid is also busy installing those and converting some old generators including 25% of Cruachan pumped storage
https://www.drax.com/power-generation/why-spin-a-turbine-without-generating-power/ )

They have a niche in the storage market by supposedly being cheaper than batteries for very short duration, high annual cycle frequency operations.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 8, 2024 11:11 am

Screenshot of diagram (should be viewable with a click)

1000000979
Paul Siebert
Reply to  quelgeek
October 9, 2024 4:26 pm

Quelgeek,
At best they will help us get so far into trouble we may have
no way back.”

Gave me pause with this line.
Like the 4wd enthusiast in the group who fits mud tyres while the rest get by on mixed use tyres. Who is it then, has to call on a farmer with an eight wheel tractor to get extracted from the swamp?

Paul Siebert
Reply to  quelgeek
October 9, 2024 3:20 pm

Quelgeek,
Down here in South Australia, frequency control went to the dogs for two(?) years following the hurried destruction of our only coal fired genset.
Tidied almost right back up, following the commissioning of two synchronous condensers.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 11:32 am

In the late 70’s we had a DecSystem2020 installed in a farmhouse in Vermont. The power was just horribly dirty and a bit intermittent. So the company bought a motor generator. This thing had a powered 800 lb concrete flywheel which connected with a solid rubber axle to an electric generator.
When it spun up it provided really clean electricity and could ride over short 10 second interruptions.
It never really worked as it was not only extremely inefficient but also continually overheated and shutdown. Great design!

October 7, 2024 10:49 pm

China has just commissioned a 30MW flywheel system. No engineering data on energy storage but it does state enough power to supply 2000 households for a year.
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-world-largest-flywheel-energy-storage

If we take the standard household as 10kWh per day then the 30MW flywheels can provide 7300MWh of energy. The plant cost USD48m. So 152Wh/$. Lithium batteries are around 4Wh/$. The Snowy 2 project in Australia can store 350GWh at a cost of around USD14bn or 25Wh/$.

If the 7300MWh is near the mark, then the Chinese could be on a winner. Remember that China burnt a lot of coal to make the flywheel and are claiming 20 to 30 year design life. With no major wearing elements, they might even last a lot longer. No one else but India will be able to build them for that price because they are not permitted by the UN to burn coal.
comment image

Nevada_Geo
Reply to  RickWill
October 8, 2024 12:43 am

No engineering data on energy storage but it does state enough power to supply 2000 households for a year.”

That’s a massive, massive contradiction for one small sentence. “No engineering data” means, in the real world, “no engineering data.” I read the entire article and I agree, it contains no engineering data. I hate to be repetitive, but with no engineering data there is NOTHING to support the claim of “power to supply 2000 households.” Nor does the article state the power requirements of those 2,000 households. I have visited households in Bolivia, Mongolia, South Africa, and elsewhere with power requirements of 0 to 0.25 KWh per day. Are these the types of households they are referring to? There’s no way to know, because the article contains “no engineering data.” To speculate and then apply arithmetic to that speculation is at the very least disingenuous.

The article you cited could benefit greatly by saying the amount of time that flywheel installation could maintain 30 megawatts. You see, there is no engineering data in the article because they only use the term “MW” but nowhere does the author use the term “MWh.” If you watched the video, you will recall that was the very first complaint of the engineer giving the explanation.

Read the third paragraph of the transcript.

Sorry to beat a dead horse.

Reply to  Nevada_Geo
October 8, 2024 3:07 am

Your confusion is because you are using the wrong units of measure. The correct unit depends on the country. For China that is the Yuan profit/flywheel when sold to Western idiots like Miliband.

Reply to  Nevada_Geo
October 8, 2024 10:20 am

The article you cited could benefit greatly by saying the amount of time that flywheel installation could maintain 30 megawatts.

A flywheel is only useful when the driving force is lost. At that point, the flywheel will start to slow down. Neither power nor frequency will remain constant.

Think about the biggest flywheels in use at fossil fueled power plants today. How long could they maintain both power and frequency if the ‘boiler’ was turned off? Not long!

heme212
Reply to  RickWill
October 8, 2024 7:57 am

10 kWh per day? where?

Reply to  RickWill
October 8, 2024 8:04 am

Better hope that none of those high energy flywheels suffers a bearing seizure or material fracture leading to an imbalance in the rotor!

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 8, 2024 8:23 am

That’s why they are buried.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 8, 2024 6:09 pm

How deep? How far apart?

Paul Siebert
Reply to  RickWill
October 9, 2024 4:52 pm

RickWill,
The Snowy 2 project in Australia can store 350GWh at a cost of
around USD14bn or 25Wh/$.”
No, “can” about it. Florence is still at the early stages of wombat duty, gnawing out a tunnel between the proposed dams.

Crisp
Reply to  Paul Siebert
October 9, 2024 8:23 pm

With the already massive cost blowouts (and the job’s a long way from the finish line), it is already less than 1.4Wh being stored per $A spent. And that is only the capital cost. It does not even include the running costs, so it is even worse than you imagine.

Nick Stokes
October 7, 2024 10:54 pm

So what did Milliband actually say or do? All I cabn read in this rant is

“But then they go on to say ESO said the schemes would save the consumer money by cutting the need for maintaining backup power stations and importing power from overseas via interconnectors. And that is what I’m going to challenge”

So it is the ESO saying it, not Milliband, it seems. But are they really talking about anything more than maintaining frequency stability? How about a link to what someone actually said? Oriiginal source?

babelshark
Reply to  PariahDog
October 8, 2024 1:26 am

It seems clear from this article that it is frequency control not backup power that is the issue.

Reply to  babelshark
October 8, 2024 4:16 am

No, Minibrain’s NESA clearly says it will save consumers money by cutting the need for maintaining backup power stations and importing power from overseas via interconnectors.

This is complete BS.

Flywheel are not energy producers, they are net energy consumers.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 8:44 am

It’s NESO – National Energy Systems Operator.

I agree with the rest of your comments

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 10:23 am

These folks have no idea about inertia!

If you don’t supply energy to a flywheel it will slow immediately.

Reply to  babelshark
October 8, 2024 11:27 am

Then you have the wrong impression. These flywheels provide local injections or absorption of power to smooth output from solar farms and onshore wind, for which they are supposed to be cheaper than batteries. Grid frequency won’t be much affected by such local irregularities, but local voltages will swing high or low, and power routing over the grid can be affected, potentially risking thermal stability limits or maximum transformer loads for example. They will also respond to frequency events, but the market for that is well covered already. They need to be paid for lots of short term cycles to earn their keep.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
October 9, 2024 7:30 am

“These flywheels provide local injections or absorption of power to smooth output from solar farms and onshore wind, for which they are supposed to be cheaper than batteries.”

That would be “smoothing” power for maybe all of 30 minutes using a VERY large flywheel energy storage plant . . . but solar power has, as a minimum, a daily 12+ hour interruption and wind farms have intermittent interruptions of, oh, 10 minutes up to two or more weeks.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  PariahDog
October 8, 2024 1:59 am

Yes, I found that while googling. In fact, all the articles about it seemed to be derived from the Telegraph, which for me is behind a paywall. There seems to be an ESO press release, which I can’t locate.

And yes, it does seem to be about frequency control. Burgess’ rant is just unhinged.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 3:52 am

You only need very expensive frequency control if you have erratic, unstable supplies.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 10:25 am

No. Load variation is what challenges frequency the most, at least in pre-windmill times. I believe the US tries to keep it within 0.3 Hz to avoid complications with the interconnection of all the different power plants.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 9, 2024 8:07 am

“No. Load variation is what challenges frequency the most . . .”

While that may be true at a local level, it is not true at a national grid level.

North America has two major and three minor alternating current (AC) power grids or “interconnections”, with the major Eastern Interconnection itself having seven smaller “grids”— https://www.energy.gov/oe/learn-more-about-interconnections

A local load variation is far too small to bring down the electrical frequency “inertia” provided by the large number of turning generators inputting frequency-controlled electricity into that particular grid.

Inputting a relatively small amount of power that is out-of-frequency tolerance to the grid (i..e, less that 59.7 Hz or greater than 60.3 Hz) won’t cause the involved grid to depart from design frequency, to collapse, or to cause the supply source to blow up . . . it will just be inefficient and result in increased waste heat. If too far out-of-limit, the offending source should automatically shut down.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 9, 2024 8:46 am

it will just be inefficient and result in increased waste heat. If too far out-of-limit, the offending source should automatically shut down.

Don’t minimize this. The control system of the generator will attempt to correct the problem. That means expending more and more energy to turn the generator faster. At some point the generator will reach maximum input from its source (coal, gas, etc.) and will be running at max. At some point it will kick off line causing others to take up the slack which cause others to trip. That’s when large area blackouts occur. Those have occurred and will occur again.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2024 10:31 am

“At some point it will kick off line causing others to take up the slack which cause others to trip.”

Yes, that’s the expected outcome of a “grid” that is intentionally being operated near design maximum capacity with insufficient reserve power. Fortunately, there are grid operators with experience that perform “load shedding” well before consuming all reserves for supplying power, and thus well before a tripping cascade can occur.

My understanding is that “area blackouts” are much more likely to occur from load shedding or grid faults (e.g., shorts or open circuits developing in high energy transmission lines, major failures or explosions in transformers in transmission substations) than from unmonitored demand overload.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 9, 2024 11:44 am

Fortunately, there are grid operators with experience that perform “load shedding” well before consuming all reserves for supplying power, and thus well before a tripping cascade can occur.

Load shedding IS a blackout for those being shut off.

Frequency monitoring isn’t done to just keep the frequency constant. Frequency variations are a major indicator of demand and supply being out of sync. Drops in frequency are caused mostly due by demand being greater than supply. That can be due to line faults or weather or generator failure. The only way to fix it is to supply more power to the system.

Undriven flywheels will quickly degenerate into unusability. As their speed falls, so does their output. DC to AC conversions don’t help because as the electronics attempt to maintain frequency, the available power output drops. You can’t get something for nothing, there are ALWAYS adverse consequences.

The best solution are systems that create their own driving energy from boilers or fueled engines.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2024 1:03 pm

“Load shedding IS a blackout for those being shut off.”

Well, only if the situation is allowed to progress to forced load shedding.

Load shedding can be performed voluntarily—as is done in California from time to time— without resulting in any brownout or blackout.

Requests for such to residual homes are to please delay use of non- time-critical electrical appliances (such as washers, dryers, dishwashers and even cooking on electric ranges or in electric ovens) until peak demand has passed. Residences will still get electricity with sufficient voluntary compliance.

Requests for such to commercial businesses or often to turn off non-critical indoor lighting and to turn off, or increase the temperature set point on air conditioning, as well as to reduce use of electrical machinery as much as possible. The businesses will still get electricity with sufficient voluntary compliance.

Perhaps you live in a region with more heavy-handed electric utility companies?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 9, 2024 3:35 pm

Well, only if the situation is allowed to progress to forced load shedding.

You keep talking around the issue.

A frequency drop means there is insufficient generating capacity online to meet demand. The ONLY way to fix it is to ADD more generating capacity to the affected portion of the grid or disconnect end users, i.e., a blackout.

Storage devices such as batteries and flywheels can not create energy, they can only supply what has been stored and that occurs on a decreasing curve.

If demand remains high for a long enough time, you will reach a point where storage devices exhaust the capacity to hold up the supplied power to the demand and the frequency will again drop. At that point you are screwed. You either shed load or find additional energy creating devices like coal, gas, or diesel generators.

Keep in mind to that due to grid design, both transmission and distribution, the storage devices may only discharge to 80 – 90% yet that won’t be enough to hold up the supply of power needed for demand. Again, you are screwed, load shedding will be needed.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 3:57 am

Yes, you are right, its frequency control.

There is a problem with the scheme however, and its to do with cost. When you see typical levelized cost claims that wind is now cheaper than conventional, they always make the claim by leaving out half the costs. One is genuine large storage to deliver power during week long calms. Another is the present case, the cost of spinning inertia to deal with small hour to hour fluctuations. Another is transmission to get the power from the turbines to where demand is.

There is also a specific problem with the UK. This scheme is not intended to deal with intermittency causing day long or week long outages. The problem is that the UK is rushing into Net Zero in power generation without any plans to deal with that.

There are no plans for what is misleadingly termed ‘backup’. In fact, its not backup at all, its fully duplicate generating capacity, which is supplemented by wind and solar. But as far as I know, the UK is intending going to 135GW of wind and solar capacity, raise peak demand to about 100GW, but has no plans for having 100GW of gas, which is what will be needed to avert nationwide cold start week long blackouts in 2030, the target date.

If they don’t get busy building new gas, and lots of it, pretty quick, they are heading for a national disaster. You can see the problem however. Announce your plans for the gas build out, and then everyone, even in the UK, starts to ask what about all that wind, then? Are you really having a total duplicate generating system?

Yes, Virginia, that is exactly what we are doing. Because… because… I’ll come back to you on that….

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 5:59 am

Even a journalism grad can see that if wind and solar aren’t available, some sort of backup is required, and that backup system, whatever it is, involves capital costs that have to be recovered from ratepayers regardless of how often it is used. The fact that it is never mentioned is evidence that there is a concerted effort to ignore it in the mainstream media.

Not a conspiracy, mind you. When your peer group all start with the same mindset, that AGW will destroy the world unless everything is powered by renewables, the unacceptable narratives that have to be avoided are clear, without having to conspire together.

I realize you never suggested a conspiracy. Your comments just made me muse on why it’s so hard to get people to see the point you were making. For the general public, it comes back to the MSM not reporting reality.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 8, 2024 6:17 am

Its group think, a sort of consensus that we do not talk about intermittency is any real terms, that is, what it will take to make an intermittent supply dispatchable. What the real costs are of adding intermittent sources to a functioning grid.

Notice how this has got baked into the language used to discuss the matter. What is really going on is not backup. What is really happening is that there is a conventional capacity able to fully supply demand, but it is supplemented by wind and solar.

When people talk about backup, this moves how they think about financial justification. The right question to ask is not how much ‘backup’ costs. The right question is, given we have to have a full dispatchable system anyway, is the supplementation by wind and solar cost effective? Does it lower the total costs of providing dispatchable power?

I have never seen a case showing that it does. And not for want of asking. It seems totally implausible given the huge costs of adding the wind and solar – transmission, frequency control, the fact that its often at peak output when there is no demand….

The emphasis should be not on doing something called ‘backing up’ wind and solar. But on how useful it is to add wind and solar to a dispatchable system which already meets demand.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 10:28 am

Actually, no. Burgess’ rant is NOT just unhinged.

Reply to  PariahDog
October 8, 2024 4:07 am

The Telegraph is NOT known for accurate reporting as is the Mail, and Express. Certainly not sources to quote without much checking!
Rotating machinery to provide inertia in the grid system. There are electronic means which can be made to stabilise the grid. Gearbox free (Enercon etc.) wind energy convertors have to use electronics to generate synchronous voltage to the grid (the blades are allowed to rotate at whatever speed is optimum). These can temporarily increase output to stabilise the grid. A battery storage system can also simulate grid inertia.
The Electronics in the grid connection can also provide power into a black grid.

Flywheels – these are obviously not your average toy gyroscope/push toy types. They spin very fast >10000 revs/sec in a vacuum chamber and use magnetic bearings. So long life.
Carbon Fiber Flywheels | Beacon Power

flywheel_cutaway1
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 8, 2024 5:37 am

I took the trouble to click that link, mostly because I was baffled by the idea of a carbon fiber flywheel. A flywheel benefits from more mass not less.

Anyway I quickly lost interest when the landing page confuses power and energy.Maybe it is on purpose, or maybe through momentary inattention—who can say? But it doesn’t come across as very professional. That kind of thing sounds an alarm.

(I did read enough to discover the carbon fiber part is just a rim to hold the the presumably very massive flywheel together as it spins at colossal speed. Again, mis-descibing the product rings an alarm.)

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 6:22 am

Energy stored is proportional to the square of the velocity of the flywheel, so carbon fibre is commonly used in preference to steel, as it allows higher speeds. But when you think of the energy stored in a huge flywheel rotating at over 50,000 rpm….

Wouldn’t want to be living anywhere near it.

Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 8:12 am

All energy storage devices eventually fail.
When batteries fail, they generally stop producing electricity and that’s all that happens.
When a super-capacitor “battery” fails it will be a very high energy short and possibly catastrophic release of energy. So will never be acceptable for your basement or local sub-station except for very low total storage.

When your gas engine generator fails, it probably just quits running.
When your coal powered steam turbine fails, there is likely to be damage in the turbine hall, but not to population nearby.

Considerable effort goes into making nuclear plants “fail-safe”, still a problem apparently for TMI, Fukushima, Chernobyl…

So most successful energy sources just stop producing energy when some key component fails and don’t endanger people nearby.

However, when a super-flywheel bearing fails at full energy storage, there is going to be catastrophic damage in the vicinity. One failure might cause a whole gang of the things to fail. An earthquake will cause gyroscopic forces on the shaft and bearings of very high amplitude.

Yes, I am aware that in such event, the carbon fiber flywheel is designed to turn to fuzz. But where does the energy on the 60,000 rpm spinnining cloud of fuzz go ? Well, it turns into a high density pancake of carbon dust in contact with the casing…wherupon friction turns the casing to a molten metal in about 2 seconds with still residual centripetal force in the spinning dust cloud to hurl the molten metal outwards at the speed of sound …Yes truly a dangerous device.
Such was the findings of one of our fourth year engineering projects, now half a century ago….

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 8, 2024 10:16 am

Talk about carbon pollution!

Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 8, 2024 11:16 am

I was an investor in Satcon way back when, so I’m familiar with Beacon.

The rotors are all carbon fiber, hollow cylinders 2 meters tall and 1 meter diameter, and they spin at up to only 16,000 rpm. They’re floating in a vacuum on magnetic bearings, so nothing mechanical to wear or break.

They’ve had one failure in all these years, and it was contained within the steel vacuum tank. The tank is in a concrete lined pit in the ground, so no danger even if the tank were demolished.

They are designed for a 20 lifespan, and it looks like they will easily do that. They are for frequency regulation, not storage, and Burgess going on and on about cost per MwH, etc, was a waste of time. His implying Stephentown (and Hazel Township, the other installation) were failures because of Beacon’s bankruptcy was insulting. The two complexes are doing their job just fine, and Beacon’s finances had nothing to do with performance.

I agree with Nick on Burgess’s video.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 8, 2024 12:04 pm

They are for frequency regulation, not storage

Yes! Did everyone get that?

Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 8, 2024 4:08 pm

It says that one module will provide 50 kW for 30 minutes.
https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/

Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 8, 2024 4:04 pm

There are a couple of new designs for nuclear reactors using pebbles containing the nuclear fuel to prevent meltdowns.
China has one working.
https://www.intellinews.com/china-builds-melt-down-proof-pebble-tech-nuclear-reactor-335067/
In the US dozens of companies have designs.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-energy-developing-pebble-bed-reactor-they-say-cant-melt-down

Nick Stokes
Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 1:47 pm

Theser flywheels would do what flywheels hav always done. They would be driven by electric motors, not FF generators. They would be no more or less dangerous, except that we would have more freedom about where to site them.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 8, 2024 10:15 am

There are fundamental engineering questions with that design that are not addressed in the website.

Vacuum chamber with feed lines. Energy is needed to maintain the vacuum.

How is heat removed. Even if the generator/motor was frictionless, which probably is possible with the design, I^2 x R generates heat. With a vacuum, conduction is the only means of removing the heat. Since it is the core moving for both generating and driving, it is possible to conduct to the walls of the chamber. But that does not eliminate the heat generated by the magnet to coil interactions.

How do they eliminate static electricity build up on the rotating shaft?

It is possible they have addressed all of this and any I might have missed in the design, but they do not talk about it and the devil is in the details.

All of that aside, the flywheel delivers less than 100% of the energy used. If nothing more, the electronics used to convert the 16K AC or whatever DC voltage to something compatible with the grid has a conversion efficiency of 85-95%.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 8, 2024 3:54 pm

A flywheel module can provide full power, 50 Kw, for up to 30 minutes.
https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 12:26 am

Ha Ha, Nick, seriously you want to know what Ed Miliband said about flywheels?
It would be a surprise if Ed even knows what a flywheel is.
As you say he would be briefed by someone who claims to know enough about the matter to provide Miliband with a few sound bites the BBC can put out there for public consumption.
The closure of the UK’s last coal fired power station of scale Ratcliffe on Soar last week was presented by Miliband and the BBC as a time for celebration.
Anyone who thinks closing a working, effective power station just as winter is upon us, should be celebrated, has a questionable grasp on the needs of the country.
I would doubt Ed knows anything about physics or anything meaningful about energy, if you find anything he has said worth presenting please share it with us.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 8, 2024 2:00 am

seriously you want to know what Ed Miliband said”

I want to know what we’re supposed to be talking about. No-one else seems interested.

CampsieFellow
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 3:14 am

As often happens, Nick asks a question and nobody wants to answer it. All he gets is irrelevant comments. The question is: Did Milliband suggest flywheels will stop blackouts? Yes or No. So far, we have reference to an article in the Daily Telegraph. I did a search on the internet and all I got were links to the Daily Telegrah article and links to Paul Homewood. No other newspaper apart from the Daily Telegraph seems to be aware of any statement about flywheels from Ed Milliband. I totally agree that Ed Milliband is an extremely dangerous member of the government but let’s not put words into his mouth that he hasn’t uttered.

Reply to  CampsieFellow
October 8, 2024 6:24 am

Yes, agreed, from the Telegraph it seems to be only about frequency regulation. But… its still a nutty idea. Not that the idea itself is nutty. But the fact that its necessary to go to such lengths, and the fact that this is something which is never included in the cost estimates for claims on the cheapness of wind, that is completely nutty.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 4:12 am

Milibrain takes his nonsense from NESA, which it seems he created….

NESO said the schemes would save consumers money by cutting the need for maintaining backup power stations and importing power from overseas via interconnectors.

This is absolute NONSENSE, as even Nick agrees, because flywheel do not actually create any energy of their own.

They are, by any possible physics, NET CONSUMERS of energy.

All Nick does is make irrelevant comments.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 4:21 pm

Their website says each flywheel module can provide 50 kW for 30 minutes.
https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 8, 2024 8:05 am

At least he no longer keeps saying unreliables are nine times cheaper which was his mantra for several years whilst in opposition.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 4:14 am

NESO was created by Minibrain.. it is just saying what Minibrain wants to hear.

NESO said the schemes would save consumers money by cutting the need for maintaining backup power stations and importing power from overseas via interconnectors.



With regard to flywheels, this is total BS, because flywheels are a net energy consumer.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 4:23 pm

Each flywheel can provide 50 kW for 30 minutes their website says.
https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 10:27 am

A fair question.

If we pragmatics are going to maintain credibility we must adhere to the highest standards.

To the question posed: The tie between Milliband and the flywheels per the above video was noted in a comment to the Paul Burgess video on hydrogen.

Then there is the link provided by PariahDog:

The plans drawn up by Ed Miliband’s new National Electricity System Operator (NESO) will help to minimise the risk of disruption as the UK increases its reliance on wind and solar farms, the output of which can fluctuate from minute to minute with the weather.

While it may seem a tenuous link, it is not a missing link.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 8, 2024 4:27 pm

I’m from the US and it seems they at least know each other and both want each other to succeed and not fail.

corky
October 7, 2024 11:12 pm

There must be some reason Milliband was sold on this. Without spinning reserve it may not be possible to stabilize the grid, with risk of surges that trigger breakers even if there is sufficient power available, i.e. the feedback becomes unstable and the grid cannot be controlled. So it may be true that system instability blackouts would be avoided. I suspect an equal problem may be dealing with reactive power returned back into the grid.

Any comments?

Where I am we have been experiencing greater voltage surges and dips for a few years now.

Iain Reid
Reply to  corky
October 7, 2024 11:27 pm

Inertia is very much misunderstood.
Since renewables were grid connected there has been the criticism that they lack inertia so now this is a plan to provide that.
The very big difference is that conventional generators have inertia and the means to adjust output to counter frequency deviation. (To make it clear, frequency is the measure that shows whether the supply matches demand, if supply droops frequency follows and vice versa. If that Rate Of Change Of Frequency exceeds a certain speed, ROCOF relays trip generators to protect them)
Inertia, in itself is a damper, but if the supply and demand differential is too great inertia will not correct it and an adjustment of supply is essential or trips occur.

A simple near parallel is a motor car engine which has a flywheel to smooth the power impulses, switch off the engine and it stops, inertia does not keep it going.

Art Slartibartfast
Reply to  Iain Reid
October 8, 2024 12:54 am

And then there is political inertia where politicians led down the wrong path take ages to correct course.

Reply to  Iain Reid
October 8, 2024 3:19 am

It does in the absence of an opposing force, such as friction.

Reply to  Iain Reid
October 9, 2024 6:26 am

To make it clear, frequency is the measure that shows whether the supply matches demand, if supply droops frequency follows and vice versa.

+100

Nevada_Geo
Reply to  corky
October 8, 2024 12:48 am

Yes, there definitely is a reason that Milliband was sold on this, and that reason is very well described by Carl Sagan in his interview with Charlie Rose. Watch the last three minutes of the video. Or, read the last two paragraphs of the transcript – those are Carl Sagan’s words.

Rick C
Reply to  Nevada_Geo
October 8, 2024 10:40 am

Yes, that Sagan interview was very good. But for some reason Sagan seemed to forget all about proper scientific thinking when he attacked Climate Change skeptics. He even testified before congress saying in effect that the IPCC’s climate pronouncements could not be questioned. His successor, Neil deGrasse-Tyson, has also jumped the CGCC shark. Very disappointing to see people who should know better get sucked in by such a massive scam.

Reply to  Rick C
October 8, 2024 5:42 pm

They seem like they have forgotten the rules of good scientific thinking. Even now there are studies that say cloud cover is a much better predictor of climate than co2.

Reply to  corky
October 8, 2024 1:06 am

Look at you neighbours roofs, if there are lots of Solar panels there is the issue. Your local transformer was not designed to feed to houses generating their own power and feeding that power back at the transformer. So on sunny days those panels will increase the V of all the houses fed by that transformer. Add in clouds and the V will rise and drop as the clouds move overhead.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  corky
October 8, 2024 2:11 am

“Without spinning reserve it may not be possible to stabilize the grid”

It is possible, with synthetic inertia. That requires solid state control circuitry that can handle very great currents (for short times), and large batteries to supply the necessary power for control. That has been the popular solution.

But it is also possible to use a flywheel driven by electric motors rather than FF generator, and that seems to be the idea here.

Westfieldmike
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 2:36 am

Where are the very large batteries? Relatively small Tesla storage batteries in the US are already catching alight.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 2:48 am

just checking that I am logged on.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 4:20 am

The SA battery makes a HUGE amount of its funds trying to control the frequency of the erratic, unreliable wind and solar in SA.

All flywheels and batteries are net energy consumers.

flywheel driven by electric motors rather than FF generator,”

Electric motors powers by FF electricity ??

You are a class Z clown, Nick !!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2024 12:01 pm

Nick puts us back to the chicken or egg question with his astute “flywheel driven by electric motors”, but not telling where the electricity comes from.

Reply to  corky
October 8, 2024 3:17 am

Aren’t the large generators from some closed coal plants being used in some places (Australia?) as grid frequency stabilizers? They consume energy, not produce or store it, by being kept spinning at the required rate. In operation they absorb or output some amount of electrical force as needed to correct momentary increases or reductions in grid frequency. I imagine purpose built flywheels might be cheaper than building more huge generators that are only to be used in this fashion.

Reply to  AndyHce
October 8, 2024 4:24 am

All coal fired power stations have massively huge rotors/flywheels used for grid frequency control.

Specific power stations are used as “primary” frequency reference to which everything else is , hopefully synchronised.

The less spinning mass in the system, the less frequency control.

Big flywheels still have to be rotated… and they take more energy to drive than they can ever supply… basic physics.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 11:24 am

Read more closely. My question is about generators left over when the power plant is shut down or removed before the power plant is explosively destroyed. Then the generator is run with an electric motor to stabilize grid frequency. Its effectiveness depends upon the power potential of the electric motor and the available electricity potential to run the electric motor.

Reply to  AndyHce
October 9, 2024 5:12 am

Its effectiveness depends upon the power potential of the electric motor and the available electricity potential to run the electric motor.

Something here doesn’t add up. In order to stabilize frequency in this arrangement, the “motor” would be required to provide sufficient power to the generator assembly to keep the frequency at it rated value while delivering power to the grid.

The discussion here seems to separate the provision of power and frequency control. They are both intertwined and are inseparable.

As an example I’ll use a common farm tractor. For the uninitiated, these don’t work with an accelerator like in an auto. They are designed to have the engine speed be controlled by a governor. As a load is increased, the governor increases the the fuel to maintain the engine speed. In other words to maintain the frequency of the output shaft of the engine.

Electrical generation plants are designed to have the fuel varied in order to maintain the frequency that the generator spins at. As the load exceeds the capacity of the fuel/generator system, the frequency will drop. Vice versa, if the load is lost, the fuel/generator can overspeed (at least momentarily) and raises the output frequency.

Flywheels used to support frequency MUST be able to provide power into the grid at the correct frequency for however much time is required.

Reply to  corky
October 8, 2024 6:32 am

You have to understand the professional deformation created by spending three years taking a PPE degree. He spent three years once a week learning to read a mass of materials and write a short paper on the subject, which he then defended to a tutor. It was the systematic inculcation of superficiality, and of the confidence that simply being one of the smart elite meant you know better than people with technical or business experience and expertise.

Most PPE graduates then have life experiences which teach them caution and a sense of the need for detailed analysis. But if you don’t… Well, you go out there talking confidently in generalities based on understanding which is at best superficial, and if you get to be a Minister, that’s how you make policy on very technical matters.

These are people who have never handled a drill, saw or lathe or welding kit. They have never been in charge of a product introduction. They’ve never ben on the end of a customer help line. They have never written an application. But they are sure that in one week they can glance through hundreds or thousands of pages of documentation, extract the key points, and make the right decisions.

Its a sort of Dunning Kruger, but happening at such a high level that no-one recognizes it for what it is.

Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 6:34 am

A friend of mine, ex military, used to say about such people ‘get you killed’. And that about sums it up.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 8:16 am

UK Government reports/papers/policies on Net Zero 10,000 pages and growing. No one, especially politicians, understands all that.

steveastrouk2017
Reply to  michel
October 8, 2024 11:18 am

Insightful.

The whole UK political class are PPE grads, often from the same years at the same school (Oxford or Cambridge for preference) their political slant comes by looking at whatever party promises them the fastest ascent to power at the time.

When there have been engineers in the UK parliaments it is a talking point, but has never exceeded a number you can probably count on one hand.

strativarius
October 8, 2024 1:03 am

A new spin? No.

1saveenergy
October 8, 2024 1:03 am

Nice picture of Richard Trevithick’s 1802 Coalbrookdale Locomotive at Blists Hill museum, Ironbridge.(more at – https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/richard-trevithick-1802-coalbrookdale-locomotive/ )
The world’s first locomotive-hauled railway journey took place with Trevithick’s unnamed steam locomotive hauled a train along the tramway of the Penydarren Ironworks, in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales.to the head of the Glamorgan Canal at Quakers Yard on 21 February 1804,

Dsystem
October 8, 2024 1:10 am

The kWh has to be the most stupid unit of energy ever invented. It’s just like saying the distance between Melbourne & Sydney is 600 knot hours.

Just use joules or MJ for energy and MJ/s for power. 1 MJ/s is exactly equal to 1 MW. Don’t need W.

There’ll be no confusion between energy and power.

Richard Feynman on units of energy: https://youtu.be/roX2NXDUTsM

Reply to  Dsystem
October 8, 2024 3:25 am

Regardless of which unit is expressed, it still the appropriate unit of time to be meaningful if there is any consideration of power delivered or stored. Your comparison example is meaningless unless you are trying to somehow express energy used in making making a journey between those two places.

Dsystem
Reply to  AndyHce
October 9, 2024 2:59 am

A watt-hour to “express” energy is the same non-sense as using a knot-hour to express distance.

Reply to  Dsystem
October 9, 2024 4:32 am

A watt-hour to “express” energy is the same non-sense

Nonsense? Here is a design question for you.

I come to you and tell you I need a kw of energy. What would be your first question to me?

Dsystem
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 9, 2024 5:52 pm

I’d be as confused as if you said you need to go a knot of distance.

MrGrimNasty
October 8, 2024 1:10 am

A video of the Chinese plant.

https://youtu.be/3VF5jNXw4nE

UK-Weather Lass
October 8, 2024 1:41 am

The UK has had top class engineers for a very long time and flywheels have a part to play in smoothing energy changes down. In all that time does Miliband seriously believe those classy engineers would have missed an opportunity to improve the efficiency of their engines via free energy availability? Like we have found out with solar and wind there is no such thing as cheap, free energy.

Miliband needs to be taken to a place of safety far away from any vital decision making role and be treated there until he can prove he actually can think straight. He may want to take a several other Labour front bench occupiers with him and put five year old kids in their places – the improvement in decision making will be immediate.

Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
October 8, 2024 3:28 am

just put him on the dole and be done with it

not you
Reply to  AndyHce
October 8, 2024 5:44 pm

he is already on the dole

strativarius
October 8, 2024 1:50 am

Miliband got the idea from a certain Rufus T Firefly…

“”Calling all nations. Calling all nations. This is Rufus T. This is Rufus T. Firefly coming to you through the courtesy of the enemy. We’re in a mess folks, we’re in a mess. “”

Westfieldmike
October 8, 2024 2:32 am

It’s the little flywheel in his brain that worries me.

Scissor
Reply to  Westfieldmike
October 8, 2024 5:08 am

Maybe it’s a fruit flywheel.

October 8, 2024 2:57 am

I assume the “flywheels” in question are properly called synchronous condensers, if anyone is interested in finding out more

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 3:52 am

The term flywheel seems more informative.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 8, 2024 5:20 am

It clearly isn’t since lots of people are leaping to the conclusion these “flywheels” are being proposed for energy storage. Using a familiar word that is easily misconstrued is less helpful than a strange word that quickly leads you discover the intended meaning when you take two seconds to google it.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 8:00 am

Maybe, but anyone with a functioning brain would KNOW that a flywheel can’t store energy.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 8, 2024 5:31 pm

One module of the flywheel can provide 50 kW over 30 minutes their website says. https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/.

Reply to  scvblwxq
October 9, 2024 2:49 am

Well, there yuh go- with a few of those, we can keep civilization going smoothly. 🙂

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 10:10 am

They are being proposed to provide a very short term store that can be drawn on rapidly. Think of the KERS system in a Formula 1 car: it stores kinetic energy in a flywheel that can be released to add acceleration. It’s suitable for handling rapid gusts and diebacks on a wind farm for instance.

These devices typically have a maximum duration of a few minutes – 15 mins is common. They can be useful during grid trips because they can respond rapidly and help arrest frequency decline while other generation increases power output taking several seconds to ramp up. Dinorwig takes 12 seconds to get to full power for instance.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 4:31 am

Yes, they are essentially DC driven flywheels with a lot of inertia.

As long as the DC is there, they can be rotated as a set speed,

So long as you can maintain the DC power, you can iron out frequency fluctuation by electronically adjusting the power input and speed of rotation.

… but remove the drive energy and attempt to take energy from them, they can lose speed and hence frequency stabilisation usefulness very quickly (think regenerative braking in an EV)

But you cannot ever get more power out than you put in, so they are net energy consumers.

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 5:49 am

they are net energy consumers.

Yes. They are yet another drain on a woefully inefficient renewables system.

But they are also a cost that we hardly ever see mentioned. Not only do we need to keep the gas-powered generator fleet in working order, warm and ready at all times, we also have to build a fleet of (so-called) flywheels to go with our fleet of grid-scale batteries and the processions of new pylons.

Reply to  quelgeek
October 9, 2024 2:52 am

wow, that system sounds crazy— but… but… it’ll save the planet! yuh, right…

Reply to  bnice2000
October 8, 2024 10:33 am

but remove the drive energy and attempt to take energy from them, they can will lose speed and hence frequency stabilisation usefulness very quickly

Reply to  quelgeek
October 8, 2024 9:58 am

No, these are not synchronous (which would imply rotating at 3,000rpm). They are asynchronous, and their motor/generators are connected to inverters to convert to DC, and further inverters to create or use grid power.

Denis
October 8, 2024 4:10 am

A carbon fiber flywheel? Why build a light weight flywheel? Mass is what provides the stabilization.

Reply to  Denis
October 8, 2024 5:47 am

The most effective flywheel has the weight at the edges, so a light centre and spokes made from Carbon fiber with a heavy outer rim would be effective. All Carbon fiber would not work well.

Roger Collier
October 8, 2024 5:25 am

Gyroscopes around the world will affect the planet’s rotation speed, axis and orbit.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Roger Collier
October 8, 2024 7:30 am

LOL!

TBeholder
October 8, 2024 5:31 am

Now from the outset here I knew that flywheels can store a very little amount of energy and so I’m going to explain in this video

Let me summarize:

  1. Some nut or fraud comes with a “solution” that belongs in Loony Toons.
  2. The British government seriously discusses implementing it. At least as a way to shuffle funds (which have a habit of sticking to the hands, as we hopefully all know). Then again, the British education and selection processes are… well… not what they were 200 years ago. They managed to keep the “perfidious” part alive, but little else.
  3. You seriously discuss this idea.

Sounds about right? Then you appear to be acting inside a circus performance.

Reply to  TBeholder
October 8, 2024 6:01 am

There is plenty wrong with setting out to build a system that needs to consume a chunk of its own feeble energy output to maintain grid frequency. We can use synchronous condensers (or “flywheels” as a lot of people here seem to want to call them) or we can use solid-state controls, but no matter what, grid frequency has to be maintained, and doing it has to cost more money, and it has to decrease net energy production. THAT is the Loony Tunes part, not the so-called flywheels. They are reasonable mitigation for a stupid problem we’re inflicting on ourselves.

It’s kind of like me drinking espresso after I downed a bottle of whisky.

Reply to  TBeholder
October 9, 2024 2:55 am

“British education and selection processes are… well… not what they were 200 years ago”

Didn’t it include mastering Greek and Latin and all the known great philosophers? No wonder they were great thinkers and writers.

heme212
October 8, 2024 6:08 am

tilt them all 90 degrees and add a hamster and this whole idea will work just fine

Reply to  heme212
October 9, 2024 3:00 am

Make big hamster wheels and put all the climate alarmists and illegal aliens in them- should produce enough energy to keep a few lights on. 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
October 8, 2024 7:07 am

Just a nit, and it does not change the analysis much and definitely the conclusions.

Thae 20 MW flywheel system included 200 of the 1 MW 15 minute flywheels.

200 x 0 still = 0.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 8, 2024 5:40 pm

Their website says one of their flywheel modules can provide 50 kW for 30 minutes.
https://beaconpower.com/power-electronics/

Sparta Nova 4
October 8, 2024 7:18 am

If someone were actually to build a fly wheel system capable of supplying any reasonable supply of grid electricity, that monstrosity would alter the rotation and axis of the planet.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
October 9, 2024 3:01 am

Excellent- I hope it would move Wokeachusetts closer to the equator. 🙂

October 8, 2024 7:49 am

Miliband, like many other AGW/CAGW alarmists, has no idea whatsoever of the large amount of mechanical energy it takes to equal the amount of thermal energy available via direct chemical reactions (i.e, from burning fossil fuels with air) or from electrical energy produced via chemical reactions in batteries).

This is the primary reason that all past plans to use flywheels for energy “storage”—including plans to use high-speed flywheels to power cars—ended up in the dustbin of technology history.

David Wojick
October 8, 2024 8:00 am

Suppose one got loose under full energy. How far would it roll if it did not hit things or people?

Reply to  David Wojick
October 8, 2024 10:17 am

It would disintegrate, throwing debris in all directions with very considerable force, which is why these units tend to be buried underground. In fact, disintegration risk determines the design maximum rpm.

ferdberple
October 8, 2024 8:09 am

The moment the power goes off the flywheel starts slowing down and quickly loses synchronization with the grid.

The purpose of the flywheel is to clean the power. To take the spikes and ripples created by intermittent power out of the grid.

As backup power they are useless because they cannot maintain frequency on their own.

ferdberple
October 8, 2024 8:29 am

High speed flywheels do not turn at grid frequency and would need electronics to match them to the grid via AC/DC/AC conversion. In which case you might as well throw away the flywheel and stabilize the DC.