AUG 11

"reduce CO2 emissions by up to 82 percent over a 20-year span"???

Where are they getting these numbers? It seems awful optimistic to me. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if it were true, but flywheels store power. They do not create power. I understand how they would save energy somewhat, but 82%.
If this is true, we just solved global warming...

Please get someone to check the outrageous and misleading claims or qualify these claims before going to print on new technologies like this? (happy to proof read these for you). 10 percent of frequency regulation has nothing to do with energysaving and 82% emissions reduction seems strange since the flywheel loses some energy in each cycle and is only a storage device. In line with standard reporting protocols, how many tonnes are saved? After 15 minutes what do we do, build another 20MW? I guess we use 20MW from somewhere else to charge up again? The other small thing we need to assess this technology is the actual cost, so that we can rank it against other competing technologies. Otherwise we just report sensational headlines for some people to misinterpret and misuse?
Let's provide the facts behind the headlines?

This sounds really promising. Thank you for sharing!

What is the point of rehashing other's press releases? Is EcoGeek not capable of generating original material?

This article is a shocker. The claims made are unbelievable and only serve to reduce your credibility to almost zero. I have come to the conclusion that the only reason for this site's existence is to generate advertising impressions. "Brains for the Earth".. I don't think so.

Nothing was mentioned too of the inherent dangers of flywheel energy storage. Flywheels capable of storing large amounts of energy can disintegrate with the force of a large bomb. They would have to be stored underground in bombproof bunkers separated from each other by 50 metres for a modicum of safety.

Mike, I'm with you that the quality of this article is abysmal, and that significant fact checking is required. (82% savings? I'm smelling a lot of caveat on that one)

However, the dangers of a catastrophic failure are not as great as you make them out to be. Carbon fiber flywheels have much less mass than the older metal ones. Lawrence Livermore National Lab did the testing on flywheel 'bursts'. Upon failure, they tend to disintegrate into a powder which will expend it's energy by scouring the inside of it's containment system.

Mike and Technical Principal: The facts cited in Beacon Power's news release upon which the story was based are correct. They were also cited by DOE in its release the same day. Both are easy to find on their respective websites. Beacon has posted a research report done by KEMA, an international energy firm with impeccable credentials, that bears out the up to 82% claim (that's versus a coal-fired generator; it's less when compared to pumped hydro). As for how many tonnes of CO2 a 20 MW plant would eliminate over its 20-yr life, the answer is 600,000 metric tonnes when compared to coal - again from the KEMA report.

Beacon is a publicly traded company (Nasdaq: BCON) and as such, could not throw out wild and unsubstantiated claims without creating serious legal issues for itself.

As for the 15-minute spec, that is how the system was designed in order to provide the frequency regulation service. It's not back-up power (e.g. UPS), it's a grid-stabilizing "shock absorber". Think megawatts for minutes. 15 mins is more than enough to perform that service in 99% of the demand cases of a typical day.

Finally, on the safety topic, the flywheels are housed in heavy steel containers that weigh about 2 tons. They no doubt have multiple fail-safe mechanisms, including passive magnetic bearings to prevent touchdown, and auto shutdown capabilities. If all that fails, they're indeed housed in underground concrete cylinders (seen in the picture above).

All of this information is found on Beacon's website and there's more elsewhere (DOE, Califonia Energy Commission, NYSERDA, and the Electricity Storage Association). Flywheel energy storage is not so far-fetched or impractical as you might think!

Seriously, I admit that safety concerns may deter people from using flywheels, especially on the MW scale, but how much different is it than operating a GW size steam turbine or a utility scale transformer? Tranformers and generators (think hydropower) are both explosive, so I can't agree that safety is a reason to avoid using flywheels. In fact, kinetic energy and mechanical engineering are pretty well-defined concepts. I think this is a great idea.

Over here in the UK we have a program called Eastenders, which is very popular. At the end of the program, so many people go and put their kettles on (each kettle ranging from about 0.7-3.5 kW) that the UK grid routinly pumps in extra electricity from France to deal with the load! With a few large flywheels of this nature, this situation could easily be solved. Kettles only boil for 2-4 minutes, so having a 15 minute "boost" for the grid would be perfect.

Unfortunately, the UK government is not as accepting of new technologies as you chaps across the pond. This means we are wasting time and money, needlessly, when a proven technology could be put to good use. I wish we had some politicians who would actually do something!

I agree that the claims need checking. But to put a "positive spin" on it (heh) - flywheels are an extremely good way of storing energy and regulating the system.

You do not need to "charge it up" per se - it charges when there is excess energy in the grid, and you use it when there is a shortage.

Example (Ontario, Canada):

Night: Excess clean energy from Niagara Falls charges the flywheel. (Hydropower is always on).
Peak Day: All hydro is already being used - instead of using coal fired plants to get over the mid day hump, you could draw from the flywheel.

Simple. Effective. And yes, clean.

Finally, that is 15 minutes AT PEAK, not 15 minutes and you are done. The more flywheels in a system, the better the overall system is. One alone cannot do much.