Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #741854 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-03-18 15:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-03-21 07:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-18 15:09 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Lasse Langwadt <llc@fonz.dk> - 2026-03-18 23:58 +0100
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-18 16:05 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity John R Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> - 2026-03-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-18 17:16 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity bp@www.zefox.net - 2026-03-19 15:31 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-19 09:54 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity bp@www.zefox.net - 2026-03-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-19 13:30 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity bp@www.zefox.net - 2026-03-20 16:29 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity bp@www.zefox.net - 2026-03-20 23:53 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-20 18:01 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-20 09:36 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 10:46 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-20 19:14 +0100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 15:28 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 16:42 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:18 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 09:41 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 10:06 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:36 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:12 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 23:30 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:55 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 15:59 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 08:22 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-21 11:15 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 13:00 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 13:42 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 15:18 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 15:33 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-20 10:47 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 13:32 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 13:53 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 14:17 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 15:26 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 20:54 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 21:21 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 00:14 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 02:25 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:05 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 13:29 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 14:47 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:00 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:20 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:33 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 15:54 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:21 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 01:28 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:31 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 09:17 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 15:38 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 14:52 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:03 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:11 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 21:17 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:14 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 20:58 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:51 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 02:48 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 01:25 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 07:48 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 15:19 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 04:24 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 01:55 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 11:43 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 15:37 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-29 12:10 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 14:47 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-30 08:09 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 16:13 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 10:59 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:10 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 20:34 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:36 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:10 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:25 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 12:35 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 14:54 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 00:07 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 17:40 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 06:53 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 10:32 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 02:45 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:06 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:16 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:07 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:04 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:05 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 03:16 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 20:51 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 16:29 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-04-03 07:22 +0100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-03 12:17 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 05:10 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-03 19:16 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-03 16:30 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 17:05 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 11:02 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 16:55 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 11:35 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 12:53 +1000
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 00:29 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 15:46 +1000
Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 01:55 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 16:57 +1000
Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 18:30 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:15 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:19 +1100
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-27 10:10 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 13:54 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-18 23:25 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity bitrex <user@example.net> - 2026-03-18 23:15 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> - 2026-03-19 12:36 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-19 06:36 -0700
Re:Surplus electricity Martin Rid <martin_riddle@verison.net> - 2026-03-19 10:42 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-19 08:13 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> - 2026-03-19 13:05 -0400
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-19 13:51 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2026-03-20 08:04 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-20 09:32 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 10:36 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-20 13:47 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 15:38 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2026-03-20 22:32 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 16:39 -0700
Re: Surplus electricity liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-03-21 12:53 +0000
Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:19 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <T7icnRussI3QVyP0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #742026 |
On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson > <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>> For applications that are NOT "grid connected", what >>>>>>>>> (useful things, even if inefficient) can you do with >>>>>>>>> "surplus" electricity locally generated? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I.e., once you have "stored" as much as you can in >>>>>>>>> electrochemical reactions, then what? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [I'm looking for residential scale uses, not commercial >>>>>>>>> or utility] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> hot water? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >>>>>>> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >>>>>>> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. >>>>> >>>>> Pools are mostly expensive nuisances. And baby killers. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>>>>>> isn't an issue] >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity charge >>>>>> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >>>>>> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >>>>>> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. >>>>> >>>>> That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually saved >>>>> money doing that. >>>>> >>>>> Of course free things are wasted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Larkin >>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Flywheel mass-energy storage is usually considered efficient, >>>> for immobile installations. >>>> >>> >>> Efficient but impractical. >>> >>> It is useful for generating short bumps of extreme current, like for >>> rail guns or megagauss electromagnets. >>> >>> >>> John Larkin >>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>> >> >> The rather simple principles of operation of flywheel storage >> make for that it's plenty practical and even economical, >> for usual charging when it's sunny/windy, discharging otherwise. > > It's obviously not practical for significant energy storage. > >> >> It's being commercialized on a large scale for residential applications. > > Where? > >> >> Notions like the pulsed-power compulsator have that it's >> also suitable for these kinds of things also. >> > > John Larkin > Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center > Lunatic Fringe Electronics > https://www.torus.co/torus-flywheel (example, there are others) It's probably simplest to implement it with commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, the principle of operation is plenty simple with a rotating shift and motor and generative with a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's current, generator when there's not, clutch picks up the slack. The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated with "management software". Simple flywheel storage can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. China has many installations on their grid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CsCdna6Vc4C5TSP0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #742041 |
On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>> For applications that are NOT "grid connected", what >>>>>>>>>> (useful things, even if inefficient) can you do with >>>>>>>>>> "surplus" electricity locally generated? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I.e., once you have "stored" as much as you can in >>>>>>>>>> electrochemical reactions, then what? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [I'm looking for residential scale uses, not commercial >>>>>>>>>> or utility] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> hot water? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >>>>>>>> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >>>>>>>> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pools are mostly expensive nuisances. And baby killers. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>>>>>>> isn't an issue] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity >>>>>>> charge >>>>>>> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >>>>>>> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >>>>>>> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. >>>>>> >>>>>> That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually >>>>>> saved >>>>>> money doing that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course free things are wasted. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Flywheel mass-energy storage is usually considered efficient, >>>>> for immobile installations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Efficient but impractical. >>>> >>>> It is useful for generating short bumps of extreme current, like for >>>> rail guns or megagauss electromagnets. >>>> >>>> >>>> John Larkin >>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>> >>> >>> The rather simple principles of operation of flywheel storage >>> make for that it's plenty practical and even economical, >>> for usual charging when it's sunny/windy, discharging otherwise. >> >> It's obviously not practical for significant energy storage. >> >>> >>> It's being commercialized on a large scale for residential applications. >> >> Where? >> >>> >>> Notions like the pulsed-power compulsator have that it's >>> also suitable for these kinds of things also. >>> >> >> John Larkin >> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >> > > https://www.torus.co/torus-flywheel (example, there are others) > > It's probably simplest to implement it with > commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, > the principle of operation is plenty simple with > a rotating shift and motor and generative with > a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's > current, generator when there's not, clutch picks > up the slack. > > The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated > with "management software". Simple flywheel storage > can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. > > China has many installations on their grid. > > > > Another usual sort of idea is spring-pulley system, as like large leaf springs and a 1024:1 pulley block, made for example of spring and cable steel or carbon fiber composites, then about the control or clutch on the pulley spool to take it in when there's excess electricity and draw it out on demand. It reminds of a story about the 1940's and '50's, this fellow sort of made a micro-hydro setup out on a little ranch somewhere out on a little range. So, he had lots of excess electricity. He basically ran wires around his buildings with horseshoes as heating elements and basically emitted it as heat, which was useful when it was cold and more or less ignored when it was less cold. These days there's a usual account of running coolers when there's sunlight. Anyways flywheels or spring-pulley systems have very well understood mechanical and corresponding electrical principles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <geltrktkhr5sfil3osk1b7j25ihd2bl3r6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #742042 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> For applications that are NOT "grid connected", what >>>>>>>>>>> (useful things, even if inefficient) can you do with >>>>>>>>>>> "surplus" electricity locally generated? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I.e., once you have "stored" as much as you can in >>>>>>>>>>> electrochemical reactions, then what? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [I'm looking for residential scale uses, not commercial >>>>>>>>>>> or utility] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hot water? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >>>>>>>>> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >>>>>>>>> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pools are mostly expensive nuisances. And baby killers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>>>>>>>> isn't an issue] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity >>>>>>>> charge >>>>>>>> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >>>>>>>> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >>>>>>>> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually >>>>>>> saved >>>>>>> money doing that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course free things are wasted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Flywheel mass-energy storage is usually considered efficient, >>>>>> for immobile installations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Efficient but impractical. >>>>> >>>>> It is useful for generating short bumps of extreme current, like for >>>>> rail guns or megagauss electromagnets. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Larkin >>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>> >>>> >>>> The rather simple principles of operation of flywheel storage >>>> make for that it's plenty practical and even economical, >>>> for usual charging when it's sunny/windy, discharging otherwise. >>> >>> It's obviously not practical for significant energy storage. >>> >>>> >>>> It's being commercialized on a large scale for residential applications. >>> >>> Where? >>> >>>> >>>> Notions like the pulsed-power compulsator have that it's >>>> also suitable for these kinds of things also. >>>> >>> >>> John Larkin >>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>> >> >> https://www.torus.co/torus-flywheel (example, there are others) >> >> It's probably simplest to implement it with >> commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, >> the principle of operation is plenty simple with >> a rotating shift and motor and generative with >> a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's >> current, generator when there's not, clutch picks >> up the slack. >> >> The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated >> with "management software". Simple flywheel storage >> can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. >> >> China has many installations on their grid. >> >> >> >> > >Another usual sort of idea is spring-pulley system, >as like large leaf springs and a 1024:1 pulley block, >made for example of spring and cable steel or carbon >fiber composites, then about the control or clutch >on the pulley spool to take it in when there's excess >electricity and draw it out on demand. > > >It reminds of a story about the 1940's and '50's, >this fellow sort of made a micro-hydro setup out >on a little ranch somewhere out on a little range. >So, he had lots of excess electricity. He basically >ran wires around his buildings with horseshoes as >heating elements and basically emitted it as heat, >which was useful when it was cold and more or less >ignored when it was less cold. > >These days there's a usual account of running >coolers when there's sunlight. > > > >Anyways flywheels or spring-pulley systems have >very well understood mechanical and corresponding >electrical principles. > The costs and energy densities are absurd for practical energy storage. Numbers matter. Engineering. About the only mechanical energy storage that works is pumped hydro. Possibly compressed air in old salt domes. The pullys-and-weights thing is an amusing way to raise and waste a lot of money. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <olidnfslzu8TQiP0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #742047 |
On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson > <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> For applications that are NOT "grid connected", what >>>>>>>>>>>> (useful things, even if inefficient) can you do with >>>>>>>>>>>> "surplus" electricity locally generated? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., once you have "stored" as much as you can in >>>>>>>>>>>> electrochemical reactions, then what? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [I'm looking for residential scale uses, not commercial >>>>>>>>>>>> or utility] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hot water? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >>>>>>>>>> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >>>>>>>>>> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pools are mostly expensive nuisances. And baby killers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>>>>>>>>> isn't an issue] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity >>>>>>>>> charge >>>>>>>>> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >>>>>>>>> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >>>>>>>>> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually >>>>>>>> saved >>>>>>>> money doing that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course free things are wasted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Flywheel mass-energy storage is usually considered efficient, >>>>>>> for immobile installations. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Efficient but impractical. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is useful for generating short bumps of extreme current, like for >>>>>> rail guns or megagauss electromagnets. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The rather simple principles of operation of flywheel storage >>>>> make for that it's plenty practical and even economical, >>>>> for usual charging when it's sunny/windy, discharging otherwise. >>>> >>>> It's obviously not practical for significant energy storage. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's being commercialized on a large scale for residential applications. >>>> >>>> Where? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Notions like the pulsed-power compulsator have that it's >>>>> also suitable for these kinds of things also. >>>>> >>>> >>>> John Larkin >>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>> >>> >>> https://www.torus.co/torus-flywheel (example, there are others) >>> >>> It's probably simplest to implement it with >>> commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, >>> the principle of operation is plenty simple with >>> a rotating shift and motor and generative with >>> a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's >>> current, generator when there's not, clutch picks >>> up the slack. >>> >>> The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated >>> with "management software". Simple flywheel storage >>> can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. >>> >>> China has many installations on their grid. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Another usual sort of idea is spring-pulley system, >> as like large leaf springs and a 1024:1 pulley block, >> made for example of spring and cable steel or carbon >> fiber composites, then about the control or clutch >> on the pulley spool to take it in when there's excess >> electricity and draw it out on demand. >> >> >> It reminds of a story about the 1940's and '50's, >> this fellow sort of made a micro-hydro setup out >> on a little ranch somewhere out on a little range. >> So, he had lots of excess electricity. He basically >> ran wires around his buildings with horseshoes as >> heating elements and basically emitted it as heat, >> which was useful when it was cold and more or less >> ignored when it was less cold. >> >> These days there's a usual account of running >> coolers when there's sunlight. >> >> >> >> Anyways flywheels or spring-pulley systems have >> very well understood mechanical and corresponding >> electrical principles. >> > > The costs and energy densities are absurd for practical energy > storage. > > Numbers matter. Engineering. > > About the only mechanical energy storage that works is pumped hydro. > Possibly compressed air in old salt domes. > > The pullys-and-weights thing is an amusing way to raise and waste a > lot of money. > > > John Larkin > Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center > Lunatic Fringe Electronics > A sufficiently large lever, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 23:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10prbpb$48cq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742049 |
On 22/03/2026 5:12 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson >> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: <snip> > A sufficiently large lever, .... In the real world a sufficiently long lever would break. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator talks about a sufficiently long cable, which - if anchored to the earth's surface and extended above sychronous orbit height - would build a stair way to the stars, or at least to synchronous orbit. Any real material cable would break under the tension. Carbon nanotubes are almost strong enough. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Ew6dnSGsqagR_1z0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #742138 |
On 03/23/2026 05:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On 22/03/2026 5:12 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: > > <snip> > >> A sufficiently large lever, .... > > In the real world a sufficiently long lever would break. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator > > talks about a sufficiently long cable, which - if anchored to the > earth's surface and extended above sychronous orbit height - would build > a stair way to the stars, or at least to synchronous orbit. > > Any real material cable would break under the tension. Carbon nanotubes > are almost strong enough. > A usual account has that Coriolis force would destroy yet another of Arthur Clarke's fever-dreams. I think a good idea is electromagnetic gun launch to space, with regards to "heavy lift", the idea. The idea of a "sufficiently large lever" is that the lever is basically the epitome of the simplest of the simple machines. So, what that means is that for the energy and configuration of the experiment and the tradeoffs power and distance, is to oversize some components, sort of like for an example of having a massive oversized capacitor to, smooth capacity, then "sufficiently large lever" is just a reference to various oversized components, that apiece work together to make a complex machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-28 15:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <10q7n8j$atug$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742151 |
On 24/03/2026 2:55 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/23/2026 05:30 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On 22/03/2026 5:12 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> A sufficiently large lever, .... >> >> In the real world a sufficiently long lever would break. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator >> >> talks about a sufficiently long cable, which - if anchored to the >> earth's surface and extended above sychronous orbit height - would build >> a stair way to the stars, or at least to synchronous orbit. >> >> Any real material cable would break under the tension. Carbon nanotubes >> are almost strong enough. >> > > A usual account has that Coriolis force would destroy > yet another of Arthur Clarke's fever-dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force A space elevator is anchored on the equator. Coriolis forces don't come into it. Continental drift might eventually drive the anchor point off the equator but the centre of mass of the elvator structure is going to be close to and a little above the snychronous orbit level at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level. That can still be directly above the equator. The counter balancing mass above that height has to stay at a point that is as far enough below the equator to compensate for drift of the anchor point above the equator (or vice versa). Arthur C. Clarke didn't invent the idea and rather more technically able people have looked at it in detail over the past century. It seems to be practicable. Practical is a different question. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 08:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0jm2sk1an5fr6ulnu4njnq9lsu71be3e6c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #742049 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 11:12:26 -0700, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/21/2026 10:36 AM, john larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 10:06:37 -0700, Ross Finlayson >> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/21/2026 09:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 03/21/2026 07:18 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:42:15 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/20/2026 03:28 PM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:13:46 -0700, Ross Finlayson >>>>>>> <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03/20/2026 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg >>>>>>>>> <news@analogconsultants.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2026 3:58 PM, Lasse Langwadt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/26 23:09, Don Y wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> For applications that are NOT "grid connected", what >>>>>>>>>>>>> (useful things, even if inefficient) can you do with >>>>>>>>>>>>> "surplus" electricity locally generated? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e., once you have "stored" as much as you can in >>>>>>>>>>>>> electrochemical reactions, then what? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [I'm looking for residential scale uses, not commercial >>>>>>>>>>>>> or utility] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hot water? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >>>>>>>>>>> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >>>>>>>>>>> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pools are mostly expensive nuisances. And baby killers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>>>>>>>>>> isn't an issue] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity >>>>>>>>>> charge >>>>>>>>>> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >>>>>>>>>> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >>>>>>>>>> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually >>>>>>>>> saved >>>>>>>>> money doing that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course free things are wasted. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Flywheel mass-energy storage is usually considered efficient, >>>>>>>> for immobile installations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Efficient but impractical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is useful for generating short bumps of extreme current, like for >>>>>>> rail guns or megagauss electromagnets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Larkin >>>>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The rather simple principles of operation of flywheel storage >>>>>> make for that it's plenty practical and even economical, >>>>>> for usual charging when it's sunny/windy, discharging otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> It's obviously not practical for significant energy storage. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's being commercialized on a large scale for residential applications. >>>>> >>>>> Where? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Notions like the pulsed-power compulsator have that it's >>>>>> also suitable for these kinds of things also. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Larkin >>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.torus.co/torus-flywheel (example, there are others) >>>> >>>> It's probably simplest to implement it with >>>> commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, >>>> the principle of operation is plenty simple with >>>> a rotating shift and motor and generative with >>>> a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's >>>> current, generator when there's not, clutch picks >>>> up the slack. >>>> >>>> The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated >>>> with "management software". Simple flywheel storage >>>> can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. >>>> >>>> China has many installations on their grid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Another usual sort of idea is spring-pulley system, >>> as like large leaf springs and a 1024:1 pulley block, >>> made for example of spring and cable steel or carbon >>> fiber composites, then about the control or clutch >>> on the pulley spool to take it in when there's excess >>> electricity and draw it out on demand. >>> >>> >>> It reminds of a story about the 1940's and '50's, >>> this fellow sort of made a micro-hydro setup out >>> on a little ranch somewhere out on a little range. >>> So, he had lots of excess electricity. He basically >>> ran wires around his buildings with horseshoes as >>> heating elements and basically emitted it as heat, >>> which was useful when it was cold and more or less >>> ignored when it was less cold. >>> >>> These days there's a usual account of running >>> coolers when there's sunlight. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyways flywheels or spring-pulley systems have >>> very well understood mechanical and corresponding >>> electrical principles. >>> >> >> The costs and energy densities are absurd for practical energy >> storage. >> >> Numbers matter. Engineering. >> >> About the only mechanical energy storage that works is pumped hydro. >> Possibly compressed air in old salt domes. >> >> The pullys-and-weights thing is an amusing way to raise and waste a >> lot of money. >> >> >> John Larkin >> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center >> Lunatic Fringe Electronics >> > >A sufficiently large lever, .... > The othr recurring joke is getting electricity from kites carrying windmills. Well, it keeps raising money. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pmn7h$2lfka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742041 |
On 3/21/2026 9:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > It's probably simplest to implement it with > commercial-off-the-shelf automotive components, > the principle of operation is plenty simple with > a rotating shift and motor and generative with > a simple sort of clutch, motor runs when there's > current, generator when there's not, clutch picks > up the slack. > > The "commercialized" accounts are getting all bloated > with "management software". Simple flywheel storage > can be quite simple, and needs no "electronics", per se. > > China has many installations on their grid. With any form of physical/mechanical storage, all you end up doing is shifting the point at which you AGAIN ask yourself, "I've stored as much as I can -- NOW what do I do with the excess?". You've likely made an investment (money and space) for that storage mechanism and its value *beyond* that point is nil. [This question exists whenever you don't have an *infinite* sink available] A better solution is always to find a USE for it. Even if that use isn't something that you would consider as part of your normal "load".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n2g8r6Fckh0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #741980 |
On 3/20/26 10:46 AM, john larkin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 09:36:21 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> > wrote: > >> On 3/18/26 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: [...] >>> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >>> isn't an issue] >>> >> >> A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity charge >> on Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with >> water and froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on >> Monday. There was a bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. > > That sure sounds inefficient. 5% maybe? I wonder if he actually saved > money doing that. > > Of course free things are wasted. > Exactly! Of course, body politicus generally does not understand that. The worst I heard was this: Water used to be unmetered in many parts of the Sacramento area. As in "free". Many residents had a 1" pipes which allowed for real gushers. One guy was letting it rip, driving a little turbine and running the massive fresh water discharge into the sewer. Horrible. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pusv5$1cd2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742221 |
On 3/24/2026 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote: > Exactly! Of course, body politicus generally does not understand that. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_storage_air_conditioning> A consequence of the way that electrical power is billed. Would you pay for power and not use it? > The worst I heard was this: Water used to be unmetered in many parts of the > Sacramento area. As in "free". Many residents had a 1" pipes which allowed for > real gushers. One guy was letting it rip, driving a little turbine and running > the massive fresh water discharge into the sewer. Horrible. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n2gcckFd4upU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #742226 |
On 3/24/26 1:42 PM, Don Y wrote: > On 3/24/2026 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote: >> Exactly! Of course, body politicus generally does not understand that. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_storage_air_conditioning> > > A consequence of the way that electrical power is billed. > Would you pay for power and not use it? > Since March-1, 2026 we have to. PG&E instituted a new flat fee of $24, even if your usage would be zero. Part of the continual growth in the fleecing of Californians. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pv2iv$1ecbo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742230 |
On 3/24/2026 2:01 PM, Joerg wrote: > On 3/24/26 1:42 PM, Don Y wrote: >> On 3/24/2026 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> Exactly! Of course, body politicus generally does not understand that. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_storage_air_conditioning> >> >> A consequence of the way that electrical power is billed. >> Would you pay for power and not use it? >> > > Since March-1, 2026 we have to. PG&E instituted a new flat fee of $24, even if > your usage would be zero. Part of the continual growth in the fleecing of > Californians. We have had a "meter/connection" fee for gas and electric since forever. But, that buys you no gas/electricity -- it buys you the right to purchase it. Some of the "demand" tariffs charged you based on your peak usage during a period (day), regardless of how much "actual" power you used. So, there is a big incentive to do load leveling. If you have "no" usage for a significant portion of the day (e.g., a plant that only runs one or two shifts), then you are being billed for power during that period as if you had continued to use it at the peak rate. So, the electricity is "free" -- if you can find a use for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s346sktcammn4kre7tjo06p02ttqiaslgi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #742233 |
On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 15:18:19 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >On 3/24/2026 2:01 PM, Joerg wrote: >> On 3/24/26 1:42 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> On 3/24/2026 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote: >>>> Exactly! Of course, body politicus generally does not understand that. >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_storage_air_conditioning> >>> >>> A consequence of the way that electrical power is billed. >>> Would you pay for power and not use it? >>> >> >> Since March-1, 2026 we have to. PG&E instituted a new flat fee of $24, even if >> your usage would be zero. Part of the continual growth in the fleecing of >> Californians. > >We have had a "meter/connection" fee for gas and electric since forever. >But, that buys you no gas/electricity -- it buys you the right to >purchase it. It buys you the connection, the availabity. You can probably remove your electric wires and gas pipes and pay nothing. John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-20 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pk17m$1pupm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #741975 |
On 3/20/2026 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote: >>> hot water? >> >> Not a large enough scale -- I'd thought of heating a pool, >> spa, etc. Though if neither of those gets *used* while >> the water is hot, the energy is effectively wasted. > > Plus you'll probably see a major algae bloom soon. There's a limit to just how hot you can get the water before it becomes uncomfortable to use. I found 104F to NOT be "refreshing"... more like a bath than a swim. The other problem with pool water is not all homes have pools (and they are relatively rare in many parts of the country) >> [I was hoping for uses where "waste" (as in totally discarded) >> isn't an issue] > > A guy in Texas had some sort of rate plan where the electricity charge on > Sunday was zero. He dug a massive hole, lined it, filled it with water and > froze that water, then used it to cool down his house on Monday. There was a > bit of waste because the hole wasn't insulated. I worked at a firm that made ice on a large scale to cool the factory "the next day". My understanding was that their electricity rate was based on peak demand; their peak demand when the building was occupied and machinery operating dictated the rate they paid for the entire day -- even though the building was empty for half of the day. So, making ice had twofold value: shifted some of the peak load AND took advantage of electricity that wasn't being used (but was being billed). Making ice on that large of a scale likely took a huge investment in capital equipment. But, was also a huge energy "saver" (misnomer). As with pools, many parts of the country don't have/need air conditioning (at least not on the scale and frequency that we use it here -- 101F yesterday) so it loses its value as a potential solution on those grounds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n2gamsFctvvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #741981 |
On 3/20/26 10:47 AM, Don Y wrote: [...] > I worked at a firm that made ice on a large scale to cool the factory > "the next day". My understanding was that their electricity rate > was based on peak demand; their peak demand when the building was > occupied and machinery operating dictated the rate they paid for the > entire day -- even though the building was empty for half of the day. > So, making ice had twofold value: shifted some of the peak load > AND took advantage of electricity that wasn't being used (but was being > billed). > There are many nonsensical pricing/tax structures that result in bizarre behavior in order to get around at least some of that. I am largely retired but in California I believe we had (have?) a sort of inventory tax or measure that took that into account (UDITPA?). Anyhow, when I moved here I asked about the reasons for the smog cloud over Highway 50 only in December. I was told it was trucks carting lots of inventory to warehouses in Nevada. And then back. > Making ice on that large of a scale likely took a huge investment > in capital equipment. But, was also a huge energy "saver" (misnomer). > > As with pools, many parts of the country don't have/need air conditioning > (at least not on the scale and frequency that we use it here -- 101F > yesterday) so it loses its value as a potential solution on those grounds. > Same in Germany where I grew up. A/C wasn't needed. However, they used the same concept for heating, converting lots of electrical kWh into thermal energy and then storing that for the next day in a massive amount of dense bricks. Insulation only does so much and some of that heat leaked out overnight when it wasn't needed. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10putk4$1cd2c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742224 |
On 3/24/2026 1:32 PM, Joerg wrote: >> I worked at a firm that made ice on a large scale to cool the factory >> "the next day". My understanding was that their electricity rate >> was based on peak demand; their peak demand when the building was >> occupied and machinery operating dictated the rate they paid for the >> entire day -- even though the building was empty for half of the day. >> So, making ice had twofold value: shifted some of the peak load >> AND took advantage of electricity that wasn't being used (but was being >> billed). > > There are many nonsensical pricing/tax structures that result in bizarre > behavior in order to get around at least some of that. Businesses don't care about how nonsensical a pricing scheme may be. If they can get a commitment to a given tariff over a significant bit of time, then they can make investment decisions with that pricing structure in place. The unfortunate aspect is that there are no real guarantees for this. Tariffs can (and do) change. So, it becomes a gamble as to whether or not an investment decision will "make sense" in that changing environment. Here, folks are learning that grid connected cogeneration leaves you at the mercy of the utility -- both in terms of how much you can deploy and what that will *cost* you, in the long run (you are using a resource that belongs to the utility so it has an argument about how it charges you for that usage). It also forces you onto a ToU tariff so the extra load you have during those peak hours (e.g., your air conditioning unit) is billed at a higher rate than if you had the standard tariff. If you don't use the utility as a storage medium, then only local building codes determine how much power you can generate and how you dispose of the excess (run outdoor lights during the daylight hours to boast of how much "extra" power you have available, to the disdain of your neighbors). > I am largely retired but in California I believe we had (have?) a sort of > inventory tax or measure that took that into account (UDITPA?). Anyhow, when I > moved here I asked about the reasons for the smog cloud over Highway 50 only in > December. I was told it was trucks carting lots of inventory to warehouses in > Nevada. And then back. Yes. Because it only matters where the inventory is located at year's end. Prorate this for number of days in each locality and the behavior changes because the economics change. A national vendor used to ship all of their surplus electronic equipment to us for disposal. Amusing to think they could ship things across the country (at least one semi-trailer every couple of weeks) for less money than they could save via the charitable tax deduction. I buy VRLA batteries in lots of 10 because that's what a lot of *8* would cost. Even if I threw away two of them... >> Making ice on that large of a scale likely took a huge investment >> in capital equipment. But, was also a huge energy "saver" (misnomer). >> >> As with pools, many parts of the country don't have/need air conditioning >> (at least not on the scale and frequency that we use it here -- 101F >> yesterday) so it loses its value as a potential solution on those grounds. > > Same in Germany where I grew up. A/C wasn't needed. However, they used the same > concept for heating, converting lots of electrical kWh into thermal energy and > then storing that for the next day in a massive amount of dense bricks. > Insulation only does so much and some of that heat leaked out overnight when it > wasn't needed. But, if the energy costs are negligible (or nil), who cares if you only net 10% from it? If that 10% will justify the capital equipment outlay and operating costs...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n2gdbsFd9usU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #742228 |
On 3/24/26 1:53 PM, Don Y wrote: > On 3/24/2026 1:32 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> I worked at a firm that made ice on a large scale to cool the factory >>> "the next day". My understanding was that their electricity rate >>> was based on peak demand; their peak demand when the building was >>> occupied and machinery operating dictated the rate they paid for the >>> entire day -- even though the building was empty for half of the day. >>> So, making ice had twofold value: shifted some of the peak load >>> AND took advantage of electricity that wasn't being used (but was being >>> billed). >> >> There are many nonsensical pricing/tax structures that result in >> bizarre behavior in order to get around at least some of that. > > Businesses don't care about how nonsensical a pricing scheme may be. Only until they do. I kept telling politicians how fast location decisions are being made in businesses. Some didn't believe me until they had their "Oh s..t!" moment. By then it was too late because such decisions are generally irreversible, or only at great cost to the government. > If they can get a commitment to a given tariff over a significant bit of > time, > then they can make investment decisions with that pricing structure > in place. > > The unfortunate aspect is that there are no real guarantees for this. > Tariffs can (and do) change. So, it becomes a gamble as to whether or > not an investment decision will "make sense" in that changing environment. > > Here, folks are learning that grid connected cogeneration leaves you > at the mercy of the utility -- both in terms of how much you can deploy > and what that will *cost* you, in the long run (you are using a resource > that belongs to the utility so it has an argument about how it charges > you for that usage). > Out here even consumers are now partially decoupling. The start is usually a fridge/freezer circuit, then swamp cooling and so on. They run dedicated lines, install their own solar panels, batteries and inverters, and only charge that from utility power in rare situations where the solar doesn't deliver enough. Since older solar panels can be considered hazardous waste and then become next to impossible to dispose of, you can often acquire those for pennies on the dollar and then grossly overpanel. > It also forces you onto a ToU tariff so the extra load you have during > those peak hours (e.g., your air conditioning unit) is billed at a > higher rate than if you had the standard tariff. > > If you don't use the utility as a storage medium, then only local > building codes determine how much power you can generate and how > you dispose of the excess (run outdoor lights during the daylight > hours to boast of how much "extra" power you have available, to > the disdain of your neighbors). > Well, my last employer before becoming self-employed again reacted like many businesses do. They moved nearly all of production To Costa Rica. That fixes such issues. >> I am largely retired but in California I believe we had (have?) a sort >> of inventory tax or measure that took that into account (UDITPA?). >> Anyhow, when I moved here I asked about the reasons for the smog cloud >> over Highway 50 only in December. I was told it was trucks carting >> lots of inventory to warehouses in Nevada. And then back. > > Yes. Because it only matters where the inventory is located at > year's end. Prorate this for number of days in each locality and > the behavior changes because the economics change. > Can't prorate because inventory logging takes place only once a year. It is a tedious and productivity-robbing process so politicians cannot force companies to do that monthly. Else their tax bases would erode even faster than it does today. [...] >>> Making ice on that large of a scale likely took a huge investment >>> in capital equipment. But, was also a huge energy "saver" (misnomer). >>> >>> As with pools, many parts of the country don't have/need air >>> conditioning >>> (at least not on the scale and frequency that we use it here -- 101F >>> yesterday) so it loses its value as a potential solution on those >>> grounds. >> >> Same in Germany where I grew up. A/C wasn't needed. However, they used >> the same concept for heating, converting lots of electrical kWh into >> thermal energy and then storing that for the next day in a massive >> amount of dense bricks. Insulation only does so much and some of that >> heat leaked out overnight when it wasn't needed. > > But, if the energy costs are negligible (or nil), who cares if you only net > 10% from it? If that 10% will justify the capital equipment outlay and > operating costs... > Yep. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10pv31p$1ecbo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #742232 |
On 3/24/2026 2:17 PM, Joerg wrote: >> If they can get a commitment to a given tariff over a significant bit of time, >> then they can make investment decisions with that pricing structure >> in place. >> >> The unfortunate aspect is that there are no real guarantees for this. >> Tariffs can (and do) change. So, it becomes a gamble as to whether or >> not an investment decision will "make sense" in that changing environment. >> >> Here, folks are learning that grid connected cogeneration leaves you >> at the mercy of the utility -- both in terms of how much you can deploy >> and what that will *cost* you, in the long run (you are using a resource >> that belongs to the utility so it has an argument about how it charges >> you for that usage). > > Out here even consumers are now partially decoupling. The start is usually a > fridge/freezer circuit, then swamp cooling and so on. They run dedicated lines, > install their own solar panels, batteries and inverters, and only charge that > from utility power in rare situations where the solar doesn't deliver enough. > Since older solar panels can be considered hazardous waste and then become next > to impossible to dispose of, you can often acquire those for pennies on the > dollar and then grossly overpanel. Yes. But, to avoid the cost of on-site storage, you have to be able to identify (and isolate) a large enough load to make it viable. Solar landscape lighting doesn't cut it. As nothing prevents you from powering that load from the utility WHEN utility power is available, you can use the utility when needed and NOT rely on it for storage. So, they have no voice in your deployment decisions and can only affect the price you pay as a regular consumer. And, if you've already put your "toe" in, you can easily put your whole "foot" in if their "standard" pricing becomes too costly. >> It also forces you onto a ToU tariff so the extra load you have during >> those peak hours (e.g., your air conditioning unit) is billed at a >> higher rate than if you had the standard tariff. >> >> If you don't use the utility as a storage medium, then only local >> building codes determine how much power you can generate and how >> you dispose of the excess (run outdoor lights during the daylight >> hours to boast of how much "extra" power you have available, to >> the disdain of your neighbors). > > Well, my last employer before becoming self-employed again reacted like many > businesses do. They moved nearly all of production To Costa Rica. That fixes > such issues. Until their economy tanks, etc. Many pharmaceutical houses moved production to Puerto Rico (taking advantage of tax breaks). I suspect none of them are still there, contending with unreliable power... I know of many factories in New England that moved south (US) to take advantage of cheaper labor and "right to work" legislation. Then, discovered the workforce didn't have the skills necessary to continue making their products. >>> I am largely retired but in California I believe we had (have?) a sort of >>> inventory tax or measure that took that into account (UDITPA?). Anyhow, when >>> I moved here I asked about the reasons for the smog cloud over Highway 50 >>> only in December. I was told it was trucks carting lots of inventory to >>> warehouses in Nevada. And then back. >> >> Yes. Because it only matters where the inventory is located at >> year's end. Prorate this for number of days in each locality and >> the behavior changes because the economics change. > > Can't prorate because inventory logging takes place only once a year. It is a > tedious and productivity-robbing process so politicians cannot force companies > to do that monthly. Else their tax bases would erode even faster than it does > today. You don't have to canvas the entire store to know what SHOULD be in it. Additions arrive via documented processes and removals similarly. If the "net" isn't relatively accurate, then your business has far more serious issues to address! If you don't know what you have on hand, how can you commit to *selling* anything?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-24 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n2gmcmFel98U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #742235 |
On 3/24/26 3:26 PM, Don Y wrote: > On 3/24/2026 2:17 PM, Joerg wrote: >>> If they can get a commitment to a given tariff over a significant bit >>> of time, >>> then they can make investment decisions with that pricing structure >>> in place. >>> >>> The unfortunate aspect is that there are no real guarantees for this. >>> Tariffs can (and do) change. So, it becomes a gamble as to whether or >>> not an investment decision will "make sense" in that changing >>> environment. >>> >>> Here, folks are learning that grid connected cogeneration leaves you >>> at the mercy of the utility -- both in terms of how much you can deploy >>> and what that will *cost* you, in the long run (you are using a resource >>> that belongs to the utility so it has an argument about how it charges >>> you for that usage). >> >> Out here even consumers are now partially decoupling. The start is >> usually a fridge/freezer circuit, then swamp cooling and so on. They >> run dedicated lines, install their own solar panels, batteries and >> inverters, and only charge that from utility power in rare situations >> where the solar doesn't deliver enough. Since older solar panels can >> be considered hazardous waste and then become next to impossible to >> dispose of, you can often acquire those for pennies on the dollar and >> then grossly overpanel. > > Yes. But, to avoid the cost of on-site storage, you have to be able to > identify (and isolate) a large enough load to make it viable. Solar > landscape lighting doesn't cut it. > But like I said fridges and freezers do. They are a big chunk in the electric bill of otherwise frugal hopuseholds. > As nothing prevents you from powering that load from the utility > WHEN utility power is available, you can use the utility when > needed and NOT rely on it for storage. So, they have no voice in your > deployment decisions and can only affect the price you pay as a > regular consumer. > When you do that here they charge you an effective $0.45/kWh. Motivation enough not to do that. > And, if you've already put your "toe" in, you can easily put your > whole "foot" in if their "standard" pricing becomes too costly. > That gets expensive, fast, mainly because of high peak loads. But some people out here do that and go completely off grid. >>> It also forces you onto a ToU tariff so the extra load you have during >>> those peak hours (e.g., your air conditioning unit) is billed at a >>> higher rate than if you had the standard tariff. >>> >>> If you don't use the utility as a storage medium, then only local >>> building codes determine how much power you can generate and how >>> you dispose of the excess (run outdoor lights during the daylight >>> hours to boast of how much "extra" power you have available, to >>> the disdain of your neighbors). >> >> Well, my last employer before becoming self-employed again reacted >> like many businesses do. They moved nearly all of production To Costa >> Rica. That fixes such issues. > > Until their economy tanks, etc. Many pharmaceutical houses moved > production to Puerto Rico (taking advantage of tax breaks). I suspect > none of them are still there, contending with unreliable power... > Costa Rica is much more stable. Companies take a really long view on that sort of stuff. > I know of many factories in New England that moved south (US) to take > advantage > of cheaper labor and "right to work" legislation. Then, discovered the > workforce didn't have the skills necessary to continue making their > products. > That shows a lack of due diligence on their part. Assessing the skills of a work force isn't that difficult. I've seen similar but there the problem was that the workforce in the selected country did not comprehend English well enough. That almost qualifies for a Darwin award :-) >>>> I am largely retired but in California I believe we had (have?) a >>>> sort of inventory tax or measure that took that into account >>>> (UDITPA?). Anyhow, when I moved here I asked about the reasons for >>>> the smog cloud over Highway 50 only in December. I was told it was >>>> trucks carting lots of inventory to warehouses in Nevada. And then >>>> back. >>> >>> Yes. Because it only matters where the inventory is located at >>> year's end. Prorate this for number of days in each locality and >>> the behavior changes because the economics change. >> >> Can't prorate because inventory logging takes place only once a year. >> It is a tedious and productivity-robbing process so politicians cannot >> force companies to do that monthly. Else their tax bases would erode >> even faster than it does today. > > You don't have to canvas the entire store to know what SHOULD be in it. > Additions arrive via documented processes and removals similarly. If > the "net" isn't relatively accurate, then your business has far more > serious issues to address! If you don't know what you have on hand, > how can you commit to *selling* anything? > Sure but then there are the state rules and they want it all counted and certified. Also, if they'd tax on inventory during the year that would entice companies to keep their stuff out of state. Or leave lock, stock and barrel. Which some did. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web