View Full Version : Energy storage.
Alright, class, I'd like everyone to list all the ways energy can be stored.
how do you mean ? I mean everything technically is Energy, as mass is energy in another form. So energy can be sotred as mass i guess is the big one . o0
If this is some kind of "secretly get people to do your homework" thread (which it would seem to be) then i guess you should ask in the homework forum. I dunno the guidelines or owt like that for rules of asking homework help, but its not very useful if you just copy answers that somebody else has told you!
russ_watters
Dec8-03, 09:09 AM
Agreed - Vosh, why don't YOU start by listing a bunch.
This is not about homework and I was having trouble thinking of a way to ask my question. As an aside, if it was about homework, what's the big deal with just providing answers for someone to copy down (in the homework thread)? That question likely goes in another forum...
Lately I've been trying to figure out all the ways a person can store energy. The first one that comes to mind is, chemically, with batteries. Wound springs, though I don't like that one because springs wear down and seem only useful on very small scales, such as in wrist watches. Ahhh, let's see, there's the fly wheel; erm,
The idea is if you didn't have petrol on hand or something like that, how could you go about storing energy when you need to expend a lot of it in a short period of time (batteries have power but can only be trickled out whereas petrol can expend a lot in short time; taking the energy that trickles out of a battery and storing it so you can use it to power something that needs a lot of energy right now is what I'm interested in --- oh, that reminds me of a capacitor, which releases all it's energy in an instant).
Oil from the ground seems simple, chemically. I wonder why it isn't possible to just synthesize it (although the environment might be in trouble if that happened!) Note: I have no formal science training so some of my questions betray gaping areas of ignorance. Thank you.
Originally posted by Vosh
batteries have power but can only be trickled out
A standard 12-volt car battery can provide several hundred amps of current, or at least several thousand watts of power. How is this "a trickle?" You can easily build electric cars with batteries.
that reminds me of a capacitor, which releases all it's energy in an instant
Also false. Like batteries, capacitors have series resistance, which limits the amount of current they can source or sink.
I wonder why it isn't possible to just synthesize it
It is possible to synthesize it. However, synthesizing it requires energy input -- which you then reclaim when you burn it. When you synthesize petroleum, you're not "making" any energy -- you're just storing energy you already have in the form of chemical bonds. The whole point of us going to find petroleum in the ground is because that petroleum is a pre-existing energy source.
- Warren
Originally posted by chroot
A standard 12-volt car battery can provide several hundred amps of current, or at least several thousand watts of power. How is this "a trickle?" You can easily build electric cars with batteries.
Easily? You can't run a washer or refridgerator or heater very well, can you? I can hear someone saying, "what about going up hills; recharging...?"
Also false. Like batteries, capacitors have series resistance, which limits the amount of current they can source or sink.
Sure. So is it true that I couldn't run, say, a quartz space heater with a battery?
It is possible to synthesize it. However, synthesizing it requires energy input -- which you then reclaim when you burn it.
I was trying to imagine collecting solar energy and making it right now as oppose to millions of years using the natural method. Ofcourse I imagine someone thought of that; I just wonder how the story goes. If someone were to ask me, I want to know what to tell them...
Many thanks.
Originally posted by Vosh
Easily? You can't run a washer or refridgerator or heater very well, can you? I can hear someone saying, "what about going up hills; recharging...?"
Of course you could. You couldn't run a 1200 W space heater for very long, though. A 1200 W space heater would deplete a 12 V 50 A-h battery in 30 minutes.
Sure. So is it true that I couldn't run, say, a quartz space heater with a battery?
I'm not sure what a "quartz" heater is, but you can run any kind of space heater with a battery with no problem.
Point of fact: batteries are actually KNOWN and USED specifically for their large current-handling capability. In a fuel-cell powered car, batteries are used a storage buffer for energy generated by the fuel cell. The battery can supply large amounts of transient current for acceleration.
I was trying to imagine collecting solar energy and making it right now as oppose to millions of years using the natural method.
The earth recieves about 1 kW per square meter of energy from the Sun. This is the ultimate limit for any kind of solar power, no matter how it is stored and subsequently used.
- Warren
Originally posted by chroot
I'm not sure what a "quartz" heater is, but you can run any kind of space heater with a battery with no problem.
When I was a kid we had these, I suppose they were 2.5, 3 foot tall narrow heaters that contained two quarts rods that turned red hot when you turned the device on. My assumption is that if you tried to use on of those with a car battery that you'd be recharging that battery every 15 minutes, if you get my meaning.
The earth recieves about 1 kW per square meter of energy from the Sun. This is the ultimate limit for any kind of solar power, no matter how it is stored and subsequently used.
Intriguing. Unfortunately I don't know how to translate that into however many thimbals of oil...
russ_watters
Dec8-03, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Vosh
Originally posted by chroot
[B]My assumption is that if you tried to use on of those with a car battery that you'd be recharging that battery every 15 minutes, if you get my meaning. Your original statement was about how fast you could take the power out (that was the point of a comparison to a capacitor). A car battery has such low internal resistance that you can get the power out of it VERY quickly - several hundred amps.
The fact that at 100 amps, you'd deplete a battery quickly is simply a matter of density or capacity. Different issue.
Anyway, other ways to store power:
Gravity: in PA, there is a pumping station that uses cheap off-peak power to pump water uphill to a reservoir in order to reclaim the energy during on-peak hours.
Also, you mentioned chemical storage - there are LOTS of different types of chemical storage. Fuel cells, rocket fuel, matches.
Thermal storage: a prototype solar plant heats up liquid sodium (its a metal) to store heat overnight for continuous power. Ice. Your hot water heater. The air in your room. You socks.
Guybrush Threepwood
Dec9-03, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Vosh
The idea is if you didn't have petrol on hand or something like that, how could you go about storing energy when you need to expend a lot of it in a short period of time ......
you mean verrrry much energy in verrrrry short time?
You could try an H-bomb.....
Originally posted by russ_watters
...Anyway, other ways to store power:
Gravity: in PA, there is a pumping station that uses cheap off-peak power to pump water uphill to a reservoir in order to reclaim the energy during on-peak hours.
Also, you mentioned chemical storage - there are LOTS of different types of chemical storage. Fuel cells, rocket fuel, matches.
Thermal storage: a prototype solar plant heats up liquid sodium (its a metal) to store heat overnight for continuous power. Ice. Your hot water heater. The air in your room. You socks.
Russ has some good practical answers here. Such as creating potential energy by raising weight either by using off peak electric power or manually, such as winding a spring or raising a weight.
I think he was also trying to say ice storage for cooling there at the end, but his post isn't very clear. (Fall asleep while writing there at the end Russ?[:)] "Quote from Russ ...Ice. Your hot water heater. The air in your room. You socks.")
Hybrid forms of electric cars are becoming commercially available. These use gasoline to accelerate and electric motors to power the moving car. Some use gasoline to turn extremely high speed, low resistance turbines or flywheels to generate electricity or supplement the motion of the car to generate power to run the electric motors that move the car. They also use regenerative braking to generate electric power from applying the brakes to stop a car.
russ_watters
Dec10-03, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Artman
I think he was also trying to say ice storage for cooling there at the end, but his post isn't very clear. (Fall asleep while writing there at the end Russ?[:)] No, I just didn't explain. Anything that has around it a barrier to the movement of energy can be considered a container for storage:
Your walls prevent heat from moving in and out of your house, storing thermal energy in it.
Your hot water heater stores hot water to avoid needing to heat it as you use it.
Ice is stored thermal/chemical energy, released in a glass of iced tea.
And your socks of course, store your body's internal thermal energy, keeping your toesies warm.
Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I just didn't explain. Anything that has around it a barrier to the movement of energy can be considered a container for storage:
Your walls prevent heat from moving in and out of your house, storing thermal energy in it.
Your hot water heater stores hot water to avoid needing to heat it as you use it.
Ice is stored thermal/chemical energy, released in a glass of iced tea.
And your socks of course, store your body's internal thermal energy, keeping your toesies warm.
True. Now I get what you were saying. All good points. I just wasn't following your thought.
young e.
Dec11-03, 12:02 PM
I dont understand what u mean but anyway there are several ways of storing energy.
1. Storing potential energy by lifting a kg. of block
2. Storing potential energy by stretching a rubber band.
3. Storing energy in an electric field by applying an electric potential to two metal plates which is separated by a certain dielectric.
4. Storing energy in the magnetic field by having an insulated wire turned and making toroid solenoid and the like.
This is but just a few examples of storing of energy but in the qoute that u put in your message to us I think you don't believe that this things are possible. To see is to believe that is how i understood ur message, anyway if u dont see this things just try to feel it and have consequence with the law of nature----enough said. Thanks!
Originally posted by russ_watters
Anything that has around it a barrier to the movement of energy can be considered a container for (energy) storage.Interesting generalisation. Made me think of several things.
Barrier is any "resistence" to free energy flow. It can be mechanical container, but no problem also to think of electric or magnetic force, gravity. Indeed, gravitating object resists free energy flow, its thus container. Curvature of space itself is energy storage, not just the object creating it.
Interesting to note that superconductor is not energy storage by this count. Much like flat vacuum isn't. Yet superconductors have been used to store huge amounts of currents. It must then be to do with spatial aspect of interactions? Obviously, energy is stored in the fields around it, not in the superconductor.
russ_watters
Dec13-03, 09:59 PM
Superconductors are used for storage? How so.
And I mentioned gravitational storage above.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Superconductors are used for storage? How so. I didn't say used as practical storage. Just been used, in labs.
Idea is that ring of superconductor sustains circular current when "charged", and can give out the "trapped" energy when ring is broken. Its possible to have mega-amps of current trapped inside superconducting ring. Of course, it has quite some magnetic field around it. And it interacts with magnetic fields. One way to "charge" it is to use electromagnetic induction pumping.
That funny property of superconductors has caused ideas regarding particles as superconductors with trapped electric energy.
pallidin
Dec31-03, 06:57 PM
Energy storage? Hmmm... thoughts in overdrive...
OK, how about this.
We take a 1/2-inch by 6-inch by 8-inch plate of a composite material characterized by an extraordinary ability to absorbed thermal energy.
Let's also say that the composite plate has the equivalent thermal capacity of a 1500 watt electric radiant heater for 20 minutes.
That is, the composite plate can absorb enough energy to self-dissipate at a rate of 1500 watts of thermal energy over 20 minutes.
A great deal of energy is required to initiate and effect the composite plate heating. Understood.
Now, the super-heated "plate" is placed within a confined structure composed of materials similar to or exceeding the attributes of thermal tiles used in a space shuttle.
This confinement pack now increases the overall dimensions to, say, 2-inches thick by 24-inches wide, by 32-inches long and weighs 6 pounds.
Fine.
We pack this device into our backsack and journey up Mt. Everest or other cold environment.
24 hrs. later into our journey we find ourselves in an emergency condition, and require heat to sustian our life.
We "open" one end of the "confinement pack" and enjoy radiant heat for 20 minutes. Though less than the initial 1500 watts equivalent, perhaps enough to surive.
The idea of Energy Towers is the brain-child of Professor Dan Zaslavsky and makes use of the convection of air through a hollow tower to turn turbines. Cold water droplets sprayed into the top of tower evaporates cooling the air which then sinks to the bottom of the tower and turns the turbines.
This process does not require the use of collected sunlight nor does it have any environmental consequences. The only requirement is the hot arid areas of the earth for a 24/7 continuous conversion process to obtain the world's energy supply.
Zaslavsky claims that forty such towers could generate enough electricity for the whole world, not just today, but for the foreseeable future. The following site gives some insight into this technology which has been under investigation since the 1980s.
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/vis/otherenergy_tower.htm
Originally posted by onycho
The idea of Energy Towers is the brain-child of Professor Dan Zaslavsky and makes use of the convection of air through a hollow tower to turn turbines. Cold water droplets sprayed into the top of tower evaporates cooling the air which then sinks to the bottom of the tower and turns the turbines.
This process does not require the use of collected sunlight nor does it have any environmental consequences. The only requirement is the hot arid areas of the earth for a 24/7 continuous conversion process to obtain the world's energy supply.
Zaslavsky claims that forty such towers could generate enough electricity for the whole world, not just today, but for the foreseeable future. The following site gives some insight into this technology which has been under investigation since the 1980s.
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/vis/otherenergy_tower.htm
The site makes no mention of the largest problem I see with the idea, which is how do you get 300 million cu meters of sea water to the desert and up to the top of this tower for free. that's nearly 850,000 cu meters per day, or 590 cu meters per minute which (if my conversion factor of 264 gallons per cubic meter is correct) amounts to 155,833 gallons per minute.
This would require about 155 pumps at about 1000 gpm and since this is an open system the height of the tower, 1200 meters, or 3900 feet converts directly into 1690 psi that must be overcome to move the water to the top of the tower, not including the piping losses, valve losses up the tower and the lossees in the pipe from the sea (however far away that is). This psi will require special high pressure piping, fittings, and probably many pumping stations to reduce the pressure requirements of the individual pumps.
As a rough estimate (just off the top of my head) you are looking at about 1000 hp per 1000 gpm to be moved. Have fun accomplishing that for free.
Originally posted by Artman
The site makes no mention of the largest problem I see with the idea, which is how do you get 300 million cu meters of sea water to the desert and up to the top of this tower for free. that's nearly 850,000 cu meters per day, or 590 cu meters per minute which (if my conversion factor of 264 gallons per cubic meter is correct) amounts to 155,833 gallons per minute.
Acutally the solution to your problem lies in the fact that many of the world deserts abut saline seas. The dynamics of getting 590 cu meters/minute to the top of an 1200 meter tall tower is really not a problem when you have suffient electrical power being generated on site and tremendously powerful pumps similar to those that push mud and water miles below the bottom of the sea in order to bring oil to the surface. Not a significant problem.
Apparently the following scientists have been working on the physics of this project since the 70s. Do you know the quantity of hydrocarbon fuels necessary to produce 4000 MW of electricity on a 24/7 day basis?
Prof. Shalva Tzivion, Prof. Zev Levin and Dr. Tamir Reisin
We developed a very accurate axisymmetrical numerical model for calculations of the air and drops flow inside a vertical "Energy Tower". Using this model we obtained the optimal geometric, physical and atmospheric parameters of a "Super Power Energy Tower". The results show that a tower of 800 m height may produce net power larger than 4000 MW. On this basis we submitted an application for registration of a patent in Israel 23.3.1999 and in the USA, 5.05.2000.
Publications
S. Tzivion, Z. Levin, T.G. Reisin, Numerical simulation of axisymmetric turbulent flow in "Super Power Energy Towers" Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 2000, Vol. 9, No. 1, in press.
What do you think the petro-chemical industry and the OPEC countries are doing to discredit this project? The Wright brothers got man off the ground and the free world is dependent on group of greedy dictatorships that can black-mail the world anytime they please.
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Artman
The site makes no mention of the largest problem I see with the idea, which is how do you get 300 million cu meters of sea water to the desert and up to the top of this tower for free. that's nearly 850,000 cu meters per day, or 590 cu meters per minute which (if my conversion factor of 264 gallons per cubic meter is correct) amounts to 155,833 gallons per minute.
Acutally the solution to your problem lies in the fact that many of the world deserts abut saline seas. The dynamics of getting 590 cu meters/minute to the top of an 1200 meter tall tower is really not a problem when you have suffient electrical power being generated on site and tremendously powerful pumps similar to those that push mud and water miles below the bottom of the sea in order to bring oil to the surface. Not a significant problem.
Apparently the following scientists have been working on the physics of this project since the 70s. Do you know the quantity of hydrocarbon fuels necessary to produce 4000 MW of electricity on a 24/7 day basis?
Publications
S. Tzivion, Z. Levin, T.G. Reisin, Numerical simulation of axisymmetric turbulent flow in "Super Power Energy Towers" Journal of Fluid Dynamics, 2000, Vol. 9, No. 1, in press.
What do you think the petro-chemical industry and the OPEC countries are doing to discredit this project? The Wright brothers got man off the ground and the free world is dependent on group of greedy dictatorships that can black-mail the world anytime they please.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea (I guess it didn't sound like it much though), but I see many logistical difficulties with this project.
At 3900 feet tall, this tower would be over 2x as tall as the world's current tallest building which is only 1667 feet tall. I have done design work on high-rise construction projects (one over 500 feet tall) and I know some of the issues involved. One of which is static head on piping of over 1600 psi. I have seen the effects of a cap giving way on an 18" water line with only about 50 feet (21.6 psi) of static head. It blew the cap through a wall, driving the 18" pipe backwards bending half a dozen 6" pipes connected to it out of alignment about 10'. This failure was because of a faulty weld on one flange. If this same 18" pipe had 1600 psi on it it would have had 442,584 pounds of pressure on it instead of the 5974 pounds that caused the cap to blow off!
The real world possibilities for failure on such a project are immense, but I agree that with careful design and enough money, this structure could be built and I see no reason why it shouldn't work as proposed.
russ_watters
Jan9-04, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Artman
The site makes no mention of the largest problem I see with the idea, which is how do you get 300 million cu meters of sea water to the desert and up to the top of this tower for free. that's nearly 850,000 cu meters per day, or 590 cu meters per minute which (if my conversion factor of 264 gallons per cubic meter is correct) amounts to 155,833 gallons per minute.
Acutally the solution to your problem lies in the fact that many of the world deserts abut saline seas. The dynamics of getting 590 cu meters/minute to the top of an 1200 meter tall tower is really not a problem when you have suffient electrical power being generated on site and tremendously powerful pumps similar to those that push mud and water miles below the bottom of the sea in order to bring oil to the surface. Not a significant problem. Still doesn't seem that trivial to me. You point out that sufficient energy is available on site, but the website you linked gave no evidence of that. They need to do the math to see if thats really the case.
This quote seems to suggest their reasoning: A high altitude like a mountain in desert is preferable for setting up of Energy Tower. Are we to assume there is an infinite source of water on this hypothetical desert mountain? How about they do the calculations for a real location and see what they come up with for an efficiency...
Also, the CN tower (AFAIK) is the tallest manmade structure at 553m. This "energy tower" would be a total of about 1300m. They make no mention of how they would build a structure that big.
russ_watters
Jan9-04, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Artman
At 3900 feet tall.... You beat me, you bastard. [6)] Thats what I get for trying to post during lunch - takes too long to type it out.
re:water pressure. Its hard to imagine, but some of the better high precision machine tools use water to cut metal. And then there was the episode of JAG where they found a water leak in a pipe by waving a broomstick in front of it (slice).
Yeah, water pressure is a pretty daunting challenge in and of itself.
Originally posted by Artman
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea (I guess it didn't sound like it much though), but I see many logistical difficulties with this project. At 3900 feet tall, this tower would be over 2x as tall as the world's current tallest building which is only 1667 feet tall. I have done design work on high-rise construction projects (one over 500 feet tall) and I know some of the issues involved. One of which is static head on piping of over 1600 psi. I have seen the effects of a cap giving way on an 18" water line with only about 50 feet (21.6 psi) of static head. It blew the cap through a wall, driving the 18" pipe backwards bending half a dozen 6" pipes connected to it out of alignment about 10'. This failure was because of a faulty weld on one flange. If this same 18" pipe had 1600 psi on it it would have had 442,584 pounds of pressure on it instead of the 5974 pounds that caused the cap to blow off! The real world possibilities for failure on such a project are immense, but I agree that with careful design and enough money, this structure could be built and I see no reason why it shouldn't work as proposed.
I understand the problems involved here but as you said, with enough money anything in the physical world can be accomplished.
For instance, the propulsion system that sends our multi-ton shuttles at a speed sufficient to escape the gravitation of the earth. Also with the unbelievable new materials being formed that have unbelievable tensile strength and which can resist the tremendous pressures (psi) against deep diving structures.
To move the large amounts of salinated sea water up such tall structures, you would not be using 18" pipe, but using large diameter tubes designed to take these immense pressures. I think it would be great to take a look at the US patent for specific information on the physics and material used for such an immense project.
Just think of the ability to irrigate our deserts with fresh water to feed starving millions of people yet to be born. I will look at the patent site and get the specifics of the USA patent 5.05.2000.
Originally posted by russ_watters
You beat me, you bastard. [6)] Thats what I get for trying to post during lunch - takes too long to type it out.
[a)] I was quick as a bunny. [:))]
Originally posted by russ_watters
re:water pressure. Its hard to imagine, but some of the better high precision machine tools use water to cut metal. And then there was the episode of JAG where they found a water leak in a pipe by waving a broomstick in front of it (slice).
Yeah, water pressure is a pretty daunting challenge in and of itself.
Supporting the piping (even empty) is another major challange. This pipe would have to be the equivalent of (2) 48" diameter pipes to carry 155,000 gallons per minute. A 48" pipe would have a velocity of about 14 feet per second at 80,000 gpm, which is high, but probably okay for this application. This will be a terrible weight at 3900 feet tall.
Space for expansion loops on the tower to take up the expansion and contraction will probably be required due to temperature fluxuations in the fluid and air temperatures because the piping passes through a desert.
I did some further calculations and the BHP (less any piping losses, elevation changes outside of that of the tower and fitting losses) comes to 207,933 BHP required at 70% efficiency total to move the 155,833 gpm. This works out to 155,118 kwh or about 3,722,838 kw per day just to pump water up the tower.
Someone help me out here (my meteric knowledge is limited), but isn't 3,722,838 kw nearly the 4000 Mw they are expecting to produce?
Originally posted by Artman
I was quick as a bunny.
convert from to Equation
Kilowatts TO Watts = Kilowatts x 1000
Watts TO Kilowatts = Watts x 0.001
Megawatts TO Kilowatts = Megawatts x 1000
So 4,000 MW X 1000 = 4,000,000 KW
So by your calculations, your number 3,722,830 KW is slightly below the output.
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-18_apen_a.html
Let me take a look at the patent application to check your conclusions about the energy to lift the water and dthe physics of possibily using the tunnel itself to both make the tower itself more stable and more efficient if the pipes were inside the energy tunnels structure.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Artman
Having difficulty finding the US patent mentioned.
Someone more familiar with patents may be able to find the referenced patent.
axisymmetrical numerical model for calculations of the air and drops flow inside a vertical "Energy Tower
US Patent 5.05.2000
http://www.uspto.gov/
http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/uspc239/defs239.htm
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Artman
I was quick as a bunny.
convert from to Equation
Kilowatts TO Watts = Kilowatts x 1000
Watts TO Kilowatts = Watts x 0.001
Megawatts TO Kilowatts = Megawatts x 1000
So 4,000 MW X 1000 = 4,000,000 KW
So by your calculations, your number 3,722,830 KW is slightly below the output.
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/wind/wem/wem-18_apen_a.html
Let me take a look at the patent application to check your conclusions about the energy to lift the water and dthe physics of possibily using the tunnel itself to both make the tower itself more stable and more efficient if the pipes were inside the energy tunnels structure.
Thanks for the metric conversion tables. I agree that the piping material would more than likely be one of those new materials with higher tensile strength and lighter weight than steel. This could help.
By the way I am a big, big supporter of alternate energy systems and methods of saving energy. This is definitely an interesting idea and one I will try to follow for further developments. I am interested in checking out the Patent information, should you find it.
It appears that Australia is building an energy tower in reverse that utilizes the heat in their deserts which does not require water condensation and cooling. They are building a 1 KM (3,280 feet high) tower with a 20,000 acre greenhouse used to accumulate desert heat which will rise past turbines in the tower creating enough Kw to supply 200,000 homes.
It has been determined that each square yard of desert absorbs enough solar energy each year equal to one barrel of oil. They plan to build four more towers by 2010 which will supply one-eighth of Australia's population or about 1,000,000 households.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041566222790.html
World's tallest tower to produce energy from desert
January 4 2003
By Garry Barker
Technology Editor
Australia's merciless sunshine is about to be harnessed to produce massive amounts of renewable energy. As part of the process, the tallest man-made structure built, a one-kilometre-tall tower, will rise from the red desert in the south-west of New South Wales.
A great deal of your concerns are addressed at the following site relating to erecting offshore energy towers with a map of suitable thermal regions around the world seas. Interesting concept and you can click through this site for alternative energy sources.
http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/folien/magdeb030901/folie_28.html
Here the offshore conditions for Energy Towers of a specific design are given as annual average load. The calculations are made using data of the ECMWF and including program code developed by Vadim Mezhibovski (Technion, Haifa, Israel).
The offshore conditions demonstrate very well where the best climate conditions for Energy towers can be found. Here neither transportation nor elevation losses for delivering the water to chimney‘s foot accrue. The best locations are found at the cost lines of the desert belts, where e.g. Passat Winds provide the dry and hot air.
Addendum:
Zaslavsky claims to have improved the original design seven-fold. "Zaslavsky's team has mastered the art of spray control," says Srinivas Setty, deputy-general manager of CMC Ltd, who is also coordinating the energy tower project for DST. He has made several interesting modifications as well. For example, by charging water droplets with opposite polarity, Zaslavsky can make the molecules stick together and improve efficiency.
russ_watters
Jan10-04, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by onycho
It appears that Australia is building an energy tower... That is pretty cool, but where is this company getting the money for this thing? $800 million is a lot and the power its going to generate is pretty small (200mw is about 1/10 of a nuclear reactor). And they are still talking about building a structure roughly twice as big as the current tallest structure ever made by humans. And they are talking about building it out of reinforced concrete - I seriously doubt it has the strength to weight ratio to go that high (most skyscrapers are steel frame). Regardless, It doesn't look like the company has done any engineering work at all to really see if this thing can be built.
I wish them luck, but I must say I'm skeptical that the'll even finish the first one.
edit: have a look at the website (http://www.enviromission.com.au/), guys. It reaaaaaaly smells like a scam to me. Read some of the press releases. They are talking about money in single digit millions. No mention is made of where they plan to get the $800m they estimate (based on what, btw?) it will cost to build this structure. Their stock is near worthless and they keep issuing more. As of June of 2003, the company had 1 (not a typo, thats ONE employee). Thats down from their high point of 5 in 2002 (page 23 of their annual report).
Simply put, the engineering company I work for is in a better position to build this tower - and I work out of my boss's living room. Hey, can I get my company in Time's "Best of..." issue too? [g)]
Another thing to note here - we're doing paper napkin feasibility calculations here and it looks iffy at best. To actually know if this thing can even be built requires a year and millions of dollars for engineering and economic analysis. It hasn't been done.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by russ_watters
These types of small startup companies need local or foreing government funding and not investors for the capital in the hundreds of millions to get any such project off the ground. Nice website though.
Any patent would identify the tech specifications that would support the technology and how in the world they would have to direct the twenty thousand acres of concentrated heat into the tower funnel. Also those mysterious disks that concentrate heat during the day and then released during the cool nights to maintain electrical output.
russ_watters
Jan11-04, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by onycho
Any patent would identify the tech specifications that would support the technology and how in the world they would have to direct the twenty thousand acres of concentrated heat into the tower funnel. Also those mysterious disks that concentrate heat during the day and then released during the cool nights to maintain electrical output. The concept really isn't all that complicated. Its patentable, yes, but the patent would cover the concept, not the specifics of the construction of the tower - especially since it hasn't been designed yet (frankly, I would be shocked if that company ever designs anything).
A far more commercially possible type of renewable energy system I think than the 1200meter high spray towers are the the Boeing Energy molten salt systems in use already. These use solar heat to melt salt then they pump that to a receiver until it is needed and then they move it to a boiler to generate steam to operate a turbine.
Here is a link:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powertower.html
Originally posted by Artman
A far more commercially possible type of renewable energy system I think than the 1200meter high spray towers are the the Boeing Energy molten salt systems in use already. These use solar heat to melt salt then they pump that to a receiver until it is needed and then they move it to a boiler to generate steam to operate a turbine.
It looks like you are facing the some of the same problems with the Boeing solar heat salt melting to steam turbines for energy.
From your site:
In operation, the Solar Two receiver will be mounted at the top of the existing 300-ft Solar One structure and produce electrical power through the refurbished Solar One turbine plant and master control system. Molten salt will be pumped from an insulated cold tank where the salt is kept at 550_F to the top of the tower where the flow is split into two circuits. It will then enter the receiver through a series of thin-walled stainless steel tubes arranged vertically in groups of 32-tube panels which are connected to each other by means of jumper pipes. The molten salt will flow around the receiver from panel to panel in a serpentine fashion, while being heated by the concentrated sunlight. Entering the first of 12 panels at the top and northernmost east side of the receiver, the salt will exit at the bottom, entering the second panel at the bottom and continuing in this fashion until it exits the receiver at the top in the south side at a temperature of 1050_F.
This molten salt solar model also appears to require significant energy to pump molten salt from the cold tank to the top of the tower.
In the middle of the Mohave Desert, where do you get all that water to turn into steam even in a closed system where water is ultimately lost in the process?
It is difficult from the site to find the amount of energy output from this tower system in the middle of a desert. There are several places where the projected output at peak outputs is stated to be around 15 - 100 MGw minus the amount of energy needed to lift the salt and to move the steam around the system.
This is far from the 4000 MGw output of the Energy Towers now being initially built in India.
What are the Benefits of Power Towers?
Solar (molten salt) power towers offer large-scale, distributed solutions to our nation’s energy needs, particularly for peaking power. Like all solar technologies, they are fueled by sunshine and do not release greenhouse gases. They are unique among solar electric technologies in their ability to efficiently store solar energy and dispatch electricity to the grid when needed—even at night or during cloudy weather. A single 100-megawatt power tower with 12 hours of storage needs only 1000 acres of otherwise non-productive land to supply enough electricity for 50,000 homes. Throughout the sunny Southwest, millions of acres are available with solar resources that could easily produce solar power at the scale of hydropower in the Northwest U. S.
What is the Status of Power Tower Technology?
Power towers enjoy the benefits of two successful, large-scale demonstration plants. The 10-MW Solar One plant near Barstow, CA, demonstrated the viability of power towers, producing over 38 million kilowatt-hours of electricity during its operation from 1982 to 1988. The Solar Two plant was a retrofit of Solar One to demonstrate the advantages of molten salt for heat transfer and thermal storage. Utilizing its highly efficient molten-salt energy storage system, Solar Two successfully demonstrated efficient collection of solar energy and dispatch of electricity, including the ability to routinely produce electricity during cloudy weather and at night. In one demonstration, it delivered power to the grid 24 hours per day for nearly 7 straight days before cloudy weather interrupted operation.
The successful conclusion of Solar Two sparked worldwide interest in power towers. As Solar Two completed operations, an international consortium, led by U. S. industry including Bechtel and Boeing (with technical support from Sandia National Laboratories), formed to pursue power tower plants worldwide, especially in Spain (where special solar premiums make the technology cost-effective), but also in Egypt, Morocco, and Italy.
It seems that 10,000 acres of desert are required for this (100 MGw) energy output that would supply 50,000 homes or about the size of a small American suburb.
The Energy Towers are proposed to supply the entire world with only about 50 of these very high towers and do not require any acreage with the benefit of desalinating sea water.
Time will tell which one is the most cost effective and produces electrical energy at a significantly lower price by kw/hr.
russ_watters
Jan12-04, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by onycho
It looks like you are facing the some of the same problems with the Boeing solar heat salt melting to steam turbines for energy.
This model also appears to require significant energy to pump molten salt from the cold tank to the top of the tower. I'm pretty sure its a closed system, so the molten salt eventually comes back down to where it started. There is no net change in potential energy. Not so with the spray tower. In the middle of the Mohave Desert, where do you get all that water to turn into steam even in a closed system where water is ultimately lost in the process? What water? The working fluid is salt. Not salt water - salt. And if its a closed system, what losses? It is difficult from the site to find the amount of energy output from this tower system in the middle of a desert. These are research prototypes and as such produce very little power. This is far from the 4000 MGw output of the Energy Towers now being initially built in India. Atually, THIS (http://www.teriin.org/reports/rep72/rep72.htm) link says the company is investigating sites for building a 6.5 to 10mw research prototype (similar to the type of research plant Solar 1 was). That's a lot more/better than what "Enviromission" is doing in Australia (something is almost always better than nothing), but its still a long way - a decade or more - from when they might start construction on an actual commercial plant if the technology proves viable.
I won't be holding my breath or buying any stock (maybe shorting some though).
A closed loop can reduce the pump hp to dealing only with piping and fitting friction losses, no losses for elevation of the tower because the salt coming down pushes on the salt going up.
The friction losses for molten salt could be rather high, however, I don't know.
Weight of the piping and Static pressure are still a concern, but 300 feet is still a lot shorter than 3600 feet.
I believe that there is some water used, but most can be recovered as condensate return from the turbine. (With proper steam controls, traps, vents etc. very little should be lost to the environment except through blowdown, and draining the system and this could be recovered, filtered and reused as well.)
Something I read at the site said that the system works better with the salt than with water by about 10% going from 25% to about 35% capacity factor and the salt allows for thermal storage. The molten salt system in Spain has a 65% capacity factor.
quickerest
Dec30-07, 02:06 PM
I think the real issue of storage is sustainability and environmental impact. There is a cost with both. Battery's are made in a very non environmentally friendly way. So many of the great environmental solutions and alternative energy solutions rely on this one item and this could be even worse that the oil pollution we are dealing with now. Are there solutions for the pollution created by batteries? If there are solutions for the pollution and environmental destruction created by batteries and battery waste then the "battery" is really the best power storage solution in my book. Otherwise there really needs to be a much better energy storage solution.
Another issue of storage and generation is size. I find the use of one mega dam generating power verses millions of mini generators is a great example of how power can be generated and stored much cleaner with low tech grids VS massive prohibitive systems outside our reasonable scale.
Passive hydrogen from water is a battery idea.
Compressed air.
quickerest
Dec31-07, 02:47 PM
With the tower idea has anyone applied it surface to underground based on natural temp changes. This way subtle changes not requiring direct sun could apply flow in both directions?
or not?
This is an interesting thread, i'm glad that quickerest brought it back.
Another thing that is of interest, is how fast it went to "mega watts" and "mega bucks".
In the interest of a more personel sized energy requirment, the average household needs a "peak power" of around 15KW, and an average of a lot less over 24 hours.
To store enough energy every day to carry thru 24 hours, i would like to encourage some responses, inline with the op.
Also i would like to ask, ( get creative ) how many forms of energy can be stored in a flywheel ?
Ron
Pigs. Don't forget about pigs. You can store a lot of energy in a pig by feeding it, then release it quite rapidly with a chainsaw when you get hungry.
If this same 18" pipe had 1600 psi on it it would have had 442,584 pounds of pressure on it instead of the 5974 pounds that caused the cap to blow off!
You might have stumbled upon a new propulsion technique here. :uhh:
Would sustained kinetic energy be considered storage? I'm thinking of an orbital body (or even a bullet, for that matter) that releases its energy upon impact.
Also, how about a laser? Isn't it basically just a photonic capacitor? I know that I'm reaching, but he did ask us for whatever we could think of.
Danger
Glad to see your post, and reaching is good, guess its a little like thinking outside the box, but then i don't know what the box looks like so i don't know if i'm in or out -:)
Will check back tomorrow, happy new year everyone.
its a little like thinking outside the box, but then i don't know what the box looks like so i don't know if i'm in or out -:)
I know what it looks like, but I'm so far outside of it that I can't see it any more.
I just realized that my orbital body scenario is pretty much equivalent to a frictionless flywheel, so I guess that I answered my own question.
Happy New Year back atcha.
Too much to do today, so i'll be brief. Flywheel design seems to go in the literweight, faster, more exotic directions, which translates into high $$$$.
My teaser thought is, a flywheel with large mass, slower speeds, and a energy budget that is quite lean.
A speed cycle of 3700 rpm, down to 3400 rpm (sample illustration only).
At top speed it's weight is increased (sample 30%) it then is used to drive a generator, untill it reaches its low speed, at which point the weight (has been) or is removed, then the literweight wheel is taken back to high speed, and the cycle repeats.
This involves thermal storage, and transfer, a heat pump design with other benifits. (and hopefully a much greater efficiency of energy used and returned)
With a small amount of solar, and a little compressed natural gas, my goal is to try and remove my home from the grid almost completely, in the very near future.
So one additional form of energy in the flywheel is thermal, which has very little, if any, effect due to air or bearing friction (now i'll see if anyone will pony up any more? (at least three?)
Ron
Hope this doesn't get me removed from the forum
OmCheeto
Jan1-08, 07:30 PM
Alright, class, I'd like everyone to list all the ways energy can be stored.
hydraulic-pneumatic accumulators.
deformation of springs.
putting anything in motion.
compressed air storage(Large scale example (http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~matti/ise2grp/energystorage_report/node7.html))
plus all the aforementioned.
I always thing of energy as a gradient, and rate energy sources by their final use. Most of the energy I use is relatively low grade thermal energy that is easy to "catch" from solar thermal collectors. My hot water heater stores water at 140 F, so we need a solar panel with an output temperature of only 150F to obtain that minimum. I use less than 2,000,000 BTU of energy for this purpose. I live in Canada and where I live we get 100 hours of direct sun in January. I can collect 200 BTU of energy from 1 sq ft. of flat panel per hour. That equates to only 100 sq ft of panel. A small PV panel could power a brushless DC pump to move the 2000 gallons of food grade propylene Glycol antifreeze per hour needed to move the 20,000 BTU of heat generated every hour when the sun is shining. This is actually about 10 gallons of antifreeze recirculating in a closed loop. There would be a need for about 5 days of storage, which equates to 3000 lbs of water, in a tank 6 feet high and 4 ft in diameter. Simple, and generates the equivalent of just over 7,000 KW/hrs a year. On cloudy days the panels would generate lower grade heat at around 100F. Plenty warm enough for space heating.
Any comments?
Forgot to mention: You store space heating energy in an insulated dirt/rock storage under the house. A huge energy "flywheel" with mostly resources from the site. Problem is getting funding to build the house. Have a great day!
OmCheeto
May11-08, 11:22 AM
Forgot to mention: You store space heating energy in an insulated dirt/rock storage under the house. A huge energy "flywheel" with mostly resources from the site. Problem is getting funding to build the house. Have a great day!
Sounds similar to something I designed one day.
Someone else actually built the device:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Turn-excess-attic-heat-into-hotwater/
But of course, in the northern latitudes that we live(I live in northern Oregon), the panel collection method would work better in the winter since our attic temperature is usually the same as it is outside.
My device was actually the marriage of two problems:
1. how to reduce water and interior heating costs to zero.(solar collectors = attic + panels)
2. how to reduce water costs to zero.(rain collector = roof)
The design was basically identical to yours.
I didn't use the glycol as it usually doesn't get below freezing here.
And being the uber-cheapskate that I am, my water storage facility was a 5 ft tall, 15ft diameter kiddy pool, resting on 6" of rigid styrofoam, surrounded and topped off with R-60 fiberglass insulation, nestled in the crawl space of my house.
I think I ran the calculations and figured out that an 8x8 foot solar collector receiving 500 watts for 5 hours a day would take 50 days to raise the temperature of the pool water by 50'F.
2,617,529,591 Joules in the pool at 50’F
20.0 equivalent energy in the pool to gallons of gas
hmmmm.. at todays gas prices.... 20*$3.50=$70
The funniest calculation I did was determine the energy cost of flushing a 3 gallon toilet with solar heated water as compared to flushing it with cool city water. If those 3 gallons are heated to 50'F above ambient, it equates to a 10'F rise in the air in a 1000ft^2 house. (air has an incredibly low heat capacity)
anyways, probably TMI on my part....
Good idea on your part though.
and remember, great minds think alike :rolleyes:
taylaron
Jul9-08, 09:31 PM
The idea of Energy Towers is the brain-child of Professor Dan Zaslavsky and makes use of the convection of air through a hollow tower to turn turbines. Cold water droplets sprayed into the top of tower evaporates cooling the air which then sinks to the bottom of the tower and turns the turbines.
This process does not require the use of collected sunlight nor does it have any environmental consequences. The only requirement is the hot arid areas of the earth for a 24/7 continuous conversion process to obtain the world's energy supply.
Zaslavsky claims that forty such towers could generate enough electricity for the whole world, not just today, but for the foreseeable future. The following site gives some insight into this technology which has been under investigation since the 1980s.
http://www.tifac.org.in/do/vis/otherenergy_tower.htm
your link there onycho is bad; i suggest fixing it.
sounds like this is one bigbig device. it certainly follows the KISS rule. no doubt.
and about powering the world, it would be nice to know the diameter of these towers in perspective of powering the world. cool idea though. you'de think it would take forever to build; along with making it strong enough to stay put with a lot of wind...outch.
taylaron
Jul13-08, 04:53 PM
im not a physicist yet so im way out of my comfort zone. but regarding energy storage, is there any possibility of storing some form of energy in another dimension?
i suppose we need proof of the other dimensions first huh. (string theory's 11 dimensions)
i believe that they are out there; despite my lack of education.
highamperage
Mar30-11, 01:50 PM
Sorry to bring back an old dead thread, but I like taylaron's question regarding storing energy in alternate dimensions. Anyone have any thoughts?
Also, I created an excel spreadsheet that can calcuate stored energy in a flywheel based on RPM, Diameter, and weight. It outputs energy info in joules, mega joules, kwh, and sticks of dynamite (To put a failure in perspective :biggrin:) If anyone wants it, just say so.
Grayfox
Apr24-11, 06:33 PM
Molten Salt
I didn't say used as practical storage. Just been used, in labs.
Idea is that ring of superconductor sustains circular current when "charged", and can give out the "trapped" energy when ring is broken. Its possible to have mega-amps of current trapped inside superconducting ring. Of course, it has quite some magnetic field around it. And it interacts with magnetic fields. One way to "charge" it is to use electromagnetic induction pumping.
That funny property of superconductors has caused ideas regarding particles as superconductors with trapped electric energy.
Magnetic energy is stored in the medical MRI magnets by shorting the two magnet current leads together after the magnet is charged to full current. This is called the persistent mode, where the current in the resistanceless wires can run (persist) indefinitely, and the total stored energy is ½LI2 where L is the inductance.
The best geometry for storing magnetic energy may be a toroid. The active volume of a superconducting toroid is the cross-sectional area times the major circumference. The stored energy is proportional to the active volume times the square of the magnetic field. The length of superconducting wire required is the number of turns per meter times the minor circumference times the major circumference. Hence the larger the toroid is, the less the required length of superconducting wire per unit volume of the toroid.
Bob S
JaredJames
Apr25-11, 03:53 PM
Sorry to bring back an old dead thread, but I like taylaron's question regarding storing energy in alternate dimensions. Anyone have any thoughts?
Well, you start by proving the other dimensions exist and how to access them and then work from there.
To discuss energy storage in other dimensions is highly speculative and serves no purpose until those matters are cleared.
taylaron
Apr26-11, 07:53 PM
Well, you start by proving the other dimensions exist and how to access them and then work from there.
To discuss energy storage in other dimensions is highly speculative and serves no purpose until those matters are cleared.
While I largely agree with JaredJames, I would not dismiss the concept of extra dimensions. An article on PhysOrg.com shows promise in a theory suggesting the universe started out as energy in one dimension, then continued to evolve into a multi-dimensional universe. See here:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.html
(http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.html)
If the theory has truth and is proven possible by the LISA project, the implications of additional dimensions to the 4 dimensions science is familiar with today would inevitably re-shape the foundation of modern physics. This article posts some interesting perspectives and I think should not be dismissed because it fumbles with the already-proven-faulty standard model in regards to the chasm separating General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
If the reality we've experienced for the last 500+ years has always existed between 5+ dimensions, than it may be possible that our perception of extra dimensions may be exhibited as the influence we recognize by the 4 fundamental forces which include gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.
Everyone I've asked about the possibility of extra dimensions always asks me how they can exist if they cannot see them or interact with them. I would argue that it is possible we have been interacting with them our entire lives and that they cause the existence of what we recognize as forces, momentum, magnetism, etc...
Sorry Newton.
Relating this post to the thread topic, I would say that it is possible, and even more probable in my opinion that energy already exists in additional dimensions than the complex reality painted by the interaction of elementary particles. Energy being stored and transferred between different dimensions may be why the universe functions as it does today. Inter-dimensional energy transfer and storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)
Everything i've stated in this post does not yet have direct mathematical or experimental support i'm aware of. Consider it natural philosophy.
propalo
Aug22-11, 02:52 PM
Your original statement was about how fast you could take the power out (that was the point of a comparison to a capacitor). A car battery has such low internal resistance that you can get the power out of it VERY quickly - several hundred amps.
The fact that at 100 amps, you'd deplete a battery quickly is simply a matter of density or capacity. Different issue.
Anyway, other ways to store power:
Gravity: in PA, there is a pumping station that uses cheap off-peak power to pump water uphill to a reservoir in order to reclaim the energy during on-peak hours.
Also, you mentioned chemical storage - there are LOTS of different types of chemical storage. Fuel cells, rocket fuel, matches.
Thermal storage: a prototype solar plant heats up liquid sodium (its a metal) to store heat overnight for continuous power. Ice. Your hot water heater. The air in your room. You socks.
What about the problem of storage of global amounts of energy? I mean nature disasters as earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami and so on. It is not early today to think about damping of theirs catastrophic consequences and all the more so to find solutions for catching and storing of this damped energy.
taylaron
Aug22-11, 03:58 PM
What about the problem of storage of global amounts of energy? I mean nature disasters as earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami and so on. It is not early today to think about damping of theirs catastrophic consequences and all the more so to find solutions for catching and storing of this damped energy.
Propalo, regarding the capture and storage of energy exerted in natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc... I would argue that the majority of natural disasters are so infrequent and difficult to pinpoint in space and time that potentially spending billions on sequestration infrastructure would be somewhat pointless because of the duration of the events and the inefficiency of the collectors.
Capturing energy from sources such as volcanoes, solar and tidal waves seems to be your best bet. Unfortunately, efforts to develop thermal-electric devices (TEDs) have gone largely unsuccessful as their INefficiency is above 95% to my recollection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect)
I would argue that one could collect more energy through generating relatively small amounts of power over a long period of time than rushing to capture events occurring on the basis of hours or days over the same amount of time.
Stick to solar, tidal, wind and geothermal.
-Taylaron
johnbbahm
Aug23-11, 10:05 AM
Energy storage, part of this comes down to energy density and efficient conversion to useful work. A battery is a very low density form of chemical storage. I have heard a fully charged deep cycle battery only has about the same energy a 1 cup (8 ounces) of gasoline. The battery is in a use able form. Liquid and gas fuels are high density, but require a heat engine to convert it to work. This works well for larger applications, but does not scale down well. A fuel cell is like a battery where you keep supplying new reactant. Flywheels, compressed gas, water elevation, might all play a role where you need to move from low density/high duty cycle power to high density/low duty cycle power. I would think the best chemical storage would be methane, 4 H and 1 C, any thing higher wastes spaces for more H atoms. Natural gas is also already in a useful state for many household applications, Heat, hot water, cooking, generator....
The real trick would be to make methane from hydrogen made from solar panels and water.
taylaron
Aug23-11, 02:21 PM
Energy storage, part of this comes down to energy density and efficient conversion to useful work. A battery is a very low density form of chemical storage. I have heard a fully charged deep cycle battery only has about the same energy a 1 cup (8 ounces) of gasoline. The battery is in a use able form. Liquid and gas fuels are high density, but require a heat engine to convert it to work. This works well for larger applications, but does not scale down well. A fuel cell is like a battery where you keep supplying new reactant. Flywheels, compressed gas, water elevation, might all play a role where you need to move from low density/high duty cycle power to high density/low duty cycle power. I would think the best chemical storage would be methane, 4 H and 1 C, any thing higher wastes spaces for more H atoms. Natural gas is also already in a useful state for many household applications, Heat, hot water, cooking, generator....
The real trick would be to make methane from hydrogen made from solar panels and water.
Johnbbahm, check out this press release of a new graphene-Li-ion battery/ capacitor
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-energy-storage-device-recharge-electric.html
...The new devices can deliver a power density of 100 kW/kgcell, which is 100 times higher than that of commercial Li-ion batteries and 10 times higher than that of supercapacitors. The higher the power density, the faster the rate of energy transfer (resulting in a faster recharge time). In addition, the new cells can store an energy density of 160 Wh/kgcell, which is comparable to commercial Li-ion batteries and 30 times higher than that of conventional supercapacitors. The greater the energy density, the more energy the device can store for the same volume (resulting in a longer driving range for electric vehicles). Rechargeable in minutes and easily scalable to smart grid applications.
mheslep
Aug23-11, 04:03 PM
...I would think the best chemical storage would be methane, 4 H and 1 C, any thing higher wastes spaces for more H atoms. ...Methane has a high gravimetric density, only beat by H2, but the longer hydrocarbon chains in liquid form have much higher volumetric density than Methane as one would expect - diesel, gasoline, etc. That's a major reason most transportation uses those liquid fuels.
Wiki maintains an energy density table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
propalo
Aug24-11, 05:58 AM
1.Thank you for argued answer
2.Effectiveness and reasonability of preventing/damping of a catastrophe makes more effective collecting process
3.We may concentrate on the global amounts of energy problems and theirs chain collection-transfer-storage-release
4.Example 1. Wind turbine collects one atom of the energy wind is carrying. Imagine set of molecular size wind turbines that possible to seize 100% of local region wind energy
Example 2. Drainage for volcano pressure damping
5.Every problem like above is able to be solved with the way of step-by-step refinement. We've already made 1st steps
6.It is worthwhile to assess possible amounts of energy from everyone of mentioned sources
7.Any of possible questions answered in my blog http://yhaviv.livejournal.com/
propalo
Aug28-11, 04:33 AM
Propalo, regarding the capture and storage of energy exerted in natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc... I would argue that the majority of natural disasters are so infrequent and difficult to pinpoint in space and time that potentially spending billions on sequestration infrastructure would be somewhat pointless because of the duration of the events and the inefficiency of the collectors.
Capturing energy from sources such as volcanoes, solar and tidal waves seems to be your best bet. Unfortunately, efforts to develop thermal-electric devices (TEDs) have gone largely unsuccessful as their INefficiency is above 95% to my recollection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect)
I would argue that one could collect more energy through generating relatively small amounts of power over a long period of time than rushing to capture events occurring on the basis of hours or days over the same amount of time.
Stick to solar, tidal, wind and geothermal.
-Taylaron
for Taylaron. Excuse me, but I need your feedback on my post. It is very important for me. I return to the post of 22.08.11
1. Thank you for argued answer
2. Effectiveness and reasonability of preventing/damping of a catastrophe makes more effective collecting process
3. We may concentrate on the global amounts of energy problems and theirs chain collection-transfer-storage-release
4. Example 1. Wind turbine collects one atom of the energy wind is carrying. Imagine set of molecular size wind turbines that possible to seize 100% of local region wind energy
Example 2. Drainage for volcano pressure damping
5. Every problem like above is able to be solved with the way of step-by-step refinement. We’ve already made 1st steps
6. It is worthwhile to assess possible amounts of energy from everyone of mentioned sources
7. Any of possible questions answered in my blog http://yhaviv.livejournal.com/
. Excuse me, but I need your feedback on my post. It is very important for me. I return to the post of 22.08.11
4. Example 1. Wind turbine collects one atom of the energy wind is carrying. Imagine set of molecular size wind turbines that possible to seize 100% of local region wind energy
propalo-
Doesn't the Betz limit (~59% maximum efficiency) apply on a molecular scale as well as on the macroscopic scale? Suppose your molecular windmill completely stopped all molecules locally. Pretty soon you would have a whole bunch (many Avagadro numbers of molecules) in a big pile at absolute zero.
Read about Betz limit in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_aerodynamics
Bob S
taylaron
Aug28-11, 05:19 PM
for Taylaron. Excuse me, but I need your feedback on my post. It is very important for me. I return to the post of 22.08.11
1. Thank you for argued answer
2. Effectiveness and reasonability of preventing/damping of a catastrophe makes more effective collecting process
3. We may concentrate on the global amounts of energy problems and theirs chain collection-transfer-storage-release
4. Example 1. Wind turbine collects one atom of the energy wind is carrying. Imagine set of molecular size wind turbines that possible to seize 100% of local region wind energy
Example 2. Drainage for volcano pressure damping
5. Every problem like above is able to be solved with the way of step-by-step refinement. We’ve already made 1st steps
6. It is worthwhile to assess possible amounts of energy from everyone of mentioned sources
7. Any of possible questions answered in my blog http://yhaviv.livejournal.com/
Propalo, harnessing nature's power prior to catastrophic release (natural disaster) is a daunting task plague with many hurdles...
Comments on your points (from what I assume they mean due to lack of detail):
2) You're basically saying to make the collectors more efficient. Ok, but *How do you intend to do this? With earthquakes you're dealing with the extremely slow movement of tectonic plates with collisions spread out over hundreds of miles of earths crust hundreds of miles thick. How are you going to concentrate the collision location to a point where you can harness the impact force? You would need to dig a trench through a continent dividing the two tectonic plates and put some sort of medium between them that captures the collision force. This, obviously is impractical. For tornadoes, etc.. you will need to be able to regulate the flow of heat around the globe. Impossible I might add.
3) I don't understand your statement
4) I agree with Bob S's previous statement about the Betz limit. First of all, it is impossible to create a motor 100% efficient for various reasons I will not go into here. Also, be careful with your terminology as atoms are not units of energy. The props on a windmill are being bombarded by moving atmospheric molecules and the propeller's angle of attack encourages it to spin, transferring some of the *momentum of the air molecule to the prop. In regards to your molecular wind turbines, I would simply suggest putting several wind turbines behind one another opposed to re-inventing the wheel. The design of a propeller or fan blade must have air between it's fins otherwise it would simply be acting like a sail.
Collecting the drainage from a volcano is also novel, but one would be dealing with temperatures that would melt of incinerate most any material in the generator. The flow of magma in a volcano is not linear and one would need to provide massive amounts of thermal power to keep the magma in the generating process from cooling. One of the leading problems with the volcano idea is that one would need to dig into the earth's crust towards the magma dome. When the drill bit nears the magma dome, it will simply melt from the temperature of the rock. Even if you do puncture the magma dome, the magma will seep up your bore hole (presuming there's enough pressure) and will soon solidify your nice hole and your work will be for nothing.
5) I also don't understand your statement.
6) Your question is a bit confusing. Are you asking if it is worthwhile to harness power from every source listed on this thread? Your answer is yes, and no. Some sources of energy aren't fit to be harnessed, some are too energetic for our technology, some are too far away, some infrastructure would be too massive to be economically practical, we simply don't have the technology (or useful efficiency) to harness many of the power sources. Solar power is great, but photovoltaic cells only collect 30% maximum of the sun's rays into electricity (Shockley-Queisser limit).
To Bob S and Taylaron
Dear Sirs,
I have a lot to say about challenges and solutions on the theme of nature disasters but I’d prefer to do it in relevant forums or my own blog http://yhaviv.livejournal.com/, or my email godslioness@hotmail.com.
Let us concentrate in frames of this thread on energy accumulation.
1. What degree of energy amount contains in volcano? how much carries cyclone/hurricane? Enough only a few examples.
2. How can we store energy? May be in artificial or natural volcanoes, or other facilities? Using satellites, asteroids?
propalo
Sep25-11, 10:43 AM
To Bob S and Taylaron
I have a lot to say about challenges and solutions on the theme of nature disasters but I’d prefer to do it in relevant forums...
Nevertheless I haven't got any feeback on my last post, I have an honour to invite you to the http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3491289#post3491289 forum for disccussion on the volcanoes theme
...In regards to your molecular wind turbines...
It was not told about “molecules of energy”, “molecular size windmill” etc. I meant extremely little sizes of elements we can imagine as well as in ideal case we want to use 100% of wind/storm/hurricane energy, but really we are limited by physical, social, psychological etc. drawbacks.
We imagine a picture of a wall of little elementary "windmills" on the wind’s way that absorb its energy and stores/transfers it. (What does it mean? Wind’s energy lessens, a storm becomes calmer, and we kill two birds with one shot: prevent disaster and possess energy for free. Or not so free, nevertheless we win in any case).
The next question: how to build such a wall? We want to achieve mentioned effect without expenses and artificial components. The only resources are: wind (air + energy), water, earth.
See also discussion "Can we prevent or abate hurricanes?" in the forum http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=503072&highlight=hurricane&page=3
OmCheeto
Oct2-11, 10:41 AM
propalo-
Doesn't the Betz limit (~59% maximum efficiency) apply on a molecular scale as well as on the macroscopic scale? Suppose your molecular windmill completely stopped all molecules locally. Pretty soon you would have a whole bunch (many Avagadro numbers of molecules) in a big pile at absolute zero.
Read about Betz limit in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_aerodynamics
Bob S
Ha ha! That reminds me of the time I was going to harness all of the power of the Columbia river down stream of the last dam. I multiplied the mass flow rate and the length of the river and determined it's entire kinetic energy. I came up with a really big number. But then I decided it was not a good idea, because to extract all of that, you'd end up with a big lake. Which is kind of what we have already, upstream of the last dam, so I decided the engineers had already solved my problem decades ago.
Joe Vornsteen
Oct17-11, 03:52 AM
A far more commercially possible type of renewable energy system I think than the 1200meter high spray towers are the the Boeing Energy molten salt systems in use already. These use solar heat to melt salt then they pump that to a receiver until it is needed and then they move it to a boiler to generate steam to operate a turbine.
Here is a link:
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/powertower.html
yeah that's cool. But what do you think about this kind of Storage (http://www.hamcos.de/it-loesungen/storage-loesung-netapp-fujitsu-partner/)?
It was not told about “molecules of energy”, “molecular size windmill” etc. I meant extremely little sizes of elements we can imagine as well as in ideal case we want to use 100% of wind/storm/hurricane energy, but really we are limited by physical, social, psychological etc. drawbacks.
We imagine a picture of a wall of little elementary "windmills" on the wind’s way that absorb its energy and stores/transfers it. (What does it mean? Wind’s energy lessens, a storm becomes calmer, and we kill two birds with one shot: prevent disaster and possess energy for free. Or not so free, nevertheless we win in any case).
The next question: how to build such a wall? We want to achieve mentioned effect without expenses and artificial components. The only resources are: wind (air + energy), water, earth.
What you really want is a few Maxwell's Demons. Maxwell's Demons are imaginary creatures that the mathematician James Clerk Maxwell created to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. See
http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
They can extract all the energy from the wind.
CHollman82
Oct17-11, 03:29 PM
In PA, there is a pumping station that uses cheap off-peak power to pump water uphill to a reservoir in order to reclaim the energy during on-peak hours.
GENIUS!
I wonder how long it would take to break even if I set something like this up in my backyard!
CHollman82
Oct17-11, 03:38 PM
Since we are already talking about energy in this thread maybe someone can answer a question I've had for some time now...
In a hydroelectric dam is there any limit to the number of times we can "collect" the energy of gravity by using the flow of the water to force motion? It seems (and maybe this is wrong) that in a dam there is only one big bank of turbines that the water flows over and that's it... why not have that watered channeled to flow over a turbine as often as possible as it falls from the top of the damn to the bottom?
What if you built a long ramp that the water flowed down which had densely packed water wheels driving hundreds of generators...
Or what if you had a HUGE reservoir that filled with the flow of the river to a point that it weighed more than it's counterbalance and then fell (not free-fall, on tracks or something) to the bottom and released the water, while pulling up the counterbalance and generating electrical energy through the motion of the pulleys? As the water is released the counterbalance pulls it back up and generates even more energy through the pulleys. Wouldn't this be more efficient than using the flow of water to turn a single turbine on it's way down? (It's a bank of turbines, but each drop of water only turns one of them).
If you consider the perspective of a drop of water, that drop of water falls a great distance but only generates power for a very short distance, the time that it is applying force to the one generator it hits.... my idea for a counterbalanced water elevator would generate electricity continuously as each drop of water descended each discreet unit of distance.
russ_watters
Oct18-11, 10:02 PM
GENIUS!
I wonder how long it would take to break even if I set something like this up in my backyard!
Forever or at least until a few years after variable rate billing is implemented residentially.
russ_watters
Oct18-11, 10:06 PM
Since we are already talking about energy in this thread maybe someone can answer a question I've had for some time now...
In a hydroelectric dam is there any limit to the number of times we can "collect" the energy of gravity by using the flow of the water to force motion? It seems (and maybe this is wrong) that in a dam there is only one big bank of turbines that the water flows over and that's it... why not have that watered channeled to flow over a turbine as often as possible as it falls from the top of the damn to the bottom?
What if you built a long ramp that the water flowed down which had densely packed water wheels driving hundreds of generators...
Or what if you had a HUGE reservoir that filled with the flow of the river to a point that it weighed more than it's counterbalance and then fell (not free-fall, on tracks or something) to the bottom and released the water, while pulling up the counterbalance and generating electrical energy through the motion of the pulleys? As the water is released the counterbalance pulls it back up and generates even more energy through the pulleys. Wouldn't this be more efficient than using the flow of water to turn a single turbine on it's way down? (It's a bank of turbines, but each drop of water only turns one of them).
If you consider the perspective of a drop of water, that drop of water falls a great distance but only generates power for a very short distance, the time that it is applying force to the one generator it hits.... my idea for a counterbalanced water elevator would generate electricity continuously as each drop of water descended each discreet unit of distance.
You either have a misunderstanding of how a hydroelectric dam powers a turbine or how a turbine powers a generator. Generator first:
A generator generates electricity by converting mechanical rotational energy into electrical. The amount of energy collected is a little greater than the electrical energy generated. Generation is a function of torque and rpm.
A turbine spins at a certain rpm due to the flow rate through it, but applies torque due to the pressure applied through it. And once applied and harnessed, that pressure is gone. So a turbine generates energy by harnessing the pressure due to the depth of a hydroelectric dam's reservoir. Putting in two turbines means each only gets half the pressure and half the energy. So you gain nothing by adding more turbines.
CHollman82
Oct18-11, 10:23 PM
A turbine spins at a certain rpm due to the flow rate through it, but applies torque due to the pressure applied through it. And once applied and harnessed, that pressure is gone. So a turbine generates energy by harnessing the pressure due to the depth of a hydroelectric dam's reservoir. Putting in two turbines means each only gets half the pressure and half the energy. So you gain nothing by adding more turbines.
Thanks, that answers my first question. But what about the counterweighted "water elevator" idea, is there no chance that would be more efficient? By it's very design all of the energy of the water as it descends (and then when the counterweight descends after the water is released) would be transferred through the pulley system, which could drive a generator. I understand most of the energy would go to lifting the counterweight via the weight of the water, but once the "elevator" is emptied of water the counterweight would descend, releasing most of that energy back into the pulleys and the generators they are connected to.
CHollman82
Oct18-11, 10:23 PM
Forever or at least until a few years after variable rate billing is implemented residentially.
I don't know where you live but I have variable rate billing... there are peak, shoulder peak, and off peak hours, each with a different rate.
russ_watters
Oct18-11, 10:42 PM
Thanks, that answers my first question. But what about the counterweighted "water elevator" idea, is there no chance that would be more efficient? By it's very design all of the energy of the water as it descends (and then when the counterweight descends after the water is released) would be transferred through the pulley system, which could drive a generator. I understand most of the energy would go to lifting the counterweight via the weight of the water, but once the "elevator" is emptied of water the counterweight would descend, releasing most of that energy back into the pulleys and the generators they are connected to. You'll have to draw yourself a diagram to convince yourself of the reality that the energy generated is exactly equal to the energy required to lift the counterweight.
russ_watters
Oct18-11, 10:43 PM
I don't know where you live but I have variable rate billing... there are peak, shoulder peak, and off peak hours, each with a different rate. Really? Not in Pennsylvania, USA - and I didn't think anywhere in the USA. Where do you live?
CHollman82
Oct19-11, 09:41 PM
You'll have to draw yourself a diagram to convince yourself of the reality that the energy generated is exactly equal to the energy required to lift the counterweight.
On the way DOWN it is, because the mass of the counterweight is roughly equal to the mass of the full elevator... but then the counterweight lifts the empty elevator back up which is much lighter than counterweight itself, imparting the equivalent of the potential energy of the mass of the water at the top of it's descent to the pulleys which use that extra energy to drive generators.
russ_watters
Oct19-11, 10:07 PM
No. Draw a diagram. Or just trust conservation of energy.
CHollman82
Oct21-11, 02:08 PM
No. Draw a diagram. Or just trust conservation of energy.
What are you talking about conservation of energy? We get power from dams now right? That's all I'm talking about... It's extracting the same energy as we do currently, in a different, and I think more efficient, way.
Just think about it for two seconds, the water falling from the top of the dam to the bottom has energy imparted to it from gravity... we collect some of that energy by funneling the water over a turbine that spins a generator... Instead, I am proposing to have a huge elevator platform that the water flows into, fills, and once it is full the weight of the water is greater than that of the counterweight and the elevator descends... LIFTING THE COUNTERWEIGHT... At the bottom the water is released, but the counterweight is still in the air and the weight of the empty elevator platform it has to lift is MUCH less than the weight of the platform plus the water that lifted it, so as the counterweight falls and lifts the elevator there is a lot of extra energy there that is collected by generators hooked up to the pulleys...
I don't know what you aren't understanding or I would try to explain it better. It is not a question of whether it would provide energy, it absolutely would, I am not talking about creating energy out of thin air I am talking about harvesting the energy of gravity like we already do with a different mechanism... the question is would it be MORE than we currently get in a hydroelectric damn with current techniques.
russ_watters
Oct21-11, 03:00 PM
What are you talking about conservation of energy? We get power from dams now right? That's all I'm talking about... It's extracting the same energy as we do currently, in a different, and I think more efficient, way. Just think about it for two seconds... Ok.... ...the water falling from the top of the dam to the bottom has energy imparted to it from gravity... we collect some of that energy by funneling the water over a turbine that spins a generator... Correct. Instead, I am proposing to have a huge elevator platform that the water flows into, fills, and once it is full the weight of the water is greater than that of the counterweight and the elevator descends... LIFTING THE COUNTERWEIGHT... Then instead of powering a generator, it lifts a counterweight. Your 1 unit of GPE in the water has been converted to 1 unit of GPE in the counterweight. At the bottom the water is released, but the counterweight is still in the air and the weight of the empty elevator platform it has to lift is MUCH less than the weight of the platform plus the water that lifted it, so as the counterweight falls and lifts the elevator there is a lot of extra energy there that is collected by generators hooked up to the pulleys... Now your 1 unit of GPE in the counterweight is converted to 1 unit of electrical energy in the generators. Exactly the same (but more complicated) than if you had just used that 1 unit of potential energy in the water to spin a turbine/generator to produce that 1 unit of electrical energy. I don't know what you aren't understanding or I would try to explain it better. It is not a question of whether it would provide energy, it absolutely would, I am not talking about creating energy out of thin air I am talking about harvesting the energy of gravity like we already do with a different mechanism... the question is would it be MORE than we currently get in a hydroelectric damn with current techniques. I think I misunderstood this line in your first post on it: As the water is released the counterbalance pulls it back up and generates even more energy through the pulleys. Thinking the "it" was the water, it sounded to me like you wanted to use the device to refill its own reservoir.
The way I'm understanding it now, the water is only used once. The idea isn't really all that much different from what is done now and you don't gain anything by doing it.
CHollman82
Oct21-11, 11:45 PM
Ok.... Correct. Then instead of powering a generator, it lifts a counterweight. Your 1 unit of GPE in the water has been converted to 1 unit of GPE in the counterweight. Now your 1 unit of GPE in the counterweight is converted to 1 unit of electrical energy in the generators. Exactly the same (but more complicated) than if you had just used that 1 unit of potential energy in the water to spin a turbine/generator to produce that 1 unit of electrical energy. I think I misunderstood this line in your first post on it: Thinking the "it" was the water, it sounded to me like you wanted to use the device to refill its own reservoir.
The way I'm understanding it now, the water is only used once. The idea isn't really all that much different from what is done now and you don't gain anything by doing it.
Okay, glad I could clear it up anyway, I'm not great at explaining things so don't worry about it...
The reason I think it might be more efficient is because the water is applying a force to a solid object the entire distance from the top to the bottom, whereas in the current system the water only applies force to a solid object for a portion of the diameter of the turbine it turns... it hits a blade, the blade rotates down, then it loses contact... probably only in contact and applying force for a few feet of vertical drop... where in my system the water applies force to the object (the elevator) the entire way down.
In fact, as soon as the water loses contact with the turbine blade and continues to be accelerated by gravity more energy is being added to it that is wasted when it finally hits the bottom of its fall... my system almost certainly would produce more energy because this doesn't happen... In fact the only way it wouldn't is if in a real hydroelectric dam the generators are at the very bottom and the water, after hitting the turbine blade, doesn't have any significant distance left to fall AND if every drop of the water is used to turn at least one generator. In my system the water applies force all the way to the bottom, there is no waste by the water falling further after applying it's force, and every single drop of water counts in my system as well... I am not sure that's the case with modern systems.
propalo
Oct22-11, 06:16 AM
It seems (and maybe this is wrong) that in a dam there is only one big bank of turbines that the water flows over and that's it...
The very right sight: multiplication of receivers, infinite set of microscopically elements (or a giant sole one) that can swallow all the entire energy.
That is one of the standard steps of the known Problem Solving Theory, the strongest methodic for difficult or unsolvable problems. What to choose for our destination (to harness all the energy) from the next pairs of conditions: infinite multitude of receivers or none of them; infinite size of receivers or zero size; infinite cost or free; infinite operation time or zero (instant)? Imagine we can everything
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.