Is weight a better way to derive energy than flow?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on evaluating the energy output of a falling bucket system compared to traditional hydroelectric turbines. The calculation of energy using the mgh formula is straightforward, but determining efficiency is complex due to factors like water velocity during bucket emptying and potential spillage. Modern turbines can achieve efficiencies of around 90%, which poses a challenge for alternative systems. The conversation also touches on the importance of maintaining optimal bucket speed to prevent water loss and maximize energy capture. Overall, while the bucket system presents an interesting alternative, it faces significant efficiency hurdles compared to established turbine technology.
  • #31
CherryB said:
Ah. So there’s the tie-in to momentum. So if it traveled the 30m in 1 minute then it would be 294.3 mw divided by 60?
Yep. It's worth noting that this is per bucket as well, so if you had 10 full buckets descending at once, it would be 294.3/60 per bucket * 10 buckets for a total of around 50 MW.
 
  • Like
Likes CherryB
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
As demanded by conservation of energy, yes.

Yes, mgh... but I don't see why pulley radius matters. bucket speed insofar as it tells you mass flow rate, yes.

It depends where the water level is at the bottom. If the buckets are submerged they act like paddles. If not, they drop the water and you aren't using all the available "h".
I guess I'm confusing moment with force, and translating that conflation into energy, because I can definitely hold a 10 lb barbel in my hand indefinitely if it's close to my body, but I can't do the same if my arm is outstretched. Seems to make some sense for me viscerally
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #33
cjl said:
Yep. It's worth noting that this is per bucket as well, so if you had 10 full buckets descending at once, it would be 294.3/60 per bucket * 10 buckets for a total of around 50 MW.
Right. So that's quite a bit of power, but it just seems like an awfully fast rotation to keep up with mechanically. I'm guessing that I would have to utilize a gearbox like the ones they use for wind turbines. I saw something about a 600 shaft rpm turbine gearbox yielding 8mw, but I'm not sure how to calculate the shaft input power needed to turn the gearbox
 
  • #34
 
  • #35
A full minute of descent time to cover 30m seems fast to you? Sure, you can gear them however you want, but if anything, I'd actually expect you'd want to gear it up, since generators are smaller, cheaper, and more efficient if spun faster.

EDIT: Also, the power you get out of a gearbox is the same as the power you put in (minus losses). If the gearbox is outputting 8MW at 600 RPM, the input will also be 8MW (at some other RPM - probably around 9RPM for a turbine that size).
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #36
What I meant to say is that maybe a gearbox like that could be used, just to slow things down, then connect it to the near 50mw input from buckets. The speed of 30 meters per minute seems large to me, only due to the buckets having to turn around the sprocket, and how much destructive force will be acting on the chain and buckets. But I may be overly conservative about that
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
8K
Replies
65
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
15K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
12K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K