Author Topic: Cryogenic Energy Storage??  (Read 6747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« on: October 03, 2012, 04:20:26 am »
Greetings EEVBees:

--See below link to a BBC article about using cryogenic air (less H20 and CO2) as an energy storage medium.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19785689

--I do not know, or course if this will ever be practical or not. I do believe though that it would be better for governments, at this time, to be helping small efforts like this one, rather than strapping the albatross of Wind and PV around our necks.

--Although I have some math, I am not an Engineer, so I invite those more knowledgeable than myself to opine on this scheme.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."
William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2012, 06:28:14 am »
I give up. Like I said before: there is a point where steadfastness becomes stupidity. Did you even read the article?

IMechE says "wrong-time" electricity generated by wind farms at night can be used to chill air to a cryogenic state at a distant location.

How, pray tell, does this happen without those "albatross?"
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 06:30:07 am by poptones »
 

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2012, 08:33:25 am »
The Carnot Cycle sez efficiency depends on temp difference.
The appalling inefficiency of this one is explained by the notorious lossiness of all cooling technologies. We are simply too close to the absolute zero and thus have little wiggle room, merely 273°C to play within. Makes much more sense to go the opposite way where we have thousands if not millions of °C's.

The guy is not a quack though, If you want to run a car on air it makes much more sense to use liquid air rather than highly pressurized - mucho más energy density.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:59:55 am by HAL-42b »
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2012, 08:46:03 am »
Greetings EEVBees:

--Poptones has said "I give up. Like I said before: there is a point where steadfastness becomes stupidity. Did you even read the article?
IMechE says "wrong-time" electricity generated by wind farms at night can be used to chill air to a cryogenic state at a distant location. [Indeed, "distant location" is correct]
How, pray tell, does this happen without those "albatross?"[sic]

--Please note that in the above quote it says "can be used" not "can only be used". And as the quote below indicates, the author, in no way, meant to indicate that storage for Wind installations, unless Wind is the one and only case where power needs to be stored, was the only, use. I did read the article, but, as the below quote shows, I read all of it.

"IMechE says this process is only 25% efficient but it is "massively improved" [quote marks added] by co-siting the cryo-generator next to an industrial plant or power station producing low-grade heat that is currently vented and being released into the atmosphere." [Like a Gas or Coal Plant, for instance.]

--So, you see, the article did not in any way imply, that I can see, that it could only be used in conjunction with Massive Bird Bopping Eggbeaters scattered round and about the countryside like thistle seeds, far from population centers, where the power is consumed. It merely said that energy, could be stored, not that the Wind Farms are necessarily a good idea, per se, but that, given that they exist, this scheme could make them less of a dead looser, keeping in mind that the UK DECC says that Wind energy costs nearly 50% more per kilowatt hour than Gas. Should this particular technology mature into something practical, I freely admit that it could be very useful at the Gas Fired Wind Backup Plants that are being built. It could even help ameliorate losses from the transmission line costs that usually do not appear in Wind Farm cost projections. I.E. "If we build them, the cables will come courtesy of the government, so we need not take note of those costs in our accounting." This scheme, if matured, will have wide application, and will not be limited to only Wind Power. This technology (if developed) will need to be sited at Power Plants or heat producing Industrial Plants (like glass Fabs.), and could just as easily store power from any source that you do not want to ramp up and down intermittently I.E. Nuclear and Gas. This need to store energy existed long before Wind Power was a gleam in Al Gore's eye. So you see this technology will need Heat Generating Power Plants or other low grade heat sources to function efficiently, but Wind Farms, not so much.

Best Regards
Clear Ether

"Stupid is as stupid does"
Forrest Gump 1944 -
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2012, 08:59:13 am »
But coal and gas plants do not "produce excess energy" in the same way as wind. If you are burning gas just to fuel this process then you are reducing power efficiency grossly. The only way this makes sense is with wind. And no one says the extraction mechanism must be near the generation mechanism - that's what those wires you seem to dread so are for.

The only ones calling wind "a dead loser" are oil company shills and, apparently, you. Maybe you should try watching less FOX news.

I must say one thing, Sarge: You've given me enough prompting on this issue to do more research into fracking, and though I am wary of both sides I must say the more I learn the scarier it becomes. Nothing seems insurmountable - not using such toxic chemicals seems to me an avenue to minimize the risks. But as it is now fracking is anything but clean. The biggest difference I see, in fact, between fracking and nuclear power is nuclear guarantees you're going to have toxic waste to handle for the next 100,000 years, where fracking only has a 20% risk that you will permanently make the groundwater for miles around toxic.

http://youtu.be/dEB_Wwe-uBM
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 09:01:57 am by poptones »
 

Offline Kremmen

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1287
  • Country: fi
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2012, 09:24:27 am »
In case it has escaped the notice of some: storing liquefied gases is not an energy storage method as such, rather you store "negative energy". At least if you follow the thermodynamics of the process. A gas will (usually) liquefy when it has dissipated enough of its internal kinetic energy (ie heat) to the ambient. With air this will not happen spontaneously so you need a heat pump. This is what the (wind) energy drives in this scheme. So in the end you have a tankful of liquid air plus heaps of waste heat that must go somewhere, all the better if it is somewhere useful.
When you wish to retrieve the "stored energy" what needs to happen is that you actually want to bring in sufficient heat to the liquid in order for it to change phase into gas once again. The kinetic energy of the gas can then be again extracted mechanically in a turbine or piston engine or whatever. But it is the heat energy of the ambient environment that is converted via liquid evaporation and subsequent mechanical extraction, not anything stored in the liquid phase.
I am sure this is the reason why the news articles emphasize the availability of heat to drive the process and all efficiency calculations surely assume this to be the case.

So it does not appear to be a hoax or a crackpot idea, but there are several moving parts in the scenario that must mesh before this can make commercial sense. I was about to suggest that hydro storage would be a far simpler alternative and it is used in the Nordics where i hail from, but apparently it is not so easily arranged in the target market (UK, was it?).
Nothing sings like a kilovolt.
Dr W. Bishop
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2012, 09:52:52 am »
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2012, 07:48:20 pm »
Dear EEVBees:

--Poptones has said "The only way this makes sense is with wind."

--Now, we all know that the need for energy storage, predates the existence of Wind Farms by decades. The reason it only make sense with wind is because, Wind is the one and only thing that make sense. Oil companies are evil capitalists who make less on a dollar invested than the largest company in the World, Apple, and oil contributes to CO2. Coal uses strip mining in some locations and so must be equally bad in all locations, and it also produces CO2, but only half as much as Gas. Now Gas does not have to be strip mined or transported from Saudi Arabia, but Gas is even worse, read on. According to Pop Gas pollutes the ground water in 1 of 5 cases, a figure overstated by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude. Gas according to the Agitprop Video provided even injures helpless children, what vicious bastard these energy capitalists are. No doubt Pop believes these ridiculous assertions, and he probably believes that the conservative media, I.E. everything to the right of Mother Jones and the Daily Worker, have been covering up these completely amazing and astounding facts. I am surprised he did not try to ring in the flaming faucet again, perhaps he missed it.

--Wind has none of these drawbacks, and other than the inconvenient fact that it is going to nearly double Electricity Bills by 2030, it is the perfect power source. We should not worry about the cost of transmission lines as transmission lines are going to be needed in any system. True, but without Wind Farms there is really no need to run tons of copper to east Poppington Diddly. And Wind Power Companies are paid for turning them off in bad weather, see the below link, to an article in the Daily Mail (no doubt, also a shill for the evil capitalist Oil Companies).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210986/Wind-farms-given-34m-switch-bad-weather-Households-stung-secretive-payments.html

"On Monday and Tuesday last week, when it was exceptionally windy, the National Grid said it paid £16,118 in compensation.
But only when prompted by the Mail did it admit the true figure – including forward trades – was £387,000."
"Up to 32,000 wind turbines could be built in England and Wales over the next 40 years to meet government targets. Many of the existing sites are owned by foreign firms which have made record profits in recent years."

--We already know that Wind is raising the power bill, what with many of the true costs being concealed, rather that lowering it, and any CO2 savings are likely to be marginal at best. So Oil companies have nothing to fear from Wind Power in the foreseeable future. An what is worse the damn things use unmetered power when not generating.

http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

"Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†
-  yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
 -  blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
    lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
 -  heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
 -  heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
  - oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
 -   hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
 -   thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
 -    magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
 -   using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§

Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?! If so, the plant as a whole -- which may produce only 25% [a very generous estimate at best]of its rated capacity annually -- would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn't publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded."

--And, lastly that Well Known Oil Company Shill - Norway commissioned a study of the Denmark Wind Catastrophe, which revealed some disturbing facts, see link below.
 
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

"In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs.
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off."

"A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004."

"Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason.]"

"The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]"

--Stand by for more hostile abuse from you know who, instead of links to articles supported by government data.

"Facts are stubborn things."
Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2012, 08:53:31 pm »
That's HILARIOUS! No Sarge, I'm not even going to bother with you anymore because there's obviously no thinking behind the helmet on this matter. I would suggest, in the future, you put even a tiny bit of effort into finding some sources that are not shit brown with the stain of crude.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/i-m-new-what-can-i-do

There's your Eric Rosenbloom, author of two of your cited articles. A man who's singular mission in life seems to be to discredit wind power through any means possible even including "health effects" caused by "infrasound" (OH NOES!) While I'm sure those folks living under the swinging blades of a tower may feel some anxiety and hear the nonstop whoosh whoosh whoosh, they can move to escape the effects, or new plants can be built slightly farther away from homes - unlike coal and nuclear and even oil, which non of us are able to escape and which contribute to far more than a few sleepless nights. In short, this guy is not only a right winger with an agenda, he's a full on right wing kook with an agenda! I'm sure if he weren't tilting at windmills he'd be producing youtube videos about how the evil US was controlling people's minds and spawning earthquakes against our enemies using HAARP.

Graham Grant (co author from that conservative rag Daily Mail) has worked for BP for DECADES! He's an oil man through and through.

Why the hell would I bother with dissecting these kooks? And this is what you come up with, over and over.

No. It's not worth my time. See ya in the electronics threads, there's obviously nothing we have to discuss outside there.

http://youtu.be/KE9PNG7VgxU
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 08:58:43 pm by poptones »
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2012, 09:41:53 pm »
Greetings EEVBees:

--I was pretty sure that ridiculous assertion that Fracking pollutes the water table 20% of the time, and that the video that implies that is injures helpless children would not be defended from the charge of preposterousness. Likewise the ignoring of the Norway (a well know Oil Company Shill) study of the overwhelming failure of Wind in Denmark, was expected.

--If Fracking actually polluted the ground water table 20% of the time, it would be easy enough to prove. If Fracking was killing or injuring children, that also would be easy to prove. But no, best to heave the brick over the wall and hightail it for the tall grass.

--If the Norway study was false or fraudulent, that also would be easy to uncover. But in this case it would seem that, discretion is the better part of valor.

“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."
H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3718
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2012, 09:04:47 am »
Cant think why they are messing with this, unless it is just to get the government money for the research and pay themselves a fat wage out of it. Pumped water is far better and already in use.
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2012, 01:11:17 am »
Greetings EEVBees:

--G7PSK has said "Cant think why they are messing with this, unless it is just to get the government money for the research and pay themselves a fat wage out of it. Pumped water is far better and already in use."


--Very likely G7 is correct about all of that, but I do not mind just as long as they keep it on a small experimental scale, like a single prototype, so that unlike the UK Wind Power experiment the failure will not cost hundreds of billions.

"I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted."
Alan Turing 1912 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline notsob

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • Country: au
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2012, 02:06:38 am »
New Zealand seems to be doing well with wind power in the antarctic

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/15032941/turbines-bring-huge-fuel-savings-at-scott-base/
 

Offline westfw

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3346
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2012, 02:27:10 am »
Cause antarctic population density is SO representative of a modern 1st-world society...
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2012, 04:42:48 am »
Dear Notsob:

--When you have to ship all of your fuel in by Russian Icebreaker, it can get costly. Scott Base transports its AN8 from McMurdo with a 7000 liter Toyota Tanker. McMurdo gets its fuel from the Rusky Icebreaker. The article is correct in that NZ is no doubt saving a lot of money. I am not sure if the figures given in the Yahoo report are exactly correct, as total fuel use at the base appears to be as much as (the figures are a little slippery) 680,000 liters. But in any case I have no doubt that this is probably a cost effective use of Wind Power.

 "According to Antarctica New Zealand's annual report, Scott Base has recorded an annual fuel saving of over 666,000 litres. That's over 40 percent more than the fuel savings that had been expected."
 
 But the Scott Base website:
 
 http://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/scott-base/how-scott-base-works
 
 --reports:
 POWER AND FUEL SUPPLY
    400V 50Hz power supply
    600 kW power generation capacity
    2 main generators; 1 auxiliary generator
    Generators fueled with AN8 (Aviation Turbine Fuel)
    270 000 litres of fuel used annually
FUEL USED AT SCOTT BASE
At Scott Base the primary fuel used for running the power generation plant and heavy vehicles is called AN8. Any engine that would normally run on diesel in New Zealand can use this fuel. AN8 has a ‘Cloud Point’, (where the fuel becomes murky and any present wax congeals causing blocked filters) of –50 oC. This same fuel is used in the aircraft that fly to and from Antarctica, and aircraft such as the helicopters and Twin Otters that fly in and around Antarctica.
STORAGE
There is storage capacity at Scott Base for 56,000 litres. The tank is double-contained for environmental protection and is divided into two separate compartments of 28,000 litres each. Only one of these tanks is in use at any one time, keeping one in reserve. Antarctica New Zealand purchases the fuel directly from the United States Antarctic Program’s McMurdo Station located 3 kilometres away. Approximately every 20 days Scott Base’s storage tank is refilled via a 7,000 litre tank mounted on the back of a Isuzu flat deck truck.
CONSUMPTION
The average daily amount of fuel used for running power and heating systems varies between summer and winter: highest consumption rates of around 1,300 litres per day occur in winter. Summer sees the consumption drop off to an average of nearly 900 litres per day. The annual amount of AN8 used is approximately 410,000 litres, including the amount consumed by vehicles.

--I find it interesting that they only store one kind of fuel (other than a small amount of Mogas for stuff that uses spark plugs) on hand, AN8, that is compatible with Diesels and Jets to avoid cockups. And, if they were ever to have a real power failure and the AN8 started to go waxy, they would have a real problem. Have a look around the NZ Scott Base Website, it is pretty darned interesting if you like tech stuff.

"Evabody gotta be some place."
Jackie Mason 1936 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3718
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2012, 02:16:14 pm »
The wind blows just about all the time in the Antarctic and the Arctic  for that matter so wind turbines will do better there than where the wind is sporadic, Big risk of icing up of the blades I would think, don't stand underneath.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15466
  • Country: za
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2012, 04:00:25 pm »
Underneath no problem, the issue will be standing in the plane of the blades for about a half kilometer.
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2012, 10:19:07 pm »
Greetings EEVBees:

--Good news! Poptones has finally responded to my challenge to provide proof for his assertion that frack wells cause toxic pollution to water for miles around 20% of the time. In his related post entitled "No Fracking Way" Pop said:

"Indeed. From what I've seen, the chemical slurry used consists of many chemicals known to be carcinogenic and others, like anti freeze fluid, that are merely poison.
From Nature:
"The agency tested the water in the shallow wells that tap the groundwater above the 169 gas-producing wells in the field; in two municipal wells in the town; and in several surface and deep wells that it drilled for monitoring purposes. It found evidence of contamination in both the shallow and deep wells, and attributed the shallow contamination to the 33 or so nearby surface pits used to store drilling wastes"
169/33... hmmmm, that would seem to be about 5. As in 20%." [That is 33 surface pits divided into 169 wells, huh???]

--I welcome any comment whatsoever on the above quote.

"Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."
Lao Fu 1410 1620

Best Regards
Clear Ether
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6883
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2012, 12:55:11 am »
The real way to use coldness to store energy is to use it to make a superconductor operate, then use the superconductor as energy storage.

Or for something more practical, use some phase change medium (maybe plain water) to store heat or cool in order to avoid using energy during peak times.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline westfw

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3346
  • Country: us
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2012, 03:41:39 am »
Quote
attributed the shallow contamination to the 33 or so nearby surface pits used to store drilling wastes" 169/33... hmmmm, that would seem to be about 5. As in 20%." [That is 33 surface pits divided into 169 wells, huh???]
I don't know that 33 surface pits corosponds specifically to 33 wells...
"contamination isn't actually caused by fracking; it's caused when we allow the fracking compounds to be dumped all over the ground" is a pretty depressing answer :-(  It allows both the environmentalists and the theoretical experts to be "correct."  It's right there with "nuclear reactors are safe, it's the big storage pits of improperly disposed spent fuel rods that are the problem."  Sigh.
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3718
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2012, 03:35:20 pm »
The real way to use coldness to store energy is to use it to make a superconductor operate, then use the superconductor as energy storage.

Or for something more practical, use some phase change medium (maybe plain water) to store heat or cool in order to avoid using energy during peak times.

Coldness does not store energy, the energy is taken from the ambient surroundings in order to achieve expansion.
The colder a substance is the lower the energy state.
 

Offline bullet308

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 341
  • Country: us
  • Jack of All Trades, Master of None Related to EE
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2012, 08:49:16 pm »
Im not an engineer, but it seems to me its hard to beat a combination of pumps, water and gravity. Should be an intrinsically low-friction and thus low waste way of storing energy. I know that the Tennessee Valley Authority uses a number of reservoirs and pumping stations to do this very thing. Might be a problem in flat country, though...
>>>BULLET>>>
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3718
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Re: Cryogenic Energy Storage??
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2012, 09:08:53 am »
Im not an engineer, but it seems to me its hard to beat a combination of pumps, water and gravity. Should be an intrinsically low-friction and thus low waste way of storing energy. I know that the Tennessee Valley Authority uses a number of reservoirs and pumping stations to do this very thing. Might be a problem in flat country, though...

There is a pumped storage system in Wales. It involved hollowing out a complete mountain to build it. It is called "Dinorwig"  and the mountain is "Elidir Fawr" dont ask me what those words mean as I don't speak Sheep shagger  or Wesh as it is also known.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf