×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY
2

GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)

GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Sounds almost to good to be true, doesn't it? So how could it be done?

I grew up in what is called the Coulée Region of Wisconsin where the Mississippi river flows south. Along the shores of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota where there are 800 to 1200 foot bluffs, separated by some truly long valleys. What if, a series of 600 foot dams were put at the mouth of a number of these valleys which are not of any significant use. If you utilized wind energy to power water pumps and fill these reservoirs with water borrowed from the Mississippi, It wouldn't take long to store away trillions of gallons of water. When, the right point is reached, start a controlled return of the water through hydro-electric generators back into the Mississippi.

One of the current problems of utilizing wind generated electricity is that the wind is not dependable, and there is no current potential energy storage system in place to store trillions of watts of potential energy. Well, there is now, with this simple idea of using coulées that are filled with water by wind generated electricity.

OK, simple idea. Technology has been available for 30 years to make this a reality. Why are we still relying of coal and nuclear generation plants for electricity.?

It does get better. Any of you ever seen the Columbia River George between Washington and Oregon? Here, the cliff faces climb to over 2000 feet. Some of the valleys stretch 10s of miles. A few reservoirs here could potentially store an astronomical amount of water borrowed from the Columbia River. Winds sometimes blast through the George at speeds greater then 50 miles per hour. Are you getting the idea of what this simple approach could do?

I have looked this over. I do not see any major reputation damaging statements. It appears to be technically feasible. What do you think?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

The Mississippi River slope is relatively flat in the Coulée Region and the River also freezes over in the winter. You would be limited in capacity by the flow of the River. Barge traffic would also not be able to pass.

If the Corp has not deemed it worthwhile to install turbines on the existing dams, why would you think this project is necessary?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Dams are being removed in the states. How is this going to fly considering fisheries and the ecology of the area. The fight an political resistance would be unsurmountable.

Try another venue...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
The existing dams on the Mississippi are for flood control and barge traffic. This idea does not even attempt to mess with that. What I suggest is create new dams at the mouths of existing 600 foot valleys that line the banks of the Mississippi river. Creating a network of reservoirs near the river, but separate from the river itself. I have never seen more than 2 foot of ice on the lakes in central Wisconsin, maybe up by the Great Lakes it is common.

So if a typical reservoir was 400 ft deep and 5 miles long and up to a mile wide that would be a significant storage cell of potential energy. Water intake lines from the river can be marked and be below the ice level. Water return lines could be constructed in the same way. Weather should not be an issue for such a system.

I am not a civil engineer, but I have a degree in Math and 30+ years of experience writing software for deeply embedded aerospace and defense applications.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

The high bluffs do not have enough water since the historic drainage by the streams and other rivers drains the high areas and it is not possible to economically collect enough water. The huge number of smaller rivers and streams drain the bluff areas very efficiently. - The floods occur where there is a wide plain on either side AND a high volume of flow that people associate with the Mississippi.

There have been some plans to try to use the high bluffs along the river in MN for electrical "peak-shaving" power production using nuclear plants that are best run 24/7/365 flat out to pump the water up to storage lakes and then flowing down later through a turbine when needed to generate additional power. - It was not feasible economically, socially or practically from and an engineering or operational standpoint.

The lower Mississippi does not have enough fall in elevation for power generation, while the upper Mississippi does have more fall, but the flow is not enough. Geographically, the MSP area is the change and everything is relatively well drained by the natural erosion/geographic change through the decades.

The floods that dramatize the flow or the river are short term, so the potential tends to be exaggerated.

Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

2
Your proposal is variation on "Pumped Storage" which has been discussed in reason years. In its traditional form pumped storage uses reversible hydraulic turbines operated as electric motors to pump water from the discharge back into the reservoir. The electric power to do this comes from base-loaded generating stations during off-peak hours when to maintain efficient operation coal & nuclear stations have excess electrical output available. Here is a map of many existing large commercial pumped storage stations:



Quote (dwbarlow)

Why are we still relying of coal and nuclear generation plants for electricity?

In three words... cost, availability, reliability. In operation, coal and nuclear can efficiently provide large, continuous amounts of electric power, 24/7, for months on end. They are typically the first choice for an electric utility's base-loaded stations. Hydro can provide some base-load power using the mandatory minimum discharge of water required to keep streams & rivers from drying up. However, the majority of hydro power is far to valuable to "waste" for base-load. A hydro station can make a "cold start" in a very few minutes and is best used for peaking-power, typically a few hours per day, often during extreme weather. In comparison, it can take the better part of day to make a cold-start of a coal or nuclear plant.

Most renewable energy, such as wind and solar, are ideal for load-following. Use these sources to directly feed power to the electrical grid when their "fuel" is available, regardless of the time of day.

The amount of electrical power used in a country such as the USA is staggering. There are nowhere near enough undeveloped hydroelectric sites to make even a dent in the power demands. When you couple this with the environmental & social impact of creating a new hydroelectric reservoir there is really little reason to actively pursue large scale hydro power. Money spent on this effort could be spent much more cost effectively on research, development, and deployment of wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, etc. power generation. Over many decades, it may be possible to phase out coal as a major electrical power source, but it will not happen soon.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

In almost all areas, the bottom of the theoretical 400' deep lakes or reservoirs(if they could be constructed) would be below the current level of the Mississippi, so the usable storage capacity is over-estimated.

The network of your suggested is already in place and was existed for decades as it was developed on a local basis for local practical needs.

The flow of the Mississippi is just fine, but the old, small network of upstream tributaries is very efficient. - I did catch 2 walleyes and 3 Smallmouth bass yesterday while wading in the big ditch (Mississippi) while the one of first tug barge rafts of the year passed by. Not bad water for a river running trough a metro area of about 2.5 million.

The old Mississippi River or the historic River Warren (very much older) did a good job of creating a good drainage pattern when and since the glaciers melted. Man, time and farming developed the current contributory drainage from the land on the bluffs overlooking the river.

Dick

Engineer and international traveler interested in construction techniques, problems and proper design.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
If I did my math right, a 1 mile diameter storage tank, a mile high would have a volume of 462,431,198,085.12 cubic feet. A mile is not a significant measurement when talking about the total sq miles along major river systems in the USA. The figure, SlideRuleEra, provided shows many dams blocking water flow of river systems. I am grateful to hear of significant pump storage systems as well. But I question if that idea has been taken as far as it is practical to take it.

How many small valley storage facilities would it take before you would effectively have several of the " 1 mile diameter storage tank, a mile high" capacities? What I see when I drive from La Crosse, WI to Dubuque, Iowa on the Wisconsin side of the Mississippi river suggest enough capacity for maybe 75 such storage tanks without impeding the flow of smaller waterways like creeks or springs. Without causing any significant wildlife impact. That's a lot of reserve of potential energy.

Is technology available to build a half mile long dam, 500 ft high available? Wind along the bluff tops is consistently strong (10-20 mph) If 75 such containers were filled over a five year period, would that impact the capacity of flow of the upper Mississippi? How many wind generators would be needed to power the pumps to fill the 75 storage tanks? To me, these are questions I can't answer, at the moment. Nor is it the only idea I have. I just want to pass it along, for now and have a sense that it is being looked at, by those qualified to look at it.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
I do enjoy the comments and misunderstandings. They help to clarify, in my minds eye, that which I am trying to describe so that others might see it as well, from a practical stand point. Let me summarize where I think we are:
1) Dam small environmentally insignificant valleys above the river level, between river bluffs.
2) Use wind generated energy to borrow water from the Mississippi to fill these reservoirs.
3) Aim for a storage capacity in a networked system in excess of 34,682,339,856,384 cubic feet
a) 75, 1 mile diameter tanks a mile high
4) Determine how much energy can then be drawn from and replaced in a average day.
5) Determine the potential cost to potential revenue
I) One Time Costs
a) 75 dams, a half mile long, and 500 ft high
b) Land use costs
c) wind turbine generator costs
d) inflow and outflow systems cost
e) water turbine costs
f) reservoir networking feasibility
II) Re-occurring costs
III) Revenue potential

6) Determine how much, if any new energy, could offset the reduced use of hydro-carbon fueled electricity generation.
7) Is it worth it?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Your math is suspect.

The maximum amount of power that you will generate is the energy of the flow of the River. It doesn't matter if you have a lake the size of Lake Michigan behind the dam.

The River elevation at Minneapolis is 799 and it drops to 617 in Dubuque, Iowa . A distance of 252 miles. Don't know where you are coming up with a 600 feet drop.

Between evaporation and seepage into the ground, you would lose a vast amount of water.

Hydroelectric power is wasted at night when there are few users.

The River flow diminishes in the dry season.

A dam of that size will change the weather.

The dam would cause enormous earthquakes.

The dam would be an ecological disaster.

Read about all of the problems at the Three Gorges Dam and forget the idea.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-t...

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-enormous-thr...

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

There is enough problems with dams in the US already.

The U.S. could be set for a catastrophic flood in the near future after 4,400 of the country's dams were declared susceptible to failure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359485/4-...

Pumped storage is not without problems either:

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/dams/2_43_Rogers.pdf

https://www.bpa.gov/power/PG/NW-HydroOperators-For...

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

bimr,
The structural issues with dams should be distinguished from the concept of pumped storage.

The pumped storage generating scheme in Bath County, Virginia seems to work quite well. Like a giant storage battery, recharged by mostly nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_St...

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

dwbarlow - I did the math for you to theoretically fill one (1) of your hypothetical reservoirs that is a cylinder 1 mile in diameter and one mile deep. To do this will require an average of 653 megawatts of power, continuously, for five years. That assumes no losses for any reasons. Of course pumps are not 100% efficient. Evaporation is an issue, but is offset somewhat by precipitation (in the subtropical climate of the southeast US, it common for electric utilities to assume that annual rainfall = evaporation). The wild card of losses will be reservoir leakage; the water pressure at the bottom of a one mile deep reservoir is 2290 psi. That will guarantee a LOT of leakage.

So we have 653 megawatts, theoretical. The typical "capacity factor" for a commercial wind farm is 25%. Therefore to average 653 megawatts will require a wind farm with 4 x 653 megawatts, or 2612 megawatts of installed capacity. Let's say you need 3 x 2612 megawatts to make up for the losses outlined above. So, IMHO, an installed capacity of 7836 megawatts is needed to fill one reservoir. At typical commercial wind turbine is rated 2 megawatts. That would be 3918 wind turbines.

For reference, at the end of 2013 the states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin had at total installed wind turbine capacity of 9371 megawatts. The combined power of ALL wind farms, in ALL three states should be able to fill one reservoir, one time in five years. Not a very efficient use on that power resource, to say the least.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Hokie66,

The Taum Sauk pumped storage system was quite successful too until the operator overfilled it, then it was realized there was no overfill spillway and the dam was incorrectly constructed.

One would think nuclear units and pumped storage are relics of cheap power never to occur again. 90% nuclear efficiency * 60% pumping efficiency * 90% hydroelectric efficiency is not an efficient use of natural resources.





RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

"If I did my math right, a 1 mile diameter storage tank, a mile high would have a volume of 462,431,198,085.12 cubic feet."

Actually, it is (3.14 * 5280 * 5280 /4) * 5280 = 115,550,000,000 cubic feet.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Yes, that was my point about dams. You can't blame the pumped storage concept for poor dam construction.

I can't agree with your "relics" argument. Things vary with time, and eventually nuclear of some type will come to the fore, combined with pumped storage in some places and not in others.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Quote (bimr)

90% nuclear efficiency * 60% pumping efficiency * 90% hydroelectric efficiency is not an efficient use of natural resources.

So the overall efficiency for pumped storage is approximately 49%.

The efficiency of fossil fuel commercial electric generating stations is measured using the unit named "Heat Rate" (Thermal Power Consumed / Electrical Power Delivered). A well operated and efficient commercial sized coal fired station will have a heat rate of about 10,500 BTU / KWH (Electric). That is an efficiency of a little over 32%.

Comparing those numbers, pumped storage looks really good.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Nuclear power has the same problem as building a tall skyscraper. The cost of interest during construction alone is enough to kill the project. Unlike a tall building, one can not start occupying the bottom floors prior to project completion.

The reason for the relic comment is that more nuclear plants are being shut down than being constructed. The factors giving rise to uncertainty are high costs with low power prices, regulatory issues, and local concerns with safety and reliability.Pumped storage projects have less than 2% of the generation power in the US.

Among the many changes in the power business over the last 40 years, the model of central power stations is being re-thought and smaller distributed power grids are taking the place of the large units.

SlideRuleEra: Perhaps. However, the reason that many coal generating plants are being closed, is because coal is not currently an economical fuel. If you add on the societal costs of air emissions and the 7% waste solids to coal, coal is an even less attractive fuel. And that is just the cost of fuel, which does not include all of the other costs such as capital costs, water, etc.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

75 dams, each 500 feet tall x 1/2 mile long.

The Hoover Dam alone required 5 years of pre-planning and infrastructure construction (in the pre-OSHA, pre-EPA, pre-NIOSH, pre-union, pre-federal procurement desperate-worker Depression days of 1930-1935 to build ONE 550 foot tall dam. (Grand Coulee was slightly lower, much longer. Compare against the Chinese began Three Gorges and the Russians started Aswan. Today, only a few dozen others are larger worldwide.

But 75x of them?

Coulee 
Crest Elevation ............................. 1311.08 ft
Top of Parapet Elevation .................... 1314.58 ft
Structural Height ............................... 550 ft
Hydraulic Height ................................ 380 ft
Crest Length .................................. 5,223 ft
Crest Width ...................................... 30 ft
Base Width ...................................... 500 ft
Volume of Concrete ........ 11,975,520 cu yd

Boulder Dam

    Crest Elevation .......................... 1232.0 ft
    Top of Parapet Elevation .............     1236.0 ft
    Structural Height ........................  726.4 ft
    Hydraulic Height ............................ 576 ft
    Crest Length .............................. 1,244 ft
    Crest Width .................................. 45 ft
    Base Width ..... ............................ 660 ft
    Volume of Concrete .......... 4,400,000 cu yd
 

Now, you want to attempt 75 of these. In today's environmental and regulatory atmosphere?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

If coal is not an economical fuel, what is? It is still by far the most used fuel for power generation, and there must be economic reasons for that.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

There were reasons for that. Since 2009, a combination of factors converged to produce a wave of coal plant retirement announcements by plant operators. These factors included:

1. The continued aging of the coal fleet, in which the median generating station was built in January 1966. Since their efficiency is lower than newer plants, older plants are typically run less often and have poorer economics.

2. New and proposed EPA regulations, including the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule, the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the proposed Tailoring Rule (covering greenhouse gas emissions), the Ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards), the forthcoming National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and cooling water regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

3. Low prices of power from natural gas plants.

This study is predicting a minimum of 153 shutdowns and a maximum of 353 shutdowns.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/a...


RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ah, I see, you are just talking about the US and its political situation. This is an international forum.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

The only place in the world that is investing in coal generation is China. And it is estimated that China will use up its coal reserves in 35 years.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
Following is a graphic

The topology of Southwest Wisconsin, the Mississippi River, and Red storage tanks.
Theoretically, each tank represents a capacity of a cylinder, 1 mile in diameter, and 1 mile deep.
From a practical point of view, each tank is actually a small damed up valley between river bluffs on the banks of the Mississippi, maybe 400 ft deep.
Wind Generators, river water pumps, solar collectors are used to fill the tanks with water borrowed from the river.
SlideRuleEra indicated a staggering number of wind turbines would be needed to just fill one tank in five years.
Construction costs of a small dam at the head of a valley should be minimal.
Not looking to dam the Mississippi and create another Grand Coulée dam, just a few small dams that, as a whole might approach the Grand Coulee as a whole.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Quote (hokie66)

If coal is not an economical fuel, what is?

The fuel of choice today, for environmental, economic, and reliability reasons is natural gas. Over the past thirty years, or so, both the size (Megawatts output) and efficiency of combustion turbines has been increase dramatically. Additionally, the waste heat from the turbine is now used in a "HRSG" (Heat Recovery Steam Generator) to drive a steam turbine which is the prime mover for a second electric generator. These units are called "Combined Cycle". Overall efficiency is well over 50%. The combustion turbine / generator provides about 2/3 of the electrical power produced. The steam turbine / generator the remaining 1/3.

bimr - Thanks for the link to the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. I read the Executive Summary and plan to continue with the full report. As the Corporate Senior Civil / Structural Engineer , Generation (Now Retired) for a mid-sized electric utility I've had a lot of first hand experience with multiple aspects of assorted coal, hydro, oil, and natural gas stations - old and new. Will be interesting to see how this report presents the situation.

wannebeSE - Thanks for your link. I looked at some of the generation sites addressed in that project. Many are pumped storage hydro. Pumped storage is great for one reason, and one reason only - rapid response short term peak power. There are really only four commercially available, meaningfully sized, ways to quick provide peak power:

1. Hydro.

2. Open cycle combustion turbines - grossly expensive to operate and inefficient.

3. Electrical grid interconnections to neighboring utilities - expensive, and somebody, somewhere has to generate the needed power quickly, but a last resort in an emergency.

4. "Spinning Reserve" - often a load-following coal fired station running at synchronous speed (60 Hz, in the USA) and connected to the grid but NOT contributing any power to it. Efficiency = 0%, that's one of the prices of paid for society not to have frequent blackouts.

Pumped storage allows a utility that does not have suitable geography for full scale hydro reservoir to use a smaller reservoir for peak power. It buys time, say a couple of hours, for the utility to bring online efficient load-following stations, which have been on standby, to meet demand indefinitely. A great way to minimize use of "spinning reserve".

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

dwbarlow

Regarding "Determine how much, if any new energy, could offset the reduced use of hydro-carbon fueled electricity generation."

Your propsed project will have a net loss of energy. Pumps are only 60% efficiency.

As SlideRuleEra stated, pumped storage projects are only constructed to avoid the expense of a power station that is only used at peak times. Pumped storage eliminates capital costs while increasing inefficiency.

Have you ever heard of a dam project where the water was recycled back to the dam? You would only be able to recycle 60% of the water because of the pump's ineffiency.

To fill up the basins, you would have to shut off the river for 8 months and then permanently reduce the flow of the River to keep the basins filled.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

The pumped storage thing as a battery is pretty cool, and used in a lot of different places.

The Mississippi is a pretty terrible place to do it though. The idea works best when you have several nearby reservoirs in series in a mountainous region.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Natural gas is great where you have it, but that is not an option everywhere. In Australia, we are starting to use (and export) coal seam gas, but the extraction process certainly has its problems and environmental concerns.

In a pumped storage scheme, the pump efficiency is largely irrelevant, especially when powered by nuclear, as SRE's "spinning reserve" is used.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Spinning reserve and the power to drive pumped storage are not the same thing.

A plant operating in spinning reserve mode is usually a utility's second tier (of efficiency) units which are used for load following. The plant is burning just enough fuel to operate its own internal power requirements, usually about 8% to 10% of its gross rated capacity. No power is being delivered to the grid or to any of the utility's other units. When peak power is needed this unit is poised to quickly ramp up fuel consumption and begin feeding the grid to supply (paying) customers.

Power to drive pumped storage comes from first-line, base loaded plants that would have to cut back on output (but not go off line) because of reduced customer demand. This is usually at night when industrial customer demands are low and residential use is minimal. Say this plant had been operating at 90% capacity during the day. At night, it "could" be cut back to say 70% capacity... but efficiency would drop. Instead, the plant may continue at 90% with 70% going to customers and 20% driving the utility's reversed hydraulic turbine / generators as pumps.

www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Thanks for clarifying that. But with nuclear plants, like at North Anna, isn't it still capacity which would otherwise be unused that drives the pumps?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

North Anna is definitely a pair of base load units. Dominion Generation would take steps to maximize the operation of those two. As a routine anticipated power peak passed, first they would take less efficient units (at other locations) off line - while North Anna continues at its maximum efficiency output. As the peak continues to fall, North Anna would continue with output unchanged. What would change is that power from North Anna would be split - whatever is needed by customers is first priority, remaining power is sent to power pumped storage.

A utility's management of its generating resources is a very sophisticated operation. Skilled "dispachers" using special software maintain 24/7 control of exactly how a utility uses its generating mix. They balance cost, reliability, and redundancy to "keep the lights on". I have a lot of respect for them.



www.SlideRuleEra.net idea
www.VacuumTubeEra.net r2d2

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
A system of systems and subsystems, with redundant capabilities. Existing USA electrical generation is already a system of subsystems and some redundancies exist. I've got that.

Looking back, there showed have been a green line connecting storage tanks. I left out the networking capability. The networking capability consists of a pipeline to allow all storage tanks to keep close to full potential.

I do not understand the concept of net-loss described above. Wind, solar, and existing river current energy are driven by just a few factors: energy from the sun, gravity potential, and atmosphere. They exist outside anything engineers can create. However, these sources of energy can be harnessed and converted to energy sources. The energy sources are free, the effort to harness and convert is not. So far, I don't have to pay for my daily requirements of oxygen and water. Could a day come, where those simple needs are no longer free?

So, I look at possible alternatives, that will help ensure that the basics, oxygen and water, remain free for humanity and all life that is dependent on humanity's choices.

Someone mentioned that a pump storage system would only provide a few hours in the case of a failure of other energy generation systems. I completely disagree with that. A networked pump storage system with a capacity of the Grand Coulée (GC) dam and reservoir would certainly supply more then just a couple of hours of essential needs if a national black-out were to occur, wouldn't it? Maybe the GC in the west and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) system in the east. What is wrong with keeping a few fully charged energy batteries in reserve? What is wrong with using some of that excess charging capacity of a pump storage system to feed back into the grid?

I don't want to see another GC system cover and hide anymore of the national resources which we still have. In todays political environment that is not likely to happen anyway.

Back to the main theme, humanities need of energy has outgrown the natural capacity of current energy consumption. Artificial systems are needed to supply humanities need of energy, while these artificial systems are being engineered to be more efficient. Are there natural systems that have yet to be harnessed if for no other reason then to supplement artificial systems and provide a significant reserve capability?

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Fascinating discussion though most far over my head - when I saw the "efficiency" discussions of energy storage, for whatever reason I immediately thought instead about some sort of massive flywheels. There is an interesting site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_stora... that in places now talks about some quite impressive technology (and some obstacles), beyond the flywheels most of us grew up with. It claims, "Conversely, flywheels with magnetic bearings and high vacuum can maintain 97% mechanical efficiency, and 85% round trip efficiency.[16] ". It incidentally refers also in another place to the Joint European Torus used for fusion research, "JET has two 775 ton flywheels that spin up to 225 rpm. Each massive flywheel stores 3 GJ.[31]" Per https://www.euro-fusion.org/2010/01/jets-flywheels... , I saw there each of these machines is reportedly capable (along with the grid) of delivering at least bursts of 400 megawatts peak power to the JET coils. Wikipedia also states that some sort of flywheels or arrays are actually being tested out west for energy storage on a demo project for the California Energy Commission.
While I'm sure the technological hurdles and the cost of these wheels and the environment containment structures to house same are immense, and perhaps now of such magnitude that only governments can love, I guess if same or something better could be made feasible at least concretemasonry would still be able for a while to wade the ripples or and dunk a crawfish in the eddies behind the bolders for the smallies (like I was also fortunate to do in the same general part of the country many years ago);>)

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

(OP)
I though about this while sleeping. Personally, I was a little disappointed to come to the realization that on a large scale, this idea is not practical. But I also realized that if a small community with the right geography, could put it to use on a small scale on a fairly reasonable budget.

It's kind of spooky that "rconner" brought up flywheels though, because that relates to next idea I wanted to flush out. The 80,000 pound dragster. Since this is more of classical physics and modern mechanics problem I'm going to go to a more appropriate forum.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

You can tell this is an engineer's forum. Look at what a basic idea to store wind energy has turned into.

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

Flywheels are a neat idea, rconnor. I'm going to have to look into that further.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: GENERATION OF UNLIMITED ELECTRICAL POWER WITHOUT USING HYDRO-CARBONS OR NUCLEAR ENERGY

pumped storeage is only effective if using off-peak supply.
The unit in North Wales , Dinorwig, is rated at 1.8 GW with a run up time of 10 secs and was designed to be 75% efficient, with a 600m head 10m diameter main shaft.

Cheers,
Chris

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources