Bahh i didnt get a reply regards my funding his lifestyle and research time...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pumped-storage hydro dam schemes to store wind energy (Scotland)
Collapse
X
-
Ok heres my plan .. Honest
Its the Muz Hydro thingamy tidal project . its valid and Ive thought about it for years and wondered why no one else has done it yet ?
well I suppose its not going to be well recieved cos .. in Ideal situations it will blow most fifers out of thier bedsPlease don't PM me for plant advice.. thanks .. Post in the forum where I will gladly help, as will many of our contributors.. as the info and responses will help everyone else, which is why we exist
Comment
-
No Doubt the concept works , Otherwise SSC would not want to build their project in the first place . To make your project bigger , does not mean its better .
But no doubt they have crunched all the numbers to come up with that project . The key to the whole project is the "cheap off peak power " is the key to it .. If that power is not available in the quantity needed .You have a Giant White Elephant on your hands .
Comment
-
That system is in wide spread use,but like I said earlier it is a store of energy to allow for generation at peak times then uses cheaper off peak energy to replenish the upper loch. the weight of water can cause earth quakes as has happened in China and south America.
The level of investment would be prohibitive and regardless of who is paying there must be value given. There has to be a return on the investment and looking at it from that point of view it does not make sense. I am not fan of wind turbines for lots of reasons but mainly due to their intrusion on the land scape. the use of smaller biomass units is a better system for all.............. in my opinion.A driven man with a burning passion.
Comment
-
Here in Canada and especially so in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba we have lots of hydro electric power, some of the biggest dams in the world are the James Bay Project in northern Quebec where they have experienced small earthquakes because of the weight of the water on the land and this in an area of Canada with the least seismic activity.
Comment
-
So I should have expanded on my idea but I got interrupted last night
Ok this plan refers to Scotland as we are an Island (of sorts )
What we need is a massive pipe that connects the west coast to the east coast, and because of the tidal variance between the two coasts, you would have a constant difference in water levels of some 4 - 5 meters perhaps more, and this constant change would be able to drive some sort of turbines without any need for power recuperation. I'm sure you could select the most differentiate points to gain the biggest tidal surge advantage, but its an endless form of enery, day or night, rain , hail, wind or snow.Please don't PM me for plant advice.. thanks .. Post in the forum where I will gladly help, as will many of our contributors.. as the info and responses will help everyone else, which is why we exist
Comment
-
Wind farm power and energy equations
Originally posted by Peter Dow View Post"Dow" equation for the power and energy output of a wind farm.
"The power and energy of a wind farm is proportional to (the square root of the wind farm area) times the rotor diameter".
In his book which was mentioned to me on another forum and so I had a look, David MacKay wrote that the power / energy of a wind farm was independent of rotor size which didn't seem right to me considering the trend to increasing wind turbine size.
Now I think the commercial wind-turbine manufacturing companies know better and very possibly someone else has derived this equation independently of me and long ago - in which case by all means step in and tell me whose equation this is.
Or if you've not see this wind farm power/energy equation before, then see if you can figure out my derivation!
Derivation
Assume various simplifications like all turbine rotors are the same size and height, flat ground and a rotationally symmetrical wind turbine formation so that it doesn't matter what direction the wind is coming from.
Consider that an efficient wind farm will have taken a significant proportion of the theoretically usable power (at most the Betz Limit, 59.3%, apparently, but anyway assume a certain percent) of all the wind flowing at rotor height out by the time the wind passes the last turbine.
So assume the wind farm is efficient or at least that the power extracted is proportional to the energy of all the wind flowing through the wind farm at rotor height.
This defines a horizontal layer of wind which passes through the wind farm of depth the same as the rotor diameter. The width of this layer which flows through the wind farm is simply the width of the wind farm which is proportional to the square root of the wind farm area.
Wind farm turbine formations
Therefore the width or diameter of a rotationally symmetrical wind farm is a critically important factor and arranging the formation of wind turbines to maximise the diameter of the wind farm is important.
Consider two different rotationally symmetrical wind turbine formations, I have called the "Ring formation" and the "Compact formation".
Let n be the number of wind turbines in the wind farm
Let s be the spacing between the wind turbines
Ring formation
Larger image also hosted here
The circumference of the ring formation is simply n times s.
Circumference = n x s
The diameter of the ring formation is simply n times s divided by PI.
Diameter = n x s / PI
Compact formation
Larger image also hosted here
The area of the compact formation, for large n, is n times s squared. This is slightly too big an area for small n.
Area = n x s^2 (for large n)
The diameter of the compact formation, for large n, is 2 times s times the square root of n divided by PI. This is slightly too big a diameter for small n.
Diameter = 2 x s x SQRT(n/PI)
This is easily corrected for small n greater than 3 by adding a "compact area trim constant" (CATC) (which is a negative value so really it is a subtraction) to the s-multiplier factor.
The CATC is 4 divided by PI minus 2 times the square root of 4 divided by PI.
CATC = 4/PI - 2 x SQRT(4/PI) = - 0.9835
This CATC correction was selected to ensure that the compact formation diameter equation for n=4 evaluates to the same value as does the ring formation equation for n = 4, that being the largest n for which the ring and compact formations are indistinguishable.
The CATC works out to be minus 0.9835 which gives
Diameter = s x ( 2 x SQRT(n/PI) - 0.9835) (for n > 3)
Ratio of diameters
Larger image also hosted here
It is of interest to compare the two formations of wind farm for the same n and s.
The diameter of the ring formation is larger by the ratio of diameter formulas in which the spacing s drops out.
Ring formation diameter : Compact formation diameter
n/PI : 2 x SQRT (n/PI) - 0.9835
This ratio can be evaluated for any n > 3 and here are some ratios with the compact value of the ratio normalised to 100% so that the ring value of the ratio will give the ring formation diameter as a percentage of the equivalent compact formation diameter.
Here are some examples,
n = 4, 100 : 100
n = 10, 123 : 100
n = 18, 151 : 100
n = 40, 207 : 100
n =100, 309 : 100
n =180, 405 : 100
n =300, 514 : 100
n =500, 656 : 100
As we can see that for big wind farms, with more turbines, the ratio of diameters increases.
Since the Dow equation for the power and energy of a wind farm is proportional to the diameter of the wind farm then it predicts that the power and energy of the ring formation wind farms will be increased compared to the compact formation wind farms by the same ratio.
In other words, the Dow equation predicts, for example, that a 100 turbine wind farm in the ring formation generates 3 times more power and energy than they would in the compact formation, assuming the spacing is the same in each case.
Practical application when designing a wind farm
My recommendation would be to prefer to deploy wind turbines in a wind farm in the ring formation in preference to the compact formation all other things being equal.
The compact formation can be improved up to the performance of a ring formation by increasing the turbine spacing so that the circumference is as big as the ring but then if a greater turbine spacing is permitted then the ring formation may be allowed to get proportionally bigger as well keeping its advantage, assuming more area for a larger wind farm is available.
The ring formation may be best if there is a large obstacle which can be encircled by the ring, such as a town or lake where it would not be possible or cost effective to build turbines in the middle of it and so a compact formation with larger spacing may not be possible there.
Where it is not possible to install a complete ring formation then a partial ring formation shaped as an arc of a circle would do well also.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ianoz View PostPeter , It is good to see you coming back and trying to answer the questions asked.
Originally posted by ianoz View PostIn regards to my questions about catch dam to return the water ,your google maps show no elevations ,and not being a native of Scotland I know little of the area .. It seems to me that Loch Arkaig .would need its capasity increased to hold the extra water released into it . Raising its height to catch and store the water for returning to the systemi would imagine would reduce the pressore head on the water lowering the generation output ..
Click to see larger image
The natural surface elevation of Loch Arkaig now is 43 metres. The natural surface elevation of Loch Lochy now is 29 metres.
The act of building a wide and deep water channel between Loch Arkaig and Loch Lochy would equalise the elevations of the two lochs. Immediately some of Loch Arkaig would drain into Loch Lochy never to regain its original level. So with my proposed scheme in operation, the two lochs would, in future, in effect, act as one big loch. The new "natural" elevation of Loch Arkaig would become 29 metres, the same as Loch Lochy.
Now when water is pumped up from the lochs into the upper reservoir, up Coire Glas, then the level of the two lochs would be lowered, down to 14 metres or so. So that leaves plenty of capacity in the lower lochs for the water returning back down from Coire Glas when it is used to generate power.
Coire Glas is about 500 metres higher so the difference between the lochs operational levels, from 29m to 14m will only make a small difference to the pressure head that the pumps need to pump up and the turbines use to drive them.Attached FilesLast edited by Peter Dow; 31-03-2012, 05:34 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ianoz View PostWhat the the volume of water released per hour.
Originally posted by ianoz View PostWhat is the size and capasity of the pumps required toget the water back up and the time needed to pump rge water. How much power is needed to run these pumps.
The overall efficiency of that example installation was that you got back about 74.8% of the energy you put in.
So if those same types of turbine pumps were installed at Coire Glas then to get 600 GW.Hrs of energy out, you'd need to put in 802 GW.Hrs of energy using the pumps.
Now the pumps are operated at a rating of 95.5% of output power so the maximum input power, if you were to run all the pumps would be about 95.5% of 12GW which is 11.46 GigaWatts and at that rate it would take you 802 GW.Hrs / 11.46 GW = 70 hours to fill the reservoir up from empty.
But 70 hours would be at full power - there is no need to run all the pumps - you would run only the number of pumps that you had surplus wind power for at that time.
For example, if you only had 1GW of surplus wind power then that's all the power you would use for the pumps - 1 GW.
Originally posted by ianoz View PostHow many wind generatorsw are required to preduce the power
Originally posted by ianoz View Post..Some how i think by the time all the costs are added up It will be far too expensive.,
Originally posted by ianoz View Postfor the people of Scotland to Pay for ..
Originally posted by ianoz View PostThe way i understand AC power is that it can not be stored , Find a solution to that <You will make a name for your self .
Comment
-
Originally posted by JD450A View PostThe trouble is you are taking a "just about" cost effective form of renewable energy, then taking it and removing the benifits by changing the state of the energy 5 times at least.... each time you can expect to loose power, that's without mentioning the loss due to friction. this loss is what would happily kill it.
Originally posted by JD450A View Postthere are much more cost effective and reliable ways to generate power. tidal and waste to energy are two very good ones. your's I'm afraid is far too large and under engineered.
Yes there will be a place for tidal and others when they finally get going but it looks like the momentum is with wind right now.
Wikipedia: Wind power in the United Kingdom
At the beginning of March 2012, the installed capacity of wind power in the United Kingdom was 6,580 megawatts (MW), with 333 operational wind farms and 3,506 wind turbines in the UK.[1] The UK is ranked as the world’s eighth largest producer of wind power.
723 MW of new wind power capacity was brought online during 2011, a 40% decrease on 2010. 2012 is expected to be a significant year for the offshore wind industry with potentially 5 farms becoming operational with over 1,300 MW of generating capability.[2]
Through the Renewables Obligation, British electricity suppliers are now required by law to provide a proportion of their sales from renewable sources such as wind power or pay a penalty fee. The supplier then receives a Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) for each MW·h of electricity they have purchased.[3] Within the UK, wind power is the second largest source of renewable energy after biomass.[4]
Wind power is expected to continue growing in the UK for the foreseeable future, RenewableUK estimates that more than 2,000 MW of capacity will be deployed per year for the next five years.[5][non-primary source needed] By 2020, the UK could have more than 28,000 MW of wind capacity.
Yes I could see the two - pumped-storage and biomass/waste burning - working well together.
The pumped storage turbines can step in right away as soon as the wind drops then if it is a prolonged calm over many hours and days then the biomass power stations firing up and replacing most of the missing wind capacity load as and when biomass power stations get up to full power output.
Originally posted by JD450A View Postyour's I'm afraid is far too large and under engineered.
You might argue 12GW power is a bit much for Scotland's present needs but then more capacity would be useful to make inroads into wind and pumped-storage supplying more of Scotland's heat energy needs. So 12 GW is more than enough for now but it allows additional capacity for expansion.
I'd be interested to read an argument which says that 600GW.Hrs is too much, too large a renewables energy store. What about for storing some English surplus wind power as well? Then it can't be too large an energy store.
Current Scottish peak power demand is around 8.5GW, including some exported power and which could be supplied for 600 GW.Hrs / 8.5 GW = around 70 hours, not quite 3 days. So I guess that is plenty long enough for Scottish current needs while biomass power stations are fired up in case of a prolonged wind calm.
But the idea I proposed is that Scotland has the geography for pumped hydro electricity schemes and so with the increased capacity of power lines running from Scotland to England there will be an economic opportunity to store surplus English wind energy and supply it back to England when England is becalmed, at least until such time as English biomass power stations can reach their full power output.
As for "under engineered" what can you mean? How can a scientist like myself offer something scientific which is "under engineered"? I will let professional engineers do the engineering. I am just providing the science to back up the vision and concepts. The science behind my vision is good. The detailed engineering I will leave to the professionals.
If you mean I have not published full plans showing where every nut and bolt gets placed, then OK. But then, after all, this is just my "vision" - not full blueprints for the scheme.Last edited by Peter Dow; 31-03-2012, 08:05 PM.
Comment
-
-
I agree it has potential but as I have said previously the cost of such a project would be better to create an indigenous industry instead of a huge construction project requiring imported skills and labour.Smaller is better put the money in to the communities create jobs that can't be sent to India or China.A driven man with a burning passion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by B4D2USA View PostNonetheless, what I see is a re-think of the perpetual motion machine that is an impossibility by today's technical understandings. Pumping water uphill to generate electricity by gravity-fed turbines is a net-zero or net-negative scenario.
and stop assuming if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist or it doesn't matter if it does exist. Many important facts about this world you have still to learn.
Originally posted by B4D2USA View PostIf you augment the electric power from wind turbines, it still doesn't matter. Why not just use the electric from the turbines to supply the power? A waste of time, materials and energy are the end result of your scheme to which there is no foreseeable payback.
Note how the pumped-storage hydro dam supplies power when the wind is becalmed.
Comment
-
100 years from now ....
Originally posted by Dan View PostWhere do we draw the line between power generation and environmental damage? I suppose you could argue nuclear is the worst of all in some respects, but it doesent scar the whole country with turbines or dams ? ...but its legacy last for years all the same....... difficult one
Talking about "environmental damage" it gets as big and expensive as the Sellafield nuclear site clean up, which costing about £20 billion might be about the same as I guess my hydro dam scheme might cost.
World’s 10 Largest Construction Projects
Sellafield Nuclear Site, England
$30 billion
Sellafield is the U.K.'s primary nuclear-fuel reprocessing facility. Located in Cumbria, 70 miles north of Liverpool, the plant covers 700 acres and employs 11,000 workers. Perhaps most notably, it is home to world's first commercial nuclear power plant, Calder Hall, which ended its 47 years of duty in 2003. In 2008, Nuclear Management Partners Ltd. (a consortium made up of Amec, URS and Areva) was hired to operate, clean up, and ultimately decommission Sellafield. The process will take more than a century. By 2120, the NDA expects the Sellafield site will have achieved brownfield status.
Whereas one hundred years after my hydro dam scheme was built it would still be providing clean, almost free energy to the people!
Comment
Comment