Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Giant gravel batteries could make renewable energy more reliable

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 05:47 PM
Original message
Giant gravel batteries could make renewable energy more reliable
First let me say that this most suitable at the small community level and larger quantity of energy storage. If it proves out (and it looks like that is a given since the fundamental technology is the same as home heat pumps) its low cost will accelerate the removal of carbon from our energy system. The first piece is a news article in the Gardian highlighting the device, and the second is a piece that places it in the role we need it to serve in a renewable energy grid.

Giant gravel batteries could make renewable energy more reliable

Wind and solar power are often criticised for being too intermittent, but Cambridge researchers could change that


Newly designed giant gravel batteries could be the solution to the on-off nature of wind turbines and solar panels. By storing energy when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, it is hoped the new technology will boost to renewable energy and blunt a persistent criticism of the technology - that the power from it is intermittent.

Electricity cannot be stored easily, but a new technique may hold the answer, so that energy from renewables doesn't switch off when nature stops playing ball. A team of engineers from Cambridge think they have a potential solution: a giant battery that can store energy using gravel.

"If you bolt this to a wind farm, you could store the intermittent and relatively erratic energy and give it back in a reliable and controlled manner," says Jonathan Howe, founder of Isentropic and previously an engineer at the Civil Aviation Authority.

The Labour government committed to cutting the country's carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, both relative to 1990 levels. To achieve this, ministers outlined plans to build thousands of wind turbines by 2020. The only economically viable way of storing large amounts of energy is through pumped hydro – where excess electricity is used to pump water up a hill. The water is held back by a dam until the energy is needed, when it is released down the hill, turning turbines and generating electricity on the way.

Isentopic claims its gravel-based battery would be able to store equivalent amounts of energy but use less space and be cheaper to set up....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/26/gravel-batteries-renewable-energy-storage




Does Wind Need Storage?

The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.

Storage is almost never “coupled” with any single energy source—it is most economic when operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.

As an example, consider Figure 7 below, which is based on a simplified example of a dispatch model that approximates the western United States. All numerical values are illustrative only, and the storage analysis is based on a hypothetical storage facility that is limited to 10% of the peak load and 168 hours of energy. The ability of the system to integrate large penetrations of wind depends heavily on the mix of other generation resources. Storage is an example of a flexible resource, and storage has economic value to the system even without any wind energy. As wind is added to the system in increasing amounts, the value of storage will increase. With no wind, storage has a value of more than US$1,000/kW, indicating that a storage device that costs less would provide economic value to the system. As wind penetration increases, so does the value of storage, eventually reaching approximately US$1,600/kW. In this example system, the generation mix is similar to what is found today in many parts of the United States. In such a system with high wind penetration, the value of storage is somewhat greater because the economic dispatch will result in putting low-variable-cost units (e.g., coal or nuclear) on the margin (and setting the market-clearing price) much more often than it would have without the wind. More frequent periods with lower prices offers a bigger price spread and more opportunities for arbitrage, increasing the value of storage.

In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices reduces the incentives for a unit with high fixed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind.

The question of whether wind needs storage ultimately comes down to economic costs and benefits. More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas. Overall, these studies imply that the added cost of integrating wind over the next decade is far less than the cost of dedicated energy storage, and that the cost can potentially be reduced by the use of advanced wind-forecasting techniques.

You can download the full document by clicking the pdf link below and you'll be able to see figures 7 & 8.


Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Can you save us all some time...
...and tell us whether there's anything new since the last time you posted this?

Have they built a pilot? Or even finished designing it and raising investment funds?

No?

Oh well... I suppose it at least gives us another opportunity to laugh at how reliably you will bite at any hook (baited or not) that claims a greener future. This technology is "a given" eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. FYI ...
> Can you save us all some time...
> ...and tell us whether there's anything new since the last time you posted this?

FWIW, one of the comments on the Guardian article summed up the "article":


Well done Alok Jha you win the laziest journalist of the week award for a nice bit of product placement and lifting the contents of this webpage http://www.isentropic.co.uk/index.php?page=storage and other from Isentropic's website and passing them off as journalism.


That isn't to say that I don't find it interesting nor that I don't want to
follow up on the progress of this approach, simply to say that the article
in the OP doesn't add anything for anyone who read the previous one.

:shrug:


> Have they built a pilot?

Doesn't look like it ...

The only information on their web site on this was dated Nov 4, 2009 and
consisted of a one-liner ("It's only a 2nd prototype - but it's definitely
the start of something truly big in reversible heat engines") followed by
a link to a PDF (http://www.isentropic.co.uk/uploads/Independent_Power_Asia.pdf)
that isn't worth downloading (zero additional information).


> Or even finished designing it and raising investment funds?

Allegedly "yes" to the first one and apparently "no" to the second
(hence the repetitive puff-pieces in the press to make it look as if it
is still worth investing in the company even though nothing appears to
be generated apart from PR articles).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Sorry
I appreciate the effort, but the questions were rhetorical.

The OP has a bad habit of falling for articles that are really little more than advertising that is trying to raise funds for start-up companies.

While I agree that the possibility is intriguing, the simple fact is that in MOST of these cases, the company would have had no trouble obtaining venture-capital or government grants if their technology showed any real promise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. The nuclear fans don't like the idea of cheap, efficient large scale storage. Who knew?
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 10:22 AM by kristopher
In the shift for renewables, the use of storage to obtain dispatchable power is a direct threat to the only justification for nuclear power isn't it? So, the existence of such technologies is another nail in the coffin of nuclear, no?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. What's your problem?
I said (in the post to which you were replying):
>> That isn't to say that I don't find it interesting nor that I don't want to
>> follow up on the progress of this approach, simply to say that the article
>> in the OP doesn't add anything for anyone who read the previous one.

That is 100% factual, unbiased, accurate and true.

If you cast your mind back to the first time that you posted this, I expressed
interest as I thought that (on paper) it sounded like a great idea that would
allow the equivalent of a pumped-storage hydro system in locations that were
not topologically appropriate. I still think that. I was *disappointed* to read
that this wasn't a progress update but just a repeat.

So how do you turn that into "The nuclear fans don't like the idea of cheap,
efficient large scale storage", "the use of storage to obtain dispatchable power
is a direct threat to the only justification for nuclear power" or "the existence
of such technologies is another nail in the coffin of nuclear"?

Just what is your fucking problem?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I'm sick to death of the nuclear fan clubs CONSTANT AND UNCEASING ATTACKS ON RENEWABLE ENERGY.
I don't CARE if you require NEW information be a threshold for making any post on something that has already appeared here, I didn't post it for you. That was just another in an endless series of nukefan digs that are aimed at killing EVERY discussion on building a renewable energy infrastructure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. That is bullshit.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 11:49 AM by Nihil
> I'm sick to death of the nuclear fan clubs CONSTANT AND UNCEASING ATTACKS ON
> RENEWABLE ENERGY.

1) "nuclear fan club"
Broad brush attack on other DUers.

2) "CONSTANT AND UNCEASING ATTACKS"
Blatant lie.

> I don't CARE if you require NEW information be a threshold for making any
> post on something that has already appeared here, I didn't post it for you.

3) "I didn't post it for you"

You posted it on a public board.
Someone else replied to your OP with a comment wondering about new content.
I replied *TO HIM* with information that you didn't see fit to include in
your OP, namely that it did NOT have any new content but was simply a repeat.
You replied *TO ME* with an unwarranted and tangential slam.

> That was just another in an endless series of nukefan digs that are aimed
> at killing EVERY discussion on building a renewable energy infrastructure.

4) "an endless series of nukefan digs"
Blatant lie.

5) "aimed at killing EVERY discussion on building a renewable energy infrastructure"
Blatant lie.

If you bothered to READ instead of just WRITE you would have seen that
I have no problem with renewable energy per se, I use it (at my own cost)
and support its use wherever appropriate.

Stop being so fucking paranoid and treating any comment other than sycophantic
praise for your personal opinions as "an ATTACK".


Edited to add:
e.g. 1, My reply to your OP on coal gasification cost overruns where I agreed
with you (earlier today):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x244210#244325

e.g. 2, My reply to your OP on ultracapacitors where I agreed with you
(also earlier today):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x244199#244332

Please. READ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. That isn't painting with a broad brush at all.
There is a dedicated cabal of nuclear supporters here that attempt to derail all positive discussion of renewable energy and you *are* an active participant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Actually, you're wrong.
There is exactly one regular contributor that fits that description
and one person does not a "cabal" make.

You replied while I was editing my previous post to include links to
two quick examples of where I was *supporting* renewable arguments
(as it happens, both by you) in addition to this particular thread
where I was trying to clarify the situation to a third party.

I am (from time to time) an "active participant" in this forum but to claim
that I am part of "a dedicated cabal of nuclear supporters here that attempt
to derail all positive discussion of renewable energy" is somewhere between
libel and deranged paranoia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wish they'd at least not call them "gravel batteries"
It's a heat engine, not a battery. And the technology is far from a slam-dunk. From the Guardian article in the OP:

John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre, said that the novelty of the Isentropic system lay in using cheap materials as the heat store, thus making a normally expensive and mechanically complex process very simple. But he said demonstrators would need to be built to prove the idea actually functions. "The question is, does it work? From an engineering standpoint, the temperature differences they mention, +550C to -150C are initially credibility-stretching for a single-pass cycle, and the potential for gravel particles to pass through the engine and damage or clog the inevitable cooling and lubricating systems seems high."


After all, the Carnot efficiency between those two temperatures is about 84%, and these folks claim 80%. Isn't pumped storage almost that efficient?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Battery is the proper word as anything that stores energy can be considered a battery
pumped hydro is feasible when the terrain supports its. We have a pumped hydro lake just down the road a tad and it is a good deal for GRDA who own it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Please point me to a definition that backs this up
I've yet to find one, and your post sent me through several online dictionaries. By your definition, a capacitor could be considered a battery (since it stores energy), yet using the words interchangeably in the context of electronics is clearly madness!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. The term battery is somewhat loosely used
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 10:00 AM by OKIsItJustMe
Hold up a AA cell, and ask someone what it is. They'll tell you, "it's a battery." (However "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battery">battery" implies more than one.)

As for whether multiple capacitors can be a "battery":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29#History
...

The name "battery" was coined by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin">Benjamin Franklin for an arrangement of multiple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyden_jar">Leyden jars (an early type of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor">capacitor) after a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_battery">battery of cannons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)#cite_note-2">3 Strictly, a battery is a collection of two or more cells, but in popular usage battery often refers to a single electrical cell.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)#cite_note-3">4

...


If there are multiple gravel energy storage devices working in concert, then, I would say, that collectively, they are a battery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. They were claiming it would be more compact.
Pumped storage needs a large difference in height, which calls for dams or, I think, ridge top storage tanks and pipelines from the ridges top to it's bottom.

This would only need two storage tanks, which could be right next to each other. Smaller footprint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I like "rock battery" myself.
It is an energy storage device and as such for it to be referred to in popular parlance as a 'battery' is the least important aspect of the technology.

Much more important is the cost and utility potential it represents.
The technical obstacles related to it are minor in the scheme of new approaches to storage. Take as a comparison hydrogen storage where the "problems" relate to finding dramatic increases in system efficiency. The nature of the challenges are manageable and the field is mature and well understood. In fact, if it isn't already I would speculate that is probably one of the company's main weaknesses. Unless they have some significant technology that gives them a real edge, the ubiquitous nature of the technology means they are likely to face hard and and early competition if they prove the concept (and I think they will).

Pumped storage has about a 75% round trip efficiency; when they first announced this rock battery they claimed 70-75% RT efficiency, with virtually all of the loss as radiant heat during storage.

If they can pull in above 70% efficiency they have the potential for filling a very large niche because it is compact, nondescript yet familiar, cheap, and easy to put nearly anywhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. I guess part of my problem is that I teach
So when someone comes to me asking about batteries I'll tell them that the energy comes in chemical form, that through a reaction gets transformed into electrical energy.

Then... how do you make a "battery" using gravel? Well, you don't. You use gravel as a heat sink, the energy is thermal and not chemical... and somebody just decided to call then "batteries" because they store energy.

It makes it harder and harder to convey how things actually work when meanings get smeared around. I'd rather people not use "battery" this way so as to head off eventually needing cumbersome locutions like "electrochemical battery" to mean what I can now convey by simply saying "battery."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Linguistics is a long time interest for me...
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 01:03 PM by kristopher
Your feelings are normal and your rationale is reasonable, but if you look at the post by OK it is pretty clear that "battery" wouldn't be related to electrochemical energy cells if we adhered strictly to that perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I do tend to find myself fighting rearguard actions when it comes to language...
I certainly recognize that language and word meanings evolve pretty much independent of the wishes of "purists" and other curmudgeons...

But that doesn't mean I have to like it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. You absolutely have that right.
This has long been one of my favorites...



Through the woodland, through the valley
Comes a horseman wild and free
Tilting at the windmills passing
Who can the brave young horseman be
He is wild but he is mellow
He is strong but he is weak
He is cruel but he is gentle
He is wise but he is meek
Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a battered book into his hand
Standing like a prophet bold
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Till he can shout no more

I have come o’er moor and mountain
Like the hawk upon the wing
I was once a shining knight
Who was the guardian of a king
I have searched the whole world over
Looking for a place to sleep
I have seen the strong survive
And I have seen the lean grown weak

See the children of the earth
Who wake to find the table bare
See the gentry in the country
Riding off to take the air

Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a rusty sword into his hand
Then striking up a knightly pose
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Till he can shout no more

See the jailor with his key
Who locks away all trace of sin
See the judge upon the bench
Who tries the case as best he can
See the wise and wicked ones
Who feed upon life’s sacred fire
See the soldier with his gun
Who must be dead to be admired

See the man who tips the needle
See the man who buys and sells
See the man who puts the collar
On the ones who dare not tell
See the drunkard in the tavern
Stemming gold to make ends meet
See the youth in ghetto black
Condemned to life upon the street

Reaching for his saddlebag
He takes a tarnished cross into his hand
Then standing like a preacher now
He shouts across the ocean to the shore
Then in a blaze of tangled hooves
He gallops off across the dusty plain
In vain to search again
Where no one will hear

Through the woodland, through the valley
Comes a horseman wild and free
Tilting at the windmills passing
Who can the brave young horseman be
He is wild but he is mellow
He is strong but he is weak
He is cruel but he is gentle
He is wise but he is meek
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-28-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I read a lot and I see battery used quite a bit
anything that can store energy whether it be a rock on the top of a hill or a lead acid cell, it is a battery. Anything that is storing energy can and is frequently referred to as a battery. The pumped back lake near here is in essence a battery just as sure as this pile of rocks are. I can go dig out my old physics text book and find for you where they're talking about this if I must or you could check out a physics text book and read for yourself, its covered pretty good, Anything that stores energy can be referred to as a battery and I prefer it that way, because that's really the way it is. Anything that stores energy for later use can be properly referred to as a battery. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Renewables will save us" noodniks can't write a sentence without the word "could."
Edited on Mon Apr-26-10 09:42 PM by NNadir
It's one soothsaying fantasy after another, trying to make a square wheel round.

When, exactly, do the "renewables will save us" anti-nuke types think that climate change is going to become an issue?

The world abandoned so called "renewable energy" in the early 19th century.

If it worked so great, nobody would have gone to dig coal, but they did. Now anti-nukes run around greenwashing coal and pretending that breaking every damn rock on the surface of the earth will allow them to live their car CULTist lifestyle.

Bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. I want to try building one of these when I get my land.
Edited on Mon Apr-26-10 10:55 PM by joshcryer
Soon, so soon. (For the land, not the building my own gravel battery / heat engine.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
15. Carnot limit says no.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 11:31 AM by Statistical
Effciency limit of heat engine is equal to difference between heat sources.

Specifically Carnot's theorem is a formal statement of this fact:
No engine operating between two heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs.

This maximum efficiency η is defined to be:


n = 1 -(Tc/Th)
n = 1 - (153/673)
n = 0.78

Roughly 78% efficient is the theoretical limt. However no heat engine in real world has achieved carnot limit.

For example the carnot limit for a Prius is about 58% but real world efficiency is more like 35%-40%.
If we had cars that could achieve carnot limit we would have gasoline engines getting 70-90 mpg and diesel engines getting 100mpg+

More related to electrical power generation theoretical limit for natural gas turbine (based on carnot limit) is about 60%-65% but real world 40% is common.

So say the turbine generator is 70% efficient (vs 78% theoretical) and only 5% more efficiency is lost via heat transfer out of insulated storage we are talking something in 65% range roundtrip not 80%. Theoretical limit for dual cycle tubrines is about 85% however the real world limit is 60% (and under very narrow operating range).

The author of study is very careful to never make the claim of 80% efficiency real world. It is comparing apples to oranges.

Pumped Storage = 100% efficiency theoretical limit. 80% efficient real world.
Gravel Storage = 80% efficient theoretical limit. Real world??? 60%?

In terms of efficiency pumped hydro is far superior.

Still is worthy of further R&D. Wouldn't mind to see a couple millions dollars spent to build a MW sized prototype. Would like to see some real world efficiency numbers under a variety of conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Your evaluation is incorrect.
This is a reversible process, not a one way process. A good discussion with the company execs and a critic followed the original article.

"If you take as an example, a perfect heat pump with a COP of say 4, that you want to supply heat at a temperature X. If you input one unit of electricity to the system then you end up with 4 units of heat at temperature X. If this was a perfectly reversible process then, when reversed, the heat engine cycle would have an efficiency of 25% ie it would take your 4 units of heat at this temperature X and generate 1 unit of energy. The COP is the inverse of the engine efficiency."

"In this example I have just given I could have a perfect heat engine with a Carnot efficiency of 25% (limited by temperature range) that as part of a storage cycle has a 100% charge/discharge efficiency. In the perfect machine it would not matter if the Carnot efficiency was 10% or 50% as the heat pump will simply be the inverse of this ie 10 or 2."

"I am hoping that this will have shown why the Carnot efficiency does not effect the charge/discharge efficiency of our storage system. The things that do effect it are the irreversible losses, such as, friction, electrical losses, pressure drops, heat transfer etc.. that occur during the cycle."


I love this Carnot obsession. The Carnot ratio is an availability ratio, not really an efficiency, ie, heat pump COP of an ideal engine is the inverse of its engine efficiency.
What is important here is that the engine cycle is reversible, not that it is a Carnot-equivalent cycle. A Brayton cycle, in its ideal form, is reversible (isentropic compression and expansion coupled with isobaric heat transfer) but not Carnot equivalent. This cycle in its purest form is actually the first Ericsson cycle and Ericsson did it well before Brayton or Joule.
The reason that we can show high reversibility is that isobaric heat transfer in the constant pressure stores can take place slowly under drifting flow conditions. Adiabatic compression and expansion takes place rapidly in very carefully designed cylinders. The transfer valves are also an example of extremely careful design with exceptionally low pressure losses. Parasitic heat transfer within the cylinders is also very carefully controlled resulting in very high thermodynamic reversibility, dead volume and its effects must also be minimised since it thermally pollutes the gas charge at the end of the stroke. Greater losses are actually electrical and mechanical.
Of course irreversinilities manifest themselves as waste heat, just not very much of it and we dump it in one limb of the circuit via heat exchange. This is a very non-critical part of the operation since we are creating a thermal split around a datum temperature. If this datum temperature is a bit above ambient (as it has to be to dump the heat of irreversibility) then it has an inconsequential effect on system performance.
This absolutely cannot work as a prime mover heat engine at 80% efficiency as James tried to explain (I thought very clearly). It is a thermodynamic battery in which the ONLY element of importance is process reversibility.
Jonathan Howes.
CTO Isentropic Ltd


http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breakthrough-in-utility-scale-energy-storage-isentropic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Interesting.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 12:02 PM by Statistical
The article is unclear, the website does a far better job of explaing the process.

From article:

Electricity would be used to heat and pressurise argon gas that is then fed into one of the silos. By the time the gas leaves the chamber, it has cooled to ambient temperature but the gravel itself is heated to 500C.


From this I assumed electrical heat would be used to heat gas. Electrical radiant heat being 100% efficient.

The wording from article is very clumsy. It would be like describing an air conditioner as a device that takes energy to to heat the outside air. while technically correct it isn't the best way to describe it. Electricity isn't being used to heat anything rather during the charging portion electricity is used to transfer heat to create a temperature differential. Durring discharge the heat differential is converted back to electricity.

I liked the device even before, I like it even more now.
Certainly deserves at least from funding for a prototype. Large scale storage is useful in a lot of applications and renewable energy is just one of them.


The real question is will real world efficiency keep up with theory. Only way to find out is to build one. Preferably a smaller one and then based on those results a larger one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 14th 2024, 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC