Jim Beyer says

A related technology would be how some modern HVAC systems make ice at night (when electricity is cheap) to cool a building during the day. Again, no fancy batteries, etc. are needed. There is enough of this type of demand out there to absorb perhaps 15% of grid demand. That is, 15% or so of the grid could come from "unreliable" renewable sources. After that, you need to get fancier with Plug-In grid connects, etc. But we are nowhere close to that kind of penetration at this point.

Joao Gomes says

Its development is still in its early stages, but in the future its use will be decisive for a stable and reliable grid.

bill payne says

Yup.

BURNING BURIED SUNSHINE: HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF ANCIENT SOLAR ENERGY

http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf

We continue to deny that we are having TOO much fun with energy-related matters.

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. REYNOLDS CASE NO. 11-00369-UT

1 Q. Does Staff have any concerns with the redesigned Low Flow Showerhead

2 proposed by NMGC for PY 2012?

3 A. Yes. NMGC is proposing a fundamental change to the Low Flow Showerhead

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/intervene/intervene.htm#dave

Bryan Leyland says

But with renewable energy we have to face up to the fact that it is sometimes calm for several days or weeks, that the sun shines most in the summer and does not shine all at nighttime. So, to be viable and large-scale, we need a technology that will store very large amounts of power for weeks or months. No such technology exists or is even on the horizon.

If you try to do with hydro pumped storage you need a site with 700 m or so of different and two seriously enormous lakes. Very few sites exist in the world. On top of that, you then have a problem with evaporation so the amount of make-up water needed will be very large indeed. And then you have the problem of the cycle efficiency at 75%, so there are high energy losses.

For this reason alone, there is no prospect that intermittent renewable energy technologies will ever provide a significant amount of electricity..

Dennis Weinhold says

I think the future power supply will be somewhat constant and very much more localized. When there is more power than required for human activity, the excess load could make ice.......or hydrogen........or hot-water (swimming pool)......or charge the batteries in our cars.............or the batteries that power the city lights ......... or the coffee maker............and????

BTW.......why can't elevators generate power on the way down?

William Lang says

Don Hirschberg says

Dennis, they do. The weights go down as the elevator goes up. The motor only supplies the difference. If you could get one guy on a shift to walk up then the guys coming down could hoist all but that one going up. The only supply of energy woud be to the walkup guy's diet..

bill payne says

Yup.

But significant $s can be made building, selling and installing solar panels. Then maintaining them.

Wind generation of electricty may be more lucrative. Mechanical failures.

http://www.prosefights.org/wind/highlonesome/highlonesome.htm#trip

That's why we personally focusi on energy efficiency. And investing in landscaping rathier than investing in home solar generation of electricity.

http://www.prosefights.org/roofleak/t4/t4.htm

Thomas Mason says

bill payne says

https://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=197648457&message_id=1677257&user_id=KSB_Crea&group_id=748430&jobid=8245103

Alternergy business ploy?

Don Hirschberg says

Gary Vesperman says

"Most of the high-end conventional automobile batteries of the lead-acid variety operate at an energy density rate of between 20-25 watt-hours per kilogram. The best NASA sodium-hydride batteries operate at 48-50 watt hours per kilogram. The energy accumulator devices which have been tested at the Idaho National Electronic Laboratories have demonstrated energy densities of between 850 and 1050 watt-hours per kilogram.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means, for one thing, that for the first time in the history of science an energy storage device has been created with an energy density which is greater than gasoline or any other refined fossil fuel. It means that devices which rely on these energy storage technologies can theoretically be designed to store and deliver clean electrical power at higher rates of efficiency than any fossil fuel ever discovered.

(End of excerpt)

Could these IPMS-developed energy storage/battery devices achieve the Holy Grail of the Smart Grid to a useful degree?

Gary Vesperman

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Like Don I do not comprehend what Thomas Mason is talking about either. Pumped storage is using gravity to provide the potential energy to convert into kinetic energy in the turbine. Instead of the Sun lifting the water up into the air to form clouds that produce rain electric pumps push the water against gravity using off peak power so that the peaks can be readily met simply by opening a valve in a pipe. No idea what other methods there are that use gravity. Malcolm

Don Hirschberg says

If you want knowlegible people to pay attention don’t’ insult them.

Fred Linn says

That can be as simple as a $5 outlet timer switch. Load your washing machine or dishwasher to go, set the switch to come on will you are in bed asleep.

Fred Linn says

Fred Linn says

Power storage, not electricity storage.

A 20 MW CSP plant has opened in Spain that generates 20 MW 24/7. It uses molten salt technology to store up to 15 hours of thermal energy that allows the generation of solar sourced electricity 24/7.

Matthew Shapiro says

Matthew Shapiro says

Kent Wright says

One key difference however is the sustainability at full power of only 4 hours. In comparison, the relatively modern Raccoon Mountain unit at 1600 MW capacity can carry full output for some 22 hours, yielding 35,200 MW-hours of electricity (of course at the expense of 44,800 MW-hrs to run the pumps for a complete refill). In order to produce 35,200 MW-hours of electricity in a one-day timeframe, the weighted-piston system would require at least 6 additional 1200 MW units, thereby boosting the cost substantially for rough parity in output. The benefits of the piston system may still outweigh pumped storage, but I would just like to see a more thorough comparison. For comparison purposes, at Raccoon Mountain the losses due to friction alone over 20% and the size of the reservoir is over 100,000 acre-feet of water. If the piston system as suggested by Mr. Mason is much smaller these numbers should not be hard to beat.

For further comparison I would like to hear from battery advocates what the % losses are for 1600 MW in battery power over a similar time period (assuming 22-hour sustainability, or the maximum hours of sustainability possible). Also would like to know the cost and physical size of a 1600-MW / 35,200 MW-hr battery system and the tons of active material, e.g., lead-acid, NI-Cd, or other chemicals that it would take to produce one.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

A few posts here lead me to the conclusion that your solutions are simplistic and not credible. Of course one can shift the electrical demand on your dishwasher to the evening when you are asleep and the grid is under-utilized but all that does is move the minor amount of electricity required to run the dishwasher pump and ignores the really big energy use which is the hot water. If you heat your water by gas as many people do there is no electrical savings at all and I suggest that you would even have trouble making back the 5 bucks you spent on the timer. A better solution is just wash your dishes by hand then you can sell the dishwasher and use the funds to invest in Uranium stocks. :)

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Thanks for the explanation of that. This is a new one. Lifting a weight by water pressure. Bit like a giant water piston. It is a very similar idea to the gasometers that I was used to seeing as a boy in London. Gas would be pumped into these storage devices overnight (coal gas at that time) and slowly released during the day to maintain system pressure. I have a feeling that the losses would be substantial but I can see one major advantage that most of the system could be placed underground and is independent of siting requirements which restrict the availability of pumped storage schemes.

Combined with base load nuclear this is one of the more sensible ideas I have seen. These could be built just about anywhere. In fact they could easily be constructed right at the nuclear sites. You would not need peaking generators at all. One idea would be to construct them in lakes or the sea. At off peak times water from the lake or sea is pumped into the cylinder and during peak times released back into the sea or lake through a generator. The piston weight could use depleted uranium since the potential energy is mgh where m is the mass of the piston, g is gravitational force and h is height. The larger the mass the greater the potential energy.

Kent, I don't think only having a 4 hour discharge time is a problem since peak periods do not last all that long and several could be staggered to meet the demand at peak times.

Good thinking whoever thought of that and one of the better ideas I have seen.

Malcolm

Malcolm

Kent Wright says

Paul Valenta says

Computer energy modeling and life cycle modeling leave a lot to be desired. The actual building energy consumption rarely coincides with the computer model. The relative differences might be helpful and provide clues to how an HVAC design will react with the building envelope and operation. Designs have safety factor capacity. Just in case its hot for a few days in a row, just in case the building is not built as modeled, just in case the building is used differently than the owner described. If the safety factor is 20% more cooling capacity, the ancillary equipment must also be larger increasing connected load. This safety factor equipment is an investment that is rarely used but must be purchased. Additionally these models cannot predict future real time energy prices or potential demand response program revenue.

Look at your large cities with all of these existing buildings. Almost all of existing stock have over-sized inefficient cooling systems. When it comes time to replace these systems, hybrid cooling systems with energy storage can lower peak connected load reducing summer demand while creating a nighttime load for renewable energy, like wind. The wind blows harder at night in West Texas for example. Let's capture it to relieve peak demand and fill in gaps when solar panels are not a peak output because of time of day or clouds.

It seems like we all want these huge storage systems when distributed thermal energy storage, which is affordable and reliable, can help now. How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time. How do you make renewable energy viable and reduce peak demand? One building at a time!

No special regulation or special site is needed. People are using ice storage today. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8ob3Bige60

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/11/21/rockefeller-center-launches-major-green-initiatives/

Len Gould says

samuel kelly says

Fred Linn says

Molten phase change salts store solar thermal energy at 875*F-1,000*F---which then is used to power steam turbines to drive the electrical generators.

There is no storing of electrons involved. It works the same way as any combustion heat power plant works----except that the heat is solar, not from burning carbon.

-------" Of course one can shift the electrical demand on your dishwasher to the evening when you are asleep and the grid is under-utilized but all that does is move the minor amount of electricity required to run the dishwasher pump and ignores the really big energy use which is the hot water."-------

Any natural gas power that is used does not come from the electrical grid. It has no bearing on the subject of the discussion---electrical grid peak load and power storage. The power contained in the natural gas that might be used is in the form of chemical bonds----it is already stored energy.

-------" A few posts here lead me to the conclusion that your solutions are simplistic and not credible."------

That statement leads me to the conclusion that you are an idiot.

The simplest solution to any problem is always the best solution.

KISS

Mitch Smith says

The Bureau of Reclamation estimated a tunnel project in California for reclamation of the Salton Sea. They estimated 10 Billion for a pair of 15 foot tunnels 100 miles in length. Extrapolating, that would be 60 billion for them to extend 600 miles, and doubling that to 120 Billion would probably get you near the price of a 3 tunnel system. The transport/cooling water tunnels would be a government sponsored multi-state public works project. Powerplant sites would be leased to industry, who would fund the individual powerplant construction and pumping costs. Highlights: Water would be pumped westward from the Mississippi to the western states; always a popular idea to create a new river in the West. Local aquafers such as the Ogalala could be allowed to recharge if alternative water was available for irrigation.

Excavated rock/dirt would be used to add to the Mississippi levee system and/or rebuild shoreline. Rail inside the tunnels during the construction phase could be used to this end.

All of the materials, equipment and labor would be sourced from within the USA. the money spent would RECIRCULATE within the US economy at the consumer/worker/homeowner level. This is supposed to be good for the middle class. Sales of concrete, steel etc. should give the U.S. based producers a shot in the arm too.

The tunnel right of way would give you a perfect opportunity to create a southern High Voltage DV transmission line (HVDC) between the West and South-east, enhancing grid stability. It is also an opportunity to wean power producers away from ageing infrastructure and old low efficiency powerplants.

There are ample low-head hydro opportunities along any possible route. It doesn't take a supergenius to figure out that off-peak renewable energies can be stored in such a project as pumped storage. Due to the size of such an endeavor, there would be considerable storage capacity available. If a low-line-loss HVDC grid-tie line were constructed as well, the pumped-storage locations would not have to be immediately adjacent to the tunnel project.

There are more possible angles to such a project, but that is the gist of it. The USA built the Panama canal nearly 150 years ago with black powder, sweat steamshovels and mules. This idea is intended to revitalize OUR electrical and water infrastructure, not some foreign nations. $120 Billion is chump change compared to what we lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and about 1/10 of what was gleefully handed over to financial corporations in 2008. Let's spend a little coin on helping the MIDDLE and LOWER CLASSES instead of entirely subsidizing the wealthy for a change. Let's actually HELP the industrial infrastructure of the U.S.A. instead of killing it off slowly with "smart meters". The last time I checked, my electric power didn't originate at my meter.

Len Gould says

The first step is to re-organize governemt to eliminate factionalism (party politics) by eliminating representatives. A straight-forward $90 billion investment in putting 100 mbps fiber-optic communication into every citizens residence, then hiring 1/2% of the population to moderate debates and maintain the system, gets you a GENUINE democracy instead of this corrupt representative oligarchy. Then one can start planning.

Rajon Mestra says