Compressed Air Energy Storage Plants

[LC EFA]

jpak  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-27-08 04:59 PM
Original message
Joint Venture To Deploy Compressed Air Energy Storage Plants
   

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=5...

PSEG Global LLC and energy storage pioneer Dr. Michael Nakhamkin announced that they have formed Energy Storage and Power LLC (ES&P), a joint venture to exclusively market, license, support the development and supervise project execution of the second generation of Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) technology.

CAES technology stores off-peak energy, in the form of compressed air in an underground reservoir, and releases this energy during peak hours. CAES can be used for load management of intermittent renewable energy resources or as a stand-alone intermediate generation source for capturing energy arbitrage, capacity payments and ancillary services. Dr. Nakhamkin led the design and technical implementation of North America's only CAES plant in McIntosh, Alabama in 1991.

ES&P said that its second generation CAES technology incorporates lessons learned and operational experience from the Alabama CAES project. ES&P will license its technology to customers, as well as optimize the performance of CAES plants and provide technical support throughout the CAES project design, development and construction process. Potential customers of ES&P's CAES technology include electric utility companies, independent power producers, wind developers and transmission owners, according to PSEG Global.

<more>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x169630

So. Let me get this straight.

You are using "off peak" energy, energy that is produced by in large from fossil fuel power plants, to run HUGE compressors, to store compressed air in old satl mines / etc.

Just so I'm sure, you are advocating generating electricity, piping it out to an industrial facility and using that energy to produce pressurized air. Ignoring the losses in that procedure. Talk about grossly inefficient.

How much more CO2 is that power plant producing, having to run up a huge lossy compressor farm to drive this thing ?

How many joules of energy are lost just through heat when one is compressing that volume of air and storing it ?

Do you realize that energy is conserved. The energy used to compress all that air and store it comes from somewhere. In this case it is most likely a coal or nuclear plant. There are huge losses in not only compressing this air, but converting it back to a usable form when it is required.

Once the air is compressed, you have to pass it BACK through a turbine to convert it back to a usable form. More losses.

DCKit  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Journal Wed Aug-27-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It's what's going to make the air-car go VROOOM!   Updated at 6:15 AM
   
And external combustion produces far fewer NO's. And, with good heat exchange, it should be very efficient. Additionally, the heat of compression can be captured to provide "free" heat and hot water.

To the Nnaysayers, don't bother. An ICE works off the same principle of expanding gases. This isn't some kind of radical vapor tech, Buck Rogers science or any of the other ridiculous tags you're gonna want to use.

Oh, and it doesn't cost $10 Brazillion per exajoule to implement.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

You, are too stupid to be on the internet. Seriously.

External combustion produces fewer Nitrogen Oxide products ? How's that work ?

Just how the ever loving f!@# are they going to USE the heat the "can be captured" to provide that heat and hot water. Pipe it miles and miles in an insulated pipeline to where it's useful, at again a huge loss ? Who in their right mind is going to pay for the infrastructure to do this.

phantom power  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-27-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Huh. It made me think...
   
they're getting significant energy loss from their storage system. Because otherwise they wouldn't need to burn fossil fuels to put the energy back in.

Congratulations, you may continue posting on the internet.

They're getting a huge loss converting electrical energy derived from fossil fuel into compressed air, getting another huge loss converting that compressed air into electrical energy, and think that they can offset that loss by burning MORE fossil fuel. These people are ****ing insane.

DCKit  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-27-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I know what a heat exchanger is.   Updated at 6:15 AM
   
My question is: "Are they putting that "captured" energy toward a useful purpose - hot water, space heat, greenhouse heating, industrial process, absorption/ammonia cycle cooling - or simply throwing it away as do 99.9999% of air conditioning systems and other forms of heat exchangers?" Seriously, I'm on your side and didn't come looking for an argument. Nor did I expect to be chastised for perceived ignorance - yet again - because I failed to write a comprehensive energy policy manual with references, footnotes, blueprints, diagrams and addenda within my post.

Throwing away free energy, in any form, is stupid and shortsighted - especially when the economy of scale comes into play. Wherever a substantial temperature difference exists, there is useful energy.

You retard.

There. is. NO. SUCH. THING. as FREE. ENERGY.

kristopher  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-27-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. It's stored (liquid salts?) and used to reheat the air, aiding expansion. nt

Storing thermal energy as "(liquid salts?)" ... oooookay, I'd like an explanation on that if possible.

kristopher  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Journal  Wed Aug-27-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It works well as a storage medium for any type energy produced in excess of consumption
   
Wind and solar both suffer from the same type of inefficiency as coal or nuclear; they all have, at one time or another, output that is in excess of demand. In other words, all energy generating forms are often producing "spilled" energy. That is the original meaning of base load generation, in fact.

Coal fired turbines are extremely long and heavy and they sag if you stop their rotation. Once that happens it takes as much as 18 hours to bring them slowly up to speed in a way that evens out the sag. Since that timing is very inconvenient, it has become the custom to keep these large turbines running 24/7. This 'baseload' is in excess of normal nighttime demand and is extremely cheap. It never made all that much economic sense to capture it before, but that all changes with a need to store the excess production of wind and solar in a renewable grid.

The units themselves perform in the niche served by natural gas generation; quick-on, standby, peaking power, for the most part.
The net effect is about a 70% reduction in natural gas use to generate the same amount of electricity. Under the current generating mix, that means that the compressed air is displacing natural gas; under a renewable grid, it will displace coal. The importance of that is that when we move to a totally fossil free generating mix, by bringing down the amount of fuel required for this type turbine (it can work with liquid or gaseous fuels), we will more likely able to meet the fuel demand with biofuels for a complete elimination of fossil CO2 contributions.

With Coal and nuclear they can reduce the output you stupid goat, so that they produce less energy (and thus less emissions) when less are required. You want to run the plants full on full bore, to charge your grossly inefficient compressed air "storage" medium. Can you not see that this will ADD to the waste from energy facilities rather than reduce it ???

As for using that energy to store the piddling little that solar and other "alternative" methods make, the losses would make the whole procedure unworkable. Especially so as they admit that they need to burn additional gas to keep the place operating.

[JohnnyReb]

With Coal and nuclear they can reduce the output you stupid goat, so that they produce less energy (and thus less emissions) when less are required. You want to run the plants full on full bore, to charge your grossly inefficient compressed air "storage" medium. Can you not see that this will ADD to the waste from energy facilities rather than reduce it ???

As for using that energy to store the piddling little that solar and other "alternative" methods make, the losses would make the whole procedure unworkable. Especially so as they admit that they need to burn additional gas to keep the place operating.

Increasing and decreasing output in large electricity generating plants isn't as simple as stepping on the gas in your car. It's complex and takes time and energy to do that. And it's to slow and costly to follow the demand curve, thus pump-back stations and maybe this compressed air thing in the flat lands. It's more efficient to run nuke and coal plants at a steady flat rate somewhere between peak demand and low demand by using 'storage' units such as hydro pumpback stations to absorb the rise and fall in demand.

The old hydro plants could go from a standing start to max output in 8 minutes. I feel sure they can do better than that these days. This compressed air thing could probably be up and maxxed out in a minute or two.

And the answer to free engery is ............ give every DUmmie and carbon credit purchaser a bicycle pump. Might as well get something for all those welfare and disability checks.

[LC EFA]

With Coal and nuclear they can reduce the output you stupid goat, so that they produce less energy (and thus less emissions) when less are required. You want to run the plants full on full bore, to charge your grossly inefficient compressed air "storage" medium. Can you not see that this will ADD to the waste from energy facilities rather than reduce it ???

As for using that energy to store the piddling little that solar and other "alternative" methods make, the losses would make the whole procedure unworkable. Especially so as they admit that they need to burn additional gas to keep the place operating.

Increasing and decreasing output in large electricity generating plants isn't as simple as stepping on the gas in your car. It's complex and takes time and energy to do that. And it's to slow and costly to follow the demand curve, thus pump-back stations and maybe this compressed air thing in the flat lands. It's more efficient to run nuke and coal plants at a steady flat rate somewhere between peak demand and low demand by using 'storage' units such as hydro pumpback stations to absorb the rise and fall in demand.

The old hydro plants could go from a standing start to max output in 8 minutes. I feel sure they can do better than that these days. This compressed air thing could probably be up and maxxed out in a minute or two.

And the answer to free engery is ............ give every DUmmie and carbon credit purchaser a bicycle pump. Might as well get something for all those welfare and disability checks.

They can still gradually bring to idle units in a coal fired plant, or "pull rods" in a nuclear plant. While it does take time, both to reduce output and to scale it back up,  and will waste energy, it's nothing on the order of energy wasted by converting electrical energy into stored pressure and then back into electrical energy.

My point was more that in non peak loads they will not idle non required units as those units will be required at full power to drive the storage facility. Ergo, it won't reduce emissions output by one single bit, and will if anything increase it by running more units at higher output for longer.

As for up and charged in a minute or two, how many minutes and joules of energy is required to pressurize and hold meaningful pressure on several cubic miles of storage space ? What is the scale of the plant required to do such?

[JohnnyReb]

With Coal and nuclear they can reduce the output you stupid goat, so that they produce less energy (and thus less emissions) when less are required. You want to run the plants full on full bore, to charge your grossly inefficient compressed air "storage" medium. Can you not see that this will ADD to the waste from energy facilities rather than reduce it ???

As for using that energy to store the piddling little that solar and other "alternative" methods make, the losses would make the whole procedure unworkable. Especially so as they admit that they need to burn additional gas to keep the place operating.

Increasing and decreasing output in large electricity generating plants isn't as simple as stepping on the gas in your car. It's complex and takes time and energy to do that. And it's to slow and costly to follow the demand curve, thus pump-back stations and maybe this compressed air thing in the flat lands. It's more efficient to run nuke and coal plants at a steady flat rate somewhere between peak demand and low demand by using 'storage' units such as hydro pumpback stations to absorb the rise and fall in demand.

The old hydro plants could go from a standing start to max output in 8 minutes. I feel sure they can do better than that these days. This compressed air thing could probably be up and maxxed out in a minute or two.

And the answer to free engery is ............ give every DUmmie and carbon credit purchaser a bicycle pump. Might as well get something for all those welfare and disability checks.

They can still gradually bring to idle units in a coal fired plant, or "pull rods" in a nuclear plant. While it does take time, both to reduce output and to scale it back up,  and will waste energy, it's nothing on the order of energy wasted by converting electrical energy into stored pressure and then back into electrical energy.

My point was more that in non peak loads they will not idle non required units as those units will be required at full power to drive the storage facility. Ergo, it won't reduce emissions output by one single bit, and will if anything increase it by running more units at higher output for longer.

As for up and charged in a minute or two, how many minutes and joules of energy is required to pressurize and hold meaningful pressure on several cubic miles of storage space ? What is the scale of the plant required to do such?

I wasn't trying to imply that compressed air was the best thing since sliced bread. Mearly making the point that jockeying nuclear reactors and boilers around while maintaining load wasn't a quick or simple thing to do. ....and rest assured the electric companies won't go for compressed air storage unless it's practical. ...and yes there's going to be a lot of heat produced(V1P1T1=V2P2T2)(can't do subscripts) and the only practical use of that heat I see is maybe use it to "preheat" water going into the boilers or nuclear reactor or heat exchangers.

[LC EFA]

I wasn't trying to imply that compressed air was the best thing since sliced bread. Mearly making the point that jockeying nuclear reactors and boilers around while maintaining load wasn't a quick or simple thing to do. ....and rest assured the electric companies won't go for compressed air storage unless it's practical. ...and yes there's going to be a lot of heat produced(V1P1T1=V2P2T2)(can't do subscripts) and the only practical use of that heat I see is maybe use it to "preheat" water going into the boilers or nuclear reactor or heat exchangers.

Yes.

You are exactly correct in that is is no simple procedure to juggle the output of large electrical producers. Very costly to "turn on" or "off" units so they'll generally try bring them back to an idle state when the unit is not required, as KWh produced vs KWh billed is an important concern. It's why they employ people much smarter than I am to operate such places, and juggle such considerations.

I was mostly bitching at the inefficiencies and outright silliness of the DUmmies latest "free energy" ideas, and hoping that the DU lurkers here might actually pay some attention to information that might contradict their POV.

Personally, I would use the heat from such a process to assist in in distillation of saline / contaminated water, such that it could be dropped straight into a vacuum apparatus and from there into the nearest reservoir.  This obviously doesn't add up to a net gain, but ensures that not all the energy in the system is completely wasted.

[EastFacingNorth]

You retard.

There. is. NO. SUCH. THING. as FREE. ENERGY.

In fairness to the DUmmy, it seemed fairly obvious to me that he was referring to energy made available as an unintended consequence of some process.  While not literally free, this happens all the friggin' time.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but there's plenty to call the DUmmies on without resorting to straw-man arguments.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Is this one of those Nigerian-prince-nneds-your-bank-info-to-transfer-$55-million-for-which-you-will-be-handsomely-compensated emails.

Seriously.

Compressed hot air/endless free energy? It sounds like a bad joke.

[GOBUCKS]

jpak  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-27-08 04:59 PM
Original message
Joint Venture To Deploy Compressed Air Energy Storage Plants

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about the democrat vice presidential candidate.  Carry on.

[Wineslob]

DUmbest-idea-ever.

The idiot has NO idea the power it takes to compress air.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Is this one of those Nigerian-prince-nneds-your-bank-info-to-transfer-$55-million-for-which-you-will-be-handsomely-compensated emails.

Seriously.

Compressed hot air/endless free energy? It sounds like a bad joke.

No, actually LC EFA and JohnnyReb pretty accurately covered the strong points.  Low-cost coal-fired energy plants run very efficiently IF they can produce a constant and continuous output at the same level, unfortunately actual energy demand during the day is a rollercoaster, and they don't all look the same.  Costs go up by more than an order of magnitude if you have to bring units on and off line during the day.  Any technology that allows you to store energy and then use it to plus-up the output during the peak without bringing more turbines on line will enhance efficiency.  Numerous things have been tried for this in the past, including pumping water up into impoundments off-peak and running it downhill through turbines during peak loads.
The air thing seems a little far-fetched to me since it seems like for the compression factor necessary to get a useful amount of work out of it, you might as well be liquifying it and then boiling the liquid nitrogen to drive the turbines.  Just seems there would be some unintended consequences to putting 30 atmospheres of pressure into a hole in the ground....     

[NHSparky]

DUmbest-idea-ever.

The idiot has NO idea the power it takes to compress air.

I do.  Teh stoopid is strong with them.

[BannedFromDU]

DUmbest-idea-ever.

The idiot has NO idea the power it takes to compress air.

I think they have SOME idea of what it takes to compress air...