| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 110MW Compressed Air Storage plant in Alabama
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Pluto |
 Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Second commercially owned in the world. World's first CAES plant is a 290 MW
facility located in Huntdorf, Germany. First CAES plant in the United States. First in
the world to use fuel-efficient recuperator, which reduces fuel consumption by 25
percent. One full charge from the 110 MW CAES plant provides enough electricity to
supply the demands of 11,000 homes for 26 hours. Off-peak electricity is used to
compress air in the cavern. Cavern:
Top of solution-mined salt cavern is 1,500 feet underground. Bottom of cavern is 2,500
feet underground. 10-million-cubic-foot air storage cavern is 220 feet in diameter and
1,000 feet tall. At full charge, air pressure is 1,100 pounds per square inch. At full
discharge, cavern air pressure is 650 pounds per square inch. The cavern walls do not
move as the pressure changes inside. The cavern walls have a strength of 50 times that
of the maximum air pressure produced by the CAES plant. Capacity: Compressed air flows
through the CAES plant generator at a rate of 340 pounds of air per second, which is as
fast as a wide-body jet engine.
The fuel consumption during generation is equal to 4,600 Btu (HHV) per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) of electricity. There are about 20,750 Btu in each gallon of gasoline. The
electricity consumed during compression is 0.82 kWh of peak load generation.
Construction: Harbert International, Birmingham, Alabama Plant construction time:
approximately 2 years, 9 months Engineer: Gibbs & Hill, New York, NY. Machinery and
equipment made by Dresser-Rand, Wellsville, NY (includes expanders, compressors,
motor-generator, control system, clutches, gears). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Ladasky |
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
That's an interesting way to store energy!
On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient,
but you can't do it just anywhere.
How does this underground compressed-air approach compare in
efficiency, safety, and ease of siting to pumped hydro?
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Ladasky Home Solar, Inc.: blowing sunshine up your |
| power grid since March 24, 2005. Fiat lux! |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Uptime Downtime kWh generated kWh consumed |
| 661 days 6.5 hours 11686 12651 |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Elmegaard |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don W |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169161345.881430.43440@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient,
but you can't do it just anywhere.
Wonder why no one is married to pumped storage in the way that many are
married to the hydrogen economy idea? It wouldn't be impossible to build an
elevated reservoir just about anywhere, but we reject the concept in places
where God hasn't already done most of the work for us. Hydrogen generation,
storage and utilization is beset by many more obstacles, yet there are
people who will sing the praises of hydrogen with their last breath no
matter what the challenges.
Quote: How does this underground compressed-air approach compare in
efficiency, safety, and ease of siting to pumped hydro?
Storing much energy with compressed air requires a LOT of compressed air!
Aside from the challenges of storing large volumes of air at high pressure,
air gets hot when you compress it. That heat energy is largely
unrecoverable.
Don W. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bill Ward |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:05:04 -0800, Don W wrote:
Quote: "John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169161345.881430.43440@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient, but
you can't do it just anywhere.
Wonder why no one is married to pumped storage in the way that many are
married to the hydrogen economy idea? It wouldn't be impossible to build
an elevated reservoir just about anywhere,
Wouldn't it also work with a _depressed_ reservoir just about as well?
Accessing the underground turbopump machinery is the main problem I see,
and there should be several ways to approach that.
If you really wanted to start a flap, just suggest forming the underground
cavern with a nuclear device. That ought to generate some interesting
discussion. Maybe there's a sci-fi story somewhere in there.
Regards,
Bill Ward |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Josh Hill |
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:05:04 -0800, "Don W" <dontcallme@illcallu.net>
wrote:
Quote: "John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169161345.881430.43440@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient,
but you can't do it just anywhere.
Wonder why no one is married to pumped storage in the way that many are
married to the hydrogen economy idea? It wouldn't be impossible to build an
elevated reservoir just about anywhere, but we reject the concept in places
where God hasn't already done most of the work for us. Hydrogen generation,
storage and utilization is beset by many more obstacles, yet there are
people who will sing the praises of hydrogen with their last breath no
matter what the challenges.
Well, to the extent that this applies to me, it's because I'm familiar
enough with the challenges and technological horizons of hydrogen FCV
technology to believe that it will arrive more or less as scheduled,
whereas I've found it difficult to come across information on the
costs and practicality of widescale pumped storage, and what I've seen
hasn't been very positive.
Pumped storage is apparently feasible and economical in existing
geological formations, and is already used by power companies to save
money by shifting off-peak production to peak periods, but based on
the scanty information I have the consensus appears to be that that
isn't true on a significantly larger scale. Of course, you can always
build reservoirs as you suggest, but reservoirs are big and occupy
prime real estate, either occupied by communities or if not part of
the vanishing remnants of our wild coastlines, including protected
wetlands and treasured beaches and recreation areas. And assuming you
can get the thing built, you have to consider the cost of the land and
construction, and their contribution to storage costs. You also have
to take into account water availability and costs and proximity to
wind resources.
If large scale pumped storage were feasible, the US could meet most or
all of its electricity needs from wind at a very reasonable cost --
from my perspective a nearly ideal scenario. If, on the other hand,
large-scale pumped hydro isn't feasible, we'll need to rely mostly on
fission or fossil fuel with sequestration, if it proves practical.
(I'm omitting possibilities like fusion, solar generation, or algae
farming simply because we don't know enough yet to know if they will
become economically viable). In the absence of an alternative form of
storage, that limits wind penetration to about 20 percent.
--
Josh
[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.
- The Gospel of Judas |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don W |
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.19.17.44.32.123894@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...
Quote: On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:05:04 -0800, Don W wrote:
"John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169161345.881430.43440@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient, but
you can't do it just anywhere.
Wonder why no one is married to pumped storage in the way that many are
married to the hydrogen economy idea? It wouldn't be impossible to build
an elevated reservoir just about anywhere,
Wouldn't it also work with a _depressed_ reservoir just about as well?
Accessing the underground turbopump machinery is the main problem I see,
and there should be several ways to approach that.
If you really wanted to start a flap, just suggest forming the underground
cavern with a nuclear device. That ought to generate some interesting
discussion. Maybe there's a sci-fi story somewhere in there.
Regards,
Bill Ward
I like it!!!
Don W. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:37 pm |
|
|
|
|
The way they built Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant in California was
to build a 'sister' plant in the Sierra Nevada, a 2000 MWs pump-storage
facility that uses reverse polarity generators..that is a geneator that
turns itself into a motor, to absorb full-load generation by the
nuclear plant at night.. Amazing facility, really. Two lakes with only
streams feeding them but enough to run full bore 2000 MWs for 7 days if
one wanted to drain the upper lake. Like pumped air, not too many areas
in the world have this, and of course, there is no net gain in energy.
David Walters
Power Plant Control Operator,
San Francisco, CA
Don W wrote:
Quote: "John Ladasky" <ladasky@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1169161345.881430.43440@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On-grid hydroelectric storage is supposed to be about 70% efficient,
but you can't do it just anywhere.
Wonder why no one is married to pumped storage in the way that many are
married to the hydrogen economy idea? It wouldn't be impossible to build an
elevated reservoir just about anywhere, but we reject the concept in places
where God hasn't already done most of the work for us. Hydrogen generation,
storage and utilization is beset by many more obstacles, yet there are
people who will sing the praises of hydrogen with their last breath no
matter what the challenges.
How does this underground compressed-air approach compare in
efficiency, safety, and ease of siting to pumped hydro?
Storing much energy with compressed air requires a LOT of compressed air!
Aside from the challenges of storing large volumes of air at high pressure,
air gets hot when you compress it. That heat energy is largely
unrecoverable.
Don W. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:04 pm
|
|