LOST JEEPS :: View topic - Renewable Energy Sources

Uffe, that is interesting you work for Vestes.. I am on the opposite of the RE system, I help to design power systems for smaller grids that want to incorporate wind power. Fluctuating power is not really that big of a deal for large areas with very robust grids. Through geographic dispersion (bunch of windmills over a large area) the fluctuation is reduced. Robust grids also have the option of exporting and importing energy from one area to another. This is one reason why the northern Europe can have a large amount of energy from wind, when the wind is producing, they export, when it is not, it is importing.

A large problem for smaller grids is in regulation. The wind changes can not exceed the ability of the system to change with it. If this happens your frequency will change and other nasty problems can occur, like protection schemes for generators start activating, tripping them off and on down the line till the lights go out. By system changes I am talking about generation to ramp up or down over a specific amount of time, keeping in step with load. It is interesting stuff indeed, but small grids (small Islands) will continue to have a problem incorporating a lot of wind power. (no export or importing).

The future will hold all of the RE generation systems. Yes creation of hydrogen through electrolysis is not very efficient, but if curtailment of wind generation is required in order to meet system requirements, it doesn't matter because the energy is excess that the system cannot use, and the wind farm owner only gets paid for providing energy to the market. Hydrogen could be used as kind of a demand side load management scheme, working the a wind farm.

Solar and wind go hand in hand, when it is windy, generally it is cloudy and vica versa. Though this is a generality but it can be seen on seasonal and daily time periods.

Interesting topic.

Out

One of our energy storage measure is hydroelectric, when we have excess energy here, we put it up into a holding resivour, then the pumps can be run backwards to generate electricity during peak demand, anywhere where you have a potential to do that I think you should.

I think out future energy needs will not be centralized generation, but rather dispersed localized generation.

Sir Sam wrote:

yep, forgot about that one. I think the UK does a lot of this, it is called pump storage, with an efficiency of around 80% round trip which is really high.

The problem with hydro, especially on a small scale, is that it ruins local eco-systems. We've got that problem now in Oregon and Washington, salmon are dying out due to drainage and dam problems, and multiple other species are being impacted. I like wind because with careful placement it does not have as damaging effects, but the downside is of course that it dosen't generate all that much power. Solar is very similiar in that regard, with even less environmental impact, but even less power.

I think that localized sources make sense for rural areas, while centralized(especially nuclear) make sense for population centers. I really wouldn't want to live next door to someone with a poorly maintained wind generator on their roof in the city, but I wouldn't care if it was on the roof of the guy a mile down the road...

Uffe - You just pointed out exactly why wind in a urban environment is a bad idea. I really would not want to be reliant on my neighbor to keep their generator serviced, people are bad enough about servicing basic things like thier furnaces, I can't imagine what it would be like if it became common to have turbines on houses.

Ultimatly I am strongly in favor of a major increase in nuclear power. France has become nearly energy independent, and is a market where electric transportation could concievably take place due to their reliance on nuclear power. With waste reprocessing now becoming reality, it eliminates the last real arguments against it...

Author:	MOSFET [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Renewable Energy Sources
Maybe we can focus talk of renewable energy sources here and avoid hijacking other threads. Power generation from wind is here to stay and there is no doubt about that. Uffe sounds like he works for Vestas and they are a major OEM of wind turbines. The blades on wind turbines rotate very slowly, maybe 12-15 RPM. Yes the tip speed may be fast on larger MW machines, but bird kills are not a concern when the turbines are properly located. Avian studies are done before every new wind project here in the US. It is true that our electrical grid here in the US is woefully outdated and it needs to be upgraded. That is true irrespective of the type of power generation source employed. To solve our energy problems, you have to look at the facts. 1. In the US, energy demand is going up and is predicted to keep going up. 2. Where is this new power generation capacity going to come from. 3. How can our maxed out grid handle even greater levels of power transmission? All feasible sources of power generation have to be considered and that includes, coal, gas, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and others. Hydro is just about maxed out in the US. Coal is domestically plentiful, but viewed negatively by many. Nuclear, wind and solar will have to be increased if coal is not. Gas is somewhat clean, but Russia and Iran control the majority of the world's supply. I do not want to depend too much on them based on the current state of relations. We have many options, but it will take time and the government's help to wean ourselves off of foreign fuel sources.

Author:	Sir Sam [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:
well, in this case i would say this belongs in the other forum then. if we find a reasonible tangent that does pertain to the thread, its ok to leave it there, IMO.

Author:	naturist [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Kudos for not trying to hijack other threads (that is SOOOOO annoying), but I'm curious about how this pertains to Libby CRDs. There are no electric ones available or planned, as far as I know, and they're a bit heavy, and in spite of having the aerodynamic advantages of a brick, they are not likely to blow away/around, either. So . . . what's the handle, or would this be an attempt to hijack the forum, rather than merely a thread in the forum? I mean, I'm at least as green as the next guy, my CRD runs on biodiesel, I live in a solar-heated house, I'm interested in renewable energy, but I'm stretching here for a handle on the reason this is in the L.O.S.T. forum.

Author:	Jeepman56 [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:
I have heard that In England they are planning on building a wind turbine that is 3 or 4 times taller than the Statue of Liberty. Thats one big turbine! Is there any truth to this?

Author:	Uffe [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Good idea to start a new thread instead. We did get some discussion going on wind power didn't we? Sorry to have hijacked the thread with a few posts - I know it is annoying. The reason why this is posted here is because it seemed like there were some people who had a thing or two to say about renewable energy sources. As has been stated I do work for Vestas - the worlds largest manufacturer of wind turbines. So far we have installed nearly 34,000 turbines around the world, so we have a lot of data on what wind power is, and what it isn't. Personally I am considered one of the bad boys here in Denmark because I drive a 4wd car. There has even been groups letting the air out of tyres on 4wd vehicles in the larger cities in Denmark. They say they do this to discourage people to buy one and that they want to save the environment. Surely bringing a tow truck to tow the vehicle to a repair shop or nearby gas station will save the environment ... in some way I yet have not understood at all. Back to the topic ... If you look at the very basics of renewable energy, you want to pick the type of renewable energy which can deliver most, right? Well if you take a gander at the energy which hits us from the sun, you have a pretty large number which nobody can relate to, in any way, shape or form. Right. If you then take a look at the efficiency of which we can exploit this energy which the sun emits, wind comes out on top if you take plant energy (biodiesel, ethanol) and solar panel energy into consideration. Not sure about wave energy or tidal energy. This is not my field, anyone with knowledge here can chime in and tell us what's what. Now the big problem with wind energy is not that it is fluctuating. That has been overcome with stress knowledge, more advanced control design and manufacturing precision. The problem is that we cannot store the energy. Today Germany is proposing a heat machine to reside in the northern part of Germany, where old mines will be filled with hot gasses. The energy storage facility can store a lot of energy, but the efficiency is what is interesting. IIRC the efficiency of the storage is more than 60% (which is better than most battery designs). Many have speculated that turning the electrical energy into hydrogen and using fuel cells to re-create the energy when needed is a viable option. So far however technology is holding us back, because the efficiency of transforming the energy from electricity into hydrogen is low, and when transforming it yet again in a fuel cell it becomes even worse. My sources tell me that by storing the energy this way we have a 80% loss of energy. Then we haven't even touched upon the problem of storing hydrogen OR making reliable long-lasting fuel cells. So if some guy came up with a brilliant idea for storing energy efficiently (80%+) on a scalable platform we will have much better use for wind power than we have today. People have calculated that if the price of a barrel of oil rises above $54 wind power is more economical than oil.

LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Renewable Energy Sources http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29101	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Reflex [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:
I wish we could move the posts from the other thread instead of having to simply rewrite everything... BTW, the reason alternative fuels keep popping up here is because everyone in the diesel section has at least a mild interest in them, after all we all drive an alternative fuel vehicle. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that these topics spring up here even if they aren't just Jeep related. The alternative fuel section of the forum is nice but it dosen't solicit enough responses and the conversations just peter out.

Author:	dieseldoesit [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Uffe, that is interesting you work for Vestes.. I am on the opposite of the RE system, I help to design power systems for smaller grids that want to incorporate wind power. Fluctuating power is not really that big of a deal for large areas with very robust grids. Through geographic dispersion (bunch of windmills over a large area) the fluctuation is reduced. Robust grids also have the option of exporting and importing energy from one area to another. This is one reason why the northern Europe can have a large amount of energy from wind, when the wind is producing, they export, when it is not, it is importing. A large problem for smaller grids is in regulation. The wind changes can not exceed the ability of the system to change with it. If this happens your frequency will change and other nasty problems can occur, like protection schemes for generators start activating, tripping them off and on down the line till the lights go out. By system changes I am talking about generation to ramp up or down over a specific amount of time, keeping in step with load. It is interesting stuff indeed, but small grids (small Islands) will continue to have a problem incorporating a lot of wind power. (no export or importing). The future will hold all of the RE generation systems. Yes creation of hydrogen through electrolysis is not very efficient, but if curtailment of wind generation is required in order to meet system requirements, it doesn't matter because the energy is excess that the system cannot use, and the wind farm owner only gets paid for providing energy to the market. Hydrogen could be used as kind of a demand side load management scheme, working the a wind farm. Solar and wind go hand in hand, when it is windy, generally it is cloudy and vica versa. Though this is a generality but it can be seen on seasonal and daily time periods. Interesting topic. Out

Author:	Sir Sam [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:
dieseldoesit wrote: Uffe, that is interesting you work for Vestes.. I am on the opposite of the RE system, I help to design power systems for smaller grids that want to incorporate wind power. Fluctuating power is not really that big of a deal for large areas with very robust grids. Through geographic dispersion (bunch of windmills over a large area) the fluctuation is reduced. Robust grids also have the option of exporting and importing energy from one area to another. This is one reason why the northern Europe can have a large amount of energy from wind, when the wind is producing, they export, when it is not, it is importing. A large problem for smaller grids is in regulation. The wind changes can not exceed the ability of the system to change with it. If this happens your frequency will change and other nasty problems can occur, like protection schemes for generators start activating, tripping them off and on down the line till the lights go out. By system changes I am talking about generation to ramp up or down over a specific amount of time, keeping in step with load. It is interesting stuff indeed, but small grids (small Islands) will continue to have a problem incorporating a lot of wind power. (no export or importing). The future will hold all of the RE generation systems. Yes creation of hydrogen through electrolysis is not very efficient, but if curtailment of wind generation is required in order to meet system requirements, it doesn't matter because the energy is excess that the system cannot use, and the wind farm owner only gets paid for providing energy to the market. Hydrogen could be used as kind of a demand side load management scheme, working the a wind farm. Solar and wind go hand in hand, when it is windy, generally it is cloudy and vica versa. Though this is a generality but it can be seen on seasonal and daily time periods. Interesting topic. Out One of our energy storage measure is hydroelectric, when we have excess energy here, we put it up into a holding resivour, then the pumps can be run backwards to generate electricity during peak demand, anywhere where you have a potential to do that I think you should. I think out future energy needs will not be centralized generation, but rather dispersed localized generation.

Author:	dieseldoesit [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Sir Sam wrote: One of our energy storage measure is hydroelectric, when we have excess energy here, we put it up into a holding resivour, then the pumps can be run backwards to generate electricity during peak demand, anywhere where you have a potential to do that I think you should. I think out future energy needs will not be centralized generation, but rather dispersed localized generation. yep, forgot about that one. I think the UK does a lot of this, it is called pump storage, with an efficiency of around 80% round trip which is really high.

Author:	Sir Sam [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:
dieseldoesit wrote: Sir Sam wrote: One of our energy storage measure is hydroelectric, when we have excess energy here, we put it up into a holding resivour, then the pumps can be run backwards to generate electricity during peak demand, anywhere where you have a potential to do that I think you should. I think out future energy needs will not be centralized generation, but rather dispersed localized generation. yep, forgot about that one. I think the UK does a lot of this, it is called pump storage, with an efficiency of around 80% round trip which is really high. Anywhere you have elevation change you have the potential for this, if we are blessed with one thing in colorado it is elevation. I think we need to really develop micro hydro-electric generation, we have so much potential energy just flowing past us, the only problem is it is very diffuse.

Author:	Reflex [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:09 am ]
Post subject:
The problem with hydro, especially on a small scale, is that it ruins local eco-systems. We've got that problem now in Oregon and Washington, salmon are dying out due to drainage and dam problems, and multiple other species are being impacted. I like wind because with careful placement it does not have as damaging effects, but the downside is of course that it dosen't generate all that much power. Solar is very similiar in that regard, with even less environmental impact, but even less power. I think that localized sources make sense for rural areas, while centralized(especially nuclear) make sense for population centers. I really wouldn't want to live next door to someone with a poorly maintained wind generator on their roof in the city, but I wouldn't care if it was on the roof of the guy a mile down the road...

Author:	Sir Sam [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:27 am ]
Post subject:
Reflex wrote: The problem with hydro, especially on a small scale, is that it ruins local eco-systems. We've got that problem now in Oregon and Washington, salmon are dying out due to drainage and dam problems, and multiple other species are being impacted. I like wind because with careful placement it does not have as damaging effects, but the downside is of course that it dosen't generate all that much power. Solar is very similiar in that regard, with even less environmental impact, but even less power. I think that localized sources make sense for rural areas, while centralized(especially nuclear) make sense for population centers. I really wouldn't want to live next door to someone with a poorly maintained wind generator on their roof in the city, but I wouldn't care if it was on the roof of the guy a mile down the road... Around here we have several hydro generators that divert some water from a source, pipe it down and get quite a bit of head, generate, and then return it to the stream, the small scale hydro I am thinking of is less impactful than damming up a river to generate hydro.

Author:	daxiet [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:03 am ]
Post subject:
We is RSA are at an all time low on Power. We used to be able to generate ~40000MW, right now 3 years down the line we are at 27000MW. We have load shedding as an everyday occurence, some areas are out for 8 hrs a day. It got so bad recently that the mines had their power cut, did the world of good for the Gold/Platinum price. Our major Nuclear plant in Cape Town apparently had a 20 year lifespan, we are pushing on towards 30 years now (the thing is a ticking timebomb). Was at the plant last year to do some work, got to learn quite a bit about it. This was just after a bolt came off one of the turbines causing a shutdown on it. The average South African now owns a Pertol or to a lessor degree Diesel generator. Doing nothing for our environment and the usage of fossil fuels. The major energy supplier in SA is a parastatal called Eskom (meant to be private now, but if only it were the case), they have lost in the region of 70% of their skilled resources and can no longer maintain the existing power plants, most of which are coal driven. It is a sad state of affairs for a country that is growing and without power will grind to a halt. They are now talking about power rationing and penalties, to a degree this is good (for too long we have just wasted power), but the drive behind it is to cover up for poor planning and management of its power plants which rattles the chains of the common citizen. Load shedding is leading to businesses closing down and jobs being lost, unemployment is a major issue here. It is amazing to see the affects of power, I never thought of all the possible complications associated with a lack thereof. We have some of the windiest areas in the world, the one city's nick name is the "Windy City" yet we have no wind turbines. We love burning coal and producing Nuclear waste. The power plants on the drawing board at the moment are Pebble Bed reactors, these will just keep churning out nuclear waste. the creation of new power plants will take at least 5 years, we have been told that for the next 7 years we will have load shedding and it will get worse. I don't mean to come across negative. On a lighter side, at the opening of our parliment this year the one party spokesman said the following: "I would like to wish everyone a prosperous new year and may the light shine upon you if and when it is available."

Author:	Reflex [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:26 am ]
Post subject:
Sounds like there needs to be a serious investment in waste reprocessing, after all nuclear waste typically has around 96% of its potential energy left, and can be simply recycled. This is happening in France and to a lesser degree China, and is the real answer to the nuclear waste problem...

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Uffe [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:37 am ]
Post subject:
Speaking of power density, the wind turbines actually outrun most renewable energy sources. Solar is incredibly inefficient to collect the energy of the sun, and when you look at what area such a site will take up to produce the same energy as a wind turbine you're looking at blocks the size of small towns. Another upside of wind turbines is that they can be placed on farmland and not destroy crops or farm animals (well maybe the odd sheep will be freaked out by the shadowcasting) where as solar panels HAVE to block out the sun in the area they occupy. If not, then you're not being effective. Don't get me wrong. I would have loved for solar to be our saviour. In all probability they require less maintenance than a wind turbine because they have less number of parts and none of which are moving. For the moment we have a 14-day service interval on our wind turbines. Wind turbine servicing is hugely important to any modern turbine. If a turbine is not serviced properly the outcome can be very dramatic. Last week there was a turbine which threw a blade in Sweden, unfortunatly it was one of ours. A V52 850kW turbine threw one of its blades 40 meters through the air. Fortunately nobody was hurt in the process! Investigations say that the bolts which holds the blade onto the hub were not properly serviced (they actually tighten them SirSam and dieseldoesit - that talk about hydroelectric power reserves is very interesting. I have fantasized about such a thing for a few months now, and to be able to do that cheaply requires a landscape which is easy to form. Denmark is not such a good place for that solution, we need to go to Sweden or Norway to find anything that even resembles elevation. The highest place in Denmark is a hill which is 171m above sea level, and the few places we could use to provide elevation for such projects are preserved. It is actually quite funny when talking about this renewable energy and storing the power using water at elevation. The company I worked for before I came to Vestas was Grundfos - a huge european pump manufacturer They provide pumps for central heating of houses and A/C systems, etc. They produce 40,000 units of pumps a day of just the central heating type. They also produce some monster pumps used in power plants. These are so large you are able to walk upright in the tubes going to and from them What would be really interesting would be a machine, operated on wind power, which was able to draw out the CO2 from the atmosphere. Perhaps there is a method to reverse the reaction from C + O2 -> CO2 and be able to form fuel again

Author:	ATXKJ [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:27 am ]
Post subject:
FYI - still in development but neat technology nanostructured catalyst to spit hydrogen out of water http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/

Author:	Reflex [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Uffe - You just pointed out exactly why wind in a urban environment is a bad idea. I really would not want to be reliant on my neighbor to keep their generator serviced, people are bad enough about servicing basic things like thier furnaces, I can't imagine what it would be like if it became common to have turbines on houses. I agree with you about solar, although it has one advantage that wind does not: It can operate anywhere. Sure its much lower efficiency, dosen't work at night, etc etc, but it does work regardless of your location. Hopefully they can continue to raise the efficiency of the cells themselves, but honestly like solar it seems to be just a complementary source. Ultimatly I am strongly in favor of a major increase in nuclear power. France has become nearly energy independent, and is a market where electric transportation could concievably take place due to their reliance on nuclear power. With waste reprocessing now becoming reality, it eliminates the last real arguments against it...

Author:	Uffe [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Reflex wrote: Uffe - You just pointed out exactly why wind in a urban environment is a bad idea. I really would not want to be reliant on my neighbor to keep their generator serviced, people are bad enough about servicing basic things like thier furnaces, I can't imagine what it would be like if it became common to have turbines on houses. Not related to what I am speaking of. I am speaking of 850kW - 3MW turbines. These are not commonplace on just a simple farm! These things costs millions of dollars and can power 2,000 households! Just as your power plant needs servicing these things need it as well. Unfortunately they need it a bit more than a power plant (service hours per MW) which is why I brought it up...

Author:	Threeweight [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Reflex wrote: Ultimatly I am strongly in favor of a major increase in nuclear power. France has become nearly energy independent, and is a market where electric transportation could concievably take place due to their reliance on nuclear power. With waste reprocessing now becoming reality, it eliminates the last real arguments against it... Adopting nuclear as the solution to global warming/energy independence is like giving up smoking and taking up crack cocaine. THe nuclear industry is one of the most highly subsidized in the country, with US taxpayers covering the cost of insuring generation facilities and dealing with spent fuel. France has been able to adopt nuclear power on the scale it has by sticking French taxpayers with the bill for developing facilities and reprocessing technology (which does not make spent fuel safe, just less dangerous to have around). The storage pools where spent fuel is currently kept in the US is a big fat juicy target for terrorists (currently requiring US taxpayers to spend an awful lot of money on security for these things.) And burying tons of highly radioactive waste in the ground is understandably unpopular with the citizens of the state where it would be buried. The US has not shifted to reprocessing for cost reasons, and because wide-spread global adoption of the technology globaly would also lead to a more widespread ability to source uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons. Nuclear as a viable energy source is at the same place today it was 30 years ago. Long on promises and generating a lot of excitement from engineers, but short on economic viability and good answers to the environmental and security problems it raises. It is also funny to note that nuclear currently costs about the same as wind power per kilowatt hour. Why the hell would we want to invest billions in nuclear, with all the associated problems that come with it, when cleaner, simpler options are on the table? Wind certainly can't become the primary fuel source of the US, but it does have the potential to become a significant (10% or more) player while other technologies mature.

Author:	MOSFET [ Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Nuclear has come extremely far in recent years. The new plant designs incorporate passive safety features and are much safer than previous designs. The cost of energy for nuclear is the lowest of any energy source. When the spent fuel is reprocessed, it can last for an extremely long time. The capacity factor (% of time the plant is able to provide power) for nuclear is also excellent. It is true the Carter administration put a permanent ban on reprocessing in the US. This was due to the fear that one of the byproducts of certain re-processing methods is weapons grade plutonium, and that this may lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, France has been doing this for years, and has had no problems. If the French can do it, I would hope that Americans could do it as well if not better. The US needs to re-process spent fuel. The majority of the public is grossly mis-informed about the facts regarding nuclear power and the new nuclear plant designs. - see above post Nuclear is very safe and will be part of the solution to our energy problems.