RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
Jed— You missed the point of using a submarine hull! It can be anchored 500 to 1000 feet below sea level with a large differential pressure when there is a valved vent pipe connected to the surface. I agree the hull volume would not be a ”Banks Lake” volume feeding Grand Coulee Dam. But may be as large as 10,000 cubic meters and able to supply energy for a small community near the sea for a night or so to supplement solar or wind power. Bob Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 4:51:00 PM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote: An old submarine hull (ridged structure) would work nicely as a reservoir. That's an underwater reservoir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Underwater_reservoirs That is MUCH too small. It has to have hundreds or even thousands of times more capacity than that to hold a significant amount of energy. The water pressure is low. The reservoir is not far below sea level. It is not like a dam with water falling hundreds of feet. Typical pumped storage lakes are 30 to 50 million cubic meters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: An old submarine hull (ridged structure) would work nicely as a reservoir. > That's an underwater reservoir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity#Underwater_reservoirs That is MUCH too small. It has to have hundreds or even thousands of times more capacity than that to hold a significant amount of energy. The water pressure is low. The reservoir is not far below sea level. It is not like a dam with water falling hundreds of feet. Typical pumped storage lakes are 30 to 50 million cubic meters. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
An old submarine hull (ridged structure) would work nicely as a reservoir. Anchor the old hull bow down with a pipe to the surface in the stern and some remote operational valves installed in one or more torpedo tubes at the front door(s) of the tube(s). install a screen on the outside of the hull with a high pressure nozzle(s) to clean the screen based on a measured pressure drop across the screen. Install one or more turbines in the tubes. With energy to store pump the hull empty. To use the stored energy, open the front doors and the vent pipe to the surface. Regenerate electrical energy via water flowing into the hull under pressure at the depth of the anchored hull. It would be a nice constant pressure to run the turbines. Hulls could be anchored in clean water to avoid clogging the screens excessively. The bigger the hull and the deeper it is anchored would determine the amount of energy stored. It would be significant. Bob Cook From: David L. Babcock<mailto:olb...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage You and I concur on all the details of a workable solution -it was just that I thought I clearly read that it was a flexible structure… Ol’ Bab Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:55 PM To: Vortex<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage David L. Babcock mailto:olb...@gmail.com>> wrote: I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole has to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid shape. But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom will be 50 psi . . . I believe you are envisioning something like a single structure. A gigantic bathtub or ship hull. I do not think that is what this "hole in the ocean" will be. It will resemble a dike in the Netherlands or New Orleans, below sea level. Or like a earthen dam. No doubt some water will leak through the walls but earthen dams work well and do not leak much. Water is let into the structure in one place only, where the generator turbines are located. This is like putting turbines in one part of a dam and forcing all of the water to go through them. There would be no "upward pressure" and no structure to push up. It is just a large lake that happens be located in the ocean. If you were to go to an island and dig a pond in the middle of it, digging until it goes below sea level, you would have a similar structure. The walls and bottom of the pond would be rocks and sand, not anything that can pop up. You could build a similar structure next to a large lake (such as one of the Great Lakes) or the Hudson River. It would be large hole that extends well below the surface of the lake or river, located perhaps a kilometer away from the lake. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
You and I concur on all the details of a workable solution -it was just that I thought I clearly read that it was a flexible structure… Ol’ Bab Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:55 PM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage David L. Babcock wrote: I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole has to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid shape. But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom will be 50 psi . . . I believe you are envisioning something like a single structure. A gigantic bathtub or ship hull. I do not think that is what this "hole in the ocean" will be. It will resemble a dike in the Netherlands or New Orleans, below sea level. Or like a earthen dam. No doubt some water will leak through the walls but earthen dams work well and do not leak much. Water is let into the structure in one place only, where the generator turbines are located. This is like putting turbines in one part of a dam and forcing all of the water to go through them. There would be no "upward pressure" and no structure to push up. It is just a large lake that happens be located in the ocean. If you were to go to an island and dig a pond in the middle of it, digging until it goes below sea level, you would have a similar structure. The walls and bottom of the pond would be rocks and sand, not anything that can pop up. You could build a similar structure next to a large lake (such as one of the Great Lakes) or the Hudson River. It would be large hole that extends well below the surface of the lake or river, located perhaps a kilometer away from the lake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
David L. Babcock wrote: I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole > has to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid > shape. But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom > will be 50 psi . . . > I believe you are envisioning something like a single structure. A gigantic bathtub or ship hull. I do not think that is what this "hole in the ocean" will be. It will resemble a dike in the Netherlands or New Orleans, below sea level. Or like a earthen dam. No doubt some water will leak through the walls but earthen dams work well and do not leak much. Water is let into the structure in one place only, where the generator turbines are located. This is like putting turbines in one part of a dam and forcing all of the water to go through them. There would be no "upward pressure" and no structure to push up. It is just a large lake that happens be located in the ocean. If you were to go to an island and dig a pond in the middle of it, digging until it goes below sea level, you would have a similar structure. The walls and bottom of the pond would be rocks and sand, not anything that can pop up. You could build a similar structure next to a large lake (such as one of the Great Lakes) or the Hudson River. It would be large hole that extends well below the surface of the lake or river, located perhaps a kilometer away from the lake. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole has to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid shape. But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom will be 50 psi, or mega-tons total (wild guess – somebody could waste time doing the math) over the whole structure. It would pop up out of the water, leaving a slight depression if any (no head). Put more realistically, as it was pumped out by the wind turbines output, it would slowly collapse upward. How does something this dumb make the light of day? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 9:37 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage Pumped storage is popular in the mountainous parts of Germany. They have "6,806 MW" of pumped storage capacity: https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/germany That doesn't tell you much though, does it? 6,806 MW for how long? A half hour? One day? In Belgium they are talking about building a large hole in the ocean for pumped energy storage. Seriously. See: https://www.kcet.org/redefine/belgium-may-build-hole-in-the-ocean-to-store-energy - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
Pumped storage is popular in the mountainous parts of Germany. They have "6,806 MW" of pumped storage capacity: https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/germany That doesn't tell you much though, does it? 6,806 MW for how long? A half hour? One day? In Belgium they are talking about building a large hole in the ocean for pumped energy storage. Seriously. See: https://www.kcet.org/redefine/belgium-may-build-hole-in-the-ocean-to-store-energy - Jed
[Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage
Here is an article that provides an interesting summary of different approaches to storying energy: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/a-world-tour-of-some-of-the-biggest-energy-storage-schemes/ One of the drawbacks of existing green energy sources is that they do not necessarily produce energy during convenient hours. These energy storage mechanisms are intended to help out with that. I had forgotten about pumped storage — pumping water uphill from one reservoir to another. The pumped storage stations in the article can deliver orders of magnitude greater power than the alternatives, and they presumably have a lot more storage capacity as well. Eric
