Stephen
One question that comes immediately to mind is how much NO comes
out the exhaust pipe?
Without access to catalytic converters, this could be a concern.
The percentage would probably be easy to determine even in small
protoptype, as the NOx pollution control monitoring equipment -
used for auto emissions in most staes, is almost commonplace these
days. Catalytic converters generally do a decent job of
controlling NOx. Plus, in the power-plant setting, unlike in the
auto, the catalyst can be periodically revitalized after it begins
to degrade. I would guess that this is a non-issue for those
reasons.
In this scheme, this liquid fuel/oxidizer would be picked up
periodically from the floating wind farms by cryo-tankers, and
transported onshore - to be used in regular gas-fired electric
plants - to increase the efficiency of combustion and reduce
hydrocarbons by as much as 1/3 for the same kWh. There is still
too much CO2 in this scheme for the Sierra Club-
Actually I don't see how this reduces the CO2 emissions at all.
Ah, Stephen, as a dedicated environmentalist, you need to put on
the 'thinking cap' every once in a while - unless you were just
trying to provide me with a convenient segue to better explain the
details of this scheme <g>. The 1/3 savings estimate in reduced
carbon is probably on the low side. There is a huge benefit to be
derived from expanding any volatile liquid through a tubine,
especially using using waste heat to gassify it. That expansion
uses no CO2 at all. It is merely a return of the stored wind
energy.
The liquid (air or otherwise) is at the equivalent pressure of
3000 psi, when it arrives. When it is expanded (i.e. gassified due
to the 800-to-one difference in volume) the return of the *stored
wind energy* is immediate and very efficient. And that does not
even include the Carnot boost to the normal turbine, due to the
increase Carnot spread. And the extra boost if you use the
resultant gas as the oxidizer. Nor does it include increased
combustion efficiency. There is a double or triple synergy here!
and that is part of the beauty of the integrated scheme.
In the case of liquid air, even if none of it were used to enhance
combustion, the efficiency return is enormous, due to the high COP
of the initial liquifaction, using the ocean heat sink. The Linde
process has a COP of greater than 4 (this is a slightly different
meaning for COP than what we use for overunity calculations).
Nevertheless, considering that it changes (improves) the Carnot
calculations for the regular gas-fired process by 200 degrees K,
just the boost in Carnot efficiency would give a significant gain.
Then - if liquid N2O were to be substituted for Liquid air, there
is an additional exotherm there.
Of all the possible ways to store wind energy this is the most
efficient (possible exception: superconductive storage rings).
Compared to converting wind energy to electricity and then to
hydrogen, and then liquifying the H2, the net efficiency is at
least double.
Actually the only valid environmental objection to this scheme
that I am aware of, is slight "thermal pollution" in that by using
that ocean heat sink for liquefaction, one is very slightly
contributing to ocean warming that way. But that is nothing
compared to using ocean water to cool a nuclear reactor, for
instance, where for every 1 gigawatt of electricity produced 3.5
gigawatts of waste heat are generated and then dumped directly
into the ocean.
Jones
