Wind Turbines Power Liquid-Air Energy Storage

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/wind-turbines-power-liquid-air-energy-storage

I would debunk the many farfetched and outright erroneous aspects of this article, but nobody wants to hear a real analysis of anything around here.  Let's start with the title of the article: "Wind Turbines Power Liquid-Air Energy Storage":  Really?  They do?  RIght now?  Is it a true statement? You wouldn;t be lying now, would you?  Stretching the truth a bit, perhaps?  Are these (imaginary) wind turbines actually powering liquid air energy storage?  Uhhh, no, actually not (my best guess).  And one could go on, dissecting one after another fictional and fantastical aspect of this article, from claiming they can build these turbines several times larger than other turbines (why?), to claiming aluminum blades are 10x cheaper, without addressing the obvious counterbalancing factor that they use 10x as many, nor explaining why their rotor would work better, the dismal history of aluminum blades, on and on and on.  This reads like a thousand previous articles about supposed improved wind turbine technology that somehow does not take in to account virtually ANY of the known factors involved,  "Recently launched?"  So why is there only a rendering?  How 'bout a photo?  On and on, it reveals unconnected dots, unclear thinking, impartial understanding, illogical reasoning, and outright blatant false statements, at every turn. 

Having noted all that, I still hope the general idea of liquid air energy storage can help the energy situation, since it is apparent that an economical form of energy storage is needed.  I'd say there may be some improvements that have not been mentioned.  In the end, if liquid air turns out to be an economically advantageous energy storage solution, it may or may not require this particular wind turbine design.  (As in "probably not"?)  One typical aspect of the P.C.S. is to contaminate one invention with another, in this case contaminating an energy storage idea with throwing away all that's been learned about wind turbines in the last 100 years - like a TV infomercial, the hype escalates: "But wait, there's more!  Not only have we solved the energy storage puzzle, we've completely reinvented the wind turbine!  (using the Brush design, superseded 100 years ago...)  And if you order in the next 5 minutes, we can make them WAY larger!"  Have we missed anything?  Can this system perhaps babysit the kids too?  What about whale bumps?  Couldn't it be "even better" with whale bumps?  Stay tuned - write down everything this article says (make a list of the statements) and wait to see whether any of it comes true.  I hope maybe the liquid air as energy storage does have some legs - I guess time will tell..  And using mechanical rotation to directly power the liquification, as promising as it sounds, falls into a well-worn rut of saving a fraction of the power to directly drive machinery - sure, soon we'll be back to shoe factories in New England running all their machinery from a water-wheel, using overhead collective driveshafts and leather belts.  (Which would be fine with me, maybe a more sustainable lifestyle, but what are the chances?...)  :)

From : Rim Drive Advantages « Keuka Energy

 

  "Weight is Down Low:  The liquefaction system, compressors, generators, etc. do not put pressure on the tower system since they are located at the base of the tower."

So there is a link between choice of Rim Drive and liquefaction system, their viability being another story. Note also a liquefaction system could be adapted for an AWES with generation at ground.

But my opinion is (at least now) that all sorts of storage are expensive, smart grid being prefered.

Alternately another energy policy would consist in lowering the kWh when wind is announced, inciting people to use their washing machine. 

PierreB

PierreB said "But my opinion is (at least now) that all sorts of storage are expensive, smart grid being prefered."   ***Yup I agree - if liquid air is an economical answer for energy storage, it would most likely start immediately taking the place of batteries, and be used for the grid in general, for peaking, etc.  Otherwise, unless either the direct drive can be the magic bullet, liquid air as energy storage might not even have to be associated with this turbine at all.  It could just be a bad idea...  Is anyone using liquid air for energy storage? 

And if the advantages of this TURBINE are so compelling, it should work fine as a mere electricity-generating turbine as well, liquid-air or no liquid-air.  The fact that BOTH of these mostly-unproven ideas are COMBINED into a "must-have", "certain breakthrough" seems like a familiar telltale clue, to me:  It generally indicates that NEITHER of the combined ideas is a winner, and the combination of the two can be thought of as a "Hail Mary" (punt) or a way of confusing the issue(s) enough to fool investors into participating. 

Investors might more readily analyze EITHER the turbine OR the liquid-air-energy-storage, or consult experts who could analyze either: consult cryogenics experts to determine the efficiency of liquid-air as energy storage, for example, or consult wind energy experts to determine the advantages of the wind turbine.

 As it is, and for what it's worth I read the"RIm Drive Advantages" section and it reads like a smorgasbord of conflicting statements and outright ridiculous lies, really, but only for people who know better - the average person, even a real engineer or professor, without the requisite and specific background, could easily be fooled into thinking "Hmmm, sure, sounds right to me."  I mean, to mention only one statement, they claim to be more efficient than regular wind turbines for the same swept area, but for those who know, their design could NOT be more efficient, for several well-known reasons, but the average Joe would have absolutely no idea of any of that.

And let's also acknowledge that this design is almost identical to the Honeywell fiasco rim-drive rooftop turbine, and one of the changes they made was to get RID of the supposedly advantageous spoke-supported flat blades in favor of regular blades.  Given a few decades, they would have slowly evolved it to be one more regular turbine, but a company that helps design and outfit spaceships is overwhelmed by wind energy - thta is because wind energy si not rocket-science - no in comparison, rocket science is more straightforward and simple.  Wind energy baffles even the best minds, which is a source of endless amusement for we who are at least in the know enough to actually practice the art, such as it is today.

I don't have the background in thermodynamics and cryogenics to analyze the liquid air energy storage part, off the cuff, the way I do the wind part.  I suspect there are as many knowledge-holes in that end of it as I can clearly see in the wind part. 

Having said all that, there are aspects of the idea I like, both from a wind energy AND an energy storage viewpoint.  I would like to think it could all come true, because it has a lot of features I often think about as being possible avenues for improved machines.  Nevertheless, all the red flags are clearly there to be seen.  Wah.

"Its naive to suspect IEEE is "lying" in discussing to the Wind/Liquid-Air concept in the present tense."
*** It is an intentionally misleading headline designed to get attention.  The lie is the unambiguous statement that it is taking place in real time.  An honest headline might read "Wind Turbines Proposed to Power Liquid Energy Storage", or form the headline as a question rather than a statement.  Clean energy is so full of lies that most people are completely used to it, and can't tell the difference anyway.  The wannabe participants and ever-salivating green-press have learned to "win" by telling the biggest tall-tales (Think Whale-Bumps) with a straight face, like fishermen always talking about the one they hooked when nobody else was there to see it.

I have a mean-field question for Cristina Archer then:
If we removed 1% of the energy from the jet stream, how would that affect climate?
(jeopardy music - ding deety-ding deety ding deety-ding...)

Control over longer lines becomes increasingly latent.
Your desired pumping is inline with the line tension. Pierre shows very well the difference in tension can be tapped as a ring of tethers run around pumping. If control is needed you need a large base ring to match as you grow rotary course speed and height.

Could an effective pumping be perceived across that ring of tethers axis?
Why pump when you can have constant torque? Sounds like trying to develop a less applicable device. There's nothing about sail output which I've read that says pumping will derive you more power in the long term.

DaveS said: "The "jet stream" is unsuited to treat as a global mean field, being so ill-defined. Nor are output climate metrics defined. Cristina is on the long list of those wrongly accused of PCS; so the flippant question is more mean than meaningful."
*** OK I had no idea - I mean, maybe your advanced physics etc. is just above my pay grade, and nobody can understand it but you, but as usual you are wrong in virtually all you say, starting with me accusing Cristina of having PCS - she doesn't even have a beard!
Of course, in a house of cards made of lies, ANY pertinent question is "flippant".
Just imagine:  An entire "industry" of AWE purports to harness energy from the jet stream to "solve"
"global warming" yet if anyone asks the obvious question of what effect slowing the jet stream might have on that very same climate, they are accused of being "flippant".  That is because most would-be practitioners and advocates of clean energy do not even really believe in global warming and of course any targeted question is a mere annoyance that  is seen as able to possibly fracture the fairy-tale.  Ignore any facts folks - nothing to see here, move along...

"Pcs? Define please"   *** Professor Crackpot Syndrome  :)))

daveS says: "Gabos clearly only intended to share third-party activity toward making a kind of fuel from air,"
*** And of course we are not supposed to comment on it, since fact-based analysis is "flippant" and completely unwanted in the land of fairy-tales.  Add to this DaveS knee-jerk compulsion to argue with anything I say, or with any fact, period, operating on the following principles: "I've never seen a bad idea I didn't like"  "I've never seen a lie that wasn't worth defending" and "Avoid ideas that really work, at all costs".

"DaveS further argues for non-truth: "in the narrow AWES context of the IFO, not an imaginary IEEE "lie","
*** OK Dave, here's another headline/story for your analysis: "Austin Man Beats Wife"  and the story reads: "Joe Blow of Austin is quoted as proposing the possibility that someday, it might be conceivable that he could beat his wife."  Was the headline accurate, or was it a lie?  How about "Accident with Lighter Burns Down House" - you go to the house, and it is still standing.  The owner admits: "Well, yes, I DID have a cigarette yesterday..."  For some people, things can be really simple.  For others, not so much.

DaveS further mischaracterizes:  "a "PCS" idee-fixe, nor a helpless disbelief in potential engineering synergies between wind-tech and cryogenics."
*** Now this gets to the point of where we can really start to see the imbalance - an idea is floated (quoted?), I respond by analyzing the facts in a nice way, and DaveS wants to characterize my analysis as "helpless disbelief".  (An analysis in good faith is called "helpless" and "disbelief" - Lies piled on mis-characterizations, faster than anyone could ever keep track)  Of course DaveS feels no need to back up his statement by showing that there IS synergy between wind energy and cryogenics, (which is a far broader topic than what I specifically questioned anyway), but the song remains the same: "Please don't ask any pertinent questions about anything said here since it may fracture the fairy tale - no analysis wanted, no facts needed."  And it fits that this turbine, which (of course!) "can be built a hundred times larger than any known turbine" because it is "cheaper to build", "more efficient", "doesn't require a crane", "doesn't hurt birds" blah blah blah blah blah, (in true PCS form) is virtually identical to a previous (Honeywell) turbine that was a laughingstock in wind energy, therefore relentlessly defended by daveS a couple years ago (never seen a bad idea he didn't like), during his "We've scheduled an AWE-powered rock concert featuring major acts" era.

So you can probably see why I have not posted in a while now - no time to respond to the compulsive and bitter cascade of lies, insinuations, false accusations, misquotes, and mis-characterizations, that any post of mine draws from (ahem) you-know-who... (he he he :)))  )

Reminds me of walking down the street and some guy says he wants to fight and starts swinging, you flick him away with your pinky, and yet he just keeps coming back for more, over and over and over, and never quits.  At worst, at some point, your pinky gets tired.

Wind energy is fun because it is so cutting edge, so difficult, so dangerous, so productive (pays our electric bill), requires such finesse and accuracy, and because it facilitates such easy opportunities for "shooting fish in a barrel" debates with know-nothings posing as authorities in a field about which they have no understanding.  Still, ya gotta love anyone who at least advocates development of the possibly nascent, perhaps future, art of AWE, even if he gets a bit... confused... once in a while. :))))

Oh for crying out loud. That's what you meant.
Pc (swear)  s
Lets not invent and use an unnecessary anagram where pcs already exists as so many other possible relevant things.

Doug
Has the upper wind stopped blowing because of all the rough skyscrapers and mountains dragging it back? or the aeroplanes blowing it off course ? No
Can we monitor it? Yes

Gabor Dobos
                        

Hey Dave, stop lying.  Stop lying about me. Stop misquoting me, stop accusing me of things I never said or did, stop pretending to read my mind, stop mis-characterizing my thoughts, none of it is welcome, please just go away.  Your input is not always necessary.  Go fly some trash bags or something, K?

Dave all I can say is you are mischaracterizing my words again, as usual.  You have no answers to the points I brought to the discussion, so you try to switch the topic to "emotional".  I have debunked SO MANY similar schemes over the years, as have others.  The bicycle-spoke wind turbine is almost exactly like the one you defended as being so great for months, before Consumer Reports came out and validated everything I had tried to tell you about it.  How many wannabe innovators over the years do you think wanted their bicycle wheel to magically become "a cheaper, more powerful wind turbine"?  (All of them?)  You'd think at some point you'd say "geez, seems like Doug IS usually right, when you find out the actual facts".  But your heels are too dug in to ever see that I usually do know what I'm talking about.  And the cryogenic liquid-air energy storage?  Hey I LOVE the idea.  I mean, who wouldn't?  Like I said, I've even thought of a few possible improvements over the many years of it occasionally crossing my mind, and it is a fun idea to consider..  I just wonder though, as long as cryogenic gas-as-liquid storage has been around, what is the actual history of using it for "energy storage"?  What are the real numbers?  What are the problems?  Because it is impossible that the people in the cryogenics industry have never thought about it. It must have been tried a few times, no?  That much usable energy, if it IS such a great source of usable energy, would be hard to ignore, no?  It sounds to me that it is YOU who don't have the thermodynamics/cryogenics background to even venture ANY opinion whatsoever on the topic at hand.  No need to castigate me for being honest about what I DON'T know.  All you can understand from my post is "Doug posted, so daveS must find some way to argue with whatever he said".  You don't have to argue with EVERYTHING I say, especially when you normally have to lie to argue with the truth.  I mean it is fun shooting fish in a barrel and all, but c'mon, don't you EVER get tired of being the fish?  Stop jumping into the barrel!  :))  Anyway, what do you think about cryogenic storage of liquid air as an energy storage technique?  Do you believe it is a solution that works well?  Do you believe it is economically-superior to batteries?  Why?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf "
*** OK then, if they are so smart, the problem is so urgent, and if AWE is the answer, why can't these super-smart people make AWE work?  Ha ha ha ha ha this is all just so funny!  I am rolling on the floor!  He he he!!! (I can't breathe!)  We're gonna need AWE to run heaters - lots of them!
Here, read about the first round of the impending ice age:
Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy

 

Hey Gabor let's talk about YOUR proposed system.  I enjoyed watching your talk at the conference in Delfts.  Thanks for sharing your ideas.  If I understood correctly, your airplane had a cryogenic tank onboard for energy storage, yet you specified batteries and an electric motor to get you up to the jet stream.  So if liquified air is a better way to store energy, and you already HAVE the tank onboard, why not just use that tank and power your aircraft to the jet stream using liquid air or compressed air?  Why carry the extra weight of batteries and an electric motor?  Is it to make the story sound better, so you don't have to start out using at least some of the compressed air you brought back down on the last trip, to get back up?  I'm a bit confused.  Also confused about shuttle-craft ferrying the liquid air up and down using paragliders, etc., when the main plane could do the job more efficiently.  I did enjoy seeing your talk.  So please explain the thermodynamics and cryogenics numbers that explain how cryogenic liquid air is superior to batteries, and if so, especially since your plane already HAS a tank for compressed or liquified air, why would you USE batteries and an electric motor to get the plane into the jet stream, given all that extra weight?  Thanks
:) Doug

Attachments :

CN103375345DRAW3of3.jpg

Hey daveS it is you who should stay on topic and stop "crapping". If you read back what you write it reads like a disturbed person on steroids.  How can you combine so many false insinuations and insults into each sentence?  Nobody has the time to dissect your endless nonsense.  I talk facts and wind energy - what works and what doesn't, while you're endlessly mired in attempts at name-calling and emotional maneuvering, all based on strings of false statements.  Why?  I think it is YOU who should stay on topic.  And if you have nothing to say on a topic, it is OK for you to simply not comment.  We all see you endlessly trying to debunk Makani.  It's OK for you to discuss what you think are salient facts about an approach, just not anyone else, right?  Get a life.

What is "DCS" ?