posted by
martyb
on Sunday September 28 2014, @02:24PM
from the the-answer-is-blowin-in-the-wind dept.
from the the-answer-is-blowin-in-the-wind dept.
A proposal to export twice as much Wyoming wind power to Los Angeles as the amount of electricity generated by the Hoover Dam includes an engineering feat even more massive than that famous structure: Four chambers, each approaching the size of the Empire State Building, would be carved from an underground salt deposit to hold huge volumes of compressed air.
Air would be pumped into the caverns when power demand is low and wind is high, typically at night. During times of increased demand, the compressed air would be released to drive turbines and feed power to markets in far-away Southern California.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wyoming Wind Farm Plan to Excavate Huge Salt Caverns
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday September 28 2014, @03:44PM
The efficiency is terrible: there are massive energy losses in the form of heat when compressing the air. Then again, I suppose there aren't many alternative to store a lot of energy, short of pumping water into an artificial lake or something.
(Score: 1) by iwoloschin on Sunday September 28 2014, @04:07PM
But if the input energy is "free" then who cares about efficiency? I mean, sure, excavating the caverns isn't free, but if you're already going to build the wind turbines for more "green" energy then why not do everything reasonable to save power being generated but not consumed at that time?
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday September 28 2014, @04:15PM
But if the input energy is "free" then who cares about efficiency?
But it's not free. There is a cost associated with production of that energy resource, both in terms of capital investment in the generation infrastructure, as well as its continued upkeep and O&M costs. There's no such thing as free energy.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khallow on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:09PM
I think the grandparent may have been speaking of marginal costs. While that's not true (since it does cost to run a wind generator), if it's anything like the German or Danish examples, they might normally have to shut wind generators off when the power is unprofitable to produce (say like if they have to pay to get rid of the power). I think the real value of the system is storing excess night time power and reselling it as higher price peak power. It would also be able to smooth out a large amount of wind power adding value to that, which sounds like the economic justification for the project.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by subs on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:37PM
Oh sure, there might be economic justification for it. As long as LCOE for the backup plus the LCOE for the generator is lower than the wholesale price and the investment case works out (i.e. returns in reasonable amounts of time), then it might make sense to do. What I was taking issue with is the simplistic notion that because renewable energy generators like wind and solar have no fuel costs associated with them, the energy they provide is effectively "free" - that is simply not the case.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:50PM
Good point. "Free" has to be one of the more abused words out there.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:54PM
That's what you have hydroelectric power for. It "smooths" out wind power variability, up to a point.
Anyway, the distance is 2000km. Transmitting power over that distance requires significant, long haul infrastructure. That infrastructure will cost more than a few billion dollars to build. Since wind power is about $2/W to erect, and your $10B transmission line could hold maybe 2GW, we are looking at $10B to build all the wind with 10GW-peak (assuming 40% efficiency), and you can transmit 2-4GWe to California... you lose about 10-20% of that power in line and conversion loses.
http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547 [awea.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current [wikipedia.org]
So, power to California would cost at least 6-7c/kWh just from the capital side of the project, without any storage costs. Most likely 10+c/kWh.
Maybe doable, but not very profitable. The largest problem will be the long haul infrastructure that does not exist.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:09PM
Utilities - that is, things which society requires to function, like running water, electricity, and internet - should never be handled by for-profit companies. There's just no excuse for it; if society needs something to function, forcing your way in as a middle man to extract profit is nothing less than evil because there is little effective difference, if any, from extortion. All utilities (under the definition I have used above) should be handled by taxes, so it shouldn't matter whether or not its profitable.
If only the real world actually worked that way. :(
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 29 2014, @07:46AM
[...]
Then evil is not a big deal or undesirable. I notice you didn't mention the developed world's very successful and very much privately owned food production and distribution, the huge counterexample to your argument.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Sunday September 28 2014, @11:10PM
Instead of transmitting it to California, why not some place a lot closer like Colorado?
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 29 2014, @04:37AM
Considering when I lived in CA, my base rate was 14 cents and my typical overall rate was more like 24 cents... now what's the profit margin?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Muad'Dave on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:20PM
Maybe doable, but not very profitable.
Sometimes 'less costly' is enough. If building this storage facility means not having to build one or more expensive gas turbine or coal plants to meet peak demand, then it might make sense. I'm sure the Bath County Pumped Storage Station [dom.com] didn't make absolute 'profit/loss' sense, but I bet it did save over the cost of building more plants for peak demand.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 29 2014, @04:35AM
Can daytime wind be used to drive the pump, using the same bladed wind towers? It's not like Wyoming lacks wind.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:04PM
Of course, they have nowhere to put the salt, but they heard it dissolves in water, so they will just dump it all into nearby rivers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:20PM
while salt may not be as critical as it used to be due to globalization and technology (you cant pay salaries in salt any longer), there is still money to be made from selling salt. dumping it into the river would be an incredibly stupid move since they could just sell it to Morton Salt [wikipedia.org] or a similar company. hell, they could probably get one of the salt companies to cover some or all of the extraction fees. dumping it would have a negligible effect on ocean salinity, but it'd still be pouring money down the drain.
thats assuming the salt is NaCl, of course. there are uses for other salts too, so regardless of what type of salt, there's almost sure to be a buyer.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:48PM
um, whoosh. the US is desperate for clean water, and dumping salt in it, well, wrecks that water in the area.
and yes, they would go for selling it assuming they can find somebody to buy it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday September 28 2014, @08:48PM
Gourmet Wyoming flaked salt.
Harvested from deep mines this natural salt contains trace minerals found in the primordial oceans that existed before the Dinosaurs.
Great for all your cooking and baking needs.
Since it will only be available for a limited time you better stock up while you can.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheLink on Monday September 29 2014, @03:50AM
Problem is the water they'd use to dissolve the salt might not be that clean and actually contaminate the salt.
(Score: 1) by arulatas on Monday September 29 2014, @05:36PM
That is all well and good until the energy bubble pops.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @04:02PM
What's the efficiency? I don't believe this bit:
But energy storage, like compressed air storage, you can store that and not lose any energy.”
As far as I know you need special techniques to get most (90%) of the energy back: (e.g. use water mists http://www.lightsail.com/ [lightsail.com] or foam http://www.nanalyze.com/2014/07/sustainx-delivers-compressed-air-energy-storage-system/ [nanalyze.com])
Without such methods you can probably only hit 70% at good case.
FWIW pumped water is 70-80 (some claim 87%). Molten salt is supposedly about 70% (I'm not sure about this figure- from some random page on google).
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 28 2014, @05:46PM
I recall efficiency is less, though the heat might be storable as well as the air. What I think is being hyped here is that unlike batteries, the stored energy of the compressed air doesn't decay over time. But if they're attempting to store the heat of compression, then that is a component which can decay over time. And if one of the reservoirs turns out to be leaky, well, that's going to interfere as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @10:01PM
Even lets say its 5%.
That is 5% more than you had before. Which was 0.
Perfect is many times the enemy of good.
You could also put the pumps at bottom of the well and use gravity to help you out too. As air does have weight.
The idea is fairly simple a flange to let air in. A flange at the bottom to let air out. Run it across a fan and make energy. Basically the same as they do for almost all energy generation. Including the windmill that pumps it in. No need to deal with corrosive salts or water. So operating cost could be way less.
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Sunday September 28 2014, @04:49PM
We know Fracking causes earthquakes ("I don't!" yeah ok... y'know there're doughnuts over there) So even if the pressure differential isn't vast, the size of the purposed chambers are. That might end up causing some violent fractures to occur. (wait... wasn't there an old Wild Wild West plot; then there was that Mythbusters with the Alka-seltzer tablets)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Solaarius on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:48PM
Also, the liquid used in fracking is incompressible, while air is a compressible gas (in fact, that's the entire point of this project).
Compressed air as used in the proposed project wouldn't come close to causing the same terrible effects as hydraulic fracking does.
(Score: 1) by Solaarius on Sunday September 28 2014, @06:52PM
Ah, shit. I can't do math. p=F/A (lbs per square inch, anyone?).
Anyways, I'm still right about compressed air exerting far less pressure on the cavern walls than hydraulic fluid would. :/
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday September 29 2014, @12:06AM
Wow, if they actually do this, it would mean that Wyoming could _both_ blow and suck! What will they think of next, besides fracking that is. Oh, and besides the Aircraft carrier for the lake in Jackson's Hole.