Display:
I think all current pumped storage facilities are fairly large. This disrupts the environment and causes all sort of NIMBY problems.

What I'm wondering about is a storage facility that is incorporated in the windmill itself. We live in a very flat area and every village has a water tower. This fits on a lot not much larger than a typical house site. Ground water is pumped up (about 100 feet or 30 meters) and then gravity is used to provide the water pressure to the homes. Just imagine if each water tower had a windmill on top, or rather that each windmill was on top of a water tank. The water doesn't need to be part of any municipal system it could just shuttle between an underground and raised tank. How large would the tank need to be (or how high) to store a reasonable amount of power and how would this affect the economics of the project?

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 08:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a water tank big enough to supply surge capacity between a constant supply source and intermittent demand for water is tiny compared to the amount of water you need to run downhill to make enough electricty to take the swings out of a windfarm system.
by HiD on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 08:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
check this out:

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage_hydroelectricity

The relatively low energy density of pumped storage systems requires either a very large body of water or a large variation in height. For example, 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h. The only way to store a significant amount of energy is by having a large body of water located on a hill relatively near, but as high as possible above, a second body of water

if 1m3 at 100 meter only gets you 0.25 kWhr, that's going to be one big ass tank

by HiD on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 11:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I can't answer your question directly, because I don't know.  But I can speculate with the best of them.  Hydro represents pure kinetic energy.  You can store such energy by raising mass up the gravity well.  You can store more energy by raising more mass, or by raising it higher.  

In terms of hydro power, that translates into greater volumes of water, or of greater head, heighth of the column of water.  I have seen numbers relating acre feet of water vs head heighth to MWH of energy stored.  The numbers are huge, generally in terms of volume since available head heighth is usually limited to at most a few hundred feet and dictated by the site.  As best I remember, the volumes of water required to produce a MWH of energy are in the millions of tons.  Granted, the numbers I'm thinking of relate to large hydro projects, but still, the numbers are very large.

I'm thinking storage on the scale of single wind turbines would still involve either relatively great heights or relatively large volumes of water.  If there is any merit to my speculation, a big if, then I would wonder about the relative economics of individual turbine scale storage vs larger scale storage.  Again, I don't know any of that for a fact, just guessing.  I would be glad to hear from anyone who has better information.  

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?

by budr on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 09:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
great news!

why mess with water when any weight will do, and some are so much denser?

anyone remeber those cuckoo clcks where you pulle a chain to raise a weight, and then it slowly ran down, powering the clock?

having said that, i do think that many of our best initiatives will be to encourage swamps, estuaries, marshlands, bayous and fens, because per acre these support the most fauna, much of it edible.

i aslso believe we will make water a much bigger feature of planned landscapes, for its aesthetic and therapeutic value, as much as for storage.

so much rainwater rubs off uncaught, leading to such absurd scenarios as rainy england suffering intense water shortage.

for terraforming, grey water purification, and aquaculture/greenhouse combos, expect to see much heightened consciousness of water, its preciousnessness and its balancing qualities on many levels.

aquarius - the water-bearer...

can we imagine if a tiny portion of the 8 billion$ a month poured into the black hole of baghdad were redirected into battery research?

instead of 'assault-and-battery'?

~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 11:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
water is a lot easier to move up and down than solids.  I don't want to think about how complicated and expensive a mechanical system of weights and pulleys would be.

People are exploring spinning flywheels and battery systems though.

by HiD on Sun Jan 28th, 2007 at 11:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
can we imagine if a tiny portion of the 8 billion$ a month poured into the black hole of baghdad were redirected into battery research?

Indeed.  Talk about opportunity cost...

Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?

by budr on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 06:44:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A rough estimate regarding pumped storage:

Ignoring moderate inefficiencies, storing energy by lifting stuff requires 100 kg-m per kilowatt-second. Choosing a numerically convenient tower height of 36 m, the amount of water required is 10 tonnes per kW-hr.

Choosing some round numbers, a small town might consume 10 MW; at this power delivery rate, a 10 hr energy-storage buffer would require a million tonnes lifted 36 meters. A million tons is about 10 times the mass of this nuclear-powered, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier:

BTW, the U.S. is now fitting out the USS George H. W. Bush, the tenth of this class.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example of a million tons is a square kilometre of water one meter deep; this gives a sense of why pumped storage into a reservoir can be practical.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
30 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
11 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
11 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
30 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series