At Forbes. Not too techie. More a narrative of the how hydropower works and fits into the world on a day-to-day basis - link (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/)
Quote from: arpad on October 20, 2011, 08:01:21 PM
At Forbes. Not too techie. More a narrative of the how hydropower works and fits into the world on a day-to-day basis - link (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/)
I live on the Columbia river, just 500' above it. I live in-between two Dam's so I see the working of it everyday. There is wind generation all around us with-in 50 miles. Thank God we can not see them from our place.
I hope the bats are safe. :P
Hydro used to be the lifeblood in Ca; though its been many years ago, our gas and electric bill were no more that 2 dollars a month, that is until the Dims took over the State and destroyed our infrastructure and stopped all dam building in the Country.
This is just more proof as to why I say the Dims have made themselves an endangered specie, people are sick and tired of being the ones to sacrifice, every time some nut finds a new cause D'jour...
Whether it be a teat mouse, or a snail, life happens and shit dies off, but it needn't be humans that do the suffering.
Lets build some dams, damnit!
Build the damn damns!!!
I spent nearly six years out of college working in the hydropower field. Sorry, kids, the good dam sites were all taken long ago. A few little cherries still dangle out there, but as Solar points out, the mantra today is: Thou Shalt NOT Build Dams.
We need to be looking other places anyhow. There's really no large-scale hydro left to harvest in the U.S. We could go get it all and it wouldn't make a 5% difference. And the left already owns it -- that's why it's so expensive.
Quote from: tbone0106 on November 07, 2011, 06:16:31 PM
I spent nearly six years out of college working in the hydropower field. Sorry, kids, the good dam sites were all taken long ago. A few little cherries still dangle out there, but as Solar points out, the mantra today is: Thou Shalt NOT Build Dams.
We need to be looking other places anyhow. There's really no large-scale hydro left to harvest in the U.S. We could go get it all and it wouldn't make a 5% difference. And the left already owns it -- that's why it's so expensive.
I can't speak for the rest of the Nation, but Ca has several huge possibilities.
Right down the road from my house is the American and Rubicon confluence whuch are all ready for a dam, but the leftists make all the wild claims over its construction.
But you're right, the biggest projects have been accomplished.
Not only do they keep them stalled, they want to deconstruct existing ones, which I find hilarious, seeing how one of them supplies the Bay area with their power and water needs. :))
What about tidal power generation? I hear that has great potential in places such as Florida.
Quote from: Dan on November 09, 2011, 01:24:19 PM
What about tidal power generation? I hear that has great potential in places such as Florida.
Siemens is investing heavily in a tidal unit that can be lifted in and out easily for cleaning and maint.
Maintaining these behemoths has been one of the obstacles, from Kelp to carcases, it doesn't take long for them to stop producing.
Quote from: Solar on November 09, 2011, 01:55:16 PM
Siemens is investing heavily in a tidal unit that can be lifted in and out easily for cleaning and maint.
Maintaining these behemoths has been one of the obstacles, from Kelp to carcases, it doesn't take long for them to stop producing.
If they can make that economical to produce and maintain then it's really gonna help high energy consumers like Florida. They key will be where this shakes out in terms of cost per kilowatt hour when you factor everything into the equation.
Could that technology work on a modified basis for large, slow moving rivers like the Mississippi and Amazon?
Quote from: Dan on November 09, 2011, 02:18:07 PM
If they can make that economical to produce and maintain then it's really gonna help high energy consumers like Florida. They key will be where this shakes out in terms of cost per kilowatt hour when you factor everything into the equation.
Could that technology work on a modified basis for large, slow moving rivers like the Mississippi and Amazon?
Not really, in that its an obstacle to boats, and dead trees under the surface tangle up and its costly to remove them.
Thats why dams have been the main source, the water can be screened first.
There's been an on-going experiment in the East River in New York to develop hydropower from tidal currents. The latest article I could find on it was from 2007 - link (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567/) - so I've no idea what the status of the project might be.
Solar, I think the big problem with an idea such as this is the variability of flow rates.
A dam has a predictable pressure head but what kills the idea of wind power, and probably this idea as well, is that the flow rate can vary widely. Wind turbines have a fairly narrow range of wind speeds in which they're efficient and safe. If the wind's too slow they don't produce any power and if the wind's too fast the turbines can be destroyed. I'm going to guess that underwater "wind turbines" suffer from the same problem - a narrow range of fluid speeds and no way to control that speed.
Quote from: arpad on November 10, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
There's been an on-going experiment in the East River in New York to develop hydropower from tidal currents. The latest article I could find on it was from 2007 - link (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567/) - so I've no idea what the status of the project might be.
Solar, I think the big problem with an idea such as this is the variability of flow rates.
A dam has a predictable pressure head but what kills the idea of wind power, and probably this idea as well, is that the flow rate can vary widely. Wind turbines have a fairly narrow range of wind speeds in which they're efficient and safe. If the wind's too slow they don't produce any power and if the wind's too fast the turbines can be destroyed. I'm going to guess that underwater "wind turbines" suffer from the same problem - a narrow range of fluid speeds and no way to control that speed.
I agree, though wave action seems to hold the most promise, but its still the lib mentality, that anything is better than coal, nuke, and oil.
This is Siemens, a corp. rooted in Europe where the socialists dictate their direction.
Honestly, I doubt they would be going down this road if it weren't for the subsidies and threats, as a business move it makes no sense, to a lib, sense is never a requirement.
Quote from: arpad on November 10, 2011, 05:08:10 AM
There's been an on-going experiment in the East River in New York to develop hydropower from tidal currents. The latest article I could find on it was from 2007 - link (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567/) - so I've no idea what the status of the project might be.
Solar, I think the big problem with an idea such as this is the variability of flow rates.
A dam has a predictable pressure head but what kills the idea of wind power, and probably this idea as well, is that the flow rate can vary widely. Wind turbines have a fairly narrow range of wind speeds in which they're efficient and safe. If the wind's too slow they don't produce any power and if the wind's too fast the turbines can be destroyed. I'm going to guess that underwater "wind turbines" suffer from the same problem - a narrow range of fluid speeds and no way to control that speed.
I would think like wind turbines you could control the flow of water (speed) some way. But like win turbines they would not last long. There must be about 300 wind turbines with in 75 mile of me in Washington and Oregon and I only see about 5 to 10 of them working at once 75 % of the time. I have yet to see all of them in one of the areas working all at once. Why have 15 or 20 of then in one area and only have 4 or 5 running.
Quote from: walkstall on November 10, 2011, 05:28:05 AM
I would think like wind turbines you could control the flow of water (speed) some way. But like win turbines they would not last long. There must be about 300 wind turbines with in 75 mile of me in Washington and Oregon and I only see about 5 to 10 of them working at once 75 % of the time. I have yet to see all of them in one of the areas working all at once. Why have 15 or 20 of then in one area and only have 4 or 5 running.
There is a good reason for that, they don't need them, they have a shit load of hydro in the West coast.
Then there is the issue of lack of wind when they do need them, like hot dry Summer days, when the wind isn't blowing.
Quote from: Solar on November 10, 2011, 05:42:28 AM
There is a good reason for that, they don't need them, they have a shit load of hydro in the West coast.
Then there is the issue of lack of wind when they do need them, like hot dry Summer days, when the wind isn't blowing.
What is funny to me is that they go past us in truck after truck with them. But the parts are not painted. Yet when you see them all put upright, there all painted white. Now they must be paying big money, having union people go all the way out there just so they can paint them.
Quote from: walkstall on November 10, 2011, 05:28:05 AM
I would think like wind turbines you could control the flow of water (speed) some way. But like win turbines they would not last long. There must be about 300 wind turbines with in 75 mile of me in Washington and Oregon and I only see about 5 to 10 of them working at once 75 % of the time. I have yet to see all of them in one of the areas working all at once. Why have 15 or 20 of then in one area and only have 4 or 5 running.
Control the flow of water? How? It's a sort of underwater wind turbine so controlling the flow of water to one of those tidal turbine's as possible as controlling the flow of wind to a wind turbine. Can't be done.
All you can do is feather the blades to a certain extent but the efficiency falls off so drastically that much outside the turbine's core speed range they have to be stopped and the blades fully-feathered, i.e. they stop turning.
Basically, it's all bullshit and without massive government spending the entire alternative energy industry, with very few exceptions, would be gone in a heart beat.
Quote from: arpad on November 10, 2011, 06:32:09 AM
Control the flow of water? How? It's a sort of underwater wind turbine so controlling the flow of water to one of those tidal turbine's as possible as controlling the flow of wind to a wind turbine. Can't be done.
All you can do is feather the blades to a certain extent but the efficiency falls off so drastically that much outside the turbine's core speed range they have to be stopped and the blades fully-feathered, i.e. they stop turning.
Basically, it's all bullshit and without massive government spending the entire alternative energy industry, with very few exceptions, would be gone in a heart beat.
And I'm counting on it so the price and demand will fall to real world mkt demand price structure.
I have many colleagues still trying to make their business work, but under the meddling of the gov, they are unable to to use basic business formulas to function properly, which is why I bailed on the field.
I knew what was about to happen and wanted no part of it.
Now they are seeing light at the end of the tunnel, problem is, its still a long way till they exit.
There is still a glut of product, subsidies are coming to an end, then there is still all that competition that has yet to file bankruptcy.
This industry was all but murdered by the left.
Quote from: arpad on November 10, 2011, 06:32:09 AM
Control the flow of water? How? It's a sort of underwater wind turbine so controlling the flow of water to one of those tidal turbine's as possible as controlling the flow of wind to a wind turbine. Can't be done.
All you can do is feather the blades to a certain extent but the efficiency falls off so drastically that much outside the turbine's core speed range they have to be stopped and the blades fully-feathered, i.e. they stop turning.
Basically, it's all bullshit and without massive government spending the entire alternative energy industry, with very few exceptions, would be gone in a heart beat.
"Can't be done".....I see them control water all the time where I live. For power two dam on the Columbia each with in 60 miles of me and water canals farming all around me. No we can not control water 100% of the time year around.
Yeah, you can control the flow of water and a dam's the way to do it. But these turbines sit in the flow of the river which means when the river's flowing fast there's a lot of power, when the river's flowing slow there's not much power. There's no means of regulating the flow as there would be with a dam.
You can compensate to a certain extent but at the cost of greater complexity, less efficiency or both. But the nature of turbines is that they're most efficient when they're designed to handle flow at a given speed.
The underlying question is "does it make economic sense?" and greenie-weenies don't care. They got a bug up their asses about energy and, being the spoiled snots they are, they want what they want and they want it their way. They don't care how much it costs or how tough it is or even if it's doable. They want it.
For those who aren't that self-obsessed the underlying question has to be answered, not ignored, and the answer is that all these alternative energy forms make no economic sense. Building them will mean people will get poorer because we'll have to spend more of our income on energy then we otherwise would have.
The greenie-weenies respond with a hearty "so what?" because they've got their reasons why everyone should be poorer and they're satisfied with those reasons whether the reasons are bullshit or not. They want what they want.
I've got a different take on the matter and that's that the reasons people should be poorer have to be very, very good reasons and there really can't be any doubt about how good the reason is or how credible. It's got to be dead-bang right because impoverishing people means you're consigning some percentage of them to death and while greenie-weenies are indifferent to the suffering and death their ideas cause I can't be.