gravity storage

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 07/03/15, 23:41

remundo wrote:Except for sites where dam lakes can not be built, I do not think these trains are good.
There are still many arguments in favor of the train system: cost, responsiveness:

- "ARES incorporates recent advances in generators / motors and power electronics to control them" indicates James Kelly. "An efficiency of 78,3% is thus achieved" on a complete cycle of ascent / descent of the train. "
- "the cost of investing in an ARES plant is 40% cheaper than that of an equivalent WWTP."
- "it can be set up wherever a slope of 7 to 8% is available over a few kilometers: suitable sites are plethora of worldwide."
- "The gradual passage of water from the upper basin to the lower basin is accompanied by a drop in pressure, a problem that does not exist with the ARES solution. In addition, the reaction time of penstocks in a WWTP is not immediate, whereas the wind, and thus the electro-wind production, can vary abruptly. These problems disappear with the solution developed by ARES. "
- "for example near very large wind and solar parks that can be installed in the deserts of the western USA, the Sahara or Gobi. An ARES plant of 333 MW x 8 hours requires two stations ( one at the top and one at the bottom), 3 rails of 12,8 km connecting them, and 70 shuttles made up of 4 wagons, shuttles each transferring 2 MWh. "
- "The two storage stations (one at the top and one at the bottom) can be hidden under a green roof thus allowing a very good landscape integration. The space consumed by the two stations can also be valued thanks to photovoltaic solar roofs. "
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 08/03/15, 00:02

It is easier to find a site for solid storage than liquid. It is enough to see the reactions of the local residents when one wants to build a dam.
0 x
phil53
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1376
Registration: 25/04/08, 10:26
x 202




by phil53 » 08/03/15, 10:36

It is still water that is the best way to store gravity energy.
Outside the dams in which the water is raised during off-peak hours. there are now some wind turbines blowing underwater bladders for use on windless days.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 09/03/15, 08:41

Hello,
"An ARES plant of 333 MW x 8 hours requires two stations (one at the top and one at the bottom), 3 rails of 12,8 km connecting them, and 70 shuttles made up of 4 wagons, shuttles each transferring 2 MWh."

If my calculations are good, the slope for a slope of 8% is 1000 m and a shuttle of 2Mwh weighs 734 tons.
Holy monsters all the same.
It takes a lot of metal to build the rails and the undercarriages, but maybe not more than the armature of a dam.

Phil53 what are your arguments for saying that water is better?

Especially that deserts are dream places to make and store solar and wind energy.
Do not forget that fresh water will become a major problem in the future. More important than oil and uranium since there will be more : Mrgreen:
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 09/03/15, 09:33

Of course, water has advantages especially when using existing dams. The dam of Serre Ponçon on the durance for example could be used there 1800mw of power if one made up the water there is a tremendous potential and the structure already exists. But when we install wind turbines or photovoltaics in a place without water we must find other solutions and a gas plant is not the best solution.
If you want a mix 100% renewable you need storage solutions and gravity storage with solid materials seems to be an interesting solution and it is not necessarily a train that climbs a mountain.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 09/03/15, 09:59

Intuition is not the best counselor, it is often better to resonate by calculation.
Gas station? which report ?
0 x
skin
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 5
Registration: 09/03/15, 17:46




by skin » 09/03/15, 17:53

at izentrop,
in the formula E = mgh, m is the mass not the weight
1.000 kg (weight) has a mass of +/- 100 kgmass
27 kwh is wrong of course but 27 wh also
note: lifting 1 m a 1.000 car kg (weight) with a battery of 400 wh (iPad) seems difficike to believe
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88




by Gaston » 09/03/15, 18:32

hud wrote:at izentrop,
in the formula E = mgh, m is the mass not the weight
1.000 kg (weight) has a mass of +/- 100 kgmass
If you want to be as precise, you have to use the right units:
A mass of 100 kg a (on land) a weight of about 981 N.

hud wrote:27 kwh is wrong of course but 27 wh also

However, by lifting a mass of 1000 kg of 10 m, we store an energy of 1000 * 9,81 * 10 = 98100 J = 27,25 Wh

hud wrote:note: lifting 1 m a 1.000 car kg (weight) with a battery of 400 wh (iPad) seems difficike to believe
"dirk pitt" wrote 40Wh, not 400 ... and 10 meters instead of 1 meter ...

And yet:
40Wh = 144000 J

For a mass m of 1000 kg, it gives a height h = E / mg = 144000 / (1000 * 9,81) = 14 meters.
0 x
dede2002
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1111
Registration: 10/10/13, 16:30
Location: Geneva countryside
x 189




by dede2002 » 09/03/15, 19:19

One question: in cities do elevators produce electricity on the way down? trains do it and for a long time.

Another: what mass operates the gravity lamp? because to read it takes at least 1 watt ?, during 1 / 2 h it would 1800 Joules, with 1kg (10N) it would need a height of 1800 / 10 = 180mètres?
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 09/03/15, 20:15

Dede2002 you forgot g, so it's only 18 m, but consider 20 m with some loss.
By drilling the lamp at 2 m, it will be necessary to go up the stone every 3 minutes.
If that's it, it's not practical : Shock:
My bedside lamp makes 2.5 W, 1 w would be insufficient :frown:

In this case, the weight should be increased every minute. Hello progress :x
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 311 guests