backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by JoshuaBuss.. on Jul 2 at 4:16 PM


A123 Systems is looking to combine many high tech batteries like those shown here into a megawatt battery. General Electric is a primary investor.  (Source: Martin LaMonica/CNET News.com)

VRB Power Systems has developed a vanadium-based flow battery system that can store hours of energy. The electrolyte flow-driven system is currently deployed on King Island, Australia.   (Source: VRB Power Systems)

The unique turbine from General Compression compresses air in the nacelle housing behind the blades and pumps it underground. It can be released to power an expander, creating energy. There is much interest in this design in the wind-heavy West.  (Source: General Compression)
New grid storage companies, good for the consumer, good for the utility, good for the environment

DailyTech recently covered Beacon Power's flywheel mechanical power storage system for grid leveling.  Grid leveling, an uncharted field is exploding in terms of interest, but much work remains to be done.


The promise is intriguing.  Current power in terms of infrastructure is crude – it’s a simple in-out system.  If power leveling technologies were modestly adopted it could make the power grid equivalent of RAM, able to handle varying demand without crashes (brownouts).  In time, serious power storage adoption could equate to long-term storage driving down prices during times of peak consumption or high commodity prices, similar to a hard drive, to use the computer analogy again.

Another key advantage of the technology is its ability to make wind and solar power technology -- variable sources -- make more sense from an economic standpoint fueled by the demand for continuous power.  These points were among the thoughts aired at a recent industry expert’s panel meeting for the New England Clean Energy Council.  The council, which is intimately knowledgeable with consumer power industry, says that power storage technologies have tremendous potential, but are held back by tech risks and expenses.

The council hopes that nonetheless the technologies will slowly be adopted.  This way "peak shaving", using stored energy to offset demand peaks during the day, can be employed as an alternative to having to build more power plants.  However, much work must be done to transform the grid to make such practices commonplace.

Says Ric Fulop, co-founder and vice president of business development at lithium-ion battery company A123 Systems, which is among the companies focusing on storage technologies, "Buying power at night and then selling it during the day--something like that will happen maybe in 30 or 40 years when storage technologies are one-tenth the costs they are today.  I think we will see a lot of deployments in the next few years that will change how the grid works.  Then we'll see utilities jump on the bandwagon."

Fulop has a dedicated team of over 100 engineers working on the problem.  While his business focuses primarily on power tool batteries and plug-in hybrid batteries, the grid storage division is growing.

The need for grid storage is becoming alarmingly clear.  In an area of Texas supplied mostly by wind power a Texas utility earlier this year had to cut customers off of power, according to Lawrence Gelbien, vice president of technology at utility NStar.  Says Gelbien, "If you could take the wind power, store it in batteries, and discharge when the wind starts again, then that's a fine application of storage."

Currently, the grid storage industry is valued at $2.4B USD per year and is growing 3.3 percent per year.  Key technologies include exotic battery chemistries, ultracapacitors, and flywheels.  However, all these technologies are mainly for storage time of less than an hour.  The long term storage market is even wider open and may use technologies as wild as "flow batteries" and compressed air storage.  A ten percent adoption of long term storage by wind power plants could generate a $50B USD market, according to analysts.

Compressed Air Energy Storeage (CAES) typically involves pumping air underground to store energy and later releasing it.  Currently two such plants are in operation, but many more companies are considering them.  General Compression is among the companies jumping on this trend.  Flow batteries, chemical vats with charge generated by chemical flows are currently being tested on the grid by other startups.  Finally many solar plants are already implementing long term chemical driven storage in the form of molten salt vats to allow nighttime generation.

While these technologies are all promising, they won't be adopted overnight.  Rather, they will likely creep into the market as their need increases and they mature.  It is exciting, though, to see so much enthusiasm and creativity in the field.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It sounds good
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 9:21:29 AM , Rating: 5
Hopefully some strides will be made in this area. If we can use solar and wind as a charging mechanism for backup power, they'll be a little more useful. Right now their reliability is terrible compared to oil, coal, or nuclear. But if you can mass store the energy for a few days at a time, it'll make more sense to invest in them. Other than for the massive government subsidies that is.




RE: It sounds good
By Dribble on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: It sounds good
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 10:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you repeating what I said?


RE: It sounds good
By wordsworm on 6/30/2008 10:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you repeating what I said?


If you shout into a large, spherical, empty cavern, usually you get an echo. Try it with a cave. He's probably an MBA executive working somewhere.


RE: It sounds good
By Dribble on 7/1/2008 4:27:19 AM , Rating: 1
Reading > you

I didn't repeat what you said - you said use it for wind/solar. I said they are too unreliable (i.e. don't use it for wind/solar). Instead use it for nuclear/tidal which produce steady power 24-7.


RE: It sounds good
By 67STANG on 6/30/2008 1:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
Solar is unreliable? I'm not sure about you, but over my 28 year life span, I always expect the sun to be there when I wake up (although now it's after I wake up). We actually have down to the minute what time it will rise, and what time it will set. Even moderate cloud cover does little to drop power generation...

So you must really be taling about storms? In the case of storms wind is always present, generally blowing quite well. Thus turning wind turbines (which are generally constructed in places where vigorous wind studies have been completed).

It's true that both of these RENEWABLE energy methods have their limitations, reliability isn't one of them. Consistency is the word you should be using. Power Liquidity is another word you should be using.

Solar/Wind are installed with the intention of supplemental power generation. The corporations/governments that pay for these multi-billion dollar projects aren't expecting the Consistency or Power Liquidity of a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant. They are expecting to have supplemental power to meet peak demands of growing power demands-- without having to spend a lot more capital on a full-blown power plant.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:41:47 PM , Rating: 4
> "Even moderate cloud cover does little to drop power generation..."

Eh? Moderate cloud cover can cut power production by 50%. Late evening or early morning hours reduce it by even more than that. The upshot is that, even in the very best of locations like the Arizona desert, solar power has only about a 35-40% availability factor...in poor locations, it can run as low 25%.

> "The corporations/governments that pay for these multi-billion dollar projects aren't expecting the Consistency or Power Liquidity of a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant"

I wish you'd inform the environmentalist movement, which seems to believe we can meet all our power needs from wind and solar. Quite frankly, it isn't possible...not without a couple quantum leaps in technology.


RE: It sounds good
By redsquid5 on 6/30/2008 2:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
The beauty of Solar is the match between peak power produced and peak demand, particularly in the desert.
Cloud cover sufficient to reduce power production will also reduce demand for air conditioning in parallel.

I got involved in determining the optimum system size for an installation on a commercial facility in Santa Cruz county; turned out that it made sense to size the system to zero out consumption just for the peak midday hours, when the rate on the time-of-use meter is 4 times the lowest rate.
This area is prone to dense fogs, and we were afraid that would be an issue, but the reduction actually proved to be pretty minimal and the installation has gotten about 5% better power production than we and the installers had anticipated.


RE: It sounds good
By 67STANG on 6/30/2008 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? Moderate cloud cover can cut power production by 50%. Late evening or early morning hours reduce it by even more than that. The upshot is that, even in the very best of locations like the Arizona desert, solar power has only about a 35-40% availability factor...in poor locations, it can run as low 25%.


I'm going to have to disagree. I worked with solar panels daily for nearly 4 years, all had remote monitoring equipment for temperature, voltage, remaining Ah, etc. These systems were installed up and down the entire state of California which has weather varying from very sunny, to very overcast.

We saw an average of 5-10% reduction in production in overcast conditions-- easily compensated with MPPT charge controller technology... The only real hit solar takes is dense fog, where production drops to about 15-20% of capability.

quote:
I wish you'd inform the environmentalist movement, which seems to believe we can meet all our power needs from wind and solar. Quite frankly, it isn't possible...not without a couple quantum leaps in technology.


I agree. It isn't possible, and lets be honest... some of the most outspoken environmentalists aren't the brightest bulbs in the hardware store... That said, it is nice have some diversity in energy production-- even if it doesn't pencil out completely compared to non-renewable options.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 2:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "I worked with solar panels daily for nearly 4 years, all had remote monitoring equipment for temperature, voltage, remaining Ah, etc."

I don't mean to be rude, but aren't you the same poster who, in a previous post discussing your experience with wind tech, confused a meters/s reading with miles/h, and wound up saying windmills could generate full power in an 11 mph breeze?

I don't want to doubt your word here, but there's nothing magical about solar panels. They work almost perfectly linear off the incident flux; if cloud cover reduces flux by 50%, power generation will drop by the same amount. Inescapable. Now, parts of California admittedly never see much cloud cover, but most other states aren't so lucky.

> We saw an average of 5-10% reduction in production in overcast conditions-- easily compensated with MPPT charge controller technology"

Well, if solar flux declines, the panel will produce less power. The only way a controller can "compensate" for this is if it wasn't adjusted optimally before hand. It can't produce power on its own, all it does is allow *less* losses during conversion.


RE: It sounds good
By 67STANG on 6/30/2008 5:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't mean to be rude, but aren't you the same poster who, in a previous post discussing your experience with wind tech, confused a meters/s reading with miles/h, and wound up saying windmills could generate full power in an 11 mph breeze?


You're both right, and wrong. I am the poster that made that statement, however.. I didn't confuse meters with miles. As I am currently working with the wind industry, I have first hand experience analyzing real-time data from multiple wind farms. 11 mph brings the turbines to rated output... I'm sure your vast experience working with wind turbines heavily trumps mine, so I stand corrected...

quote:
but there's nothing magical about solar panels. They work almost perfectly linear off the incident flux; if cloud cover reduces flux by 50%, power generation will drop by the same amount


If that is true, and that's a big if, this would have to translate to very heavy, near fog cloud cover to be consistent with any solar panels I've worked with (Shell SQ80's, Sharp NE-80EJEA's and BP 380J's). Definately not magical, and definately available to anyone who has about $400 a pop...

quote:
Well, if solar flux declines, the panel will produce less power. The only way a controller can "compensate" for this is if it wasn't adjusted optimally before hand. It can't produce power on its own, all it does is allow *less* losses during conversion.


Hmmm, perhaps you should do some research before you post. Do you even know what an MPPT controller is, or how one works? Do you even know why they exist? I'll give you a hint, it has to do with temerpature, voltage and amperage...


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 7:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
11 mph brings the turbines to rated output... I'm sure your vast experience working with wind turbines heavily trumps mine, so I stand corrected...
The links to actual manufacturer spec sheets trumps both of us...and they say 11 m/s (29 mph)

Now, if you have access to some newer turbine capable of running at much lower wind speeds than the rest of the industry, then by all means post its data here.

> " Do you even know what an MPPT controller is, or how one works?"

I know the laws of thermodynamics, and when a solar panel -- or any power source -- produces less power, only another power source can make up that shortfall. You can't create energy from nothing.

An "MPPT charge controller" is still just a fancy charge controller. It doesn't magically create power...it merely makes charging a battery more efficient.


RE: It sounds good
By 67STANG on 7/1/2008 1:19:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now, if you have access to some newer turbine capable of running at much lower wind speeds than the rest of the industry, then by all means post its data here.


As I've said before, I cannot do that. The exact output:windspeed ratio is a trade secret. The company I work with freespins their turbines past 25mph-- it's simply too fast for the low speed gearbox... Hard to believe they'd freespin before reaching rated output, right? And as I've told you before, you're looking old GE Wind turbine specs. GE isn't even the largest player in Wind... They bought their turbine technology from another company that is no longer in business....

quote:
An "MPPT charge controller" is still just a fancy charge controller. It doesn't magically create power...it merely makes charging a battery more efficient.


I'm not disputing the law of thermodynamics. But if you read the solar specs, you'd understand my argument... Especially with relation to cloud cover, which was in fact what we were talking about... not "energy from nothing".


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2008 9:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
> "The exact output:windspeed ratio is a trade secret"

Sorry, I don't buy it. Performance isn't a trade secret; its crucial for determining just how much power the windmill will actually output. Who would buy a windmill if the maker said, "spend a few humdred million on our product please, but sorry -- we won't tell you how much electricity they'll generate".


RE: It sounds good
By 67STANG on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: It sounds good
By DBRfreak on 7/1/2008 1:40:53 PM , Rating: 3
Note to nitpick, but I think you need to retake your intellectual property annual training module. There's a big difference between proprietary information and trade secrets. Huge. So monumental, in fact, that it does call into question the rest of your argument.


RE: It sounds good
By Oregonian2 on 6/30/2008 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Solar power could be said to be unreliable because it's inconsistent. Semantics -- depends how one wants to spin things. Further, there isn't, AFAIK, long term reliability numbers on some of the mechanisms that extract power from solar exposure in mass quantities. Additionally, where I live it's not only "moderately cloudy" a lot, but it's heavy overcast and drizzling rain for probably half of the year. Not everybody lives in Arizona/Vegas.


RE: It sounds good
By mles1551 on 6/30/2008 2:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everybody lives in Arizona/Vegas.


Exactly. No one (almost anyways) lives in these areas, so where are the large scale solar projects?
The biggest argument is usually the lack of transmission lines to the best areas for solar production.

Shouldn't the gov't step up for once and subsidize the infrastructure needed for these projects?


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's much more than an infrastructure issue. Power lines are going to lose several percent every few hundred miles -- this is why most power today is generated fairly close to where its' consumed. It just isn't feasible to put a solar farm in Arizona and power the Northeast Seaboard with it.

Ignoring that, there's the problem with cost of the farm itself (several times that of nuclear or coal) as well as its inability to generate power at night or in overcast conditions. We have some budding technology to store power to overcome this, but that raises the cost far higher still...up to 10 or more times higher than what we currently pay.


RE: It sounds good
By Oregonian2 on 6/30/2008 7:03:19 PM , Rating: 4
Amusing thing is that the BPA said in our local paper a day or three ago about how they've got excess power available in the Hydro dams but are having to let the water go over the dam "wasted" when it could have been producing power through the turbines. They couldn't find buyers for the power. As it happens the wind farms in our area also are peaking with a particularly windy season. So the spot market for the power is flooded so to speak. "Free" hydro power just being wasted (heavy rains have made the water behind the dams high to the point it has to be spilled or sent through the turbines).


RE: It sounds good
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 3:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why do people keep saying solar power is unreliable/inconsistent? The Sun has been around longer than our planet, if scientists are correct, and won't be extinguished for millions or billions of years. Wouldn't that make it highly reliable. True, it can be unreliable/inconsistent ON EARTH. But hell, if they are going to make giant batteries and a space elevator then I hardly see a problem.

I think once we find a good way to send power from/to space that solar will take over. Solar power on Earth is little more than a hobby or practice until we can use it in space. In other words, it's great to mess around with, but it's more of something you bring to show and tell.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 3:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, solar power makes excellent sense in space. No clouds, no atmosphere, no day/night cycle, no weather to ever dirty the panels....its a perfect environment.

Unfortunately, unless we build nuclear rockets (or develop the materials technology for the space elevator you mention) lifting costs are too high to make use of space-based solar power.


RE: It sounds good
By Oregonian2 on 6/30/2008 7:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
In any case, everybody knows nuclear energy is BAD and since solar power is nuclear-power generated, it must be BAD too!

:-)


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "But if you can mass store the energy for a few days at a time, it'll make more sense to invest in them"

True enough, but the problem with systems like compressed air energy storage is their relatively low efficiency, which now tops out at about 60%. When you throw away 40% of the energy you produce, it's hard to show a profit on the system.


RE: It sounds good
By randomly on 6/30/2008 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
You are only throwing away 40% of the energy that you couldn't sell in the first place. Saving 60% of the energy you would have had to throw away is going to increase your profits, assuming the process is economical.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 4
It doesn't work that way. Take coal, hydro, or nuclear, for instance, which produce energy at around 5c kW-h...and produces it day or not, wind or calm. Contrast that with solar which -- even without energy storage -- can easily run triple that price.

Now add compressed-air energy storage and -- even assuming the system is free -- your price per Kw-h just jumped 40%. In reality, the costs of building and maintaining such a system can easily make the cost of stored power 300% higher still, for a total cost ten times as pricey as conventional energy.


RE: It sounds good
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 2:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Again, why do you instantly lose 40%? True, the power plant might produce that power day and night, it's not always used. THAT'S THE IDEA. Store the energy that isn't getting used. There would be no need to run the power getting used though a storage system. That'd be like having the data in your RAM be on your HDD at the same time. You'd lose the entire reason for having the RAM.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, why do you instantly lose 40%?"

Because compressed-air storage is only 60% efficient. If you produce 100 Kw-h and store it, you'll wind up with only 60 Kw-h when you attempt to output it.


RE: It sounds good
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 3:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
So, in your mind you'd rather lose 100% of the wasted energy rather than save 60% of it? It's your choice of course, but I'd rather save 60% of wasted energy.


RE: It sounds good
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 3:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand this "wasted energy" you keep referring to. The only way you have an excess is if you pay to build a plant that produces more than you need. It's still not free...the cost per Kw-h to generate it doesn't matter whether or not you use it.


RE: It sounds good
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 3:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know how the power grid works then. This isn't like we use 100% of the power from our power plants 100% of the time. Power plants are either connected to the grid or taken off depending on our power needs at that given moment. It's not like the power plant just shuts down when it's not connected to the grid, because it could be a matter of a few minutes to when it's needed again. Therefore if it's making power but not sending it to the grid, it's WASTED.

Now do you understand?


RE: It sounds good
By Aerius on 6/30/2008 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you don't run a power plant because it would go bankrupt. Ok, you be the one who takes your plant off the grid so that you make $0 for energy you generate. Marginal (high cost) producers of energy like natural gas fired plants absolutely go off when taken off the grid.

This is not to say a plant would NEVER remain running when taken off, but power usage is actually reasonably steady on a day to day basis (millions of customers average out). By looking at historical usage you know when the spikes are coming and the effects of seasonality and weather. Unless there is a good reason to believe that usage will spike, power will be turned off.


RE: It sounds good
By Alexstarfire on 6/30/2008 10:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying they run 24/7, I'm just saying that throughout the day they aren't going to stop and start the process every half hour. Even if it only ran for 15 minutes before they shut it off, that's 15 minutes of energy you could save. I guess that would make it about 9 minutes after the 40% loss.

Also, I never said it would be economical. I was just trying to point out where this "waste" energy is coming from. I mean, there would be no point in storing energy if none was going to waste anyways.


How hard would it be to....
By wordsworm on 6/30/2008 10:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
How hard would it be to create two massive containers for water where one tank would be placed up a hill, the other down the hill - then simply employ a pump and turbine line between the two - pump when there's an abundance of energy, and turbine when there's a need for additional energy?




RE: How hard would it be to....
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
What you're referring to is pumped-storage hydroelectric, and is not only already in use, but is currently the most efficiency method for long-term energy storage we have. The only problem, of course, is that you need two very large reservoirs at different heights. Where nature hasn't already given you this, providing it can be rather expensive.


RE: How hard would it be to....
By wordsworm on 6/30/2008 10:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you're referring to is pumped-storage hydroelectric, and is not only already in use, but is currently the most efficiency method for long-term energy storage we have.


I can only imagine how dirty an old oceanic oil well would be, so with that problem waved away with a magical wand, I can imagine that some of the larger (since depleted) oil wells would be capable of holding a tremendous amount of water. Putting in a 'pumped storage hydroelectric' device would likely suffice.

Anyways, seems to me that big new inventions aren't really needed to meet the purpose stated in the article (at least in industrial sized situations) - just some creative thinking using simple, current technologies.


RE: How hard would it be to....
By fic2 on 6/30/2008 5:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I check most oil wells are in the down, so you have only taken care of 1/2 the problem of storage. You would probably also want your generator closer the downhill storage you harness the most energy.

Granted you could use two depleted oil wells that are vertically different than each other. But then you would have to drill from one to the other. Not to mention getting your generator equipment through a 6-12" hole.


RE: How hard would it be to....
By wordsworm on 6/30/2008 10:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention getting your generator equipment through a 6-12" hole.


If women can have babies, I'm sure we could get a generator through a 6-12" hole. Anyways, seriously, you'd only have to put the generator on the orifice itself. I think the biggest problem could be the fact that 6-12" would be too small to generate a significant enough flow of water.

I was just thinking that the exchange of water could happen between the ocean and the depleted oil well. Sometimes they have to drill quite deeply. So, the ocean or sea would be the upper part of the 'water tank' whilst the depleted oil well would be the lower.


RE: How hard would it be to....
By spwrozek on 6/30/2008 11:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroe...

If they could use wind or solar to fill the reservoirs it would be quite the technology.

The link is just for anyones curiosity about pump storage.


RE: How hard would it be to....
By BioHazardous on 6/30/2008 12:06:37 PM , Rating: 3
There are some more natural ones but as we all know as of recent events lately with the midwest; humans are not able to control the power of water very well when it is open to mother nature's fury.

Also here's a good example of how this type of system can go bad.

"The upper reservoir suffered a catastrophic failure on December 14, 2005. As of April 2007 the plant remains out of commission"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_pumped_stor...


RE: How hard would it be to....
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "The upper reservoir suffered a catastrophic failure on December 14, 2005"

Through a software error, no less.

Good find...I hadn't heard that before.


By BioHazardous on 6/30/2008 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
I only knew of it from having visited the power plant before the failure and visiting on a yearly basis the State Park below it that got demolished (Johnson's Shut-ins). It was definitely a good idea though and they must have thought so as well if they plan on rebuilding it.


Radical idea
By FreeTard on 6/30/2008 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 5
This is actually an interesting story. I am curious to see where it goes.

My idea:

Take some power during the day to power a robot, that feeds millions of rodents ethanol corn.

At night let them all go into wheels which are hooked to a power generating turbine. Surely a million hamsters can generate a lot of power.

To make people happy, make it a friendly robot that pats the hamsters.




RE: Radical idea
By JoshuaBuss on 7/2/2008 4:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
this is an amazing idea. let's start a company!


Technology on tap!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "VRB Power Systems has developed a vanadium-based flow battery system that can store hours of technology..."

Yes, but can you get it back out again?




RE: Technology on tap!
By ebakke on 6/30/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
How much technology fits in one hour? Vague ideas? Detailed thoughts? Well drawn schematics? Prototypes? Finished products? And are we talking current technology? Or will an hour only hold the designs for the Model T? Too many questions!


RE: Technology on tap!
By kileil on 6/30/2008 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 2
you just have to hold it upside-down at an angle and hit it near the logo.

Or use a butter knife..


Possible mis-quote?
By PrinceGaz on 6/30/2008 1:20:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In an area of Texas supplied mostly by wind power a Texas utility earlier this year had to cut customers off of power, according to Lawrence Gelbien, vice president of technology at utility NStar. Says Gelbien, "If you could take the wind power, store it in batteries, and discharge when the wind starts again , then that's a fine application of storage."


Sounds like a pretty pointless application of storage to me. You store the wind power in batteries, and discharge when the wind starts again? Surely you discharge it while the wind has stopped, and charge it when the wind starts again.




RE: Possible mis-quote?
By fic2 on 6/30/2008 9:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Na...That's how they get the wind to blow in Texas.


Not exactly a new idea... at all.....
By kilkennycat on 6/30/2008 3:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hydro-electric pumped storage has been used for many years and in many countries (including the US) to even out electrical power demands..... A little more environmentally friendly than massive batteries.....

See:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroe...




By Dribble on 7/1/2008 4:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that idea is mostly maxed out. i.e. most of the places you can add a hydro plant economically someone has. While you could try manually making them that's both very expensive and unpopular with locals who live there/environmentalists who think you are destroying wildlife habitat/etc. The other problem is you really want the storage close to the place that is going to use it for efficiency. This is often difficult to do with hydro.

Hence the need for other ways of storing power...


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki