Whilst wind is no silver bullet to the energy problem, it can make an important contribution to the equation. This is especially true in the UK, which possesses 40 percent of Europe's total wind energy.
The prospects for wind power could be greatly enhanced if cost-effective storage could be implemented. Some, like Minnesota based Xcel Energy, are putting their faith in new battery technology. But a UK professor, Seamus Garvey thinks he might have found another solution -- storing energy in flexible containers on the ocean floor.
Professor Garvey's idea of using Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) isn't a new one, but his methods are.
...Based at Nottingham University, Professor Garvey -- whose interest in wind turbines stretches back to his school days -- began his research into compressed air storage two years ago.
"I was thinking about how textile composites and textile structures might be relevant in the context of renewable energy," he told CNN.
In a moment of inspiration, Garvey realized that air could be compressed using a wind turbine or a wave-powered device.
"Drawing a mass down within the blade of the piston itself compresses the air," he said.
The prospects for his energy storage idea with tidal power are perhaps even better. "With tidal power you can use a hydraulic ram. This can take a large flow of water at a low pressure. Out of that it can then give you a small flow of water at a high pressure."
Naturally, storing vast amounts of air requires vast amounts of storage. Professor Garvey envisages a cone-like structure stretching 50 meters wide at the top to around 80 meters across at the base.
The bags are made of a combination of plastics. "A polyester reinforcement at the core with probably a polythene layer around that," Garvey said.
At a depth of around 600 meters, Professor Garvey calculates that the bags would be able to store 25 megajoules of energy for every meter cubed. The deep water is essential. "Only in deep water, where the pressure is greatest, are the bags a good economic proposition," Garvey explained.
Although there is an additional cost in fixing reinforcement cables and ballast, Garvey believes the future economic prospects for his invention are good.
See here.
Energy Solution? A Bag of Air Under Water
-
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Unfortuntately we are better at making plastics that shatter after a fairly short lifespan, but whose pieces don't biodegrade for thousands of years. I'm with Darrel on this - it's going to take a lot of research and testing to get something like this to be a solution rather than a different set of problems.
The real issue right now is we are wasting time. So we don't have AN answer - we have lots of pieces that are part of one or more answers BUT WE AREN'T BUILDING THEM because no single one of them is the silver bullet. Wind farms can be online in 6 months and bioconversion plants can be online in 18 - since they are both modular in nature, you get payback/electricity long before you are finished with the installation. We aren't building them. We're still talking about clean coal, which doesn't exist yet and would take a minimum 5 years, and nuclear which is a 10 year build - and neither of which has fuel that can be mined in an environmentally sound manner, even if the problems of the plants can be overcome. In fact, America has reversed what it should be doing all along the line - in foreign afairs talking aways beat fighting (Churchill said, "Better jaw, jaw than war, war" - with his accent jaw and war rhymed), in environmental affairs acting always beats talking. If we'd built a wind generator every time somebody said "intermittant" we'd have enough windmills in enough places to overcome the intermittancy problem. If the R-controlled 2006 congress had OK'd BRI Energy's request for loan guarantees (not loans, just guarantees) those plants would be online this year. Arguing what's the best food doesn't get a single seed in the ground - and ultimately people would starve. Ditto arguing what's the "right" solution to energy/environment doesn't put a single solar cell on a single roof, much less the "million solar roofs" the Clinton administration was trying for. (Guess who shot that down as soon as Clinton cleared the door?)
The real issue right now is we are wasting time. So we don't have AN answer - we have lots of pieces that are part of one or more answers BUT WE AREN'T BUILDING THEM because no single one of them is the silver bullet. Wind farms can be online in 6 months and bioconversion plants can be online in 18 - since they are both modular in nature, you get payback/electricity long before you are finished with the installation. We aren't building them. We're still talking about clean coal, which doesn't exist yet and would take a minimum 5 years, and nuclear which is a 10 year build - and neither of which has fuel that can be mined in an environmentally sound manner, even if the problems of the plants can be overcome. In fact, America has reversed what it should be doing all along the line - in foreign afairs talking aways beat fighting (Churchill said, "Better jaw, jaw than war, war" - with his accent jaw and war rhymed), in environmental affairs acting always beats talking. If we'd built a wind generator every time somebody said "intermittant" we'd have enough windmills in enough places to overcome the intermittancy problem. If the R-controlled 2006 congress had OK'd BRI Energy's request for loan guarantees (not loans, just guarantees) those plants would be online this year. Arguing what's the best food doesn't get a single seed in the ground - and ultimately people would starve. Ditto arguing what's the "right" solution to energy/environment doesn't put a single solar cell on a single roof, much less the "million solar roofs" the Clinton administration was trying for. (Guess who shot that down as soon as Clinton cleared the door?)
Barbara Fitzpatrick