The unexpected loss of output from wind turbines compels UK to turn to an alternative; It's not what you think!

[hemanthaa@mail.com + 64]

The output from the UK wind turbines has plummeted from 14.3 MW to just 4.7 MW recently, when there is a widespread concern over gas supplies. According to media reports, the UK has been forced to fire up some coal plants to make up for the loss.

Please read here for more:

[NickW + 2,714]

18 hours ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

The output from the UK wind turbines has plummeted from 14.3 MW to just 4.7 MW recently, when there is a widespread concern over gas supplies. According to media reports, the UK has been forced to fire up some coal plants to make up for the loss.

Please read here for more:

As much to do with record high gas prices. 

I think the UK needs a couple of new super critical coal plants to help hedge against the gas Mafia. 

[specinho + 467]

18 hours ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

The output from the UK wind turbines has plummeted from 14.3 MW to just 4.7 MW recently, when there is a widespread concern over gas supplies. According to media reports, the UK has been forced to fire up some coal plants to make up for the loss.

Please read here for more:

 

35 minutes ago, NickW said:

As much to do with record high gas prices. 

I think the UK needs a couple of new super critical coal plants to help hedge against the gas Mafia. 

this design might be having efficiency issue?

 

the bottom where the gas jets are should be gathering ash from the burning? If the ash is not cleared before adding new coal, the burning efficiency would drop immediately by more than 50%?

 

Besides the exhaust pipe, there ought to be an air or oxygen inlet? Without constant refueling of essential item for burning might mean the burning would not be done completely?

 

Underground coal might be a little moist, between 45 to 63%? ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/average-moisture-content#:~:text=The average moisture content of coal received at power stations,between 45% and 63%. Notice a yellow fire when water boiled over to a gas stove. This might mean water content reduces efficiency of burning? Hence, efficiency for coal?

 

If it is steam that is needed, would the energy be more efficient shall a heated liquid (with lower boiling points) is shot up by the heat to turn the turbine, cooled and returned?

Edited September 7, 2021 by specinho

[turbguy + 1,543]

23 minutes ago, specinho said:

 

 

 

If it is steam that is needed, would the energy be more efficient shall a heated liquid (with lower boiling points) is shot up by the heat to turn the turbine, cooled and returned?

 

That certainly is a comical description!

There's been plenty of other working fluids used.

Most are really tricky and expensive,

[specinho + 467]

On 9/8/2021 at 3:03 AM, turbguy said:

That certainly is a comical description!

There's been plenty of other working fluids used.

Most are really tricky and expensive,

mm..... Thank you for informing.....

I was thinking of something like mercury, the liquid commonly used in a thermometer. The expansion of volume and cooling could be relatively easy than water, more efficient shall it is a closed loop system? Wondering if it has been used before?

[turbguy + 1,543]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

mm..... Thank you for informing.....

I was thinking of something like mercury, the liquid commonly used in a thermometer. The expansion of volume and cooling could be relatively easy than water, more efficient shall it is a closed loop system? Wondering if it has been used before?

 

Mercury cycles were designed and used in the 1930's, if I recall correctly.   Google "Mercury Vapor Turbine".

There was a considerable issue with worker and environmental safety using mercury as a working fluid. particularly since "best practice" requires safety relief valves.  Hopefully, the mercury cycle did not use atmospheric safety relief valves!!

Water was also used in the cycle (as a bottoming cycle).

Turbomachinery was much more compact due to the density of the working gas.

Edited September 14, 2021 by turbguy

[notsonice + 1,255]

8 hours ago, specinho said:

mm..... Thank you for informing.....

I was thinking of something like mercury, the liquid commonly used in a thermometer. The expansion of volume and cooling could be relatively easy than water, more efficient shall it is a closed loop system? Wondering if it has been used before?

 

the liquid commonly used in a thermometer.????? maybe 80 or 100 years ago...the liquid commonly used today in thermometers is alcohol. Why? because mercury is   nasty .....not likely to ever see mercury used on a mass basis anymore.....even CFL lightbulbs are a thing of the past already

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Supercritical CO2 as a working fluid is generally the best option. Hydrogen is the most ideal (dangerous) with helium being the second best (expensive).

@turbguy I didn't know a mercury vapor cycle was invented. How curious. 

[turbguy + 1,543]

47 minutes ago, notsonice said:

the liquid commonly used in a thermometer.????? maybe 80 or 100 years ago...the liquid commonly used today in thermometers is alcohol. Why? because mercury is   nasty .....not likely to ever see mercury used on a mass basis anymore.....even CFL lightbulbs are a thing of the past already

As a kid, I remember rolling a pool of mercury roll around in my palm, as I coated/amalgamed cleaned pennies with the stuff.

Dentists used it out the wazoo.

I turned out "OK" (maybe)?

There was a huge move to replace mercury containing instruments in power houses in the '80's. Bailey Meter Co. was never the same afterwards.  I believe they made most of there profit from selling circular chart paper.

Condenser vacuum manometers remained, however.   No good replacement.

Edited September 14, 2021 by turbguy

[markslawson + 1,057]

47 minutes ago, turbguy said:

As a kid, I remember rolling a pool of mercury roll around in my palm, as I coated/amalgamed cleaned pennies with the stuff.

Dentists used it out the wazoo.

I turned out "OK" (maybe)?

You were lucky.. Mercury is notoriously toxic. Hatters (when people wore hats) used mercury in making hats and notoriously went crazy as a result.. hence the saying "mad as a hatter" .. or at least, that's what they use to say.. mercury is still used in certain processes crucially in dental filings so small does can't be so bad. But you will find that direct contact with human skin is out. Gloves are mandatory.  

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, markslawson said:

You were lucky.. Mercury is notoriously toxic. Hatters (when people wore hats) used mercury in making hats and notoriously went crazy as a result.. hence the saying "mad as a hatter" .. or at least, that's what they use to say.. mercury is still used in certain processes crucially in dental filings so small does can't be so bad. But you will find that direct contact with human skin is out. Gloves are mandatory.  

There's also the bit that pure mercury isn't "poisonous" in a technical sense. The impurities are what allows it to enter your system. Mercury used in dental fillings is nearly free of impurities, so you end up with practically none in your system. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

23 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

here's also the bit that pure mercury isn't "poisonous" in a technical sense. The impurities are what allows it to enter your system. Mercury used in dental fillings is nearly free of impurities, so you end up with practically none in your system. 

That is a fair point but pure mercury never stays that way.. it always combines into nasty stuff, although there can be benign combinations.. anyway, useful discussion.. 

[specinho + 467]

On 9/15/2021 at 1:48 AM, turbguy said:

Mercury cycles were designed and used in the 1930's, if I recall correctly.   Google "Mercury Vapor Turbine".

There was a considerable issue with worker and environmental safety using mercury as a working fluid. particularly since "best practice" requires safety relief valves.  Hopefully, the mercury cycle did not use atmospheric safety relief valves!!

Water was also used in the cycle (as a bottoming cycle).

Turbomachinery was much more compact due to the density of the working gas.

thanks for the key words. Found this diagram. Could have been what you have mentioned...?

I was wondering if the pressure from mercury is sufficient to turn the turbine and generate electricity directly?  The generator attached to the mercury cycle seems to mean it is possible.....

 

Does this diagram show a double- generator where electricity is generated from both mercury turbine and steam? Impressive use of heat..........

 

If it is, the problem might be the location of mercury. Since it has a lower boiling point, hence easy to expand in volume, it could be placed not so near to the fire. Water containing coils or container, from the upper drawing, should change place with the mercury system?

 

The possible risk is probably laid on maintenance of generator linked to the mercury cycle? If it is not servicing the blades of the turbine that are directly in contact with mercury, but those components outside of the mercury system, wondering if it is still affecting the safety?

 

Elder generations are genius..........

Edited September 16, 2021 by specinho

[turbguy + 1,543]

42 minutes ago, specinho said:

thanks for the key words. Found this diagram. Could have been what you have mentioned...?

I was wondering if the pressure from mercury is sufficient to turn the turbine and generate electricity directly?  The generator attached to the mercury cycle seems to mean it is possible.....

 

Does this diagram show a double- generator where electricity is generated from both mercury turbine and steam? Impressive use of heat..........

 

If it is, the problem might be the location of mercury. Since it has a lower boiling point, hence easy to expand in volume, it could be placed not so near to the fire. Water containing coils or container, from the upper drawing, should change place with the mercury system?

 

The possible risk is probably laid on maintenance of generator linked to the mercury cycle? If it is not servicing the blades of the turbine that are directly in contact with mercury, but those components outside of the mercury system, wondering if it is still affecting the safety?

 

Elder generations are genius..........

That's a crude example, but yes, that's what I meant.  It's an early example of a combined cycle (using two or more working fluids).

The Mercury turbine could either have it's own generator, or (cheaper), shared a generator with the steam turbine, if RPM's could be matched.   More than likely, the mercury turbines ran slower, though.

Heat transfer designs and fluid feed temperatures dictate where the heating surfaces for each fluid are located.

The issue of fluid seals for the shafting (where it exits the casing) rears it's ugly head for the mercury turbine, particularly during a plant upset (such as a plant trip).

Steam seals in the steam turbine don't pose a particular hazard during an upset.

Edited September 16, 2021 by turbguy

[specinho + 467]

23 hours ago, turbguy said:

That's a crude example, but yes, that's what I meant.  It's an early example of a combined cycle (using two or more working fluids).

The Mercury turbine could either have it's own generator, or (cheaper), shared a generator with the steam turbine, if RPM's could be matched.   More than likely, the mercury turbines ran slower, though.

Heat transfer designs and fluid feed temperatures dictate where the heating surfaces for each fluid are located.

The issue of fluid seals for the shafting (where it exits the casing) rears it's ugly head for the mercury turbine, particularly during a plant upset (such as a plant trip).

Steam seals in the steam turbine don't pose a particular hazard during an upset.

all good. A good enough improvisation for energy suppliers from coal.......

On a side note, solar panel is characterized by having a dark surface. A lot of heat will be absorbed by the surface. The larger the area, the larger the temperature increment around that area, yes? Could this massive adoption of solar panel create another enhancer or unintended consequence for climate change?

 

 

what if, the surface is not black?

 

I love the magic of magnifying glass........ I was using it to watch an ant out of curiosity. The leaf nearby suddenly caught fire and the ant was toasted............. An idea crossed my mind.

What if magnifying glass can be used to generate energy??

After all, the aim is merely producing steam to turn the turbine, yes?......... Who is interested to make this happen??

Edited September 17, 2021 by specinho

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

all good. A good enough improvisation for energy suppliers from coal.......

On a side note, solar panel is characterized by having a dark surface. A lot of heat will be absorbed by the surface. The larger the area, the larger the temperature increment around that area, yes? Could this massive adoption of solar panel create another enhancer or unintended consequence for climate change?

what if, the surface is not black?

 

I love the magic of magnifying glass........ I was using it to watch an ant out of curiosity. The leaf nearby suddenly caught fire and the ant was toasted............. An idea crossed my mind.

What if magnifying glass can be used to generate energy??

After all, the aim is merely producing steam to turn the turbine, yes?......... Who is interested to make this happen??

 

The hotter the solar panel, the less "efficient" it becomes. And it's not a small effect, either.  They "work" much better in cold weather.  I don't see much combination of Solar Panels with solar heating, but it should work in theory.

Early demonstrations of "concentrated solar power" used a "large" (parabolic ?) reflecting dish to operate a small steam engine.  A sterling engine could work to. They use air as the working fluid.

That said, here's the current installations of that idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

Not good for some birds that fly into the wrong place!

Edited September 17, 2021 by turbguy

[specinho + 467]

On 9/17/2021 at 1:11 PM, turbguy said:

The hotter the solar panel, the less "efficient" it becomes. And it's not a small effect, either.  They "work" much better in cold weather.  I don't see much combination of Solar Panels with solar heating, but it should work in theory.

Early demonstrations of "concentrated solar power" used a "large" (parabolic ?) reflecting dish to operate a small steam engine.  A sterling engine could work to. They use air as the working fluid.

That said, here's the current installations of that idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

Not good for some birds that fly into the wrong place!

thank you for the info and links.

a quick check on concentrated solar power says something like this:

" A single-axis tracking system positions the mirrors to retrieve the optimal amount of sunlight. The mirrors concentrate the sunlight and focus it on a network of stationary steel pipes, also suspended from the glasshouse structure.^[44] Water is carried throughout the length of the pipe, which is boiled to generate steam when intense solar radiation is applied. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Enclosed_trough

In brief, all the existing systems reflect sunlight to a focal point that can boil up a passing-by liquid, to generate electricity...... Could this mean, the efficiency is rather low??

Correct me if wrong, a reflection might produce only bright scattered ray with an image of a sun. It might not reflect heat??

Heat might retain on the surface of the mirrors. Conduction of heat from the mirrors might not be effective unless it is on a very short distance?? In addition, this design is probably more harmful than useful??

It reminds me of a story of Darwin.......... Briefly, Darwin's theory of evolution was written based on his observation in Galapagos.

According to the picture shown, it basically says that at the beginning, that species of bird was having thick and hard beak. They used that to crack nuts, shells of stuff etc. When some birds flied off to another part of the island, they couldn't find nuts or food of the same kind. They had to eat something else. Those smaller birds (born by frequent eggs layers or naughty birds with active intimate behaviour) with smaller mouths won the food.... Gradually left seeds and grains to be munched in that area..... Those parents and kids with thinner, sharper beaks thrived. Those thick beaks which could find nuts somewhere somehow survived, and those which couldn't did not........

Hence, survival of the fittest.............. The discussion ended with this question:"

But... mind to remind me, which group of scientists proposed mankind evolved from salamander or octopus??"

️

What i was mentioning is just a piece of transparent glass. It will  not reflect light nor absorb excessive heat like black surface, but redirect sun rays to a focal point to boil water or liquid.

 

 

 

[turbguy + 1,543]

Duplicate post.

Edited September 19, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

thank you for the info and links.

 

a quick check on concentrated solar power says something like this:

" A single-axis tracking system positions the mirrors to retrieve the optimal amount of sunlight. The mirrors concentrate the sunlight and focus it on a network of stationary steel pipes, also suspended from the glasshouse structure.^[44] Water is carried throughout the length of the pipe, which is boiled to generate steam when intense solar radiation is applied. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Enclosed_trough

In brief, all the existing systems reflect sunlight to a focal point that can boil up a passing-by liquid, to generate electricity...... Could this mean, the efficiency is rather low??

 

Correct me if wrong, a reflection might produce only bright scattered ray with an image of a sun. It might not reflect heat??

Heat might retain on the surface of the mirrors. Conduction of heat from the mirrors might not be effective unless it is on a very short distance?? In addition, this design is probably more harmful than useful??

 

It reminds me of a story of Darwin.......... Briefly, Darwin's theory of evolution was written based on his observation in Galapagos.

 

 

 

According to the picture shown, it basically says that at the beginning, that species of bird was having thick and hard beak. They used that to crack nuts, shells of stuff etc. When some birds flied off to another part of the island, they couldn't find nuts or food of the same kind. They had to eat something else. Those smaller birds (born by frequent eggs layers or naughty birds with active intimate behaviour) with smaller mouths won the food.... Gradually left seeds and grains to be munched in that area..... Those parents and kids with thinner, sharper beaks thrived. Those thick beaks which could find nuts somewhere somehow survived, and those which couldn't did not........

 

 

Hence, survival of the fittest.............. The discussion ended with this question:"

 

 

But... mind to remind me, which group of scientists proposed mankind evolved from salamander or octopus??"

️

What i was mentioning is just a piece of transparent glass. It will  not reflect light nor absorb excessive heat like black surface, but redirect sun rays to a focal point to boil water or liquid.

 

 

 

I believe what you are describing is a lens.

An uncoated clear air-glass surface will reflect about 5% of the incoming perpendicular radiation.  This is primarily due to the sudden change in impedance between the two mediums.  Coatings provide some improvement, as they provide a more gradual impedance change (impedance matching).

Simple transmission theory.

A glass mirror with a proper reflective front-surface coating (silver is about the best, but aluminum is frequently used) will reflect about 95% of the perpendicular radiation).  Back surface coatings are more resistant to atmospheric contamination and exposure, and can be easily cleaned without significant damage.

So, it is about a tie in performance, either way. 

Both will absorb some heat.  Not much, but some.

A mirror is cheaper that a lens.

A group of identical lenses will have individual focal points that cannot be combined (except with further mirrors), so a receiving body must be plural, and thus, distributed.

A group of identical mirrors can be arranged to have a COMMON focal point, so a receiving body can be individual and be compact.

The economics drive this decision.

That said, a large, plastic fresnel lens (cheap) will easily boil water within an appropriate, small receiving body.

Edited September 19, 2021 by turbguy