Surplus electricity from wind power

AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

IBdaMann wrote:

AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

I was just about to answer your question when I noticed that you don't want answers from me.

Enjoy.


.

duncan61 wrote:
Your topic is very broad with no specifics.I will give 2 examples of reality
.The Tourist townsite of Coral Bay has 3 wind turbines powering it.The permanant population of workers is around 200.At peak tourist times April to November there can be 5000 plus.There is the back up diesel generator that was installed before the wind generators.The system works as it is very remote and blows its head of most of the year.Huge amounts of dead sea birds that get hit by the blades and they cost a lot of money and resources to make have a short life expectancy and require permanant maintenance.

Wagerup refinery is an Aluminium plant that I worked on in the construction phase in 1980-1981
There were 2 gas turbine generators installed in the power house that the plant needs to run one at 30% to operate the refinary at normal situations.The State government did a deal with the Natural gas plant in the North west and the power company and built a transfer station where the power lines come from Muja in the South.I built the toilet block at the transfer station.Now the refinery runs the turbines with the gas supplied from the North West and generates enough power to run the Capital city of Perth nearly 2 million people.Muja power house is coal driven and is being shutdown if it isn't already.
What I am getting from this is wind can power a small tourist park but not a city.Using natural gas in a forced turbine is way less harmful than burning coal to create steam to move a turbine.
The whole power generation is based around the local enviroment.Muja is based at Collie which has been a coal mining area since the 1800s.Wagerup refinery is at the base of the Darling scarp because the hills behind are rich in Bauxite.On another post you talk of capturing CO2 for some reason.Who is going to do this and why.Please explain what possible motive any company would have to do this

AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

AMinterx wrote:
If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

AMinterx wrote:
P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

Spongy Iris wrote:

AMinterx wrote:
I've read that wind power produces an electricity surplus at times of lower demand.

If that's the case (and I'm sorry if this is a stupid question) but can't that electricity be stored in large batteries until additional power is needed which will probably be just a few hours later?

P.S. Climate change deniers need not reply.

This article should answer some of your questions.

" Average sized onshore wind turbines can produce 2.5 to 3 MW of power, offshore wind turbines can produce around 3.6 MW. To put that into perspective, a single offshore turbine can power more than 3,300 average EU households.

Power can be generated 24 hours a day, but requires a wind speed of at least 13 mph for utility scale turbines

The amount of power generated varies greatly at hourly, daily or seasonal timescales which means that often the supply of electricity will outweigh the demand

In a regular wind farm configuration, the power is distributed straight onto the electrical power grid. With no energy storage capability, this requires the turbines to be slowed to sub-optimal speeds when more energy is produced than is required.

Through several different storage processes, excess energy can be stored to be used during periods of lower wind or higher demand.

Battery Storage
Electrical batteries are commonly used in solar energy applications and can be used to store wind generated power. Lead acid batteries are a suitable choice as they are well suited to trickle charging and have a high electrical output charging efficiency.

Compressed Air Storage
Wind turbines can use excess power to compress air, this is usually stored in large above-ground tanks or in underground caverns. When required the compressed air can be used through direct expansion into a compressed air motor. It can also be injected in an internal combustion turbine, where it is burnt with fuel to provide mechanical energy which then powers a generator.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Hydrogen fuel cells can also be used to store excess energy. A hydrogen generator is used to electrolyse water using power generated from the wind turbine, storing the resulting hydrogen and converting it back to electricity using a fuel cell power system when needed.

Pumped Storage
Pumped storage is associated with hydroelectric power generation but is yet to be used with wind power generation. Water could theoretically be pumped up to an elevated reservoir utilizing excess generated power and then be used to drive a water turbine when required. The technology is proven and has been used for centuries, giving a relatively high overall efficiency of 70%. Existing hydroelectric power plants could be utilized if they are in an area suitable for a wind farm.

Almost 633 advanced energy storage projects are presently under development or in full operation around the world."

https://www.azocleantech.com/amp/article.aspx?ArticleID=488

2014 article

Spongy Iris wrote:
A common statistic I read about wind turbines is their productive use degrades by 1.6% per year (which equals 62.5 years of productive use).

Spongy Iris wrote:
Sunrun solar panels claim a 0.3% per year degradation rate (which equals 300 years of productive use).

Spongy Iris wrote:
Storing the energy in batteries or other devices could provide even more years.

Spongy Iris wrote:
With coal, oil, and gas, people's use is consuming them so there are repeat sales day after day.

Spongy Iris wrote:
With wind and solar it's a one off sale that could last decades or centuries.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus there would be a lot less sales occurring if the economy were to become powered primarily by wind and solar, and not by coal, oil, and gas.

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

No. There is no motor in a diesel generator. These have a diesel engine and a generator.

The fuel used is only that required to overcome the friction of the machine and the power being generated. At 25% rated power, it is using only approximately 25% of the fuel.

Maintenance remains the same. Maintenance does not have an 'efficiency'.

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

No. There is no motor in a diesel generator. These have a diesel engine and a generator.

The fuel used is only that required to overcome the friction of the machine and the power being generated. At 25% rated power, it is using only approximately 25% of the fuel.

Maintenance remains the same. Maintenance does not have an 'efficiency'.

This is ssad ITN. maintenance does have an efficiency.

James___ wrote:
Your obvious "ignorance" is that you don't understand how load and energy consumption matter.

James___ wrote:
I did post a link to a video in calculus which would have helped you to understand this if you had watched it.

James___ wrote:
If what Duncan61 posted is right, then fuel economy decreases with load.

James___ wrote:
And if you're in the Australian outback, paying for more capacity while under utilizing it might be more cost effective.

James___ wrote:
It'd be a matter of extra cost for the generating capacity they're not using VS the operational costs. That seems to be what he is suggesting.
And here in the states, we really don't have any remote locations like they do in Australia.

duncan61 wrote:
The generator will use more fuel under load but it is not on a 1;1 fuel usage.

duncan61 wrote:
If I see black smoke coming from the exhaust I will switch them over.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Do your own math.If renewables are degrading what performance are you getting at the halfway mark.A well maintained diesel generator will give you its rating for 10 years and degrade a little over the next 20 if it is in a pair where it is being alternated out.I worked on roadhouses and did the power house it was my thing.250 hrs run time is normal and I would go around and switch off all the aircons and coolrooms to reduce the load at switch over.I would start the next in line and let it warm up then switch over run the operating unit for a short while then turn it off.Later when it cooled some I would do the new oil and filters so it is ready to go again.Our units where rated at 135 KVA and we pulled 25-35 KVA depending on time of year.

Question for you. When a diesel generator runs at 25% of rating, is it more efficient? Both with fuel and the wear on the motor and the generator?

Consider driving a truck around, your basic form of transportation. You get so many miles per gallon of gas you put in the tank. You get a lot less miles out of a tank of gas, when you put a heavy load in the back, and haul it around, on the exact same route, you generally just drive, as if it was a car. The engine has to work harder, burn more fuel, to haul that load. Generators are similar, in that they have to work harder, to handle the heavier load.

Harvey55, any diesel locomotive will out perform any diesel engine on the road.

James___ wrote:
A diesel locomotive converts torque from a diesel engine into an electrical charge like what Duncan61 is on about.
Please visit your local library which has high speed internet mate. Prime movers might get better mileage if they used their diesel engines to drive DC traction motors.

James___ wrote:
The issue with that might be acceleration. Using traction motors really doesn't allow for changes for speed in the city.

Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

James___ wrote:
It's simply a known fact. If anyone understands math and physics, they'll know the answer.

In this example, the train is approximately 3.7 times more efficient at hauling freight, as shown by the ratio 492 train ton-miles per gallon divided by 134 truck ton-miles per gallon.

https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/the-csx-advantage/fuel-efficiency/

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

Nope. They're both the same. Electric motors are the same too.

Quote from the Internet (test drive of the small VW POLO 1.4 TSI ACT):
"Temporary shutoff of the second and third cylinders – in conjunction with an economical style of driving – reduces fuel consumption by over 0.5 liters per 100 kilometers.
Even with two cylinders the excellently balanced 1.4 TSI runs just as quietly and with low vibration as with four active combustion chambers."

The consumption reduction comes from the fact that the two active cylinders of VW operate at substantially heavier load when the two others are deactivated.
At light loads the efficiency of the spark ignition engine drops a lot.
The bad thing with VW's solution is that the deactivated cylinders still have pistons and piston rings reciprocating inside them consuming energy as friction.

When the VW ACT engine operates at partial loads, it pays its vibration-free quality / smoothness / quietness with the friction (mechanical energy loss) of moving a pair of "useless" pistons / sets of piston rings.

If the two deactivated pistons could be removed, the reduction of the fuel consumption would double (?), as well as the vibrations and the noise.

Unless I am wrong, the two middle cylinders of VW ACT engine are the only ones that are deactivated. What is the long-term effect on the engine after, say, 100.000 miles? Is it clever to operate at heavy load the two "worn" cylinders and leave the actually "unused" pair of cylinders idle? Does it reduce the TBO?

By the way, the "cylinder deactivation" in Diesels is not so good because the friction of the idle cylinders is bigger and because the thermal efficiency of the Diesels at partial loads is not bad.

What the VW Passat TSI ACT proves is that a single combustion per crankshaft rotation is acceptable / adequate for small and medium size cars (a four-stroke with two active cylinders has one combustion per each rotation of the crankshaft).

The same is proved by the four-stroke two-cylinder TwinAir engine of FIAT / Chrysler used in several small / medium size cars like the New Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir. In this case (true twin cylinder engine) the absence of another pair of "driven / inactive / power consuming" cylinders reduces the friction and increases the mileage (as well as the inertia vibrations and the noise).

A well balanced internal combustion engine having one combustion (i.e. one power pulse) per crankshaft rotation seems as the future for "green" small-medium size cars.

With the cylinder-liner rid of intake and exhaust ports, the single-cylinder two-stroke PatPortLess engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPortLess.htm combines among others:
true "four-stroke" lubrication,
true "four-stroke" specific lube consumption,
true "four-stroke" scuffing resistance,
true "four-stroke" emissions,
and one combustion per crankshaft rotation, i.e. as much as the VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT (at partial loads) and as much as the Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir.

As for the smoothness / "vibration-free" quality of the single-cylinder PatPortLess, it is comparable to that of the four-in-line of VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT and it is substantially better than that of the two-cylinder TwinAir of FIAT / Alfa Romeo (last GIF animation in the abovementioned web page).

So, would you consider buying a small - medium size car having a single cylinder engine?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

Xadoman wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
The efficiency of an engine depend on the load. With low load the engine is not as efficient as with optimal load. Diesel engine does not lose much efficiency but gasoline engine wastes quite a lot of fuel on low loads.

Nope. They're both the same. Electric motors are the same too.

Wrong. The efficienc of an engine depends on the load. Gasoline engine wastes fuel on low load. Diesel does not lose much efficiency.

Quote from the Internet (test drive of the small VW POLO 1.4 TSI ACT):
"Temporary shutoff of the second and third cylinders – in conjunction with an economical style of driving – reduces fuel consumption by over 0.5 liters per 100 kilometers.
Even with two cylinders the excellently balanced 1.4 TSI runs just as quietly and with low vibration as with four active combustion chambers."

The consumption reduction comes from the fact that the two active cylinders of VW operate at substantially heavier load when the two others are deactivated.
At light loads the efficiency of the spark ignition engine drops a lot.
The bad thing with VW's solution is that the deactivated cylinders still have pistons and piston rings reciprocating inside them consuming energy as friction.

When the VW ACT engine operates at partial loads, it pays its vibration-free quality / smoothness / quietness with the friction (mechanical energy loss) of moving a pair of "useless" pistons / sets of piston rings.

If the two deactivated pistons could be removed, the reduction of the fuel consumption would double (?), as well as the vibrations and the noise.

Unless I am wrong, the two middle cylinders of VW ACT engine are the only ones that are deactivated. What is the long-term effect on the engine after, say, 100.000 miles? Is it clever to operate at heavy load the two "worn" cylinders and leave the actually "unused" pair of cylinders idle? Does it reduce the TBO?

By the way, the "cylinder deactivation" in Diesels is not so good because the friction of the idle cylinders is bigger and because the thermal efficiency of the Diesels at partial loads is not bad.

What the VW Passat TSI ACT proves is that a single combustion per crankshaft rotation is acceptable / adequate for small and medium size cars (a four-stroke with two active cylinders has one combustion per each rotation of the crankshaft).

The same is proved by the four-stroke two-cylinder TwinAir engine of FIAT / Chrysler used in several small / medium size cars like the New Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir. In this case (true twin cylinder engine) the absence of another pair of "driven / inactive / power consuming" cylinders reduces the friction and increases the mileage (as well as the inertia vibrations and the noise).

A well balanced internal combustion engine having one combustion (i.e. one power pulse) per crankshaft rotation seems as the future for "green" small-medium size cars.

With the cylinder-liner rid of intake and exhaust ports, the single-cylinder two-stroke PatPortLess engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPortLess.htm combines among others:
true "four-stroke" lubrication,
true "four-stroke" specific lube consumption,
true "four-stroke" scuffing resistance,
true "four-stroke" emissions,
and one combustion per crankshaft rotation, i.e. as much as the VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT (at partial loads) and as much as the Alfa Romeo Mito TwinAir.

As for the smoothness / "vibration-free" quality of the single-cylinder PatPortLess, it is comparable to that of the four-in-line of VW Passat 1.4 TSI ACT and it is substantially better than that of the two-cylinder TwinAir of FIAT / Alfa Romeo (last GIF animation in the abovementioned web page).

So, would you consider buying a small - medium size car having a single cylinder engine?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

This guy knows everything about internal combustion engines.

http://www.pattakon.com/

Check out his patents. I specially like his portable flyer idea.

Now you can choose to believe that or not, but I do know engine efficiencies and what factors go into them.

Xadoman wrote:

Now you can choose to believe that or not, but I do know engine efficiencies and what factors go into them.

So why do you deny that the efficiency depends on the load?

Xadoman wrote:
I just can not uderstand it.

Xadoman wrote:
Also the guy I quoted is a mechanical genius.

Xadoman wrote:
God knows how many patents he already has.

Xadoman wrote:
All of his engine designes are perfectly balanced.

Xadoman wrote:
Better than R4, V6, R6, V12 etc etc which are not perfectly balanced.

Xadoman wrote:
The rotary engine however is perfectly balanced.

Xadoman wrote:
A perfectly balanced engine is super smooth and does not vibrate.