SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (63)4/25/2001 3:14:42 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha  Respond to of 16955
 
To All:

"It takes all kinds to make a world.
Big and little men and women, boys and girls."
Roger "King of the Road" Miller

So, just how "alternative" is this technology?

Jerry (puzzled) in Omaha

Solution to some of country’s energy woes might be little more than hot air

Sandia assists with mine assessment

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The solution to some of the country’s energy woes might be little more than hot air.

That’s a route researchers at Sandia National Laboratories, a Department of Energy laboratory, are helping explore in an inactive limestone mine in northeastern Ohio.

A Sandia team led by researcher Steve Bauer has been working with Houston-based Haddington Ventures and its subsidiary Norton Energy Storage LLC to determine the feasibility of using a 2,200-foot-deep inactive mine near Norton, Ohio, as the storage vessel for a compressed air energy storage power plant.

“The intent is to cycle air pressure into the mine using compressors during off-peak electrical power at times like evenings and weekends to increase air pressure in the mine,” Bauer says. “During the daily peak needs for electricity, air pressure will be bled off through modified combustion turbines to generate electricity. The energy is stored as pressure, but the mine must hold air to store the pressure.” Working pressures in the “air tight” mine will range between about 1,600 and 800 psi.

Haddington and Norton Energy plan to have the plant on line in two years. In October 1999 Norton Energy purchased the site and the limestone mine, and in July 2000 Norton Energy signed an agreement with the City of Norton to cooperate to build the plant. Permits are currently being sought through the state’s regulatory agencies. Norton Energy will build and operate the plant. On March 20, the Ohio Power Siting Board issued a report recommending approval of authorization to build the plant.

While the concept of compressed air energy storage is more than 30 years old, only two such plants exist — a ten-year-old-facility in McIntosh, Ala., about 40 miles north of Mobile, and a 23-year-old plant in Germany, both in caverns created in salt deposits. The Norton plant will be the first in a limestone mine.

Sandia’s role has been to characterize the rock mechanics and air-flow properties of the limestone and overlying shale in response to pressure cycling. The characterization included analyses to assess the geologic, hydrologic, and rock physics data. Without clear understanding of the behavior of the rock in a pressurized state, and the behavior of fluids in the rock, regulatory and funding agencies would have been reluctant to support the project. Sandia teamed with Hydrodynamics, a consulting group, in completing the characterization.

Bauer and other Sandia team members spent six months — November 1999 through April 2000 — in Norton studying the mine’s geology.

The Sandia team found that the mine consisted of a very dense rock with low permeability. It was stiff and strong and had few, if any, natural fractures.

“This all led to the conclusion that the mine would likely hold air at the required storage pressures and would work well as an air storage vessel for a compressed air energy storage power plant,” Bauer says.

The Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company operated the mine between 1943 and 1976, producing synthetic soda ash used in manufacturing glass. The 643-acre mine is built in a room and pillar configuration with 338 million cubic feet of space. Despite being well below the water table, the mine is virtually dry. The power plant will be built in units brought on line in increments of 300 megawatts as units are completed. Ultimately up to about 2,700 megawatts will be built, which will be enough generating capacity for about one million homes.

The power from the plant will not be sold directly to consumers. It will generate wholesale electric power for sale to utilities and marketing companies for use during peak energy usage times. In addition to providing more power during peak times — and possibly helping Ohio and the surrounding region avert blackouts and brownouts — the compressed air energy storage power plant has the advantage of being environmentally friendly.

“During electric generation, some natural gas will be burned to super-expand the compressed air,” Bauer says. “When at its full production stage of 2,700 megawatts, it will produce the same amount of emissions as a 600-megawatt gas-powered combustion turbine power plant.”

Sandia is a multiprogram DOE laboratory, operated by a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major research and development responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness.

Haddington Ventures was formed in 1997 to invest in opportunities in the U.S. energy industry that result from deregulation, convergence of gas and electricity, consolidation and introduction of new technologies. It is affiliated with J.P. Morgan Partners, a global private equity organization.

Technical contact:
Steve Bauer, 505-844-9116, sjbauer@sandia.gov

Contact: Chris Burroughs
coburro@sandia.gov
505-844-0948
Sandia National Laboratories



To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (63)4/28/2001 3:52:07 PM
From: IndexTrader  Respond to of 16955
 
Hi Jerry,
Although I agree with much of what you are saying, I believe we can begin to make a transition to alternative energy without a major crisis. If we could set goals of generating, lets say, 1/8 - 1/4 of our energy needs through alternative sources by 2005, then we could begin to see which methods are most promising. It has to start somewhere, and if implementation is done at a higher cost than that which would occur with fossil fuels, then so be it. I noticed that Gov. Locke introduced a bill that would require that utilities get 10% of their load through alternative forms of energy by 2012. Perhaps a better way to accomplish this would be through financial incentives. I don't know. With all these great ideas, there just has to be a way to begin to implement them.
I wish that large numbers of VC dollars could find their way to some of these promising technologies. Too bad so much was wasted on dot.coms. If only greed could find its way over here...



To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (63)4/29/2001 2:06:28 PM
From: William Marsh  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 16955
 
Jerry,
I don't entirely agree with your pessimism on alterantive energies, for several reasons;
1. The need for high quality, high reliability power for info and communications tech is driving a decentralization of power generation. These applications are ready to pay higher prices.
2. A substantial portion of the populace will pay a premium (a limited premium) for green power.
3. Certain areas in the world have abundant sources of wind, solar, geothermal or tidal power and no hydrocarbons. It is very much in there interest to promote and subsidize alternative energies.
4. Look at the Huber-Mills Powercosm material. They say that automobiles will be transformed not by fuel cells or any new power plant, but by a conversion of the power train and all functions to electrical rather than mechnical devices. Each wheel, for instance, will be driven by its own electrical motor supplied with energy from a hydrocarbon generator. This process, they say, has started and is inevitable. It allows the cars to be precisely controlled and is a great deal more efficient as well as safer.
5. Third world cities are dying from exhaust fumes generated by 2 stroke engines.
6. Energy costs and taxes are much higher in Europe than the US.
I do agree that the US is unlikely to lead in the conversion, though they seem to be leading in technology.

Bill



To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (63)4/30/2001 12:57:28 AM
From: Jon Stept  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
The political realities you mention are even scarier when you notice that some of these countries are mono-resource based economies in non-democratic governments.

Countries like Venezuela and Kuwait that have more than 80% of exports based on oil... it makes you wonder what would happen when that income source is reduced due to our technology advancements.

Jon :)