Sudden Stop Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 I used to do Comprehension at school - did you? Are you sure you did? Something else from the dim past at high school: energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted from one type to another. If you seriously believe that changing energy from one type to another three or four times will create 7 times more electricity, i suggest you enrole in high school standard grade physics at night classes. It will not create anything. It will do two things: use up some of the energy and provide an non-intermittent source of electricity. Attach enough turbines to the grid directly and place them around the coast so as they are all generating at different times of the day and bingo, constant electricity feeds and you get far more electricity than the GENTEC process. End of story and probably why nobody has taken up your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 What exactly is pointless in creating 7 times more non-intermittent electricity for the grid? I am not wasting 40% of the energy heating up the water - I am gaining 240 times more energy - what part of that do not get? Haven't you ever heard of the conservation of energy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 I am still waiting for a sensible technical question that demostrates that some of you actually have the vaguest understanding of engineering. I'm a time served mechanical engineer and have worked on more than one gennie in the past. The engineering is not impossible or probably not that difficult but it is wasteful of energy, far more complicated than necessary and probably a b*tch to maintain and service. Cut out all the cr*p and connect the electricity generating turbines straight to the grid and stop all the fecking about converting it to heat to drive a different turbine to drive a different generator. It's pointless, expensive and will not produce 7 times the amount of electricity as some of the original energy taken from the tidal flow will be lost in noise, heat and inefficiencies in the mechanical moving parts of the second generator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 I was attempting to simplify by rounding up my numbersI call that 'exaggerating' and it casts doubt over all your other figures too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Cut out all the cr*p and connect the electricity generating turbines straight to the grid and stop all the fecking about converting it to heat to drive a different turbine to drive a different generator. It's pointless, expensive and will not produce 7 times the amount of electricity as some of the original energy taken from the tidal flow will be lost in noise, heat and inefficiencies in the mechanical moving parts of the second generator. If it really could output more energy than is input, he could simply feed some of the output back into the input and do away with the tidal generator completely. Hey presto! A perpetual motion machine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Just imagine the global warming that would cause! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenheatman Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 I'm a time served mechanical engineer and have worked on more than one gennie in the past. The engineering is not impossible or probably not that difficult but it is wasteful of energy, far more complicated than necessary and probably a b*tch to maintain and service. As mechanical engineer you may understand the following graph - other forum posters have not even commented on it apart from calling it 'silly' - must be a technical term! http://www.greenheating.com/Resources/Image42.gif The x-axis is in hours and the y-axis is in MW - this means that the area under all the lines can be expressed as MWh. Agreed? The 88MWh under the violet line is available to both Gv and Lunar Energy's 2MW subsea device because they have, for the purposes of the exercise, identical inlet surface or swept areas. Let's also assume that Lunar Energy eventually wises up as I had to do and put the device close to the surface. (The blue line is the power available to LE's device because it is situated 20% above the seabed in the water column). So now we have a level playing field where both systems have at their disposal 88MWh over 6.25hours between slack waters on a full moon day in, say, the Bay of Fundy. The red dotted line running along the bottom close to the x-axis is the output from the LE's device, all 7MWh(e) of it, because it can only generate at its generator's rating - despite the fact that nearly 22MW of shaft power is available at the tide's zenith. So in effect, LE is discarding 20MW(mechanical) while it is putting its maximum 2MW(electrical) onto the grid. ...........And guess what?.... Gv is capturing all 22MW(m) and storing it at the same moment in time. That is probably enough for you to take in at one time so perhaps you can justify to me why LE conventional device discards 10 times more power than it can generate at this tide's zenith? (As for maintenance, a standard Brotherhood steam turbine will run, without maintenance for up to 10 years provided that is supplied with a continuous supply of superheated dry steam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenheatman Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Cut out all the cr*p If it really could output more energy than is input, he could simply feed some of the output back into the input and do away with the tidal generator completely. Hey presto! A perpetual motion machine! Judging your infintile jibes I have to ask, are you a child? Surely it is 'way past your bedtime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Cut out all the cr*p If it really could output more energy than is input, he could simply feed some of the output back into the input and do away with the tidal generator completely. Hey presto! A perpetual motion machine! Judging your infintile jibes I have to ask, are you a child? Surely it is 'way past your bedtime! I think you'll find that's "infantile". Anyway, Mummy has let me stay up late so I can laugh at the funny green heat man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malachy Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 As mechanical engineer you may understand the following graph - other forum posters have not even commented on it apart from calling it 'silly' - must be a technical term! How many times do you have to post that bloody graph? Please, just stop it! I called it silly before, but now I'd like to amend that to absolutely ludicrous. Your suggestion that your machine can store 100% of the available tide power is beyond stupid. It is science fiction. You are deluded! Completely deluded. That machine will never be made because nobody apart from you will ever 'understand' it. That is because it doesn't make sense. In so many ways, it does not make sense! Please, I'm begging you, give up on Shetland. Condemn us to our inevitable windmill hell and go and bother somebody else. Try the Isle of Wight, or the Falkland Islands, or the South Shetland Islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 Comment on your graph has been lacking in some quarters at least, as there's still consderable doubt that your system can function so as to produce anything of anything in an amount that is measurable, let along worry how much of it it can produce. How do you propose to manage the supply of steam from your thermal store(s) to your turbine(s)? More conventional methods of steam production have the simple ability to match heat input with heat output, you don't. Your initial energy source is variable, your store(s) when under constant output have to be in a continually variable temperture/pressure situation almost all of the time, depending on the exact balance of input availability and output demand at any one given moment. I'm not saying it's not possible to have an adequate and reliable management system in place to do the task, I'm asking how you envision it being done in your creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenheatman Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 ...... but now I'd like to amend that to absolutely ludicrous. Your suggestion that your machine can store 100% of the available tide power is beyond stupid. No I am not saying that - Betz's limit has already been applied so 88MWh is available to both conventional and Gv. However, Lunar Energy chooses to place a 2MW generator in the water and gets 7MWh(e) while I get to store 88MWh for later use. No, I will not go away, on the say-so of somebody who does not understand graphs - is there anybody on the forum that can read a pretty simple graph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 No, I will not go away, on the say-so of somebody who does not understand graphs - is there anybody on the forum that can read a pretty simple graph?If there was someone who understood graphs, and they told you to go away, would you go away ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenheatman Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 How do you propose to manage the supply of steam from your thermal store(s) to your turbine(s)? More conventional methods of steam production have the simple ability to match heat input with heat output, you don't. Your initial energy source is variable, your store(s) when under constant output have to be in a continually variable temperture/pressure situation almost all of the time, depending on the exact balance of input availability and output demand at any one given moment. To understand the system you have to look at the bigger picture. During Springs there is a huge surplus of stored thermal power that can be 'carried forward' to fill the hole during Neaps. The temperature of the parallel plumbed stores will not vary by more than 3C across each half lunar cycle. The heat in the modular thermal stores is not stored as steam but pressurised water. The cold incoming feedwater (seawater) passes through a heat exchanger and it is this water that is flashed to steam to run the off the shelf thermal process. The folowing graph relates to a full scale Gv barge compared to the Lunar Energy's 2MW version. I've included the output from LE's device to demonstrate the scale of the difference between the two systems. http://www.greenheating.com/Resources/Image41.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenheatman Posted April 20, 2007 Report Share Posted April 20, 2007 If there was someone who understood graphs, and they told you to go away, would you go away ? Yes, bring him or her on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now