Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power
I did a tiny proposal to Cal Edison in California back in the 80s on Wind Energy Systems in the Jet Stream to see if they were interested. I had visited their Solar One Site and thought they might like to do something with wind. What would you like to know? Leon L. Hulett, PE > [Original Message] > From: TarynToo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 9/11/05 9:13:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power > > Really? Genuine scam? I read about it in Wired or Pop Sci, figured it > was just a master's thesis, or some defense proposal. > > Taryn > http://ornae.com/ > > On Sep 11, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Mike Weaver wrote: > > > *Yeah, I invested in that. Ponzi scheme. > > > > TarynToo wrote: > > > >> ... > >> I remember some blue sky stuff that proposed wind turbines hanging > >> from > >> high altitude balloons, anchored by long tethers. I suppose the > >> tethers > >> were supposed to carry current to the ground, though I'm now struck by > >> the weight of a few miles of high tension copper or aluminum line. As > >> far as staying in the jet stream, It seems like it would be trivial to > >> design a self-steering system like that used for singlehand sailing. > >> If > >> the tether's anchor points were far enough apart, the system could > >> probably swing a few miles north and south and around a hundred > >> degrees > >> or more of the compass, tracking the strongest winds. I think the jet > >> stream shifts hundreds of miles, so I don't know what that would be > >> worth. > >> > >> Anyway it was this kind of big scale extraction that seemed like it > >> could have devastating consequences. Of course you'd need millions of > >> acres of ground level turbines to extract the kind of energy that a > >> wind farm hanging in the jet stream might capture. > >> > >> But I remember reading about this and the proposals to hang big blades > >> in the gulf stream and thinking, "Oh Jeez! Another massive engineering > >> project with wildly unpredictable side effects! > >> > >> Taryn > >> http://ornae.com/ > >> > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power
TarynToo, Sorry, I can't help you with any vision of the Victorian or Scholastic scope of knowledge... But I might add a few things on the wind and my idea. I got a package of wind data on the upper air from an Oceanographic office. This was a compilation of data for 10 years from all around the world. Quite a bit of stuff. They have sites around the world that measure wind speeds of the upper air at different altitudes. Then they look at different altitudes and connect the dots. Then they have a chart of what the wind speeds look like over California, for example. At 30,000 feet they say, for the 10 year period of the data that the average wind energy was 7.5 kW per square meter. They can also present this data month by month. So one can make up 12 graphs that say what the power levels might be for Jan thru Dec. In July, or in the summer months the data shows the wind to be much slower than in Jan and the winter months. Looking at that data in another way I integrated the power from ground to 60,000 feet and estimated the total wind power coming across California as about 1 megawatt per foot of coastline. Lots of energy potential. Other parts of the country are more influenced by the Jet Stream and have average energy densities about twice as high, or 14 kW per square meter. Over Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York and the New England states, would be the highest in the country, at 30,000 feet. My idea was for an 80 megawatt design. Solar One was about 30 megawatts thermal capacity. If you divide 80 mW by the energy density and an efficiency you can see the frontal area would be quite large. The idea was to have just enough lift from a helium filled portion to provide safety under emergency conditions. The unit would never crash into the ground unless it came apart. But the helium would not sustain it at 30,000 feet either. TetraTech was a company in Pasadena, CA and does provide tethers for submersible equipment. They had envisioned a tether system and equipment that I felt would meet the needs. Of course at altitude, wings on the device would have to provide the lift needed for the tether. The tether would provide the ability to create lift like a kite. Close to ground near touchdown conditions, one would not have to support much tether. The plan was to change altitude if wind conditions became too high. Under summer conditions or low wind conditions I felt some fancy flying would increase the effective wind speed of the device. Like a water skier on a tether behind a boat. He can go faster than the boat under certain conditions. The tether could be used to tack the device in a certain pattern and fly faster than the wind if the wind was too slow. Graz University analyzed a number of locations north to south and found, as one might expect, that the Jet Stream (maximum energy density of the wind) meanders over a wide area. By strategically placing stations over a wide area, a system of devices could overcome low wind speeds at a specific location. This means one would have to build stations with this overcapacity in mind to assure more consistent energy capacity during lower wind speeds for an electrical grid. At the time California was thinking of acquiring a maximum of 7 percent of its energy needs from wind power. With such widely spaced stations and this leveling effect, this number might be increased. Does this make sense to you, or is it too fanciful? I guess you folks can be the peer review I didn't have back then. Leon > [Original Message] > From: TarynToo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 9/13/05 1:53:18 AM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power > > On Sep 12, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Leon Hulett wrote: > > > I did a tiny proposal to Cal Edison in California back in the 80s on > > Wind > > Energy Systems in the Jet Stream to see if they were interested. I had > > visited their Solar One Site and thought they might like to do > > something > > with wind. > > > > What would you like to know? > > Well...uh...everything, really. But the prevailing wisdom was that > Victorian scientists were the last individuals able to encompass all of > human knowledge. Kind of eurocentric racism, I 'spose. > > As far as high altitude wind power extraction, we'd probably all like > to hear as much as you're willing to tell. Can the proposal or elements > of it be made public? I suspect JTF would be happy to host anything on > the subject that stands up to scrutiny. > > > Taryn > http://ornae.com/ > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-b
Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power
A.P.VORA That link didn't work for me. Can you check it? Leon Leon Hulett [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power
TarynToo, Here are the specs for Chinook: http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47sd/ch47sdspec.htm GTW: 54,000 lbs Center hook: 12,700 kgs That's a Roger Roger on village level of technology. We don't have to go into this. However, I see shale and other peripheral things here... I don't think a tether on a village level would be workable. Your estimate is a bit low for length but pretty good. The wind data definitely points out that higher is better for energy density. It is max at about 30,000 feet above ground level. There was a tethered monitoring station at 14,000 ft near Key West at one point to keep and eye on Cuba. There were simulations, but I know of no small scale demonstrations. I believe there was a space tether test with a very long tether, but I don't have details. That monitoring station suggested to me that such a flying platform could be used for many things. These days quick response computer and cell phone transmissions might be a market. One company in Florida is proposing a platform flying 24/7 at 60 to 70 thousand feet for such markets. I understand they have made one such broadcast, but I doubt they used the actual flying model to do it. Grumman had a patent on a shroud or air inducer that might apply to village level machines. More shroud less diameter on the blades. I assume this would quieter to. An air inducer can go up to about 4:1. That is, one could reduce the air intake area to 25% with such a device. Inducers are very unattractive so you don't see them around. Leon > [Original Message] > From: TarynToo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 9/14/05 12:38:40 AM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power > > Thanks Leon, this was helpful and interesting. > > A few thoughts and questions: > > A kite at 30K feet would have at least 40K feet of tether, about 12 km > of cable. I know there now exist carbon fiber cored, aluminum wrapped, > power lines that are both stronger and lighter than copper or the > common aluminum and steel lines. If we optimistically assume that the > tether package, including control circuits, power lines, and tensile > reinforcing cables weighs ~0.5 kg per meter, then the tether would > weigh ~6000 kg. And of course we haven't even calculated the weight of > the huge blades and 80 MW generator. For comparison, the commercial > Chinook heavy lift helicopter has about a 10,000 kg payload. > > On a smaller scale, anyone who's spent time on a coast knows that > there's plenty of wind energy for kiting and para-sailing. I've a few > kites that I'd never let a child fly, for fear they'd be carried away. > When you feel the kite straining at the tether, it's obvious that > there's a lot more power even at a mere 100 meters up. Keith made the > point yesterday that JTF was focused on village level technology. It > occurs to me that flying a small winged dynamo, off a tower mounted > tether, might be worth the extra complexity for the higher return of > energy. > > Even as I write these words I realize that this is a half baked idea. > One of the virtues of windmills and wind generators is their great > reliability in the face of changing conditions. While they may falter > when the wind swings about or goes slack, they'll recover, without > intervention, as soon as there's power to drive them. The winged > dynamo, in order to be self starting and recovering, would need to do a > lot of sensing, computation, and winching. And no matter how smart the > software was, there'd be the occasional flukey wind to cause a crash. > > Adding helium or hot air also adds complexity and additional failure > modes, though I was struck by the possibilities of using cogenerated > hydrogen to keep a dynamo, tethered to the ground by conductors flying. > (Oh the humanity!) > > Anyhoo, just thinking aloud, has this scheme been tried at the small > scale? > > > Taryn > http://ornae.com/ > > On Sep 13, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Leon Hulett wrote: > > > TarynToo, > > > > Sorry, I can't help you with any vision of the Victorian or Scholastic > > scope of knowledge... > > > > But I might add a few things on the wind and my idea. > > > > I got a package of wind data on the upper air from an Oceanographic > > office. > > This was a compilation of data for 10 years from all around the world. > > Quite a bit of stuff. They have sites around the world that measure > > wind > > speeds of the upper air at different altitudes. Then they look at > > different > > altitudes and connect the dots. Then they have a chart of what the wind > > speeds look like over California, for example. At 30,000 feet they &
Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power
Zeke Yewdall, Your point is well taken. I like to think the humanities are more important than technology. That people are more important than things. You ask, "Is it that we hope to engineer a technological solution to ourenvironmental/social problems?" I say, yes. I think some wind solutions is better than oil being the only solution. I have seen big oil sabotage other solutions with their wealth. I have been involved in environmental cleanup of spilled oil and the fascist beauracracies that governments has installed to solve the resulting environmental problems. I see some downsides to an economy totally dependent on oil. I think we need some alternatives. But on a philosophical level, I think societal issues are more on the humanities side than technology. That is where we need the most solutions. Leon - Original Message - From: Taryn To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: 9/15/05 2:57:16 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] wind and current power Hi Zeke, On 9/14/05, Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That monitoring station suggested to me that such a flying platform could... On a philosophical level, I often wonder why people are so excitedabout fancy new ideas like fusion, or flying wind turbines, etc. Isit that we hope to engineer a technological solution to ourenvironmental/social problems? As an engineer, I happen to like technology too. But scientists have already made PV modules, carsthat can get 80mpg on vegetable oil, superefficient lighting, etc.Pretty neat stuff I think, but for the most part, no one uses them!!!Why would we assume that the next new technology to "save" us from ourselves would be accepted any better than what has already beeninvented?I just find this societal facination with new technology, at the sametime we refuse to actually use new technology, rather paradoxical. Oh man, it's a fair cop! You're absolutely right. I'm an engineer and constant tinker, love the blue sky tech. but try to make my production designs as simple and sturdy as possible. Remember all those wacko ideas that showed up in the pulp magazines? I loved to spend time at my grandparent's place, partly because they had a huge cache of post-war Popular Mechanics, along with the usual cubic yard of National Geographic. I pored over those rags as a little girl, wondering why the personal gyrocopter, invented 25 years before, still wasn't in everyone's driveway.___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila
Chris and Patrick, I agree on your standards issue, the government can't make a standard. One time I searched and searched for the government's definition of "standard". I couldn't find it and they said try ISO. I found that "ISO" doesn't mean "standards" it is a word in itself. To me a standard is "a definite level of quality suitable for a specific defined purpose." I certainly didn't find anything like that. Maybe they finally filled in the blank somewheres. I took issue with the definition of "food" as well and wrote up something on that, but I don't think mine went over that well, it allowed vitamins and minerals in the definition. Leon - Original Message - From: Chris Tan To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: 9/23/05 11:09:04 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila Hi Patrick, Its not that the government is not strict about standards. The government doesnt have a standard in the first place. The government with all its manpower (which we pay for with our taxes) cannot or would not make a standard of its own. Take biodiesel for example, I tried contacting DoE about our governments standard but have not receive any concrete answer. And yet Senbel other two big chemical companies are already marketing their expensive biodiesel additive. They are dictated by big business or by the highest bidder. A pamphlet posted on DoEs website says that biodiesel cannot be made by cooperatives or such. Guess who they got the pamphlet from? From who else but Senbel. Regards, Chris -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Anthony OpacoSent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:25 PMTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila Hi All, Thanks for the replies... The reason why I'm a little bit hesitant is well mainly because the info drive here in Manila is not that good and second some unscrupulous business men before are selling unleaded gas (prior to E10) that has water in it. That's a real bummer but now they are at the hands of the law. Probably I'll continue using E10 at my old car and will just fill my new car if the masses here would start patronizing E10, coz most of the time the gas station that I bought E10 doesn't have that much customers compared to the gas stations of Shell, Caltex (Chevron Texaco in the US) and Petron (a local venture that has a saudi partner). It's good to know that a lot of people around the world are using E10/E85, it's just that the standards here in the Philippines are not that strict. Like for example when you manufacture Ethanol, you guys there in the commercial level applies strict standards to ensure that the product you're selling is really good right? Here in the Philippines doesn't go that way. The issue I think here is more of the consumers confidence towards Ethanol because as I've said the standards here are not that super strict compared to for example the US. To Ramon - E10 is 10% Ethanol blend and 90% unleaded gasoline. I don't do the mixing, I buy it from one of the minor oil players here. The major players (Shell, Caltex and Petron) don't carry yet Ethanol in their products. By the way guys, how about the computer that is controlling the fuel system or whatever you call that... fuel intake of your car? That won't be messed up right if filling up E10? So to sum it all, E10 is just your ordinary unleaded fuel provided that strict measures/standards are enforced in manufacturing the said fuel? Regards, Patrick___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila
Dear John, [I've always wanted to write that.]
I think it means just what ISO says it means:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html#three
"What ISO's name means
Because "International Organization for Standardization" would have
different abbreviations in different languages ("IOS" in English, "OIN" in
French for Organisation internationale de normalisation), it was decided at
the outset to use a word derived from the Greek isos, meaning "equal".
Therefore, whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of
the organization's name is always ISO."
The "s" is ISO is just the letter "s" from the Greek word for equal. Or
nowadays, the middle letter of the copyright name ISO. It is not, I repeat
NOT an abbreviation.
It looks like they have dressed things up a lot since I checked five years
ago. I quess I will have to go looking for their definition of "standard"
again to see if it exists now. Maybe this is just trivia at this point.
Thanks for your question though.
Leon
> [Original Message]
> From: John Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 9/23/05 1:01:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] E10 experience here in Manila
>
> Huh? What do you think the S in ISO stands for?
>
> http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage
>
>
> Leon Hulett wrote:
> > Chris and Patrick,
> >
> > I agree on your standards issue, the government can't make a standard.
> > One time I searched and searched for the government's definition of
> > "standard". I couldn't find it and they said try ISO. I found that
"ISO"
> > doesn't mean "standards" it is a word in itself. To me a standard is "a
> > definite level of quality suitable for a specific defined purpose." I
> > certainly didn't find anything like that. Maybe they finally filled in
> > the blank somewheres.
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] One ton of brush and untreated wood
Mathew, I understand you could make methanol or ethanol from your wood. I don't know the details, but I understand you would have to chip the wood. Then hydrolyze the wood with a dilute acid like; hydrochloric, sulfuric or sulphorous acid. Then ferment the sugars formed and distill the liquid to get high grade alcohol. I understand something called the Prodor process can get 250 liters per tonne in this way. I understand the remaining cellulose can be treated with concentrated acid to yield over 100% fermentable sugar compared to the cellulose. Then that could also be processed as above. ["...observations of Wilkening and Ost, as well as those of Willstoetter and Zechmeister, have shown that pure cellulose can be saccharified by concentrated acids, with a sugar yield of 106 to 107% of the weight of the cellulose employed, which represents 95 to 96% of the theoretical yield. The alcohol yield of wood by hydrolysis is thus minimal compared with the quantity of cellulose that it contains."] I don't know how much cellulose is in dry wood. I would be interested to find out more about making alcohol from wood if there is information available. Leon L. Hulett > [Original Message] > From: Matthew J. Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 11/28/05 8:24:40 AM > Subject: [Biofuel] One ton of brush and untreated wood > > I have the opportunity to receive no less than one ton of brush and > untreated wood on a regular basis. How could this be used in the > production of bio fuels? > > I am in Minneapolis, and willing to work with others in the area. > > -Matthew > > Matthew J. Harmon > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
