GE proposes to use artificial sink to generate 500 MW of power inSouthern AZ

[son_of_flubber]

http://www.industrytap.com/massive-energy-skyscrapers-on-u-s-mexico-border-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811

2250 foot high evaporative cooling towers to be used to generate power.

[son_of_flubber]

A better article

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/03/26/massive-energy-skyscraper-proposed-on-u-s-mexico-border/

[Dave Springford]

The article says: "Water is sprayed into the opening, making the uppermost air humid and heavy."

But we all know humid air is less dense than dry air, otherwise there would be no clouds at the tops of thermals.

See:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html

So, how does it really work? oh, and where do they get all that water in Southern Arizona?

[Todd]

The usual media technical reporting errors not withstanding, it looks like they are creating a micro-burst here. The water spray is used to create evaporative cooling (hence, cooler, denser air mass)to drive, i assume, wind turbines at the base. Having flown through western virga before, I'd say it might be pretty effective.

Now, that giant sucking sound you hear from the US/Mexican border is not NAFTA anymore.

[Mike the Strike]

At a projected cost of $1 billion, with an extra few million to run a salt water pipeline from Mexico, I am not expecting to see this built in Arizona in my lifetime!

Mike

[Dave Springford]

The first article is a technically better where it shows the evaporative cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.

It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48 miles away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping water 48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess. This project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind turbines - not that we like those either.

[Dan Marotta]

They said they'd pump "desalinated" water, so there's gonna be quite some
construction and energy expense on the intake end, as well.

And a nuclear reactor wouldn't be near as expensive, I'd wager, were it not
for the DOE. Remember, the government couldn't make a profit running a
whore house that also sold whiskey in Nevada, so why should we believe they
make a better nuclear plant?


"Dave Springford" > wrote in message
...
The first article is a technically better where it shows the evaporative
cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.

It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48 miles
away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping water
48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess. This
project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind
turbines - not that we like those either.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Really? It can work 24-7? So, the atmosphere is always unstable and you can always create that downdraft? I guess if you pour enough water in there, there will be something coming out the bottom to run the turbines!

And, Dave. The pipeline is much cheaper. It is Mexican Money, so no US Funds used for that part of the project! :-)

[bill palmer]

here's a follow up article with frequently asked questions answered (like how can moist air make for a downdraft)

On Monday, October 28, 2013 2:24:27 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> http://www.industrytap.com/massive-energy-skyscrapers-on-u-s-mexico-border-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811
>
>
>
> 2250 foot high evaporative cooling towers to be used to generate power.

[John Firth[_4_]]

I bet desalinated water is more valuable in Arizona as
irrigation or domestic supply; unbelievable.
The downdraft tower would be the inverse of the
Australian 1km solar power tower; I have seenno news since 2011.
JMF



At 15:38 29 October 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>They said they'd pump "desalinated" water, so there's gonna be quite some

>construction and energy expense on the intake end, as well.
>
>And a nuclear reactor wouldn't be near as expensive, I'd wager, were it
not
>
>for the DOE. Remember, the government couldn't make a profit running a
>whore house that also sold whiskey in Nevada, so why should we believe
they
>
>make a better nuclear plant?
>
>
>"Dave Springford" wrote in message
...
>The first article is a technically better where it shows the evaporative
>cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.
>
>It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48 miles

>away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping water

>48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess. This
>project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind
>turbines - not that we like those either.
>
>

[Dan Marotta]

You should see the solar towers southwest of Primm, NV (just inside CA),
USA. The top of the tower, surrounded by acres and acres of focused mirrors
appears to glow white hot. You can also see a dark cloud around the tower.
I wonder if that's plasma from super heated air or just the remains of
passing bugs and birds...


"John Firth" > wrote in message
...
>I bet desalinated water is more valuable in Arizona as
> irrigation or domestic supply; unbelievable.
> The downdraft tower would be the inverse of the
> Australian 1km solar power tower; I have seenno news since 2011.
> JMF
>
>
>
> At 15:38 29 October 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>They said they'd pump "desalinated" water, so there's gonna be quite some
>
>>construction and energy expense on the intake end, as well.
>>
>>And a nuclear reactor wouldn't be near as expensive, I'd wager, were it
> not
>>
>>for the DOE. Remember, the government couldn't make a profit running a
>>whore house that also sold whiskey in Nevada, so why should we believe
> they
>>
>>make a better nuclear plant?
>>
>>
>>"Dave Springford" wrote in message
...
>>The first article is a technically better where it shows the evaporative
>>cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.
>>
>>It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48 miles
>
>>away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping water
>
>>48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess. This
>>project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind
>>turbines - not that we like those either.
>>
>>
>

[bill palmer]

here's a follow up article with frequently asked questions answered (like How can humid air create a downdraft? )
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/03/26/your-energy-skyscraper-questions-answered/

[Cedric Sponge]

I don’t understand the explanation of how this works. The article says
that making the air moist makes it heavier. When I was at school I was
taught that water vapour is lighter than air and that moist air is less
dense than dry air so why would making the air moist cause it to sink?

I think the people who wrote the article don't quite understand how this
works.

Surely its the evaporation that is important rather than the wetting of the
air.




At 15:57 17 November 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>You should see the solar towers southwest of Primm, NV (just inside CA),
>USA. The top of the tower, surrounded by acres and acres of focused
>mirrors
>appears to glow white hot. You can also see a dark cloud around the
tower.
>
>I wonder if that's plasma from super heated air or just the remains of
>passing bugs and birds...
>
>
>"John Firth" wrote in message
...
>>I bet desalinated water is more valuable in Arizona as
>> irrigation or domestic supply; unbelievable.
>> The downdraft tower would be the inverse of the
>> Australian 1km solar power tower; I have seenno news since 2011.
>> JMF
>>
>>
>>
>> At 15:38 29 October 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>They said they'd pump "desalinated" water, so there's gonna be quite
some
>>
>>>construction and energy expense on the intake end, as well.
>>>
>>>And a nuclear reactor wouldn't be near as expensive, I'd wager, were it
>> not
>>>
>>>for the DOE. Remember, the government couldn't make a profit running a
>>>whore house that also sold whiskey in Nevada, so why should we believe
>> they
>>>
>>>make a better nuclear plant?
>>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Springford" wrote in message
...
>>>The first article is a technically better where it shows the
evaporative
>>>cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.
>>>
>>>It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48
miles
>>
>>>away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping
>water
>>
>>>48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess.
This
>>>project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind
>>>turbines - not that we like those either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Why build an expensive rigid structure? A central mast like a radio tower could be built tall enough for a tiny cost fraction. Reinforced canvass sides to form an octagonal "cooling tower" could be supported from the mast, and even lowered in the event of strong winds. No, I have not worked out the dynamics of this system - not even sure if it could work, especially if the air pressure inside the tower is lower than the surrounding air pressure from Bernoulli effects.

This still leaves the several previously mentioned issues, plus a few more, like
1) Where to get water (assume that it is untreated and full of minerals)
2) Mineral deposits all over the generator equipment
3) Pumping energy losses - to get all that water 2200 feet up in the air
4) Power transmission lines to a remote area

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 7:57:45 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:

> You should see the solar towers southwest of Primm, NV (just inside CA),
> USA. The top of the tower, surrounded by acres and acres of focused mirrors
> appears to glow white hot. You can also see a dark cloud around the tower.
> I wonder if that's plasma from super heated air or just the remains of
> passing bugs and birds...

Watch the low thermalling!

[Dan Marotta]

At the risk of sounding political...

Someone comes up with a way to make a lot of money off of those who don't
know any better, but it sounds like it'll save the planet from demon coal,
oil, and nuclear power. Does Solyndra ring a bell?

Let's see...

Billions of public money.
Use of public lands for private enterprise.
Untested technology.
Mineral laden water (or the energy expense of demineralization).
International pipeline.
Probably kill some endangered diatom or algae.
Drain the Sea of Cortez, thus changing the center of gravity of the earth,
causing it to begin wobbling on its axis and hurtling out of its orbit onto
a collision course with the sun.

Wait a minute... Closer to the sun means better thermals! Damn the
torpedoes, let's do it!

"Cedric Sponge" > wrote in message
...
>
> I donâ?Tt understand the explanation of how this works. The article says
> that making the air moist makes it heavier. When I was at school I was
> taught that water vapour is lighter than air and that moist air is less
> dense than dry air so why would making the air moist cause it to sink?
>
> I think the people who wrote the article don't quite understand how this
> works.
>
> Surely its the evaporation that is important rather than the wetting of
> the
> air.
>
>
>
>
> At 15:57 17 November 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>You should see the solar towers southwest of Primm, NV (just inside CA),
>>USA. The top of the tower, surrounded by acres and acres of focused
>>mirrors
>>appears to glow white hot. You can also see a dark cloud around the
> tower.
>>
>>I wonder if that's plasma from super heated air or just the remains of
>>passing bugs and birds...
>>
>>
>>"John Firth" wrote in message
...
>>>I bet desalinated water is more valuable in Arizona as
>>> irrigation or domestic supply; unbelievable.
>>> The downdraft tower would be the inverse of the
>>> Australian 1km solar power tower; I have seenno news since 2011.
>>> JMF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 15:38 29 October 2013, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>>>They said they'd pump "desalinated" water, so there's gonna be quite
> some
>>>
>>>>construction and energy expense on the intake end, as well.
>>>>
>>>>And a nuclear reactor wouldn't be near as expensive, I'd wager, were it
>>> not
>>>>
>>>>for the DOE. Remember, the government couldn't make a profit running a
>>>>whore house that also sold whiskey in Nevada, so why should we believe
>>> they
>>>>
>>>>make a better nuclear plant?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dave Springford" wrote in message
...
>>>>The first article is a technically better where it shows the
> evaporative
>>>>cooling creating the down draft, so that part has been explained.
>>>>
>>>>It also says the water will be brought in from the Sea of Cortez 48
> miles
>>>
>>>>away. So what's the cost model for building a pipe line and pumping
>>water
>>>
>>>>48 miles? substantially cheaper than a nuclear reactor, I guess.
> This
>>>>project would seem to be significantly more expensive than regular wind
>>>>turbines - not that we like those either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 08:57:45 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> You should see the solar towers southwest of Primm, NV (just inside CA),
> USA. The top of the tower, surrounded by acres and acres of focused
> mirrors appears to glow white hot. You can also see a dark cloud around
> the tower. I wonder if that's plasma from super heated air or just the
> remains of passing bugs and birds...
>
That's a very different beast which uses direct radiant solar heating to
heat a boiler. The French used a similar system as a solar furnace, which
NASA used to test Mercury program heat shields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace


The type of solar chimney that the Australians were planning but never,
AFAIK, started to build and that the Spanish built as a 50kW experiment
and ran for eight years is almost exactly the inverse of the GE proposal.

Where GE would evaporate water at the top of a 2000 ft tower to cool the
air and cause a downflow to spin turbines as it exits the base of the
tower.

OTOH the Spanish/Australian approach surrounded the bottom of a similarly
high tower with a wide area of glass solar roof. This causes sunlight to
warm the air under the roof, which flows inwards and up the tower thanks
to the chimney effect and, in the process spins turbines mounted inside
the tower fairly close to its base. The designers have a choice of using
bare, blackened ground under the solar roof for maximum efficiency or of
accepting a bit less efficient generation, but making the solar roof
serve double duty by raising low-growing crops under the roof. The
Spanish experiment at Manzanares was a bit shorter - 195m, say 640ft.
Here's a reference to it:

http://www.sbp.de/en#sun/show/82-Solar_Chimney_Pilot_Plant_Manzanares

There's a more general coverage of the idea and various projects, either
running or planned, here:

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


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:34:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> At the risk of sounding political...
>
> Someone comes up with a way to make a lot of money off of those who
> don't know any better, but it sounds like it'll save the planet from
> demon coal, oil, and nuclear power. Does Solyndra ring a bell?
>
> Let's see...
>
<< good reasons for doubting it chopped>>

The question that needs answering is why dive in with an untested
technology when its opposite, the solar UPdraft tower, is known and
tested technology. There is a decent summary (with numbers) of solar
downdraft technology here:

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

and similar detail of its opposite here:

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


I think these points are also worth looking at:

- the energy cost of pumping water to the top and spraying into the tower
has been estimated as about 50% of the turbine's output, but AFAICT that
excludes the cost of desalinating the sea water and pumping it to the
base of the tower. Desalination is energetically expensive, so the
overall system efficiency might be very small or even negative.

- against that the solar updraft tower has the cost of building and
maintaining a large solar roof at its base, but only maintenance costs
thereafter. The 50kW Manzanares pilot project had a 0.53% efficiency, but
calculations show a more modern 100kW unit might reach 1.3%

- Billions of public money. A key point: always follow the money!
Are the project sponsors putting their money where their mouth is?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:40:35 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:34:17 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote: > At the risk of sounding political... > > Someone comes up with a way to make a lot of money off of those who > don't know any better, but it sounds like it'll save the planet from > demon coal, oil, and nuclear power. Does Solyndra ring a bell? > > Let's see... > << good reasons for doubting it chopped>> The question that needs answering is why dive in with an untested technology when its opposite, the solar UPdraft tower, is known and tested technology. There is a decent summary (with numbers) of solar downdraft technology here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_downdraft_tower and similar detail of its opposite here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower I think these points are also worth looking at: - the energy cost of pumping water to the top and spraying into the tower has been estimated as about 50% of the turbine's output, but AFAICT that excludes the cost of desalinating the sea water and pumping it to the base of the tower. Desalination is energetically expensive, so the overall system efficiency might be very small or even negative. - against that the solar updraft tower has the cost of building and maintaining a large solar roof at its base, but only maintenance costs thereafter. The 50kW Manzanares pilot project had a 0.53% efficiency, but calculations show a more modern 100kW unit might reach 1.3% - Billions of public money. A key point: always follow the money! Are the project sponsors putting their money where their mouth is? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |

So many answers in the latest link Bill Palmer provided. And so many flaws continuing. And, getting worse.

In answer to your question, Martin, "No, the project sponsors are NOT putting their money where their mouth is." To quote the article, "Pickett said the company wouldn’t need to generate much of its own capital because it would license the technology to a project developer. The company is in talks with “a very credible, notable development company noted for its energy accomplishments,” Pickett said."

Hey, I have this great idea for turning your money into my money...

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Oh, and since it will have cold air blowing out the bottom of it, this should help stop global warming. :-)

Now, where is the white paint so I can paint all those asphalt roads that are causing global warming....

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:01:44 -0800, Steve Leonard wrote:

> So many answers in the latest link Bill Palmer provided. And so many
> flaws continuing. And, getting worse.
>
Yes, an interesting read, so I dug up an air density calculator and had a
play because, as water vapour is lighter than dry air, just how will the
rig would work. It looks as though that that air in the tower will always
sink for reasonable values of the amount of cooling and achievable
percentages of humidity.

I wonder, too, if it will actually run all night: they are talking about
40F cooling in the tower, but one thing I do remember about hot, dry
deserts is that there aren't many clouds at night and the temp drops
pretty rapidly after dark and its damn cold by morning. And, as the temp
drops so will the cooling effect of the water spray. Cold air won't cool
as fast or as far because:
(1) the available temp delta will be less and
(2) cold air can't hold as much water vapor, reducing the cooling effect
of evaporation
(3) one of the reasons the sprayed water evaporates is due to solar
energy input, which isn't there at night.

> In answer to your question, Martin, "No, the project sponsors are NOT
> putting their money where their mouth is." To quote the article,
> "Pickett said the company wouldn’t need to generate much of its own
> capital because it would license the technology to a project developer.
>
So I noticed when I read the follow-up!

> Hey, I have this great idea for turning your money into my money...
>
:-))

It looks like they'd really be better going with a solar updraft tower
(much cheaper - no desalination or pipeline needed) but I guess thats Not
Invented Here and so of no interest.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[bill palmer]

I have to look at it from a conservation-of-energy standpoint. Where is the energy that is converted to electricity coming from?
The only answer I see is from the heat of the ambient air that transfers to the water droplets to evaporate the water, thus cooling the air, making it more dense. etc.
I'd be amazed if that is more energy than it takes to pump if up 2200 feet,(much less desalinate and pump from 50 miles away)!
Also, when the air passes through those turbines at the bottom, that's going extract energy from the air, and probably re-condense a lot of that water.. Are they going to collect and pump that water back to the top? The more they can, the less water they have to desalinate and pump from the ocean.

On Monday, October 28, 2013 2:24:27 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> http://www.industrytap.com/massive-energy-skyscrapers-on-u-s-mexico-border-to-pump-out-500-mws-to-electric-grid/3811
>
>
>
> 2250 foot high evaporative cooling towers to be used to generate power.

[Brian Bair]

Test post