Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa wind energy storage project moves ahead
Cedar Rapids Gazette ^ | Mar 06, 2010 | Associated Press

Posted on 03/07/2010 11:15:11 AM PST by newgeezer

DALLAS CENTER, Iowa (AP) — Kent Holst stood in front of the Iowa Stored Energy Park’s municipal utility members and proclaimed, “This time, we have something to show you.”

Holst, the park’s development director, showed the officials a drill rig behind a house on the south side of Iowa Highway 44, two miles west of Dallas Center.

The rig is drilling a 2,800-foot well, which will be used to test the hardness of a sandstone formation. The energy park hopes the formation can hold energy that has been converted into air.

When the municipal utilities that own stored energy need electricity at peak periods, the air will be released to the surface to power turbines in two 134-megawatt generators, making electricity.

The drilling project is the first tangible sign of activity for the long-discussed energy park, though the project is three years away from becoming a part of Iowa’s electricity grid.

The energy park would be one answer to a problem that has long confounded the utility industry: the inability to store electricity.

Holst and other company officials say that Iowa’s bountiful wind energy can be best used if some type of electricity storage is available. For all its popularity and greenness, wind energy can be the least reliable form of electricity generation.

“The wind just doesn’t always blow at the right times when the electricity is needed,” said Thomas Wind of Jefferson, who is a consultant to Iowa Stored Energy Park.

The Iowa Power Fund has put $3.2 million into the project west of Dallas Center in hopes of putting the state ahead of what may be the next big thing in electricity. One other stored energy park, in Alabama, exists nationwide.

Another contribution from the U.S. Department of Energy put the public involvement in the project to about $4.7 million.

“Having storage for energy is one of the critical pieces of Iowa’s energy future,” said Roya Stanley, director of the Iowa Office of Energy Independence who spoke at the annual meeting last week.

About 150 Iowa municipal utilities who are members in the project will provide the rest of the financing, probably through bond sales.

Before that can happen, Iowa Stored Energy Park needs to get geological verification that the sandstone dome in Dallas County can hold air at compressed rates of up to 1,400 pounds per square inch and won’t crack the underground rock formations.

Holst and Iowa Stored Energy Park officials are confident that tests will be favorable, because MidAmerican Energy stores natural gas in similar underground caverns nearby at Redfield.

Iowa Stored Energy Park plans to drill a second test well later this year within about a quarter-mile of the first well site, Holst said.

Eventually, the project will encompass eight to 10 wells and the 260-megawatt generator.

Driller Klint Gingerich of Kalona said the 2,800-foot deep well dug for the company is about 10 times deeper than the average water well in Iowa. Gingerich’s firm drills mostly water and industrial wells in Iowa and neighboring states.

“The deepest well dug in Iowa was a test oil well near Red Oak a few years ago, and that was 3,600 feet deep,” Gingerich said. That well did not produce oil.

As the drill bit goes down, core samples of rock are pulled for analysis. At completion, the well will be encased in concrete.

“The cementing is probably the most nerve-wracking part of the job,” said Gingerich, whose grandfather, Paul, founded the drilling company in 1955. “Otherwise, it’s been a perfect project.”

Iowa Stored Energy Park is pegged as a backup source of electricity for Iowa’s municipal utilities. The big investor-owned utilities, MidAmerican Energy of Des Moines and Alliant Energy, can either generate or buy enough electricity to take care of Iowa customers.

But the surplus of wind energy, expected to amount to up to 15 percent of Iowa’s generating capacity within a half-decade, is a source of spare electricity for municipal utilities.

As for compressed-air storage of the type planned for Dallas County, Gene Berry of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said in a report last year, “The scale and location-specific nature of energy storage in natural formations is likely to render it of limited benefit” to renewables like wind.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: renewable; stored
Gene Berry of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory said in a report last year, “The scale and location-specific nature of energy storage in natural formations is likely to render it of limited benefit” to renewables like wind.

Oh, c'mon, don't be such a wet blanket. We can dream, can't we?

Besides, it's not as if you're paying for it. /s

1 posted on 03/07/2010 11:15:11 AM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
For all its popularity and greenness, wind energy can be the least reliable form of electricity generation.

Ping.

2 posted on 03/07/2010 11:15:46 AM PST by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

...wait a minute!...let me get this straight...they’re gonna store compressed air in the ground and then release it to run a windmill?...there’s gotta be a ‘break wind’ joke in this somewhere.


3 posted on 03/07/2010 11:20:57 AM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

physics is not my strong suit, but that is how I read the article. I know that the person who comes up with an easy way to store energy like this for later use will make a lot of money.


4 posted on 03/07/2010 11:22:43 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Guess the forgot compressed air explodes.


5 posted on 03/07/2010 11:25:30 AM PST by woodro43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
It sounds like they are going to use the wind to generate another generating source and then tap that second source when the energy is needed.

A similar approach is a two-reservior system. When electric rates are low, water is pumped from a downhill reservior to a reservoir on top of a hill. When rates are high, the water is released downhill through a hydro-generation system for sale into the grid. Cost to pump has to be lower than the revenue generated for sale, obviously.

The best system for the U.S. would be to allow FIT (feed in tarriffs) for homeowners. These allow homeowners to generate electricity at home, usually by solar but also wind) to power their homes and be able to sell the excess to the grid.

FIT for homeowners becomes a motivator for conservation (the less a homeowner uses the bigger the check at the end of the month).

The problem (as seems to always be the problem with America) is that unless a company making contributions to a lawmaker can make money on it, the lawmakers will not allow FIT for homeowners. Our corrupt system of government.

6 posted on 03/07/2010 11:34:31 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Quite possibly one of the most hare brained ideas I've heard in a long time.

Why not just set up some big air vessels for the compressed air? Then they can just have them aimed at a couple of the cash shredders, er, I mean wind mills.

7 posted on 03/07/2010 11:35:33 AM PST by woofer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodro43

This was proposed at a plant in Texas a couple of years ago, don’t know if they did it or not. This plant was going to pump air into salt mines and run compressed air generators during peak demand. From what I understand they use abandoned salt mines to store natural gas as well. I wonder what kind of mechanical efficiency this process yields, probably in the low single digits.


8 posted on 03/07/2010 11:38:07 AM PST by RS_Rider (I hate Illinois Nazis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

When you see a project funded with PRIVATE money, you can believe it.
barbra ann


9 posted on 03/07/2010 11:40:35 AM PST by barb-tex (Obama Care ls spending part of the Half trillion on Logans Merry-Go-Round)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex

That’s what I think.


10 posted on 03/07/2010 11:54:11 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RS_Rider
The funny thing is all these “green” ideas are nothing new. Clean energy is good, ineffecient energy is not.
11 posted on 03/07/2010 12:02:02 PM PST by woodro43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
...wait a minute!...let me get this straight...they’re gonna store compressed air in the ground and then release it to run a windmill?...there’s gotta be a ‘break wind’ joke in this somewhere.

Your understanding is just sad.

12 posted on 03/07/2010 12:11:25 PM PST by DungeonMaster (A Christian Democrat is better than a heathen Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: woofer
Why not just set up some big air vessels for the compressed air? Then they can just have them aimed at a couple of the cash shredders, er, I mean wind mills.

Ya think that would work?

13 posted on 03/07/2010 12:13:33 PM PST by DungeonMaster (A Christian Democrat is better than a heathen Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
There are similar schemes which involve pumping water up hill during periods of excess, then letting it return through a water turbine powered generator to recover some fraction of the excess during periods of high demand. The compressed air plan uses the same idea of converting electrical energy available now into potential energy for storage and use later. The major flaw with either of these schemes is that the electricity must be converted into a mechanical form (speed and torque) to drive some sort of pump (either air or water). Subsequently the potential energy has to pass back through mechanical devices to drive a generator to recover some portion of the stored energy for use at some later time.

So we burn coal (or uranium) to boil water then use the steam to power a turbine which drives a generator which powers a motor that drives a pump that pushes air down a hole so that we can let the air back out through a turbine to spin a generator to have electricity on demand after the fire in the boiler goes out. Got that?

The overall efficiency of this scheme is the product of all the individual efficiencies incurred at each step in the cascade of converting energy from one form into another then back. Let's be generous and start halfway through the process with electricity (thermodynamics limits the efficiency of a central station power plant to 12 to 15% at best). So we have motors driving compressors driving turbines driving generators, that four conversions. Lets assume 80% at each step (.8x.8x.8x.8)=0.4096 or about 41%. That means that nearly 60% of the energy going into storage is lost and not available for recovery. That guesstimate does not include any pumping losses, friction in piping, nor any leakage from the "high energy" storage reservoir.

Does any of this sound like a good idea? Maybe we should focus on designing plants that can respond to varying demand in real time and stop trying to fool with the "inelastic nature" of electricity.

Regards,
GtG

PS Uranium powered central station plants with natural gas powered turbines for peaking are the most efficient way to do this. Renewable (green) energy is a expensive chimera.

14 posted on 03/07/2010 12:23:31 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
“The energy park hopes the formation can hold energy that has been converted into air.”

Either this is a ridiculously simplistic statement — or nuclear fusion is involved.

15 posted on 03/07/2010 12:23:59 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

PERHAPS, just MAYBE, they could turn wind power electricity into coal, store the coal in the ground, and then mine the coal when we need the energy, burning it in a coal fired plant.

Might make more sense.


16 posted on 03/07/2010 12:27:53 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodro43
Guess the forgot compressed air explodes.

Not really, compressed gasses can contain a lot of potential energy at elevated pressure and can release that energy in very energetic explosions but the air itself is not exploding. Air is very compressible and stores potential by changing volume rather like a spring. Any rupture in the plumbing releases the stored energy very rapidly.

To carry the spring analogy further, liquids have a much higher "spring rate" (water is about 1% per 1000psi) and therefore don't experience the large change in volume when pressurized. Therefore any rupture results in the stored pressure being rapidly reduced to ambient.

Regards,
GtG

17 posted on 03/07/2010 12:44:27 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

Can you comment on a factor in the compression of the air? I think that would generate heat which is almost certainly going to be dissipated, i.e. wasted. Is that loss enough to give the nod to the water pump system?


18 posted on 03/07/2010 1:43:18 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Our co-op has a test project that uses a wind turbine that puts power into the grid when the wind blows AND the power is needed.

The rest of the time the wind blows, the power is used to electrolyze water.

The hydrogen is stored, with a bit of it used to fuel a couple of company trucks, and the rest to power a gas turbine generator set when the wind isn't blowing and the power is needed.

The oxygen is bottled and either used in the welding shop (very small amount) or it's (most of it) sold.

Strictly a peaking operation; and underscores the need of backup generation ability if wind or solar is to be used on any scale.

OTOH, this expensive hole in the ground appears to just give the customer the shaft.

19 posted on 03/07/2010 2:04:40 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
Can you comment on a factor in the compression of the air?

When compressing air, a majority of the energy results in heat. These are losses.

I'd hazard a guess that the compression efficiency is about 25%. I've seen projects suggested that would use the compressed air storage to reduce the compressor requirements for combustion turbines.

This really is a way of matching demand with generation, not a green scheme because the losses are so high.

Pumped (water) storage would most likely be higher in efficiency.

20 posted on 03/07/2010 2:14:59 PM PST by SteamShovel (When hope trumps reality, there is no hope at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Who designed your test project, Rube Goldberg?


21 posted on 03/07/2010 2:20:12 PM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

It’s actually been running for over a year, unlike the compressed air system in this story. Should be less net energy losses than these compression and pumping schemes. The “testing” involves the economics and reliablity, rather than the physical feasibility.

To be fair, our management HATES this crap, but with government mandates for minimum percentages of “renewables” to be online, they have to do something to satisfy the regulators.

Everything was off-the-shelf equipment, rather than ground up design and prototypes, to hold costs down. The idea was, since they needed the gas-fired peaking generation, this MIGHT produce enough H^2 to furnish all the fuel needed; and being on the nothern plains, MIGHT not need to fire it up a high percentage of the time that the wind is available.

At least the gasses produced are saleable, and there is a buyer for the oxy.

OTOH, the main generation comes from two large company owned coal mines that have coal fired power stations built at the mine sites. “Excess” coal is sold to other utilities, since much more is mined/day than is burned.

Gas &P diesel fired peaking stations.

Compressor “waste heat” powered generation units at gas line pumping stations.


22 posted on 03/07/2010 2:48:25 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
Can you comment on a factor in the compression of the air? I think that would generate heat which is almost certainly going to be dissipated, i.e. wasted. Is that loss enough to give the nod to the water pump system?

Your right, compressing air causes it to increase in temperature. That is more or less unavoidable when dealing with gasses, the mathematical representation of the "gas law" is (P1xV1)/T1=(P2xV2)/T2 Where P represents absolute pressure, V represents contained volume, and T represents absolute temperature. The subscripts 1&2 represent the beginning and end state of the process. Let's say you are pumping air into a tank of constant volume, you get something like P1/T1=P2/T2 which can be rearranged to give (P2/P1)xT1=T2 which tells us that temperature goes up as pressure goes up.

As to the heat being "wasted", that does not necessarily follow as the compressed air could be passed through a heat exchanger, the heat recovered and used to perform some useful function. The water pump system is not without it's own set of problems. Water passing through a conduit experiences pressure loss due to friction. So does air but not nearly as much as does water. In truth neither system is going to operate with breathtaking efficiency (certainly less then 50%). Like most processes in nature both schemes are reversible but the laws of thermodynamics prevent you from ever getting back the energy that you put in in the first place (increasing entropy wins every time).

Well maybe it would be possible to build a large solenoid coil of superconducting material, place it in a Dewar of liquid hydrogen and start current flowing through the coil. Theoretically the current should circulate for long periods without loss so the process is 100% efficient but only if you ignore the energy used to chill the solenoid to -450°F. DC solutions don't do much to help in an AC world.

Regards,
GtG

23 posted on 03/07/2010 5:51:24 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

The overall efficiency of this scheme is the product of all the individual efficiencies incurred at each step in the cascade of converting energy from one form into another then back


Dang, you must own one of those rare thinking caps they used to issue in school.......................


24 posted on 03/10/2010 9:02:16 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
Dang, you must own one of those rare thinking caps they used to issue in school.......................

I'm a retired mechanical engineer with forty some years background in design and development of energy conversion devices. MEs are the least specialized branch of engineering so our backgrounds cover a lot of territory, in general we take physics and make something useful out of it.

Regards,
GtG

25 posted on 03/10/2010 11:32:41 AM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson