Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [AWES] Economic COE analysis of reeling systems

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Doug, KiteLab Group s most economically competitive idea is to run drive-ropes directly into legacy coal plants facing emissions or coal-rationing shut-downs.
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
      Doug,

      KiteLab Group's most economically competitive idea is to run drive-ropes directly into legacy coal plants facing emissions or coal-rationing shut-downs. There are several thousand such plants world-wide. Those plants facing shutdown around Chicago right now are prime models.

      Note how this "hybrid" strategy sidesteps most of the high capital costs in your assumptions,

      daveS

      PS Reeling is not the best option, but would work in principle.




      From: Doug <doug@...>
      To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:46 AM
      Subject: [AWES] Economic COE analysis of reeling systems

       
      Example of Cost of Energy (COE) analysis:

      Target a Power Level: 1 MW continuous, in 27 mph winds
      (or pick whatever power level one wants to start with, such as even 1 kW. Choosing several power levels to see how the cost of energy varied with size would be most instructive)

      Size of kite required, based on results so far;

      Minimum possible Cost of that kite and likely lifetime before replacement;

      Minimum possible Cost of tether, and likely lifetime before replacement;

      Minimum possible Cost of base structure, mast, reels, gearbox, generator, and power electronics;

      Factor in lifetime of gearbox, the major source of failure in current wind energy systems. Figure in possible additional component wear due to constantly varying speed and direction of reeling.

      Assume perfect operation, with no problems of launch, control, storage, crowding or collisions, none of that.

      Assume a good wind resource, is a 50% capacity factor realistic? Would it even make sense to consider a 100% capacity factor? Even if so the result would still be well within an order of magnitude.

      Now, assuming no problems with hypothetically perfect operation, COULD the cost of these components, in a best-case scenario anyone can realistically envision, possibly result in electricity generated at say, 4 cents/kWh? ($40/MWh)

      What IS the lowest possible cost of energy (COE) that could realistically be penciled out from a reeling system, in such a best-case scenario?

      Take a G.E 1.5 MW turbine, operating at a 30% capacity factor (windfarm) site.
      Looks like it makes about $12/hour on average, little more than minimum wage. That assumes it never needs any maintenance, attention, or repairs, which of course they always do.

      How does a reeling system figure into a realistic economical analysis, in a best case scenario, given what we know so far?
      :)
      Doug S.



    • Robert Copcutt
      ... Experience in many industries is that in fact you do not save capital expenditure when you adapt the old. The coal plant generators are not suited to AWE.
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
        On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 09:52 -0700, dave santos wrote:

        >
        > KiteLab Group's most economically competitive idea is to run
        > drive-ropes directly into legacy coal plants facing emissions or
        > coal-rationing shut-downs. There are several thousand such plants
        > world-wide. Those plants facing shutdown around Chicago right now are
        > prime models.
        >
        >
        > Note how this "hybrid" strategy sidesteps most of the high capital
        > costs in your assumptions,
        >

        Experience in many industries is that in fact you do not save capital
        expenditure when you adapt the old. The coal plant generators are not
        suited to AWE. Best to melt them down and start afresh.

        Robert.
      • dave santos
        Robert wrote- Experience in many industries is that in fact you do not save capitalexpenditure when you adapt the old. The coal plant generators are not
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
          Robert wrote-

          "Experience in many industries is that in fact you do not save capital
          expenditure when you adapt the old. The coal plant generators are not
          suited to AWE. Best to melt them down and start afresh."

          There are many counter-examples to the premise above. For example, Rome's water supply is a wonderful hybrid of "adapting the old" Roman aqueducts to modern  systems and standards. Legacy electrical grids also have some partial reuse promise.

          The main value of most of these problem power plants lies in siting and grid integration. The idea that no kite hybridization with legacy plants can succeed is quite fatalistic. Keep in mind the retrofit idea is mostly intended as an early demo and trial phase, rather than asserted as an optimal basis for a remote future.

        • Doug
          Yeah this is a Dr. Suess conversation if you think you are going to spin a generator at an existing coal plant with a rope.
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
            Yeah this is a Dr. Suess conversation if you think you are going to spin a generator at an existing coal plant with a rope.

            --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Copcutt <r@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 09:52 -0700, dave santos wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > KiteLab Group's most economically competitive idea is to run
            > > drive-ropes directly into legacy coal plants facing emissions or
            > > coal-rationing shut-downs. There are several thousand such plants
            > > world-wide. Those plants facing shutdown around Chicago right now are
            > > prime models.
            > >
            > >
            > > Note how this "hybrid" strategy sidesteps most of the high capital
            > > costs in your assumptions,
            > >
            >
            > Experience in many industries is that in fact you do not save capital
            > expenditure when you adapt the old. The coal plant generators are not
            > suited to AWE. Best to melt them down and start afresh.
            >
            > Robert.
            >
          • dave santos
            Doug wrote- Yeah this is a Dr. Suess conversation if you think you are going to spin a generator at an existing coal plant with a rope. The mechanical
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
              Doug wrote- "Yeah this is a Dr. Suess conversation if you think you are going to spin a generator at an existing coal plant with a rope."

              The mechanical specialty is called "rope-driving", and its ancient and quite mature. Of course we also have recourse to modern drive-belts and drive-chains. We can also use clutches and gears in the transmissions. You have considered rope-drive as possible before, in your own ideas, without being such a Grinch :)

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.