SupFanat
Hazard to Self
Posts: 86
Registered: 26-4-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Could Antarctica provide renewable energy?
It's said to be very windy.
|
|
|
Tdep
National Hazard
Posts: 516
Registered: 31-1-2013
Location: Laser broken since Feb 2020 lol
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD is done! It isn't good but it's over lol
|
|
Well yes, but you gonna provide the cabling?
|
|
|
SupFanat
Hazard to Self
Posts: 86
Registered: 26-4-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If it's impossible to build submarine power cable between Antartica and any other continent maybe the electricity should be used there for
electrolysis?
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
Generally ventures like this are only done if they're profitable. We're talking constructing wind turbines that have to be adapted for the brutal
climate of Antarctica, shipping them down there, moving the parts inland, assembling them, and then building necessary facilities to make use of the
energy. If we're assuming that the underwater power cable thing is not feasible, and instead the energy is going to be used for something like
electrolysis, or any other industry that requires large amounts of electricity, then you're also going to have to ship cargo between the facilities
and their intended destinations, which might require a cargo port being built. All of this in one of the most hellish and unforgiving landscapes on
earth. I'm not exactly picturing heaps of money at the idea.
Also, this has nothing to do with energetic materials.
|
|
|
SupFanat
Hazard to Self
Posts: 86
Registered: 26-4-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What is "energetic material" here?
If magnesium is made from seawater by some automated machine in Antarctica (the problem is disposal of chlorine - ideally reaction with water which
would theoretically give +0.12 Volt DC) isn't it "energetic material"?
|
|
|
Bert
|
Thread Moved
10-5-2015 at 06:18 |
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes.
So could everywhere else.
Why Antarctica in particular ?
|
|
|
Hawkguy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 326
Registered: 10-10-2014
Location: British Columbia (Canada eh!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Body is Ready
|
|
Katabatic Winds maybe? Don't get those everywhere
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Seem to get Sunlight everywhere.
Seem to get water everywhere.
Seem to get Life everywhere.
Nothing Antarctic-specific about Katabatic winds.
Yes Sir, i can Google, Google Google, all night loooong.
[Edited on 10-5-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
Amos
International Hazard
Posts: 1406
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline
Mood: No
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by SupFanat  | What is "energetic material" here?
If magnesium is made from seawater by some automated machine in Antarctica (the problem is disposal of chlorine - ideally reaction with water which
would theoretically give +0.12 Volt DC) isn't it "energetic material"? |
Okay, well by your definition, EVERYTHING is an energetic material, so there'd be no point having a subforum for it.
On the site, energetic materials generally refers to explosives, combustibles, and pyrotechnics. Essentially reactions whose defining characteristic
is the release of a huge amount of energy.
|
|
|
SupFanat
Hazard to Self
Posts: 86
Registered: 26-4-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Imagine hypothetical Antarctic Space Center which relies on local rocket fuel produced from wind power.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
With you everything is wind.
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I've got dibs on fire then! We're half way to captain planet 
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Aga is spending far too much time in that shed.
Wind power? At 100 below or colder? Using what to lubricate all those bearings? Have you considered how much power heating the bearings would waste? I
take it you have never lived in climates 40 below or colder but I have for years. Every morning (at a typical 36 below) I would unplug my block, tank,
and battery warming plate heaters. Fire up the pickemup and after suitable time (measured by the interior being warm enough you just started regaining
feeling in your nuts) hit I-94 to Billings. For the first 3 miles no matter how hard you hit the gas about 38 MPH was your top speed with 18 wheelers
blowing by frighteningly recklessly. Suddenly as if some giant hand let go of your rear bumper presto, the speedo said 75. You let off slightly it was
still 55 MPH back in those days. It was the 90 weight in the rear end combined with the Li based wheel bearing grease heating up just enough to let
go. No not exaggerating here there was that much resistance to the bearings spinning free. Now you can believe this story or not but I lived through 7
winters there and I am not kidding.
Just imagine those bearings in giant turbine blades and generators at 100 below or more. No Babbitt bushings fare no better at extreme low
temperatures unless you keep them at a minimum temperature for free operation just as you need to for lubricated bearings. Not saying it is impossibly
wasteful to operate heaters in all those critical areas but next we must consider the tremendous loss bringing that power thousands of miles where it
could be used. It would take minimum half a million volt undersea transmission lines covering vast distances and still incur great loss over those
distances. The engineering aspects and sheer cost are mind boggling.
Make fuel there? Out of what water? Here we go again with the Goldberg engineering.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | Aga is spending far too much time in that shed.
... lived in climates 40 below or colder but I have for years. |
I think i prefer the shed !
|
|
|
pneumatician
Hazard to Others
Posts: 409
Registered: 27-5-2013
Location: Magonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: ■■■■■■■■■■ INRI ■■■■■■■■■■ ** Igne Natura Renovatur Integra **
|
|
is this for some bizarre study? or for more human delirium tremens?
exist others zones of the planet with a lot of wind like the cape horns and agulhas: sud america and africa.
but read this, here in front of your nose is possible 100% rew. energy.
Suppressed French report says 100% renewables is possible – German Energy Transition
http://energytransition.de/2015/04/suppressed-french-report-...
are you talking about economics/profit? if no, ALL (or 99%) humans problems are gone reducing the population, not with demented wars, not with
genocides, no, no no!!!! only with birth control!
(of course this is sci-fiction with the actual low human neocortex and too much use of the reptilian brain)
this idiots from the seven sisters are saying this again and again and again...
https://www.change.org/p/weltweite-geburtenregelungen-verbin...
|
|
|
420MLGnOhEADsCOPEpro
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 22-1-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
antarctic wind power is actually feasible because there lots of ice particles in the high velocity wind
that ice makes the air much denser and thus much higher in kinetic energy
lets suppose that the air has 24 kilograms of ice per cubic meter and thus weighs 25 kilograms per cubic meter
lets also suppose that you chose a good spot where there's 36 km/h winds frequently
finally suppose you can half the velocity of air passing though your turbine
Pm = p*A*1/2*(vi^3-vo^3)
where Pm is mechanical power, vi is the wind velocity, vo is the output velocity (we suppose 1/2 here), p is the density of the air, A is the area,
the units are meters kilograms and watts
Pm = 25*A*1/2*(10^3-5^3) = 10,937.5 watts per square meter of turbine
assuming a good electrolysis plant producing NaOH and HCl that should produce ~$1 per square meter of turbine per hour
100 turbines by 20 square meters per turbine is $2,000 per hour of wind
furthermore if a massive storm hits bringing wind speeds of 300 km/h and more ice thus 75 kg per cubic meter
Pm= 18,988,715.3 watts per square meter
$3,472,222 per hour assuming your equipment can handle it (it probably can't though considering that's just short of 380 MW per turbine which is
equivalent to burning 19 kg of coal per second at 50% efficiency)
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Theory needs to be balanced with reality. In many locations at certain times of the year ice buildup could cause catastrophic unbalance of blades. In
areas much colder year round to avoid this trouble katabatic winds will force the blades to be idled or be destroyed. The sheer physical forces of
hurricane velocity winds would end your little project rapidly and this is the norm year round if one wishes to locate the turbines in areas so cold
ice buildup would not be likely to occur. I think many locations exist without such extreme conditions and should be considered in light of the
technological problems in such an extreme location.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6221
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Online
Mood: Organised
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 420MLGnOhEADsCOPEpro | antarctic wind power is actually feasible because there lots of ice particles in the high velocity wind
that ice makes the air much denser and thus much higher in kinetic energy
lets suppose that the air has 24 kilograms of ice per cubic meter and thus weighs 25 kilograms per cubic meter
lets also suppose that you chose a good spot where there's 36 km/h winds frequently
finally suppose you can half the velocity of air passing though your turbine
Pm = p*A*1/2*(vi^3-vo^3)
where Pm is mechanical power, vi is the wind velocity, vo is the output velocity (we suppose 1/2 here), p is the density of the air, A is the area,
the units are meters kilograms and watts
Pm = 25*A*1/2*(10^3-5^3) = 10,937.5 watts per square meter of turbine
assuming a good electrolysis plant producing NaOH and HCl that should produce ~$1 per square meter of turbine per hour
100 turbines by 20 square meters per turbine is $2,000 per hour of wind
furthermore if a massive storm hits bringing wind speeds of 300 km/h and more ice thus 75 kg per cubic meter
Pm= 18,988,715.3 watts per square meter
$3,472,222 per hour assuming your equipment can handle it (it probably can't though considering that's just short of 380 MW per turbine which is
equivalent to burning 19 kg of coal per second at 50% efficiency) |
There are some problems with your proposal
and your analysis. More than a few.
I think 25kg per m/3 is something of an overestimate. I might be wrong, so I will let that one slide.
It would be a mistake to suggest that the velocity of the ice in the wind is the same as the surrounding air. To get airborne the particles
must gain energy from the air at a cost of air velocity. And even then they will not attain the velocity of your now reduced air. Putting it another
way and using your figures -- you suggest 25 kg/m^3 at 36 km/h. (Based on your later comment I think you meant 36m/s but again I will let that one
slide.) That would have the same energy as 180km/h winds at 1kg/m^3. At 100% efficiency at picking up ice (and retaining it) you would need a steady
wind of 180km/h to provide the energy you suggest at your low wind scenario. That is simply infeasible.
Ice is carried low to the ground anyway. Not up high where you are putting your turbine.
You have not got the turbine formula correct. That throws your figures off. cite I am not even going to check your maths.
You have not factored in the considerable mechanical torture that you will be exposing your turbine to. If you are designing for that much ice
you will need a complete redesign of your blades. They need to be (a lot) stronger. Current designs are lightweight with a low factor of safety for
the job they are designed for. Ice is abrasive and hard. Basically you will trash your equipment in no time.
Katabatic winds do get high on Antarctica. But not as high as 300km/h. So your massive storm is a bit unrealistic. Remember that explorers
tents generally stay intact.
You seem to suggest that the mass of ice carried increases linearly with wind speed. I think you have made a unit error as I stated before.
How else did you get 75kg? That would mean that the energy available increases with the cube of the wind speed. No wonder your figures get so high.
75kg per m^3 really is infeasible. 75kg per m^3 at 300km/h is unworldly.
Finally you forget that in storm conditions the blades are turned to the side to save the structure from damage. You get no harnessing of wind
power in a bad storm.
And that is before we get to the numerous problems associated with electrolysis of (I presume) seawater. It turns kind of solid. And it is only
available under the pack ice. The pack ice front is continually changing (by hundreds of km.) It is just not accessible.
Cold bearings has already been mentioned. Difficulty of cable laying has already been mentioned. However both of these pale compared to the
logistics of carting or pumping solid or liquid materials across the continent.
I am not saying that wind harvesting on Antarctica is completely impossible. Obviously it is. But it is not going to be nearly as productive as you
make out. It could really only provide power locally -- unless some very significant engineering was done. And there is not the joint political will
to make it happen anyway -- Antarctic Treaty and all that.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
