Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

    this one sounds _very_ interesting...

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ectricity.html

    Rentricity Powers Cities Using Pressure in Water Mains

    Most of the drinking water in Keene, N.H., flows from two reservoirs at an elevation several hundred feet above the city’s water treatment plant. It arrives there at a high pressure that needs to be reduced nearly tenfold for treatment. In February, Keene began using that excess water pressure to spin two turbines plugged into the pipe by a New York City startup called Rentricity, using small generators to make electricity from water pressure that was previously dissipated by a mechanical valve. “What we’re really trying to do is recover energy that’s just not being tapped into and use it to make [utilities] more efficient,” says Rentricity founder Frank Zammataro.
    The 53-year-old former Merrill Lynch technology executive is one of dozens of entrepreneurs trying to capture so-called hydrokinetic power from moving water in rivers, oceans, or, in Rentricity’s case, pipes. Such projects are distinct from traditional hydroelectric power because they tap into existing flows, rather than dam rivers. Joe Sweet, a researcher at the Connecticut Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation who co-authored a report on hydrokinetics last year, says the industry is young and “it hasn’t been really settled what’s going to be the best commercially applied technology.” Zammataro says the economics of Rentricity’s projects are more appealing than other types of clean energy because they can count on consistent and predictable water flows, unlike solar or wind generators that depend on the weather. The equipment has a 40-year life span, and energy savings will cover the cost in three to 16 years, depending on the size of the installation and the clean energy incentives in place, he adds.
    Rentricity posted a small profit on revenue of almost $500,000 in 2010, Zammataro says. The 10-employee company doesn’t develop any unique technology. Instead, he says, Rentricity uses off-the-shelf equipment such as pumps that can run in reverse to keep project costs low. The generator in Keene can create about 62 kilowatts of electricity at peak flow, about the same amount of energy needed to power roughly 50 homes. It cost the city about $500,000, about half of which was paid for by a federal clean-energy grant under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to Kürt Blomquist, Keene’s public works director. The energy savings will pay for the city’s investment in eight to 11 years, he says.
    In addition to the Keene site, Rentricity has a 30-kilowatt installation in western Pennsylvania and three more projects in development. The largest, a 325-kilowatt installation at a water transfer station in Palos Verdes, Calif., is scheduled to start operating later this year. Zammataro says the company can harvest energy anywhere a water system needs to reduce pressure, including in pipelines beneath the streets, at transfer stations, or at treatment plants for clean or waste water. The electricity can power the water system’s needs or be delivered back to the grid.
    REGULATORY BARRIERS

    Many of Rentricity’s counterparts face substantial barriers from regulators and environmental advocates to prove that the equipment they want to place in water bodies won’t hurt ecosystems or interfere with ship traffic. “For a startup company, it’s very difficult to be going into a very long process before you even get into the ground,” Sweet says. By targeting pipelines rather than natural water bodies, Rentricity avoids much of the red tape that other hydrokinetic companies encounter. No fish swim through the water pipes it taps, though Zammataro says he still has to get projects approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    His biggest hurdle is convincing wary water managers that his systems won’t interfere with their operations. Zammataro has testified twice before the New York City Council, recently joining executives from three other energy startups on June 20, to urge the city to evaluate the energy potential of its water system. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection is cautious. “It seems imprudent to experiment with these systems for marginal power benefit with real potential consequence to our service reliability,” the agency’s chief of staff, Anthony Fiore, said in prepared testimony opposing the plan.
    Zammataro understands why water utilities hesitate. “This is a conservative lot for all the right reasons,” he says. Still, vast water systems like New York’s, mostly powered by gravity pulling water from sources upstate, represent tremendous opportunity for hydrokinetic outfits. Keene’s water treatment plant processes 6 million gallons a day at peak times. New York’s water, Zammataro estimates, might provide up to 1 percent of the city’s energy needs: “Over 1 billion gallons of water a day flow through this city,” he says.
    To contact the reporter on this story: John Tozzi at jtozzi2@bloomberg.net

  • #2
    Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

    here's another one and represents, to my way of thinking, how 'harvesting waste heat' is perhaps the best way to pursue 'conservation'

    http://www.phononicdevices.com/

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ectricity.html
    Phononic Devices’s Chips Convert Waste Heat into Electricity




    n 2008, the Rockefeller Family’s Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Venrock, tapped chemist-turned- venture-capitalist Anthony Atti to evaluate promising thermoelectric research conducted by Patrick McCann, a professor of engineering at the University of Oklahoma. McCann’s technology showed the potential to use semiconductors to capture waste heat and convert it into power, as well as to displace heat to cool everything from personal computers to tractor-trailer refrigeration units. About 55 percent of all energy consumed in the U.S. returns to the environment as wasted heat, according to energy systems analyst A.J. Simon of the Energy Dept.’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Traditional thermoelectric devices used for cooling are quiet, compact, and reliable, but efficiency has been very low since they were first commercialized more than 25 years ago. McCann’s breakthrough could make them more efficient by using new materials.
    In 2009, with $1 million from Venrock and Oak Investment Partners, Atti and McCann exclusively licensed the technology from the university, launching Phononic Devices in Raleigh, N.C., with Atti as chief executive officer. Today, the 16- employee company makes thermoelectric semiconductor chips that capture waste heat and convert it into usable electric power or -- depending on the source of heat -- provide refrigeration and cooling.
    Phononic Devices has received a total of $12 million in venture capital from Venrock and Oak, plus $3 million from the Energy Dept.’s Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy program. Atti expects to start selling the devices to electronics cooling-and- refrigeration customers near the end of 2012. Phononic Devices is one of just seven thermoelectric device makers specializing in energy harvesting and cooling.
    Atti, a 37-year-old organic chemistry PhD, spoke recently to Bloomberg.com contributor Karen A. Frenkel about where Phononic Devices fits in the $25 billion waste-heat-recovery industry. Edited excerpts of their conversations follow.
    Karen A. Frenkel: What is the origin of your company’s name?
    Anthony Atti: A ‘phonon’ is a particle of heat -- a thermal sound wave that vibrates through a material. An effective thermoelectric material insulates against heat by deflecting phonons (heat) and causing the phonon to lose its thermal energy. An ineffective thermoelectric material absorbs phonons and heats up itself.
    Q: What was unique about what you saw in Professor McCann’s lab that made you recognize its promise?
    A: For a thermoelectric material to effectively manage heat, it must do two things really well at the fundamental physics level: It has to be electronically conductive, yet thermally insulating. Those two processes have been very difficult to decouple. McCann presented experiments to do that with semiconductors that have not been explored for this purpose so far. The icing on the cake from the investment and economic perspective was that we could manufacture the material in a high-volume, low-cost manufacturing manner at the early stage in the company’s life.
    Q: Why hasn’t the thermoelectric industry already tried these other semiconductors?
    A: They’ve been hiding in plain sight. They’re used for other applications like optics [and] lasers, and other areas of the semiconductor world use them successfully -- but not for thermal management.
    Q: What does the material do and how is it different or better from what’s out there?
    A: We demonstrated that the material decouples electronic conductivity from thermal insulation. It manipulates the direction of electrons at the nanoscale.
    Q: How does decoupling help harness waste heat?
    A: Our fundamental advance allows us to deliver devices that can provide cooling for refrigeration or waste heat recovery and efficiently convert it into power. It can compete head-to-head against the incumbent technology, which uses the elements bismuth and telluride.
    Q: How efficient is your chip?
    A: Our materials and devices are expected to more than double thermal-electric efficiency -- compared to conventional thermoelectrics -- for the interval between room temperature, which is 73F, and 248F.
    Q: How is your device different from what others in the semiconductor waste-heat and cooling area are doing?
    A: There is definitely competition in the electronics cooling area and also in high-temperature waste-heat recovery for automotive or power plants. There is also competition in very low-temperature waste-heat recovery -- sensors, detectors, and wearable materials for the military. There are “pure plays” at the very low temperature range or at the high end. We believe that’s because operating within that low-grade temperature sector is really hard to do. But we have the three legs: performance (the fundamental ability to decouple thermal and electronic mechanisms), cost (efficiency with which we can manage heat), and manufacturability (using existing semiconductor processing in our path to market).
    Q: What’s the size of the markets you’re going after?
    A: The global electronics cooling market for applications between 70F and 250F is $4.5 billion, refrigeration is $6.5 billion, and harvesting low-grade waste heat is about $3 billion. The thermoelectric-specific market -- that is, of modules made from semiconductor materials engineered for thermoelectric behavior -- is $300 million in global sales annually.
    Q: Explain your business model.
    A: We’ve transitioned from proof of concept to proof of chip and are now moving into device fabrication. We are packaging the material into a high-efficiency-semiconductor thermoelectric device and will sell it to end users in cooling, refrigeration, and waste-heat recovery for power. That’s the business model today, based on the low-cost, high-volume tools available.
    Q: What is the market opportunity?
    A: Heat is a major problem that impacts almost every segment of the economy, but not all heat is created equal. Incumbent technologies can handle heat greater than 250F, which is the power generation market, pretty well. Converting waste heat to power is done typically with heat exchanges or industrial boilers. Some turn it into power, some use it elsewhere in the plant to heat up equipment, [and] some pump it out of a smoke stack. It gets better the hotter you go. But below 250F -- low- grade heat waste -- the incumbents don’t work that efficiently. Our technology works very well between 70F and 250F. That’s how Phononic is able to compete. Technologies that serve those markets now don’t do it very well because heat in that temperature range is notoriously difficult to deal with.
    Q: Why?
    A: Because there is not a lot of it. Whether a compressor, heat exchanger, or thermoelectric device, your efficacy is dictated by the temperature difference you can maintain from a hot to a cold side. You need to move from hot to cold to get rid of it, whether cooling or capturing heat for power. If that temperature gradient is small because you’re operating at low temperatures, efficiency is really challenging. Our data show we’re really good at that temperature range.
    To contact the reporter on this story: Karen A. Frenkel at kfrenkel@nyc.rr.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

      $500,000 cost for this project (harvesting waste pressure in water lines to make electricity) in order to generate 62 kilowatts at peak flow ( and even less at other times ) to power roughly 50 homes?????????

      Being the slow learner here, that sounds to me like $10,000 per home for a power supply that works at peak flow, and delivers less power at off-peak flow times. And to make the upside-down economics palatable, the eco-frauds in government pay a write-down of half of the cost of this clean energy project--- to clean-out the pockets of the taxpayers.

      I don't like what I am reading here about this project in Keene, New Hampshire. And some of the projects by this company, Rentricity, generate even less power than this--- one down to 30 kilowatts in western Pennsylvania. It would appear to me that the expertise of this company, like so many others to-day, is to suck-off government grants for clean energy.

      Being the moron here, I would think the only way to really solve this energy pickle that we are now in, is to think BIG and to build gigantic power plants, everywhere. Thinking BIG means more Hoover Dams, more Bonneville Dams, more Nelson River projects as in Manitoba, more Tennessee River projects, more James Bay hydro projects as in Quebec, more Three-Rivers Gorge Dam projects as in China, more and bigger nuclear-power plants, more gas-fired traditional power plants, and even more coal-fired power plants..... That is the way out of this energy pickle, like it or not.

      Rather than to make-do and try to muddle-through, we have to think BIG, in order to really win this war for our economic survival. Digging-out means constructing major capital-works projects, each project would produce thousands of mega-watts of power. The object of this would be to flood the grid with so much electric power that the power-lines would buzz.

      Small is not beautiful, and micro-engineering is not cute. We want BIG projects that put everyone to work and really solve this problem of energy supply in a big way. That has always been the American way, until we lost our way in recent decades..... Not to just muddle-through but to show the entire world what can be done when we think big and engineer on a massive scale.

      LEAN FORWARD.
      Last edited by Starving Steve; July 04, 2011, 11:35 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

        I have to agree with SS here: 62 kW for $500,000 is more expensive even than installing solar PV, though perhaps the capacity factor is higher (or lower).

        The same issue lies with the thermocouples: what is the cost vs. benefit?

        Research is good, but ultimately the stand alone economics of any power source needs to make sense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

          The water idea is silly. The city can easily capture the efficiency gains by lowering the water pressure at key points, similar to local transformers for electricity.

          Efficiency gains for semiconductors using the Seebeck effect to convert heat to electricity could be economically beneficial. These devices are currently, notoriously inefficient. At some point they will reach an efficiency that could be used to capture waste heat from automotive exhaust and replace the alternator, adding to the overall efficiency of cars and trucks.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

            Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
            $500,000 cost for this project (harvesting waste pressure in water lines to make electricity) in order to generate 62 kilowatts at peak flow ( and even less at other times ) to power roughly 50 homes?????????

            Being the slow learner here, that sounds to me like $10,000 per home for a power supply that works at peak flow, and delivers less power at off-peak flow times.
            Sorry to come out of the lurker closet just to troll on this but this is just what the doctor ordered for our situation.

            Although the numbers sound scary when put in bulk terms, keep in mind they did say that the equipment lasts for 40 years and the payoff was around 11 years.

            Considering my household I spend about $1200/year in electricity. That gives an 8 year payback. Or in another perspective, a system that has a 500% return on investment (that has REAL inflation adjustment built in). If only we could all find such opportunities.

            These are exactly the projects we need while moving forward into our de-industrializing age. Something that is expensive now (while we have the resources) but will provide long term gains (for when we don't have the resources). This frees up future resources to renew and perpetuate these projects (provided the project is managed with a long term/self-sustaining mindset).

            One of the big problem with Wind and solar (and other more exotic technologies), is that they usually only provide a positive return on investment in a small number of ideal places and don't scale up to wide spread use. Consider in 20 years time when energy, minerals (rare earths), and infrastructure are phenomenally more expensive, the world has de-globalized and China has crumbled to an industrial waste land, where will you get your new solar panels to replace the old ones? And at what price?

            The fact that the inline power generation idea is also much lower tech than wind or solar (or thermoelectic) is also a huge bonus in the future (especially considering the world 40 years out from now)

            But I do agree with you that more Hoover's are required. However those were the low hanging fruit and there's not many of those left (I think Northern Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are the last places left).

            Say, anybody know what the payback period was for Hoover?


            Good luck all.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

              Just a small piece of insight from my work at a firm that does lots of water treatment plant type work.

              It is fairly common to need to install energy dissipators in order to reduce energy in the water flowing via gravity into treatment plants or other facilities, in order to avoid long term damage (say, problems with scouring if the pipes are of concrete form).

              The Rentricity biz model is just taking advantage of what must be a very small market.

              I disagree with the Federal grants, (namely since I sure can't get one for myself) but you can't blame someone for making use of energy otherwise wasted.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

                Originally posted by wayiwalk
                Although the numbers sound scary when put in bulk terms, keep in mind they did say that the equipment lasts for 40 years and the payoff was around 11 years.
                This doesn't make any sense. 62 kW install - even if operating 100% of the time - generates only 5.97 Gigawatt-hours in 11 years. This prices out at 8.3 cents/kwh. I very much doubt the city pays that much per kwh. If the capacity factor is lower - say 30% - then the cost rises to 27.7 cents/kwh.

                Of course I suspect what is really being calculated is only the city's outlay: $250,000 - and even that (and the above calculations) ignore the cost of capital. The city borrows money; $250,000 not spent would not have to pay whatever bond rate the city presently coughs up (2%? 3%?).

                This is exactly the same type of wrong headedness which encompasses solar PV subsidies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: a new energy idea (tho somewhat subsidized)

                  May I remind everyone that Duke Power Company in the South-eastern United States SELLS power for 7cents per kwh. Duke produces power for maybe half that amount of money. With nuclear power, it may be even less than half of 7cents per kwh for the production cost at the power plant. But the point is that Duke DELIVERS and SELLS power to the consumer @ 7cents per kwh. And that is after capacity factors, transmission losses, interest on capital, dividends paid to Starving Steve and his bears in Canada, labour costs, depreciation on power-plants and equipment, insurance and liability costs, legal costs, licensing and compliance costs, maintenance and repair costs, accounting costs, coal and nat-gas costs, uranium fuel-rod costs, postage, de-commissioning costs, etc.

                  And one more point: Duke does not suck-off government grants and subsidies for green energy in order to sell power @ 7cents per kwh, delivered. Duke makes a profit the good old-fashioned way: IT EARNS IT!
                  Last edited by Starving Steve; July 05, 2011, 10:16 PM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X