Pumped Storage energy usage Pros and Cons?
Please in as much detail as possible, can anybody justify the usage of pumped storage energy to supply the nations electrical needs as opposed to wind power and coal power usage?
Windmill Farms answers:
It sounds like you’re asking about potential energy that would transfer to kinetic energy when needed. If so, as an example to amass the potential energy of water would require either installation of a barrier to a natural site (i.e., install a dam to form a reservoir) or in your case a mechanical pump to fill a water tower. When the dam is opened or the valves on the water tower are opened, the potential energy of the water becomes kinetic energy. If there were generators in the flow path of water released from the reservoir or the water tower, you could produce electricity.
Of the two examples above, the only real energy producer would be the reservoir as it is containing the energy of the water without external input of energy (i.e., a pump). The energy produced by the reservoir would be relatively ‘free’. With the water tower, the energy to pump the water up into the tower would nearly equal the energy released from the tower.
One solution could be to combine the two, such as: have a reservoir at a higher elevation than the water tower, fill the tower using the reservoir water. The water in the reservoir (higher potential energy) at the higher elevation would flow down to the lower point and the potential energy could be stored in the tower. With generators on both the water tower and the reservoir, energy could be produced without external energy input.
With that said, coal will probably still be less expensive in the long run. Reservoirs require massive amounts of permitting in addition to the cost of construction. You would need numerous water towers, etc. Additionally, the visual blight of water towers would nearly equal that of wind power generators (windmills).
Alternatively, for the U.S. There is already a compressed, clean fuel that can be used for electrical production, transportation, heating, cooking, etc… Natural Gas.
What are the pros and cons of having new energy sources?
i am doing a research paper for english on if we should have new energy sources or not. and if so what new energy sources are there.
and i need both sides of my argument.
please put down your information and then leave a URL where i can read more or put it on my works cited page
thanks a bunch
Windmill Farms answers:
Solar Energy – Our sun is the greatest source of energy we know about it today, it comes to us freely and is efficient. It is very possible that solar power can replace traditional electricity sources in many places, especially where there is abundant sunshine. Unfortunately not all places are ideal for solar power. In the areas at high latitude there is not enough sunlight in a day to produce efficient energy, and the same for places where it rains a lot.
Wind Energy – Wind is very efficient at producing electricity. Obviously you need a lot of wind, like along coast lines and at high altitudes. Wind power could replace up to 20% of our total electric consumption in the foreseeable future. Wind is a clean source of energy with none of the harmful byproducts like carbon dioxide. However the huge blades of the windmills do pose a danger to birds and you need a lot of room to build a sufficient number of windmills.
Hydroelectric Energy – This type of power is mainly sourced from dams. The production of electricity from the water movement is clean and it does not produce waste material. However, the ideal type of places to build this is very limited and it is very expensive to build the dams.
Tidal Energy – Tidal energy work much in the same way as hydroelectric energy, but on a smaller scale, and it uses the natural tides of the ocean. There are several drawbacks though. Because of the sometimes violent and unpredictable nature of the ocean, they can not be constructed in many places. So far only about 9 places have been identified to build this kind of power plants. And these power plants can have a negative impact on migratory birds and also fisheries.
Wind Energy in Hawaii?
Residents of Hawaii, please specify any organizations that are for or against wind energy in Hawaii that you may support and if you are for or against wind turbines and why?
There are both pros and cons to wind energy, what is your take on it?
Windmill Farms answers:
I think Greenpeace and the Hookielau Division of the Sierra Club are against wind energy in Hawaii. The Imperial Japanese Navy ( IJN) was the navy of the Empire of Japan from 1869 until 1947, when it was dissolved following Japan’s constitutional renunciation of the use of force as a means of settling international and environmental disputes. Only the IJN was in favor of wind energy in Hawaii.
I think Hawaii would look silly with wind turbines all over the place.
Free energy pro’s & con’s?
nikola tesla made it.for some reason we still dont have it im sure more people have been close or mabe they took the money.what happens when it finaly does happen & they dont take the money & it is avil. To eveyone would that be more bad than good?
Windmill Farms answers:
Most people lack a physics and electronics background to truly understand what Tesla was attempting, which ran afoul of his benefacotrs ideals-but at the same time Tesla was ignorant of the health impacts of the research he was doing.
The Tesla coils and Van de Graaf generators you have seen are small, the idea Tesla had was covering the globe with those coils in a very large form- the health issues have little to do with the electricity itself per se, but rather the health effects of RF energy, which is the root of his device’s principle. Most health effects were not recognized until after his death.
Even Tesla’s technologies required energy inputs of great quantity- so to say it was creating eenrgy from nothing is false.
This not to say there is not energy in the atmosphere. The earth is in many ways it’s own electrostatic generator sitting in vast gravitational pool of solar wind energies that are comprised predominantly of electrons.
You can generate potential energy with antennas if they are high enough and long enough. Snow, dust, and just the wind itself can generate significant electrical charges in antenna towers. This is also not counting the lost RF energies from a multitude of sources. Put a large diameter coil of wire on an oscilliscope with a signal diode and you can see visually a significant amount of wasted RF in urban settings.
Many a scam use Tesla’s name in vain. You can light up a flourescent tube with RF energy, go find a high tension AC power line, stand under it with your flourestent tube, and then rub the tube a little bit with a silk cloth to develop an initial charge. Often that trick is used to attract “investors” in a “new development…”
You are already using a number of Tesla’s inventions, so it is not a matter of anything being supressed. AC power distribution and flourescent lighting are Tesla’s doing. Edison was strictly incandescent and DC Power.
Don’t expect any new “Tesla” discoveries. If you study up on electronics and physics, so you can better understand the principles invovled, you can drop the rose colored glasses and apply yourself to maybe finding some truly new technologies. Or adapting things around you. Go take a look on Youtube, search for wind belt or wind ribbon- those did not exist even 5 years ago. You might not think much of them, but in a windy area in the third world, you have just lit up someone’s house with limitless hours of light.
Renewable energies: what are the pros and cons?
Windmill Farms answers:
Pros: In theory, we don’t run out of the “fuel” or energy source, and they sound appealing and they are all the rage from a public image and political standpoint.
Cons are considerable, and often things that don’t get discussed. Many that have been used for centuries are no longer acceptable and so not publicized or considered truly “renewable”. An example: hydro power (hydro-electric, hydro-mechanical).
Others that have been demonstrated and even used for decades are politically unpopular, such as nuclear from “breeder reactors” or thorium 233, or fish and whale oil (lamps).
Some have been in use literally forever, and always will be, but their large-scale practicality or dependability is limited, so their near and medium term future is only a pipedream (wind, solar, tidal). Naturally occurring, crop-based oils (cotton-seed, olive, fish, etc.) are limited in the production capability, and increased scale reduces food availability. Ethanol (if from grains, only a small positive energy balance, if from sugar or similar, “jungle” and rainforest may be lost); etc.
Some may have great hope in the future, such as oils and fuels from genetically modified algaes or enzymes. But these are decades to even centuries out, and anything “genetically modified” has a bad name.
Often proponents don’t look at the big picture (such as the huge additional mass of copper or aluminum wire that is used to put in a “wind farm” over what it takes for a similar capacity coal boiler). Or the potential health hazards of manufacture of silicon wafers for solar electric panels.
But, much of what we are used to using is in limited supply. It is a shame to use natural gas for making electricity, when it is such a versatile and useful raw material for manufacturing chemicals and for portable and small scale direct energy. Petroleum is an enormously valuable raw material for making plastics and other chemicals we need and use everyday.
Coal, nuclear, and water availability is centuries long, and the 5-10% we can get from wind, solar, tidal and geothermal all need to be used as much as is practical and economical.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers