With the inefficiency of CAES, since natural gas power is being used *anyway* it's clearly more economical to shift natural gas turbine generation times than to store power.
-
-
Baseload gas turbines are more efficient but more expensive than peaking ones, yes...because they need the same heat exchangers and extra turbines you need for CAES! Of course, Malta's plan (using electricity to heat molten salt for power generation) is impractical too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @atroyn
you keep saying turbines, we were not using turbines. water to water heat exchangers, which is what we used, are compact you can make machines at much smaller scale. recip machines are competitive with turbines at many scales and for many applications
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @atroyn
Yes, you were using pistons with wet compression. I keep talking about gas turbines because for that application, they're still better. People have tried this stuff already! Wet compression is used in piston compressors for some AC units!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @atroyn
why do you think this? it’s completely inapplicable for smaller scales, and like half the eff unless you do all the fancy stuff that aa-lcaes is doing, hear exchangers & stages & multi hundred degree heat storage. wet comp was done in the 1800’s but not optimized, nor expansion
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @atroyn
If you want to make a more efficient compressor for AC systems, sure, go ahead. Want to manufacture compressed gas tanks more cheaply? Maybe you can. But - trying to do both, at the same time, for a specific application? That's rather questionable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate @atroyn
you’re making arguments that were apparent enough at the start of this whole thing, were considered by us an evaluated by us & technical reviewers & investors & competitors back then too there were simple counter arguments, cost targets & physics goals explained through analysis
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanielleFong @atroyn
Yes, and I suppose that's where things went wrong. You found a problem, tried to solve it, and got far farther than most people would towards practicality. It's unreasonable to expect more from people than you provided, so you aren't the failure point here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @atroyn
I'm saying that, regardless of whether there are Reputable People or Big Names or Famous Companies involved in these technical evaluations, the results are inaccurate, they're not nearly good enough, so something is being done wrong. As for what - now that's more complicated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

