Posted: 12/3/2012 6:44:27 AM EDT
|
This was in the news in July
Original ARFCO Thread - Texas getting first modern compressed air energy storage plant On Friday, I received a letter from the Texas Commission On Environmental Quality, notifying me that Apex Energy has applied for TECQ / EPA Discharge Permit that could potentially effect property we own. They propose to dump up to a quarter million gallons of cooling water into the river each day. I'm still gathering info, but this looks to be just upstream of our property and seems like something that could effect fishing? Treating chemicals, water temperature, additional problems during periods when the river is already at or near flood levels... |
| 250,000 gal/day = 10,416 gal/hr = 173.6 gal/min, which doesn't seem very significant for any body of water qualifying as a river. For comparison, a little 8HP 3" trash pump I have is rated at 185 GPM. Where is the water sourced from? If it's sourced from the river then there would be no effect expected on water levels anyway, and even if sourced elsewhere I can't see 173.6 gal/min being much of a factor in flooding. The main concern would be the amount of heat being added to the river, and again, even if the cooling water was near boiling I can't see 173.6 gal/min making a lot of difference in a river that ought to be flowing tens of thousands of gallons per minute. Even if the cooling water discharge was during half the day (when surplus energy was being stored as compressed air) that's still just 347.2 GPM. Do they list and expected net temperature increase for the river? |
|
Quoted:
I guess it depends on what they add to the water.  Clean energy?If they're using the water to cool the compressed air going into storage, they probably aren't adding anything. When converting that compressed air back into electrical power they probably don't need cooling since air cools when decompressed. ETA: Reading that linked thread made me queezy. Do people really not understand the science or the technical realities of intermittent productions sources like solar and wind vs. the demand profile? In a little homestead system you can use chemical batteries to store the power generated by your solar and wind sources and then supply it back out to match your demand. Do you think the efficiency of those batteries is very high overall with the various losses in the charging and discharging? Chemical batteries do not scale to utility scale applications and thus compressed air storage and pumped hydroelectric storage are the only practical ways to store energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind that can then be utilized when those sources are not generating. This storage capability is the single greatest issue with solar and wind energy. You can predict the solar generation window accurately and get conventional generation online each day as the solar generation tapers off, but that means you can never be more than 50% solar. With wind it's worse since wind is more intermittent and less predictable you have to have some 80% (per a large utilities real world data) of your nominal wind generating capacity online at all times in conventional generation (idling) ready to pickup the load when the wind stops blowing. With utility scale storage technology even with inefficiencies it can let you get solar production over 50% and let you utilize wind generation without the need for idling gas turbines and the like. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess it depends on what they add to the water. Clean energy?If they're using the water to cool the compressed air going into storage, they probably aren't adding anything. When converting that compressed air back into electrical power they probably don't need cooling since air cools when decompressed. ETA: Reading that linked thread made me queezy. Do people really not understand the science or the technical realities of intermittent productions sources like solar and wind vs. the demand profile? In a little homestead system you can use chemical batteries to store the power generated by your solar and wind sources and then supply it back out to match your demand. Do you think the efficiency of those batteries is very high overall with the various losses in the charging and discharging? Chemical batteries do not scale to utility scale applications and thus compressed air storage and pumped hydroelectric storage are the only practical ways to store energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind that can then be utilized when those sources are not generating. This storage capability is the single greatest issue with solar and wind energy. You can predict the solar generation window accurately and get conventional generation online each day as the solar generation tapers off, but that means you can never be more than 50% solar. With wind it's worse since wind is more intermittent and less predictable you have to have some 80% (per a large utilities real world data) of your nominal wind generating capacity online at all times in conventional generation (idling) ready to pickup the load when the wind stops blowing. With utility scale storage technology even with inefficiencies it can let you get solar production over 50% and let you utilize wind generation without the need for idling gas turbines and the like. I dunno. I'm not completely sold on storing energy as compressed air. Just doesn't seem efficient for this purpose. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess it depends on what they add to the water. Clean energy?If they're using the water to cool the compressed air going into storage, they probably aren't adding anything. When converting that compressed air back into electrical power they probably don't need cooling since air cools when decompressed. ETA: Reading that linked thread made me queezy. Do people really not understand the science or the technical realities of intermittent productions sources like solar and wind vs. the demand profile? In a little homestead system you can use chemical batteries to store the power generated by your solar and wind sources and then supply it back out to match your demand. Do you think the efficiency of those batteries is very high overall with the various losses in the charging and discharging? Chemical batteries do not scale to utility scale applications and thus compressed air storage and pumped hydroelectric storage are the only practical ways to store energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind that can then be utilized when those sources are not generating. This storage capability is the single greatest issue with solar and wind energy. You can predict the solar generation window accurately and get conventional generation online each day as the solar generation tapers off, but that means you can never be more than 50% solar. With wind it's worse since wind is more intermittent and less predictable you have to have some 80% (per a large utilities real world data) of your nominal wind generating capacity online at all times in conventional generation (idling) ready to pickup the load when the wind stops blowing. With utility scale storage technology even with inefficiencies it can let you get solar production over 50% and let you utilize wind generation without the need for idling gas turbines and the like. I dunno. I'm not completely sold on storing energy as compressed air. Just doesn't seem efficient for this purpose. It isn't efficient, but it's 1. the only available technology other than pumped hydro, and 2. the energy would otherwise be wasted i.e. those turbines in the wind farms that are parked and idle when the wind is blowing simply because there isn't anywhere to send their potential energy. By storing that generation which isn't needed at the particular time, at least some of that energy is available for use when it is needed and thus eliminates the need to burn gas / coal / whatever. Come up with something better than the only two current options and you'll be rich. Think of it this way - You have a free source of gasoline that flows into your car's tank intermittently (wind generation into the grid). If your tank is already full it just flows onto the ground and is lost (cacacity not needed on the grid at that time). You have a container that you can collect that spilled gasoline in, but it can only catch 20% of what's spilling (CAS or pumped hydro). Does collecting that spilled gas even only 20% of it put you well ahead of collecting none of it? |
|
Quoted:
250,000 gal/day = 10,416 gal/hr = 173.6 gal/min, which doesn't seem very significant for any body of water qualifying as a river. For comparison, a little 8HP 3" trash pump I have is rated at 185 GPM. Where is the water sourced from? If it's sourced from the river then there would be no effect expected on water levels anyway, and even if sourced elsewhere I can't see 173.6 gal/min being much of a factor in flooding. The main concern would be the amount of heat being added to the river, and again, even if the cooling water was near boiling I can't see 173.6 gal/min making a lot of difference in a river that ought to be flowing tens of thousands of gallons per minute. Even if the cooling water discharge was during half the day (when surplus energy was being stored as compressed air) that's still just 347.2 GPM. Do they list and expected net temperature increase for the river? Well, if the generation is only operated during peak periods (when the power is most valuable) they will discharge the quarter million gallons in four hours or so, in the late afternoon/early evening, giving them a much higher effective flow rate per hour. I have found a couple of conflicting information sources on the total river flow. Both are based upon the USGS gauge height nearest my property, one claims ~ 500 Cu Ft/ minute during "Normal" seasonal lows. The other source says it is ~ 500 Cu Ft/Sec. Obviously there is a serious difference between the two. If the numbers are really in cu ft/min, then the cooling water will represent almost 20% of the volume of the river during the discharge hours of the dry summer months, when the water is already at its yearly temperature peak. That could raise the temperature enough to change the fish habitat in the immediate area. If the river volumes are really in cu ft /sec, it is probably not enough to make a difference. I also have yet to find out where the water will come from. I suspect they will get it out of the river and them put it back, but I am not sure. It seems the Trinity River Authority is the authority to do the deal for them "borrowing" the water, but the public notice was due to the permit to discharge it back into the river. If the water comes from the river, it obviously does not add a concern for additional flooding, from the discharge itself, but they could change the rivers flood pattern in the areas immediately up/down stream with their construction. My property is on the outside of a bend in the river, which means it is already subject to erosion. If there is an intake that extends into the river, it would likely increase the velocity in the immediate area and change the water flow profile...which could further accelerate erosion on my land. Even without the intake, the water entering the river will impart energy, changing the flow pattern. Right now I have a great backwater area that is about 300' long by 40 ' wide where we swim without having to fight the river current. I not want this disappearing or turning into a whirlpool area. Another potential issue is that the construction and/or the road and pipeline will drain an existing shallow Oxbow lake that is about 1/2 on my property. This is my duck hunting spot!!!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess it depends on what they add to the water. Clean energy?If they're using the water to cool the compressed air going into storage, they probably aren't adding anything. When converting that compressed air back into electrical power they probably don't need cooling since air cools when decompressed. ETA: Reading that linked thread made me queezy. Do people really not understand the science or the technical realities of intermittent productions sources like solar and wind vs. the demand profile? In a little homestead system you can use chemical batteries to store the power generated by your solar and wind sources and then supply it back out to match your demand. Do you think the efficiency of those batteries is very high overall with the various losses in the charging and discharging? Chemical batteries do not scale to utility scale applications and thus compressed air storage and pumped hydroelectric storage are the only practical ways to store energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind that can then be utilized when those sources are not generating. This storage capability is the single greatest issue with solar and wind energy. You can predict the solar generation window accurately and get conventional generation online each day as the solar generation tapers off, but that means you can never be more than 50% solar. With wind it's worse since wind is more intermittent and less predictable you have to have some 80% (per a large utilities real world data) of your nominal wind generating capacity online at all times in conventional generation (idling) ready to pickup the load when the wind stops blowing. With utility scale storage technology even with inefficiencies it can let you get solar production over 50% and let you utilize wind generation without the need for idling gas turbines and the like. I have been reading a 50 page propaganda article that was created as the original EPA application for permits. From the executive summary: "Electricity is generated by releasing the high‐pressure air, heating the air with natural gas, and expanding it through sequential turbines (“expanders”), which in turn drive an electrical generator. When full, the inventory of stored air will support ..." This means they are NOT GENERATIING POWER FROM THE COMRESSED AIR ALONE! This appears to be a standard natural gas fired turbine driving the generator. The compressed air is being used to dramatically increase the efficiency of the gas fired turbine, be doing away the turbocharged like portion of the turbine, which raises the combustion air pressure before adding the fuel. This is a scam and the tax payer is the victim EDIT: OK, got some more info..maybe not a scam, but not as perfect as they make it sound. The increase in efficiency of the gas turbine is substantial. I am also betting that they get the same federal tax incentives that the windmill people get. That used to be a 30% investment tax credit OR a 2.2 cent per kwh credit for power produce (half the current wholesale value of electricity.) Link to Wind Tax Credit |
|
I'm pretty sure the cooling water discharge would be during the storage period, not the generation period. Compressing air heats it a great deal and that would be what they are likely cooling, presumably during the evening off-peak hours when surplus generating capacity is available. If they are working with wind farms however the storage period could be more erratic. I'm pretty sure the CFS figure would be the correct one for a river, 500 CFM would barely be a trickle in a draingage ditch.
All in CFS here: http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/index.php?r=tx&id=ww_current ETA: How is it a scam to increase the efficiency of the power generation infrastructure and how is the taxpayer the victim? Ultimately the taxpayer has to pay for the electricity they consume and anything that increases the efficiencies in the system ultimately benefits the taxpayer, unless of course you are off grid. |
|
Now do not get me wrong, I have no delusions that I can stop them from doing the project...a few folks with lots of money want to get richer and the taxpayers are going to fucked. This project will go on... unless we can find a useless frog, or something similar, that would be harmed.
I want to know IF the project will do anything to : 1] Effect our current enjoyment of our property, which includes swimming, fishing, and hunting. 2] Effect the view of where we plan to build our retirement house (looking at the upstream river bend, directly at where the discharge point is to be located). 3] Diminish the current or future value of our property. If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. |
|
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure the cooling water discharge would be during the storage period, not the generation period. Compressing air heats it a great deal and that would be what they are likely cooling, presumably during the evening off-peak hours when surplus generating capacity is available. If they are working with wind farms however the storage period could be more erratic. I'm pretty sure the CFS figure would be the correct one for a river, 500 CFM would barely be a trickle in a draingage ditch. All in CFS here: http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/index.php?r=tx&id=ww_current ETA: How is it a scam to increase the efficiency of the power generation infrastructure and how is the taxpayer the victim? Ultimately the taxpayer has to pay for the electricity they consume and anything that increases the efficiencies in the system ultimately benefits the taxpayer, unless of course you are off grid. First, I hope you are right about the river volume. I'm calling the Trinity River Authority, in the morning, to find out....but the river is very slow and very shallow at times. Less than 2' deep and 10' wide at one point, (I independently verified this when I tore up a prop in the gravel, on my little 4 HP john boat.) and moving VERY slow. I realize last summer was hopefully an exception. The scam part is that the entire wind power mess does not pass the economic smell test. It takes a 30% tax credit or a 50% subsidy on power sales to get investors to fund these things. From what I can tell so far, this project seems to be headed at the same tax credits. Also, as mentioned in their own filing, they are still burning natural gas to fuel the generators; the air is just making them more fuel efficient. I need to do some googling, but the last I read, wind turbines were just barely reaching the point that, during their entire projected life, they would generate as much power as required to build the thing. |
|
Quoted:
If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. So to be clear, your concern is not the taxpayers taking a screwing funding a project that makes no technological sense, but making sure you get your piece of the *ss? |
|
Quoted:
One thing to keep in mind - I would much rather have an industrial facility as a neighbor than some horrid "upscale" housing development with ideas of pushing a HOA on the area, complaining about what I may want to do on my land like farming, etc. I understand and agree, but there is not much chance of that. This is really remote land, the flood maps put a damper on houses in most of the river front acreage, and the area is mostly classified as wetlands. A full quarter mile along the river floods every time they open the Richland Chambers flood gates. We own a tiny ridge line that reaches within 100' of the river bank 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. So to be clear, your concern is not the taxpayers taking a screwing funding a project that makes no technological sense, but making sure you get your piece of the *ss? Yep. The taxpayer is going to get it, without lube...that includes me! I think the project is BS, but unless someone else has big money to fund the lawyers or knows how to get national media against them, there is not much hope of stopping something like this. Just because the collective taxpayer is getting fucked, that does not mean I will stand by and watch our property values decline without at least making an effort to protect our investment. My life would not end without fishing from the bank, but if fishing is harmed, it would effect the property value. Increasing erosion would definitely decrease the value. Did I mention this will likely eliminate my duck hunting pond? Now if someone I trust can convince me we will suffer no negative impact, then I have no interest in wasting my time just jacking with them. |
|
Quoted:
Now do not get me wrong, I have no delusions that I can stop them from doing the project...a few folks with lots of money want to get richer and the taxpayers are going to fucked. This project will go on... unless we can find a useless frog, or something similar, that would be harmed. I want to know IF the project will do anything to : 1] Effect our current enjoyment of our property, which includes swimming, fishing, and hunting. 2] Effect the view of where we plan to build our retirement house (looking at the upstream river bend, directly at where the discharge point is to be located). 3] Diminish the current or future value of our property. If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. I think number 2 sounds like the kind of thing a liberal would complain about. Unless you own the property where this view is, I don't think you should really have any right to control what is built there unless it is something that is harming the property you actually own. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now do not get me wrong, I have no delusions that I can stop them from doing the project...a few folks with lots of money want to get richer and the taxpayers are going to fucked. This project will go on... unless we can find a useless frog, or something similar, that would be harmed. I want to know IF the project will do anything to : 1] Effect our current enjoyment of our property, which includes swimming, fishing, and hunting. 2] Effect the view of where we plan to build our retirement house (looking at the upstream river bend, directly at where the discharge point is to be located). 3] Diminish the current or future value of our property. If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. I think number 2 sounds like the kind of thing a liberal would complain about. Unless you own the property where this view is, I don't think you should really have any right to control what is built there unless it is something that is harming the property you actually own. "Don't buy for the view unless you can also buy the view" is what they say. As for property values, it is not in your interest to have them high since that just increases your taxes. People wanted high property values so they could use their property as an ATM to pay for toys, and i think we've all seen how well that worked. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now do not get me wrong, I have no delusions that I can stop them from doing the project...a few folks with lots of money want to get richer and the taxpayers are going to fucked. This project will go on... unless we can find a useless frog, or something similar, that would be harmed. I want to know IF the project will do anything to : 1] Effect our current enjoyment of our property, which includes swimming, fishing, and hunting. 2] Effect the view of where we plan to build our retirement house (looking at the upstream river bend, directly at where the discharge point is to be located). 3] Diminish the current or future value of our property. If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. I think number 2 sounds like the kind of thing a liberal would complain about. Unless you own the property where this view is, I don't think you should really have any right to control what is built there unless it is something that is harming the property you actually own. True, but changing the view from natural to industrial clearly impacts property value. I have one of only a couple of riverside building sites for miles in each direction. If the liberals are willing to take my tax dollars to squander on so called Green Power, if are going to attempt to restrict my gun rights, and otherwise piss me off on a regular basis, I have little hesitation in using their tactics to protect what little I have left. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. So to be clear, your concern is not the taxpayers taking a screwing funding a project that makes no technological sense, but making sure you get your piece of the *ss? Yep. The taxpayer is going to get it, without lube...that includes me! I think the project is BS, but unless someone else has big money to fund the lawyers or knows how to get national media against them, there is not much hope of stopping something like this. Just because the collective taxpayer is getting fucked, that does not mean I will stand by and watch our property values decline without at least making an effort to protect our investment. My life would not end without fishing from the bank, but if fishing is harmed, it would effect the property value. Increasing erosion would definitely decrease the value. Did I mention this will likely eliminate my duck hunting pond? Now if someone I trust can convince me we will suffer no negative impact, then I have no interest in wasting my time just jacking with them. Have you talked to the developer yet? I bet you could solve a lot of your issues, with a 20 minute meeting with the developer. They will have someone avail as part of their area marketing strategy. If you can not find the right person, contact your local government. Someone there will have the contact info. good luck. TXL |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If any of these are the case, there are going to have to be some serious discussions. Maybe they buy our little piece of property at market value or pay us some amount for diminishing its value. If they will not work with me on that, I will do my best to see that they incur significant additional expenses in legal fees and environmental consultants for public meetings and a contested EPA/TCEQ hearing...all of which they can probably avoid if they will work with the asshole that owns the adjoining property. So to be clear, your concern is not the taxpayers taking a screwing funding a project that makes no technological sense, but making sure you get your piece of the *ss? Yep. The taxpayer is going to get it, without lube...that includes me! I think the project is BS, but unless someone else has big money to fund the lawyers or knows how to get national media against them, there is not much hope of stopping something like this. Just because the collective taxpayer is getting fucked, that does not mean I will stand by and watch our property values decline without at least making an effort to protect our investment. My life would not end without fishing from the bank, but if fishing is harmed, it would effect the property value. Increasing erosion would definitely decrease the value. Did I mention this will likely eliminate my duck hunting pond? Now if someone I trust can convince me we will suffer no negative impact, then I have no interest in wasting my time just jacking with them. Have you talked to the developer yet? I bet you could solve a lot of your issues, with a 20 minute meeting with the developer. They will have someone avail as part of their area marketing strategy. If you can not find the right person, contact your local government. Someone there will have the contact info. good luck. TXL ^ This. These are the days of CAD everything, and anything related to a project that size will have been planned and modeled long ago. I bet if you talk nicely to them they could provide a photorealistic rendering of what the view would look like from the home site on your property at the elevation of your windows. I built a kitchen island table for some friends and we had photorealistic renders of it in their kitchen before we cut a single piece of material. |
|
Quoted:
Have you talked to the developer yet? I bet you could solve a lot of your issues, with a 20 minute meeting with the developer. They will have someone avail as part of their area marketing strategy. If you can not find the right person, contact your local government. Someone there will have the contact info. good luck. TXL I agree with you, a few minutes to discuss what they are doing and show me some plans and I might have enough info to be comfortable with the project, but I've left a message at the phone number for the developer that was provided on the notice the TCEQ sent me...my call has not been returned. I tracked down the consulting firm used for the filing; first person referred me to a project manager, who did talk to me...and he would only say that they are complying with the EPA and TCEQ regulations and if I want more information, I should obtain a copy of that discharge application, at my own expense. The is making me more concerned and that concern is turning into suspicion at a rapid pace. Since they are not talking to me, it looks like I'll have to request a public hearing before the TCEQ and potentially get a lawyer or environmental consultant to file for a "contested case hearing" . I have found out that this is not river water they are using and returning. They will be pumping water out of multiple wells, reating it with chemicals, circulating it some number of times through the cooling towers, then pumping it to the river. |
| The developer did call me back today and spent almost 15 minutes on the phone. He very politely explained the same information available from their web site, but every time I asked for specific info on the outfall or the wetland impact, I got generalizations with very little true info. |