On Saturday, 6 May 2017 20:42:01 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 5/6/2017 12:11 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

ok, a bit t-i-c but it'd be fun having my own steam generator
(modified boiler?), turbine and generator. I recall a viable jet
engine (intended for VTOL some 45yrs ago) that could be picked up by
one person so a turbine needn't be too big.

You can get small jet engines from, f'rinstance, these people:

http://www.wrenpowersystems.com/index.html

I've no idea whether anything like that would be suitable or not. They
didn't obviously have prices but they were IIRC not that expensive.

As I said elsewhere, a turbocharger turbine is somewhat comparable. But
they run at getting on for 100,000 rpm. Gearing is never going to be an
option, but perhaps something like the Dyson "digital" motors might be
adaptable.

You'd have to find some way of lubricating it too. some sort of oil resrvoir and pump.

On Sun, 7 May 2017 12:58:07 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Except it costs £15k, with a £3k installation grant available, then a
mandatory £500/year servicing contract

Sounds like the guarantee of parts for 10 years with my new cheap
Indesit washing machine, only valid if the parts are fitted by an
Indesit engineer at £109/hour.

On Sun, 7 May 2017 09:16:05 -0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
writes:


Does no one remember the calor totem from the 80s. It supplied the
electricity needs of three households but the achilles heel was engine
life was only about a year, 1100cc FIAT I think.

Cars (of that type) are only designed for 3000 hours use.
That gets you to roughly 100,000 miles at an average 30MPH.

Yes but the running regime was better suited to longer life. Modern
engines are much better, especially with synthetic oils, I scrapped a
transit engine with 100K miles on the clock after the timing chain
broke and there was no discernible bore wear.

Also bore wear is relative to mean piston speed, so running an engine
slowly would extend bore life. I know a chap in Reigate that runs a
lister 6.5hp rated at 650rpm as a chp unit and these thing last
indefinitely.

When I handed my pug 206 van back it had 305k miles on the clock and
no signs of giving up but that was over 13 years and only equates to
running constantly for one year at 34mph.

Nowadays with lithium ion batteries it should be possible to optimise
run time by charging batteries either side of peaks and running on
them for minor loads.

It's not a new thought: in 1974 I worked on an estate adjacent to the
owner of a remote cottage which was powered by a Lister startomatic
genset. The owner was a producer for the BBC and had connections with
the electricity research station just a few miles away. One of the
engineers (I only remember his name was Stuart) installed some
traction cells and a French sine wave inverter (it was somewhat better
than the monostable oscillator switched power transistor we had built
at college during the strikes of Heath's government a few years
before) to reduce the hours the engine needed to run and that was in
the days when TV's were CRT and consumed 200W, with modern kit and LED
lighting the loads will be less.

Conversely the National Trust have finally gone overboard for wood
energy and in qualifying for RHI have removed a number of oversized
chip boilers and replaced by new, these are for heat only, at one
property where a micro hydro electric scheme has been replaced rather
than backfeed the grid they have opted to use excess electricity to
power immersion elements in the thermal store.

I installed Aircon at home 12 years ago. It was for cooling my main
living area when working at home, but I actually use it in reverse
to heat the area in winter when working at home, rather than heating
the whole house. For first few years, I had it on a power meter, and
using it as an air-sourced heat pump cost very little to heat the
room all winter, vastly less than heating the whole house all day
with gas central heating just because I'm working in one room.
It only gets used for cooling a few days a year, but for heating,
probably 50 days a year.

Yes I remember you posting about it, I recommended the same for an
office we had in a portacabin adjacent to the main office. It was
heated by resistance heating but the boss would not approve the
outlay.

I don't know why the NT didn't opt for something similar with their
excess electricity.

AJH

On 5/7/2017 5:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2017 20:42:01 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 5/6/2017 12:11 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

ok, a bit t-i-c but it'd be fun having my own steam generator
(modified boiler?), turbine and generator. I recall a viable jet
engine (intended for VTOL some 45yrs ago) that could be picked up by
one person so a turbine needn't be too big.

You can get small jet engines from, f'rinstance, these people:

http://www.wrenpowersystems.com/index.html

I've no idea whether anything like that would be suitable or not. They
didn't obviously have prices but they were IIRC not that expensive.

As I said elsewhere, a turbocharger turbine is somewhat comparable. But
they run at getting on for 100,000 rpm. Gearing is never going to be an
option, but perhaps something like the Dyson "digital" motors might be
adaptable.

You'd have to find some way of lubricating it too. some sort of oil resrvoir and pump.

Yup. Probably not a ring lubricator :-)

In article ,
writes:
On Sat, 6 May 2017 19:28:12 -0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

It was done - Whispergen and another I forget made domestic boilers
with 1kW electricity output. They weren't viable and the companies
abandoned the domestic products when the development subsidies were
withdrawn.

Sounds about right, one was a free running piston and the other used
three cylinders and a swash plate IIRC

The Whispergen used a Stirling engine to drive the generator.

They got unexpected interest from the marine sector for boilers
on boats which could generate the electricity to power themselves
and the boat. The original Whispergen couldn't run without a mains
supply, but they produced a module to replace the grid-tie which
enabled it to start from a battery, and then generate power to
run itself and supply the rest of the boat. Looked like a great
idea, but it also went nowhere beyond shipping some early units.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sun, 7 May 2017 19:54:25 -0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:


The Whispergen used a Stirling engine to drive the generator.

Yes there was another similar unit along with the whispergen both were
Stirling engines as prime movers , the whispergen pistons drove a
swash plate which then rotated the alternator. The other (Microgen)
used a piston which oscillated past the armature.

AJH

On Sun, 7 May 2017 13:51:47 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

AnthonyL wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

a big ccgt plant!

I'll keep an eye on Ebay to see if one comes up cheap.

I think you were asking about Ratcliffe the other week? I happened to
drive past on Friday and the coal heaps looked very well stocked and
neatly raked over ... suppose the bulldozer drivers have to do something
over summer?


Isn't there some requirement that the coal at the bottom needs to be
scooped up to prevent self-ignition? The bulldozers seem to work
24/7.


--
AnthonyL

AnthonyL wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I think you were asking about Ratcliffe the other week? I happened to
drive past on Friday and the coal heaps looked very well stocked and
neatly raked over ... suppose the bulldozer drivers have to do something
over summer?

Isn't there some requirement that the coal at the bottom needs to be
scooped up to prevent self-ignition?

I seem to remember something along those lines, yes

The bulldozers seem to work 24/7.

On 05/05/2017 19:42, AnthonyL wrote:
I was watching the early development of electricity generation and
houses had their own coal fired generators before power distribution
became widespread.



was a lot of noise about CHP units a few years ago ... not sure how
they have progressed

On 26/05/17 22:58, rick wrote:
On 05/05/2017 19:42, AnthonyL wrote:
I was watching the early development of electricity generation and
houses had their own coal fired generators before power distribution
became widespread.



was a lot of noise about CHP units a few years ago ... not sure how
they have progressed

They work exceptionally well where the heat to electricity ratio suits.

Ä–g. municipal waste burners in Denmark that power the council flats and
have free hot water.

Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because they
represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the wind is
blowing


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because they
represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the wind is
blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi boiler
.... assume it has not progressed.

On 27/05/17 12:44, rick wrote:
On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because they
represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the wind
is blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi boiler
... assume it has not progressed.

Probably not. Along with the solar revolution, the battery revolution,
the hydrogen revolution, the smart grid revolution, the wind power
revolution the tidal power revolution, the run of river turbine
revolution, the biofuel revolution....

Once upon a time a technician made a remark that has stuck with me
forever..'If it were that easy, we would all have done it years ago'


And that is a salient point here. The principles of all this
'alternative energy' have been established for years,. And yet no one
has made a commercial success ...Trillions have been thrown in, and yet
the technology cannot survive without subsidy.

Golly gosh, if it were that easy we would have done it years ago.



--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 5/27/2017 1:31 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/17 12:44, rick wrote:
On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because
they represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the
wind is blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi boiler
... assume it has not progressed.

Probably not. Along with the solar revolution, the battery revolution,
the hydrogen revolution, the smart grid revolution, the wind power
revolution the tidal power revolution, the run of river turbine
revolution, the biofuel revolution....

Once upon a time a technician made a remark that has stuck with me
forever..'If it were that easy, we would all have done it years ago'


And that is a salient point here. The principles of all this
'alternative energy' have been established for years,. And yet no one
has made a commercial success ...Trillions have been thrown in, and yet
the technology cannot survive without subsidy.

Golly gosh, if it were that easy we would have done it years ago.




+1

I was looking up some CEGB Research Division "glossies" from the 70's
and 80's the other day. They did quite a bit of research on wind,
geothermal, photovoltaic, and wave power before confirming that they
were all miles away from being commercial. Hydro is a no brainer pretty
much anywhere there is a suitable water supply. And of course pumped
storage is a big winner too.

On 27/05/17 19:50, newshound wrote:
On 5/27/2017 1:31 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/17 12:44, rick wrote:
On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because
they represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the
wind is blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi
boiler ... assume it has not progressed.

Probably not. Along with the solar revolution, the battery revolution,
the hydrogen revolution, the smart grid revolution, the wind power
revolution the tidal power revolution, the run of river turbine
revolution, the biofuel revolution....

Once upon a time a technician made a remark that has stuck with me
forever..'If it were that easy, we would all have done it years ago'


And that is a salient point here. The principles of all this
'alternative energy' have been established for years,. And yet no one
has made a commercial success ...Trillions have been thrown in, and
yet the technology cannot survive without subsidy.

Golly gosh, if it were that easy we would have done it years ago.




+1

I was looking up some CEGB Research Division "glossies" from the 70's
and 80's the other day. They did quite a bit of research on wind,
geothermal, photovoltaic, and wave power before confirming that they
were all miles away from being commercial. Hydro is a no brainer pretty
much anywhere there is a suitable water supply. And of course pumped
storage is a big winner too.

Around IIRC 1999. I was guest at a convention aimed at bringing
advocates of 'alternative energy' together with city banker and fund
managers.

There were several interesting power point sessions from various
representatives of green leaning oil companies and so on, and I asked a
lot of questions....

.....When we adjourned for a lunch of soggy vol au vents and flat
sparkling wine, a gentleman sat at my table and in a thick German accent
he addressed me..

"You unnerstand zis technology ja?"
"A little"
"So, tell me straight, is there any of this that is making money without
government subsidy?"

I thought for a considerable time.

"No".

"Thank you!" He beamed. "I am to London going now, I have been here
before. We put money in, the government pays, we try and take a little
profit, and the government says you are making too much profit, and we
never get our money back. Good bye, and thank you".

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 27/05/2017 01:21, Huge wrote:
On 2017-05-26, rick wrote:
On 05/05/2017 19:42, AnthonyL wrote:
I was watching the early development of electricity generation and
houses had their own coal fired generators before power distribution
became widespread.



was a lot of noise about CHP units a few years ago ... not sure how
they have progressed

They haven't. They aren't economic.


Usually CHP schemes require 'high' cap ex and a lot of maintenance.

Some CHP schemes did seem to be viable on paper but long payback periods
and de-industrialisation put paid to widespread take up.

On 5/27/2017 8:05 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/17 19:50, newshound wrote:
On 5/27/2017 1:31 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/17 12:44, rick wrote:
On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because
they represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when
the wind is blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi
boiler ... assume it has not progressed.

Probably not. Along with the solar revolution, the battery
revolution, the hydrogen revolution, the smart grid revolution, the
wind power revolution the tidal power revolution, the run of river
turbine revolution, the biofuel revolution....

Once upon a time a technician made a remark that has stuck with me
forever..'If it were that easy, we would all have done it years ago'


And that is a salient point here. The principles of all this
'alternative energy' have been established for years,. And yet no one
has made a commercial success ...Trillions have been thrown in, and
yet the technology cannot survive without subsidy.

Golly gosh, if it were that easy we would have done it years ago.




+1

I was looking up some CEGB Research Division "glossies" from the 70's
and 80's the other day. They did quite a bit of research on wind,
geothermal, photovoltaic, and wave power before confirming that they
were all miles away from being commercial. Hydro is a no brainer
pretty much anywhere there is a suitable water supply. And of course
pumped storage is a big winner too.

Around IIRC 1999. I was guest at a convention aimed at bringing
advocates of 'alternative energy' together with city banker and fund
managers.

There were several interesting power point sessions from various
representatives of green leaning oil companies and so on, and I asked a
lot of questions....

....When we adjourned for a lunch of soggy vol au vents and flat
sparkling wine, a gentleman sat at my table and in a thick German accent
he addressed me..

"You unnerstand zis technology ja?"
"A little"
"So, tell me straight, is there any of this that is making money without
government subsidy?"

I thought for a considerable time.

"No".

"Thank you!" He beamed. "I am to London going now, I have been here
before. We put money in, the government pays, we try and take a little
profit, and the government says you are making too much profit, and we
never get our money back. Good bye, and thank you".


:-)

On 27/05/2017 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/17 12:44, rick wrote:
On 26/05/2017 23:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Of course the wind power companies want them closed down, because
they represent a source of energy that cant be switched off when the
wind is blowing

There was a lot of discussion on something smaller than a Combi boiler
... assume it has not progressed.

Probably not. Along with the solar revolution, the battery revolution,
the hydrogen revolution, the smart grid revolution, the wind power
revolution the tidal power revolution, the run of river turbine

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/chp-bo...-buyers-guide/