New old way of power generation.

[Incendia]

I had an idea...[I doubt anyone will be interested however...no one here listens to my ideas...Maybe it's because you all think they are stupid or not worth talking about...instead of ignoring me could you at least tell me why you ignore them...(in a nice way...)]

 

I was wondering why industries such as agriculture and apiculture have not yet converged like consumer products have and I was doing research on blast furnaces and came up with a way of boosting the purpose and efficiency of them.

 

The heat inside a blast furnace reaches far above 100 degrees C which is all that is necessary for power generation. [using steam to move a turbine]

 

The heat is only used to extract the metal from metal ores...what a waste.

 

I don't know enough to see whether this would work but why not have [preferable pre-heated somehow...they pre-heat the air blown into the furnace...]

water pipes running around the furnace. The heat would cause the water to boil which would create steam that could be used to turn a turbine to generate power.

 

Or the waste gases which rise from the furnace to be used to pre-heat air which is to be blown into the furnace could be used to spin a turbine as it rises...It would have to be heat resistant.

 

The only problem I see with the water pipes method is that it could take heat from the furnace causing it to become less efficient but I see no problems with my waste gas turbine so far. Do the gases rising from the smoke outlet move fast enough to turn a turbine?

 

Why don't coal power plants siphon the power of the rising steam of the cooling towers?

 

Perhaps before cleaned gases go through a gas cooler then could be used to boil water to power a turbine which powers a motor generating power.

It seems to me that there are a lot of missed opportunities to increase efficiency and maximise the usefulness of blast furnaces and steam/waste gas outlet towers.

 

[bonus question: Does a car exhaust eject pollution fast enough to turn a small turbine and turn a small motor? It could be used to charge the car battery if it does.]

 

[Yes I know I don't use '...'s in the right way...It's a habit...I only write like this on the internet for some reason...]

[ydoaPs]

It depends how hot the water can get. At atmospheric pressure, 100C would produce a very wet vapor(even after moisture separation) which would cause damage to the pipes and turbines. This vapor would get wetter as it goes through the pipes as well. Most steam turbines use WAY higher pressure than that, so the water needs to be far higher temperature to even make steam.

[rigney]

Don't sell yourself short lad. If you are into engineering in any way, take a few classes in PSO mechanics. Power Steam Operations. They are nothing new since Fulton instituted the idea in his first steam boat, and it likely goes back much farther than that, but who's counting. Like ydoaPs says, there are many things to consider in putting your ideas on the plus side of the ledger. Your thoughts aren't novel, but they do need refinement. Remember, even the Wright brothers were thought to be nuts. Don't ever give up on your ideas. Who knows? By the way, Dr. W. Deming once referred to the Japanese work ethic as an apian hotel, sort of along your line of thought. Getting the cultures together. This guy knew what it was all about. Not steam necessarily, but "efficency", efficency and efficency.

 

Edited December 10, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Actually, I'm not sure this idea is feasible. I forgot about pumps. I don't think you could extract enough waste energy to make a self-sustaining steam plant.

[Mr Skeptic]

I was wondering why industries such as agriculture and apiculture have not yet converged like consumer products have and I was doing research on blast furnaces and came up with a way of boosting the purpose and efficiency of them.

 

Usually when someone says something like this, either they made some bad mistake with their calculations or knowledge of physics, or they have independently thought up something someone else did long ago. This is an example of the second case.

 

It can be used for power generation with a hot enough source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_steam_generator

 

Alternately, on lukewarm water it can be used to instead save on heating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_heat_recycling

 

And of course there's also the option of using that heat to pump into an underground steam tunnel system, basically an enormous "cooling tower" which people appreciate having in their homes.

 

Of course, in practice there's also economic considerations, which might be problematic, or maybe just that people were being apathetic.

[rigney]

Actually, I'm not sure this idea is feasible. I forgot about pumps. I don't think you could extract enough waste energy to make a self-sustaining steam plant.

 

True. All you can ever hope for is the ultimate in efficency of a system. And you can never get more out of it; than what is put into it. Edited December 10, 2010 by rigney

[Incendia]

It depends how hot the water can get. At atmospheric pressure, 100C would produce a very wet vapor(even after moisture separation) which would cause damage to the pipes and turbines. This vapor would get wetter as it goes through the pipes as well. Most steam turbines use WAY higher pressure than that, so the water needs to be far higher temperature to even make steam.

 

There are water-proof pipes and water-proof turbines. If there weren't then coal-fired plants wouldn't work. It can get to over 1200 degrees C inside the furnace.

 

I don't have time to reply to the other things above.

[ydoaPs]

There are water-proof pipes and water-proof turbines.

No, and no. Water hammer is a bitch.

 

If there weren't then coal-fired plants wouldn't work. It can get to over 1200 degrees C inside the furnace.

Most coal plants use superheated steam.

 

True. All you can ever hope for is the ultimate in efficency of a system. And you can never get more out of it; than what is put into it.

In this case, what you put into it would be waste heat anyway. I don't see the point of running the pumps from mains power. If you can make the plant self-sustaining, it'd be great, if not, I don't really see why you'd do it.

 

The nuke plants I worked only used mains power while offline or starting up.

[rigney]

There are water-proof pipes and water-proof turbines. If there weren't then coal-fired plants wouldn't work. It can get to over 1200 degrees C inside the furnace.

 

I don't have time to reply to the other things above.

 

Actually, in this case it's considered a boiler! I did work a couple months at Ohio Southern Chemical Co., in Barberton, Ohio; many years ago. To this day I have no idea why I was there, or even the product they were making, other than steam? The old boy showing me the ropes on my first day, took me up about five levels, picked up what I thought to be pieces of an orange crate, handed me one and we began walking the length of what was five huge boilers. But before we started, he said to me: hold that piece of wood out in front of you boy and wave it up and down. He then explained to me that the steam could cut you in half. Hell! The rest of my time there I spent digging ditchs. Validity? I really don't know how true his words were, but I didn't climb around on those boilers any more. Jobs were plentiful back in nineteen fifty two. I just went out and got another one. Below are a couple charts describing temps and steam pressures.

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/safety-valves-high-pressure-steam-d_833.html

Edited December 10, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Validity? I really don't know how true his words were, but I didn't climb around on those boilers any more.

A superheated steam leak can cut you to pieces; it's dangerous stuff.

[lemur]

I once toured a 19th century foundry. It described how many people were required to go around the surrounding forests with horse and cart cutting wood to power the foundry. I imagine that the heavy work of cutting and hauling the wood warmed up the workers, and they probably didn't mind arriving at the foundry while it was in operation. I believe it was Poor Richard's Almanac where Ben Franklin wrote that it is possible to stay warm all day with one log of wood: 1) carry the wood upstairs 2)throw it out the window 3)go back downstairs 4)goto step #1 (or something to this effect). I guess this is a diversion from the OP's idea but no matter how many ideas I try to think up for consolidating energy utilization, I can never get over the underutilization of bio-energy in the form of individual metabolism. You could, however, build a sauna-annex onto steam-plants to give people a break from the cold. What would be the harm in that?

[ewmon]

why industries such as agriculture and apiculture have not yet converged

They are cooperative industries, but it's not clear how much more converging they can do.

 

It seems to me that there are a lot of missed opportunities to increase efficiency and maximise the usefulness of blast furnaces and steam/waste gas outlet towers.

...

car exhaust ... turn[ing] a small turbine and turn a small motor ... to charge the car battery.

It seems most companies aim to do one thing really well to keep their profit/investment ratio high in order to satisfy capitalistic needs. Adding on a less-profitable collateral business would "dilute" their profit ratio, confuse investors, etc. For example, FedEx or UPS, which delivers packages and letters during the day, could deliver pizzas, Chinese, and other fast foods during the second shift instead of letting all those trucks sit overnight in their company parking lots!

 

Companies that produce iron, steel, aluminum etc may not want to bother with new-fangled equipment that produces some electrical power, even if it is for their own consumption (instead of selling it back to the electric power company. It's not their field of expertise, it doesn't involve a proven method, there's no such equipment already in service, etc. It would involve a big learning curve and ramping up process that may not appeal to the company's directors, management, employees or stockholders.

 

This is where government grants, subsidies and support comes in (to help make big changes happen).

[lemur]

It seems most companies aim to do one thing really well to keep their profit/investment ratio high in order to satisfy capitalistic needs. Adding on a less-profitable collateral business would "dilute" their profit ratio, confuse investors, etc. For example, FedEx or UPS, which delivers packages and letters during the day, could deliver pizzas, Chinese, and other fast foods during the second shift instead of letting all those trucks sit overnight in their company parking lots!

 

Companies that produce iron, steel, aluminum etc may not want to bother with new-fangled equipment that produces some electrical power, even if it is for their own consumption (instead of selling it back to the electric power company. It's not their field of expertise, it doesn't involve a proven method, there's no such equipment already in service, etc. It would involve a big learning curve and ramping up process that may not appeal to the company's directors, management, employees or stockholders.

 

This is where government grants, subsidies and support comes in (to help make big changes happen).

I don't know that grants/subsidies/support are ultimately conducive to development of innovations when they are met with resistance on the basis of beliefs about economic structure and order. As you mention, division of economic labor/function causes people to view it as natural for one industry/company to specialize and deviation from the specialty/concentration is seen as a liability. In businesses where this is the case, the only viable solution would seem to be to promote (price) competition among competitors (by anti-trust if necessary) to shrink profit-margins to a level where companies see the value in increasing efficiency even where it is a challenge and/or a pain.

 

Ultimately necessity is the mother of invention, so if you want invention/innovation it would probably help to breed some necessity.

Edited December 10, 2010 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

I had an idea...[I doubt anyone will be interested however...no one here listens to my ideas...Maybe it's because you all think they are stupid or not worth talking about...instead of ignoring me could you at least tell me why you ignore them...(in a nice way...)]

That's because you try to invent things that already exist.

 

The idea to use waste heat is already very popular in industry. The problem is most of the time one of the following:

 

1. It's too expensive. The investment is too high and the payback time is too long.

2. It's too complicated, which results in an investment that is too expensive (see: 1.)

3. The temperature of the waste heat is too low.

4. It interferes with the process.

5. Management thinks it's not worth the risk.

 

I'm afraid that using waste heat in a steel factory is mostly a problem with 1. and 2. because the hot material that needs to cool down is mostly gas or a solid. Gases have a very poor heat transfer coefficient, resulting in very large heat exchangers (expensive!). Solids are just a nightmare in general for heat exchanging. So many practical problems (result: too expensive).

 

But do not be discouraged because you have ideas that are not new. All engineers start like that. You're training the technical creativity that you need later. Keep it up!

Edited December 10, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[A Tripolation]

Actually, I'm not sure this idea is feasible. I forgot about pumps. I don't think you could extract enough waste energy to make a self-sustaining steam plant.

 

 

True. All you can ever hope for is the ultimate in efficency of a system. And you can never get more out of it; than what is put into it.

 

Most work producing devices, such as heat engines like steam turbines, have efficiencies under 40 percent.

 

I don't think steam power plants can have 100% efficiency. The maximum efficiency a steam power plant operating between [math] T_H = 1000K [/math] and [math] T_L = 300K [/math] as by [math] \eta_{th, rev} = 1 - \frac{T_L}{T_H} [/math], is approximately 70%. A purely reversible process that would deliver the most work isn't feasible at all.

 

I could be mistaken though...

Edited December 12, 2010 by A Tripolation