Perhaps I should sleep on this as it just occured to me and I may be missing something obvious, however I would greatly appreciate feedback on this. I will give the background on what led me to this which I hope won't be overly boring, would just say if I am right I beleive this to be rather important.
So I was reading up on using abandoned oil wells for geothermal power. Tesla I beleive also mentioned this approach and noted you could use water or "ether" as the circulating fluid. Tesla also mentioned using more shallow wells for more localized energy production an approach not conventionally portrayed as feasible. From there I stumbled into Bob Hunt of Renewable Energy LLC, his attempts to commercialize exactly this abandoned oil well approach and a video talking about some of his work and research. TEDxAustin - Bob Hunt - 02/20/10 - YouTube!
From the little bit of reading I have been able to do, I am beginning to be able to hazard a very rough guess at how some one approaches issues and/or the possible influences on his approach. So when Bob Hunt mentioned things like working how nature does and living water, I paid close attention to his thinking. He noted for instance that turning water into steam and gathering the energy from a well is analogous to what is going on with the oceans to the rivers to hydroelectric plants already. He also had a strange proposal for a plane which flew by having a phase change between liquid and gas based on the termperature differential of the atmosphere and the resulting change in buoyancy of the craft.
So yes I think there is tremendous potential for helping solve the energy crisis through hydroelectric remediation of abandoned oil wells, and without anyone yelling that it can't be possible, however that is not why I am writing. I next was wondering if there are even easier ways to find that "neccessary" temperature differential for geothermal power eventually concluding that I couldn't easily think of any. There is where a very odd bit of reasoning occured. Let's revisit Bob's idea for his plane, and even simplify it to a balloon where there is a change between liquid and gas in the bouyancy compartment. Would such an approach work? Would a balloon bobbing up and down in the atmosphere be considered as potentially doing work? What is the temperature differential involved?
To boil all this down (oops sorry), the energy in geothermal or for that matter a steam engine doen't come primarily from the degree of temperature difference it comes from the phase change of the working fluid, i.e. liquid to gas. On the one hand this seems vaguely scientifically heretical to me, on the other commonsenically if there is no water in the boiler of a steam engine it is immaterial how hot the fire is. We also know that the energy released in this phase change is enormous, the volume occupied by the material going up by orders of magnitude. The force with which this gas wishes to expand can be seen when considering the neccessity for steam locomotive engineers to pay attention to boiler pressure lest they blow the thick cast iron reaction chamber up, or more recently the infrequent explosions of large building's hot water boilers.
However at 210 F(99 C) there is no work being done, at 214F (101 C) you have to release steam or have problems. The fire chamber might almost be viewed as a catalyst to bring about the phase change. So bear with me now, if the work is being done primarily by the phase change and not the termperature differential, well there are substances with different boiling points. Propane boils at -44F, Oxygen at -297F, octane at 258F, lead at 3,180F. Isopentane boils at 82-83F, Trichlorofluoromethane at 73.4F. Once again, it appears to me that the work is done by the massive volume expansion in going from liquid to gas, not an arbitrary temperature obtained or a large differential between the working fluid's initial and final temperatures. In conventional geothermal systems the gas is reliquified through a heat sink and, I believe, often used as a closed loop system. What would happen if you heated trichlorofluoromethane to 120 F, captured the steam (volume expansion) energy and cooled the gas in some pipes in the ground? If one filled a locomtive's boiler with trichlorofluoromethane and heated the chamber to 120F would the locomotive run?? What am I missing? Is my reaoning in error? Thx
Paul
So I was reading up on using abandoned oil wells for geothermal power. Tesla I beleive also mentioned this approach and noted you could use water or "ether" as the circulating fluid. Tesla also mentioned using more shallow wells for more localized energy production an approach not conventionally portrayed as feasible. From there I stumbled into Bob Hunt of Renewable Energy LLC, his attempts to commercialize exactly this abandoned oil well approach and a video talking about some of his work and research. TEDxAustin - Bob Hunt - 02/20/10 - YouTube!
From the little bit of reading I have been able to do, I am beginning to be able to hazard a very rough guess at how some one approaches issues and/or the possible influences on his approach. So when Bob Hunt mentioned things like working how nature does and living water, I paid close attention to his thinking. He noted for instance that turning water into steam and gathering the energy from a well is analogous to what is going on with the oceans to the rivers to hydroelectric plants already. He also had a strange proposal for a plane which flew by having a phase change between liquid and gas based on the termperature differential of the atmosphere and the resulting change in buoyancy of the craft.
So yes I think there is tremendous potential for helping solve the energy crisis through hydroelectric remediation of abandoned oil wells, and without anyone yelling that it can't be possible, however that is not why I am writing. I next was wondering if there are even easier ways to find that "neccessary" temperature differential for geothermal power eventually concluding that I couldn't easily think of any. There is where a very odd bit of reasoning occured. Let's revisit Bob's idea for his plane, and even simplify it to a balloon where there is a change between liquid and gas in the bouyancy compartment. Would such an approach work? Would a balloon bobbing up and down in the atmosphere be considered as potentially doing work? What is the temperature differential involved?
To boil all this down (oops sorry), the energy in geothermal or for that matter a steam engine doen't come primarily from the degree of temperature difference it comes from the phase change of the working fluid, i.e. liquid to gas. On the one hand this seems vaguely scientifically heretical to me, on the other commonsenically if there is no water in the boiler of a steam engine it is immaterial how hot the fire is. We also know that the energy released in this phase change is enormous, the volume occupied by the material going up by orders of magnitude. The force with which this gas wishes to expand can be seen when considering the neccessity for steam locomotive engineers to pay attention to boiler pressure lest they blow the thick cast iron reaction chamber up, or more recently the infrequent explosions of large building's hot water boilers.
However at 210 F(99 C) there is no work being done, at 214F (101 C) you have to release steam or have problems. The fire chamber might almost be viewed as a catalyst to bring about the phase change. So bear with me now, if the work is being done primarily by the phase change and not the termperature differential, well there are substances with different boiling points. Propane boils at -44F, Oxygen at -297F, octane at 258F, lead at 3,180F. Isopentane boils at 82-83F, Trichlorofluoromethane at 73.4F. Once again, it appears to me that the work is done by the massive volume expansion in going from liquid to gas, not an arbitrary temperature obtained or a large differential between the working fluid's initial and final temperatures. In conventional geothermal systems the gas is reliquified through a heat sink and, I believe, often used as a closed loop system. What would happen if you heated trichlorofluoromethane to 120 F, captured the steam (volume expansion) energy and cooled the gas in some pipes in the ground? If one filled a locomtive's boiler with trichlorofluoromethane and heated the chamber to 120F would the locomotive run?? What am I missing? Is my reaoning in error? Thx
Paul
Comment