Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Engineers Are Building a Power Station At the South Pole

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the cold-work dept.

Power 108

KentuckyFC writes "One of the more ambitious projects at the South Pole is the Askaryan Radio Array, a set of radio antennas under the ice that will listen for the tell tale signals of high energy neutrinos passing by. This array will eventually be over a thousand times bigger than the current largest neutrino detector: Icecube, which monitors a cubic kilometer of ice next door to the planned new observatory. But there's a problem. How do you supply 24/7 power to dozens of detectors spread over such a vast area in the middle of the Antarctic? The answer is renewable energy power stations that exploit the sun during the summer and the wind all year round. The first of these stations is now up and running at the South Pole and producing power. It is also helping to uncover and iron out the various problems that these stations are likely to encounter. For example; where to put the batteries needed to supply continuous power when all else fails. The team's current approach is to bury the battery to protect it from temperature extremes. That works well but makes maintenance so difficult that scaling this approach to dozens of power stations doesn't seem feasible. That's a problem for the future but for the moment, green power has finally come to the white continent."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The answer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46449961)

Is obviously nuclear power.

Re:The answer? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450133)

Is obviously nuclear power.

Actually, it has already been done. There was a nuclear power plant [usap.gov] at McMurdo Station Antarctica from 1962-1972. It was shut down as it proved to be not cost effective, at least with the then current technology. Perhaps today, the economics have changed.

Re:The answer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450191)

Nuclear power using thermoelectric devices should reach nearly 50% efficiency there.

This is the obvious solution.

Re:The answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451243)

If it's so obvious, why don't you write an NSF grant proposal and do it?

Re:The answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451785)

If you think you can do better start your own company and Draft it and Build it

Re:The answer? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453453)

Wind power is far beyond 75% effective.
Otoh: effectiveness is pretty irrelevant if your process costs no fuel.

Re:The answer? (1)

_Ludwig (86077) | about 7 months ago | (#46450811)

The Russians are building floating nuclear power stations [wikipedia.org] to be deployed to the Arctic.

Re:The answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451061)

that shouldn't be too hard...nuclear subs.

Re:The answer? (1)

fuzzywig (208937) | about 7 months ago | (#46453269)

The Russians already have about half a dozen nuclear powered ice breakers [wikipedia.org] , and they used to use nuclear power* for remote lighthouses [englishrussia.com] .
*(As far as I can tell, the light houses used RTGs [wikipedia.org] rather than a nuclear reactor)

Re:The answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450817)

Is obviously nuclear power.

Actually, it has already been done. There was a nuclear power plant [usap.gov] at McMurdo Station Antarctica from 1962-1972. It was shut down as it proved to be not cost effective, at least with the then current technology. Perhaps today, the economics have changed.

It also leaked, so there's that too. Antarctica is nuclear free now anyway so there won't be any power plants for a while.

Re:The answer? no local neutrino source (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451035)

When you're running neutrino detectors, having operating fission reactors is a major source of noise.
Look at Japan, where the shutdown after Fukushima improved neutrino detection:
http://www.nature.com/news/detectors-zero-in-on-earth-s-heat-1.12707

"A window on the deep Earth opened unexpectedly in 2011, when Japan’s nuclear reactors were shut down after the Fukushima disaster. Before the closure, an underground particle detector called KamLAND based in Kamioka, Japan, was monitoring a torrent of neutrinos streaming from dozens of nearby nuclear reactors, seeking clues to the nature of these hard-to-catch subatomic particles. After those plants fell silent, KamLAND scientists could see more clearly a signal that had largely been obscured: a faint trickle of neutrinos produced inside the planet."

Re:The answer? (4, Informative)

forand (530402) | about 7 months ago | (#46451743)

One cannot put a nuclear reactor on Antarctica at this point by international treaty: you can neither store nor dispose of waste there and taking it offsite costs too much. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/ant... [nsf.gov]

Re:The answer? (1)

Toad-san (64810) | about 7 months ago | (#46456381)

An RTG wouldn't produce any waste, being completely self-contained. The Soviets used them for years to power lighthouses and other remote sites, as did the USAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]

The objection might be price, since I have no idea how much a 100W or 200W RTG would cost. But you'd save all the manpower costs and risks of having to build something, they're quite tough and immune to most meteorological conditions, and easily replaced at the end of their life cycles (10 years in the case of the most common Soviet ones).

As I understand it, no one says you can't have a nuclear power plant (especially an RTG) in Antarctica. McMurdo had one for a decade (albeit with problems).

http://www.takepart.com/articl... [takepart.com]

So these RTG's should do just fine .. if they can afford it.

Ob (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 7 months ago | (#46449971)

From shoggoths?

Microwaves? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450007)

Why not microwave transmission? Line of sight should be relatively easy to deal with over there. Not a lot of buildings in the way.

Re:Microwaves? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450095)

You do understand this is the South Pole, correct? Motherfucking penguins are the tallest thing around.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450675)

You do understand this is the South Pole, correct? Motherfucking penguins are the tallest thing around.

MOM! STAY AWAY FROM THE PENGU... NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450127)

Umm, what? This is a neutrino detector, not a communication system

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Kurast (1662819) | about 7 months ago | (#46450185)

He meant microwaves for transmitting power, not for communication.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450135)

Why not microwave transmission? Line of sight should be relatively easy to deal with over there. Not a lot of buildings in the way.

Clouds, snow?

Re:Microwaves? (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46450363)

Curvature of the earth?

Interesting idea, but simply NOT workable.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46450477)

The answer is obvious - transmit power by AM radio so that it can reflect off the ionosphere. I'm sure a few hundred megawatts of localized energy reflection won't cause any unintentional side effects...

Re:Microwaves? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450621)

Curvature of the earth?

Interesting idea, but simply NOT workable.

http://ara.wipac.wisc.edu/home [wisc.edu] 6 kilometer radius.
The Earth's curvature results in less than 3 meters of drop from the center to the furthest station, so it actually works in your favor.

Re:Microwaves? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450473)

Why not microwave transmission? Line of sight should be relatively easy to deal with over there. Not a lot of buildings in the way.

Clouds, snow?

Clouds are much higher than you'd need to build the towers for LoS.

Precipitation isn't an issue either. Antarctica gets only 6.5 inches of precipitation a year, almost all of it snow. The air is also very dry. Remember - Antarctica is a desert. You would need only a very small amount of battery capacity at each endpoint to handle interruptions due to weather.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450705)

They don't get much new precipitation, but the blowing snow creates horrible visibility during storms. This has been a massive problem for much more mundane activities, like preventing buildings from being buried under the blowing snow.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450761)

Why not microwave transmission? Line of sight should be relatively easy to deal with over there. Not a lot of buildings in the way.

Clouds, snow?

Clouds are much higher than you'd need to build the towers for LoS.

Precipitation isn't an issue either. Antarctica gets only 6.5 inches of precipitation a year, almost all of it snow. The air is also very dry. Remember - Antarctica is a desert. You would need only a very small amount of battery capacity at each endpoint to handle interruptions due to weather.

It's not a question of precipitation, but wind... (http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/education/activities/pdf/2508_warnings_02.pdf [pbs.org] )... the white stuff is already there, ready to be blown around.

Re: Microwaves? (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 7 months ago | (#46450883)

How much is a small amount, the wind generators are the worst idea,but maybe if they put a building up they could start a static field generator, off their speed,have read that there is enough wind there, and maybe they should go with an airoil generator.but those are 24 volt. But the most reliable generator's are usually manned year round,just because there is/are problems that occur,being their extreme tempreture swing, I would bet on many circuit failures to startups from cold temp bleed.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46450197)

You still need to get pwoer to the station that's send the microwave energy.
Plus ther ewould be more losses.

Or did you mean from space? In that case:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHhahaha

Re:Microwaves? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450423)

Right, so you have one power station that distributes power over a wide range.
Kind of like how most of the rest of the world does it.
Instead of laying cables that drop to locations all over the place, you just erect endpoint receivers. They don't even have to be that tall because they're nothing else out there.

Seems a lot better than having many smaller power generation installations (at each endpoint).

Re:Microwaves? (4, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46450587)

>Kind of like how most of the rest of the world does it.

Sorry, but no. There's a world of difference between power lines and microwaves - as best I can tell microwave power transmission is currently at the proof of concept stage - "In 2008 a long range transmission experiment successfully transmitted 20 watts 92 miles (148 km) from a mountain on Maui to the main island of Hawaii." Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

There's also a reason you usually only hear serious proposals in relation to space-based power generation - that pesky old inverse-square law means that the power density diffuses in two dimensions - if you need an antenna a mile wide to catch the bulk of the energy, but it's only 1/10th of a mile tall, then you're throwing away 9/10 of the energy. Alternately if you can manage a tight enough focus to receive megawatts of power with a small antenna array, then everything else that happens to get in the way will likely be cooked alive. When the transmitter is in space that's much less of an issue - large flat antennas covering many acres are a much easier engineering challenge than towering monstrosities, allowing relatively diffuse power densities. Also there's essentially zero overshoot - any energy not captured by your antennas will hit the ground beneath it - absorbed or reflected it's not much of an issue for the guy down the street, though it might be exciting having your antarctic power station melting it's way into the glacier...

Re:Microwaves? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46451739)

Late last year the room temperature MASER was developed - the thing that all those wireless power freaks that don't understand about losses have been pretending existed for years. It may be a game changer, but some of the problems you mention above are still going to hold.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46454263)

Late last year the room temperature MASER was developed - the thing that all those wireless power freaks that don't understand about losses have been pretending existed for years. It may be a game changer, but some of the problems you mention above are still going to hold.

inverse square law does not apply if the transmitting and receiving antenna's near fields overlap

Re:Microwaves? (1)

vandamme (1893204) | about 7 months ago | (#46455647)

Microwave transmission has been proposed for many years, ever since magnetrons were invented, but never gets past the proof of concept stage, if it even gets past the back of the envelope calculation stage. The inefficiencies are too high.

Disclaimer: I'm a high power microwave transmitter engineer.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453383)

How big do you want to make that 'end point receiver'?

Microwave beams spread out, just like any other 'light beam' ... the energy loss by spreading goes with the square of the distance.

1km away you likely have lost 90% already, microwaves are certainly the worst thinkable form of energy transfer in a point to point manner.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46450383)

Ummm... You want to build towers out in the middle of nowhere tens and hundreds of miles away and use microwaves to send usable amounts of power between them?

Obviously not going to work. Full Stop.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450431)

Ummm... You want to build towers out in the middle of nowhere tens and hundreds of miles away and use microwaves to send usable amounts of power between them?

Obviously not going to work. Full Stop.

The towers don't have to be that tall. There's not much blocking LoS.
They're currently building and maintaining power generation sites at each endpoint. There's no need to if they use microwaves.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46450499)

Communications doesn't seem to be the problem, power distribution over long distances was the problem.

Re: Microwaves? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450557)

You have a problem admitting you're wrong.

You're new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450905)

He always does. Every single thread, he'll form an opinion in 0.02s flat and once locked into brain, he'll argue it until the end of time. He doesn't double down on the derp, he'll gazillion downs the derp. Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:Microwaves? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 7 months ago | (#46450889)

They need to be tall enough to not cook any passers by.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46451761)

The towers don't have to be that tall. There's not much blocking LoS

I hearby withdraw my earlier comments that flat-earther idiots never existed.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 7 months ago | (#46452921)

One thing to keep in mind is that these towers would be set in ice that is moving so they would have to realigned regularly. The ice at the South Pole is moving about 10 meters per year toward the Weddell Sea.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

fuzzywig (208937) | about 7 months ago | (#46453277)

They want to cover about 6km^2, so they might be able to find one chunk of ice that is all moving in one piece.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46450665)

That is exactly what most space-based solar power proposals do, though the hundreds to tens of thousands (for geostationary) of miles away is up instead of across, which simplifies the receiving antenna a fair bit (flat on the ground, with no worry of power overshoot). You can't beam power in a non-diffusing column, but with a large enough transmitter you can focus it to a fairly tight point at any distance you like, at least theoretically.

We don't have the technology to do such a thing *today* though, we're barely managing to send a few tens of watts less than a hundred miles.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453397)

The opposite is true, ofc we have the technology to do that!
What we not have is the will (and money / and launch capacity) to build up such a space station to beam down the power.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46454043)

Not really - as best I can tell microwave power beaming is very much in the proof of concept phase - they managed to beam 20 watts 90 miles recently. Still just a *little* ways to go to get to beaming gigawatts hundreds to tens of thousands of miles. 22,000 miles if we want the targeting system to be mostly static instead of trying to focus on a series of receiving stations while it zooms overhead.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46454971)

It does not matter what experiment you refer to.
It is super simple to transmit energy via microwaves, the aiming, focusing and reconverting into electricity without to much loss is the concern.
Beaming down from orbit would likely only make sense from GEO or beyond, there is not much to track then.
You have sender of a few dozen meters diameter and beam on an area of a few km diameter.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46455717)

By that logic fusion power is easy, we've already made plenty of devices that employ it. It's only the controlled release of energy and the conversion to electricity that's hard.

Power transmission generally refers to the complete end-to-end system - i.e. transmission hasn't meaningfully occurred until you can plug in an appliance at the destination. I agree that near-GEO orbits are the way to go for ease of targetting, but that increases the transmission range by two orders of magnitude. If we've managed 90 miles with decent efficiency (I have no idea what the efficiency was, maybe they transmitted several kW and only received 20W) then power transmission to/from LEO should be feasible if we can manage the targetting issue. But trying to extend the same technology to 22,000 miles is a not-trivial feat of engineering. Remember the old adage "In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is"

Re:Microwaves? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46458285)

Sigh ...
The farer away, thea easyer!
LEO is hard, GEO is simple.

The efficiency problem can not be solved, it is like beaming light on a solar cell, exactly the same problem.

If the beam spreads wider than the antenna is, then everything that is not hitting, is lost. And even if all would hit, the antenna/solar cell won't convet 100%.

This is the only problem, everything else: creating the beam, transmitting it, receiving it, transforming it back are simple tasks.
I agree that near-GEO orbits are the way to go for ease of targetting, but that increases the transmission range by two orders of magnitude.

The range costs you nothing, you only need a bigger antenna. For that you inly need a big wire mesh over a grain field (granted, several km in diameter)

For a GEO satelite/power plant we only lack launch capabilities and building skills ... the rest is simple.

And like some others pointed out: you could use a MASER instead of 'ordinary' microwaves, a coherent 'Laser' like microwave beam. That would cause less spread of the beam.

Re:Microwaves? (2)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 7 months ago | (#46450443)

But there are mountains. Lots of them.

Re:Microwaves? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#46450495)

Actually there aren't in the area they plan to work in.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451177)

Look guy. Let it go. You're wrong. If p2p microwave power transmission were a viable, efficient form of supplying power then we'd have already seen such systems in use out in the desert or across some prairies. We don't. The tech isn't mature yet. Maybe one day, though I doubt it, but today is not that day.

Re:Microwaves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46452289)

Actually there aren't in the area they plan to work in.

Assuming that you're beaming from McMurdo, you've got the transantarctic mountains and the 4.8km (15,700ft) East Antarctic Ice Sheet that block your line of sight. Even if you're beaming from the coast of East Antarctica, the icesheet would still block your line of sight and you'd need to build a tall (5km+) transmission tower to get line of sight; as SHF and higher can't be bounced or ducted like UHF or lower. Even if you had a relay system you'd need to constantly readjust your aim to each point, as the ice sheets are continually moving at differing rates (e.g. The South Pole Marker at Amundsen Scott has to be moved every few years) . Considering the distances involved and the environment in Antarctica, this system is highly impractical and wouldn't get passed the other Antarctic Treaty Signatories. (Sorry if this is a repost, beta sucks)

Re:Microwaves? (1)

cwsumner (1303261) | about 7 months ago | (#46455411)

Microwave power spreads out too much. It would be like trying to read a magazine by flashlight, when your friend was holding the flashlight across the street!
Plus, I don't think the scientists there would like to be irradiated by highpower microwaves, like a sandwich in the Microwave oven.

A power station at the South Pole? (1)

tooslickvan (1061814) | about 7 months ago | (#46450019)

That sounds very cool.

Re:A power station at the South Pole? (1)

polar red (215081) | about 7 months ago | (#46452777)

It's definatly not the first : the belgian 'princess elisabeth station' has some wind turbines and an array of solar cells, powering the station (also for the heating - of which it does not much need - it is properly insulated). http://www.antarcticstation.or... [antarcticstation.org]

dues ex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450125)

Whatever you do don't get the update.

What's the diesel % on this setup? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450159)

The goal is 95%. My bets are 30% - 70% diesel powered.

Ok - I looked at the article. I now think 80% plus will be diesel. The whole thing looks like about 5kW at most. They have a few toys which will fail in the dead of night (180*24 hours of straight 'night' at the pole), and no one is going to climb the thing to fix it.
"Neither is it clear from this paper that the stations have been able to provide their design goal of 120W of continuous power for 95 per cent of the time."

So has green power come to antartica? no.

Here is the real story:
http://jeffreydonenfeld.com/blog/2012/12/the-south-poles-fuel-supply/

Re:What's the diesel % on this setup? (-1)

The Cat (19816) | about 7 months ago | (#46450263)

The Cat's Law:

Every science, engineering or technology thread on any site frequented by neckbeards will have at least one top-level "it will never work" reply.

The Cat's Corollary:

Every science, engineering or technology thread on any site frequented by neckbeards will have at least one top-level "this is not news because I built one myself that is three orders of magnitude better at half the cost" reply.

Re:What's the diesel % on this setup? (1)

knobsturner_me (1210594) | about 7 months ago | (#46450377)

Well - if you take the time to look at both articles, you would see the utter smallitude of this silly wind system.

Re:What's the diesel % on this setup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46454719)

"Every science, engineering or technology thread from an excited college kid about a trivial accomplishment on any site frequented by neckbeards will have at least one top-level "this is not news because I built one myself that is three orders of magnitude better at half the cost" reply."

Fixed that one for you

Re:What's the diesel % on this setup? (1)

polar red (215081) | about 7 months ago | (#46452781)

>So has green power come to antartica? no.
WRONG : YES. : http://www.antarcticstation.or... [antarcticstation.org]

IF I understand this correctly (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46450177)

They want to know how to generate power at a place that gets lots of sun half the year and has a steady wind?
And they chose solar and wind? wow..shocking.
Stop asking questions that are answered in the in article as a headline.

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

knobsturner_me (1210594) | about 7 months ago | (#46450405)

I don't understand.

How does solar help at all if power demand peaks in the winter and a 6 monthx0.12MW battery would be 'fairly large' to say the least.

How does wind help if the turbine - on which your life depends - is located up a tower at -60C with a 60 km/hr wind?

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46450713)

>How does wind help if the turbine - on which your life depends - is located up a tower at -60C with a 60 km/hr wind?

Umm... I'm guessing it generates power, you know, like it was designed to do? A bitch if it breaks down, but then that's why you have multiple turbines and really warm clothes for the repair.

The solar though, I can only assume the wind tends to die down in the summer, and solar can take up the slack.

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453409)

The temperature is irrelevant (except perhaps for oils to grease the ball bearings, so I assume they use bearings that don't need grease).
Wind speed of 60km/h is nothing.
Modern commercial wind mills shut down beyond 120km/h
Also there are special vertical windmills with vertical blades around a vertical axis ... don't know the english term for those. They are very resistant to high wind speeds.

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 7 months ago | (#46453537)

The temperature is irrelevant ...

Temperature has a very large effect on the storage capacity of the batteries they use to store the generated power until needed. Currently (hah!) they bury the batteries to protect them from 'temperature extremes'. As shown in this PDF [mkbattery.com] , the capacity of a gel cell drops off quickly once you hit about 0C. At -20C you've lost 50% of your capacity.

Too bad they chose a gel battery instead of an AGM one - according to this PDF [mkbattery.com] , the AGM has superior low temp performance, although the gel cell tolerates deep discharges better. "Gel battery power declines faster than an AGM battery as the temperature drops below 32F (0C)."

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453579)

My parent talked about wind turbines, not about batteries.
I would try to run the stuff without batteries, but perhaps the conversion to a stable voltage would than be difficult.
What about insulation and heating for the battery? Would a battery that is constantly loaded and depleeted under good insulation have rather a heat problem than a cold problem?

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 7 months ago | (#46453655)

Page 24 of their paper [arxiv.org] shows an even worse capacity vs temp curve that they arrived at experimentally. They determined that they'd have to provide battery heaters to maintain sufficient battery capacity for their needs.

Re:IF I understand this correctly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46453589)

Those are sometimes called axial wind turbines, or just vertical axis.

Re:IF I understand this correctly (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 7 months ago | (#46454495)

The temperature is irrelevant (except perhaps for oils to grease the ball bearings, so I assume they use bearings that don't need grease).

One of the interesting things is how things interact. If the wind dies down during the summer and picks up during the winter, the motion of the turbines itself generates friction, even with bearings. Depending on how things are, such friction may be enough to keep the grease in a usable temperature range so it's kept at more or less the same temperature year round.

Why not nukes? (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 7 months ago | (#46450211)

Cooling will certainly not be a problem and the geological activity is minimal (if at all present), so earthquakes and tsunamis are out of the question.

Re:Why not nukes? (2)

tlambert (566799) | about 7 months ago | (#46450341)

Cooling will certainly not be a problem and the geological activity is minimal (if at all present), so earthquakes and tsunamis are out of the question.

Nuclear power is frightening, since the U.S. used it to bomb Japan in 1945, and since nobody seems to know what a becquerel is, or they'd quit using it instead of roentgens. Of course becquerels are more fun, because it makes the absolute number 3.7^10 larger than if it were expressed in curies (also not a unit of radiation exposure).

Whee! http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/... [mit.edu]

Re:Why not nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451013)

Cooling will certainly not be a problem and the geological activity is minimal (if at all present), so earthquakes and tsunamis are out of the question.

Nuclear power is frightening, since the U.S. used it to bomb Japan in 1945, and since nobody seems to know what a becquerel is, or they'd quit using it instead of roentgens. Of course becquerels are more fun, because it makes the absolute number 3.7^10 larger than if it were expressed in curies (also not a unit of radiation exposure).

Whee! http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/... [mit.edu]

Sharp pointy sticks are frightening! People have used them to kill other people for millions of years! Don't let anyone in Antarctica have anything to do with pointy sticks!

Cold is frightening! More people have died from freezing to death over the course of human history than have been killed in combat! Don't let anyone in Antarctica when it's cold!

Re:Why not nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450455)

Using a system like on Voyager, using nuclear waste and thermoelectric devices, seems like the perfect solution.

Re:Why not nukes? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46450479)

Hehe...

You DO realize that the south pole station is built on ICE right? It's about 9,000 feet to bedrock there and the whole station moves about 10M/year (north of course.)

Re:Why not nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450571)

What's your point? He doesn't say build a 1000MWe reactor. He indicated why not use nuclear power. You know, like nuclear batteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why not nukes? (3, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#46450581)

The overhead associated with operating a commercial nuclear power plant (maintenance, safety requirements, fuel transport and storage, etc) means they don't become economically viable until you're servicing a population of about a half million. That's what Honolulu doesn't have a nuclear plant even though it'd be almost ideal for their remote location. Currently they get most of their electricity from burning fuel oil, and consequently have the highest electricity prices in the U.S. - about $0.30/kWh vs the national average of $0.12/kWh. Cost on the islands other than Oahu is even higher (about $0.45/kWh) because they have less access to oil and have to rely more on renewables.

With a population of just under 400,000, you couldn't run a small commercial reactor full-power 24/7 as they like to be run. You'd have to ramp it up and down throughout the day, which greatly increases operational costs. In the rest of the country, nuclear provides 24/7 baseline power. Coal plants can ramp up/down more quickly, but it still takes a while so they also provide baseline power. Fluctuations in power use through the day are handled by oil and gas plants (which can ramp up/down almost instantly) and hydro (which can ramp up/down instantly).

A RTG (generates heat through nuclear decay, not an induced nuclear reaction) could work. The Soviets used to power many of their remote lighthouses with them. But the wind in Antarctica is very strong and very consistent, and would seem to be the obvious go-to energy source given the scale and remote location (minimal maintenance crew).

Economic viability? At the South Pole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451469)

What exactly would be economically viable at the South Pole in the first place?

I'm guessing just about nothing.

Re:Why not nukes? (1)

MarkRose (820682) | about 7 months ago | (#46452031)

Load following with a nuclear plant isn't difficult if you can easily control the moderator. This can be controlled by computer. In designs with large negative temperature coefficients (such as LFTR) the reaction speed can be controlled by the rate heat is removed from the reactor, making load following is as simple as controlling the speed of a pump in a coolant loop. Most (all?) current commercial reactors are not designed to habitually operate this way.

Commercial reactors are usually run full power for capital cost recovery reasons. The cost of fuel for nuclear versus the capital cost of current reactors is such that it is always cheaper than the fuel (or storage) for alternative power generation, so in periods of low demand, nuclear wins. Capital costs are high because it is difficult to handle high pressure water (and the 1700 fold expansion in volume if containment is lost) in current commercial designs. Designs using molten salts operate at atmospheric pressure and will be dramatically cheaper to construct. Companies such as Terrestrial Energy [terrestrialenergyinc.com] and Flibe Energy [flibe-energy.com] are working on commercialization of molten salt reactors, which are feasible from megawatts to gigawatts. Such a reactor would be ideal for a remote research base.

Re:Why not nukes? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453425)

Nuclear reactors can only follow load 'to a certain degree'.
Read about neutron poisoning or Xenon poisoning.
Load following with 'one single' reactor e.g is economical impossible.

I don't think so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46452895)

There is plenty of opportunity to load balance rather than change the supply of energy; space heating, water production from ice, water heating. etc would allow for quick immediate load balancing.

Re:Why not nukes? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 months ago | (#46451849)

Actually cooling is a big problem since you can't pump ice. Nuclear at scale is relatively easy with vast amounts of liquid water and a lot harder without.
In a place like the south pole you can expect modes of failure that leave you with no liquid water so you'd have to design the device to cope with that in some way or not involve liquid water at all.

Re:Why not nukes? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 7 months ago | (#46452937)

I think by treaty Antarctica is a nuclear free area.

Small amateur setup (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450343)

Real system is here:
http://jeffreydonenfeld.com/blog/2012/12/the-south-poles-fuel-supply/

The one outlined here looks wimpy and small, 5kW?

Small modular reactors (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 7 months ago | (#46450367)

TFA says "one problem is the continuity of power. The wind speed at the pole averages between 4 and 8 metres per second, depending on the height above the ground. That’s just enough to turn the blades on the wind turbines but it also raises the prospect of periods when the wind is too weak to generate power."

Sounds like a good place to employ a reliable, load-following small modular reactor [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Small modular reactors (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#46453435)

Except that you don't need anything load following in that case where the load is more or less constant.

Not first green power (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450459)

"green power has finally come to the white continent."

Not so fast, what about the Ross Island Wind Farm?

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/about-us/generating-energy/wind/ross-island/

New Zealand has already done this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450507)

Meridian Energy installed three wind turbines in 2010

http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/about-us/media-centre/media-releases/wind-farms/antarctic-wind-farm-exceeding-expectations-for-antarctic-bases/

City under the Ice - 1950s US base in Greenland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46450919)

Whilst we're on the topic, here's an interesting film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ujx_pND9wg

the ancients (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46451445)

Things will get easier once they've dug up a Zero Point Module

Another explanation... (1)

bhoar (1226184) | about 7 months ago | (#46451661)

Gotta power the 2nd Gate somehow... :)

there goes the neighbourhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46452371)

there are no neutrinos. it's just an invention so we can keep using the very convinient "energy conservation" law.
blow up atoms? sure. violate 100'000 old pure ice. sure.

Advantage for solar (1)

m.alessandrini (1587467) | about 7 months ago | (#46452971)

Solar panels are more efficient at lower temperatures, due to minor atomic "agitation" in silicon, so it may compensate the minor sun intensity.

Power = Heat (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#46453361)

All power (whether from green sources or not) will eventually be transformed into heat, increasing the temperature of the Arctic.
This could be a problem on the long term.

Green power has been there for a while ... (2)

Wesseh (2899101) | about 7 months ago | (#46453381)

The Belgian South Pole station has been running on wind and solar power for 5 years now ... see http://www.antarcticstation.or... [antarcticstation.org] But it's nice to see others are following.

But the only question left is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46454783)

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?