i have used this hydro calculator to create an example

https://www.omnicalculator.com/ecology/hydroelectric-power

example

blue mountains tunnel

20km long 20m wide

500m head (height that the water falls)

volume = pi x r2 x l

volume = pi x 100 × 20,000

volume = 6,283,183 cubic metres

lets assume the power will only be needed from 6pm to 6am ie 60s x 60m x 12 hours = 43200 seconds

flow is cubic metres/ second

flow m3/s x time 43200s = 6,283,183 m3 to completely empty the tank

flow m3/ s = 6,283,183m3 / 43200

flow m3/ s = 145 m3/s

from the calculator

cross sectional area of the turbine : i just chose 1 m2

flow velocity 145m3/s

flow discharge 145m3/s (maybe you open up the turbine out so the water flows out fast too ????)

head 500m

efficiency 90 % (this is normal in hydro turbines)

POWER 638,627 KW (im assuming they really do mean power ie watts/ second)

or 638.627 MW once the turbine is opened up

if you had ten of these tunnels you generate 6,386.27 MW of power overnight

???

you could split the turbine up so its not trying to deliver 638 MW from one turbine???

what say you?

i suppose you could dig two tunnels instead of one to get an equivalent volume

you could use many turbines instead of one turbine

closed loop, UV lamp on the moving water tunnels to sanitise the water as it moves through

this system could suck up a significant amount of solar / wind power during the day

i suppose you could dig two tunnels instead of one to get an equivalent volume

you could use many turbines instead of one turbine

closed loop, UV lamp on the moving water tunnels to sanitise the water as it moves through

this system could suck up a significant amount of solar / wind power during the day

katoomba elevation 1,017 m

a head of 500m is doable in the blue mountains

Serious question:

Do you have a location in mind?

A 20 km long tunnel seems a bit long. Both in terms of construction and of friction losses. Wouldn’t it be better to look for a location that had a shorter connection between upper and lower levels?

by having a closed loop you don’t have debris smashing into the turbine blades

party_pants said:

Serious question:

Do you have a location in mind?

A 20 km long tunnel seems a bit long. Both in terms of construction and of friction losses. Wouldn’t it be better to look for a location that had a shorter connection between upper and lower levels?

i’m just using a basic power claculator for hydro power i found on line

its a rough calc to prove that its viable

you might use TWO tunnels with a smaller diameter to get the same volume

im assuming its only used overnight

you could use shorter tunnels but would it matter from a constructional perspective if the tunnel was 20km long ???

im thinking the head (distance from top to bottom) is important, its what gives the water significant power

the great thing is no flooding valleys to create a dam – no destroying habitats

the blue mountans is viable

close to an existing manufacturing hub

close to a workforce of all types

able to drop the water significant height

close to the load, close to all the roofs generating in the day

you could build them anywhere where the drop is significant

wookiemeister said:

im thinking the head (distance from top to bottom) is important, its what gives the water significant power

the great thing is no flooding valleys to create a dam – no destroying habitats

the blue mountans is viable

close to an existing manufacturing hub

.

.

close to the load, close to all the roofs generating in the day

not really.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

im thinking the head (distance from top to bottom) is important, its what gives the water significant power

the great thing is no flooding valleys to create a dam – no destroying habitats

the blue mountans is viable

close to an existing manufacturing hub

.

.

close to the load, close to all the roofs generating in the day

not really.

F=MA

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

im thinking the head (distance from top to bottom) is important, its what gives the water significant power

the great thing is no flooding valleys to create a dam – no destroying habitats

the blue mountans is viable

close to an existing manufacturing hub

.

.

close to the load, close to all the roofs generating in the day

not really.

Its much easier having industrial plant close to resources

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

im thinking the head (distance from top to bottom) is important, its what gives the water significant power

the great thing is no flooding valleys to create a dam – no destroying habitats

the blue mountans is viable

close to an existing manufacturing hub

.

.

close to the load, close to all the roofs generating in the day

not really.

F=MA

I am thinking of line losses on the transmission.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

not really.

F=MA

I am thinking of line losses on the transmission.

You can use HVDC if you are worried ( like bass link)

If you build ten across Australia across the time zones you’d have massive capacity

Power is so cheap and plentiful you charge everyone a set fee per month in residential circumstances and don’t bother reading or installing electricity meters

Each state uses a percentage of its revenue to build renewable powersystems

I favour solar because it’s the least damaging ( you could build solar thermal plants I guess instead of of solar cells)

I don’t like wind power because it kills birds and bats.

> blue mountains tunnel
> 20km long 20m wide
> 500m head (height that the water falls)

Have you got a start and end location?

At one time I tried designing a water tunnel from the Warragamba dam, Lake Burragarang, through the Great Dividing Range.
To the Macquarie River, to feed into the Murray-Darling system.

The tunnel would have been a lot longer than 20 km.

I also tried from the upper Clarence River through to the Great Dividing Range. Again a lot longer than 20 km.

mollwollfumble said:

> blue mountains tunnel
> 20km long 20m wide
> 500m head (height that the water falls)

Have you got a start and end location?

At one time I tried designing a water tunnel from the Warragamba dam, Lake Burragarang, through the Great Dividing Range.
To the Macquarie River, to feed into the Murray-Darling system.

The tunnel would have been a lot longer than 20 km.

I also tried from the upper Clarence River through to the Great Dividing Range. Again a lot longer than 20 km.

I just looked at google maps and saw that 20km line would fit across its length.

The great thing about this project is that it can supply the peak demand

638 MW can come online almost immediately, you won’t need gas turbines, battery storage, coal or anything else to feed power into the grid.

Creating a tunnel uses existing tech

It can draw all of the excess power from renewable at any time

You could use treated sewer water to fill the tank

The tank could be used to provide emergency water to the local area.

I sure hope drones are involved

You’d have a generating hall with surplus turbines to allow timely maintenance

The generating hall/ all areas will be at slightly higher than atmospheric pressure – it keeps dust/ dirt OUT of the process. In many industrial sites you find everything covered in dust

With lighting I’m inclined to put a walkway up on the side of the wall where you can access lighting units, cross ways lighting would have a similar build.

You’d have a crane that rides along the length of the hall to all turbines to take heavy stuff out ( or in)

Walls need to be white – this keeps light levels up for humans, the ceiling would be white too.

You make the place vermin proof – by creating a clean and tidy workspace anomalies are spotted immediately – birds shouldn’t have any access.

Cymek said:

I sure hope drones are involved

They patrol the area looking for saboteurs

Talking about sabotage

Incompetence / laziness / deliberate

Ive worked at one place where one fellah HAD been walking around damaging things, I’d find the most weirdly and annoying damage on a regular basis. He had been sacked years ago but he’d gone through the facility snipping things to cause problems later on.

Limit the use of SCADA systems

Computer systems can be accessed by foreign powers/ malicious entities

At the dams I’d run there were no computer systems, you’d access a dedicated control panel.

You could have a dedicated control panel at one end where a human operator could control turbines

1 or 2 turbines could be SCADA controlled for fine tuning – this would limit sabotage

I found a tunnel cost calculator

The cost to build this tunnel is about the cost of a submarine project

If you could find a mountain range and cut down to create a trench of similar size it would be much cheaper to build.cutting a trench 20m wide and 20m deep would be the equivalent of putting a road through a green area.

You’d just maintain the area on top so it’s grass only, no trees.

wookiemeister said:

I found a tunnel cost calculator

The cost to build this tunnel is about the cost of a submarine project

Unobtainium then?

wookiemeister said:

I found a tunnel cost calculator

The cost to build this tunnel is about the cost of a submarine project

We can’t really afford a submarine project, but it is a necessity for killing people and breaking their stuff.

A tunnel in the mountains doesn’t serve any great purpose worth the cost.

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

> blue mountains tunnel
> 20km long 20m wide
> 500m head (height that the water falls)

Have you got a start and end location?

At one time I tried designing a water tunnel from the Warragamba dam, Lake Burragarang, through the Great Dividing Range.
To the Macquarie River, to feed into the Murray-Darling system.

The tunnel would have been a lot longer than 20 km.

I also tried from the upper Clarence River through to the Great Dividing Range. Again a lot longer than 20 km.

I just looked at google maps and saw that 20km line would fit across its length.

> I just looked at google maps and saw that 20km line would fit across its length.

But not with a 500 metre head!

Lake Burragarang, Warragamba Dam is only about 118 m above sea level.

There are dams west of Sydney with elevation near 800 m above sea level. But 20 km away on the western side of the Great Dividing Range the elevation is still of order of 690 metres.

The best potential hydropower projects in NSW that I’m aware of are all in the Northern Rivers region of NSW, from the Hunter up to the Tweed. And all are on east-flowing rivers. The good side of this is reducing flooding of towns and cities on North Coast NSW. The bad side is that (so far as I know) all these river catchments are controlled by councils that lean heavily towards anti-hydro policies.

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

> blue mountains tunnel
> 20km long 20m wide
> 500m head (height that the water falls)

Have you got a start and end location?

At one time I tried designing a water tunnel from the Warragamba dam, Lake Burragarang, through the Great Dividing Range.
To the Macquarie River, to feed into the Murray-Darling system.

The tunnel would have been a lot longer than 20 km.

I also tried from the upper Clarence River through to the Great Dividing Range. Again a lot longer than 20 km.

I just looked at google maps and saw that 20km line would fit across its length.

> I just looked at google maps and saw that 20km line would fit across its length.

But not with a 500 metre head!

Lake Burragarang, Warragamba Dam is only about 118 m above sea level.

There are dams west of Sydney with elevation near 800 m above sea level. But 20 km away on the western side of the Great Dividing Range the elevation is still of order of 690 metres.

The best potential hydropower projects in NSW that I’m aware of are all in the Northern Rivers region of NSW, from the Hunter up to the Tweed. And all are on east-flowing rivers. The good side of this is reducing flooding of towns and cities on North Coast NSW. The bad side is that (so far as I know) all these river catchments are controlled by councils that lean heavily towards anti-hydro policies.

The great advantage of the hidden closed loop system is that you don’t need to top the water up very much because it’s all closed loop.

If you need to refurbish and inspect the top tank you just drain it

The hidden power system means very little disturbance to the local ecology

In a few thousand years they will discover these massive caverns in the mountains and wonder why

Instead of blowing 50 billion on subs they could build the hydroloop project

wookiemeister said:

Instead of blowing 50 billion on subs they could build the hydroloop project

Will that protect us from the yellow peril

As I said, try to spread them around Australia so ideally each state has its own hydroloop project. Multiple systems build reliability.

Every spare watt goes to pumping water upwards

No toxic chemicals

Easily maintained

Mechanically intuitive

Jobs creation NOW for less specialised workforce ( you’d just train people up so they can progress in life)

Very long service life

No massive banks of batteries or complicated / dangerous ways of storing power.

Protected from the elements

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Instead of blowing 50 billion on subs they could build the hydroloop project

Will that protect us from the yellow peril

Stronger foreign investment/ownership rules?

captain_spalding said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Instead of blowing 50 billion on subs they could build the hydroloop project

Will that protect us from the yellow peril

Stronger foreign investment/ownership rules?

Too late

The war is already lost

Voting margins and infiltration of the public service and education system

We shouldn’t waste anymore more money on weapons

We can’t defend ourselves from hypersonic missiles

Game over

I wonder if it would be easier/ cheaper to weld a big metal tank instead of tunnelling?

Maybe you create precast concrete sections that get slotted / bolted together then sealed.

It could be easier than tunnelling

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

With the hydroloop idea you’d need something maybe made from 10m diameter sections of precautions concrete that sit on the surface – no tunneling you’d cast nearby and then crane into place – maybe you’d build railway tracks for the crane to sit on that straddle the pipe?

A 1m long section would be cast then craned into place I’d think that it shouldn’t cost more than 50,000 for each section for all costs. Total cost 1 billion

wookiemeister said:

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

Might as well blow some money on real things rather than submarines

In 30 years time all those solar cells installed now will be coming to the end of their operational life

We need to planning and preparing now

If the EV revolution is going to happen we need lots of night time capacity to charge them – most cars will need to be charged at home.

People living in cities could be encouraged to switch – the traffic jams won’t be pumping out smoke

wookiemeister said:

In 30 years time all those solar cells installed now will be coming to the end of their operational life

We need to planning and preparing now

I need to start planning and preparing now for the car I want to drive in 2035.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

In 30 years time all those solar cells installed now will be coming to the end of their operational life

We need to planning and preparing now

I need to start planning and preparing now for the car I want to drive in 2035.

Maybe they could blow a lazy billion paying a car company like Hyundai to build the car of the future ? It’s understood the car is built over here

Private companies don’t have the money to pay for the research

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

I have heard it said that Australia has the largest reserves of thorium in the world.
Our “black sand” beaches are high in thorium, and it’s a byproduct of rutile-ilmenite-zircon mining.
Australia’s most common thorium mineral is “monazite”.

With a few minor exceptions, everything that can be done with uranium can be done with thorium, and vice versa.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

I have heard it said that Australia has the largest reserves of thorium in the world.
Our “black sand” beaches are high in thorium, and it’s a byproduct of rutile-ilmenite-zircon mining.
Australia’s most common thorium mineral is “monazite”.

With a few minor exceptions, everything that can be done with uranium can be done with thorium, and vice versa.

Both India and China are working on getting commercial thorium molten-salt reactors working right now. It’ll be a very good thing.

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

I have heard it said that Australia has the largest reserves of thorium in the world.
Our “black sand” beaches are high in thorium, and it’s a byproduct of rutile-ilmenite-zircon mining.
Australia’s most common thorium mineral is “monazite”.

With a few minor exceptions, everything that can be done with uranium can be done with thorium, and vice versa.

Both India and China are working on getting commercial thorium molten-salt reactors working right now. It’ll be a very good thing.

I reckon we should dive into it too.

party_pants said:

Spiny Norman said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have heard it said that Australia has the largest reserves of thorium in the world.
Our “black sand” beaches are high in thorium, and it’s a byproduct of rutile-ilmenite-zircon mining.
Australia’s most common thorium mineral is “monazite”.

With a few minor exceptions, everything that can be done with uranium can be done with thorium, and vice versa.

Both India and China are working on getting commercial thorium molten-salt reactors working right now. It’ll be a very good thing.

I reckon we should dive into it too.

If you can get the black sand what do you do. Crush it to a powder and acid wash the metal out ?

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Spiny Norman said:

Both India and China are working on getting commercial thorium molten-salt reactors working right now. It’ll be a very good thing.

I reckon we should dive into it too.

If you can get the black sand what do you do. Crush it to a powder and acid wash the metal out ?

Fuck me – greenpeace would have a cow.

Generally, two main methods are commercially applied to separate thorium from mineral monazite that is through either acid digestion or leaching process. In a typical acid digestion process, monazite is cracked using sulfuric acid at 230 °C for 4 h.

wookiemeister said:

Generally, two main methods are commercially applied to separate thorium from mineral monazite that is through either acid digestion or leaching process. In a typical acid digestion process, monazite is cracked using sulfuric acid at 230 °C for 4 h.

That’s doable

You could fill the back of a ute with the sand and make a few trips and process, what ? Ten tonnes of sand

Conventionally, thorium is partially separated from the rare earths by addition of NaOH to the acidic chloride solution. The crude thorium hydroxide precipitate is then dissolved in nitric acid for final purification by solvent extraction.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos.23 June 2011

Too hard , you’d need to process the uranium, have controlled reaction to make plutonium

You’d need to have a clean room and a whole host of things

Maybe if you had deuterium you could create a star in a jar neutron source BUT will those neutrons have the right energy ???

Too hard

PLASMABIT.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe the real option is to build new baseload power ?I would say nuclear but we don’t have knowledgeable AND wise people to build AND maintain them.

Go with Thorium. No other cuntry is using it at the moment, but there are plenty of people with ideas on this just looking for some investment capital to get it off the ground. By up a couple of the most credible of these, build up our skills and knowledge base in this new area rather than lag behind on uranium reactors.

I have heard it said that Australia has the largest reserves of thorium in the world.
Our “black sand” beaches are high in thorium, and it’s a byproduct of rutile-ilmenite-zircon mining.
Australia’s most common thorium mineral is “monazite”.

With a few minor exceptions, everything that can be done with uranium can be done with thorium, and vice versa.

It’s probably the highest grade on earth just near here. I dig it up almost pure, the mining execs are frothing over it, but it’s not available to them. I have a jar on my shelf, I should get a Geiger counter.