Showing posts with label lasers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lasers. Show all posts

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Other methods of breaking rock

I thought that this week we would expand the horizon of these talks a little, and talk about the general philosophy of breaking rock, since the extraction of fossil fuel requires more than just the drilling of holes. I’m going to give a couple of further examples of the benefits of breaking rock out into big bits, and then I’ll describe some of the more exotic methods that have been tried.

For those who are just passing through, on Sundays I post on some technical aspect of the extraction of fossil fuels, so that those of us that are concerned about their future declining production can understand some of the issues that are involved in extraction. There is a list of earlier topics down on the right side of the page. The last post was on drilling in Geothermal conditions, which was meant to leave you with the conclusion that the bigger (in general) you can break the rock out in pieces, then the more efficient it will be. So let me give a couple of examples of this. The first is in mining blocks of limestone in Indiana, and the second quarrying granite (perhaps for Paradise) in Sardinia.

In both cases there is a market for the large pieces that are produced, and thus the alternate advantages of just drilling lots of holes, partially filling them with explosive, and then breaking the rock out into a lot of small pieces is offset by the sales price of the end product. So say you wanted to mine these large pieces, you could take an extra-large chain saw, and cut a set of horizontal slices into the face of the rock at the end of the tunnel.

Rock saw used for slotting rock. It can turn either vertical as here, or horizontal and can have metal teeth (as this one) or small pads of diamond grit set along the chain – depending on the rock it is cutting.

Illustration of underground limestone slab cutting the saw (green) has just cut slots at the top bottom, and at three intermediate levels in the limestone ahead of it. (Rendered in Strata 3D)

Once the slots are made then an air bag is placed in the top slot and inflated, it applies pressure over the full slab surface, so that the force on the top slab is enough to break it loose and it drops on the one below it. Under the shock load this also collapses down onto the one beneath, and so on, until all four slabs sit, one on the other. The can then be dragged out of the mine, and cut into shape, perhaps for replacement parts for Washington Cathedral.

An alternate approach that is used in surface granite quarrying is to drill a series of long vertical holes parallel to one another and perhaps 3 ft back from the face of the quarry wall. These are perhaps 4.5 ft apart, and might be drilled down some 30 ft. The holes are then filled with black powder (less powerful than conventional blasting dynamite) and simultaneously fired. The blast runs a crack along the back of the slab outlined by the drill holes, and then the powder has enough power to tilt that slab over so that it falls into the open quarry. There are two thoughts on what if falls on. Some quarries let it fall on the solid rock, on the idea that if there are weakness planes in the granite then it is good to know this early – others drop the slab onto a mound of dirt, in order not to break it into pieces, and thus get more useful rock out of the slab.

More often, however, when we are breaking rock we aren’t concerned so much with the condition of the rock after we remove it, we just want to get it out of the way, either so that we can take it somewhere else to process, or to leave the space so that it can be used for something else (such as a subway tunnel).

Some years ago the National Science Foundation funded a program that looked at a variety of possible new ways to drill through rock. They funded a number of different concepts through a trial, and this gave us some measurements of the relative energy cost and practicality. While I don’t have time to go through these in any detail, I thought I might put up a picture and a short comment about some of them. Essentially, as Bill Maurer showed some years ago rock can be broken either by thermal means, mechanical fracture or by applying a variety of chemicals. Starting therefore with thermal, there are three different ways to do this spalling the rock, melting the rock, or vaporizing the rock. Thermal lances have been used to cut the initial trenches in granite quarries for decades.

Hand-held flame jet cutting a slot in granite. Note the slot width and the flame at the bottom of the lance. (These can cut about 14 sq. ft/hour of slot)

This technique is quite loud (over 140 db) since the flame at the end is the equivalent of a small jet engine burning kerosene and air to heat the rock to over 1400 deg C. The flame heats the rock to a temperature where the quartz changes phase, and rapidly expands, breaking off very small chips (as mentioned in the Geothermal drill post) which can also become airborne and thus a possible respirable hazard.

Cloud of fine particles created when a jet burner cuts a slot into a granite block.

If you were using this to drive a tunnel then you would likely need to wear a substantial amount of protective equipment.

Now you can put more energy into the rock, so that it doesn’t spall (and some won’t any way) but putting more energy in does make a change. In the first case you have molten rock to deal with. A number of folk have looked at that, using different sources as a way of generating the heat. Techniques have included using electric arcs and a plasma.

Cut into rock using a plasma to melt the rock (US Bureau of Mines)

If that wasn’t powerful enough there were several further steps that were tried – the first was electron beams (this was a GE favorite)

Cut into rock using electron beams (Schumacher)

Of course electron beams also generate other things, and apart from dealing with molten rock, dealing with those other issues would have made a tunneling machine that was about 360 ft long. So while it got a glance it did not get an embrace.

Lasers were also tried – they have a little problem of access (although later we thought to use a waterjet as a wave guide) through the mud and while they could vaporize the water in a crack, thereby breaking off quite large chunks of rock, in what is more of a mechanical application, they were also tried to see if they could spall, melt or vaporize rock where they were less efficient.

Laser cuts into dolomite using a 5 kw laser (Carstens & Brown)

Although this is still receiving some interest there is a problem with all the techniques that I have mentioned so far that require heat, and that is the amount of energy that they have to use to cut the rock.

We measure the energy that is put into the rock to make a hole in joules, and the volume of rock removed in cubic cm (cc) – If you give a skilled miner a pick and a coal face, he can pull off lumps of coal with a specific energy of around 4 joules/cc. (But they will be rather large). A conventional tri-cone type of rock drill can drill at somewhere around 120 joules/cc, so where do these fit?

Plasma jet – between 133,000 and 220,000 joules/cc
Electron beams – 2,980 to 15,700 joules/cc
Laser beams – from 1,600 to 4,820 joules/cc

Now it is true that all these tests were in harder rock (granites and basalts) than conventional drills normally penetrate, but I can still show you techniques that in even those rocks keep the numbers down by keeping the fragment size up. But before I get around to mechanical fragmentation let me add one more thermal tool, that has an advantage that might overcome the previous problems in such a way as to justify use.

This was the Subterrene, invented at Los Alamos, so naturally it was powered by a small nuclear reactor. The power from the reactor is fed to a ceramic tip on the drill, which melts the rock ahead of it, and then (this is the clever bit) the molten rock is squeezed into the surrounding rock by the thrust of the bit as it keeps moving forward.

Subterrene drill (LASL)

Now you might be a little cynical about this but a) here is a hole punched through a rock with the technique:

Subterrene melting through – but conventionally not nuclear powered.

Resulting hole drilled by the Subterrene.

And b) the irritating thing is that I remember that the conventional tool was used to run some underground pipes for one of the local pueblos, with the refrozen rock providing the impermeable liner that was required for the pipe. I thought that it was written up in National Geographic – but alas I can’t find the references that I once had. Nor could other folk, because when we tried to get information about it for a possible use in drilling on Mars, a lot of the original information seemed to have been lost over the years.

Going on to mechanical and chemical means, you can drill and drive tunnels using explosives but no conventional drilling – you use the explosive to drive small holes ahead of the face that are the location of the next round:

Hole drilled with explosive but no drill.

Dr George Clark actually drove one of our drifts at the Experimental Mine (that later became the WOMBAT hole) using this idea, and got the tunnel in about four rounds or so.

But the one that I want to finish with is this:

Yes! That is a portable howitzer firing a round to drive a tunnel (REAM after Lundquist)

And for all those who are amused – it did actually drive quite a deep tunnel, and quite efficiently (energy wise) – though there were some issues we don’t need to cover in regard to how best to use it. The tunnel was in granodiorite, and as you can see, was of quite a decent size.

Well those are some of the ideas that were tried in the past. Lasers haven’t gone away, nor have waterjet drills (of which I may write more in the future). But on a slow Sunday, perhaps this indicates that we really have tried to find other ways of drilling, and that it isn’t quite as easy to find something better than ol’ man Hughes bit (but there are some things that are!)

As usual this has, of necessity, been a simplified review of what was a rather complex series of tests by some highly intelligent folk. If I have been a little glib in the summary I trust they will either forgive me or comment.

Read more!

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Power from Space

Just recently the California utility company PG&E announced a program to beam energy from space, where it would be collected and beamed back to Earth. The program has a target of 200 MW of power by 2016.
The project is expected to cost around $2 billion, which will mainly go towards the R&D of the base station and launching the satellites. SolarEn CEO Gary Spirnak has complete confidence in the concept and the company’s ability to develop this system. In fact, he projects that they will be able to generate 1.2 to 4.8 gigawatts of power at a price that is comparable to other forms of renewable energy. PG&E is also committed to the idea and has entered into a 15 year contract with SolarEn to produce enough power for 250,000 homes.

This isn’t the only SSP under development now - Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is also working on a similar system, but instead of radio waves, they will transmit power via laser beam. Both companies ideas seem a little far-fetched, but if either of them succeed, it could mean huge things for renewable energy generation.
Now this whole idea is not new, back in my archives I have more than a foot of shelf space devoted to reports on the Satellite Power System (SPS) that was developed by NASA and DOE back in 1978. And, for your interest, I thought I would pull out the Concept Development volume and review the system that was planned back in those pioneering days. The initial work required that the concept be fleshed out, and to do this Boeing Aerospace and Rockwell International were under contract to the Marshall Space Flight Center. Out of that work came a whole series of reports that makes up this part of my bookshelf. For simplicity I will just quote from the Concept summary today.

Back then the goal was to generate a system that could be fielded by 2000, then more than 20 years in the future. The ideas built on an original concept that Peter Glaser had suggested in an article in Science, back in 1968. At the time they concluded that microwaving the energy back to Earth would be more efficient than using lasers to transmit the power.
The following target guidelines and assumptions were built into those plans:

The system would be operational in 2000.
At that time the system would add two 5 GW satellite systems a year to ultimately reach a total of 300 GW..
The ground receiving antennas (rectennas) are sized to receive a 5 GW feed.
The satellites would be placed in geosynchronous orbit.
The systems would operate at a frequency of 2.45 GHz.
The intensity of the microwave signal is not to exceed 23 mW/sq. cm at the center and 1 mW/sq. cm at the edge of the rectenna.
System life is 30 years.
Needed (but unavailable technology) would be needed by 1990 to get the system up in time.
All materials will come from the Earth, and there will be no launch failures.
Costs will be derived in 1997 dollars.
The arrays on the satellite will be built on a graphite composite, and two options were considered, a straight single crystal silicon PV array nd a gallium-aluminum- arsenide solar cell with a concentration ratio of 2. An efficiency of 7% for the conversion efficiency of the array was assumed. Thus to get a 5 GW output the solar panels must be large enough to capture some 70 GW of solar power.
The gallium arsenide option would result in a solar blanket area of 26.52 sq km a reflector area of 53 sq km and a total platform area of 55 sq. km. With a single silicon crystal concept gives a platform size of 54 sq km, roughly equivalent.
A microwave antenna some 1 km in diameter will be used to transmit the power back to Earth.
It is assumed that a satellite could be constructed every 6-months, and depending on type this would require a space-borne construction crew that would be in the range of 555 to 715 individuals.
The cells are assumed to heat in the sun, and this improves efficiency so that at 125 deg C the cells are assumed to reach 18.2% efficiency. The gallium cell design was anticipated to cost some $71 a square meter.
The single crystal silicon would use a 50 micron sheet of solar cells, with a borosilicate glass cover. The efficiency is assumed to be 17% though it will require some monitoring and laser annealing. Costs for this alternative were calculated at $35 a sq. m. Small thrusters are to be mounted on the array to allow it to move away from approaching space debris.
The power collected from the array will be transmitted to the microwave transmission station with the transmitting system broken down into 7220 sub-arrays, each 10 m on a side. The sub-arrays are phased to give a coherent beam focused on the center of the rectenna.
In sizing the system, it was recognized that it would need to be a modified design to accommodate a maximum heat build up in the array, and a maximum rate (23 mW/sq cm) at which power could be concentrated through the ionosphere. (Heating the ionosphere above this level could cause signal interference and efficiency loss).
To convert the DC-RF power some 101,552 tubes would be needed. The power beam would operate in the 2400 to 2500 MHz frequency band
It was recognized in the report that there would be some RFI effects due to re-scattering of the radiation. The rectenna would have an area of 78.5 sq km. be open faced, to allow air passage, and will need a set of rectifying diodes to convert the energy back into phased electrical power. Some 7% of the energy is assumed to be lost due to heat. The microwave system efficiency is assumed to be 63%.

The reduced cost of the single crystal silicon array is made up in the greater mass that would be required for that option (51 million kg, as opposed to 34 million kg for the gallium arsenide option.

Because of the location of the satellites in Geosynchronous orbit (GEO) the material for the construction would be lifted first to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and then moved to GEO. The lift out of the gravity well would require a vehicle, anticipated to weigh 11,000 tons with a payload to LEO of 424 tons. Given the number of workers required to build a station, special transportation vehicles would need to be built, and each would have a carrying capacity of 75 people to get them into LEO. To move out to GEO a special transit vehicle would be needed, and the one designed would carry up to 160 passengers at a time.
The cargo would be carried out to GEO using special carriers powered electrically using ioon bombardment thrusters, with cryogenic argon as the propellant. (So that the round trip to GEO would take around 180 days. For personnel a faster vehicle would shorten the trip to a few hours )

The logistics of the support operation are also described. Bear in mind that each array will need 10^11 solar cells, 10^5 klystrons, and 10^10 dipoles. The system would need about a million tons of hydrocarbon propellants to move between locations. For 2 5 GW stations the vehicles would need 375 surface to LEO launches (225 with the gallium arsenide)

Just for set-up alone it is anticipated that it would take 6 months to build the LEO base, after the vehicles become available. 3 months would then be needed to built the first transfer vehicle, and another 3 months for the next two. It would take a year to build and configure the entire fleet needed. It is expected to take 9 months to build the GEO base., thus it would only be 2 years after the start that work could begin on the first SPS station. Once built it would require some 5 to 20 people would be required per SPS for maintenance.

There are many more details in the reports, but this will give you some sense of scale of the original project. It will be interesting to see how the current plan compares with this older one.

Read more!