Have you considered rewinding small audio transformers to get the turns ratio you want? It's not as difficult as it first appears. The tricky bit is getting the interleaved core laminations out without damaging anything, You know the original turns ratio, so count the turns as you take off the outer winding and rewind it using thinner wire, with the number of turns you need.
If you use three transformers with one connected across each phase, you can wire the secondaries in delta to a three phase Schottky bridge rectifier. That way, you will get the most available energy from the generator.

NOTE: When I was a project engineer, working for Hewlette Packard, the sign on my desk stated: "Miracles performed while you wait. The impossible takes a little longer." I never turned down a project. They were all successful and completed on time and within budget, So don't let people tell you your project is not possible, or a waste of time. Take their comments as a challenge, and prove them wrong.

Actually, I had considered this - though I was not sure how well such a transformer would work. The easy thing to do would be to remove most of the windings from one side of a cheap 1:1 transformer. There are some on eBay at 800 turns, so removing 760 from one side would give the required ratio. But I'm not sure what that would do to the efficiency!

Incidentally, I've heard that early radio control enthusiasts used to vary the capacitance of ceramic disk caps by grinding down one edge. Fiddling with the hardware at this level takes me back to the 1940s....

 

Renewables are very cheap for those who make them - they are grant-funded from the taxpayer.

Which gives me an idea...

I do not think that is either an accurate, or verifiable statement. The least you could do is offer some evidence for your claim. It is true that there is research that is funded by the government. AFAIK, that government funding does not extend to manufacturing and mass distribution. You may be confused by various programs promoted by electric utilities to install solar panels, but those are hardly taxpayer funded. So what are we talking about here? I will readily admit that the dollars expended on fusion research and plasma confinement have been largely wasted and continue to be wasted.

 

They are the most expensive to make, that is why they are subsidized.

I would have guessed that a nuclear power station, or a big coal one like Drax, would be more. But I understand that Rolls Royce are starting to build Small Modular Reactors - the kind that go in submarines - for rollout in 2030, so maybe prices will start to come down then....

 

I do not think that is either an accurate, or verifiable statement. The least you could do is offer some evidence for your claim. It is true that there is research that is funded by the government. AFAIK, that government funding does not extend to manufacturing and mass distribution. You may be confused by various programs promoted by electric utilities to install solar panels, but those are hardly taxpayer funded. So what are we talking about here? I will readily admit that the dollars expended on fusion research and plasma confinement have been largely wasted and continue to be wasted.

Really? A quick google for renewable subsidy info will give you lots more data - the first link I found was this one, which points out that new builds are given government-guaranteed profits thus ensuring risk-free profitable financing for manufacture. The news item states that such subsidies will double in 2021 to support mass distribution of renewable energy. I thought that this was well understood...?

As for fusion research, this site gives government grant figures over the last 10 years at £346.7 million, and claims that the profit from this was £1.4bn...

 

Unproven renewable energy is always more expensive.

Well, we have been running nuclear reactors for around 70 years, and SMRs in submarines for 50 years. I know of no nuclear accident that we have had in this time with an SMR. How long do we have to wait before the technology becomes 'proven'?

 

Reliability and efficiency are other cost factors with renewable.

The two big issues with 'renewables' are intermittency and energy density. Efficiency is probably not a great issue if the energy is free. The technologies really are unproven on the scale we envisage, and both the wind power coefficients and the installation life have been shown to have been overestimated - but no doubt this will correct itself as the technology matures.

 

Well, we have been running nuclear reactors for around 70 years, and SMRs in submarines for 50 years. I know of no nuclear accident that we have had in this time with an SMR. How long do we have to wait before the technology becomes 'proven'?

To be fair, there have been accidents aboard nuclear powered submarines, both US and Russian. One of the factors that may have contributed to the loss of USS Thresher (SSN-593) was an inability to restart the reactor after a scram. This may have been more of a policy problem, than an operational one.

 

Actually, I had considered this - though I was not sure how well such a transformer would work. The easy thing to do would be to remove most of the windings from one side of a cheap 1:1 transformer. There are some on eBay at 800 turns, so removing 760 from one side would give the required ratio. But I'm not sure what that would do to the efficiency!

Incidentally, I've heard that early radio control enthusiasts used to vary the capacitance of ceramic disk caps by grinding down one edge. Fiddling with the hardware at this level takes me back to the 1940s....

The minimum required number of turns per volt is inversely proportional to the lowest frequency and proportional to the cross sectional area of the core which is very small in this case.You will have a much better chance of success if you add turns to the outer winding.

I was an early (1940s) radio and RC enthusiast. I have ground the edges off ceramic capacitors and filed the middle of carbon resistors to adjust their values. I have also wound my own power, audio and IF transformers and built my own variable capacitors. When you are really serious about a hobby, you do whatever is necessary to get results.

 

Nuclear energy is not renewable.

What on earth has that (whatever it means) got to do with anything?

 

To be fair, there have been accidents aboard nuclear powered submarines, both US and Russian. One of the factors that may have contributed to the loss of USS Thresher (SSN-593) was an inability to restart the reactor after a scram. This may have been more of a policy problem, than an operational one.

It is also the case that a UK submarine had a collision in mid-Atlantic about 10 years ago (no casualties). But one would expect to avoid such accidents by neither floating nor moving SMRs which are powering the Grid. I must admit that I am confused. People here seem to have some religious or political objection to nuclear power. I simply look for the best way to generate the large and growing levels of energy that our civilisation will need.

 

The energy may be free but the means to render it usable is expensive.

Indeed. The key problem, though, is intermittency. 'Renewable' energy is not dispatchable, which is critical for the operation of a Grid. To a lesser extent, it has no inertia either, which has a major impact on Grid stability. The intermittency issue is the big one, however... it requires standby systems to be operating continually in a highly inefficient mode.

 

With the most dangerous, dirtiest for the longest time, way possible.

Not too sure what you are worried about here. Mining for 'renewables' poisons the world forever. Nuclear power, even including the early and badly designed units of the past, has an enviable safety record. Once the LNT model is scrapped, there won't even be the statistically-modelled dangers to worry about.

 

#31

???

 

It is also the case that a UK submarine had a collision in mid-Atlantic about 10 years ago (no casualties). But one would expect to avoid such accidents by neither floating nor moving SMRs which are powering the Grid. I must admit that I am confused. People here seem to have some religious or political objection to nuclear power. I simply look for the best way to generate the large and growing levels of energy that our civilisation will need.

As population continues to contract those needs might be less than you imagine.

 

There is still no politically acceptable solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I have a friend who works at SRC and has for a long time. It is an enormous problem and it's not getting any better any time soon. It also looks like the concrete sarcophagus surrounding the Chernobyl reactor is showing sings of wear and tear at the age of 35. Not a good sign.

 

As population continues to contract those needs might be less than you imagine.

That sounds like wishful thinking. I know of NO prediction that energy requirements will even increase less steeply, let alone flatten out. I think that you were the one calling for evidence earlier? example prediction

 

That sounds like wishful thinking. I know of NO prediction that energy requirements will even increase less steeply, let alone flatten out. I think that you were the one calling for evidence earlier? example prediction

Both the United States and China have seen the rate of population increase decline below replacement level. That means we are in for a period of population decline.
China Expected to Report First Population Decline Since 1949 (msn.com)
Population decline - Wikipedia

 

What about the waste stockpiling everywhere?

What waste 'stockpiling everywhere'? If you are talking about High Level waste, that amounts to less than 1000 cu m, which is stored at Sellafield. Current predictions show no need to increase such storage. This 'waste' is, of course, fuel for the future, should we care to use it. Perhaps you would like to read how we deal with this, as opposed to inefficiently scattering mining tailings across the world, here.

 

You do know there is waste stockpiles worldwide, right?

Inhabiting an alternate reality might explain some things.

 

Both the United States and China have seen the rate of population increase decline below replacement level. That means we are in for a period of population decline.
China Expected to Report First Population Decline Since 1949 (msn.com)
Population decline - Wikipedia

I don't think ANY predictions of world population growth suggest an actual fall - certainly not within the next century. Wiki World Population growth. And after 100 years I doubt that we will be only thinking about the surface of this planet.

Do you use more energy than your parents? How much more do you use than your grandparents? And how much more do you think that your children will use? In this context read Paul Simon on the concept of infinite resources. Even a static society will continue to increase energy use. For Bitcoin, if nothing else

You might also like to read Vaclav Smil's massive tome on Energy and Civilisation. But the real kicker for 'renewable energy is the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). Space forbids a comprehensive commentary on this, but Thomas Homer-Dixon has pointed out that civilisations progress by improving their ERoEI, so, for instance, a reversion to wind power would require us to operate a late 18th century lifestyle.