Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets 0 Posted 4 hours ago
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU 31 Posted 2 days, 23 hours ago
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond 0 Posted 3 days, 21 hours ago
Coal lobby billboard: "Clean coal means our next President won't have to choose between a clean environment and our economy."
EPA head Stephen Johnson: "Americans should not have to choose between clean coal or effective environmental protection; we can achieve both."
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
ids Posted 10:29 am
06 Dec 2008
"I pray that coal will be king again"
Obama lost out to McCain 50%-48% in Franklin. Hell win them over in 2012.
Permalink
derdagian1 Posted 2:40 pm
06 Dec 2008
This will prevent the need for some nuke construction or fossil fuel generation of electricity to increase grid capacity.
6,000 large farms can shift their demand loads into off-peak times of day.
pasteurization processes can be shifted.
freezer operations.
Large building A/C such as Walmarts, Lowes, Home Depots, hospitals, hotels etc. may go Off-peak.
Plastic injection molding.
http://greendreamjobs.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16 ...
law
PEDA money
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?I ...
A16F&state=PA&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=1
NYSERDA Money
http://www.nyserda.org/funding/funding.asp
Look at PON 1197
Obama's outlook on it.
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/1561/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
energy efficiency in main subheadings
The Department Of Energy is interested in spending money this way.
http://www.energy.gov/energyefficiency/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:35 pm
06 Dec 2008
"We have so much coal, therefore we must use coal"
When our untapped solarthermal and deep geothermal resources, make coal and all other forms of energy combined look pathetically tiny.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solarbaseload
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:50 am
07 Dec 2008
With plenty of renewable energy everywhere (fuel) free, why centralize energy at all? More jobs are involved in distributed renewable power generation and storage and conservation. Solar cogeneration on roofs and ground source heating/cooling alone could provide most of our energy needs.
Fewer, larger facilities result in short term construction jobs. Steady manufacturing and installation jobs support a revival of the US working class, at all levels. Energy conservation jobs could be created in the millions nearly overnight!
The first few years of oil and fossil fuel demand reduction, say 4% per year, could come from efficiency and conservation, plus create millions of jobs, like building insulating and sealing. As Gar pointed out recently.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:16 am
07 Dec 2008
Then you are going to need to rely heavily on the grid for a majority of the year.
_
That said, something like ESolar's 33MW modular solar thermal power plants. That I can understand.
It is centralized, but less so.
_
But it just annoys me when you get stopgreenpath blathering on here as if NetMetered solar panels have no reliance on the grid.
That's just moronic.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 am
07 Dec 2008
Smart grid storage in emergency backup battery systems in each building could shave peaks. So could heat/cold storage in water heaters,freezers, and building mass.
A lot of factory processes like metal and glass recycing, could adjust to peak supply.
Central power plants should be replaced with a distributed generation and storage smart grid gradually. With coal being shut down first. Xcel is doing that in Colorado, a smart grid in Boulder and they shut down two coal plants.
There are earthquake, water usage, and aquifer contamination objections to geothermal power production which might be overcome with more R&D and testing. Rumors that the earth heat source cools after 10 to 20 years are out there too, necessitating a whole new location, that would be very expensive.
Ocean current and river current distributed power generation (not dams) are a good steady baseline power source, like geothermal is alleged to be. I think a smart grid would lower that base line requirement. Especially using the present grid to transport power from peak supply areas to peak load areas. With maybe a few extra HVDC routes between high load cities and southwest solar and great plains and coastal wind and wave energy areas.
We have a couple of decades to do it all if we get started on efficiency and conservation measures now. Phase out central baseload 100% dispatchable power grids and go to renewable distributed smart grids.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:50 am
07 Dec 2008
Well, I'm talking about EGS usually.
And that's a closed loop.
Also partially treated waste water is ideal for geothermal. It's relatively clean, but not clean enough to drink.
Most cities make a lot of this stuff.
_
Also consider though for the idea of "centralized electricity storage".
It doesn't make that much sense to go from DC electricity, to AC electricity, to high voltage AC, to long distance transmission, to high voltage DC, back to high voltage AC, to long distance transmission, and then to low voltage AC.
All the thermodynamic losses there really kill the benefit.
_
Onsite solarthermal heat storage. You go from heat, to heat, back to heat. With minimal losses.
And thermal storage costs a small fraction of what electrical storage does.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:13 am
07 Dec 2008
"There are earthquake, water usage, and aquifer contamination objections to geothermal power production which might be overcome with more R&D and testing. Rumors that the earth heat source cools after 10 to 20 years are out there too, necessitating a whole new location, that would be very expensive."
You've been in a discussion of these issues before and they have been explained to you.
Let's do it again...
Earthquake: a very minor issue. One instance of minor quake activity when water was introduced into an active quake area. If a few hundred gallons of water was enough to trigger some increase in activity then is was pretty much at the slip point anyway. Solution: Don't install in active fault areas.
Remember, drilling geothermal wells is not very different from drilling petroleum wells. Just somewhat larger diameter.
Water usage: Closed loop.
Contamination: You seem to be confusing geothermal wells with petroleum wells. You have provided zero documentation showing that drilling a hole in the ground and pouring in some water releases harmful chemicals into the environment.
Twenty year cool down: Ten years seems to be a product of your imagination. The twenty year life span of hot rock geothermal is calculated into the cost analysis. You get your 20 years at produce power at an affordable price. Then you dig new holes and move your operation.
Probably cheaper for the second 20. You can reuse a lot of the mechanical stuff and won't have to run power lines as far.
--
Batteries in every building. It's just not a practical way to approach the problem. (I've got batteries in my house. I speak with some experience.) Someone has to maintain those batteries.
Neighborhood storage makes some sense. If/when we start getting degraded batteries pulled from PHEVs/BEVs then setting up local power storage facilities would make some sense in terms of cutting transmission costs. Ship in the power during low-demand times and store for high demand hours.
--
The Big Grid. We need it. LA can do well with panels on roofs and solar thermal a bit inland. But there will be days when there will be clouds.
When that happens there will be a need to bring hydro down from the Pacific Northwest, wind from the Texas Panhandle, wave from the Northwest Coast, ....
To keep from having to vastly overbuild production facilities in any one area we have to build the ability to share power over a wide area and a wide type of production. We're probably going to need banks of natural gas turbines which can be spun up rapidly when/if the wind and sun both get lazy at the same time.
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 10:53 am
07 Dec 2008
So unless the government or someone else wants to pony up those thousands for me, and everyone like me, I'll have to keep paying my 80 - 100 bucks a month to the power company.
Plus my stupid condo association wouldn't go for it =(
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 10:55 am
07 Dec 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:11 pm
07 Dec 2008
But pumping water we are short of, waste water or not (that waste water should be recycled for irrigation and even drinking water), down into earthquake faults in metal mineral bearing sulphate rock formations and hoping ground water isn't contaminated? That's going to take extensive testing before it is declared safe.
The 20 year lifespan? It definitely hurts the cost picture, how much we don't know. more research is needed.
Smart grid is being built out right now. Wind, solar, and biogas all are ready for mass production too. Yeah, thermal storage is part of a smart grid. Mainly heat/cold stored in buildings and water heaters and freezers. But also industrial process heat cogeneration.
Batteries in buildings would be for emergency power and to shift peak load, I would suggest that obsolete plugin hybrid batteries be recycled for this use, whenever a newer, better generation of batteries comes along. They wouldn't be any kind of storage approaching the magnitude of baseload centralized power.
I think the media is jumping the gun on geothermal, it's a nice story on the surface, just the kind technology challenged reporters swallow whole. With help from industry lobbying and ads.
Time is a major factor here. Deploy the proven alternatives and conservation devices first, do the R&D, then decide what to add and when to add it to the mix. Go with the proven elements now, in a BIG way. To generate green jobs and protect against oil price shocks to our economy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 7:24 pm
07 Dec 2008
I find it irresistible not to at least take a moment to wonder aloud about what Galileo is doing tonight. My hope would be that the great man is resting in peace and that his head is not spinning in his grave. How, now, can Galileo possibly find peace when so many top-rank scientists refuse to speak out clearly, loudly and often regarding whatsoever they believe to be true about the distinctly human-induced, global predicament presented to the family of humanity in our time by certain unbridled "overgrowth" activities of the human species from which global challenges visibly issue now and loom ominously on the far horizon?
Where are the thousands of scientists who have a responsibility to stand up with those who developed virtual mountains of good scientific research regarding overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species that are now overspreading and threatening to engulf the Earth.
Perhaps there is something in the great and everlasting work of many silent scientists that will give Galileo a moment of peace in our time.
What would the world we inhabit look like if scientists like Galileo adopted a code of silence, speaking only about scientific evidence which was politically convenient, economically expedient, religiously condoned and socially correct?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1 ...
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:46 pm
07 Dec 2008
You have not replied to amazingdrx's point, which is the most important thing to note.
Rumors that the earth heat source cools after 10 to 20 years are out there too, necessitating a whole new location, that would be very expensive.
These are not rumours, it is simple physics.
If you wish to treat geothermal power as a renewable source and not as a fossil source (I still hope this is what you mean, though I am plainly discouraged by your analogies to oil-drilling) you cannot suck up the geothermal heat faster than the earth's ability to replenish it..
This effectively means that you have to sip in the geothermal heat very slowly, and when calculated like this, geothermal power can make only a marginal contribution to our energy supply. For a better analysis and calculations, please consult Dr. Mackay's book (chapter 16).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:59 am
08 Dec 2008
The hot magnetic core of the Earth produces the magnetic shield that protects from cosmic radiation. There is already a hole in the magnetic field over the southern atlantic ocean.
Should we risk tapping the Earth's core heat with geothermal? Mars has no atmosphere because it was blasted away into space by cosmic rays, once the core cooled and the magnetic shield dissappeared.
It would probably take geothermal wells everywhere for centuries to effect the core, but why take that chance? Could it be an effect like GHG climate change where just a minute fraction of GHG change causes disaster? Let's not find out when it's too late.
Geothermal needs serious research before it is deployed on a mass produced scale.
On a corralary geo-engineering note, could a metal bearing mile/km wide asteroid be steered to blast into the core of Mars and heat it up again? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:29 am
08 Dec 2008
There are two dry rock geothermal plants connected to the grid at this moment in time. More are being installed around the world. No one is talking about starting to drill holes in every population center around the world this afternoon. Stuff gets built out as (and if) it proves itself.
Vakibs - Reread.
"The twenty year life span of hot rock geothermal is calculated into the cost analysis. You get your 20 years at produce power at an affordable price. Then you dig new holes and move your operation."
It costs approximately $15 million to drill three large diameter holes down a couple miles or so. It costs some amount to build the turbine facility. Based on those costs and ongoing maintenance/labor costs one calculates the cost of power generated. Just like with any commercial operation.
Expected site life is 20-30 years. I used the more conservative number. And after 50-100 years the area will have reheated and can be reused for another 20-30 years.
This would mean that by drilling 2 - 5 sets of holes (50/30 to 100/20) there would be no need to spend large amounts of drilling. (Assuming that the well casings remained intact.)
Amount available...
"The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's present energy needs for several millennia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:36 am
08 Dec 2008
Again, placing backup batteries in each building doesn't make sense to me.
For each battery installation you have to have a site manager - someone who knows how to check them out to see if everything is OK from time to time at the very least. And you are going to have an inverter for each site. You are going to have to take the incoming AC, change it to DC to charge the batteries, return it to AC to feed the building.
Makes more sense to take some non-expensive building close to a big power line and rack up the batteries there. That way one could afford some professional staff to keep things running efficiently. Many towns would need only one "power warehouse" to serve the area.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:48 am
08 Dec 2008
Nothing new here.
We're talking small movements that are not very noticeable. I doubt many people realize how many small earthquakes (crust shifts) take place under our feet every day.
One could even make a reasonable argument that triggering these small movements could be a good thing. The big quakes like the New Madrid quakes of 1811-12 which caused the Mississippi River to run backwards and formed the massive Reelfoot Lake might be avoided by taking pressure off faults via small slips.
Geologists are studying that idea with the goal of reducing the danger of large active faults such as the San Andreas.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:59 am
08 Dec 2008
We've got gold and diamond mines that go deeper than hot rock geothermal bores. Keeping miners alive in those high heat conditions takes effort.
We've got oil wells that go significantly deeper than we need to go for heat.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:23 am
08 Dec 2008
New developments in solar cell manufacturing to bring the cost down in is the key right now. I could do a solar set up right now if it were not for heating. This is a major portion of most energy cost and solar in the northern regions will take a little longer.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:42 am
08 Dec 2008
I've been off the grid for almost 20 years.
You're drastically underestimating the problems of living off the grid.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:46 am
08 Dec 2008
"You're drastically underestimating the problems of living off the grid."
http://gizmodo.com/5104016/dean-kamens-private-island-is- ...
By letting his friends at Philips Color Kinetics take the reigns ol' North Dumpling is now fitted with energy sipping LED lighting inside and out. This resulted in in-house energy consumption dropping by 70%, and ensures his on-site replica of stonehenge gets the dramatic splash of nighttime green and purple it so clearly deserves (total energy reduction was to 50% when all of the new colored outside lighting is factored in). Still, it was enough to take the island entirely off the grid; Kamen produces all of his own juice with wind and solar power.
Texeme.Construct.Questioner
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:37 pm
08 Dec 2008
Right now it would take me from 36 watts to 18 watts. (We've got 2 CFLs on.) 18 watts for ~6 hours a day is about 1/10th of what my efficient refrigerator pulls per day. Then there's the computer, satellite modem, water pump, radio, ....
Water heating and cooking require propane.
Like I said, things am more complex....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 pm
08 Dec 2008
Yeah I know how they calculate costs, the drilling, turbines, pumps, pipelines, water wells, condensors, and so forth. It's complicated, it takes R&D to get it right and understand the costs and problems.
I have provided links to explanations of problems with geothermal. And links to explanations of smart grid projects underway, they are building these systems and testing costs and peak offsetting effects and so forth.
But you need to click them. I can't do that for you. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:10 pm
08 Dec 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:43 pm
08 Dec 2008
That way a plant could significantly draw out the production of the wells before new bores and piping to the turbine house had to go in. Since much of the operating cost is operating the turbine house in either case a shared facility would minimize costs.
If you look at maps of geothermal areas they are frequently coincidental to good solar areas. Nevada could be the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:14 pm
08 Dec 2008
Why not build a small manageable nuclear reactor under the earth, and do the same thing ? Makes a lot more sense to me.
If we learnt anything from this climate crisis, it is that the earth's environment and ecosystem are very complex and interlinked systems.
We have no clue what will happen when we tamper with important variables in this system. For example, as amazingdrx said, the geological heat is a key link to the earth's magnetic field, which is shielding us from cosmic rays. We cannot alter this much - even at a local level.
It comes down to how respectful we are to environment and its complex variables. The same criticism holds for biofuels. Even if the technology is good on a small scale, it will be disastrous if it alters the variables in a huge manner : For the case of biofuels, it is fresh water supply. For the case of geothermal, it is geological heat. Just because we put a pipe down, and it is economically profitable to suck up all the heat, we should not abuse geological heat reservoirs. We should treat the reservoir in a sustainable manner - not suck it dry in 20 years.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:29 am
09 Dec 2008
Apologies in advance to stopgreenpath.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:38 am
09 Dec 2008
Deep rock containment for the reactor, bring the heat up to the surface to run the turbine. This is the kind of R&D that just might make nuclear power cost effective and safe.
Even a meltdown or explosion could be contained. No more NIMBY problems. They steer drillbits all over the place miles underground, I guess they could control a reactor. Why not build reaction control right into the reactor and make it small enough to slide down the drill pipe?
Maybe have two elements that slide closer together or farther apart to control the reaction heat, building in an absolute physical limit to control their proximity. Then instead of using steam/turbine conversion to electricity, use thermocouple conversion. It's only 10% efficient now, that could improve with research, but even at 10% the lack of moving parts and water use makes it cost competitive.
After the useful life of the reactor the waste/reactor is already contained. Make it a fast neutron design and the fuel will be used up and much less dangerous long term.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:52 am
09 Dec 2008
This puts me in mind the last episode of "60 Minutes", it turns out that the Saudis want to export solar electricity as their oil runs out.
The water use still is troubling, but a closed loop system could recycle it all. the problem is how do you make geothermal work in a closed pipe, without cracked rock to produce the steam?
Maybe the solar thermal energy side would pay for the extra condensors and wells needed? Would a mile long pipe in hot rock with water spraying from another pipe down the center have emough surface area to produce power cost effectively.
Does it compare with the area exposed in fractured hot rocks? Probably so, and due to the much better distribution of the water/steam boundary layer it should be competitive.
Combining the solar with the geothermal? Brilliant Pomp! Call your patent attorney!
I think i'll blog about it, giving you cedit of course.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:20 am
09 Dec 2008
Geothermal heat is down there under Buffalo, further down that in some place like Elko NV, but it's down there.
Would hooking thermal solar and dry rock geothermal be a good idea? Perhaps. It would take an individual site cost analysis. At that particular site would it be cheaper to install solar thermal or to drill a new set of holes in 20 years? (The cost of capital might weight heavily in favor of new holes. That ~$15 million would be a deferred expense while the thermal solar would be an upfront cost.)
--
Buried reactor? Still got lots of problems to solve. You've got all the problems of a surface built reactor, you're just using the Earth as your containment vessel.
It's likely to be even more expensive to construct than a surface built reactor. And cost kills new nuclear. The cost of capital along with the number of years before product is delivered makes nuclear too expensive to be built.
If it leaks into the ground water?
Aren't some of us really, really concerned about contaminating the aquifers by drilling some holes in the ground and sending down clean water?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:46 pm
09 Dec 2008
An Intelligent Utility Network fundamentally transforms the way power is generated, distributed and used, adding intelligence throughout the grid to dramatically reduce outages and faults, improve responsiveness, handle current and future demand, increase efficiency and manage costs. Consumers can interact with the utility network in multiple, convenient ways; select customized services and pricing options; and gain near real-time visibility into their usage and costs. The Intelligent Utility Network also helps consumers actively participate in solving critical energy problems by making "smart" homes and energy-conscious choices possible.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:34 pm
09 Dec 2008
Uranium leaks into water all the time. None of the earth's Uranium is in a protective case. We are not dying left and right, because this contamination is extremely minor.
With a "manageable" nuclear reactor, you never should have Uranium leakages. Period. We know very well how to contain radioactive material.
If something is leaking, it means somebody is breaking the regulations. It is not a problem with technology.
And cost kills new nuclear.
Cost is nuclear's best bet. It is the cheapest amongst the alternatives. The only technology that is cheaper construction costs than nuclear is natural gas - but these are offset by high fuel costs.
You can repeat, ad infinitum, that nuclear costs are high. But every country is building nuclear reactors - India, China, Japan, Romania.. And they are doing it for really cheap. They are not idiots to burn their money away.
Please stop using the running costs of the EPR project of AREWA in Finland. (i) It is a pilot project, which obviously have cost overruns (ii) It is an inefficient design amongst the Gen 3+ alternatives available. (iii) Even with all these cost overruns, EPR is profitable in the market.
@ amazing
Even a meltdown or explosion could be contained.
You are right, but the thing is you cannot have a meltdown in a gen 3+ or gen 4 nuclear reactor without violating the laws of physics. It is just impossible to happen. This is why it is called passive safety.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:15 pm
09 Dec 2008
If you know enough to promote Gen IV reactors you know that it isn't the fuel but the actinides, plutonium and intermediate products that are really toxic. Gamma sources in the ground water are too much of a threat for anyone to bury a reactor anywhere there is any groundwater at all.
As to the solar/geothermal hybrid. The Feds. sponsored a brief study in the 70's that concluded it could be feasible provided cheaper solar sources or more expensive power prices were available. Dang if I can find it again though. Credit where due.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:42 am
10 Dec 2008
You stated that "The Smart grid is being built out right now." and I replied that was an overstatement.
It's not a big point. If you wish to make more of it, go right ahead.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:58 am
10 Dec 2008
If something is leaking, it means somebody is breaking the regulations. It is not a problem with technology."
Japan...
"A small amount of water used to cool radioactive spent fuel rods at a Japanese nuclear reactor leaked into the Sea of Japan as a result of a massive earthquake that struck the country yesterday, though officials of Tokyo Electric Power insisted it posed no danger."
Australia...
"Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). ... leaks that allow ordinary water to dilute molecularly altered heavy water around the reactor have not yet been fixed, despite being identified in 2006."
Slovenia...
"Slovenia began shutting down its only nuclear power plant in Krsko yesterday afternoon, after it detected a leak in the cooling system. Authorities said the leak did not pose any danger for people or the environment."
Leaks happen. Engineers can design good stuff, but that does not mean that mistakes are not made.
Perhaps you're aware of the falling ceiling at the 'Big Dig'?
Nuclear power brings unique dangers to the table.
We don't need it. It's too expensive (based on nuclear industry numbers) and takes too long to build.
What you're leaving out of your cost statement is the price of financing. Nuclear requires a lot of money up front and it's years and years before revenue begins to flow. Interest has to be paid for all those years.
Here's a couple of good reads on cost.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/13/11021/6597
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:19 am
10 Dec 2008
"This puts me in mind the last episode of "60 Minutes", it turns out that the Saudis want to export solar electricity as their oil runs out."
Do the Saudis want to install solar because they are worried about their oil running out? Or because it's cheaper to install solar than to burn oil to make electricity?
When you can sell oil for $100 a barrel and thin film solar is dropping to ~$1 per watt.
A gallon of crude will produce about 17 kWh of electricity. $100 a barrel is $2.30 per gallon. 7.4 kWh per dollars worth of oil
Given what must be something close to a 6 hour solar day 365 days per year a 1 watt panel should produce 2 kWh per year. That's roughly a 3-4 year payback.
They've got at least one field that they don't plan on tapping for many years. They've decided to leave it for later generations. They've got oil. They can also do math....
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:33 am
10 Dec 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:50 pm
10 Dec 2008
This power interchange between Boulder residents and Xcel is possible through renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, solar panels, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), said Carl Lawrence, CEO of Hybrids Plus, a Boulder-based firm that specializes in converting gas-electric hybrid vehicles into PHEVs capable of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology.
Hybrids Plus modifies two hybrids, the Ford Escape PHEV 25 and Toyota Prius PHEV 15, converting them to PHEVs that allow fleets and individual motorists to take advantage of the growing V2G technology.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:15 pm
10 Dec 2008
A local area warehouse means that the stuff gets stored in cheaper real estate, gets watched over by someone trained to do so (not the janitor), and you centralize things like inverters, charges, monitoring equipment, etc. which creates an economic advantage.
---
The most efficient thing would be for all of us to live in dorms and 'hot bunk' - one bed for each three people, each getting an eight hour shift. Good insulation and the body heat alone might be enough to heat the place.
Eat in a communal dining hall in several shifts. That way we need only one bowl and one spoon for each eight people....
Thing is, most of us will want some life that is a bit less than the most efficient. ;o)
Absolutely beautiful night tonight here on the mountain. Moon is working its way to full. If I stand in the right place and peer through an opening in the trees I can see the lights of Ferndale far off in the distance. Beautiful "Victorian" village of a few hundred people a mile or two in from the ocean. I can see the lights of one closer house, about five miles away.
Can't hear a single human created sound except for our breathing....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:29 pm
10 Dec 2008
...Saudi costs for producing oil are the lowest in the world: according to Ali Al-Naimi, the cost to produce one barrel is less than $2.
Saudi Arabia reportedly needs to sell oil for at least $55 dollars a barrel to cover the cost of running the country. Fossil fuels finance 75 percent of the country's entire domestic spending budget, but oil is selling for below that breakeven price.
The Saudis recently announced the price they would like to see oil selling for, $75 a barrel. That's about 50 percent higher than the current price.
Rather than oil pushers, the Saudis see themselves as good global citizens who are trying to save the world from a catastrophic oil shortage. But, as Al-Naimi told 60 Minutes, the kingdom is hedging its bets.
He told Stahl the kingdom is doing research on solar energy, as sunshine is more than abundant in Saudi Arabia.
And he says it won't hurt their oil industry, but supplement it. "Our vision is that we will be exporters of gigawatts of electricity. We will be exporting both: barrels of oil and gigawatts of power."
And so, he says, the kingdom will still be in the energy business long after the sun sets on the age of oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:48 pm
10 Dec 2008
Turn sand and solar energy into a perpetual solar energy "field" to replace the oil fields.
What if they invested along with US companies that have this technology, and backed solar powered PV plants in the US southwest?
Then we'd have a partner, a real partner.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:49 pm
10 Dec 2008
Notice those yellow dots in Saudi-land?
Notice how they are hooked to the population centers of North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe?
I suspect that's where the partnership is going to be.
(Notice how Europe is pulling out ahead of us? We need to get going if we're going to make the train....)
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:54 pm
10 Dec 2008
Solar power and even a small battery supply can make the difference between a bit of power and no power at all. No power at all gets expensive fast.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:02 pm
10 Dec 2008
We have instruments that can measure extremely minute radiation leaks, and these instruments report whenever there is a faulty leak in the nuclear plant. But that doesn't mean it is a cause for alarm.
Please note that I am not supporting radiation leaks. We have no reason to have them (even extremely minor leakages). But when we are perceiving threats to the environment, we have to quantify the risks and make a wise judgement accordingly.
The risk (and probability of) of radiation leakage is so infinitesimally minor as compared to the destruction of earth's biodiversity (careless grand solar plans), or disruption of fresh water availability (careless biofuels) or geological heat distribution (careless geothermal) or disastrous climate change past tipping points (continued fossil fuel usage).
About expenses of nuclear power, I have argued in a million threads and refuted each and single point. No one has come up with an explanation why any renewable technology with higher requirements on land+metals+concrete will be cheaper than nuclear to produce the same amount of power. Yes, I am talking of capital costs and financing. If nuclear needs "X" amount of capital, renewables need "10X". Of all the criticism against nuclear power, the cost argument is the dumbest.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:58 am
11 Dec 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:51 am
11 Dec 2008
Actually, I wonder if your urban apartment life is all that more efficient/CO2 non-producing than is my life here on the mountain.
90% of my electricity comes from a couple racks of solar panels. My heat comes 100% from firewood (storm-felled trees cut within 1/4th mile of the stove) and a goodly portion of my food comes from my garden and orchard.
----
Vakibs - the nuclear industry should be educated.
They think it's more expensive to create new nuclear energy than to create new wind energy.
You might want to get in contact with them and set them straight....
----------
Pangolin - I think we're talking about three "areas" of storage.
At generation site - makes sense when the transmission lines are inadequate to carry peak output to the places where it will be consumed.
In the local area - in your neighborhood, your small town, a few places around your city. Think of them as electricity warehouses. They can utilize the sort of less expensive real estate where warehouses tend to be placed. They can be scaled to allow some technical staff and sophisticated equipment on site.
This system would allow less expensive off-peak power to be acquired (some Texas wind farms are PAYING utilities to take their nighttime output) and used during more expensive days. They would allow leveling of load on undersized transmission lines. They would give a few hours of power when/if the 'big line' goes down.
It's not very likely that we will store "days" of power to fuel, say Seattle, if the transmission line goes down. That solution will come from a better designed "smart grid" that will be able to utilize more "routes".
3) In your closet. This one I don't think likely on a grand scale. Sure, your rechargeable flashlight batteries, your laptop battery, some stuff like that. But not a bank of batteries that you could use to power your life for a few days when your neighborhood goes black.
Some people love this idea. I don't think it makes financial sense and few people would want to be bothered unless there was a very large financial benefit (which I can't imagine). But I didn't think people would be stupid enough to vote for Reagan, so there you go....
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:30 am
11 Dec 2008
Wondering if you've heard of sulfur sodium batteries, or any other kind of storage for, say, your neighborhood storage units...it seems as if large battery systems, which may be more efficient, don't get the press that small ones do, since small ones can be used in cars.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:51 am
11 Dec 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
My understanding is that some are being installed at the "neighborhood" level in addition to being installed in wind farms for smoothing operations.
Also being tested are flywheels for storage. There is, I think, one now installed in the NY area to see how it will function for storage.
Car batteries will probably find a 'second life' as utility storage when they degrade a bit making them not optimal for car use (dropping range).
Switch them out of cars for a new set, give the car owner a fair price to be applied to the new set, slap them in racks at the local electricity warehouse, and get many good years out of them for load shifting/smoothing/emergency backup before they need to be recycled.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:00 am
11 Dec 2008
What worries me is that there may be much more practical batteries that are large and stationary, that is, not suitable for cars, and so renewable energy storage solutions will be much less than optimal because the focus is so heavily on cars. There are probably two battery problems we have to fix, one for large stationary batteries (building/neighborhood level) and one for transportation.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:26 am
11 Dec 2008
"Second life" car batteries are appealing because they offer much less expensive PHEVs/BEVs. If you could resell your "80%" good batteries for ~80% of their initial cost you could bring your ride back to 'fresh from the showroom' range for a lot less money than paying full price for a new set of batteries.
There's a study floating around somewhere that calculated that if we have 2 hours of storage we could use wind for 80% of our base load. (I think the numbers are correctly remembered.) Since the price of wind is getting very good that's a very encouraging finding.
We could get the other 20% from existing hydro and nuclear. Use PV and thermal solar to give us the daytime/early evening extra.
The other big option worth considering is to keep a bunch of natural gas turbines on standby. NG plants seem to be relatively inexpensive to build, only expensive to fuel. They could just sit there most of the time and be brought on line when all else fails.
This week PG&E broke ground for a new facility here in Humboldt County. They're going to install NG turbines that can be spun from standing to full speed in 15 minutes or less. That's mainly to let us increase the size of the wind farm coming to our area.
NG should be able to share a lot of hardware with thermal solar which would further reduce the cost of installing backup.
Interesting times ahead as all this gets sorted out....
Permalink