Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
    Ironically, the safest, cleanest form of energy production, nuclear, has been essentially driven from the market. The opposition from "renewable" energy groups always point out that a nuclear installation is costlier than natural gas installations while dodging the fact that nuclear power is not subsidized like their favorites, wind and solar.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 4 months ago
      The big proponents of solar and wind ignore the fact that there is no good storage mechanism for electricity. We need to generate it 24/7 in amounts that match our need. Generating a whole lot at one time a day doesn't mean you can use it later. It means you have to disconnect from the grid rather than burn it out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
        One idea that's been neglected is synergy between wind and solar, to minimize the need for storage. Oklahoma, as one example, has 3,000 hours of clear skies every year, making solar an obvious choice, but it's taken a back seat to wind until lately. Oklahoma Gas & Electric utility has finally figured out that wind slows in severe heat, when solar is at its best, and have started to install solar farms to compliment the huge wind farms.

        The fact that the battery storage focus has incorrectly been on expensive, limited life batteries is one thing impeding affordable storage. In my not-so-humble opinion, an old technology, the Edison battery, needs to be considered. While the energy density of these nickel-iron batteries is poor next to even lead-acid, they last for decades with nearly unlimited recharge cycles. It shouldn't matter if I need more volume for a nearly immortal battery farm, but the battery technology crowd is captive to the electric vehicle mindset and the fanatic insistence on high volumetric energy density.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 4 months ago
          95% of our electrical storage is pumped hydroelectric. You pump the water uphill when you have extra power then you let it come downhill to convert it back when you need it. We essentially do not have battery storage.

          I agree with you on nuclear which gives 24/7 power with minimal environmental impact. It's true that there is a small amount of long-term half-life waste, but heavy metals from battery construction are elements and have no half-life.

          I'm pretty excited about Thorium but I'm a programmer not an engineer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago
            '95% of our electrical storage is pumped hydroelectric'
            Curious- what is the total system efficiency?
            and, what is the power source for the pumping?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 4 months ago
              According to what I read, you can recover 70-80% of the input energy. Of course the power source can be anything although the most obvious sources are highly variable sources such as wind and solar which need to have their output spread over time. It does no good to generate enough power to run your city for 24 hours if you do it over an 8 hour period without a storage mechanism.

              It is limited by geography. You need high and low areas to store the water. As DrZarkov99 has pointed out, wind tends to be used in large flat areas.

              http://energystorage.org/energy-stora...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
            There are places where water is plentiful, and the terrain elevations are good for hydroelectric storage, but most of the places where wind energy is most plentiful are flat and dry, like Oklahoma. There are proposals for using compressed air as storage, but those involve a lot of construction and huge storage tanks. Elon Musk is trying to sell big racks of lithium batteries as storage, but even with his superfactory, those batteries are still expensive.

            I agree with you that the components of most batteries are pollutants that never go away, but the elements of an Edison battery are iron, nickel, and water. You can recondition the water cheaply, and because the batteries have such a long life, disposal isn't an issue. There are Edison batteries that still work in Baker electric cars from the 1910-1920 era.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 4 months ago
              It does seem to me that solar power with battery backup is a good niche solution to remote places that are too expensive to run copper to, I'm less enthusiastic about wind pretty much anywhere -- although it traditionally ran pumps at farms.

              I'm appalled at the massive windmills that stretch as far as the eye can see over most of America. Someone has to have made a fortune in subsidies putting them up. I am incredibly dubious about what they will look like in 10-20 years. Already you can drive by acres of broken windmills on the way to Palm Springs.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
                There are a number of "Earthship" homes that integrate solar, wind, and battery backup effectively. Of course they also overinsulate and use passive solar design to reduce the energy needs. Easy to do with individual homes; much tougher to implement in larger communities.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • -1
      Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 4 months ago
      I think nuclear is cheap when you consider the long-term costs of global warming. My opinion shouldn't matter, though. There should be some system requiring people to pay for the net costs of burning things and the actual net costs of the risks and externalized costs of nuclear. I think nuclear is a clear winner. Plus it may lead to safer smaller-scale nuclear reactors using processes yet to be invented.

      I suspect wind is economical in areas where there's a lot of wind and low population. For the past 13 years I've bought all my electricity from renewables, but a lot of that money goes to subsidize wind farms in windy regions, e.g. the Dakotas.

      I would love to see more nuclear power. Irrational fear of it makes us use fossil fuels instead, which incur long-term costs in global warming but no one rare but terrifying nuclear accident.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 4 months ago
        I ignored your comment on global warming, but voted you back up for your recognition of the value of nuclear power. You're right that reactor technology has come a long way, and is much safer than early models. I favor more distributed power, and smaller, modular reactor systems would enable that.

        Take note of my reply to William Shipley above, and consider the seeming short sightedness of wind and solar proponents, who have ignored a synergistic approach, squabbling over who gets the alternate energy subsidies. If we forget the subsidies, which is the government picking winners and losers, and let the market decide, I suspect we'll see more innovative approaches to renewable energy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 4 months ago
          "consider the seeming short sightedness of wind and solar proponents, who have ignored a synergistic approach, squabbling over who gets the alternate energy subsidies. If we forget the subsidies, which is the government picking winners and losers, and let the market decide, I suspect we'll see more innovative approaches to renewable energy."
          Yes. I think it's certain letting the market decide leads to more innovation than even intelligently-managed subsidies for good alternative energy source.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by mshupe 6 years, 4 months ago
            I guess the point of debate is over "intelligently managed subsidies." First, its not their money, second, no entity more than a miniscule bit of information about an industry to interfere in the pricing mechanism efficiently, and third, where does this interference end?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 6 years, 4 months ago
    If you include the required subsidies for the manufactures, installation and operation of these renewable resource energy producers it is almost always more costlier than conventional and certainly more than nuclear. The subsidies are collected from unwilling participants who must drive their cars to work more often to produce the taxes to make the scheme work. Then you have the subsidized schemes like Solyndra that produced nothing! If there were a way to make it viable the market economy would find it, the directed (socialist) economy always finds the least efficient method.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 4 months ago
    SCAM _ SCAM_ SCAM.
    Wind farms are right up there with global warming. It's like waiting to be fed by manna from heaven. Even if it were true, is it economically feasible? But the idea is elegant. Like so many lefty ideals, it looks good but it doesn't work. Appearance is everything.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 4 months ago
    Natural gas is the way to go except the wackos are against it. Here in NY, Walkill to be precise, they just completed a very massive natural gas generation plant. Sadly, a few of the NY finest politicians took all sorts of pay off bribes to run the permitting process through and they ended up in prison. Cuomo's pals. Now we have this brand new multi million dollar plant that may never get on line and could be a total loss for the company CPV that built it. One of our fine judges just revoked the ill gotten permits and it is in limbo as we speak.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 4 months ago
    All subsidies or regulatory preferences are corrupt.
    Renewables are viable in certain places. They can compete on their own merits.
    Government interference distorts and makes things worse. Essentially always.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by mshupe 6 years, 4 months ago
      Where are renewables viable? Just curious what kind of renewable and who pays for it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 4 months ago
        There have long been areas where hydropower works. And some places where wind power works - windmills have been around for a long time.
        And even some geothermal locations.
        In a relative sense they only produce a few percent of needed production. So, they are not a "solution" to our energy needs.
        What I was getting at is they should be viable without any subsidies or they should not be operated.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by mshupe 6 years, 4 months ago
          Thanks, to me wind and solar are quite diffuse, and therefore very expensive to transform. Geothermal and hydro seem more concentrated forms of energy, and therefore feasible to transform. Kinetic energy in moving water to electricity might be less efficient than the heat of geothermal to heat a home?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DeangalvinFL 6 years, 4 months ago
            Yes, they all have their tradeoffs.
            I remember as a kid in high school going on a tour of the Hydro plant at Niagara Falls, Ontario.
            I didn't appreciate it at the time but what an amazing process.
            But that is a very unique location. It just can't work everywhere.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 4 months ago
            I recently got involved in a geothermal boiler project for a project in NE Cali. Should be pretty interesting, albeit a new maintenance challenge as I expect that sucker to foul.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 4 months ago
    Many renewable generating schemes are economically and financially viable, eg nearly all
    hydro power. The irony is that the greens are now against hydro schemes, their reasoning is convoluted, taking land from native people maybe, but I think it is just that they want to return to the stone age. Likewise, some wind generators in remote areas are viable. Usually tho' it is cheaper to truck in and store diesel for a generator.

    Geothermal energy from hot underground water is viable in some places (Iceland, New Zealand). GW Bush has a sophisticated scheme on his Crawford property, a contrast from AL Gore's massive use of conventional power at his Tennessee mansion. There was big failure by a South Australian scheme, mostly gov money lost (of course) and a well known local climate change alarmist was in it.

    The DWIA is correct in saying there is a difference between economics and finance. I have done more than my share of both types of analysis- financial analysis is from the viewpoint of a person or company, economic analysis is for government decisions. This requires some very tricky concepts so it is much harder, you have to pay more for that advice. The skill is in dealing with the fact that the advice is for people who are ignorant of engineering realities, are innumerate, and already know the answer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by mshupe 6 years, 4 months ago
      Great perspective Lucky. This the second time someone has told me of the engineering ignorance and economic ignorance of the political wizards. I need to learn more.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Snezzy 6 years, 4 months ago
        There is a lot of ignorance. Ask anyone you know to distinguish energy, power and force from each other, and you'll be lucky if you are even able to keep your conversation going. People know that stuff is difficult, and probably involves (shudder) mathematics.

        If you hear an advocate or opponent of some source of energy use a misapplied term such as "kilowatts per hour" instead of "kilowatt hours" you will know that there is no sense at all in trying to have a scientific discussion with the creature.

        Still, some of the crackpots who try their hands at science and engineering can be amusing. I once met a fellow who had a device that he claimed was a computer that ran at "1.5 L" where "L" was his abbreviation for the speed of light. He pushed buttons and yellow lights blinked. These days the lights would be green.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 4 months ago
    With my engineering work I have been involved in wind power, solar thermal and PV. There is a ton of snake oil in the industry. Know what's always been mostly missing? Engineering. Many of those who push these systems don't care about engineering and wouldn't understand it anyway. I've seen many a person get glassy-eyed as I've gone over the material...haha...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by mshupe 6 years, 4 months ago
      I'd love to hear more about that. Can you give me a few examples of the engineering aspects that are being ignored by the advocates pushing this?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 4 months ago
        Solar thermal is almost never sized correctly because even licensed engineers don't bother to learn it and their clients couldn't care less. They just want the panache that comes with saying, "Hey, we do solar". - That's my sarcastic humor, a little. I did work for a group that said they wanted to use wind power. I found the perfect site...and I mean perfect: no bird flyway, no neighbors, flagged trees, located 1 mile from a massive, effective wind farm. The analysis showed that the more they invested in equipment, the quicker the payback. They just sat on it and did nothing. Why? Because they only said they were interested in wind power. They actually didn't want to spend any money, though. The old solar-thermal (under the Jimmy Carter incentives) was horribly engineered and ruined roofs when it froze/leaked.

        The biggest boondoggle in the whole realm is USGBC...aka "green buildings". It's a huge, sweeping reform that was penned with almost no engineering basis. Then, us design engineers got the sales pitch that it actually cost less to design and build a green building. This, of course, isn't true. I never came around to supporting it.

        Renewables CAN be very good. But...engineering isn't free.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo