|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,950
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,950 |
A giant one square mile of solar panels in space can generate the capacity of a nuclear power plant. It can be beamed to earth using lasers or focused microwaves to where ever the power is needed. However, no bird or plane can fly in the beam without getting zapped. A study was done and the solar panels could be built in space for the same price as a nuclear power plant. This was before SpaceX's reusable rocket and lower costs.
Seems like nuclear power would be cheaper and actually safer in the long run using thorium instead of uranium or plutonium. The half life of thorium is only a couple hundred years instead of a couple of thousand for uranium and plutonium. Nuclear can run 24/7, and only shut down during spring or fall for maintenance or refueling when demand is lower.
Solar, wind, or nukes only solve about 20% of the fossil fuel problem. Another 20% is vehicle transportation. However, cities produce 40% of the CO2. This is from building to fuel use. It takes a lot of steel and concrete to build a city. Steel requires smelting with coal to produce. So does copper, zinc, lead, tin, aluminum and glass, and even making bricks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,959
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,959 |
Stored as hydrogen, shipped like LNG, then combusted to generate power, and produce..........................................
water.
What a novel idea. Too bad converting electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis of water, and back to electricity via a fuel cell powerplant is at best 60% efficient. Yes, but in a quick search, that number is as good, and sometimes better than other forms of electrical generation https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=coal+electricity+efficiency&ia=webhttps://www.brighthubengineering.co...r-plants/#natural-gas-fired-power-plantsOf course, it's on the internet and there are likely some built in biases depending on which link you click on. But in general, even at 50% efficiency perhaps the best benefit would be the end products of electrons and..................... water? Valsdad, You're comparing something different. You're examples regard the initial generation of the electricity. The efficiency number I provided presumes you already have electricity, do the conversion to hydrogen, and back to electricity.......and in that round trip, you only get back 60% of your original electricity. Got it. But, how does converting electric to hydrogen to electricity compare, efficiency and cost-wise to battery storage? (environmental costs included, like mining and disposal of old ones) As Dutch pointed out, a barrel of fishhooks, many of them treble hooks. Grid level battery storage is not practical with our current battery technologies.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,843
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,843 |
Be interesting to count the revolutions per minute and derive the velocity of blade tips.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,838
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,838 |
In all fairness, that applies to all projects, including fossil fuels. The things you mention, plus things like externalization of reclamation costs, etc, makes the economics a barrel of fish hooks.
That COULD apply to all projects, if all things were equal. But when you're directly comparing (supposed) production costs from a regulated utility-owned generating asset with a merchant-owned renewables asset, the advantage in manipulating the cost numbers is clearly with the PPA side of the equation. There's just too much scrutiny of utilities for them to do the kind of cooking the books that it seems is going on with merchant renewables projects. (I can't say about utility owned projects.) This doesn't even address the question of why you might be directly comparing assets that run with a 90+% capacity factor against those in the 20-40% range. My contention is that renewables pricing today is primarily about running the coal and nuclear plants off the grid permanently, not about making the most money. Even if that's not the case, their (qouted) cost numbers are in all likelihood the least useful of any type of generation. Your point is spot on. The trouble is that we're trying to make decisions today, for the future, with yesterday's numbers. In that case, I tend to lean to looking at trend figures. What is the cost trend of solar, wind, fossil fuels and nuclear? Well, best I can figure, the cost of solar is trending down by as much as 6% per year, the cost of wind by about 2% a year, and the cost of oil is indeterminable due to both fracking technology bursting on the scene and geopolitics. So, one would need to make a SWAG, and the best I would be able to come up with is "it's not going to go down". The cost of nuclear, likewise, is driven by politics, not economics, and therefore not predictable. My view is that you have two technologies with consistent down trends in cost vs. two sources with stable or unpredictable cost trends. If I had to make a choice, I'm going to put money on the sources with costs trending down.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,861
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,861 |
To my limited knowledge the blade tips must be kept subsonic, to avoid a portion of the blade living in that stressful transonic zone.
New technology may have changed that.
Each blade tip traverses nearly 1/2 mile per revolution, so 20 RPM will put the blade tips at nearly 600 MPH or a bit shy of Mach 1.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,816
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,816 |
A few thoughts for consideration:
We need a mix of power sources, one size doesn't fit all.
Rotor tips do a max of 180-200 mph.
Wind farms pay significant taxes and landowner payments are equally significant.
Wind farms make it economically possible to keep land in grass and untilled.
Almost everyone got something for Christmas that plugs in and uses electricity.
Wind farms have no fuel costs and operating them doesn't pollute.
Wind turbines kill birds. So do cars and trucks.
Wind farms require a lot of concrete, steel, copper and other materials.
Nothing is perfect, everything requires tradeoffs.
Last edited by BKinSD; 02/11/21.
"Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passin.'"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 3,734
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 3,734 |
Wind farms suck. My nephew sold his place in the country because of the noise. I pay 50 dollars per meter because our power company is required to buy the expensive power under Obummer law. 150 bucks a month for nothing. Gee thanks. Edk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,959
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,959 |
Wind farms suck. My nephew sold his place in the country because of the noise. I pay 50 dollars per meter because our power company is required to buy the expensive power under Obummer law. 150 bucks a month for nothing. Gee thanks. Edk So much for the fallacy that Wind Farms create no pollution. Noise pollution is very real.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 10,671
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 10,671 |
Cool. Every 56 of those equal one of the big hydro units at grand coulee.
They have 24 at coulee. Wonder how it compares to a modern average size nuclear plant.
Progressives are the most open minded, tolerant, and inclusive people on the planet, as long as you agree with everything they say, and do exactly as you're told.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,141
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,141 |
A giant one square mile of solar panels in space can generate the capacity of a nuclear power plant. It can be beamed to earth using lasers or focused microwaves to where ever the power is needed. However, no bird or plane can fly in the beam without getting zapped. A study was done and the solar panels could be built in space for the same price as a nuclear power plant. This was before SpaceX's reusable rocket and lower costs.
Seems like nuclear power would be cheaper and actually safer in the long run using thorium instead of uranium or plutonium. The half life of thorium is only a couple hundred years instead of a couple of thousand for uranium and plutonium. Nuclear can run 24/7, and only shut down during spring or fall for maintenance or refueling when demand is lower.
Solar, wind, or nukes only solve about 20% of the fossil fuel problem. Another 20% is vehicle transportation. However, cities produce 40% of the CO2. This is from building to fuel use. It takes a lot of steel and concrete to build a city. Steel requires smelting with coal to produce. So does copper, zinc, lead, tin, aluminum and glass, and even making bricks. Wonder how the panels would fair with a meteor shower?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,141
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 24,141 |
A few thoughts for consideration:
We need a mix of power sources, one size doesn't fit all.
Rotor tips do a max of 180-200 mph.
Wind farms pay significant taxes and landowner payments are equally significant.
Wind farms make it economically possible to keep land in grass and untilled.
Almost everyone got something for Christmas that plugs in and uses electricity.
Wind farms have no fuel costs and operating them doesn't pollute.
Wind turbines kill birds. So do cars and trucks.
Wind farms require a lot of concrete, steel, copper and other materials.
Nothing is perfect, everything requires tradeoffs.
My major issue is that a lot of wind turbines come from China and what is their lifespan and who is going to pay to tear them down when they fail and the end of their life span? Probably the tax payer again
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,363
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,363 |
Between 1980 and 1984 I was designing a wind mill with a 7' prop.
I could do the power conversion electronics, but the wife did the computer programming on a borrowed Pet computer for collecting anemometer data, storing on a cassette, and then displaying the wind survey on the little screen.
As the years went by, I realized that "alternative energy" meant "not financially feasible".
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,842
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,842 |
As an engineer, I find renewables neat and interesting but I think trying to convert all generation to them is going to significantly increase cost. Plus they don't really work without some kind of storage because they are intermittent and erratic. After it's all done they aren't as green as presented.
Quando omni flunkus moritati
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 10,128
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 10,128 |
The sharks around that thing will be well fed by all the sea bird carcasses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,969
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 16,969 |
Pacific Gas and Electric now shuts down the grid when the wind blows for fear of another power utility caused forest fire.
Result: burned down eco friendly windmills
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,326
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,326 |
It'll take a lot of them big fans to cool the whole world off - global warming sucks - big air condishners would be better i think - take a lot of power to cool off the whole outside Since an a/c creates a net gain of heat, I'm surprised that haven't started telling us to turn them off.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091 |
Nothing wrong with gas and coal which burn clean now, at least in the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
180 members (1_deuce, 29aholic, 1minute, 264mag, 45_100, 17CalFan, 29 invisible),
2,203
guests, and
1,141
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,492
Posts18,472,071
Members73,936
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
