"As one of the first technologies used to generate electricity, hydroelectric power has historically provided the largest share of renewable electricity generation in the United States. However, this year EIA expects wind power to surpass hydroelectricity, based on forecasts in the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook. Different factors lead to uncertainty about the forecast level of electricity generation from each energy source.
Because few new hydro plants are expected to come online in the next two years, hydroelectric generation in 2018 and 2019 will largely depend on precipitation and water runoff. Although changes in weather patterns also affect wind generation, the forecast for wind power output is more dependent on the capacity and timing of new wind turbines coming online.
Both hydro and wind generation follow seasonal patterns. Hydro generation is typically highest in the spring when precipitation and melting snowpack increase water runoff. Wind generation is typically highest in the spring and fall, reflecting the capacity-weighted mix of seasonal patterns in wind across the country. Hydro often has slightly higher annual capacity factors, or utilization rates, averaging 38% in 2016 compared with wind’s 35%. "
I read where new Wind MWs are cheaper than most other sources.
Renewable or hydrocarbon.
They are, and dropping a couple of percent per year. Solar (where there's sun) is even cheaper, and dropping faster. They are building solar in the sandbox for considerably under $0.03 per KWH. New natural gas comes in close to $0.05. Coal is higher than that.
In Texas - where hydroelectric power is a big deal, snow has very little - if anything - to do with our hydro power. Such power is produced by water releases from man-made reservoirs built for that purpose, which store water and release it year round. Precipitation is a real factor, but most hydro dams are in eastern Texas, where rainfall is plentiful, and fairly predictable. Rain fills our rivers - not snow melt. Lots of wind across the state as well, and wind turbines are increasing everywhere - but probably don't seriously challenge hydro as a power source yet.
Across so. Idaho we're seeing new solar plants going in here and there. Of course windmills are increasing everywhere. We have plenty of room for both and lots of sun. I doubt we'll see any new dams. Usable rivers are pretty well used up and getting environmental approval for any new dams would be a nightmare.
Don't know if it is true or not,but a recent article quotes that one wind mill cam never produce enough energy to pay for smelting of the steel and fabrication to make it.
It's like these greenies saying they drive electric cars so they aren't producing a carbon foot print.They won't admit though it takes burning coal to drive the turbines to make the electricity to charge them.
Our electric bill sure isn't going down because of wind farms
I can't get excited about wind. What nobody tells you is the amount of nameplate capacity, aka full blast power, and how many hours a year or per day that fan actually PRODUCES full power. To replace coal, you'd have to cover entire regions (entire states) with fans, and even if you do that, what happens if there's no wind and its 40 below, or no wind and it's 100? As long as you've got the water for the year, hydropower is clean and much more reliable.
That all might change with power STORAGE technology to buffer supplhy with demand, but for now, I'm okay if coal and nukes do the work of base load power. Not so much natural gas, that's important as a chemical process catalyst as well as a direct heat source in domestic and small scale -- save the gas for chemistry and cooking, please.
Those numbers are generated using a 40 year life for both wind and hydrocarbon, well, boilers quite often last 40 years and more, wind blows forever but wind turbines only last 10-15 years.
What needs to be sacrificed is people. Take welfare rat breeders out of the demand and energy is no longer a problem.
Well, from your posts, I see a strong race hating streak. Do you intend to burn them for the heat to run turbines, or just stack 'em like cord wood for the next really cold spell? I'm not a fan of blacks for the most part, primarily because of how they act, but you sir sound like a founding member of the KKK. So you have any redeeming qualities, or are you a complete waste of space?
In 1984 I was a power conversion electronics engineer and designing wind power in my spare time.
There are a lot of reasons to avoid wind power: 1) Wind power available is proportional to wind speed cubed. This means the minimum wind speed usable is not far below the wind speed that will destroy the mill if not shut down. What would be good is a constant 15 mph wind. The average wind speed in the USA is 6 mph. 2) Noise. They are obnoxious and can make you sick with subsonic vibrations. 3) Kills birds and bats 4) Maintenance is horrible. My wife's uncle's ranch used them to pump water and they kept breaking. The wind tip speed ratio is high on most props and any dirt hitting the prop will abrade it.
Where wind power is worth it: Off line, like; a buoy, weather station, sail boat, or a small island. In 1984 there were a lot of wind power installations in remote valleys in Hawaii.
Interesting talk you posted there . Reminds me of a TED talk I heard awhile back, regarding the changes in energy production systems over time and how it's perhaps time for a new dynamic. "We" started out hanging around an open fire, burning sticks, dung, whatever and progressed through water wheels, animal and human powered wheels, steam, coal, generated electricity, oil, natural gas etc and now we're at the changing time of the regime.
To paraphrase a politician: It's the economics of it, stupid.
As a fellow fish person, large scale wind farms in shallow water areas, scare me a bit. Disruption of feeding, spawning, resting areas can have "interesting" effects on fish populations. Perhaps over time they'll adapt to them, but that constant low level vibration thing might need to be looked at. I'm not sure, perhaps there's been a few studies on it already, but likely nothing long term.
I'm also a proponent of distributed generation and think EVERY new home in sunny areas should come with a solar array installed, with streets oriented so roof lines maximize power generation. I'm a dreamer, can't for the life of me see why there hasn't been requirements for water cisterns in the deserts also, at least for landscaping water, so why should I ever think new homes come with solar systems installed.
I believe that wind and solar are designed to make us feel good and virtuous about saving the planet. I would like to see an objective in-depth analysis of the net gain or loss of energy for both "renewable" sources. I can say that our Excel energy has only gone up since the State of MN and a Republican Gov. Pawlenty pushed for this mandate. I detect a con game is afoot.
What needs to be sacrificed is people. Take welfare rat breeders out of the demand and energy is no longer a problem.
Well, from your posts, I see a strong race hating streak. Do you intend to burn them for the heat to run turbines, or just stack 'em like cord wood for the next really cold spell? I'm not a fan of blacks for the most part, primarily because of how they act, but you sir sound like a founding member of the KKK. So you have any redeeming qualities, or are you a complete waste of space?
Though not a fan, this said nothing about blacks. I just suggest the faucet of free everything be turned off so that the population, if it grows, is of useful people.
It's not an energy problem, it's a population problem. At the present rate, what will the world be like in a few generations if we keep dragging the dead weight?
You are correct, Dave. The biggest hurdle is not how it is produced, but energy storage. Batteries have made several advances over the years, but is not quite there yet. LOTS of folks are working on better batteries and less toxic alternatives. Even used batteries from electric cars are getting new roles as battery storage in off grid homes, such as Tesla's "power wall".
The mitigation costs hydro electric companies pay for the loss of fish habitat is a figure that’s conveniently left out of the equation. The costs associated with “studying” how best to accommodate the fish, control predation by pinnipeds and birds and now the big headlines are how the loss of fish, primarily chinook salmon, has hurt the whales equals untold billions of dollars keeping lesbians employed in their government “jobs”.
"Ford president Jim Farley told investors on January 16 that a battery-electric version of the F-150 (illustrated above) is in the cards, and a Ford spokesperson has confirmed to C/D that this is the case. "
"Ford president Jim Farley told investors on January 16 that a battery-electric version of the F-150 (illustrated above) is in the cards, and a Ford spokesperson has confirmed to C/D that this is the case. "
just ask, and ye shall receive, or something about like that.
i've been waiting on the jeep pick'em up truck to showcase, to replace my tundra car.
my tundra car is in mid-life, bought new in oct. 2003.
a red jeep was in my sights, but if there's an electric Ford,
well then, who knows for sure? 400 miles between re-charges?
of course there's windshield wipers, headlights & heater to reduce the impact.
mostly i haul firewood in the back of the 8ft bed of my tundracar. to keep the house warm.
Dutch, "We" started out hanging around an open fire, burning sticks, dung, whatever and progressed through water wheels, animal and human powered wheels, steam, coal, generated electricity, oil, natural gas etc and now we're at the changing time of the regime.
To paraphrase a politician: It's the economics of it, stupid.
Geno
You put your finger on it. It's the economics, stupid!!!!!!
It really took that presentation to drive home the point that fossil fuels are becoming the MOST expensive way to generate electricity. No, wind cannot do what coal can do, but it does what it does considerably cheaper than coal. And it's getting cheaper.
The trend is that fossil fuels are limited in supply, and solar and wind are not. Demand is increasing around the world. From a macro perspective, fossil fuels absolutely will get more expensive, and solar and wind (geothermal????) WILL get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. If Alcoa can get cheaper electricity cost for one of their aluminum smelters by locating in a high sun area to get cheap solar, do you think they would? The world will change in response to the changing costs of electricity to take advantage.
One of the things older people struggle with is seeing only one change at a time, and not realizing that one change brings on several others. "wind is never going to work because it's not steady". Well, here we are, there's a LOT of wind generated electricity out there, and it's working fine. Maybe we will all plug in our electric cars and trucks, and feed the grid when the wind doesn't blow a while. Maybe there'll be an intelligent grid where freezers, dryers, water heaters step down their use when the wind doesn't blow. But it wind is cheaper, the world will adapt to use wind generated electricity.
The interesting part is that the presentation makes the case that fossil fuels will become comparatively so expensive the public will stop using them in favor of new technology. So all this gnashing of teeth about global warming will be solved by technology. Because it's about economics.
Despite the fact that Obama championed it, I'm all for wind power. It's a good supplement to other power sources and should be a part of any future energy grid. No one source can do it all and like any other developing technology what was true 10 years ago regarding efficiency and mean time between failure has surely improved by now and will continue to improve. Hydroelectric technology is pretty mature, everything in the U.S. that can be dammed up to run a turbine has already been done. More electricity is generated by natural gas now than any other source, even coal. Natural gas in the past was burned off as a waste product of oil production so it's good to see it being used. Where our country has woefully fallen behind is the use of nuclear. We've let the whacko environmentalists scare us off from investment in nuke power which is stupid because other than wind it's the only truly clean power source we have, and it's capacity is much greater than wind will ever be. We should be building next generation nuke plants as fast as we can, but once again we let radicals jeopardize our future.
And when we speak of economics, we need to keep in mind that many of the most vocal opponents of anything new are the ones who see their income being threatened by it. They will throw up all sorts of environmental and efficiency arguments to hide the fact that all they are really concerned about is the new technology cutting into their bottom line.
i'm tellin' y'all neanderthals and others who walk among us is that genetic engineering applied correctly can get us all coated in thick heavy hair once again.
then let the blue northers blow. we'll huddle together and stay warm, and survive.
the next morning or day after the storm passes through, we'll eat.
folks are taking things way too seriously. we've always survived.
and of course we always will, in one form or another.
That must be the reason for all the billboards around Idaho Falls (Dutch's stompin' grounds) commenting about the local wind turbines "inefficiency" and not being the best answer to current electricity needs! It is hard to know what to believe any longer with all the competing "business" interests involved.
With that said, I must admit that I don't enjoy looking at them, kind of like a drilling rig just off a beautiful ocean coast. Some of my favorite open vistas across Eastern Idaho, Central Wyoming, and Central Kansas along the Interstates will never be quite the same. Can't say I care for smog either though! The bird thing bothers me as well... everything comes at a cost. Most things any more are "people" problems, including more people that want more conveniences. It never seems to end.
Have you ever seen old pictures of "urban" Caifornia areas back in the early 20th century (100 years ago)? They were stunning and gorgeous. I can understand why people wanted to move there... boy what a century of "progress" can do to a nice place.
Nuclear power should be a big part of the strategy.
It's the economics, stupid. 25% of all nukes where construction starts, never finish. The average nuke plant comes in 200% over budget. With those numbers, if you're a utility, are you going to run to sign up?
Besides, any nuke that's not a breeder reactor is an economic boondoggle.
For both issues, the answer is political. And the votes aren't there.
I don't see the point, of course wind will surpass hydro. As a country we don't have much hydro potential and that was developed long ago. There ain't no more. The government continues to force renewable down our throat so of course it's getting bigger.
Maybe the fact that the government has to mandate renewable (not at all economically efficient) is a clue.
Nuclear power should be a big part of the strategy.
It's the economics, stupid. 25% of all nukes where construction starts, never finish. The average nuke plant comes in 200% over budget. With those numbers, if you're a utility, are you going to run to sign up?
Besides, any nuke that's not a breeder reactor is an economic boondoggle.
For both issues, the answer is political. And the votes aren't there.
I dont care.
If the strategy is not diverse its not really a strategy.
Nukes are fine by me, but non- breeder nukes are retarded. (Comparatively) huge waste issues, and 95% or more of the fissionable materials not being burnt. That's retarded. For no reason other than politics.
As far as diversity, we're adding wind, solar, geothermal, wave (?), tidal (?) and dropping nukes. Sounds like increased diversity to me?
Nukes are fine by me, but non- breeder nukes are retarded. (Comparatively) huge waste issues, and 95% or more of the fissionable materials not being burnt. That's retarded. For no reason other than politics.
As far as diversity, we're adding wind, solar, geothermal, wave (?), tidal (?) and dropping nukes. Sounds like increased diversity to me?
No. We have to schit can all that mess and burn coal and oil.
There was an interesting, and maddening, situation here in the PNW a few years ago. We had a very high water year. During the spring runoff, the dams on the Columbia were producing more power than the grid could handle. Things had to be shut down. There are 1000's of windmills in WA, OR, and ID that had to be shut down for lack of a place to put the power. Now, in the real world, when a company over produces, they lay off and shut down until the demand is back up and/or their inventory drops to where they can deal with it. They have no money coming in while shut down. In this case, though, the Bonneville Power Admin that runs it all kept paying the windmill owners for power they didn't produce. Our tax money was used to support them.
All the fuel waste produced in US nuclear generation since it started would fit on a football field stacked 20 feet high. It has to be documented, identified, located, and the disposal paid for as part of the rate structure. In fact, it's the only fuel waste from energy production that's completely controlled.
Solar panels, however, have metric schitt tons of lead, cadmium, and antimony that are going to end up in the nearest landfill because there's not much that says they can't, and not too many folks are volunteering to pay for disposal since they're not required to. The acreage of solar panels to generate the same power as nuclear is mind boggling.
When it's economic to use that other 95% of the energy in the spent fuel, it can be reprocessed, but as someone said, it's the economics. No shortage of Uranium at the moment.
Nuclear waste is a religious or emotional issue. It's not hurting anyone.
Wind is the way. You can buy up large portions of middle America for all the windmills, move all people into 24 mega cites, eliminate vehicles, since everyone is living in a mega city.
"As one of the first technologies used to generate electricity, hydroelectric power has historically provided the largest share of renewable electricity generation in the United States. However, this year EIA expects wind power to surpass hydroelectricity, based on forecasts in the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook. Different factors lead to uncertainty about the forecast level of electricity generation from each energy source.
Because few new hydro plants are expected to come online in the next two years, hydroelectric generation in 2018 and 2019 will largely depend on precipitation and water runoff. Although changes in weather patterns also affect wind generation, the forecast for wind power output is more dependent on the capacity and timing of new wind turbines coming online.
Both hydro and wind generation follow seasonal patterns. Hydro generation is typically highest in the spring when precipitation and melting snowpack increase water runoff. Wind generation is typically highest in the spring and fall, reflecting the capacity-weighted mix of seasonal patterns in wind across the country. Hydro often has slightly higher annual capacity factors, or utilization rates, averaging 38% in 2016 compared with wind’s 35%. "
Nukes are fine by me, but non- breeder nukes are retarded. (Comparatively) huge waste issues, and 95% or more of the fissionable materials not being burnt. That's retarded. For no reason other than politics.
As far as diversity, we're adding wind, solar, geothermal, wave (?), tidal (?) and dropping nukes. Sounds like increased diversity to me?
No. We have to schit can all that mess and burn coal and oil.
Troglodyte man say live in cave, burn sticks and mammoth bones, use charcoal and mammoth fat to decorate cave. No need this electricity stuff. Keep warm in mammoth skins with Troglodyte wives.
Wind and solar will do a job it's true but there needs to be a backbone source of power.
Out here we have had a lot of windmills put up now and more every day. Problem is that they have no way to store it if it is not needed now.
See a bunch west of the deer lease and they stagger them on,more times in summer. Was told the power is going to Louisiana. Problem is sometimes the wind don't blow hard enough to get them moving same type thing with solar,clouds kind of slow down their work as well.
There is still a place for coal,gas and other types of generation for power.
Power generation is one of the industries I served in a previous job. In that industry they have an inside joke that goes something like:
If you rely exclusively on wind and solar power, then eventually on a calm, cold winter night you will freeze to death in the dark.
Not I,
We have wood heat and lot's of juniper around here. Few people, lots of wind, and no smog issues.
Yes, "carbon" is an issue, but I try to plant a tree for every one I burn. And our electricity use is fairly low, below the national average. We only use it to heat occasionally.
I joke with my wife, she watches the home improvement channels, when I see them installing an electric fireplace. I say "they look great, but can you burn the furniture in it during an extended power outage"
Wish I was a younger man, there'd be more off grid items around here. Like Solar for our well, with a storage tank. Maybe solar or a small wind mill for power to a shed too.
Yes, back then I was working with the late Milt Rice. When home power magazine reviewed his 2000 inverter design, they would not give it back. Dynamite, his employer, sold his technology to the a military company for mobile command centers. He had an H bridge running off DC outputting 60 Hz with a transformer that could stand off 60 Hz and 20KHz [very thin Silicon steel laminations] This overcame the problem of commutating with current vs Voltage when driving complex loads. In 1984 every magazine rack had headlines about solar power and wind power. Those were small home units that ran the power meter backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Power
Everybody complaining about windmill killing birds.. And coal, gas and oil kills nothing?
Because you can't see a bird be wacked by a turbine, does not mean thing does not get killed by the smog, particles, extraction of said things and ruin of habitats..
"I just see smoke coming out of those coal plants.. thats not harmfull"....
Holy F... simpletons.
Everything is wrong with solar, wind, geothermal, hydro... but nothing harmfull about burning coal, gas and oil. And yet, you do not want to tax those more for their massive externalities.. And dont want to give solar, wind, geo, hydro subsidies to compensate for said coal, gas and oil...
As much as I hate to agree with lefties about anything, the risk to birds from windmills is blown completely out of proportion.
I looked it up and the estimated of birds killed per year by windmills run from 100,000 to 600,000 with most settling around 300,000. Cats are estimated to kill between 1 and 4 billion a year. Collisions with cell phone towers are estimated to kill 6-7 million.
In the big scheme of things the number of bird deaths from windmills is incredibly small, using it as an argument against windmills is silly.
No, no, no, you're missing the fun. The windmill huggers are the same ones yelling all progress must stop because of endangered or threatened or otherwise favored species. Put them in a conundrum - how many California condors will that bird Cuisinart kill?
Every time I see a stream or river running through a property, I see free power and a self pumping water supply. Between pontooned surface power generators and ram pumps that can load water into water towers 24/7/365 using nothing but gravity and air pressure, running water is a serious resource.
Take away the government subsidies and environmental constraints on hydro and see where the numbers fall.
My college room mate works for one of the largest banks in Europe and his specialty is lending on wind farms. For the last 10 years, it was simple: no subsidies, no wind farms. He says efficiencies have now reached the point where wind farms can succeed without subsidies, but solar is now cheaper in the southern part of Europe, and getting cheaper fast.
Thats right. Every time I try and defend wind power it gets all fugged up.
Piss on it!
Burn that brownass soft coal!
No worries Jim, I get the same thing when I say there are too many people, particularly misfits. Remember traffic when you were a kid, now, and what will it be in another generation?
As much as I hate to agree with lefties about anything, the risk to birds from windmills is blown completely out of proportion.
I looked it up and the estimated of birds killed per year by windmills run from 100,000 to 600,000 with most settling around 300,000. Cats are estimated to kill between 1 and 4 billion a year. Collisions with cell phone towers are estimated to kill 6-7 million.
In the big scheme of things the number of bird deaths from windmills is incredibly small, using it as an argument against windmills is silly.
I do my part with every cat that ventures through the yard.
Everybody complaining about windmill killing birds.. And coal, gas and oil kills nothing?
Because you can't see a bird be wacked by a turbine, does not mean thing does not get killed by the smog, particles, extraction of said things and ruin of habitats..
"I just see smoke coming out of those coal plants.. thats not harmfull"....
Holy F... simpletons.
Everything is wrong with solar, wind, geothermal, hydro... but nothing harmfull about burning coal, gas and oil. And yet, you do not want to tax those more for their massive externalities.. And dont want to give solar, wind, geo, hydro subsidies to compensate for said coal, gas and oil...
What you see coming out of a Coal burning plant stack is 97% water vapor. Is there gases emitting - hell yes. But the gases are translucent. The emissions in the last few years have really been dramatically reduced, still substantial though. I've worked at a 1650 MW coal burning plant most my adult life. A lot of progress has been made, but maddening how half ass most these plants are managed. A lot like the post office, we have no competition, yet most coal plant generators would go out of business if the management of Amazon or UPS built a plant across the road.
A new nuclear plant is in store for Idaho, the 1st of it's kind. It'll consist of 12 small reactors buried underground. Another article said that each of the 12 reactors will be capable of powering 50,000 homes. This one will be located at the Idaho National Lab where the world's first nuclear plant was located. They also developed the nuclear engine used in ships and subs.
New nuclear power plant coming to Idaho Falls By: Katie Keleher Posted: Jan 22, 2018 05:45 PM MST
Updated: Jan 23, 2018 11:10 AM MST
New nuclear power plant coming to Idaho Falls IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (KIFI/KIDK) - Idaho Falls will soon be home to brand new nuclear technology.
NuScale Power, a nuclear power company, has created a new nuclear technology to provide energy to cities and Idaho Falls is getting the first power plant. The plant for small modular reactors will be built on the Idaho National Lab site. It will contain 12 reactors. They are placed in containers under ground and under water. NuScale Power says Idaho was the right place for their first one.
"They're the perfect fit for areas where there's not a lot of natural gasses readily available," Jose Reyes, co-founder of NuScale Power, said. "For utilities that have coal fire plants that they would like to retire."
They were approached by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems about building the plant.
"The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems was interested in retiring some of their coal fire plants and so they were looking at different options," Reyes said. "They met with us and discussed our design. It seemed to be a very good fit for the Idaho area.
These reactors don't just produce power, but can bring clean water as well.
"For example, one module can produce about 15-million gallons of clean water per day," Reyes said. "So we looked at other countries as well as in the us. And what I typically hear is that we need not just electricity, we also need clean water."
The plant would bring more than 1,200 construction jobs and almost 400 permanent positions to the area.
"A NuScale power plant would mean tremendous economic opportunity for our community," Jackie Flowers, general manager of Idaho Falls Power, said. "Grid stability for our region and importantly it would be advancing the safest design in the world."
There are many benefits to building these small modular reactors.
"Well, the real benefit is that they're much easier to manufacture," Reyes said. "They can be manufactured in a factory . They can be shipped in three or four parts to the site and installed as the modules are needed. So instead of building a large plant all at once, you can add modules in 50 megawatt increments as you need the power in your region."
Flowers says that having the INL is an added benefit.
"Of course we have the world's expertise in nuclear energy right here in our backyard," Flower said. "And so for us it's an opportunity to maintain that leadership role in advancing nuclear generation, tap into that intellectual talent that we already."
It will be a while before the plant is up and running. NuScale says they plan for it to be open in 2026.
On a calm day, when you see all the windmills stopped except one or two which are turning, have you ever wondered why?
Because (of the wind farms I have experience with at least) X amount of power needs to go through the lines as per the contracts between the windmill company and the company that owns the lines taking the power away from the windmills. That means to keep within the confines of the contract, a generator with, you guessed it.....petroleum products...is manually turning the wind turbines to create enough power to honor the contracts.
Right, wrong, good or bad: wind power is just as corrupt as oil and gas, coal, hydro and anything else. Plus it's just an eyesore, and it is basically "slowing" the wind down", which can alter the microhabitat. All energy sources have environmental effects, whether people see it or not.
Wind power is one of the most inefficient ways to generate electricity. It is harmful to all life and fatal to birds. Those generators have a short lifespan and are expensive to maintain. Sure you can take a myopic look at wind against Hydroelectric which hasn't been built upon for many years and come up with some charts proving your beliefs but they are hogwash. When you take an unbiased scientific look at wind power you must come to the conclusion that the harm far outweighs the benefits.
the Obama approach to solar and wind is to give them preference to all other methods and prop them up with taxpayer dollars that are eventually funneled back into the democrat coffers as donations. It's a giant Ponzi Scheme.
Those 2 charts are like comparing apples and cumquats. One shows power generation in million Megawatts, the other shows how much coal is used, not how much power is generated by that coal usage.
ND alone has many hundreds of years worth of Lignite coal and we're obviously not even close to the only state mining coal. Shale-Oil has produced some pretty darned cheap Nat'l Gas essentially as a by-product.
I hope that affordable and scalable storage capacity becomes a reality for wind, solar, etc.
I like the idea of non-centralized diversified generation. Put me down for an "All of the Above" strategy.
Power generation is one of the industries I served in a previous job. In that industry they have an inside joke that goes something like:
If you rely exclusively on wind and solar power, then eventually on a calm, cold winter night you will freeze to death in the dark.
Not I,
We have wood heat and lot's of juniper around here. Few people, lots of wind, and no smog issues.
Yes, "carbon" is an issue, but I try to plant a tree for every one I burn. And our electricity use is fairly low, below the national average. We only use it to heat occasionally.
I joke with my wife, she watches the home improvement channels, when I see them installing an electric fireplace. I say "they look great, but can you burn the furniture in it during an extended power outage"
Wish I was a younger man, there'd be more off grid items around here. Like Solar for our well, with a storage tank. Maybe solar or a small wind mill for power to a shed too.
I’m still waiting for one of you wind guys to pay the 100 dollars a month on my electric bill that I pay for the pleasure of wind power. I will not hold my breath waiting. Your hot air will not heat my house. Ed k
the Obama approach to solar and wind is to give them preference to all other methods and prop them up with taxpayer dollars that are eventually funneled back into the democrat coffers as donations. It's a giant Ponzi Scheme.
The wife has a second cousin in CA that is an environmentalist engineer. He is a partner if some 50MW solar panel farm designs. He tells me that they are all based on gov money and cannot pay for themselves.
Nothing like looking out over the plains and imagining the vast herds of buffalo and the millions of acres of unfenced grandeur or looking across the Scottish Highlands and imagining you are back in the time of Culloden...oh wait, you can’t do any of that anymore because of those great big fricking butt ugly windmills.
I don't know crap about wind power or much about solar power, but I love hydro. For the region I live it's a GREAT thing. Not just for the power, but for the lakes, dams, and flood control....and a lot of opportunities those lakes provide for fun. Only about 9% of TVA's generation comes from hydro....and 3% comes from wind according to their numbers (which surprised me).
One of the great things about hydro (in a dam system) is the ability to produce on demand to ramp up/down production. Pumped hydro-electric storage is also a really cool and efficient way to have energy on demand and use produced energy that isn't being used by the grid at a low consumption time. Pumped hydro-electric storage is essentially using energy currently in the system at low demand times to pump water to elevated reservoirs that have a turbine below them. At a high demand time that water is released to turn the turbines and provide immediate power to meet the demand. A lot of the benefits of hydro are location specific so that has to be considered. Where it fits the region it's good stuff.
"Today, TVA’s generation portfolio is 37% nuclear, 24% coal, 20% natural gas, 9% hydro, 3% wind + solar and 7% energy efficiency with a total capacity of 169,000 gigawatt-hours."
The biggest problem with wind and solar is storage. When the wind is blowing and no one needs power, or people need power at night. Solar and wind don't work when the wind is not blowing or at night. Some type of cheap battery would be the solution. Then they could send their output consistantly all the time. Same with hydro. If no one needs air conditioning in the spring, yet lots of hydro power can be released, then it is just not practical. Most hydro is used when other power plants can shut down for maintenance. Nuclear is the best alternative for not using carbon based fuels, killing birds, or not having enough storage capacity. Having 12 small reactors is best so one or more can be shut down during low usage for maintenance and refueling.
In my opinion solar is better for the environment than wind. Great in desert areas, but what about night time. There has to be some way to safely store unused power during the day for nightime use. Giant flywheels have been suggested, and battery banks like Tesla made to use in Australia. Don't know if it is cost effective yet.
I hope that affordable and scalable storage capacity becomes a reality for wind, solar, etc.
That right there is the crux of it all. On a calm cold winter night, you can't just open another barrel of solar electricity to heat the house.
Yes, you can. They are called "batteries" get some before they run out! Be the first on your block TODAY!! Order today, and we'll throw in a 9 PC screwdriver set! Hurry! Quantities are limited!
I don't know crap about wind power or much about solar power, but I love hydro. For the region I live it's a GREAT thing. Not just for the power, but for the lakes, dams, and flood control....and a lot of opportunities those lakes provide for fun. Only about 9% of TVA's generation comes from hydro....and 3% comes from wind according to their numbers (which surprised me).
One of the great things about hydro (in a dam system) is the ability to produce on demand to ramp up/down production. Pumped hydro-electric storage is also a really cool and efficient way to have energy on demand and use produced energy that isn't being used by the grid at a low consumption time. Pumped hydro-electric storage is essentially using energy currently in the system at low demand times to pump water to elevated reservoirs that have a turbine below them. At a high demand time that water is released to turn the turbines and provide immediate power to meet the demand. A lot of the benefits of hydro are location specific so that has to be considered. Where it fits the region it's good stuff.
"Today, TVA’s generation portfolio is 37% nuclear, 24% coal, 20% natural gas, 9% hydro, 3% wind + solar and 7% energy efficiency with a total capacity of 169,000 gigawatt-hours."
Many years ago we stopped building dams on the Meramec and other good float streams. Didn't save them all...
The biggest problem with wind and solar is storage. When the wind is blowing and no one needs power, or people need power at night. Solar and wind don't work when the wind is not blowing or at night. Some type of cheap battery would be the solution. Then they could send their output consistantly all the time. Same with hydro. If no one needs air conditioning in the spring, yet lots of hydro power can be released, then it is just not practical. Most hydro is used when other power plants can shut down for maintenance. Nuclear is the best alternative for not using carbon based fuels, killing birds, or not having enough storage capacity. Having 12 small reactors is best so one or more can be shut down during low usage for maintenance and refueling.
In my opinion solar is better for the environment than wind. Great in desert areas, but what about night time. There has to be some way to safely store unused power during the day for nightime use. Giant flywheels have been suggested, and battery banks like Tesla made to use in Australia. Don't know if it is cost effective yet.
One of the biggest problems of the current net is that there is TOO MUCH power supply at night. Not much use, and many of the generators aren't really set up to be turned on and off based on demand. Imagine how much fun it would be to turn a nuke off and on every day. It's one of the reason natural gas is so popular, it's one of the quickest to start up and shut down. Plants are idled down, but that costs money....
Adding solar to that scenario makes the grid actually cheaper to operate, not more expensive, because solar is more in sync to supply during peak demand, reducing the demand for base generation.
And then a cloud goes by and the whole grid has to compensate. At leas when you set a base load plant at a certain output it stays there. BTW peak load is compensated for by - surprise - peaking plants which are designed for that purpose.
In Australia they used Tesla PowerPacks as speaker plant.. Has saved the state millions in just one year to go from Gas peaker plant, to batteries. Saved 1/3 of the cost of the plant in the first year.
Adding solar to that scenario makes the grid actually cheaper to operate, not more expensive, because solar is more in sync to supply during peak demand, reducing the demand for base generation.
There are two kinds of power, reliable and unreliable. Adding unreliable power to the grid forces you to cycle some reliable power every day, which is certainly more expensive than running it steady state. And you still have to have reliable power to backstop the unreliable power, so there's no savings there. Compare California's power prices with the surrounding states, or Germany's (lotsa wind) vs. France (70% nuclear) to see how it works in the real world.
Those 2 charts are like comparing apples and cumquats. One shows power generation in million Megawatts, the other shows how much coal is used, not how much power is generated by that coal usage.
ND alone has many hundreds of years worth of Lignite coal and we're obviously not even close to the only state mining coal. Shale-Oil has produced some pretty darned cheap Nat'l Gas essentially as a by-product.
I hope that affordable and scalable storage capacity becomes a reality for wind, solar, etc.
I like the idea of non-centralized diversified generation. Put me down for an "All of the Above" strategy.
In Australia they used Tesla PowerPacks as speaker plant.. Has saved the state millions in just one year to go from Gas peaker plant, to batteries. Saved 1/3 of the cost of the plant in the first year.
Peak power management is a big deal. One of the dreams of the "distributed net" is to have a multitude of batteries loading when the grid is over supplied, and feeding when it is under supplied. Car batteries can easily function that way, as well as home based batteries, such as the Power walls. Once solar is half the cost of fossil fuel generation (about 5 years away), the next step is adding batteries to be able to take maximum advantage of those low costs. Right now, solar installation is growing at 20% per year, so solar electric supply will double every four years.
What kind of efficiency do you get outta that scheme? What is the energy and cost input to build/recycle those batteries? They do wear out you know. Solar cells wear out too as well as the supporting infrastructure. Solar isn't free. Pretty skeptical about this.
What kind of efficiency do you get outta that scheme? What is the energy and cost input to build/recycle those batteries? They do wear out you know. Solar cells wear out too as well as the supporting infrastructure. Solar isn't free. Pretty skeptical about this.
Solar cells wear out, wind mills wear out, steam turbines in coal plant wear out. Stationary batteries last much longer than mobile batteries (30 years has been suggested -- no one knows). Batteries are expensive, coal is expensive, gas is expensive. It all depends on which system ends up being the cheapest, and with solar getting cheaper quickly, batteries getting cheaper, and the natural gas getting more expensive as LNG plants for export are completed......... There will be a tipping point at some point in time.
But as we export more natural gas, the price WILL start approaching international price levels, which means natural gas prices will more than double over today's prices.
There is always a great hue and cry over the cost and effects of "alternate" means of generation, but little is said of the cost and effects of "traditional" means of generation by those with a vested interest in them.
Well no. We still have a somewhat market based economy. If renewables were economically efficient it wouldn't take massive subsidies and requiring utilities to use energy from renewables. We'll find out about batteries for storage. This is not a new idea and technologies beyond lithium have been studied. As far as Tesla, it is at least to some degree a branding stunt. Utilities don't really care where the power comes from, they'll use whatever gives them the greatest profit while meeting regulatory requirements. Existing plants do have an economic lifetime and can get decommissioned short of their physical lifetime.
In Australia they used Tesla PowerPacks as speaker plant.. Has saved the state millions in just one year to go from Gas peaker plant, to batteries. Saved 1/3 of the cost of the plant in the first year.
Peak power management is a big deal. One of the dreams of the "distributed net" is to have a multitude of batteries loading when the grid is over supplied, and feeding when it is under supplied. Car batteries can easily function that way, as well as home based batteries, such as the Power walls. Once solar is half the cost of fossil fuel generation (about 5 years away), the next step is adding batteries to be able to take maximum advantage of those low costs. Right now, solar installation is growing at 20% per year, so solar electric supply will double every four years.
Batteries are the cheap part. They are DC voltage, useless on the grid. In order to convert to usable power, a large DC to AC Inverter must be used to produce 60 Hertz voltage. They are expensive, not highly efficient due to heat loss necessitated by cooling for the electronic parts involved. Compare the price of the small Honda Inverter generators to the price of the larger capacitor regulated alternator based generators, difference per wattage is the electronic components in the inverter. They are small wattage to help eliminate the heat involved with the inverter. The US has 3 power grids, left over from the Cold war days. They are operating on different frequencies and power is routed thru the Texas grid thru a huge inverter to sync grids and is the limiting factor on transmitting power coast to coast. This was done so as not to lose the whole grid in case a magnetic pulse resulting from a nuclear bomb blast. Todays nuclear bombs are capable of magnetic pulse that would overwhelm all 3 grids regardless. Batteries sound like the answer, just a small piece of a complicated puzzle.
In Australia they used Tesla PowerPacks as speaker plant.. Has saved the state millions in just one year to go from Gas peaker plant, to batteries. Saved 1/3 of the cost of the plant in the first year.
Peak power management is a big deal. One of the dreams of the "distributed net" is to have a multitude of batteries loading when the grid is over supplied, and feeding when it is under supplied. Car batteries can easily function that way, as well as home based batteries, such as the Power walls. Once solar is half the cost of fossil fuel generation (about 5 years away), the next step is adding batteries to be able to take maximum advantage of those low costs. Right now, solar installation is growing at 20% per year, so solar electric supply will double every four years.
Batteries are the cheap part. They are DC voltage, useless on the grid. In order to convert to usable power, a large DC to AC Inverter must be used to produce 60 Hertz voltage. They are expensive, not highly efficient due to heat loss necessitated by cooling for the electronic parts involved. Compare the price of the small Honda Inverter generators to the price of the larger capacitor regulated alternator based generators, difference per wattage is the electronic components in the inverter. They are small wattage to help eliminate the heat involved with the inverter. The US has 3 power grids, left over from the Cold war days. They are operating on different frequencies and power is routed thru the Texas grid thru a huge inverter to sync grids and is the limiting factor on transmitting power coast to coast. This was done so as not to lose the whole grid in case a magnetic pulse resulting from a nuclear bomb blast. Todays nuclear bombs are capable of magnetic pulse that would overwhelm all 3 grids regardless. Batteries sound like the answer, just a small piece of a complicated puzzle.
To clarify the statement about the 3 grids operating on different frequencies. They all 3 operate at 60 Hertz, They are just out of sync from each other. They are degreed different and can't be paralleled together as such.
Well no. We still have a somewhat market based economy. If renewables were economically efficient it wouldn't take massive subsidies and requiring utilities to use energy from renewables. We'll find out about batteries for storage. This is not a new idea and technologies beyond lithium have been studied. As far as Tesla, it is at least to some degree a branding stunt. Utilities don't really care where the power comes from, they'll use whatever gives them the greatest profit while meeting regulatory requirements. Existing plants do have an economic lifetime and can get decommissioned short of their physical lifetime.
The only quibble I have with that statement is that utilities VERY MUCH care where the power comes from...... if it circumvents their generation. The money in the electric game is made from supplying electricity, not from distributing it.
Local wind, solar, etc, used locally, circumvents their business model. The utilities get to manage that supply into their system without getting paid for it. That doesn't make them happy.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2018.01.24/main.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2018.12.04/main.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2019.01.18/main.png)