Hoover dam as giant battery

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Death Valley isn't being used for much.

Huh? Where the heck did you get that idea? https://www.nps.gov/deva/index.htm

CA residents deserve the rates they get, as they are responsible for electing people that represent their interests. If their interest is high cost renewable, that's what they get.

Sorry, but it's not really about politics. It's about economics and geology.

FTM, what exactly is the problem with California's electric rates? Like just about everywhere in the US, they're dirt cheap when you consider what's involved.

[freebeard]

I now favor the Salton Sea. Of course both are encumbered by prior usage, but the Salton Sea is an environmental disaster from 1905 anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

What would be need would be acres of holding ponds for the algaculture.

[California98Civic]

The costs of coal and other fuels hould include downstream atmospheric pollution. The cost of a catalytic converter is part of the cost of burning gasoline for fuel. The costs in respiratory disease is part of the cost of buring fossil fuels for energy. They are inextricable.

[ratgreen]

This is of relevance. Pretty damn cool and I'm impressed with the efficiency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McByJeX2evM

[oil pan 4]

Too bad California has some of the worst air quality in the country.
You would think paying some of the highest energy costs in the country for renewable energy the air would be decent.
But that's not how socialism works.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Energy Return on Energy Invested per energy source.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#7134d085a027

Nuclear wins at 75x

Solar PV with hydro energy storage loses at 2x, 4x without storage.

Per the author US needs 7x to be sustainable.

This is entirely suspect. Nuclear plants take about 10 years to build, and about 10 years to dismantle - and we have to store nuclear waste for millenniums - and they only produce power for about 50-60 years. Mining and refining nuclear fuel takes lots of energy. Shutting down nuclear plants every 18 months for several weeks for refueling, and major systems have to be repaired / maintained, requiring additional shutdowns.

The embedded energy of solar panels is covered in about 2 years, or less. They will last for 30-40 years.

Land based wind power is THE cheapest to build, now - and solar is the next cheapest.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

This is entirely suspect. Nuclear plants take about 10 years to build, and about 10 years to dismantle - and we have to store nuclear waste for millenniums - and they only produce power for about 50-60 years. Mining and refining nuclear fuel takes lots of energy. Shutting down nuclear plants every 18 months for several weeks for refueling, and major systems have to be repaired / maintained, requiring additional shutdowns.

The embedded energy of solar panels is covered in about 2 years, or less. They will last for 30-40 years.

Land based wind power is THE cheapest to build, now - and solar is the next cheapest.

Nuke is the cheapest/cleanest/safest non-hydro way to produce power on demand. Next gen reactors promise to vastly reduce waste, and to utilize already stored waste as fuel, while being walk-away fault tolerant.

Wind doesn't solve the problem of demand, and introduces it's own problem of unpredictable supply. That's not to say the technology isn't interesting and useful, only that it's an incomplete solution.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

The costs of coal and other fuels hould include downstream atmospheric pollution.

Yes. And since we're discussing California, part of the cost of using fossil fuels to generate electricity is the cost of transporting it there. There just aren't any significant coal or natural gas deposits there, so you either have to haul it in by the trainload, build natural gas pipelines, or turn it into electricity near the source and ship that.

IDK whether shipping electricity is cheaper than shipping fuel. However, once you have the transmission network built, you can use it to ship electricity from any source. Got way more hydro in Washington or wind in Texas than you can use locally? Put it on the grid and ship it where it's wanted.

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yes. And since we're discussing California, part of the cost of using fossil fuels to generate electricity is the cost of transporting it there. There just aren't any significant coal or natural gas deposits there, so you either have to haul it in by the trainload, build natural gas pipelines, or turn it into electricity near the source and ship that.

IDK whether shipping electricity is cheaper than shipping fuel. However, once you have the transmission network built, you can use it to ship electricity from any source. Got way more hydro in Washington or wind in Texas than you can use locally? Put it on the grid and ship it where it's wanted.

I agree, if its renewable then it matters a lot less how much is wasted.

[redpoint5]

I see a beefed up grid being part of the energy solution of the future. More of an internet of connectivity with multiple redundant pathways to send bulk energy.