Why We Have No Wind or Solar Power

[Blue Bomber Man]

I will look up some sources tomorrow. But for now consider this, Denmark has 20% from wind, read: one source

The concept I am talking about integrates many different sources. Additionally they cover a much larger area with varying climates and weather patterns.

Other things that could potentially help stabilize the grid is all the excess deep cycle hybrid car batteries that will be hitting the market soon for disposal. These batteries are not dead, just no longer practical because their energy density dropped too low to be useful for a car. When they say the lifespan of some battery is 5 years, they are refering to its ability to hold a particular amount of energy, generally in watt hours or amp hours.

The old battery packs could be sold to companies (or even used in homeowners house's if the grid allowed for price changes based on time of day) that could help stabilize demand over time.

Example: The chevy volt uses a 16kwh pack. Assuming a 5 year cycle, it would have 12.8kwh after 5 years. For simplification, call its 12kwh, so devide that by 120 volts and you get 100 amp hours. The pack would recharge at night, then put into house during the day, improving the efficiency of the grid and stabilizing demand. It would probably be more economical to have a site dedicated to the storage rather then a home owner so that the batteries can be properly maintained and eventually disposed of.


For fun lets take this further. Toyota and other companies have sold many hybrids. Lets say the number is 2 million vehicles, each with a 5 kwh pack. (I am just guessing at these numbers, but they seem plausible, could spend 10 minutes looking it up, but these will work for this discussion). That works out to 10 Giga watt-hours of capicity. Currently these batteries either get refurbished or recycled (hopefully not trashed). A car owned could SELL their old battery or as some have suggested such as Amory Lovins they would never own their packs, they would simply lease them and when it was time to replace them they would swap it out, and the old pack would be put to industrial use.


You are so adament that wind and solar are not practical, but the reality is coal and other fossil fuels are the energy sources not practical; they are just artificially cheap because we do not buy the energy at the actually price we pay.

Some what off topic, I am for nuclear as well, though I think renewables is a better option.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Blue Bomber Man

You are so adament that wind and solar are not practical,

Really I fight the battle so hard is because I hate decisions being made by ideology and I cant stand the lies and propaganda. If you tell a lie enough times eventually you get people that start to believe it. Now I am not painting everyone (or anyone here for that matter) but the real hardcore environmentalists have an agenda. These people are usually not educated as physicists, chemists or engineers, lots are biologists or lawyers and other like professions with no educational background in energy. These people oppose dollars invested into nuclear energy or even research for that matter, they oppose carbon sequestration technology and they hide behind the guise that money is better spent on renewable energies. These people fight real solutions tooth and nail for reasons I do not understand (it’s ideological) and instead propose alternatives that are unworkable or unrealistic as I and others have tried to show in this thread. These people are not engineers or technicians and for the most part don’t care to consult with them either, yet engineers and technicians are the people who build and maintain our society and make it work.

One of my favourite tools of analysis is to look at what others are doing. The world does have a % of really smart people. If something is being done it must make sense to do so, if something is not being done then chances are there is something better. Good examples, I think Geothermal generated power is a great idea, its clean and constant, exactly what we need. It does exist but is limited to certain locations, it just must not work everywhere. Opponents to nuclear spread lies about nuclear is expensive, why are there over 400 plants on the planet then and new ones under construction right now, nobody wants to pay more than they have to so why build nuclear if it is really more expensive?

The reason Denmark is 20% on one source is that is the most cost effective renewable in the toolbox right now. Why do they build offshore wind instead of wave generation, there not incapable? I am not a great fan of solar partly because I live at a high latitude region and it isn’t worth beans to me in Dec-Jan when I need the energy the most. If you live in a low latitude desert, it’s great for you, but because it only shines for half the day it’s only really good to power your A/C and to displace gas in heating water. If you look at what utilities are doing, it’s not more than 1 or 2% in anyone’s generation portfolio yet wind is 5x or more that, why is that?

Storage solutions chew up efficiency in transferring the energy back and forth. Because it is not generation it is only wasted cost and people will scrimp on the size of storage and then your screwed when the tank is empty. We can’t waste time and resources on storage when we haven’t solved the big problem of coal smokestacks or tailpipe emissions.

Steps off Soapbox

[trebuchet03]

The reason Denmark is 20% on one source is that is the most cost effective renewable in the toolbox right now. Why do they build offshore wind instead of wave generation, there not incapable?

Part of the reason why offshore wind is so feasible for Denmark is the same reason why wave isn't as feasible.... Much of their offshore territory is shallow water

These people are usually not educated as physicists, chemists or engineers, lots are biologists or lawyers and other like professions with no educational background in energy.

And what about the engineers, aerodynamicists, physicists, etc.? I happen to know a great deal that are funded by private investors and now work in the [wind] industry. I emphasize private to show this isn't some government funded project that will be funded weather or not it works. If it doesn't work, the private industry pulls out.

The largest wind turbine mfr plant in the US (in PA) has sold turbines through 2010.

First Solar INC., Sold out through much if 2009.

In both cases, they're moving fast to increase production.

-----
Yes, some people argue for it for the wrong reasons.... But that doesn't mean anyone should therefore ignore those that argue for reasons based on logical, thought out and calculated methodology. The funny thing is - most professionals (especially in industry) aren't going to argue as they're too busy trying to meet demand

There is no one solution... The solution is going to be diverse, adaptable and regardless of where the power source comes from - we've got some major infrastructure renovation ahead of us.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by conradpdx

Investors don't run power plants and there are no individual owners of large power plants, it's all run by investors. They simply buy the power plants that typically are built by the government and sold to them at a loss.

This is incorrect, at least in the US. (I don't know about other countries.) Investors, such as the stockholders in utility companies, do own the power plants, and put up money for their construction. (Hydro is an exception.) The utility I used to work for (and still have a bit of stock in) build & owns 3 or 4 coal plants, several natural gas units, and a bunch of small hydro. The geothermal plant(s) up the road (Steamboat Geothermal) was built and is owned by investors.

And part of the reason it's difficult to work with intermittent power suppliers is that it hasn't been an issue in the past. I have been on the DOE site the last few days, and they are actually working on this problem with a system that they say will operate the grid more like the internet...

Fine, except that problem isn't the big problem. If you go to a system that is all renewable/intermittent, then where do you get the energy to cover for those periods when your renewables are down? If the intermittent is only a small fraction of your total system grid, it's not a problem: you crank up the conventional/nuclear plants a bit, maybe shed a bit of load, and your grid stays up.

But if you don't have enough reserve capacity out there to cover the shortfall, the grid goes down, and you have a lot of angry customers and a lot of work bringing it back up. Building reserve capacity costs money: no one's going to do it unless they expect to get paid. So you either have to have these plants operating at a reasonable fraction of capacity most of the time, in which case you no longer have a 100% renewable grid, or you have to pay them to be on standby, which increases the cost of electricity.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

To paraphrase the Saudi prince: the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

In the same logic, the age of carbon fuels is just about over. Renewable energies are simply better in the long run -- they will not every run out. That's not ideology or propaganda; it's reality.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

And what about the engineers, aerodynamicists, physicists, etc.? I happen to know a great deal that are funded by private investors and now work in the [wind] industry. I emphasize private to show this isn't some government funded project that will be funded weather or not it works. If it doesn't work, the private industry pulls out.

There is a difference between promoting your product and saying it is a panacea. Not entirely but 99% of engineers don’t fall into the latter.
I have no ill will towards the manufacturers for promoting and selling their products. Better than anyone the utilities know what the true cost of operation is and they will make their decisions accordingly.

Its talk like legislating all new buildings be energy neutral, or a % of generation must be this. A great example was California stating that a % of their cars had to be zero emission by year 200X. While all noble ideas, legislating YOU MUST is not the way to go about doing it. It’s like Price and Wage controls, its a fantasy.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Blue Bomber Man

Your large turbines would not ice up for similair reasons that basjoos does not need windshield wipers.

Wrong. The turbine blades are a lot more like airplane wings, and I can assure you that those do ice up. Read here: Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Aircraft Icing

Solar cells would be recieving less light, but power would still be flowing from the south.

Not unless you've massively overbuilt the system. The whole idea is for most of the power to be used locally, no? So under normal conditions the south produces about enough power to supply the south, with not much excess to ship off to cloudy places.

Natural gas can be throttled up and down, as can nuclear, hydro would still run, so could tidal/wave energy.

Nope. You've got a 100% renewable grid, remember? You don't HAVE nuclear or natural gas any more. Hydro you can throttle within limits, but you have other constrains such as min/max water flows, resevoir levels, etc. (Suppose you're in the middle of a drought?) Geothermal pretty much runs at constant output, as would tidal/wave if & when production plants are built. That is, if you have X MW of such generation, it either produces that X or wastes the energy, which your investors won't be happy about.

The whole concept of the Smartgrid tech seems foreign to you.

Again, no. I probably know a good bit more about it than you do, since I used to work in the field and still take a bit of an interest.

Your problem is that you are taking the ideas of an unproven & unimplemented technology and pushing them far beyond what even their designers intend. As I keep saying, IT'S NOT LINEAR. It's pretty easy to deal with small amounts of intermittent generation. Smart grid technology would increase the percentage, but the farther you push it, the more difficult & more expensive it gets.

So why go to all that difficulty and expense, when there's an easier and less expensive approach?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Blue Bomber Man

I will look up some sources tomorrow. But for now consider this, Denmark has 20% from wind, read: one source

But Denmark is one small part of Europe. If their wind turbines aren't making enough electricity, they can import some from German coal plants, French nuclear, or Swiss hydro.

The concept I am talking about integrates many different sources. Additionally they cover a much larger area with varying climates and weather patterns.

Only if you keep on with the wishful thinking. You have basically two sources, solar and wind. Climates and weather patterns are interrelated, and it regularly happens that conditions are such that you'll have very little generation over the whole area covered by your grid.

You are so adament that wind and solar are not practical, but the reality is coal and other fossil fuels are the energy sources not practical; they are just artificially cheap because we do not buy the energy at the actually price we pay.

Now who's been saying that? They're perfectly practical, and a good thing, as long as they are not more than say 10-30% of the total grid generation, and you have reserves to cover the times when they aren't producing. Again, you keep on assuming linearity: that because they can provide say 10% of the total generation at a cost of $X, then providing all of the generation would only mean building 10 times as much, and only cost $10X. It just doesn't work that way.

[CobraBall]

Originally Posted by Duffman

... but the real hardcore environmentalists have an agenda. These people are usually not educated as physicists, chemists or engineers, lots are biologists or lawyers and other like professions with no educational background in energy.

HEAR! HEAR! Not everyone wants to live like ralph nader.

A Nuclear Physicist acquaintance once said, "People who protest nuclear power plants get more radiation from the Sun while standing outside the plant fence than they would if they worked inside the plant".

...Denmark...Why do they build offshore...

Because they the Kennedy's do not live on an island off-shore of Denmark. "Not in my backyard" syndrome.

With the price of crude and natural gas so low, now is the time to start a major geo-thermal drilling project. Many onshore drilling rigs are/will be setting idle.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Hi,

To paraphrase the Saudi prince: the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

In the same logic, the age of carbon fuels is just about over. Renewable energies are simply better in the long run -- they will not every run out. That's not ideology or propaganda; it's reality.

There is probably 100 years of oil left, 300 years of coal, 1000 years of fissionalble material. Yes we need to start making intelligent decisions to extend those numbers but there is no need to panic yet! And there is no need to phase them out prematurely either.