Energy...

[RiverOfIce]

Please tell me how many people have died mining for coal, or digging for natural gas and oil? Nuclear by and large, and when compared to the others has an amazing safety record.

Oh but I never said coal, natural gas, or oil, I did say renewable. I really and honestly believe that coal, natural gas, and oil need to be shut down and are too dangerous to use as a primary source of energy. I am also looking at nuclear and starting to feel the same way. As these plants age, it is very clear they become more and more dangerous. Since it takes up to 20 years to fully decommission a nuclear plant, it seems to me that nuclear plants are just too costly to really consider. Sure when they are up and running the are low cost, but when they need to be shut down and cleaned up they become very expensive, with no return.

I understand we need power, but to keep wondering back down the same road we came from is not really an option.

Even if we could magically eject all the "problems" into space, it would still not be renewable and there is still a huge problem with environmental effects.

A terrorist attack on a dam, coal, or solar system would cause damage for maybe a week or so. A terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor would cause damage for years.

I honestly beleive we can not live with out nuclear power, but I also believe that we need to suck up and do the types of changes that will allow us to move away from power to the grid and have the grid power us.

For example, you could remove about 90 standard power supply station, but just forcing everyone to use energy efficient lighting.

If you require new corprations/residence to install solar power panels, geo terminal devices, wind tribunes, hydro plants, and energy efficient appliances on site. (maybe take away a small part of the nuclear subsidy given to nuclear plants each year to fund it).

Will you reduce the total need for nuclear power, no. You will not. But will you reduce the need to have coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, completely.

What I am trying to say is this, we need to have 1 billion small sources of energy instead of a few hundred large sources. One solar panel falls, one wind tribune explodes, one dishwasher stops, we do not have a major problem.

 

[cipher6]

What I am trying to say is this, we need to have 1 billion small sources of energy instead of a few hundred large sources. One solar panel falls, one wind tribune explodes, one dishwasher stops, we do not have a major problem.

Do you understand the immense infrastructure cost of linking 1 billion sources of energy generation together? Or should every home and businesses be responsible for its own energy production and get rid of a "grid" all together? Do you know how costly a house would be if it had to have and maintain its own power plant?

I think everyone wants the things your talking about, actually getting them is a different story. Even aside from all the politics, there are HUGE technical problems with that energy utopia idea.

 

[RiverOfIce]

there are HUGE technical problems with that energy utopia idea.

Same with yours, take a look at the news.

Now dont get me wrong everything has it negatives.

I live in an apartment building, about 3 years ago the owners installed solar panels.

Now during the day, they solar panels push the energy onto the grid, just reversing the reader. During the night, the building pulls energy from the grid.

When we where talking a few days ago, they said they dont really do anything with the panels, except wash them 2 times a year and year inspections. They have not broke, shut down, and cost anything in true maintaince.

But since the electricity is in the price for the apartment, they reduced the total electrical bill by 7/8. (where paying close to 8000 dollars a month, now paying less then 1000.) They know they can not disconnect the grid, but they also know they can add to the grid.

Innovative wind turbines to top new downtown Portland high-rise | OregonLive.com

Is also a good example, it is only 9,000 kW per year, about 1% of the total energy, but 1% start to add up.

As for connecting the grid, in most cases it seems to work well to reverse the meters. Will we get rid of nuclear completely, no. But if we call can add something to the grid, while at the same time reducing the need from the grid. It seems to me that we will be in a better place then we are now.

I do know a project in which they covert the extra energy in to hydrogen.

 

[Homan13PSU]

Right now nuclear (fission) is our best option for large scale energy generation. Thankfully we have come a long way from the early days and spent fuel rods can be re-processed and re-used, minimizing waste. Clean up is of course a major problem.

The solution, IMO at least is still nuclear, albeit in fusion power. Clean, self-sustaining and most importantly, no residual waste. Unfortunately we are still a long way from that.

While solar and wind are nice, they just aren't fit for large scale generation. Solar is great as an add on to houses, especially when used in conjunction with smart meters. Wind I'm just not a huge fan of. Its ugly to be frankly honest. However, in uses like farm and rural it does have its uses.

 

[ElasticNinja]

im odd in that i find wind turbines... actually nice
still tho, agree with the above post

 

[cipher6]

Same with yours, take a look at the news.

I've got no plans for a utopia.

Now during the day, they solar panels push the energy onto the grid, just reversing the reader. During the night, the building pulls energy from the grid.

But since the electricity is in the price for the apartment, they reduced the total electrical bill by 7/8. (where paying close to 8000 dollars a month, now paying less then 1000.) They know they can not disconnect the grid, but they also know they can add to the grid.

I really question those numbers, but am intrigued and would like to know more.

From rough (really rough) estimates, I'm calculating you would need, ~58,000 - 7,000 m2 (624,312 - 70,000 square feet) of solar panels to achieve that price reduction.

$7,000 savings @ 12 cents/KWh (US Average) = 58,000 KWh

Thus, a photovoltaic installation in the southern latitudes of Europe or the United States may expect to produce 1 kWh/m

 

[RiverOfIce]

I've got no plans for a utopia.But I'm really intrigued and would like more details.

They cover the whole parking lot. But that number also includes on demand water heaters, going from electric to gas, better lighting, changes to the pool, new appliances, and a few dozen other things. It seems like all you really care about it supplying power, which is fine. But to become more efficient never crosses your minds.

 

[cipher6]

No, I'm concerned about the efficiency and economy of solar power. Your argument of more solar and wind is never going to happen until it makes economic sense.

Also, how can you have solar panels on the parking lot? You mean on the roof of a parking structure?

 

[Mac_Leod]

Wind I'm just not a huge fan of. Its ugly to be frankly honest. However, in uses like farm and rural it does have its uses.

That's the problem with wind turbines, they suffer from NIMBY. Case in point, the Kennedys and Chesapeake Bay.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Efficiency is all well and good, but there are more and more energy using things

 

[RiverOfIce]

No, I'm concerned about the efficiency and economy of solar power. Your argument of more solar and wind is never going to happen until it makes economic sense.

Also, how can you have solar panels on the parking lot? You mean on the roof of a parking structure?

If you really cant figure out how to install solar panels in a parking lot then all you want is to argue.

But for the record they installed a platform above the cars, then installed them on the platform.

 

[cipher6]

If you really cant figure out how to install solar panels in a parking lot then all you want is to argue.

But for the record they installed a platform above the cars, then installed them on the platform.

So... on the roof of some parking structure then... yeah, I think I was able to figure that out.

 

[byteware]

No, I'm concerned about the efficiency and economy of solar power. Your argument of more solar and wind is never going to happen until it makes economic sense.

Also, how can you have solar panels on the parking lot? You mean on the roof of a parking structure?

Nanosolar is starting to make economic sense... printing panels like paper...

 

[Bob Maxey]

Nanosolar is starting to make economic sense... printing panels like paper...

What is the cost per KWH; rather, what is the cost for enough panels to supply power to a typical home? Do you know? I have lots of square foots and I love my heat in the winter and my A/C in the summer. Add a big garage, lots of work rooms, shop tools, computer monitors, amateur radios.... my power needs are greater than others so I need power.

And 24 hour per day, power, so factor in the cost of storage because the sun is gone at night. It might be good, but those that are so stinking green it makes you sick will hate green if their power bills are tripled and unavailable at night.

The cost must always be considered. Too costly, and it is a no go.

Bob

 

[cipher6]

And 24 hour per day, power, so factor in the cost of storage because the sun is gone at night.

You don't need to go that far to make economic since. If a solar system (just making up numbers here) costs $5,000, and saves me $1,000 a year when you factor in maintence and has a life of 10 years... thats pretty good for me... a 100% return on my investment actually. Even if your not totally off grid and running solar/battery 24/7.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You don't need to go that far to make economic since. If a solar system (just making up numbers here) costs $5,000, and saves me $1,000 a year when you factor in maintence and has a life of 10 years... thats pretty good for me... a 100% return on my investment actually. Even if your not totally off grid and running solar/battery 24/7.

And how many families can shell out five grand? I do not care how much it saves, five grand is quite a bit if you do not have it.

Solar will get there at some future point. But it does not matter how good it is if it cost people money they wont go for it. I fear we will be forced to use it, if we do not change Washington.

Bob

 

[ElasticNinja]

you can't power heavy industry on solar panels and idealism

 

[cipher6]

And how many families can shell out five grand? I do not care how much it saves, five grand is quite a bit if you do not have it.

Solar will get there at some future point. But it does not matter how good it is if it cost people money they wont go for it. I fear we will be forced to use it, if we do not change Washington.

Bob

I said I was just using those numbers as an example. The point is, if "green" energy can supply power at current or better rates for current or better costs, it is then worth it. If you oppose it at that point, its not out of anything logical.

If the cost of solar panels pays for itself, then its worth it and I'm in. But from what I've seen its not there yet.

Why such an aversion to new technology?

you can't power heavy industry on solar panels and idealism

Agreed, maybe one day it could, that would be nice.

 

[byteware]

What is the cost per KWH;

Cost per KWh? The last time I looked Nanosolar would be $10,000 for enough panels to provide 3,000 KWh per month. So, cost per Kwh would be $3.33/ no of months you own them. That was years ago, and I don't know whether or not Nanosolar has released their product for residential use yet.

rather, what is the cost for enough panels to supply power to a typical home? Do you know? I have lots of square foots and I love my heat in the winter and my A/C in the summer. Add a big garage, lots of work rooms, shop tools, computer monitors, amateur radios.... my power needs are greater than others so I need power.

I'm not sure YOUR home is an average home, but the costs above were what I calculated from the last reports on Nanosolar's products.

And 24 hour per day, power, so factor in the cost of storage because the sun is gone at night. It might be good, but those that are so stinking green it makes you sick will hate green if their power bills are tripled and unavailable at night.

Yep... that's the killer right now... Battery storage would be $40,000. Now, if EESTOR or A123 would get off their butts and release something revolutionary... we could reduce that to about $10,000... :sigh:

 

[byteware]

And how many families can shell out five grand? I do not care how much it saves, five grand is quite a bit if you do not have it.

Personally, I think it should be mandatory when building a house. Seriously, $10000 on a mortgage isn't that much more per month over 30 years... but it can save hundreds every month. It just makes sense.

Solar will get there at some future point. But it does not matter how good it is if it cost people money they wont go for it. I fear we will be forced to use it, if we do not change Washington.

Solar IS there. Storage just isn't there yet. I know it's a small distinction, but an important one.

 

[byteware]

you can't power heavy industry on solar panels and idealism

No, but if you added BioGas digesters to EVERY waste water treatment facility, EVERY dump, EVERY dairy farm, EVERY zoo, and anywhere else applicable, then you will have more than enough power to heavy industry.

Depending on the size a single dairy farm can produce between .5 GWh and 2 GWh per month.

With about 75,000 Dairy farms in the US... that's approximately 75 TWh per month.

We use approximately 29,000 TWh per year. So, 900 TWh per year isn't that big of a drop in the bucket, but that's just dairy farms. That doesn't include other forms of cattle ranching and waste treatment facilities.

Renewable resources are where they need to be... we just need to get the fortitude to use it.

For instance, some power companies are limiting dairy farms to 100 MWh per month. When they can produce up to 2 GWh per month, that's just absolutely ridiculous. (Granted, I read that about four years ago, so I don't know if it's true today).

 

[Homan13PSU]

No, but if you added BioGas digesters to EVERY waste water treatment facility, EVERY dump, EVERY dairy farm, EVERY zoo, and anywhere else applicable, then you will have more than enough power to heavy industry.

Depending on the size a single dairy farm can produce between .5 GWh and 2 GWh per month.

With about 75,000 Dairy farms in the US... that's approximately 75 TWh per month.

We use approximately 29,000 TWh per year. So, 900 TWh per year isn't that big of a drop in the bucket, but that's just dairy farms. That doesn't include other forms of cattle ranching and waste treatment facilities.

Renewable resources are where they need to be... we just need to get the fortitude to use it.

For instance, some power companies are limiting dairy farms to 100 MWh per month. When they can produce up to 2 GWh per month, that's just absolutely ridiculous. (Granted, I read that about four years ago, so I don't know if it's true today).

Biogas isnt the answer either. Long term, future clean and sustainable power is nuclear FUSION, hands down. Its going to take awhile to get there, but once we do its going to be fantastic.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Biogas isnt the answer either. Long term, future clean and sustainable power is nuclear FUSION, hands down. Its going to take awhile to get there, but once we do its going to be fantastic.

yeah, but fusion is still a long way away

No, but if you added BioGas digesters to EVERY waste water treatment facility, EVERY dump, EVERY dairy farm, EVERY zoo, and anywhere else applicable, then you will have more than enough power to heavy industry.

Depending on the size a single dairy farm can produce between .5 GWh and 2 GWh per month.

With about 75,000 Dairy farms in the US... that's approximately 75 TWh per month.

We use approximately 29,000 TWh per year. So, 900 TWh per year isn't that big of a drop in the bucket, but that's just dairy farms. That doesn't include other forms of cattle ranching and waste treatment facilities.

Renewable resources are where they need to be... we just need to get the fortitude to use it.

For instance, some power companies are limiting dairy farms to 100 MWh per month. When they can produce up to 2 GWh per month, that's just absolutely ridiculous. (Granted, I read that about four years ago, so I don't know if it's true today).

surely that gas should be used for cooking and heating instead

whatever you are being told, just because gas power generation is better than coal or oil generation, doesn't make it good

 

[byteware]

yeah, but fusion is still a long way away

If Fusion becomes unnecessary, then why.

surely that gas should be used for cooking and heating instead

whatever you are being told, just because gas power generation is better than coal or oil generation, doesn't make it good

Biogas... not natural gas.

Biogas comes from waste. For instance, the biggest producers of methane (which is several times more harmful than Carbon Dioxide) are livestock.

This method takes human waste (or livestock waste)... extracts the methane and creates Electricity and carbon dioxide (also high quality fertilizer).

Sure, releasing CO2 into the air isn't ideal (if you listen to the Global Warming Quacks), but releasing Methane into the atmosphere is a much WORSE idea.

 

[ElasticNinja]

If Fusion becomes unnecessary, then why.



Biogas... not natural gas.

Biogas comes from waste. For instance, the biggest producers of methane (which is several times more harmful than Carbon Dioxide) are livestock.

This method takes human waste (or livestock waste)... extracts the methane and creates Electricity and carbon dioxide (also high quality fertilizer).

my mistake, skimmed your post, I have heard quite a bit about it
At my local dumps I believe they power the buildings power with the biogas.. wasn't really listening