Renewables Get Some Tough Love From Google

[SeanB]

Heat pump does not pump heat! It uses energy to expand a ( close to ideal) gas , the expansion of which reduces the energy of the gas and this then uses heat energy from the environment to warm the gas up again to room temperature, adding energy to the gas. then you compress this room temperature gas, and it warms up to a higher temperature, and then this hot gas is cooled by giving energy to the hot side. The hot side is a sum of the input energy to the pump and the energy that has flowed from the cold side to the cold gas to re heat it to ambient. It will be more than the energy input to compress by an amount which makes it appear to make heat from nothing, but the heat is from reducing the temperature of the cold side somewhat.

If you take this hot side heat and use it to drive a heat engine there will be losses in the transfer of heat to the engine, losses in the cold side and losses in the engine itself. Even if you have a 100% efficient engine ( and you would be a billionaire if you got even half way to that) the thermal gradients would lose energy.

[dannyf]

Read Carnot's theorem more carefully.
It does not matter whether it's a conventional engine, peltier, bacteria, or something else.

It only applies to thermal machines.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--I have read all the postings so far, and as near as I can tell, no one has offered a good argument that the Google engineers are wrong and that RE<C (Renewable energy cheaper than coal) is in the offing any time soon. So if the "Settled Science, nya nya nya ..." climate situation is indeed as dire as nearly everyone says, and if the Google engineers are correct, then not building nuke plants immediately, in order to replace fossil fuels and sequestrate deadly excess atmospheric CO2 would be a supremely suicidal act of denial, no?

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Zero999]

Heat pump does not pump heat! It uses energy to expand a ( close to ideal) gas , the expansion of which reduces the energy of the gas and this then uses heat energy from the environment to warm the gas up again to room temperature, adding energy to the gas. then you compress this room temperature gas, and it warms up to a higher temperature, and then this hot gas is cooled by giving energy to the hot side. The hot side is a sum of the input energy to the pump and the energy that has flowed from the cold side to the cold gas to re heat it to ambient. It will be more than the energy input to compress by an amount which makes it appear to make heat from nothing, but the heat is from reducing the temperature of the cold side somewhat.

What you've described is a vapour phase cooling system which is a type of heat pump, what about Peltier element or absorption cooler? They're both examples of heat pumps which don't rely on anything mechanical.

[magetoo]

So if the "Settled Science, nya nya nya ..." climate situation is indeed as dire as nearly everyone says, and if the Google engineers are correct, then not building nuke plants immediately, in order to replace fossil fuels and sequestrate deadly excess atmospheric CO2 would be a supremely suicidal act of denial, no?

It at least seems pretty strange to claim to care about CO2 emissions and then tie your hands by saying "...but not nuclear".  In that context, I can almost see why someone would be skeptical.

Some of us are convinced that the situation is serious, and want to use nuclear energy to displace coal, gas and oil, though.

[Someone]

As for comparing the cost of a modern nuclear plant with renewable energy, you are comparing a mature technology that produces nasty waste with one that is still rapidly developing but is clean. Nuclear was insanely expensive to develop, but was funded because it had military applications. The cost of renewable energy has been falling fast for years, so it seems reasonable to expect that trend to continue. On the other hand, the US can't even find a rug to sweep it's nuclear waste under for a few millennia.

Nuclear is far from a mature technology, wind power is available above 70% theoretical maximum efficiency and solar has been above 70% of the theoretical efficiency of a single junction for decades. Neither of these technologies have the possibilities of increasing their efficiencies by an order of magnitude, Nuclear power has two orders of magnitude of efficiency available to improve upon, it will remain a non-renewable resource but there are sufficient known deposits to provide 100% of world electrical power for hundreds of years if it can be brought as close to its theoretical maximum efficiencies as the other mainstream power sources have been (coal, gas, wind, solar, etc).

[Zero999]

Greetings EEVBees:

--I have read all the postings so far, and as near as I can tell, no one has offered a good argument that the Google engineers are wrong and that RE<C (Renewable energy cheaper than coal) is in the offing any time soon. So if the "Settled Science, nya nya nya ..." climate situation is indeed as dire as nearly everyone says, and if the Google engineers are correct, then not building nuke plants immediately, in order to replace fossil fuels and sequestrate deadly excess atmospheric CO2 would be a supremely suicidal act of denial, no?

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

Because the it's much more complicated than that.

The cost of power depends on the location and is only one factor in where a business decides to locate itself. Renewable power will be cheap if you set up next of a hydroelectric plant but you might not be able to find people with the required skills there and the transport infrastructure could be poor.

I don't know why you keep pushing this.

"Before I came here I was interested in debating the subject. Having listened, I'm still interested in the topic. But I'm bored of you."

Me.

[dannyf]

It at least seems pretty strange to claim to care about CO2 emissions and then tie your hands by saying "...but not nuclear".

The whole global warming / CO2 crusade is no less idiotic. They are pushed by pretty much the same crowd.

The goal isn't to solve a problem. Their goal is to create a problem so that they are the only one to solve it -> more money and power in their pocket. They want you to live a life they deem worthy for you to live.

[Marco]

Neither of these technologies have the possibilities of increasing their efficiencies by an order of magnitude

Efficiency per dollar has still got a long way to go for PV (I think to the point where any other type of solar simply doesn't make sense). Even when PV gets down to glass cost the glass can get a whole lot thinner than it is now before it's barrier properties are lost, I don't see the wild ride of PV cost stopping any time soon.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

From the article:

"By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that would compete with coal and Google officially ended the initiative and shut down the related internal R&D."

--Call me a fool if you will, but I took the above quote to mean that the authors did not think that renewable energy competitive with coal was bloody likely any time soon.

--I am not persuaded that claims like "they didn't say that" or "it is more complicated than that" can make that quote, which is the thesis statement of the article, disappear. For convenience another link to the article is provided.

--And believe it or not I pretty much expect personal attacks from RE<C believers. After all if the Google engineers are correct, it would be like taking away Christmas from der warmers, and personal attack rather than logical and polite argumentation is their strong suite.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Richard Feynman 1918 1988

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[Marco]

It at least seems pretty strange to claim to care about CO2 emissions and then tie your hands by saying "...but not nuclear".  In that context, I can almost see why someone would be skeptical.

People are missing the argument Google is making ... it's economic in nature. They are saying that they don't think renewables can outperform coal economically and it thus won't gain traction, this being true does not prove nuclear can gain traction. It's an entirely orthogonal issue.

PS. I think breeders are a boondoggle as is MOX, I don't see nuclear improving much.

[dannyf]

they don't think renewables can outperform coal economically

Depending on what "economics" you are comparing. In terms of marginal generation costs, renewables are already some of the lowest, if not the outright lowest, producers of electricity, followed by nuclear and coal and gas and oil, with gas being the dominante marginal / capacity producer.

Renewable, however, becomes exponentially expensive when you factor in others costs, like capital investments, environmental costs, tax subsidies, etc.. On top of that, it is the least reliable source of generation -> totally counter to how electricity is consumed in a modern society.

Without some revolutionary technology improvements, it is hard to see how renewables can play a substantive role in a modern grid.

[johansen]

Without some revolutionary technology improvements, it is hard to see how renewables can play a substantive role in a modern grid.

transpacific and transatlantic undersea power cables to ship solar power around the globe.
dollars per watt.. its cheaper than nuclear energy.

[SeanB]

Without some revolutionary technology improvements, it is hard to see how renewables can play a substantive role in a modern grid.

transpacific and transatlantic undersea power cables to ship solar power around the globe.
dollars per watt.. its cheaper than nuclear energy.

Undersea cables are expensive, and having insulation for a million or more volts on the cable makes it both very thick, very hard to handle and incredibly fragile. That will be very hard to do on any scale other than a short one, like from one island to another. try to think how you will handle a half meter diameter cable with solid insulation and not have the insulation compress inside, or tear or void. Then think that you will have to have a steel inner core capable of suspending 12km of that mass of cable during any laying or servicing. then add the outer sheathing and the waterproofing layers needed as well, and the cost per metre goes up to incredible levels.

[Marco]

I wonder if you could design some system to keep a cable centered in an oil filled tube.

[SeanB]

I wonder if you could design some system to keep a cable centered in an oil filled tube.

Sure, can you think of a way to pressurise a cable to 5000 bar that is both cheap, lightweight and amenable to pressurising long lines.

Was listening to TWIET and he was saying space is easy, you only deal with 1 bar. Chee has to handle 5000 bar of pressure that will find a way past any less than perfect seal.

[Artlav]

transpacific and transatlantic undersea power cables to ship solar power around the globe.

Huh?
How can that help or work at all?

[Marco]

I wonder if you could design some system to keep a cable centered in an oil filled tube.

Sure, can you think of a way to pressurise a cable to 5000 bar that is both cheap, lightweight and amenable to pressurising long lines.

That's just needed to get the oil into the lines ... if you use a liquid heavier than water gravity can do it for you ... PCBs?

Still doesn't solve keeping the cable centered.

[magetoo]

The whole global warming / CO2 crusade is no less idiotic. They are pushed by pretty much the same crowd.

The goal isn't to solve a problem. Their goal is to create a problem so that they are the only one to solve it

The opposite and equal view (which is mine too) is that it is the goal of those who make money off coal, oil and gas to plant disinformation against something that is entirely settled so that nothing happens and the piles of money can keep coming in.

Of course there are people in the wind and solar business that push their agenda too, they'd be stupid not to.

(And a third, related view is that it is the fossil fuels industry that promotes wind and solar so that they can keep cashing in on the backup power sources..)

It at least seems pretty strange to claim to care about CO2 emissions

People are missing the argument Google is making ... it's economic in nature. They are saying that they don't think renewables can outperform coal economically and it thus won't gain traction, this being true does not prove nuclear can gain traction. It's an entirely orthogonal issue.

So orthogonal that I wasn't talking about the Google report at all!  Just the strange resistance to nuclear from those environmentalists who claim to be concerned about an immediate threat from CO2.

[johansen]

transpacific and transatlantic undersea power cables to ship solar power around the globe.

Huh?
How can that help or work at all?

no energy storage needed to get a significant portion of power from solar.

yes i know how thick those cables need to be.

such a project would be on the order of creating an undersea pipe to pump the entire columbia river from portland to california, but that can be done too.

[nctnico]

Without some revolutionary technology improvements, it is hard to see how renewables can play a substantive role in a modern grid.

transpacific and transatlantic undersea power cables to ship solar power around the globe.
dollars per watt.. its cheaper than nuclear energy.

Actually you don't need undersea power cables. The two biggest land masses are seperated by the Bering Strait which is 85km wide. With a grid which spans the globe it would be possible to transport a significant amount of solar power generated by CSP plants in desert areas.

@magetoo: IMHO Greenpeace et al killed investments in nuclear power. In the 80's Greenpeace tried hard to ban Chlorine while totally ignoring that hundreds of millions of people depend on Chlorine for safe tap water 

[Someone]

Neither of these technologies have the possibilities of increasing their efficiencies by an order of magnitude

Efficiency per dollar has still got a long way to go for PV (I think to the point where any other type of solar simply doesn't make sense). Even when PV gets down to glass cost the glass can get a whole lot thinner than it is now before it's barrier properties are lost, I don't see the wild ride of PV cost stopping any time soon.

Solar is a great way to add distributed generation capacity as is currently happening with profitable residential and commercial rooftop solar, and with more cost reductions even industrial sites will find it effective to install solar and gas CHP peaking. Larger installations can also use tracking concentrator and/or solar thermal co-generation to greatly boost the efficiencies.

I'm just pulling up mojo-chan (who probably has me on ignore with a fingers in ears approach) for their constant stream of misinformation on Nuclear power.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Well another US PV bites the big one for $40,000,000 or so. Now wait, it gets better. This time not just President Obama, but McCain, Palin, Senator Portman R of Ohio, and nearly every State, County, and City employee, republican or democrat all singing the praises of the federal 34,000,000 plus 6,000,000 or so in state and local bennies for a start up of a company called Xunlight. I hope no one will mind if I do not list all the solar, and battery  related companies that have gone belly up, taking with them beaucoup samoleons, as the list would be long. Better yet, perhaps someone will list the big successes the administration and various state and city nomenklatura both republican and democrat have had loaning millions to renewable related startups.

--If the federal government, usually the leading agency on these dry holes, is going to continue this profligacy, they ought to at least hire someone like Dave Jones to help them pick horses. Hell, pert near any of the engineers, on this blog would have smelled the rat in a lot of these half ass "companies", most of which were still trying to borrow more millions that they knew would never be repaid. Uncle Sam could have bought several thousand acres of PV solar for the money that went down the rat hole.

“I appreciate the hospitality of Xunlight Energy, and all the people of Toledo. The folks at Xunlight are doing great work for this community and our country,” Mrs. Palin said on October 29, 2008.

http://www.xunlight.com/

http://www.nysun.com/national/wheres-the-xunlight-a-real-life-parable-for/88950/

http://www.13abc.com/story/25980623/xunlight-solar-panel-corp-shuts-its-doors

“World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” [1977]
James Earl Carter 1924 -
[Ed. Yes I know, its not the full quote, its out of context, and he did not say that.]

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Dear Wilfred:

--Good point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Clearly Jimma was sounding the fire alarm on peak oil, as one can see, from the google article which quotes the speech at length. Please see link below.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIzooiFd6IoC&pg=PA559&lpg=PA559&dq=

"But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
The Quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub couch'd,
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.
Omar Khyayyam 1048  -  1131
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Dear Wilfred:

--Indeed much of what you say is correct. My only point was that the former president was saying we could run out of oil very soon. If he had some geologists, instead of bright young liberal arts graduates, advising him, he would have perhaps realized how fatuous that line of the speech sounded. One of the rules of thumb for petroleum and mining engineers is "If the price of a commodity doubles, workable deposits will increase by an order of magnitude." So perhaps President Carter just got it completely wrong. At the time he was urging everyone to set the thermostat to 70F in winter, and wear a sweater, 80F in summer, and drive 55MPH.

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it. "
"Omar Khyayyam" 1048  -  1131

Best Regards
Clear Ether