Renewables Get Some Tough Love From Google

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Courtesy of Google, renewables get some tough love. See link below, from Spectrum, the house organ for IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) for an interesting article about Google engineers and their abandoned quest for renewable energy sources cheaper than coal, or RE<C, as it has come to be known. The Fat Lady has not sung yet, but chances are looking less than sanguine for the nonce.

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

"In the heat of battle, my father wove a tapestry of obscenity that as far as we know, is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan."
Ralphie Parker

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[magetoo]

I would imagine that wind and solar are less than a perfect match for a datacenter that has a fairly constant energy use.  (Didn't Google look into nuclear a while back too?)

Over here, Facebook put a big datacenter up north, where there's plenty of hydroelectric spare capacity.

[LukeW]

Now we just need somebody with the public profile of Google to come out and say that if we're really going to do this, and really replace coal plants on any meaningful scale, like we've already done in Ontario and France, it has to be done with nuclear power.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Good points fellows. It being settled science that the situation is indeed dire and requires immediate action, and if renewables are never going to cut it, as is seeming more and more likely, then nuclear fission is the only currently available technology, and should be pursued with great alacrity, if we are to keep the Statue of Liberty and the Sydney Opera House above water.

--Surely it cannot be the case that the situation is just dire enough to require immediate action, but not dire enough to use fission, and that we must wait for improvements in renewable tech. That would indicate cognitive dissonance, kind of like imposing carbon taxes, and prohibiting nuclear, while shipping as much yellow cake and coal as the traffic will allow.

--See below link for a rigorous take down of the UK wind effort. But, apparently "Settled Science" does not come into play when huge taxpayer funded renewable projects flop around like stranded mullet. And do not think that I leave my own beloved USA out of this criticism, just check out the performance of the Ivanpah Solar installation in CA, and compare it with what was promised. It falls short by a long chalk. Once again the taxpayers were sold a bill of goods. See second link below.

http://www.adamsmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Assessment7.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-246,595

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpah-solar-plant-falling-short-of-expected-electricity-production

“The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy, is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.”
Nikita Sergeyevich Krushchev 1894 - 1971

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

Now we just need somebody with the public profile of Google to come out and say that ...

Pity that for such a great idea as renewable energy, it seems to need so much support; or it dies.

I wonder why,

[miguelvp]

From:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-681-more-solar-roadways-bullshit!/msg555455/#msg555455

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

But no matter, Elon Musk is set to make his gigafactory work, maybe not trying to solve RE<C he may care less about that. But as in using renewable energy for profit.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf

[miguelvp]

Edit: this was in response of somebody that posted something talking about dams, but the post went away.

True, we (as in the human race) have been using renewables since the dawn of electricity.
They should make more efficient hydroelectric turbines. And as for storage, a dam is darn efficient

[coppice]

They should make more efficient hydroelectric turbines. And as for storage, a dam is darn efficient

Dams are excellent where they are practical, although they need a lot more maintenance than most people realise. Most are being constantly freed of silt. The problem is so few places are suitable for building dams.

[coppice]

But no matter, Elon Musk is set to make his gigafactory work, maybe not trying to solve RE<C he may care less about that. But as in using renewable energy for profit.

http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf

Those slides have some interesting figures for the breakdown of who makes the most lithium batteries today. Most things I see say BYD is the world's biggest maker, but those slides show Samsung and LG are much bigger.

[zapta]

Renewables are already competitive, but soon they will be cheaper than other forms of energy.

How soon until renewables will provide cheaper electricity 24/7?

[zapta]

But no matter, Elon Musk is set to make his gigafactory work, maybe not trying to solve RE<C he may care less about that. But as in using renewable energy for profit.

It will never be really profitable if you exclude government subsidies. Tesla is a perfect example of crony capitalism.

[miguelvp]

But no matter, Elon Musk is set to make his gigafactory work, maybe not trying to solve RE<C he may care less about that. But as in using renewable energy for profit.

It will never be really profitable if you exclude government subsidies. Tesla is a perfect example of crony capitalism.

It's a good deal for Nevada as well.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-teslas-gigafactory-we-didnt-manipulate-nevada-into-anything-2014-11

The tax breaks & land it's a tinny amount considering the size of the project, so they better be profitable because those tax breaks (not tax free btw) will help but doesn't cover much.

[zapta]

How soon until renewables will provide cheaper electricity 24/7?

Today.
[/quote]

Great, we can stop the subsidies then.

[zapta]

How soon until renewables will provide cheaper electricity 24/7?

Today.

Great, we can stop the subsidies then.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--As one of the most polite, tenacious, and most honest voices for that point of view, I always welcome comment by Mojo-Chan, I am afraid he and I have reached an impasse with regard to the the thesis statement and the conclusions of the article in question. While I took it to say that renewables are extremely unlikely to ever be cost competitive with coal, I.E. RE<C, Mojo-Chan took it to say otherwise, and further stated that renewables are already providing cheaper electricity 24/7. Clearly we cannot both be correct in our conclusions. I invite the gentle reader to peruse the following quotes from the very beginning of the article, in order to resolve this conflict.

"As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today's renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

"RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies, such as self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture the sun's energy as heat. For us, designing and building novel energy systems was hard but rewarding work. By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal, and Google officially ended the initiative and shut down the related internal R&D projects.

"...Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world's coal plants--a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study's best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn't have solved climate change. This realization was frankly shocking: Not only had RE<C failed to reach its goal of creating energy cheaper than coal, but that goal had no been ambitious enough to reverse climate change.

--I also respectfully call upon Mojo-Chan to address the above quotes, and tell me where I got their conclusions the wrong way round.

--For convenience I restate my first statement which began this thread.

"--Courtesy of Google, renewables get some tough love. See link below, from Spectrum, the house organ for IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) for an interesting article about Google engineers and their abandoned quest for renewable energy sources cheaper than coal, or RE<C, as it has come to be known. The Fat Lady has not sung yet, but chances are looking less than sanguine for the nonce."

"I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[nctnico]

More over both western Europe and China have 24/7 baseline wind power, they just need a lot more of it.

Do the math on how many wind turbines you would need versus the amount of soil available. Besides that wind turbines are not economically viable without subsidies.

[miguelvp]

@mojo-chan

Google failed at both goals:

Not only had RE<C failed to reach its goal of creating energy cheaper than coal, but that goal had not been ambitious enough to reverse climate change.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy

[zapta]

That wouldn't be very fair, since nuclear and coal and gas get far more. The subsidy nuclear gets is literally invaluable, a metaphorical blank cheque!

That's fuzzy math. I see the point, we need to keep subsidizing RE because it's uneconomical otherwise. That's what I thought.

BTW, compare the electrify price of France (nuclear) and Germany (politically correct energy).

[Zero999]

Do the math on how many wind turbines you would need versus the amount of soil available. Besides that wind turbines are not economically viable without subsidies.

No-one is suggesting we move to 100% wind power. On the other hand, there is plenty of land and sea available for very significant amounts of wind energy.

Yes, emphasis on the word sea. There's not much spare land here in the UK for wind but as an island we've got lots of coastline available for offshore wind power.

One thing which annoys me about the energy debate in general, is everyone wants cheap bills but no one wants a wind farm, solar farm, nuclear power station, fracking etc. on their doorstep.

Personally, I don't care. It wouldn't bother me if an energy company put wind turbines where I live. Fracking wouldn't concern me too much either. I understand fracking is bad for the environment  but I'd rather it take place where I live, where it will create jobs for the local economy, rather than having to import gas from the USA and Russia, where there will be more severe environmental damage as the regulations aren't so strict.

[magetoo]

I would suggest comparing the amount of subsidy that France gives to its nuclear industry, but you can't because it's incalculable. The insurance that the government gives to the nuclear industry is unlimited in scope and impossible to buy commercially, so is literally priceless.

Same for hydroelectric, and it has to be, for obvious reasons.  If your dam bursts and kills thousands of people, you'd get wiped out if you had to carry the full cost.  Even if the risk is miniscule compared to other energy sources, the consequences are extreme enough that nobody can risk it without some form of government support.

It shouldn't be shocking to people that governments support forms of energy that provide what countries need (power 24/7, independence from imports), and that money from tax payers go towards major infrastructure.  But when it comes to nuclear, for some reason pointing out this fact is supposed to be an argument against it?

[mc]

Mojo-chan, the one thing you seem to fail to grab, is that most renewable energy sources aren't dependable 24/7, especially those available within the UK.

Today is quite a good example. Cloudy, so solar won't produce much. No wind, so wind turbines are stood still, and I'd imagine the sea will be pretty calm aswell. The only saving grace is it's been quite wet lately, so hydro should be doing well, however wait until we get a dry period, and that'll struggle aswell.

There lies the problem with renewables. Yes they're very cost effective when running, but they're not dependable (using reliable here to me makes it sound as though there is an issue with the technology, but there's not in that sense). You still need conventional power stations as a backup.

Now what's more cost effective and better for the enviroment.
Relying on conventional power sources making the most of their resources meeting capacity 24/365, or still needing those same resources avaiable but only utilising them renewables aren't producing?

This is where the big problem lies. You could cover the entire country in every practical kind of renewable energy, but you are still going to get periods where you still need conventional power, unless you're expecting most of the country to grind to a halt when renewables aren't producing. And storage isn't currently a valid option using exisiting technology.
And that's before you consider the move towards electric vehicles, which are going to increase electricity useage even more.

Now to put things into perspective. I stay within 10 miles of a now decommisioned coal plant, which produced 1200MW, had it's own railway branchline and still had a constant stream of coal delivered by road.
I also stay about 30 miles from a nuclear plant that can produce over 1300MW, on a site around half that of the coal station, with little traffic going to/from the plant.
I can also look out the window and see a wind farm that covers over 20 acres, yet only produces 47MW.

Personally, for the forseeable future using currently available technology, I think nuclear is the only viable option. I'd much rather see a new generation of nuclear plants, than wind turbines on every hill, however in the UK we seem to have countless NIMBYs who want the moon on a stick, so we're not likely to see either
I suspect people are holding off making any real decisions about power supplies, as nobody in government wants the bad PR that goes with nuclear, but given most of the UKs nuclear stations are due to go offline within the next decade, somebody is going to have to make a decision. Either that, or we just import more from all those nuclear plants across the channel...

[mamalala]

Perhaps not yet. But how can you know they will never be economically viable? Are wind turbines cheaper now than 5 years ago? I don't know but I suspect they may be. Solar panels certainly are.

The issue that many people ignore or are not aware of, when it comes to going 100% renewable, is that you need much more than just a bunch of solar panels and wind turbines. Wind and solar are intermittent sources. Having enough storage capacity is crucial. However, at least here in Germany we have virtually no storage for all the renewables, which is why electricity prices on the spot market can even go negative.

Imagine the rather common situation that there is little wind and little to no sun. Electricity would have to come from the storage then. Once there is wind/sun again, it not only has to supply the current demand, but also enough to refill the storage quickly enough. This inevitably  leads to the requirement of having a massive over-capacity in solar/wind generation installed just to cope with those situations. Keep in mind that i speak about going 100% renewable, which is what the politics had set as the mid-/long-term goal here.

If you don't go for storage, then you need conventional power plants as backup. However, operating conventional plants in that way is very expensive. All that adds up to the final price.

It simply isn't enough to look at the nameplate capacity of a wind turbine or PV farm, take the expected lifespan of the system, and calculate the resulting price per kWh from that.

Greetings,

Chris

[dannyf]

you need conventional power plants as backup.

In a grid, you have the conventional plants to support the base load, and then marginal / capacitor providers (your gas turbines for example) to support the peak load.

Going the other way around would be suicidal.

And that's why an intermittent source of energy has limited or negative value.

[Zero999]

One thing which annoys me about the energy debate in general, is everyone wants cheap bills but no one wants a wind farm, solar farm, nuclear power station, fracking etc. on their doorstep.

Personally, I don't care. It wouldn't bother me if an energy company put wind turbines where I live. Fracking wouldn't concern me too much either. I understand fracking is bad for the environment  but I'd rather it take place where I live, where it will create jobs for the local economy, rather than having to import gas from the USA and Russia, where there will be more severe environmental damage as the regulations aren't so strict.

That last paragraph makes no sense. If Fracking is bad for the environment (you said it), why is it better in a place with strong environmental regulations? Is the damage supposed to be less?

Of course the environmental impact will be less if fracking is carried out in a location with stronger environmental regulations, which force companies to appropriately dispose of waste and undergo frequent inspections.

[miguelvp]

Fracking has been linked to earthquake activity in Oklahoma. More precisely the byproduct wastewater injection in disposal wells

http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Is-the-Recent-Increase-in-Felt-Earthquakes-in-the-Central-US-Natural-or-Manmade.cfm

[zapta]

Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

That's a false assertion that you made up. Nuclear has worked great for France.

[Galenbo]

How soon until renewables will provide cheaper electricity 24/7?

Today.

Great, we can stop the subsidies then.

And claim/take them back.

[zapta]

... Hence, the hypothesis that getting renewables as cheap as coal is sufficient to prevent major climate change is suggested to be wrong."

+1.

[nctnico]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants. You need to get the price down well below that of coal to where it justifies them throwing their already-invested capital costs out the window.

That is not entirely true. Governments tend to make emission quotas more strict when alternatives are available so an old coal plant will be literaly taxed to death.

[dannyf]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants.

Those people are totally clueless about power generation.

If you could beat coal on generation costs, you would have been tremendously profitable.

In other words, you don't need to beat coal to be economically viable.

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

--Oscar Wilde once called a group of people he was arguing with "a bunch of Philistines". A man in the group responded, "And you are driving us back with the jaw bone of an ass." The working definition of a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts as his goal recedes. So if raising the electric bills of those not on welfare in the UK by 35% to fund renewables has resulted in a net UK carbon reduction of 1%, what could be the problem?

--Please see below a very interesting article about how the North-East USA narrowly averted massive casualties from widespread prolonged power blackouts. Given that generating capacity is now even less, due to the closing of coal fired plants, a similarly cold winter this year could result in a catastrophe. The State of Massachusetts has approved 37% rate hikes for it's two largest power companies, and is avidly promoting PV Solar. Meanwhile the renewbies are working on ways to blame fossil fuel sources, and capitalism in general should a cold winter result in mass casualties.

--And remember a cold winter is just weather, but a warm winter is global warming.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/67810

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
François-Marie Arouet - Voltaire
1694  -  1778
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[miguelvp]

True, last winter in Chicago was brutal:
Wind chill of -40 F (which is -40 C as well)
Lowest temp was -16 F (-26.7C)
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140106/chicago/chicago-extreme-cold-temperatures-plunge-chiberia

but this town has seen -27 F (-32.8C)

So I really don't care how dirty my energy is, as long as I don't freeze to death, and we might get version 2.0 of last year:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140822/downtown/chiberia-20-almanac-predicts-colder-than-average-winter

[Zero999]

So I really don't care how dirty my energy is, as long as I don't freeze to death, and we might get version 2.0 of last year:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140822/downtown/chiberia-20-almanac-predicts-colder-than-average-winter

I wouldn't take that too seriously.

The forecasters are often completely wrong. They've predicted cold winters when it was mild and hot summers when it was cool and wet before.

[Someone]

Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

That's a false assertion that you made up. Nuclear has worked great for France.

mojo-chan is full of this sort of rubbish, if you read the rest of that same paragraph its mostly incorrect.

I don't know why you think Germany is being politically correct. They don't want nuclear because of the risks, because of the endless accidents they keep having, because of the accidents in other countries that keep irradiating their land, because of the cost, and because it isn't a business opportunity any more where as renewables clearly are and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

The west german (i.e. current German) nuclear industry is the safest in the world on many metrics. Similarly nuclear is the power generation technology with the lowest impact on society when externalisations are included, partly through the extreme levels of safety demanded in their operation but mostly through the containment of their wastes when compared to coal or other fossil fuels.

The biggest issue with nuclear power is that its still an emerging technology that world powers have worked hard to retard innovation on through legitimate proliferation concerns (and less legitimate desires to simultaneously pursue the military potential of nuclear energy ahead of civil applications). Fossil fuel is entirely mature with CHP plants claiming to exceed 80% efficiency, while nuclear fission reactors are still sitting at low single digit percents (or factions of a percent if you consider all the available isotopes) due to the lack of a closed fuel cycle and low burnup rates.

Proliferation may be an insurmountable hurdle to further progress, and the germans leaving the industry will only hasten the demise of nuclear power (and in turn bring forward the end of coal and oil as viable energy sources).

[coppice]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants.

Those people are totally clueless about power generation.

If you could beat coal on generation costs, you would have been tremendously profitable.

In other words, you don't need to beat coal to be economically viable.

The original statement has been taken out of context. The article makes sense. They are looking for ways to achieve a rapid replacement of fossil fuel generation, as they see the issue as an emergency. If the life cycle costs of renewables are only slightly lower than fossil fuel generation, existing plants will only be replaced with renewables as they reach the end of their life. The major investment has already been made, so running them to the end of their life is much cheaper than early replacement. If you want to encourage early replacement renewable life cycle costs must be far lower than fossil fuels. So low that it overcomes the effects of compound interest.

[miguelvp]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

[coppice]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

Your second paragraph entirely misses the point of the first one. A grow, crop, burn, repeat cycle is eco friendly. A wood pellet stove viewed in isolation isn't.

[miguelvp]

It is because it uses materials that are going to decompose anyways by nature, releasing the same carbon as if you burn it.
So as long as there is excess bits of wood from all the industries that use it, your carbon foot print will decrease.

Those stoves are over 99% efficient at heating, I wished I had one today, it's around 20F right now, and replacing gas with wood is actually ecological

Edit: well, depending where the natural gas comes from but I'm pretty sure it comes from a trapped resource.

[nctnico]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

Not if you look at the other stuff which comes from the chimney. Besides that there is not enough wood to provide enough energy. I'm also not convinced about the efficiency. Traditionally a lot of heat escapes through the chimney so the efficiency is not very good.

[coppice]

It is because it uses materials that are going to decompose anyways by nature, releasing the same carbon as if you burn it.
So as long as there is excess bits of wood from all the industries that use it, your carbon foot print will decrease.

Those stoves are over 99% efficient at heating, I wished I had one today, it's around 20F right now, and replacing gas with wood is actually ecological

Edit: well, depending where the natural gas comes from but I'm pretty sure it comes from a trapped resource.

When you burn wood efficiently, the vast majority of its carbon ends up as CO2. When wood rots most of the carbon ends up in the soil. What makes wood eco friendly is when it is made part of a cycle. If there were 700M people instead of 7B people there would be enough space to grow enough wood to make our entire society solar powered.

[miguelvp]

I will concede that the transportation of the material contributes to the carbon footprint, so it's not 100% eco friendly.
As for not having enough, I don't know. Say it only can supply 1% of the population, that would be that much reduction to help the whole.

[johansen]

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved. As for myself, I could capture 90% of the heat produced by the wood I burn, but my parents would probably have a problem with the noise of a fan providing forced air into the stove... (after cooling the smoke down to 70F, there is no warm air to provide a draft) ..and they certainly wouldn't like the maintenance cycle of scraping the soot off the heat exchangers.

The problem with the current noise produced by those who are allegedly pro-earth is the perhaps false idea that the planet can't handle the consumption of all of its stored carbon, I think we might actually find a return to the days prior to the deluge, i think that would be fantastic.
Too bad for all the ocean sea creatures that evolved to handle lower co2 levels, sucks you have to live through man getting too big for the planet. Uranus has a lot of methane I heard.

consider this.. it only takes a layer of carbon about 2? inches thick to burn up the entire atmosphere. --is anyone afraid the earth has that much free carbon available?

--nuclear reactors are at the point they can burn the naturally occurring 2%? u235 found in U238.. so, that should get us over the hump towards nuclear fusion.


As for wind power.. currently we're doing it wrong.
The largest 7MW wind turbines have as much steel and copper in the generator as does a 200MW hydro plant.
I hope they get smart and use aluminum.. maybe they already are, but those direct drive turbines are ridiculously huge.
and what happens when the fiberglass blades have to be recycled.--because they won't be.
they will be ground up into bits and dumped in a land fill.. hope man isn't around when a volcano tears up a large landfill.. those chemicals might turn out to be worse than the sulfur naturally released.

[johansen]

When you burn wood efficiently, the vast majority of its carbon ends up as CO2. When wood rots most of the carbon ends up in the soil.

This is only true on a short term. all of the stored energy gets burnt on a longer timeline.
yes, i know allegedly the topsoil in certain parts of america was 6 feet thick in 1492, but it isn't anymore, and we didn't see a significant rise in global c02 levels until the population explosion following the discovery of coal.

and yes we're headed toward 700M people, pending some kind of global "I will not follow orders" type wake up call.
the reset to zero can happen without nepharious plans, but the worlds population is allegedly (i have two sources) already declining and will drop from 7.1 to 6.9 billion in the next 10-20 years.

[johansen]

Not if you look at the other stuff which comes from the chimney. Besides that there is not enough wood to provide enough energy. I'm also not convinced about the efficiency. Traditionally a lot of heat escapes through the chimney so the efficiency is not very good.

not enough wood to build ships either, back when there was only 100 million people on the planet.
you really do not want to climb down the technology ladder...
what is it, 1 cord of wood per acre per year?
maybe 4 cords of fast growing (but not much heat and a lot of ash?)

--there are like, 4 people per acre of land on the planet today, and only 1.15 acres of arable land per person in 2006.

you want firewood or food?

[miguelvp]

I want both.

There is plenty of wood in home construction and a lot of left over that goes to the land fields.

Also I wasn't saying it's a solution for all of it, even if it reduces the release of trapped carbon by 1% it is still 1% in the right direction.

Edit: Modern efficient wood pellet stoves will actually burn most of the gasses, there is new tech on this as well so it's not going backwards.

[coppice]

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved.

You can skip the generation of electricity and use the burning wood to directly power a heat pump. At least one company currently makes natural gas powered heat pumps for domestic heating. You save a lot on gas, and the environment saves on CO2.

[dannyf]

Take a look at the dispatch stack and understand how the energy market works. Then you may be able to have a more constructive conversation.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Can anyone provide a citation for the 35% rise in UK electricity bills, being due to a conspiracy of the power companies. I am also looking for articles about net subsidies for nuclear in Europe, UK, or USA.

--Please see below a link to an article from the Express about runaway electricity costs due to outright net subsidies to wind power. Some quotes below.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/522800/Wind-farms-blamed-for-winter-power-cut-and-rise-energy-bills

"[Headline] UK's wind farm 'folly': Electric bills to soar by £1000 thanks to reliance on wind power.

"HOUSEHOLDERS are facing soaring energy bills and winter power cuts thanks to the 'folly' of relying on wind power, experts said last night."

--Also please see below link for a well documented article from Energy Matters about the true high cost of renewables. Followed by a couple of pull quotes.

http://euanmearns.com/the-high-cost-of-renewables/

"We hear a lot about the plummeting cost of renewables and escalating costs of nuclear power. Looking just at capacity installation costs, nuclear comes in at $8000 / kW and wind at around $2000 / kW. But these figures need to be adjusted for load capacity factors (nuclear 0.9, wind 0.17) and for the longevity of the installations (nuclear 50 years, wind 20 years). Applying these adjustments wind works out at 3 times and solar at 10 times the cost of installing nuclear power."

"The proposed Hinkley Point nuclear power station to be built in England has the ridiculous price tag of $26 billon struck in a deal that is doubtfully in the best interests of UK citizens. The plant is rated at 3.26 GW that it will likely churn out electricity 24/7 for 90% of the time, providing power on demand whenever it is needed for 50 years or more. The $1.3 trillion spent on solar wind so far would have bought 50 Hinkleys. What would have been the better deal?"

"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them....Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Barack Hussein Obama II  1961  -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[johansen]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Can anyone provide a citation for the 35% rise in UK electricity bills, being due to a conspiracy of the power companies. I am also looking for articles about net subsidies for nuclear in Europe, UK, or USA.

"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them....Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Barack Hussein Obama II  1961  -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

obama's handlers have been running the show for the last 100 years.
but....
that 35% increase in power bills is just inflation.

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved.

You can skip the generation of electricity and use the burning wood to directly power a heat pump. At least one company currently makes natural gas powered heat pumps for domestic heating. You save a lot on gas, and the environment saves on CO2.

yes, a direct coupling between the steam turbines is great, saves you 10% on the transmission loss and 30% on the efficiency of the induction motor below 5 hp.
but you won't get better performance for anything less than a few thousand hp, which is about right on the level of say, a natural gas turbine driven heat pump for a shopping mall in miami.

[johansen]

I want both.

There is plenty of wood in home construction and a lot of left over that goes to the land fields.

Also I wasn't saying it's a solution for all of it, even if it reduces the release of trapped carbon by 1% it is still 1% in the right direction.

Edit: Modern efficient wood pellet stoves will actually burn most of the gasses, there is new tech on this as well so it's not going backwards.

can't have both, you need the woodgas to power the tractor.

as i said.. you really do not want to climb back down the technology ladder.

[zapta]

Fear-mongering? Is that really your best argument, SgtRock?

That's exactly what you are doing for long time here to justify taking other people money to finance your pet cause.

[coppice]

You can skip the generation of electricity and use the burning wood to directly power a heat pump. At least one company currently makes natural gas powered heat pumps for domestic heating. You save a lot on gas, and the environment saves on CO2.

yes, a direct coupling between the steam turbines is great, saves you 10% on the transmission loss and 30% on the efficiency of the induction motor below 5 hp.
but you won't get better performance for anything less than a few thousand hp, which is about right on the level of say, a natural gas turbine driven heat pump for a shopping mall in miami.

A good performing heat pump can power itself, and output considerable surplus energy. A 4 times multiple between the energy to power the pump and the energy out of the pump is practical. That makes it a potential renewable energy source. The energy source doesn't suffer the same unpleasant swings as wind and direct solar (I would class heat pumping from the environment as indirect solar). Sure, a heat pump is less effective when extracting heat from a cool environment, but it still works. The biggest enemy of heat pump production is not the energy source, but humidity, as cold humid conditions require special measures to stop the equipment freezing over. If the pumps are sized to give enough output in cold weather, no storage system is needed. Most of the energy we use ends up as environmental heat, so the system would be cyclic.

Self powered heat pumps, using external energy only to get them started, existed in the late 19th century. I've seen them in museums. They couldn't achieve a 4 times multiple in those days, so they were less effective than a modern one would be, but they worked OK.

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

--MC smells bullshit so often he must live next door Old Macdonald EIEIO. The quote from President Obama is a famous one, that of course anyone can look up, and nobody but a complete fool would attempt to mislead by using such a famous quote. All quotes are partial quotes, otherwise they would all be the entire speech or article, no? And yes it referred to Obama's infamous "Carbon Cap and Trade" swindle. The operative point being that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" as they are doing everywhere the left gets its hands on energy policy. So MC has researched the quote and found out that is says exactly what I said it says with regard to carbon and government energy policy. He seems to be unwilling to admit that anyone can honestly disagree, and also thinks that everyone who does not agree is either selfish, or wanting to deliberately endanger everyone or is deliberately attempting to deceive by using dishonest bullshit quotes. In other words he seems to be unwilling to grant others the same respect they grant him. Over the months I have, upon more than on occassion had kind words for him. I even tried to calm the waters, when the moderators were about yea far from banning him, but he has gone right back to impugning the honesty, character and motives of everyone who disagrees.  Hence I will no longer respond to any of his postings.

--To everyone else, I thank you for your contributions be they yea or nay, all are welcome, and I am constantly learning from all of you. As usual I admit that I am frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

"If Mr. Einstein doesn't like the natural laws of the universe, let him go back to where he came from."
Robert Benchley 1889  -  1945
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[coppice]

Does anyone still argue for reintroducing suplhur  and lead pollution?

Of course they do. Haven't you noticed the number of people who pollute as if its a noble cause?

[Zero999]

Self powered heat pumps, using external energy only to get them started, existed in the late 19th century. I've seen them in museums. They couldn't achieve a 4 times multiple in those days, so they were less effective than a modern one would be, but they worked OK.

I call bullshit on self powered heat pumps.

It's true that a heat pump does output more heat than the energy required to power it but it is not self powered. It's not possible to build a self powered heat pump because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics and thus be a perpetual motion machine. You do need energy to power a heat pump and it is more efficient than just burning gas alone but it still needs power to work.

yes, a direct coupling between the steam turbines is great, saves you 10% on the transmission loss and 30% on the efficiency of the induction motor below 5 hp.
but you won't get better performance for anything less than a few thousand hp, which is about right on the level of say, a natural gas turbine driven heat pump for a shopping mall in miami.

That's not true. Most gas powered heat pumps I've researched use the absorption cycle, rather than mechanical vapour phase cycle and it's much more efficient than using electricity generated by a coal fired power station to heat your home because all the energy is converted to heat, plus another 40% extra pumped in from the environment.

EDIT:
Using a natural gas powered heat pump is still more efficient than an heat pump powered by electricity generated by natural gas power station. In a power station, the waste heat is just discharged into the environment but in a gas powered heat pump, all the heat used to do the work is used to heat your home.

Thermodynamically speaking, the maximum efficiency from gas to heat when a heat pump is powered by a gas power station is only 100% but a gas powered heat pump is better than that.

[coppice]

Self powered heat pumps, using external energy only to get them started, existed in the late 19th century. I've seen them in museums. They couldn't achieve a 4 times multiple in those days, so they were less effective than a modern one would be, but they worked OK.

I call bullshit on self powered heat pumps.

It's true that a heat pump does output more heat than the energy required to power it but it is not self powered. It's not possible to build a self powered heat pump because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics and thus be a perpetual motion machine. You do need energy to power a heat pump and it is more efficient than just burning gas alone but it still needs power to work.

I think you are missing the word "pump" in "heat pump". It sucks heat from the environment, and it sucks a lot more heat than it uses to suck that heat. It is in no sense a perpetual motion machine. There is nothing to stop you using the heat which the pump collects to power the pump.

[Zero999]

Self powered heat pumps, using external energy only to get them started, existed in the late 19th century. I've seen them in museums. They couldn't achieve a 4 times multiple in those days, so they were less effective than a modern one would be, but they worked OK.

I call bullshit on self powered heat pumps.

It's true that a heat pump does output more heat than the energy required to power it but it is not self powered. It's not possible to build a self powered heat pump because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics and thus be a perpetual motion machine. You do need energy to power a heat pump and it is more efficient than just burning gas alone but it still needs power to work.

I think you are missing the word "pump" in "heat pump". It sucks heat from the environment, and it sucks a lot more heat than it uses to suck that heat. It is in no sense a perpetual motion machine. There is nothing to stop you using the heat which the pump collects to power the pump.

No I didn't miss the word heat pump. I understand that a heat pump sucks in heat from the environment and moves it into your home.

You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics which indeed does say you can't use the heat collected by the pump to power the pump, in much the same way you can't use the electricity generated by a hydroelectric power plant to pump all the water which has gone through the turbine back to the top of the dam.

[mamalala]

You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics which indeed does say you can't use the heat collected by the pump to power the pump, in much the same way you can't use the electricity generated by a hydroelectric power plant to pump all the water which has gone through the turbine back to the top of the dam.

It seems you are confusing an open system with a closed system. Your example for the hydro plant is a closed system, there is no energy input from the outside, only losses in the system. However, a heatpump is a open system. You use some amount of energy (in the form of electricity) to pump out more energy (in the form of heat) from another source. What you claim is equal to saying, for example, that a coal fired power plant can not produce enough electricity to power the train that delivers the coal to said plant.

If one can convert the heat that heat pump extracts from the environment into electricity (or another form of energy that can drive the pump) at an efficient enough level, there should be no problem with the output of the pump powering said pump. After all, there is an external energy input into that system: the heat it extracts from the environment.

Greetings,

Chris

[coppice]

You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics which indeed does say you can't use the heat collected by the pump to power the pump, in much the same way you can't use the electricity generated by a hydroelectric power plant to pump all the water which has gone through the turbine back to the top of the dam.

A heat pump is nothing like your hydro example. There you have some energy, and if you try to use it to do the same amount of work as that energy you will fail due to losses. No arguments there.

A heat pump moves energy. Unless you do something weird, like insulate the side of the heat pump doing the collecting, the cooling of the environment near the collector causes more heat to keep flowing in from the environment further out. The maximum rate at which you can gather heat is determined by that replenishment rate. You know that more energy is gathered than is used by the pump. Does the energy for the pump have some special quality, that makes it unlike the collected energy? Of course not. Its not at a very high temperature, so there are challenges in using it effectively to drive the pump, but its not impossible.

Saying a heat pump powered by its collected energy is impossible is like saying a tanker truck can't gather more diesel than it consumes.

[magetoo]

If one can convert the heat that heat pump extracts from the environment into electricity

That's the rub - you can't.  If you want to generate electricity or any other useful work using a heat pump, you need a difference in temperature, not just heat.

On the other hand, if you have two temperature differentials, you can power a pump from one and maintain the other.  In practice I suppose that would mean something like concentrating solar heat for the hot end or cold water from the bottom of a lake for the cold end.

[mamalala]

That's the rub - you can't.  If you want to generate electricity or any other useful work using a heat pump, you need a difference in temperature, not just heat.

True, that's why i added "(or another form of energy that can drive the pump)" which for some reason you have omitted.

However, the "rub" in my post is not about how well one can convert heat into electricity, but to try and explain to Hero999 that there is a difference in open and closed systems, since she/he was banging on about thermodynamics. And from that perspective, going by just thermodynamics, there is nothing wrong with the energy output of a heat pump being able to drive that pump, no laws are broken with that, since it is an open system that has an external energy input.

Again, how feasible and/or possible it is to convert the heat output of the pump into something that can drive that pump, that is a completely different matter.

Greetings,

Chris

[Zero999]

It seems you are confusing an open system with a closed system. Your example for the hydro plant is a closed system, there is no energy input from the outside, only losses in the system. However, a heatpump is a open system. You use some amount of energy (in the form of electricity) to pump out more energy (in the form of heat) from another source. What you claim is equal to saying, for example, that a coal fired power plant can not produce enough electricity to power the train that delivers the coal to said plant.

Alright, perhaps that wasn't the best example because it refers to the first law of thermodynamics, rather than the second law.

And from that perspective, going by just thermodynamics, there is nothing wrong with the energy output of a heat pump being able to drive that pump, no laws are broken with that, since it is an open system that has an external energy input.

For all intents on purposes though, a heat pump powering itself is effectively a closed system. Unless there's an external energy source of sink, the entropy in the system will increase, until a thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and the pump slows to a halt.

If one can convert the heat that heat pump extracts from the environment into electricity (or another form of energy that can drive the pump) at an efficient enough level, there should be no problem with the output of the pump powering said pump. After all, there is an external energy input into that system: the heat it extracts from the environment.

No you can't do that because it isn't possible to make it efficient enough to power itself, as that would violate the second law of thermodynamics!

Does the energy for the pump have some special quality, that makes it unlike the collected energy? Of course it does. It's not at a very high temperature, which means that it's impossible to use it to drive the pump with enough efficiency to make it self sustaining - the lower the temperature differential, the poorer the efficiency!

Corrected.

Saying a heat pump powered by its collected energy is impossible is like saying a tanker truck can't gather more diesel than it consumes.

Of course a heat pump powered by its collected energy is impossible because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. A tanker gathering diesel does not because the diesel has the potential to do work.

That's the rub - you can't.  If you want to generate electricity or any other useful work using a heat pump, you need a difference in temperature, not just heat.

On the other hand, if you have two temperature differentials, you can power a pump from one and maintain the other.  In practice I suppose that would mean something like concentrating solar heat for the hot end or cold water from the bottom of a lake for the cold end.

Exactly. You need a temperature differential to do work.

A heat pump uses the temperature difference between the gas flame and your home to move heat from the lower temperature outside into your house. You can't use the heat moved by the pump to power it because it would involve cooling down your house again. To do work (whether it be to generate electricity, momentum or move heat) you need a temperature differential.  The higher the temperature differential, the more efficiently the heat can be used. Look at it in a similar manner as potential difference, there may be lots of electrons in a piece of metal but they won't do anything unless there's there's a potential difference.

[mamalala]

For all intents on purposes though, a heat pump powering itself is effectively a closed system. Unless there's an external energy source of sink, the entropy in the system will increase, until a thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and the pump slows to a halt.

No, it is not a closed system, because there is an external energy source that enters into the system: the heat that the pump moves. That heat is put into the system by things like the sun heating up the earth. The pump doesn't generate energy out of nothing, it simply moves it from one side to the other. At that other end you have more energy than what you used to operate that pump.

I'm surprised that this is so hard for you to understand. You would be right, of course, if we were talking about the pump using an initial fixed amount of energy in the form of heat, pumping that around "in circles", and have that drive itself. But that would then be a closed system, since there is no external source of heat entering into it anymore.

So, if one could use some (or all) of the heat energy that the pump moves out, to in turn power that pump, it would run until there is no more external heat coming in, like when the sun dies for example. But until then, it would just work.

Greetings,

Chris

[magetoo]

That's the rub - you can't.  If you want to generate electricity or any other useful work using a heat pump, you need a difference in temperature, not just heat.

True, that's why i added "(or another form of energy that can drive the pump)" which for some reason you have omitted.

Fine.  You can't convert the heat that the heat pump extracts from the environment into electricity or any other form of energy such that this energy can drive the pump.  Better?

However, the "rub" in my post is not about how well one can convert heat into electricity, but to try and explain to Hero999 that there is a difference in open and closed systems, since she/he was banging on about thermodynamics.

You're not doing a very good job of explaining, since your example looks exactly like a closed system - there's just heat in a box, and the box happens to be the size of the Earth.  What source of energy, outside of the box, does this heat pump use exactly?

If you say "heat from the sun", no problem.  But now the pump is no longer powered by heat from the environment, it is powered by a temperature difference between, say, concentrating solar heat (hot end) and the environment (cold end).

And from that perspective, going by just thermodynamics, there is nothing wrong with the energy output of a heat pump being able to drive that pump, no laws are broken with that, since it is an open system that has an external energy input.

How do you run a pump on just heat?  Every form of engine that "runs on heat" actually uses a temperature differential.  What temperature differential is the pump running off?

The one it creates itself?  In that case we are talking about a closed system (pump -> temp diff -> pump), not an open one.

[mamalala]

You're not doing a very good job of explaining, since your example looks exactly like a closed system - there's just heat in a box, and the box happens to be the size of the Earth.  What source of energy, outside of the box, does this heat pump use exactly?

If you say "heat from the sun", no problem.  But now the pump is no longer powered by heat from the environment, it is powered by a temperature difference between, say, concentrating solar heat (hot end) and the environment (cold end).

What do you think where the heat that the pump moves finally comes from? Pixie dust? Angels? No, things like the sun and the earth's core. I thought that that would go without saying, but it seems i had too high an expectation. Yes, i know that there must be a temperature differential. Another thing that should go without saying. And yes, once the universe dies the heat death, there is no differential to exploit anymore. Fact is still that a heat pump extracts more energy from the environment than what was put into the pump to operate it. Up until that source is depleted (i.e. cooled down enough), obviously.

Greetings,

Chris

[magetoo]

No, it is not a closed system, because there is an external energy source that enters into the system: the heat that the pump moves.

Maybe this is the central misunderstanding.  How does the pump move this heat around if the heat is also the external energy source?

Define what's inside and what's outside the black box.  Everything works as long as you have energy coming in from outside the black box, and heat sitting around inside the black box - you use the external source of energy to do useful work inside the box.  This is an open system, which we all agree works just fine.

I think we can also agree that if you just have heat sitting in a box, this is a closed system, and doing useful work is going to be impossible.


Perhaps you are not expressing it clearly, but it seems like the heat you talk about is simultaneously available to both the inside as just heat to be moved around and outside the box as a temperature differential.

[magetoo]

What do you think where the heat that the pump moves finally comes from? Pixie dust? Angels? No, things like the sun and the earth's core. I thought that that would go without saying, but it seems i had too high an expectation.

Well, adjust your expectations.  (Or even better, your explanations.)

Ok, so we run our pump off a second temperature differential then?  No problem with that.

Yes, i know that there must be a temperature differential. Another thing that should go without saying. And yes, once the universe dies the heat death, there is no differential to exploit anymore. Fact is still that a heat pump extracts more energy from the environment than what was put into the pump to operate it.

Sure.  There was never any disagreement that a heat pump can move more energy around than the amount that was put in to run it, just some confusion around whether there was an external energy source or not.

[Zero999]

What do you think where the heat that the pump moves finally comes from? Pixie dust? Angels? No, things like the sun and the earth's core. I thought that that would go without saying, but it seems i had too high an expectation. Yes, i know that there must be a temperature differential. Another thing that should go without saying. And yes, once the universe dies the heat death, there is no differential to exploit anymore. Fact is still that a heat pump extracts more energy from the environment than what was put into the pump to operate it. Up until that source is depleted (i.e. cooled down enough), obviously.

No one here has ever had a problem understanding that the heat sourced by the heat pump comes from the earth, sun, the earth's core etc.

The only misunderstanding has been that a heat pump can run from the heat in the ambient environment once it's been started by gas. Of course it can't. The heat pump will stop working, when the gas is cut off. It's not possible to create heat pump which is self sustaining.

[coppice]

What do you think where the heat that the pump moves finally comes from? Pixie dust? Angels? No, things like the sun and the earth's core. I thought that that would go without saying, but it seems i had too high an expectation. Yes, i know that there must be a temperature differential. Another thing that should go without saying. And yes, once the universe dies the heat death, there is no differential to exploit anymore. Fact is still that a heat pump extracts more energy from the environment than what was put into the pump to operate it. Up until that source is depleted (i.e. cooled down enough), obviously.

No one here has ever had a problem understanding that the heat sourced by the heat pump comes from the earth, sun, the earth's core etc.

The only misunderstanding has been that a heat pump can run from the heat in the ambient environment once it's been started by gas. Of course it can't. The heat pump will stop working, when the gas is cut off. It's not possible to create heat pump which is self sustaining.

Of course a heat pump can't be self-sustaining. We are talking about one that is sustained by the heat from the sun, in the form of environmental heat. Some of that heat ends up as available energy for useful work, and a portion goes back to operate the machinery. If you understand that for every kW you consume in a good heat pump you will get 3 to 4kW moved from the input side to the output side, I can't imagine why you are sure that this energy is inadequate to operate the machine. If every little open bit of the closed system of the universe individually obeyed the 2nd law of thermodynamics life wouldn't exist to be even considering this.

[Artlav]

If you understand that for every kW you consume in a good heat pump you will get 3 to 4kW moved from the input side to the output side, I can't imagine why you are sure that this energy is inadequate to operate the machine.

Heat energy is not the same as usable energy, unfortunately.
There is a fundamental limit on how much power you can extract from a given temperature difference, and unsurprisingly it is less than the power needed to maintain that difference.
The confusion probably comes from the use of KWh for both the heat moved and the electricity consumed.

Key words - Carnot's theorem.

[Zero999]

Of course a heat pump can't be self-sustaining. We are talking about one that is sustained by the heat from the sun, in the form of environmental heat. Some of that heat ends up as available energy for useful work, and a portion goes back to operate the machinery. If you understand that for every kW you consume in a good heat pump you will get 3 to 4kW moved from the input side to the output side, I can't imagine why you are sure that this energy is inadequate to operate the machine. If every little open bit of the closed system of the universe individually obeyed the 2nd law of thermodynamics life wouldn't exist to be even considering this.

But your said:

I think you are missing the word "pump" in "heat pump". (1) It sucks heat from the environment, and it sucks a lot more heat than it uses to suck that heat. (2) It is in no sense a perpetual motion machine. (3) There is nothing to stop you using the heat which the pump collects to power the pump.

No one has a problem with #1 & #2.

It's the last statement which is false:

There is nothing to stop you using the heat which the pump collects to power the pump.

There is something which stops you from using the heat collected by the pump to power the pump. It's known as the second law of thermodynamics. Do you see what we've been saying now?

[magetoo]

Of course a heat pump can't be self-sustaining. We are talking about one that is sustained by the heat from the sun, in the form of environmental heat.

Are we?  Let's define some terms.  I and Hero999 are talking about having a heat pump that moves this "environmental heat" around, and uses a separate source of energy to do that.

This separate source of energy can be something like electricity, gas, or a temperature difference.  It can not be simply "heat" - it needs to be a differential; just like you need a potential (or voltage) to do useful work using electricity you also need a temperature differential to do useful work in a heat engine.


So are you assuming that there is a "second pole" of the "heat battery" hooked up somewhere (i.e. a separate temperature difference) and I'm just too dumb to understand it?  This would certainly explain the disagreement.

Or are you saying that you can get useful work done by just having heat?  (by hooking up just one wire to the battery)

Or are you saying that you use the heat differential (electrical potential) of the heat source to power the pump that puts heat (electrons) back into the heat source (battery)?

To me, that last one looks a lot like a closed system, not an open one.

Or something else entirely?

(edit: formatting and clarification)

[coppice]

If you understand that for every kW you consume in a good heat pump you will get 3 to 4kW moved from the input side to the output side, I can't imagine why you are sure that this energy is inadequate to operate the machine.

Heat energy is not the same as usable energy, unfortunately.
There is a fundamental limit on how much power you can extract from a given temperature difference, and unsurprisingly it is less than the power needed to maintain that difference.
The confusion probably comes from the use of KWh for both the heat moved and the electricity consumed.

Key words - Carnot's theorem.

Carnot's theorem applies to heat flow between 2 reservoirs. That is, a closed system. When consumers are constantly drawing heat from one side, and the environment is constantly replacing heat on the other, it isn't a closed system any more, and the picture looks more interesting. kWh are kWh whether they are heat, electricity, water pushed uphill, or chemical energy in a battery. Some forms are just easier to use than others for a particular application. If the small temperature difference you have isn't enough to drive a conventional heat engine, maybe you can use the energy to grow bacteria that feed directly off heat, and burn the biomass to get a high temperature for a conventional heat engine.

[Artlav]

Carnot's theorem applies to heat flow between 2 reservoirs. That is, a closed system. When consumers are constantly drawing heat from one side, and the environment is constantly replacing heat on the other, it isn't a closed system any more, and the picture looks more interesting.

If you have a heat reservoir, like an underground lake - then sure, you can get power on the difference between the ambient and the lake, using the day-night cycle or weather variations.

But if you create the difference, then you can't get the same power back from it - it would take more energy to create it than can be extracted from it.

kWh are kWh whether they are heat, electricity, water pushed uphill, or chemical energy in a battery. Some forms are just easier to use than others for a particular application. If the small temperature difference you have isn't enough to drive a conventional heat engine, maybe you can use the energy to grow bacteria that feed directly off heat, and burn the biomass to get a high temperature for a conventional heat engine.

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

There is a fundamental limit on the fraction of energy that can be extracted from heat.
There might be KWh of heat pumped into the room, but only a fraction of it can be converted back into usable energy.

Key word - Entropy.

[Zero999]

Carnot's theorem applies to heat flow between 2 reservoirs. That is, a closed system. When consumers are constantly drawing heat from one side, and the environment is constantly replacing heat on the other, it isn't a closed system any more, and the picture looks more interesting.

That is true but it's only an open system when there's an external supply of energy. The external source of power will slowly be returned to the environment via lossy thermal insulation, unless it's somehow stored. As long as the heat pump has gas, electricity or even liquid nitrogen, yes it's possible to use something cold to heat your home, as long as it's significantly colder than the ambient, it doesn't matter, it'll work. The thing is, as soon as you cut of the supply of external power, the temperature inside the house will move towards the same as the environment. If there isn't enough energy from the sun or wind that can be harvest to heat/cool the house above/below the environment then it will return to the steady state, i.e. ambient temperate.

kWh are kWh whether they are heat, electricity, water pushed uphill, or chemical energy in a battery. Some forms are just easier to use than others for a particular application. If the small temperature difference you have isn't enough to drive a conventional heat engine, maybe you can use the energy to grow bacteria that feed directly off heat, and burn the biomass to get a high temperature for a conventional heat engine.

As the temperature difference gets smaller, it gets exponentially less efficient to extract more work from the system and  that wouldn't work, since bacteria don't convert heat to biomass, they have to obide by the laws of physics like everything else.

[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

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

--From the Bloomberg article.

"The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years." [So no joy, just yet.]

--From the Reuters article.

"The report's findings are more of a political victory than a financial one. It took the program three years to break even after Solyndra's failure, while during that same time the Standard & Poor's 500 index increased 67 percent."

"We feel very confident that going forward our portfolio is much less risky than it has been," Davidson said."
"That is because most of the projects that received government loans are large power plants that are now feeding electricity into the grid, Davidson said. They include massive photovoltaic solar and solar thermal power plants in California and Arizona, wind farms and geothermal energy facilities." [All of which receive greater that market rates, from government guaranteed custom, at the expense of the working people.]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-solar-project-owners-delay-repaying-loans-documents-say-1411488730 [Not yet factored into the above argument]

--I am sure that someone will let us know when and if the chickens actually hatch.

--So if all goes well and there are no more, cough cough, bankruptcies the program is right on track to make 5 billion in interest, in 20 or 25 years. An interest rate of about 6%, wowsers! Likely it would have been more beneficial to the economy at large not to have printed this money by quantitative easing.

--And so one again the big success, if you read further is not quite what it was cracked up to be. And in fact if you include electricity rate increases "necessarily skyrocket[ing]" as the President said, it is a dead loser.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.  1948  -


Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

Something like that would be an excellent way to con a person who cannot think critically.

A $35bn program, over a 20-25 years, to yield $5bn, is a kin to a yield of 0.5%. Your typical 1-yr CD will yield twice that, with FDIC guarantee and much lower risk.

If you factor in default risk (those guys are at best B or CCC) and much higher LGD (near total write-off in the case of Solyndra), your "pay-off" of $5Bn sudden becomes a terrible deal.

The rest of the Bloomberg article really laid out a case against such "investments".

[SgtRock]

Dear Dannyf:

--Good point, I missed the decimal point. For more new speak please see another Reuters article below, titled "Exclusive: Obama plan to 'Power Africa' gets off to a dim start" about the President's attempt to pound another 7 billion in sand down a rat hole in Africa. A few pull quotes are included.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/28/us-usa-africa-power-exclusive-idUSKCN0JC09U20141128

"Barack Obama last year told a cheering crowd in Cape Town that a $7 billion plan to "Power Africa" would double electricity output on the world's poorest continent and bring "light where currently there is darkness".

"A year later, the U.S. president's flagship project for Africa has already achieved 25 percent of its goal to deliver 10,000 megawatts of electricity and bring light to 20 million households and businesses, according to its annual report."

"But the five-year plan has not yet delivered the power."

"Power Africa has not measured its progress by counting actual megawatts added to the grid but promises of additional power made in deals it says it helped negotiate, according to sources inside the project and documents seen by Reuters."

Some projects facilitated by Power Africa -- a program operated by the U.S. aid agency USAID -- were under way years before the scheme's inception, others are still in the planning stage.

"Saying you've met targets on projects that might never happen or taking the credit for projects that have been worked on for years makes me uncomfortable," a source working on Power Africa told Reuters. "It's misleading."

--So, more heifer dust. As Charlie Chan used to say "Have been expecting same."

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
Ernest Rutherford 1871 1937

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SeanB]

Thanks Sarge, just had the power come back on from load shedding, as the power utility dumps metro areas as load starts to exceed generation available. wreaking merry hell with business as you have to factor in a 2-3 hour interruption in each day when you can do little work that involves electricity.

As the one caller to the radio said " why can they not do load shedding at night when everybody is sleeping" and she could not understand why that was not possible.............. Another fine product of one of our succession of ministers of edumication, they are saying they are on track to deliver all the school books for the 2013 classes before the end of the year, and might do 2014 by the end of 2016. Add to that the pass mark has been increased from next year to 50%, from the current 30%. No wonder the universities are thinking of introducing basic education as the pre first year subject.

[zapta]

...$5bn up on their investment. In any case, the point of this sort of thing is to encourage development of new technology. Most new medicine, for example, starts out as government funded research projects are universities. That stage is expensive and risky, and takes a long time to pay back. Once it is done commercial interests move in, and without the government putting the cash in we wouldn't get all these new drugs and treatments.

You are confusing subsidizing basic research with subsidizing actual products. Big difference. Take Tesla for example, the government subsidize its  sales.

As for ROI, I haven't seen a penny back. I prefer to invest my money myself.

[johansen]

. But ignore all that, because tax is theft and you could have made more money for yourself by investing it.

the government does not have enough information to determine how to invest your money better than you can.
think about it.. 3% of the population spend 35% of the money, most of them under the influence of .1% of the population who have all of the money.

[Zero999]

I agree this is very frustrating.

People often don't invest in green technologies because they expect to see a huge monetary reward. They do so in the hope it will produce more efficient and lower carbon alternatives. So what if they don't get any money back? They still get a return on their investment if the project is successful in developing a more sustainable technology.

[SgtRock]

"The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years." [So no joy, just yet.]

[nctnico]

I agree this is very frustrating.

People often don't invest in green technologies because they expect to see a huge monetary reward. They do so in the hope it will produce more efficient and lower carbon alternatives. So what if they don't get any money back? They still get a return on their investment if the project is successful in developing a more sustainable technology.

Usually there is a tax incentive to invest in green technology. The profit is not in the investment but in the tax deduction.

[zapta]

* Sorry Zapta, I mean't "your money".

Yes, still mine, even if it's currently in the possession of others ;-)

[zapta]

People often don't invest in green technologies because they expect to see a huge monetary reward. They do so in the hope it will produce more efficient and lower carbon alternatives. So what if they don't get any money back? They still get a return on their investment if the project is successful in developing a more sustainable technology.

You are confusing investment and charity.

Anyway, free free to invest *your* money in whatever goal you want to support.

[Marco]

The corollary is of course that you are free to emigrate to a country which feel less entitled to tax you to live within their borders and spend your money according to the vagaries of democracy, populism, stupidity and corruption.

[zapta]

The corollary is of course that you are free to emigrate to a country which feel less entitled to tax you to live within their borders and spend your money according to the vagaries of democracy, populism, stupidity and corruption.

The corollary is of course false because the first role of my government is to protect my freedom within the borders of my country.

[dannyf]

-Indeed, and in this case the government *********did******* get its money* back, plus another $5bn on top-

Reading comprehension is the least of your problems.

[SgtRock]

Wrong! I post the quote from the article again. The 5 Big is from "expected returns" not already hatched chickens, and does not include forthcoming additional loans to bail out the Google Billionaires because the Ivanpah bird burner is producing only half or less of the promised power, due to clouds. Who knew about clouds, probably Global Climate Change again I suppose.

"The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years."

[Marco]

The corollary is of course false because the first role of my government is to protect my freedom within the borders of my country.

You keep getting outvoted on what constitutes freedom though ...

[miguelvp]

No one is outvoting him, and what does freedom has to do with renewables anyways?

And even if your previous comment about emigration & taxes (which has still nothing to do with renewables)

UAE still pay well for engineers to go work there, with cheap housing and education for your kids, and they even let you drink alcohol I think.

So you have the same freedom to do that, the downside is that you actually have to be productive I think.

Our taxes are not that bad in here, but a lot of us pay it, and that helps, do some research on "shadow economies per country" or "tax burden" aka "tax wedge" on labor income per country.

Sure we don't do well on those just because the US has more money to play with so we top the Shadow Economy in gross capital, but it's only under 10%.

But again, nothing to do with renewables anyways.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

The corollary is of course false because the first role of my government is to protect my freedom within the borders of my country.

You better ask them to lift their game then.

[zapta]

Most places also value positive freedom, the freedom to prosper and live a reasonably safe life and achieve your goals. The US is quite weak on positive freedom compared to Europe

Mojo Chan, you are confusing freedom with guaranteed outcome.

BTW, it's revealing that you see freedom as a negative thing.

[zapta]

MC, feel free to breath all the clean air you can find.

Looks like the EV crowd found a new boogeyman, the steam roller.

Fossil based energy enabled our current level of technology and never seen before life expectancy.

[Rufus]

We see that there is a balance between some people's positive freedom to breath clean air and others negative freedom to modify their vehicles as they choose.

So your gist is where there is a compromise between freedoms the freedoms you want are to be described as positive and the freedoms others want are to be described as negative.

Why am I not surprised?

[zapta]

No. I explained it clearly, maybe you could try finding a book at your local library if you still can't understand.

No need to go personal just because your arguments failed to convince him. Be respectful to your fellow eevblog'ers.

[johansen]

Fossil based energy enabled our current level of technology and never seen before life expectancy.

Logical fallacy. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we did wasn't the only way to get there, and caused many avoidable problems along the way. People used to die from the pollution in our cities, and still do in some parts of the world. Adding lead to petrol is a big mistake, as was adding CFCs to coolants.

hindsight isn't 20/20

[zapta]

Fossil based energy enabled our current level of technology and never seen before life expectancy.

Logical fallacy. Burning fossil fuels at the rate we did wasn't the only way to get there, and caused many avoidable problems along the way. People used to die from the pollution in our cities, and still do in some parts of the world. Adding lead to petrol is a big mistake, as was adding CFCs to coolants.

hindsight isn't 20/20

Just claiming that fossil energy 'wasn't the only way to get there' doesn't even rise to the level of hindsight, it's more like tangential nit picking.

[johansen]

Just claiming that fossil energy 'wasn't the only way to get there' doesn't even rise to the level of hindsight, it's more like tangential nit picking.

it also was the only way to get here

[zapta]

... Even if you don't believe in climate change it's hard to argue that air pollution like LA in the 90s or Beijing today is a good thing.

That's what I said, ungrateful nit picking. Every technology has it's down sides. Carbon energy driven technology increased life expectancy in LA to 80 years which was unheard of in older times.

[nctnico]

Fossil based energy enabled our current level of technology and never seen before life expectancy.

Not quite true. Life expectancy has been largely increased by sanitation and clean drinking water.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Well there you have it folks the ultimate statement of green ideology. The advent of the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution had nothing to do with the increase in human comfort, clothing, nutrition, warmth, leisure, longevity, and you name it. As a matter of fact the Industrial Revolution was a step backwards according to some posts in this very blog. Take a close look at what has happened in Venezuela , and you can clearly see the green future. The greens will raise everyone's power bills till they are dying from the cold in winter, and then try to blame it on Capitalism. As President Obama predicted, electric bills are skyrocketing here in the US, and that is no accident, that is policy. One good thing about the EPA just announcing new laws instead of getting the legislature to pass them is that it prevents those filthy genocidal deniers access to the democratic process, yes?

"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

[miguelvp]

So, just to nullify your rant ...

Why do you want to nullify his response, and why do you call it a rant?
looked to me as a good response.

[johansen]

wouldn't humanity be in such a much better place if the top 1% had access to all that wonderful technology, so that they could invent cleaner, better, more efficient technology to pass along to everyone else, once the entities at the top approve?

oh wait.. .that's what happened..

[miguelvp]

Then thing is that he is not wrong on his assessment. Look at the evolution of a simple machine like the bicycle, why did it take so long to make it better? are we done yet?

Sure it would have helped if they just designed the damn thing right in the first place!

As for energy, well..., Oil is at an all time low because of the US is less dependent on foreign Oil with about 22% or more increased production in the last year but the OPEC is not slowing production because they need to keep competitive, China's manufacturing and economy is slowing down and the Euro is in trouble once again and to top it, the US interest rates might go up again.

So it's this Global Recession 2.0 of the XXI Century?

[zapta]

If you think his response was good, can you explain this: "As a matter of fact the Industrial Revolution was a step backwards according to some posts in this very blog."

Ignoring for a moment that it isn't a blog (I assume he meant forum), can you point to the specific post that claimed the Industrial Revolution was a "step backwards"? I'm genuinely curious to know which post created that impression. Sgt. Rock states that it is a fact, so he seems fairly certain that it was said.

You brought that sarcasm on yourself by keeping drumming a very narrow and close minded view and denying the benefit of any other technology that doesn't match your agenda. Progress is achieved through open mind and realistic decisions and compromises, not by dogma and wishful thinking. 

[mtdoc]

Ignoring for a moment that it isn't a blog (I assume he meant forum), can you point to the specific post that claimed the Industrial Revolution was a "step backwards"? I'm genuinely curious to know which post created that impression. Sgt. Rock states that it is a fact, so he seems fairly certain that it was said.

They won't.  Mojo-chan you're not going to get anywhere trying to be rational with a group whose recourse when dealing with anyone who disagrees with their very narrow (political) view of the world is to label them a "green" , an "environmentalist", a "socialist" , etc.  Every topic here that relates at all to renewable energy brings out the same cast of characters, always with the same tired arguments.

Good on you for trying anyways.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

Not quite true. Life expectancy has been largely increased by sanitation and clean drinking water.

--And here I thought the Industrial Revolution was responsible. Funny thing though, sanitation and clean drinking water, along with warmth, affordable clothing, mass produced flour for bread, etc. all seem to have taken an upswing about the time Watt's Steam Engine became widely adopted. No doubt they could have done all that with horse, water and wind power, but apparently due to carelessness they did not.

--In another thread in the blog, it is called the EEVBlog is it not, of which this forum is but a part, as if you could be in Chicago without being in Illinois, go figure. Pete in Texas seemed to be saying that the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing.

The early history of the Industrial Revolution is not necessarily something to be proud.  Sure, a lot of people got rich.  But they did it on the backs of slave and child labor, piss-poor wages, complete disregard for worker safety, pissing on the environment, soul sapping 16/7 work hours, graft and corruption (what we have today of this is "gentlemanly" by comparison), monopolies and cartels operating with impunity; shall I go on?

--Is is not odd that the population of Europe finally increased beyond Roman Empire levels only after Watts engine. I guess those folks did not realize what a raw deal the Industrial Revolution really was, otherwise they would have chosen to live at the same subsistence levels that had maintained more or less unchanged since Roman times.

--God forbid that anyone should call Environmentalists Environmentalists, or worse yet refer to self identified members of the Green party and the Green coalition as Greens. It out Herods Herod, does it not?

"“Had his brain been constructed of silk, he would have been hard put to it to find sufficient material to make a canary a pair of cami-knickers.” "
P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--As the German energy revolution or energiewende circles the drain preparing to join Italy, Spain, Portugal and others, can the US and UK efforts at renewables be far behind, what with those filthy dastardly oil companies set to drop the price of oil to $60 per barrel or even less. See below link for an article from Der Spiegel titled:

"Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/wind-power-investments-in-germany-proving-riskier-than-thought-a-946367.html

--Also please read the below article from the Wall Street Journal which states:

"Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S."

--Yesiree, nothing like those renewables to lower power bills and reduce the carbon footprint, except for the fact that the Germans are going to be strip mining record amounts of lignite (brown coal, the dirtiest), for the foreseeable future. But, look at the bright side those huge increases in electricity bills caused by renewable madness make renewables look even more cost effective. No wonder increasing numbers of Germans are disconnecting from the grid.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

--The articles make clear that in addition to causing major increases in electricity rates, these schemes have been flim flaming retirees out of their nest eggs, as was the case in Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
 
"Marconi invented the radio but he had to wait years and years till anything decent was on."
Johnny Carson 1925 - 1992

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[zapta]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

"subscribe or log in".   

[mrflibble]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

"subscribe or log in".   

WSJ can go apply vacuum. Same article here: http://www.windaction.org/posts/41113-germany-s-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy

[zapta]

WSJ can go apply vacuum. Same article here: http://www.windaction.org/posts/41113-germany-s-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy

They have interesting pictures on their home page http://www.windaction.org/

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2011/apr/26/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-in-pictures

Here are some more interesting pictures, not sure if they're on topic either.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--This article from the Economist is about how Spain took a bath in the renewables market. Not getting off of the gas soon enough, when the balance sheet started turning red, meant having to slam the brakes on suddenly, go sideways and off the road, with the wheels coming off. Clearly the solar panels were not to blame. No it was the politicians, as always, over investing, over selling, and leaving working folks holding the bag.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582018-sustainable-energy-meets-unsustainable-costs-cost-del-sol

"ÁNGEL MIRALDA was proud of his 320 solar panels in a field near Benabarre, in northern Spain. They added 56 kilowatts of clean-energy capacity to a country that depended on oil imports. The panels cost €500,000 ($735,000): €150,000 from an early-retirement pay-off from IBM’s Barcelona office, the rest from a bank loan. The government promised a 10% annual return on such projects. That was in 2008. Five years later, after subsidies were cut on July 12th for the third time since 2012, his income is down by 40% and he is struggling to repay the loan."

"Mr Miralda is the victim of a bungled, overambitious renewables programme. Governments everywhere want to turn green and create environmentally friendly jobs. But as Spain shows, good intentions are not enough. If the policies are wrong, the benefits are wasted, the jobs disappear, the costs remain—and business investors bear the brunt."

"It has been a chastening experience. The government failed to cut subsidies when renewables were booming, so the cuts have had to be draconian. It imposed no cap on new capacity and stood by while that grew uncontrollably (this also happened in Germany). The promised jobs have vanished."
 
 --Clearly Chernobyl was the big one. A plant so primitive they used horse drawn cadmium rods, I jest. But what was really laughable was Gorby whistling past the graveyard and pretending nothing was going on for a week while every rad counter in Europe was beeping. A lot of really brave men died trying to contain the damage.
 
 "All cats are grey in the dark"
Benjamin Franklin  1706 - 1790

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

Clearly Chernobyl was the big one.

A combination of a few factors:

1) the design of that reactor;
2) demonization of the disaster and the handling of the disaster.

Take the guardian article linked earlier and if you cannot spot more than a handful of errors / exaggeration, you should ask for your highschool tuition back.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I didn't really look that hard for the errors / exaggeration in the Guardian post [note capitalised], but I would be interested in the errors / exaggeration that a fee paying high school student should see.
So if you can point them out. Thanks.

Then to be fair I looked at windaction.org, that scion of objectivity, to see if they had errors / exaggeration too. Anyway none that dannyf felt needed to be pointed out.
Anyway just to show that I lurnd stuff at school, I found both an error and an exaggeration in that article.


http://www.windaction.org/posts/41576-negative-health-effects-of-noise-from-industrial-wind-turbines-some-background

The Changing Rural Landscape

Prior to the installation of the wind turbines, these rural communities were typically very quiet at night, with background sound levels ranging between 20 and 25 dBA. After the turbines began operation, the noise levels jumped to 40 or even 50 dBA, and sometimes higher. It is common for wind turbines to be barely audible during the day, yet be the dominant noise source at night. Environmental sounds are quieter in the evening, lowering the background sound levels, and wind speeds tend to be higher at blade height during nighttime hours, which increases sound emissions. Further, nighttime weather conditions enhance sound propagation. The result is that at night wind turbines can be a significantly more noticeable noise source than during the daytime.

Commercial wind turbine blades produce aerodynamic noise in both the inaudible and audible range, collectively referred to as infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN). Although some of the audible noise is above 200 Hz, much of it falls into the low-frequency region around 0-100 Hz. Infrasound, generally considered to be inaudible, encompasses sound energy in the range from 0-20 Hz. It is measureable with either an infrasonic microphone or a microbarometer. The frequency and amplitude of wind turbine noise depend mainly on the blade-rotation speed. Measurements show increased acoustic energy with decreasing frequency, reaching a maximum at frequencies under 1 Hz.

From this viewpoint, farmers should also be allowed to use their land to harvest the energy of the atom by hosting a small nuclear plant. Hosting a utility-scale wind turbine is not farming; it is operation of a commercial utility. The installation of utility-scale, energy-conversion machines requires strict zoning and regulation, as one would expect for a zoned industrial region. These machines are in no way similar to traditional agricultural equipment. Thus we consider the term industrial to be an accurate description of utility-scale wind turbines.

[miguelvp]

Interesting that they mention wind and not sun, because agriculture harvesting is a byproduct of sun light.
So it's a solar farm more in tune to agricultural use?

But wind is a byproduct of pressure differences so the Sun still has an important role.

Edit: and since the sun is nuclear in nature it does makes things a bit fuzzy.

[SeanB]

Flying is not a problem, nor is take off. Landing, however, is the bit that is the hardest to do with good results every time. Pretty much every plane crash is a bad landing.

My dad had 3 aircraft accidents in his life, and only one was not in landing, when the plane was shot out from under him. Me I only was on one plane with landing gear issues, and had a paraglider crash right next to me.

[nctnico]

Greetings EEVBees:

Not quite true. Life expectancy has been largely increased by sanitation and clean drinking water.

--And here I thought the Industrial Revolution was responsible. Funny thing though, sanitation and clean drinking water, along with warmth, affordable clothing, mass produced flour for bread, etc. all seem to have taken an upswing about the time Watt's Steam Engine became widely adopted. No doubt they could have done all that with horse, water and wind power, but apparently due to carelessness they did not.

Actually they had the same sanitation problem and solution in Rome about 2000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Rome .If you have ever driven around in Rome you'd know the aquaducts in the centre are a nuisance to manouvre around 

[dannyf]

just check out the performance of the Ivanpah Solar installation in CA, and compare it with what was promised.

It is worse than that.

Not only the plant is generating just a quarter of its promised capacity 250MWh vs. 1000MWh, including the summer month. It is doing so with so much natural gas consumption that's sufficient to generate 200MWh.

So net net, 50MWh from the ivanpah plant come from solar thermal sources, vs. 1000MWh.

The only people who benefit from green energy are crony capitalists like Al Gore and Tom Steyer.

[tom66]

Danny, can you cite sources which back up your claims? (50MWh instead of 250MWh, etc.)

Why does a solar thermal plant even need natural gas? I thought they used molten salt as the heat conductor, so it can't be that. Boiling coffee?

[coppice]

Danny, can you cite sources which back up your claims? (50MWh instead of 250MWh, etc.)

Why does a solar thermal plant even need natural gas? I thought they used molten salt as the heat conductor, so it can't be that. Boiling coffee?

Cite sources? Wouldn't that go again the whole principle of this place? Even on the odd occasion when people do cite sources they make sure the source says the exact opposite of what that are claiming. :-)  That said....

I saw similar figures to the ones he claims a couple of weeks ago. They were presented by the engineers running the place. They went through the details of the morning gas powered preheat they use to get the system moving, and the gas powered generation they use after it starts to cool in the evening. It all sounded pretty reasonable until they put actual number on the amount of gas being used. It was puzzlingly high for a place with near guaranteed sun. It sounds like something was really screwed up in the design of that place.

[tom66]

I read something that suggested 33% of the power generated was offset by natural gas usage. I am really surprised they need to burn nat gas to make it work. Maybe the pipes would expand if the salt froze, causing damage.

It would still be good to see how it does over the course of a year, winter sun is obviously less than in summer.

 

[coppice]

I read something that suggested 33% of the power generated was offset by natural gas usage. I am really surprised they need to burn nat gas to make it work. Maybe the pipes would expand if the salt froze, causing damage.

It would still be good to see how it does over the course of a year, winter sun is obviously less than in summer.

 

Offset sounds like its wasted energy. I don't think they waste much. The problem is so much of the generated output they show would still be there if they just forgot to set up the mirrors each day and simply ran on gas. It doesn't feel like this is a demonstration of how well or how badly solar generation can work. It just sounds like a major screw up.

[SgtRock]

Dear Tom:

--May I refer you to the below article which was posted toward the beginning of this thread. It goes into detail about the short fall and the use of gas.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpah-solar-plant-falling-short-of-expected-electricity-production

"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov 1920 - 1992

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

SolarReserve, which received a $737 million DOE loan guarantee for the plant, anticipates energy generation of “more than 500,000 megawatt-hours per year.”

To give you a rough sense of costs, combined cycle gas plants usually have an all-in cost of $75/mwh. To build a 500,000mwh gas plant, the cost is just shy of $40 million dollars.

vs. $737 million for this solar thermal plant.

Good luck getting even a fraction of your money back, taxpayers.

[tom66]

That's a payback of $20mn / year assuming wholesale rate of $40 per MWh. 37 years. Oh dear.

I've suddenly become even less of a fan of solar thermal.

Maybe space solar PV. Still like the idea of insta-microwaved cattle from the beam of microwave energy...

[dannyf]

Not to mention the birds getting fried out of the sky.

Or even worse, ...

Where are the environmentalists when  you really need them!

[coppice]

SolarReserve, which received a $737 million DOE loan guarantee for the plant, anticipates energy generation of “more than 500,000 megawatt-hours per year.”

To give you a rough sense of costs, combined cycle gas plants usually have an all-in cost of $75/mwh. To build a 500,000mwh gas plant, the cost is just shy of $40 million dollars.

vs. $737 million for this solar thermal plant.

Good luck getting even a fraction of your money back, taxpayers.

They are pretty vague about how much of that $737 million was supposed to be R&D, and how much was pure construction. A first of its kind is certainly going to have a research component to its cost, which is a one off event. However, I couldn't find any predictions for how much additional copies of the plant would cost. Of course, nobody would build more of the exact design they have now. Its just too small to be interesting. However, you might expect some breakdown of R&D vs construction costs.

[tom66]

Not to mention the birds getting fried out of the sky.

Or even worse, ...

Where are the environmentalists when  you really need them!

Well, that was never as much as an issue as people made out. Cats bred by humans and kept for our personal enjoyment are far more destructive.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year

One solar thermal or wind farm is unlikely to even make 0.001% of this, so for now it's not a major issue, although considerations should be made, I wonder if for example they considered netting over the area of greatest danger, if the net was made small enough larger birds would avoid it and it would minimally attenuate the sunlight.

Quite frankly *I* don't care that much about the lesser spotted poisonous Peruvian tree frog, but I do care about the environment as a whole.

[zapta]

Not to mention the birds getting fried out of the sky.

This is actually a good way to get a fraction of our money back

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/24/nation/la-na-nn-wind-energy-eagle-death-20131123

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Ivanpah was probably a total failure from a cost benefits ratio while still on the drawing board. Grant monies always have seekers. I do not think in the final analysis even our esteemed Tom66, will favor Solar Thermal Power Generation.

--So next time the government has a solar thermal brontosaurus to foist on the taxpayers, just remember, because of environmental factors, all that math stuff about cost and performance need not ever be considered. Fire bad! Renewables good!

“Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the inquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems.."
Sherlock Holmes 1887 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

This is actually a good way to get a fraction of our money back

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/24/nation/la-na-nn-wind-energy-eagle-death-20131123

That's for killing golden eagles!

and that's only after the oil drillers get fined for (regular) birds flying into their (stationary) drilling rigs, and after years of people screaming about the government's uneven treatment of rigs killing birds and windmills killing birds.

The duke fine is nothing but token.

[dannyf]

I do not think in the final analysis even our esteemed Tom66, will favor Solar Thermal Power Generation.

I am far less optimistic there. I think the final analysis will show, as history has demonstrated so many times, that morons will always be morons.

[tom66]

Well, solar thermal could work. But there would need to be a full, independent cost-benefit analysis, showing payback rates and times, and a cost/benefit analysis.

For example the case of the bird deaths: what would be the environmental cost to pumping additional pollutants (CO2, sulfur dioxide, etc.) from coal/nat gas sources, compared to the potential harm from the bird deaths? And, economically, isn't it better to encourage people to keep their cats indoors, rather than not build an entire power plant or wind farm, if birds really are the concern here? (I suspect these organisations want to be noticed, rather than actually do anything about the issue at hand.)

Wind power has a good payoff rate. Cost is around $1mn to $2mn per MW of capacity (nameplate) and a capacity factor of around 0.2~0.3 puts it at a lower cost than coal power per MWh, once initial construction costs are paid off.  But, you can't power everything from wind due to the intermittent nature of the source.

Solar PV also works fairly well. Even without subsidies it's got a payback time of less than 10 years for most installations.

Still a fan of nuclear and carbon-capture CCGT (with nuclear being the preferred option)

[johansen]

Wind power has a good payoff rate. Cost is around $1mn to $2mn per MW of capacity (nameplate) and a capacity factor of around 0.2~0.3 puts it at a lower cost than coal power per MWh, once initial construction costs are paid off.  But, you can't power everything from wind due to the intermittent nature of the source.

how do you figure when coal, if it wasn't for restrictions, would cost less than one dollar a watt and it has a capacity factor of like .8 or something, maybe higher.
but instead it costs something like 4$ a watt to meet the restrictions. and because of these restrictions and others we're moving our energy consumption to china, and other contries where there are no restrictions on energy and labor.. how is this working out for you? would you (living 100 years from now so this is a reasonable arguement) encourage banning trade with any one who burns coal?

solar has a capacity factor that exceeds wind, and costs 60 cents a watt, the rest is installation. in fact i can buy a whole pallet of solar panels at 69 cents a watt with warranty right now... but i don't have space nor the 6K dollars to buy a whole pallet.

[nctnico]

Wind power has a good payoff rate. Cost is around $1mn to $2mn per MW of capacity (nameplate) and a capacity factor of around 0.2~0.3 puts it at a lower cost than coal power per MWh, once initial construction costs are paid off.  But, you can't power everything from wind due to the intermittent nature of the source.

Look closer at the numbers. Wind turbines run on government funding. If that funding goes away so do the wind turbines.

[tom66]

how do you figure when coal, if it wasn't for restrictions, would cost less than one dollar a watt and it has a capacity factor of like .8 or something, maybe higher.
but instead it costs something like 4$ a watt to meet the restrictions. and because of these restrictions and others we're moving our energy consumption to china, and other contries where there are no restrictions on energy and labor.. how is this working out for you? would you (living 100 years from now so this is a reasonable arguement) encourage banning trade with any one who burns coal?

Because pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of the Earth could cause catastrophic damage? It's sort of like asking why don't we all burn our trash in the back yard. It'd be much cheaper than paying a garbage truck to pick it all up, but it would also stink up the neighborhood and cause health problems for residents.

Some consideration beyond the raw dollar value would be nice.

[suicidaleggroll]

just check out the performance of the Ivanpah Solar installation in CA, and compare it with what was promised.

It is worse than that.

Not only the plant is generating just a quarter of its promised capacity 250MWh vs. 1000MWh, including the summer month. It is doing so with so much natural gas consumption that's sufficient to generate 200MWh.

So net net, 50MWh from the ivanpah plant come from solar thermal sources, vs. 1000MWh.

The only people who benefit from green energy are crony capitalists like Al Gore and Tom Steyer.

Wow, the failure in reading comprehension displayed in your post is astonishing.

1) The 1000 MWh estimate was per year, the 250 MWh was for the first 8 months of operation.  Even ignoring the downtime and learning curve associated with starting up a BRAND NEW facility for the FIRST TIME, it's still only 2/3 of the year.  Extrapolated to 12 months that's 375 MWh.  Still under the original estimate for sure, but it's not a quarter.

2) They aren't burning the equivalent of 200 MWh of natural gas, it says very clearly in the article that that's the limit after the original certification was overruled, it's not their actual consumption.

Under the original certification, “total annual natural gas fuel heat input” was not to exceed “5 percent of the total annual heat input from the sun” at each of the three Ivanpah units. That provision has been struck, and now BrightSource can burn a total of 1,575 million standard cubic feet of natural gas every year. To get a sense of that volume, an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant might be expected to produce about 200,000 MWh from 1,575 mmcf of gas

The fact that you read that article and came to the conclusion that they're only generating 50 MWh per year from solar out of the promised 1000 MWh is, frankly, absolutely amazing to me.

[mamalala]

Solar PV also works fairly well. Even without subsidies it's got a payback time of less than 10 years for most installations.

Still a fan of nuclear and carbon-capture CCGT (with nuclear being the preferred option)

Where do you get the 10 years from? Here in Germany, PV gets a ridiculously high feed-in tariff. And even with that, it takes them 10+ years to break even, and that is assuming that no servicing/repair/replacement-part is needed. Fun thing: They like to babble about how PV now costs less than conventional. However, what they never say: They compare the feed-in tariff to what the end-user pays. Which is just stupid. If anything, they need to compare it to what converntional sells their electricity, which is currently around 3 to 5 Euro-Cent per kWh on average, compared to 20+ Euro-Cent that the end user pays for it. Of course, as soon as you add grid usage costs, taxes, profits, etc., PV would be massively more expensive.

Also, i'm rather sceptical of carbon capture. How can they guarantee that it will not leak? CO2 is colour- and odor-less. But highly poisoning. Imagine some "natural storage" folds in, pushing out all the stored CO2 into the neighbourhood.

Greetings,

Chris

[dannyf]

CO2 is colour- and odor-less. But highly poisoning. Imagine some "natural storage" folds in, pushing out all the stored CO2 into the neighbourhood.

Isn't that what the liberal tree-hugging environmental lunatics want all the time? Elimination of everyone but themselves.

[tom66]

Isn't that what the liberal tree-hugging environmental lunatics want all the time? Elimination of everyone but themselves.

Apparently that's what you think. But I want to keep my plasma TV and still drive a nice car. Energy efficiency is a good thing and saves money, so where it's practical it should be implemented.  I don't want myself or anyone else to go back to the stone age.  And if we get the power source right, then that's not a problem.

[dannyf]

a nice car too

You mean that 16K GBP Leaf you paid 32K GBP for?



Or that el cheapo Leaf you wish to travel in comfort and style?

[tom66]

I'm not that bothered by a Leaf. If I did get one, it would only be a stepping stone to a "proper" electric car, like a Tesla P85D or Tesla Model 3.

I plan to own one fuel powered car in my life, which is the old 206 that I am getting from my father... After that, I will switch to electric only, assuming the Model 3 is available by then for a good price or maybe I can buy an older Model S.

[mtdoc]

Some how this movie comes to mind:

[johansen]

Because pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of the Earth could cause catastrophic damage?

{citation needed}