Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Climate Change .. One step too far. Can't stop laughing

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

They don't generate excess wasted capacity.  The production above Germany's own consumption is specifically for export into the countries around them.  I'm not sure I would classify that as wasteful - especially since a big chunk of it is clean energy.  

Of course they are a net importer f materials- they don't have huge deposits of oil and gas to use.  I'm not sure why importation of fossil fuels comes into this.  However:

The planned decarbonisation of all sectors by 2050 should all but eliminate oil from German energy consumption. In November 2016, the German government agreed on its Climate Action Plan 2050, a basic framework for largely decarbonising the country’s economy to reach its 2050 climate goals.

You are dancing around the point.  Germany is actively and divisively moving to renewables at a very fast pace due to governmental regulation.  The US is not.  We are pulling out of climate agreements and removing environmental regulation.

There isn't a country in the EU that is not a net importer of energy.

fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-

Those are 2017 numbers.  Note that WInd and Solar combined provide 4.1% of Germany's consumption.

You can keep rabbiting on about capacity and 30% but that is not the reality of production or consumption.

Here is a bit of news as to german energy imports and exports from March of 2018.

german-energy-sources-import-dependency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Since I put solar on my roof, my costs are down about 70%. Going on over 10 years now. No moving parts. Wash the panels occasionally. Paid itself back in the expected 7 years, it's all gravy now. Owe, and I own them, I don't lease.

artificial economics....the power grid is mandated to buy and credit you...the power you generate does not include any cost of building or maintaining the grid or the cost of transmission of power down the lines...pretty much a shakedown of traditional power companies by the alternative pissing in the wind solar companies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love it when I hear the term ‘silly’ used with windmills- where I live in Eastern Washington, we’d be be mostly self sufficient with hydro & wind, if California weren’t sucking up large chunks of it.  I hear the term ‘silly’ used about wind power by guys who are using ‘silly’ power.  The bitching I hear the most is they don’t like the scale, where they love the big hydro projects.  If only Boeing would make really BIG windmills.  I mean really big.....

There’s one guy who’s experimenting with traffic generated power (tires over flat generators on the freeway).  Power is all around us- it’s not the problem.  The problem is harvesting the power in a way that doesn’t bother people with a PC agenda, and both extremes have that mojo going.

Im sure when we finally get large solar arrays in space to microwave power back to earth there’ll be critics kevetching about airplanes and birds flying into the beams.  Oh wait!  They already are!

God only knows where we’d be with hydro if bakers hadn’t used water wheels to crunch grain

But wait!  Larger windmills are coming to get us!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-rsquo-s-largest-wind-turbine-would-be-taller-than-the-empire-state-building/

Still silly, I bet....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.  I give up.  I gave you the numbers for electricity production and you are intentionally ignoring them.  Your blabbing about importation is ridiculous.  Of course they have to import raw materials in the case of coal and refined oil and petroleum. The PRODUCTION IS 30% RENEWABLE and they export a portion of that.  You are combining apples and oranges to try and support a false narrative. The oil/carbonized energies are being phased out per their 2016 agreement. And you STILL can't address that these irrefutably positive changes are because of government regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Ok.  I give up.  I gave you the numbers for electricity production and you are intentionally ignoring them.  If you read into energy imports you'll find that a large part of them go toward transportation because Germany doesn't have giant oil reserves.  The numbers are there.  The PRODUCTION IS 30% RENEWABLE and they export a portion of that.  You are combining apples and oranges to try and support a false narrative. The oil/carbonized energies are being phased out as well. And you STILL can't address that these irrefutably positive changes are because of government regulation.

You should.

Most of their renewables are biomass.  The huge investment in wind and solar produces less than 5 percent of their actual production regardless of how much idle capacity there is.  They produce more than that from animal bedding and manure as part of the biomass programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

artificial economics....the power grid is mandated to buy and credit you...the power you generate does not include any cost of building or maintaining the grid or the cost of transmission of power down the lines...pretty much a shakedown of traditional power companies by the alternative pissing in the wind solar companies

Really?  basically, I produce electrons during the day when I don't need it, and the grid does, and I consume at night. The system was sized such that i would be a zero-sum consumer, but we had 2 kids after that, so i pay about $80/month now. I could add more panels, just haven't done it yet. I was paying $300/month pre-kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You should.

Most of their renewables are biomass.  The huge investment in wind and solar produces less than 5 percent of their actual production regardless of how much idle capacity there is.  They produce more than that from animal bedding and manure as part of the biomass programs.

Now you are blatantly lying.  That can be the only conclusion when you continue to use numbers nearly a decade out of date after it having been pointed out. The electrical production in 2017 had wind at over twice the % of biomass.  I'm done with you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Now you are blatantly lying.  That can be the only conclusion when you continue to use numbers nearly a decade out of date after it having been pointed out. The electrical production in 2017 had wind at over twice the % of biomass.  I'm done with you.  

What do you think of this?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Now you are blatantly lying.  That can be the only conclusion when you continue to use numbers nearly a decade out of date after it having been pointed out. The electrical production in 2017 had wind at over twice the % of biomass.  I'm done with you.  

He might have a point if we include the heat energy from biomass. There are a shit-ton of homes heated with things like wood pellets and deadfall ... but yeah, definitely not as applied to the power grid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

artificial economics....the power grid is mandated to buy and credit you...the power you generate does not include any cost of building or maintaining the grid or the cost of transmission of power down the lines...pretty much a shakedown of traditional power companies by the alternative pissing in the wind solar companies

But wait, remember that there is little to no downstream costs of solar photovoltaics! There are billions of dollars per year of downstream costs from fossil fuels, things like air pollution, public health costs from particulate emissions, tens of billions of downstream costs per year from nuclear for Homeland Security, and for legacy costs of managing nuclear waste.

So when you mention "artificial economics" the most accurate assessment is that it's actually gas, coal and nuclear that are being heavily subsidized.

The grid is being upgraded regardless, and not because of rooftop solar PV, but because the grid operators have increasing demand and they're getting very smart about how to manage existing peak loads and all that excess baseload through things like energy storage in pumped power, but also controlling HVAC units remotely to smooth power spikes.

Your suggestion that alternative energy is a "shakedown" is 180 degrees opposite of reality. The grid operators are making record profits off of alternative energy, because they no longer need to manage the downstream costs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mikewof said:

But wait, remember that there is little to no downstream costs of solar photovoltaics! There are billions of dollars per year of downstream costs from fossil fuels, things like air pollution, public health costs from particulate emissions, tens of billions of downstream costs per year from nuclear for Homeland Security, and for legacy costs of managing nuclear waste.

So when you mention "artificial economics" the most accurate assessment is that it's actually gas, coal and nuclear that are being heavily subsidized.

The grid is being upgraded regardless, and not because of rooftop solar PV, but because the grid operators have increasing demand and they're getting very smart about how to manage existing peak loads and all that excess baseload through things like energy storage in pumped power, but also controlling HVAC units remotely to smooth power spikes.

Your suggestion that alternative energy is a "shakedown" is 180 degrees opposite of reality. The grid operators are making record profits off of alternative energy, because they no longer need to manage the downstream costs!

I thought SailBlue’s arguments sounded familiar-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Amati said:

I absolutely love it when I hear the term ‘silly’ used with windmills- where I live in Eastern Washington, we’d be be mostly self sufficient with hydro & wind, if California weren’t sucking up large chunks of it.  I hear the term ‘silly’ used about wind power by guys who are using ‘silly’ power.  The bitching I hear the most is they don’t like the scale, where they love the big hydro projects.  If only Boeing would make really BIG windmills.  I mean really big.....

every damn farmer that can put in a wind farm does it seems, that income stream keeps the farm in the family.

 

28 minutes ago, mikewof said:

But wait, remember that there is little to no downstream costs of solar photovoltaics!

Nice subsidies from the Chinese at times over the past decade for US purchasers of solar ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Easy fix transfer the guys that calculate Cost of Living Increase's and inflation over to help the climate change statisticians....problem solved  :D

Throw a few CBO wizzes at them for good measure. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

But wait, remember that there is little to no downstream costs of solar photovoltaics! There are billions of dollars per year of downstream costs from fossil fuels, things like air pollution, public health costs from particulate emissions, tens of billions of downstream costs per year from nuclear for Homeland Security, and for legacy costs of managing nuclear waste.

So when you mention "artificial economics" the most accurate assessment is that it's actually gas, coal and nuclear that are being heavily subsidized.

The grid is being upgraded regardless, and not because of rooftop solar PV, but because the grid operators have increasing demand and they're getting very smart about how to manage existing peak loads and all that excess baseload through things like energy storage in pumped power, but also controlling HVAC units remotely to smooth power spikes.

Your suggestion that alternative energy is a "shakedown" is 180 degrees opposite of reality. The grid operators are making record profits off of alternative energy, because they no longer need to manage the downstream costs!

When you figure out how to power America at night and on cloudy days get back to me. Solar is great but it has practical limits. Powering the US on solar would require 50,000,000 acres of land. 

Mike, what would that land look like? It would need to be kept vegetation free for the most part. That's a lot of herbicide into the environment. How much co2 would that 50,000,000 acres sequester in a year? According to the NYT it would be a bit less than a gigaton or about 60% or the total the current fossil fuel plants are responsible for. Add in the footprint from maintaining the system and a good estimate is that solar would reduce the co2 footprint by less than 30% over fossil fuels.

For all that effort you have reduced the US output by about 1% (38 billion ton per year total only about 1.7 billion from electricity generation )

What is your plan for all the other sources, Coking, cement, transportation, industry, etc.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Nice subsidies from the Chinese at times over the past decade for US purchasers of solar ;)

Wait, huh? You're claiming that China subsidized photovoltaics sent to the USA? Do you have a citation for that?

The Chinese PV industry was literally built with deposition and fabrication gear from the USA (i.e. Evergreen Solar) from about 15 years ago when Bush Jr. refused to grant cost parity to our solar energy industry when compared to oil, nuclear and coal.

You might make the argument that the USA subsidized China's entry into the industry, but as far as I know, China made profits off of the US pv industry, not a subsidy to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

When you figure out how to power America at night and on cloudy days get back to me. Solar is great but it has practical limits. Powering the US on solar would require 50,000,000 acres of land. 

Mike, what would that land look like? It would need to be kept vegetation free for the most part. That's a lot of herbicide into the environment. How much co2 would that 50,000,000 acres sequester in a year? According to the NYT it would be a bit less than a gigaton or about 60% or the total the current fossil fuel plants are responsible for. Add in the footprint from maintaining the system and a good estimate is that solar would reduce the co2 footprint by less than 30% over fossil fuels.

For all that effort you have reduced the US output by about 1% (38 billion ton per year total only about 1.7 billion from electricity generation )

What is your plan for all the other sources, Coking, cement, transportation, industry, etc.

Where are you getting this data?

And 2007 is calling, they want their strawman back ... where in the world did you get the idea that any rational tree hugger like me has proposed an all-solar electric grid? No, it's wind, it's solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal, ocean power, water power and for storage, pumped power, compressed air power and a bit of grid storage like in EVs and such.

Your "vegetation free" thing is nonsense, nobody mounts PV directly on the ground, it goes up on roofs or on ground mounts. We have a few megawatts of solar on ground mounts near our house, and I've never even seen anyone in the enclosure. The chaparral grows on the edges, but not enough to shade the panels, they are taller than my head. And my neighborhood has about 0.7 megawatts of power just on the roofs. There is practically no "maintaining the system" for ground-mount PV other than occasionally cleaning the dust off the surfaces if there hasn't been any rain. And I've never, ever seen any "maintaining the system" of the roof mount arrays.

Coking (I assume you meant handling the coke at a steel plant, rather than "cooking") is now being done electrically, just using grid power and the same raw materials from the dirty days of steel production. Transportation can use gasoline, and gradually transition to gas-electric. But I don't see any real barrier to doing the lion's share of our HVAC for buildings in this country (about 50% of our usage) with alternative energy.

Jack, you usually do better than this, did you accidentally take some acid and imagine that it's 1996 again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother wading into the particulars but there are some important distinctions for people throwing statistics around.

KWH is a unit of energy.  KW is a unit of power.  Energy is power over time.

Typically, power plants tend to get rated in power.  So if you say you have a 1 Megawatt solar plant or a 1 Megawatt coal plant, they produce the same peak power - 1 MW. Typically, the cost is benchmarked to power delivered and a common capital investment to get that power might be  $1000/KW or a 'buck a watt' installed cost.  That number is dated - a much more common value is $2 / watt for a large scale plant these days.

Capacity factor is the term used to describe the time that the system will be operating at its nominal rated power.  Nuclear is rated at around 90% capacity for example.  They don't turn down or turn off very much.  Solar is typically around 25%.

Electricity is sold in units of energy (kwh) with some sort of surcharge for high power demands (kw).  You have to pay off your plant over time  by selling kwh to customers, typically when they want them, not when you produce them.

Typically national statistics will often site 'quads' or 'terawatt-hours'.  A quad is a quadrillion BTUs and is a unit of energy.

Installed capacity of solar has been going up but the delivered energy is only 1/4th or less of the installed capacity because of the capacity factor.

The US energy demand is actually pretty flat and has been for a long.  Our installed capacity expansion rate for the grid has been low and what little demand there is is largely being satisfied with Natural gas turbines and renewables because of the tax credits.  That weak demand is largely because we've exported some of our industrial demand.  We don't make as much steel and concrete as we use to make.  We import it from Canada - or did!  

In very broad terms,  energy use in the west breaks down on 1/3rd people (i.e., buildings and houses), 1/3rd transportation (i.e, cars, trucks, etc), and 1/3rd industrial use (making steel, cement, etc).  Mike is right vis a vis houses/buildings particularly if you combine electricity with heat pumps.  Pure electric heating is dumb and is rarely used - except at the personal level.  Heat pumps have become very efficient at virtually any scale and are the way forward.

 

That's why the following statements are simultaneously true:

1)  Virtually all of our increased power demand is being satisfied by renewables and;

2)  Very little of our energy comes from renewables.

 

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Where are you getting this data?

And 2007 is calling, they want their strawman back ... where in the world did you get the idea that any rational tree hugger like me has proposed an all-solar electric grid? No, it's wind, it's solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal, ocean power, water power and for storage, pumped power, compressed air power and a bit of grid storage like in EVs and such.

Your "vegetation free" thing is nonsense, nobody mounts PV directly on the ground, it goes up on roofs or on ground mounts. We have a few megawatts of solar on ground mounts near our house, and I've never even seen anyone in the enclosure. The chaparral grows on the edges, but not enough to shade the panels, they are taller than my head. And my neighborhood has about 0.7 megawatts of power just on the roofs. There is practically no "maintaining the system" for ground-mount PV other than occasionally cleaning the dust off the surfaces if there hasn't been any rain. And I've never, ever seen any "maintaining the system" of the roof mount arrays.

Coking (I assume you meant handling the coke at a steel plant, rather than "cooking") is now being done electrically, just using grid power and the same raw materials from the dirty days of steel production. Transportation can use gasoline, and gradually transition to gas-electric. But I don't see any real barrier to doing the lion's share of our HVAC for buildings in this country (about 50% of our usage) with alternative energy.

Jack, you usually do better than this, did you accidentally take some acid and imagine that it's 1996 again?

3

At whatever scale, large ground-based solar pv is far less effective than other alternatives for reducing CO2. 

People like you think largely in terms of electricity. but electricity contributes less than 4% of the CO2.  If you replace gasoline and diesel you would have to almost double the electricity generating capacity. Now you can impact 8% of the problem. tell me where you intend to go after that? 

The IPCC has a solution. Give Carbon credits to poor countries and let them sell them to rich countries. Now it is too costly to make cement in America so they buy it from an exempt or poor nation. Same carbon but the social engineers have transferred a few trillion to unsuccessful nations from successful ones. So when the crisis comes there are no more wealthy nations that can afford to research and develop the cure.  

You figure out how to fix the problem without rich countries polluting via poor country proxies then I'll listen. If your only answer is to bleed us without reducing the CO2 exhaled by the planet I'm not on board. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

At whatever scale, large ground-based solar pv is far less effective than other alternatives for reducing CO2. 

People like you think largely in terms of electricity. but electricity contributes less than 4% of the CO2.  If you replace gasoline and diesel you would have to almost double the electricity generating capacity. Now you can impact 8% of the problem. tell me where you intend to go after that? 

The IPCC has a solution. Give Carbon credits to poor countries and let them sell them to rich countries. Now it is too costly to make cement in America so they buy it from an exempt or poor nation. Same carbon but the social engineers have transferred a few trillion to unsuccessful nations from successful ones. So when the crisis comes there are no more wealthy nations that can afford to research and develop the cure.  

You figure out how to fix the problem without rich countries polluting via poor country proxies then I'll listen. If your only answer is to bleed us without reducing the CO2 exhaled by the planet I'm not on board. 

You're talking politics, and that tends to cloud some relatively simple physics behind making energy. If you want to discuss the IPCC and carbon credits and such, that's okay, but that has nothing to do with your claimed unworkability of using renewables over fossil fuels.

When you burn stuff to make energy, you're bound by the thermodynamic efficiency, and this is why something like 40% of our energy in this country is wasted to low-grade heat. We have schemes to use some of that to heat buildings and such, but the vast majority of it is just lost to the air. CO2, is proportionately related to that thermodynamic inefficiency.

Solar (ground PV, roof PV, solar thermal, etc.) is effective at reducing CO2 when it replaces combustion cycles. And so is wind, water power and even net-zero biomass, where we burn stuff like biomass rather than fossil fuels, since the CO2 would go into the air anyway from the natural decay, without capturing useful energy from the process.

Your data seems nuts, and when you claim things like we need 50 million acres of land to effectively use solar energy, you're pushing the conversation into pure disinformation. First off, nobody with any amount of knowledge of renewables is advocating 100% reliance of solar energy, it's good for peak-loads, and solar power is strongest when we need the power most, at the hottest parts of the day. We don't need much power at night when there is no solar energy, and we have more than enough existing installed capacity with natural gas to handle our baseload requirements. The whole point of renewables, as CMillikin writes, is that they can take on demand -- including peakloading -- that allows us to not have to add additional fossil fuel generations.

Your political argument is an attempt to change the subject from your contention that the only way we can rationally use solar energy is to dedicate 50 million acres to the opportunity. That's like someone telling their spouse "we can't possible afford to have a child, because we would have to feed the child nothing but steak, and steak is expensive, and how would we satisfy the child's nutritional needs on nothing but steak?" In reality, the kid might eat some steak, but it's part of a balanced nutrition, not instead of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

There’s one guy who’s experimenting with traffic generated power (tires over flat generators on the freeway).  Power is all around us- it’s not the problem.

Really??? Where does this tire-power come from?  It has to come from additional fuel consumption -- there's no other possible source, unless somehow the generation section is used to capture the energy that would otherwise be dumped during braking.  But on a straight stretch of highway it's a really stupid idea.  It reminds me of the genius who was charging a spare battery with his car alternator while driving, and then using the battery to run some lights in his home (the local TV news thought it was a great way to harvest free energy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, valis said:

Really??? Where does this tire-power come from?  It has to come from additional fuel consumption -- there's no other possible source, unless somehow the generation section is used to capture the energy that would otherwise be dumped during braking.  But on a straight stretch of highway it's a really stupid idea.  It reminds me of the genius who was charging a spare battery with his car alternator while driving, and then using the battery to run some lights in his home (the local TV news thought it was a great way to harvest free energy.)

Are you seriously telling me that I can't put a wind turbine on top of my car? Oh damn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

What do you think of this?

 

Loved it.  It's exactly what you'll never get certain posters here to even discuss rationally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, valis said:

Really??? Where does this tire-power come from?  It has to come from additional fuel consumption -- there's no other possible source, unless somehow the generation section is used to capture the energy that would otherwise be dumped during braking.  But on a straight stretch of highway it's a really stupid idea.  It reminds me of the genius who was charging a spare battery with his car alternator while driving, and then using the battery to run some lights in his home (the local TV news thought it was a great way to harvest free energy.)

Apparently it doesn’t decrease fuel economy, and granted, it doesn’t recover 100% of the power used to create it, but it is power that isn’t being recovered now.  That’s worth something, isn’t it?

(Is that your double ender in the Friday Harbor Marina?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Without regulation, there isn't an industry in the world that will worry about conservation.

Is that so?

Didn't know that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go sign a couple more petitions from charter captains asking for more regulations on their industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Now you are blatantly lying.  That can be the only conclusion when you continue to use numbers nearly a decade out of date after it having been pointed out. The electrical production in 2017 had wind at over twice the % of biomass.  I'm done with you.  

These figures are from 2017, read the legend.  It's actually one of the charts in the article you referenced.  Again, it is actual consumption.  The bar on the right breaks down renewables.

fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, valis said:

Really??? Where does this tire-power come from?  It has to come from additional fuel consumption -- there's no other possible source, unless somehow the generation section is used to capture the energy that would otherwise be dumped during braking.  But on a straight stretch of highway it's a really stupid idea.  It reminds me of the genius who was charging a spare battery with his car alternator while driving, and then using the battery to run some lights in his home (the local TV news thought it was a great way to harvest free energy.)

My use of the the word ‘flat’ was imprecise, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.  By ‘flat’ I meant the same height as the surrounding road surface, so there was little to cause a vehicle to slow down.  I think I get the Newtonian Physics you’re talking about, but along those lines, a dirty car, uderflated tires, all season tires, winter studded tires, dirty engine oil, worn pitted road surface, uneven expansion joints, truck weight measuring systems imbedded in highways, lower temperatures in shady areas, curves in the road, bumpy dots, road kill, road crown, or paint lines would also reduce mpg- even putting this energy type of road type on a downslope will cause mpg to suffer, so I’m wondering what your discomfort with it really is- more chipping away at your freedom to choose?  It can get aggravating.  Just one more damn thing.  I suppose one could argue that oppositioninally arrayed sound waves or photons will slow you down too. 

A clean faired bottom, no through hulls, no propeller or aperture, no overloading of the design displacement, keeping the waterline plane level, keeping windage to a minimum,  controlling heel, reefing for a balanced helm  all will help sailboat performance too.  Gets expensive and time consuming.  Each time I’ve messed with my running backs, it’s not cheap-

We all define our own realities.  Sounds like you’ve had it.  Enough is enough.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Amati said:

My use of the the word ‘flat’ was imprecise, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.  By ‘flat’ I meant the same height as the surrounding road surface, so there was little to cause a vehicle to slow down.  I think I get the Newtonian Physics you’re talking about, but along those lines, a dirty car, uderflated tires, all season tires, winter studded tires, dirty engine oil, worn pitted road surface, uneven expansion joints, truck weight measuring systems imbedded in highways, lower temperatures in shady areas, curves in the road, bumpy dots, road kill, road crown, or paint lines would also reduce mpg- even putting this energy type of road type on a downslope will cause mpg to suffer, so I’m wondering what your discomfort with it really is- more chipping away at your freedom to choose?  It can get aggravating.  Just one more damn thing.  I suppose one could argue that oppositioninal sound waves or photons will slow you down too. 

A clean faired bottom, no through hulls, no propeller or aperture, no overloading of the design displacement, keeping the waterline plane level, keeping windage to a minimum,  controlling heel, reefing for a balanced helm  all will help sailboat performance too.  

We all define our own realities.  Sounds like you’ve had it.  Enough is enough.....

His "discomfort" is that you never get something for nothing.  You always have to generate the power somewhere, and there is always a loss in the conversion.  So bumps that generate power when cars roll over them rob that rolling energy from the car.  "Creative" engineers have tried putting bumps at stop signs where you have to slow down anyway - but it's snake oil.  The bumps never pay for themselves and their installation and their manufacture, and they certainly don't end up generating a meaningful amount of energy.  He's irritated that people keep believing in energy for free.  So if you do the math, the whole idea doesn't work out.  But that doesn't stop people from trying it and promoting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

His "discomfort" is that you never get something for nothing.  You always have to generate the power somewhere, and there is always a loss in the conversion.  So bumps that generate power when cars roll over them rob that rolling energy from the car.  "Creative" engineers have tried putting bumps at stop signs where you have to slow down anyway - but it's snake oil.  The bumps never pay for themselves and their installation and their manufacture, and they certainly don't end up generating a meaningful amount of energy.  He's irritated that people keep believing in energy for free.  So if you do the math, the whole idea doesn't work out.  But that doesn't stop people from trying it and promoting it.

Not to mention the energy needed to drive the car and overcome the up and down vs forward motion.

So long as you can actually produce excess energy the conversion/reconversion costs aren't so bad. 

If you looked elsewhere on this board you would see a reasonably rational discussion on the use of hydrogen being used as a range extender for battery vehicles.  It could actually provide all the power needed and the battery used as a 'get to the H2 pump' reserve.

If you look at the actual consumption chart above, use of Hydrogen would reduce the percentage of use of Mineral Oil (34.6 %).  But we have no idea where the energy will come from to split the water molecules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

His "discomfort" is that you never get something for nothing.  You always have to generate the power somewhere, and there is always a loss in the conversion.  So bumps that generate power when cars roll over them rob that rolling energy from the car.  "Creative" engineers have tried putting bumps at stop signs where you have to slow down anyway - but it's snake oil.  The bumps never pay for themselves and their installation and their manufacture, and they certainly don't end up generating a meaningful amount of energy.  He's irritated that people keep believing in energy for free.  So if you do the math, the whole idea doesn't work out.  But that doesn't stop people from trying it and promoting it.

Who said it’s free?  That wasn’t my point-

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/california-power-source-roads-2016-9

my question is how much degradation of rolling resistance is acceptable in cost/benefit trade offs?  One of my foursome  used to be a highway engineer, and it’s fascinating to get him talking about the different rolling resistance of various paving materials vs how long they last, how noisy they are, how much they cost, effects of vibration, etc.  There is a sweet spot, but it’s not free, it’s just a balancing act.  And becomes a political event quickly, no?

i’ll have to find it, but there’s a great sci fi novel about solar arrays in orbit beaming energy down in microwaves destroying  the alternative energy industry and the jobs it supports- solar and wind installations become decaying monuments to desperate folly- unemployment, no money for retraining,  dark, dark, shit.....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Not to mention the energy needed to drive the car and overcome the up and down vs forward motion.

So long as you can actually produce excess energy the conversion/reconversion costs aren't so bad. 

If you looked elsewhere on this board you would see a reasonably rational discussion on the use of hydrogen being used as a range extender for battery vehicles.  It could actually provide all the power needed and the battery used as a 'get to the H2 pump' reserve.

If you look at the actual consumption chart above, use of Hydrogen would reduce the percentage of use of Mineral Oil (34.6 %).  But we have no idea where the energy will come from to split the water molecules.

Folks are looking- quick look at the internet tubes reveal all sorts of strategies.  Here are some I found mere seconds- and yes, you can ridicule them- fire away....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112095943.htm

https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/wind-to-hydrogen.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Amati said:

Folks are looking- quick look at the internet tubes reveal all sorts of strategies.  Here are some I found mere seconds- and yes, you can ridicule them- fire away....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112095943.htm

https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/wind-to-hydrogen.html

Perhaps you hadn't noticed but, I am in favor of Hydrogen as a fuel and have no problem using wind and solar in it's production.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Perhaps you hadn't noticed but, I am in favor of Hydrogen as a fuel and have no problem using wind and solar in it's production.

 

Sorry, I didn’t state my point clearly- I believe you dig hydrogen- I was redponding yo your assertion that no one has a clue where the energy comes from to split water molecules- I’d say there are lots of clues- wjo knows?  A small deployable wind generator, brake regenerator, or geared regenerator on a velomobile, a long hill,  a gallon of water and you’ve got a range extender! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Amati said:

I absolutely love it when I hear the term ‘silly’ used with windmills- where I live in Eastern Washington, we’d be be mostly self sufficient with hydro & wind,

I  like wind turbines even with the intermittent nature.

I drove through that pass on my way to Spokane last year and have no philosophical issues.

Some "environmentalists"  don't like birds getting killed by the blades.

Any issues I have are related to engineering. 

Same question as I ask of high performance motorcycle, car, battle rifle, solar array, or any machine

" How does it run when ya "twist 'er tail, redline, and get it HOT"

There have been some really scary failures that could kill people.

Could be lack of planning, cheeped out on the engineering,  sloppy manufacturing, or whatever.

They have to be reliable enough to be safe around people

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:

Sorry, I didn’t state my point clearly- I believe you dig hydrogen- I was redponding yo your assertion that no one has a clue where the energy comes from to split water molecules- I’d say there are lots of clues- wjo knows?  A small deployable wind generator, brake regenerator, or geared regenerator on a velomobile, a long hill,  a gallon of water and you’ve got a range extender! ;)

Sure there are as many ways as there are to generate electricity.  Why, you could put a Leyden jar on the roof and collect electricity from lightning.  In the case of road transportation, conversion would move demand away from mineral oil but we don't know where the replacement would come from. Hydrogen would likely fall into 'other' until it makes a dent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Amati said:

I absolutely love it when I hear the term ‘silly’ used with windmills- where I live in Eastern Washington, we’d be be mostly self sufficient with hydro & wind, if California weren’t sucking up large chunks of it.

 

You should be able to do well with geothermal as well.

GeothermalResourceMap.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

Who said it’s free?  That wasn’t my point-

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/california-power-source-roads-2016-9

my question is how much degradation of rolling resistance is acceptable in cost/benefit trade offs?  One of my foursome  used to be a highway engineer, and it’s fascinating to get him talking about the different rolling resistance of various paving materials vs how long they last, how noisy they are, how much they cost, effects of vibration, etc.  There is a sweet spot, but it’s not free, it’s just a balancing act.  And becomes a political event quickly, no?

i’ll have to find it, but there’s a great sci fi novel about solar arrays in orbit beaming energy down in microwaves destroying  the alternative energy industry and the jobs it supports- solar and wind installations become decaying monuments to desperate folly- unemployment, no money for retraining,  dark, dark, shit.....

 

 

 

It's not about it being free.  The system has been proposed because it generates energy.  But it doesn't.  It's always a net loss, and the people pushing it should be ashamed that they don't understand one of the most basic rules of engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

Here’s another approach, one thstcsailors might enjoy-

https://www.shell.com/inside-energy/turbine-turns-traffic-into-energy.html

This one isn't so bad (a vertical-axis wind turbine alongside the road that captures the air turbulance created by passing vehicles).  To some degree, it's still going to reduce the effective aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicles, and thereby cause an increase in fuel consumption from increased drag.  But if you cut down any roadside trees (or billboards, buildings, etc) and replace them with turbines then it's probably a slight overall energy-producer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

 like wind turbines even with the intermittent nature.

I drove through that pass on my way to Spokane last year and have no philosophical issues.

Some "environmentalists"  don't like birds getting killed by the blades.

Any issues I have are related to engineering. 

Same question as I ask of high performance motorcycle, car, battle rifle, solar array, or any machine

" How does it run when ya "twist 'er tail, redline, and get it HOT"

There have been some really scary failures that could kill people.

Could be lack of planning, cheeped out on the engineering,  sloppy manufacturing, or whatever.

They have to be reliable enough to be safe around people

 

Another issue that I don't think has been asked enough is maintenance and removal.  These all have useful lives, and once they reach the end of them if you're not replacing them you get those scary failures.  They've already had one or two windmill fields "abandoned" where the owners just walk away and the mills go derelict.  I think the companies doing the building need to purchase a bond ahead of the build that pays for the removal.  Otherwise we're creative another giant clean up with each wind mill farm that goes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amati said:

My use of the the word ‘flat’ was imprecise, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.  By ‘flat’ I meant the same height as the surrounding road surface, so there was little to cause a vehicle to slow down.  I think I get the Newtonian Physics you’re talking about, but along those lines, a dirty car, uderflated tires, all season tires, winter studded tires, dirty engine oil, worn pitted road surface, uneven expansion joints, truck weight measuring systems imbedded in highways, lower temperatures in shady areas, curves in the road, bumpy dots, road kill, road crown, or paint lines would also reduce mpg- even putting this energy type of road type on a downslope will cause mpg to suffer, so I’m wondering what your discomfort with it really is- more chipping away at your freedom to choose?  It can get aggravating.  Just one more damn thing.  I suppose one could argue that oppositioninally arrayed sound waves or photons will slow you down too. 

A clean faired bottom, no through hulls, no propeller or aperture, no overloading of the design displacement, keeping the waterline plane level, keeping windage to a minimum,  controlling heel, reefing for a balanced helm  all will help sailboat performance too.  Gets expensive and time consuming.  Each time I’ve messed with my running backs, it’s not cheap-

We all define our own realities.  Sounds like you’ve had it.  Enough is enough.....

I got a couple big running-back air-blocks for sale if you want to tweak some more....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Another issue that I don't think has been asked enough is maintenance and removal.  These all have useful lives, and once they reach the end of them if you're not replacing them you get those scary failures.  They've already had one or two windmill fields "abandoned" where the owners just walk away and the mills go derelict.  I think the companies doing the building need to purchase a bond ahead of the build that pays for the removal.  Otherwise we're creative another giant clean up with each wind mill farm that goes up.

windmills do have some unwanted effects. Its up to us to decide which downstream effects are worse: 
Bird kills and the occasional human death

CO2 experiments with our atmosphere, vast fields of coal ash, environmental damage from the mining

Fukushima and Chernobyl....

Glare off the solar panels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

windmills do have some unwanted effects. Its up to us to decide which downstream effects are worse: 
Bird kills and the occasional human death

CO2 experiments with our atmosphere, vast fields of coal ash, environmental damage from the mining

Fukushima and Chernobyl....

Glare off the solar panels

Oh, I fully support their deployment.  Their environmental effects are less that fossil fuels.  We just have to be smart about it.  And we aren't all that smart.  They've been talking about solar towers that will cook anything that flies through the focused beams too.

I always got a kick out of this old story:

https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/london-skyscraper-can-melt-cars-set-buildings-fire-8C11069092

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These energy schemes that have been shown to extract tiny amounts of energy from things like moving cars, and pedestrians, and waste heat from houses, and such, they're basically running on the fumes of ideas from 1997.

The current reality with moving electrons down wires is that it's getting so cheap to generate power that there is only room for highly efficient power generation methods that are close to shovel-ready, and can be deployed at a profit in the near term. This is largely due to the advent of profitable renewable energy and effective fracking.

The immediate future of grid scale power is this: a shit-ton of natural gas, solar PV, a wee bit of solar concentration, a whole lot of wind energy, legacy power from nuclear, legacy power from hydroelectric dams, some minimal energy storage, a good amount of pumped power storage, a tiny bit of battery storage.

The longer range future of grid scale power is this: a decreasing amount of natural gas, a shit-ton of solar PV, a shit-ton of wind energy, a shit-ton of ocean power, a good bit of inland run-of-river power, a good bit of energy storage in pumped power and compressed air, and a good bit of distributed energy storage in batteries and capacitors, mostly in electric vehicles.

The emerging reality of "the energy crisis" is that there is no energy crisis, and instead there is the undeniable reality of the emerging water crisis. This reality will allow Canada to skyrocket to one of the top five global economic superpowers due to the advent of virtual water, and the reality that Canada controls 1/4 of the world's freshwater. If you're looking to guide your kid into a profitable career, help them cut their teeth on growing some bad-ass weed, so they can then learn to move to Canada and grow food for the rest of the planet for the next couple of hundred years.

Thus sayeth inthefuture.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Amati said:

What do you think of this?

 

I watched it, tragedy that he is dead now.  I spent time reading up on his work but came to the comclusion that he was a shill for the usual crowd.

He was big on providing numbers for the limits of renewables but very light to no comment on the abilities of his recommended solutions to cope.  e.g. he promotes Nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage, (CCS) but does not provide any evidence to support that that would work and for how long.

CCS is pie in the sky shit from Exxon and Coal Miners. 

Also very disappointing that those listening and reading his books did not ask

  1. How long can we run the world on nuclear fuel?
  2. Where is the CCS technology?
  3. Why generate and distribute when every house can be self sufficient with current technology?

But he is a poster boy for how far the Carbon boys will go to prop up the value of their investments.  Renewables on houses are about the Democratisation of power generation, and the big guys don't want that.

image.png.cb85de0111653145f1d1716b703f2496.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the nuclear fuel availability is around 800-900 years for uranium breeder reactor concepts, about double that for thorium breeder reactors (unproven, brining the total to around 3000 years at current consumption and normal mining concepts) and somewhere around 7x that again if you in include extraction from sea water (also unproven).

http://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/

Carbon capture from the air is pretty much reliant on biofuel concepts and is basically a 'how much land do you want to farm' question.

Carbon capture from power plants is pretty well known technology but adds about a 20-30% surcharge on generation but there's no obvious place to put the CO2 once you've condensed it.

Off-grid solar (with battery storage) is certainly a real thing and adds costs between $20-$40K depending on what you're after and assuming you don't modify your house.  Building energy efficient, integrated systems is a much better place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The answer to the nuclear fuel availability is around 800-900 years for uranium breeder reactor concepts, about double that for thorium breeder reactors (unproven, brining the total to around 3000 years at current consumption and normal mining concepts) and somewhere around 7x that again if you in include extraction from sea water (also unproven).

http://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/01/nuclear-options/

Carbon capture from the air is pretty much reliant on biofuel concepts and is basically a 'how much land do you want to farm' question.

Carbon capture from power plants is pretty well known technology but adds about a 20-30% surcharge on generation but there's no obvious place to put the CO2 once you've condensed it.

Off-grid solar (with battery storage) is certainly a real thing and adds costs between $20-$40K depending on what you're after and assuming you don't modify your house.  Building energy efficient, integrated systems is a much better place to start.

  1. CCS is not "pretty well known technology".  It's unproven on the industrial scale and the costs are speculation.
  2. Uranium from seawater?  (0.0016 ppm)?  Sure, let's see that bitch produce more than it costs.
  3. Nuclear power is very expensive if the whole-of-life costs are used to calculate it.

Meanwhile every household can be self sufficient now.  Power to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, random said:
  1. CCS is not "pretty well known technology".  It's unproven on the industrial scale and the costs are speculation.

 'Zero Carbon' is hard.  Those are the test plants that have been getting all the headlines.

Cleaning up and condensing most of the CO2 is really simple chem-e stuff.  It's not done because (a) there's absolutely no profit in it (b) there's no place to put all the CO2.  Once captured, it's a 'pollutant' and power plants actually become accountable for it.  It's better to just let it go in the first place until there's a place to put it.  There is no technical barrier to capturing carbon.  Where to put it is the problem and there is speculation there - particularly in how long the CO2 will stay sequestered.

As far as off-grid power, you're right that anyone that wants to spend the money today can install a solar/battery system.  It's just money.   Ironically, we'll run out of lead before we'll run out of Uranium if the competition is storage vs generation.

Here's Tom Murphy's on experiment with Off-Grid

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/09/blow-by-blow-pv-system-efficiency/

"Storage is what it is: not great, but at least it can work, at a cost. The main lesson is that we shouldn’t be flippant about the degree to which storage difficulties limit our future energy ambitions. I see it every day in my imperfect personal PV microcosm."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Covering Nevada w/ solar cells will shade the desert, and the tortoises will go extinct due to starvation.

Each micro hydro generator slows the creek down,  and dams slow the river.

The backyard wind turbine slows the wind a teensy bit, and megawatt class, a little bit more.

All put together, we are adding a measurable ( and increasing) Drag to the oblate spheroid, thereby slowing it down.

We only have two years, seven months, one week, and a few days (plus or minus a few days) , 

, before we trigger the inevitable next Ice Age, and all wake up one morning to see the glacier sliding toward our houses.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50,000,000 acres = 78,125 square miles

US area = 3.797 million square miles., So 2% required if you want to just use solar.

Iowa = 56,272 mi²

CLOSE ENOUGH. We can make up the rest with wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zonker said:

50,000,000 acres = 78,125 square miles

US area = 3.797 million square miles., So 2% required if you want to just use solar.

Iowa = 56,272 mi²

CLOSE ENOUGH. We can make up the rest with wind.

Still not counting household rooftops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

I was trying to figure how much the sides of a road (far field?)effected car aero, and found this, which I think indicates it’s not much- 

https://eprints.usq.edu.au/24665/1/Basson_2013.pdf

If it's not much (and looking at the pictures in the above paper I believe you're right about that), then it means there's not much energy to be harvested by the road-side turbine.  But every erg of the energy that is harvested has to come from from the car's propulsion system.  The question is; without the turbine would that air-flow energy have been generated anyway and wasted, or would the turbine create additional drag for the car?  I suspect it would be a bit of both, depending on the roadside conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zonker said:

50,000,000 acres = 78,125 square miles

US area = 3.797 million square miles., So 2% required if you want to just use solar.

Iowa = 56,272 mi²

CLOSE ENOUGH. We can make up the rest with wind.

His numbers are nonsense, that's why I asked for a citation.

First off, no rational energy manager has suggested a 100% solar energy economy as he has. And even at 33% solar, his numbers don't make sense. The sun outputs about 1 kw per square meter for 6 hours per day in typical sunny locations. A commodity PV is about 15% efficient at converting this to grid power, so about 150 watts per square meter.  At about 425 GW total demand, or 1.4x10^11 watts at 33% energy mix, that's 933 million square meters, or about 360 square miles, about half the size of the county in which I live. Add in the access roads, the space between panels, the separation area to allow for cattle grazing, and growing shade crops, and the area needed would only be about half the size of the privately-owned King Ranch in Texas.

Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, valis said:

If it's not much (and looking at the pictures in the above paper I believe you're right about that), then it means there's not much energy to be harvested by the road-side turbine.  But every erg of the energy that is harvested has to come from from the car's propulsion system.  The question is; without the turbine would that air-flow energy have been generated anyway and wasted, or would the turbine create additional drag for the car?  I suspect it would be a bit of both, depending on the roadside conditions.

Having had to change a tyre on the L7 trailer on the roadside of I5 near Redding in 105 degree temp lying on my side on the blacktop, I think I can vouch that the air blast is real, and massive.  I doubt if I caused any of the traffic much mpg. Although I was sticky, I didn’t feel it.   There is a surfeit of energy out there, and if it pencils in the black, why not go for it?  Of course you have to think spending the dough is a good idea to begin the festivities-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

Having had to change a tyre on the L7 trailer on the roadside of I5 near Redding in 105 degree temp lying on my side on the blacktop, I think I can vouch that the air blast is real, and massive.  I doubt if I caused any of the traffic much mpg. Although I was sticky, I didn’t feel it.   There is a surfeit of energy out there, and if it pencils in the black, why not go for it?  Of course you have to think spending the dough is a good idea to begin the festivities-

All I am saying is that any energy extracted from that massive air blast has to come from the burning of petroleum (or electricity) in the vehicle engine, and that it's likely that the road-side turbine increases the air-resistance experienced by the vehicle, at least a little.  To the extent that the turbine extracts energy that would have been otherwise wasted, that's a  positive factor.  If the extra drag on the vehicle reduces fuel efficiency, then that's a negative factor.  I haven't even begun to think about the life-cycle costs and benefits of the system.

My main point is that "free energy" proposals sometimes end up being energy wasters, it's just that someone else pays for the waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, valis said:

All I am saying is that any energy extracted from that massive air blast has to come from the burning of petroleum (or electricity) in the vehicle engine, and that it's likely that the road-side turbine increases the air-resistance experienced by the vehicle, at least a little.  To the extent that the turbine extracts energy that would have been otherwise wasted, that's a  positive factor.  If the extra drag on the vehicle reduces fuel efficiency, then that's a negative factor.  I haven't even begun to think about the life-cycle costs and benefits of the system.

My main point is that "free energy" proposals sometimes end up being energy wasters, it's just that someone else pays for the waste.

It’s not free energy.  That’s why there are gas stations conveniently situated around roads, competing for our business.  There are even gas stations on the water, for sailboats that don’t sail well in light airs....

Free energy is all around us- harvesting it costs money.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mikewof said:

His numbers are nonsense, that's why I asked for a citation.

First off, no rational energy manager has suggested a 100% solar energy economy as he has. And even at 33% solar, his numbers don't make sense. The sun outputs about 1 kw per square meter for 6 hours per day in typical sunny locations. A commodity PV is about 15% efficient at converting this to grid power, so about 150 watts per square meter.  At about 425 GW total demand, or 1.4x10^11 watts at 33% energy mix, that's 933 million square meters, or about 360 square miles, about half the size of the county in which I live. Add in the access roads, the space between panels, the separation area to allow for cattle grazing, and growing shade crops, and the area needed would only be about half the size of the privately-owned King Ranch in Texas.

Meh.

Executive Summary 

By the third quarter of 2012, the United States had deployed more than 2.1 gigawatts (GWac1) of 
utility-scale solar generation capacity, with 4.6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 
(SEIA 2012). Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and decreasing
system costs (DOE 2012a). One concern regarding large-scale deployment of solar energy
is its potentially significant land use. Efforts have been made to understand solar land use estimates
from the literature (Horner and Clark 2013); however, we were unable to find a 
comprehensive evaluation of solar land use requirements from the research literature. This report 
provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U.S. utility-scale2 ground-mounted 
photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities. 
After discussing solar land-use metrics and our data-collection and analysis methods, we present total
and direct land-use results for various solar technologies and system configurations, on both a
capacity and an electricity-generation basis. The total area corresponds to all land enclosed by the
site boundary. The direct area comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, 
substations, service buildings, and other infrastructure. We quantify and summarize the area impacted,
recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. As of the third quarter of 2012, the solar projects we analyze represent 72% of 
installed and under-construction utility-scale PV and CSP capacity in the United States. Table 
ES-1 summarizes our land-use results. 

image.thumb.png.fbffa43ad500d878c4296b488cf85361.png

 

Using these actual site averages. 

Given the 360 square miles, you talk about (  230,400 acres)  and the table above you get 25 .6 gigawatts for 6 hours per day ** .

US generating capacity is 1.3 terawatts. that is 50 * 230,400 = 11,520,000 acres

But that is for an average of 6 hours per day (best case)  So you need 4 times that to equal the US generating capacity, assuming 100% conversion into and out of whatever magical storage system you envision.  

So let's see where I came up with 50,000,000 acres. 11,520,000 acres * 4 = 46,080,000acres.

Crap you are right my in the head estimate of 50,000,000  acres is horribly off the mark ..... NOT.

Add in access roads and right of ways for the power lines and I am probably dead nuts on the mark. 

You on the other hand missed by a billion or 16.602 times to be precise. Go ahead and check my math. 

 

Oh, I guess you want my sources.  

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf    for the per acre data 

http://www.solardirect.com/pv/systems/gts/gts-sizing-sun-hours.html    for the sun hours per day data

** Some sample sun times.

image.thumb.png.1e47e962b7323d48a6e98a0179ad3ea2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Executive Summary 

By the third quarter of 2012, the United States had deployed more than 2.1 gigawatts (GWac1) of 
utility-scale solar generation capacity, with 4.6 GWac under construction as of August 2012 
(SEIA 2012). Continued growth is anticipated owing to state renewable portfolio standards and decreasing
system costs (DOE 2012a). One concern regarding large-scale deployment of solar energy
is its potentially significant land use. Efforts have been made to understand solar land use estimates
from the literature (Horner and Clark 2013); however, we were unable to find a 
comprehensive evaluation of solar land use requirements from the research literature. This report 
provides data and analysis of the land use associated with U.S. utility-scale2 ground-mounted 
photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities. 
After discussing solar land-use metrics and our data-collection and analysis methods, we present total
and direct land-use results for various solar technologies and system configurations, on both a
capacity and an electricity-generation basis. The total area corresponds to all land enclosed by the
site boundary. The direct area comprises land directly occupied by solar arrays, access roads, 
substations, service buildings, and other infrastructure. We quantify and summarize the area impacted,
recognizing that the quality and duration of the impact must be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. As of the third quarter of 2012, the solar projects we analyze represent 72% of 
installed and under-construction utility-scale PV and CSP capacity in the United States. Table 
ES-1 summarizes our land-use results. 

image.thumb.png.fbffa43ad500d878c4296b488cf85361.png

 

Using these actual site averages. 

Given the 360 square miles, you talk about (  230,400 acres)  and the table above you get 25 .6 gigawatts for 6 hours per day ** .

US generating capacity is 1.3 terawatts. that is 50 * 230,400 = 11,520,000 acres

But that is for an average of 6 hours per day (best case)  So you need 4 times that to equal the US generating capacity, assuming 100% conversion into and out of whatever magical storage system you envision.  

So let's see where I came up with 50,000,000 acres. 11,520,000 acres * 4 = 46,080,000acres.

Crap you are right my in the head estimate of 50,000,000  acres is horribly off the mark ..... NOT.

Add in access roads and right of ways for the power lines and I am probably dead nuts on the mark. 

You on the other hand missed by a billion or 16.602 times to be precise. Go ahead and check my math. 

 

Oh, I guess you want my sources.  

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf    for the per acre data 

http://www.solardirect.com/pv/systems/gts/gts-sizing-sun-hours.html    for the sun hours per day data

** Some sample sun times.

image.thumb.png.1e47e962b7323d48a6e98a0179ad3ea2.png

That citation from NREL, I worked there when they gathered that data, my friend Jim was even mentioned in the preface of your cite. What page of that NREL.report suggests anything like what you've suggested here, a grid of nothing but solar power?

And you might take a look at my calculation, I used the six hour daylight too. The thing you seem to miss here is that solar PV is a peakload technology, the whole point of it is to add grid energy during peaks, so that the baseload doesn't need to be oversized to supply the peaks. Solar PV doesn't need "magical" storage because it isn't designed to be used when the sun doesn't demand high HVAC loading. Your math is GIGO, because you want to show that solarizing 1.3 TW wouldn't work. But why in the world would we want to use solar PV to supply baseload? No wonder your area estimates are so nuts.

Just recalculate with peak load (about 780 GW) and see what you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

That citation from NREL, I worked there when they gathered that data, my friend Jim was even mentioned in the preface of your cite. What page of that NREL.report suggests anything like what you've suggested here, a grid of nothing but solar power?

And you might take a look at my calculation, I used the six hour daylight too. The thing you seem to miss here is that solar PV is a peakload technology, the whole point of it is to add grid energy during peaks, so that the baseload doesn't need to be oversized to supply the peaks. Solar PV doesn't need "magical" storage because it isn't designed to be used when the sun doesn't demand high HVAC loading. Your math is GIGO, because you want to show that solarizing 1.3 TW wouldn't work. But why in the world would we want to use solar PV to supply baseload? No wonder your area estimates are so nuts.

Just recalculate with peak load (about 780 GW) and see what you get.

 I never suggested anything. I merely stated that to duplicate the generating capacity of the current system would require about 50,000,000 acres and that according to government estimates that would reduce the sequestering vegetation enough to reduce the CO2 benefit dramatically.  My only point is that utility-scale solar farms have their own environmental impact. No free lunch.

DO you at least agree my estimate was valid?

The problem with solar PV is that peak demand continues outside the sun hours. So unless you have some magic Storage solution we still need nonsolar peak capacity. Now if Solar PV actually was carbon-free then maybe you could argue its benefits may be worth the cost. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Jack, when you recalculate with the peakload, remember to subtract out the baseload first.

Why even have the discussion when he starts out with a strawman about what we need to do to replace ALL of the generation with only a single renewable?  It's a strawman argument that's ludicrous from the onset.  It's a typical Jack tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Why even have the discussion when he starts out with a strawman about what we need to do to replace ALL of the generation with only a single renewable?  It's a strawman argument that's ludicrous from the onset.  It's a typical Jack tactic.

Not only do you miss the point but you do so intentionally. 

The point is that PV comes with its' own environmental cost. Utility-scale projects use land and destroy vegetation that would have sequestered co2. That penalty is never mentioned but it can be as high as 2/3rds  of the co2 that Nat gas generation would emit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is another form of paving over America. Incidentally, Google says roads and parking lots cover about 24,000,000 acres. Half what PV would cover. 

The other salient point is that electricity is a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted. If you want to make transportation switch to electric then the generating capacity would need to increase dramatuically. Toss in industry and we are talking several times the current generating capacity. 

The media and the uninformed public usually thinks only of electricity. CFL and LED, better insulation and more efficient air conditioners blissfully unaware that electricity generation is a relatively small contributor.                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Not only do you miss the point but you do so intentionally. 

The point is that PV comes with its' own environmental cost. Utility-scale projects use land and destroy vegetation that would have sequestered co2. That penalty is never mentioned but it can be as high as 2/3rds  of the co2 that Nat gas generation would emit. 

Are you assuming they cut down old growth forest or just replaced pasture?   The only commercial one I’ve seen replaced hay, which was cut four times a year and converted to manure.   As somebody mentioned up thread, the German use of rooftops seems smart to me, since that is already a source of runoff so it doesn’t add to flooding, is near the point of consumption, and provides multiple uses for the same land.  A solar awning over the top floor of parking garages would  duel benefit.   As has been said repeatedly, until / unless hydrogen storage becomes a commercial thing this is peak demand supplemental energy that also keeps the roof from getting so hot.    I hope China perfects hydrogen storage so we can steal their intellectual property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Not only do you miss the point but you do so intentionally. 

The point is that PV comes with its' own environmental cost. Utility-scale projects use land and destroy vegetation that would have sequestered co2. That penalty is never mentioned but it can be as high as 2/3rds  of the co2 that Nat gas generation would emit. 

But it isn't true. It doesn't destroy vegetation on a roof, and when it's ground mounted, it usually has to get NEPA clearance. 

Other than emissions from an improperly recirculated deposition system, PV has barely a fraction of the air emissions of any combustion process. And the whole point of PV is that you don't want shading or soiling, so they are sited above land that can't typically support meaningful CO2 uptake, like grassland. And even with that, the grass still gets sufficient diffuse light below the mounts to grow, I've seen it. Whatever CO2 uptake the shading of the mounts inhibits is definitely minimal, I would like to see a cite for your 2/3 estimate compared to natural gas, that's nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honesty, one of the better places is on top of commercial buildings such as Walmart, Amazon fulfillment centers, etc.  Theyre generally flat so the panels can be oriented properly but more importantly,  the buildings are maintained by trained personnel and the buildings have more robust electric connections so they can also be serviced.  The operation of the building often mimics the sun availability as well and offsetting power is far better than either storage or transmission. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if PV only provides a partial solution - it's still one that has negligible negative side effects, is clean, quiet, no moving parts, and as long as the ROI is shorter than the expected lifespan of the components? It's a financial win too.  We won't find a single solution - the solution will be an aggregate combination of production/storage/dissemination.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storage is coming along too. Pumped dams, air pressure in old mines, yes, even battery.

PV is not the only solution. Wind power + PV + hydro electric + geothermal + tidal. etc.

Wind is getting cheaper much faster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Storage is coming along too. Pumped dams, air pressure in old mines, yes, even battery.

PV is not the only solution. Wind power + PV + hydro electric + geothermal + tidal. etc.

Wind is getting cheaper much faster.

Everybody seems to see one big problem and is searching madly for one big solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

But it isn't true. It doesn't destroy vegetation on a roof, and when it's ground mounted, it usually has to get NEPA clearance. 

Other than emissions from an improperly recirculated deposition system, PV has barely a fraction of the air emissions of any combustion process. And the whole point of PV is that you don't want shading or soiling, so they are sited above land that can't typically support meaningful CO2 uptake, like grassland. And even with that, the grass still gets sufficient diffuse light below the mounts to grow, I've seen it. Whatever CO2 uptake the shading of the mounts inhibits is definitely minimal, I would like to see a cite for your 2/3 estimate compared to natural gas, that's nuts.

You'd think so. But all the large Florida projects are pine/oak timber tracts or orange grove.

Roof solar is the least efficient and most expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

You'd think so. But all the large Florida projects are pine/oak timber tracts or orange grove.

Roof solar is the least efficient and most expensive. 

Roof solar is cheap, it's the same PV as ground mount, but much lower costs for the balance of system costs. If it appears expensive to you,  it's probably because you're comparing residential less-than-10kW systems with grid scale systems. That's like comparing a five gallon water jug of water with a pint of Evian. Ounce by ounce, the Evian is much more expensive, but the five gallon jug is impossible to bring on a 6 mile run. Add up a neighborhood-wide 2 MW installation, take out the reseller costs, and the actual juice is produced competitively to grid scale installations.

As for the "efficiency" that's determined mainly by the internal quantum efficiency of the PV, which is a measure of the lack of recombination within the conduction layer. That isn't really related to the type of installation.

As for Florida, anyone who chops down timber for low profit solar either wanted the timber or they're trying hard to lose money. That isn't typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Everybody seems to see one big problem and is searching madly for one big solution.

 

Is "everybody" in that sentence the same bogus "everybody" who is constantly whispering in the *resident's ear?  Seems like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Roof solar is cheap, it's the same PV as ground mount, but much lower costs for the balance of system costs. If it appears expensive to you,  it's probably because you're comparing residential less-than-10kW systems with grid scale systems. That's like comparing a five gallon water jug of water with a pint of Evian. Ounce by ounce, the Evian is much more expensive, but the five gallon jug is impossible to bring on a 6 mile run. Add up a neighborhood-wide 2 MW installation, take out the reseller costs, and the actual juice is produced competitively to grid scale installations.

As for the "efficiency" that's determined mainly by the internal quantum efficiency of the PV, which is a measure of the lack of recombination within the conduction layer. That isn't really related to the type of installation.

As for Florida, anyone who chops down timber for low profit solar either wanted the timber or they're trying hard to lose money. That isn't typical.

Utilities have to meet mandated renewables. They factor in the penalties for non-compliance into the cost equation as well as the public relations nightmare for being singled out. Like nearly ALL environmental solutions from the Climate Change Industrial Complex, it is largely PR and a cosmetic project, not a "Fix the Environment" project. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Utilities have to meet mandated renewables. They factor in the penalties for non-compliance into the cost equation as well as the public relations nightmare for being singled out. Like nearly ALL environmental solutions from the Climate Change Industrial Complex, it is largely PR and a cosmetic project, not a "Fix the Environment" project. 

This is nonsense, Jack.

Renewable energy mandates are because combustion energy has been backloading costs onto the taxpayers for generations. From nuclear waste to homeland security, to oil wars, back to Operation Ajax and earlier, to the $40 billion/year public health cost of air pollution and water pollution.

That you think it's "largely PR" suggests to me that you are far more ill-educated in the thermodynamics of energy than you let on. Energy and where we get that energy increasingly isn't a political issue, it's more an issue of logistics and industry. That you're still applying 2006 dogma to the levelized costs of energy suggest that you need to find something that is actually political. What about water? That's as political as can get, can't you come up with some water politics to blame on us lefties?

Us sciency types fixed the energy crisis despite all the detractors like you who said we couldn't do it. Now we just need guys like you to tell us we can't fix the water crisis, so that we really get a bug up our arse and do something about it.

Get to work, Wonk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites