Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Boat said:

If we go by the Putin price of $8 for nat gas and $5 for gasoline a lot of alternative energy becomes competitive. Prices at $2.50 for nat gas breaks pretty close to even with wind and solar a couple years ago. You know why Texas still has cheap electricity? It’s growing solar, wind and battery additions. 

Only solar has competitive prices. Not everywhere, but in sunny places like Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 8:02 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Electrical demand is the vast minority of energy demand.

Remove hydro then talk.  Hydro other than in portions of the Himalayas, Africa, and small sections of S. America are all built out and vast majority there is done as well.  Electrical demand is multiplying multiple times over existing requirements if you cut coal/oil/ng. 

Only because there is so much thermal supply you get for free with your electricity? Because most of the overall energy use is thermal, not electrical.

Hydro has some of the best costs per installed watt, down to under $1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boat said:

If we go by the Putin price of $8 for nat gas and $5 for gasoline a lot of alternative energy becomes competitive. Prices at $2.50 for nat gas breaks pretty close to even with wind and solar a couple years ago. You know why Texas still has cheap electricity? It’s growing solar, wind and battery additions. 

Where I live we have plenty of wind turbine farms and our prices include a small wind subsidy. I have a contract with Constellation, in Texas but really have no idea what they use to produce the electricity. Their price has gone up somewhat but I signed up for two more years recently due to worse possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Where I live we have plenty of wind turbine farms and our prices include a small wind subsidy. I have a contract with Constellation, in Texas but really have no idea what they use to produce the electricity. Their price has gone up somewhat but I signed up for two more years recently due to worse possibilities. 

image.png.1e39aeb7f9c104f2cc4442c9789bdcd4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Most of the major Siberian rivers are hydropower free yet. This:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzhin_Tidal_Power_Plant_Project

would be by far the largest single power plant in the world. Epic, yes. Joke? Not really. The biggest issue is that nobody around needs that much electricity yet.

An 80km dam ~80m high in the ocean... all for maybe 1/5 of its stated capacity.... Sure.... same reason Bay of Fundy has not been damned up or any other spot in the world.  If it was economical it would have been done for Alumina production if nothing else.  Good luck

While we are playing make believe about giant dams in oceans, may as well put one across the Florida current between Miami and Bimini with its average 2m/s flow with multiple times more power available than any tidal fluctuations in some dumb bay... Of course Europe/Russia would Freeze so, they may go to war against the USA if they did that...

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

An 80km dam ~80m high in the ocean... all for maybe 1/5 of its stated capacity.... Sure.... same reason Bay of Fundy has not been damned up or any other spot in the world.  If it was economical it would have been done for Alumina production if nothing else.  Good luck

While we are playing make believe about giant dams in oceans, may as well put one across the Florida current between Miami and Bimini with its average 2m/s flow with multiple times more power available than any tidal fluctuations in some dumb bay... Of course Europe/Russia would Freeze so, they may go to war against the USA if they did that...

They've actually developed technology how to do it on the cheap. From prefab blocks towed to location and sank there, and built a smaller prototype that is still operational (from 1968 on)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

They've actually developed technology how to do it on the cheap. From prefab blocks towed to location and sank there, and built a smaller prototype that is still operational (from 1968 on)

Sure buddy.  I own some nice tundra you can buy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This one, I think

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kislaya_Guba_Tidal_Power_Station

The prefab block houses an "orthogonal turbine" that does not have to be reoriented for the high and low tide. Should produce the lowest cost per installed watt ever.

Ah, we have a tundra buyer sucking on government tits eh...  suckle suckle suckle...

Are you Jay's "economic" degree?  Inquiring minds wish to understand this genius "economics"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, we have a tundra buyer sucking on government tits eh...  suckle suckle suckle...

Are you Jay's "economic" degree?  Inquiring minds wish to understand this genius "economics"

Nothing to do with me. Economics tells us this tech is a failure. Andrei is still trying to figure out how the US produces diesel and kerosene without Russian oil that in his imagination we were massively importing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, we have a tundra buyer sucking on government tits eh...  suckle suckle suckle...

Are you Jay's "economic" degree?  Inquiring minds wish to understand this genius "economics"

This is 1968 Soviet tech, way before the green energy craze. This failed because there is no demand for so much power in the "tundra", not because of bad fundamentals.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nothing to do with me. Economics tells us this tech is a failure. Andrei is still trying to figure out how the US produces diesel and kerosene without Russian oil that in his imagination we were massively importing.

You were massively importing it before the ban, when Russia was the 2nd largest source of your imported oil, ahead of Saudi Arabia. That just disappeared into nowhere? OK... The rest of your stats are very difficult for me to verify, because the API gravity is inverse to specific gravity, In general, I understand boiling points best, like they do it in general chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You were massively importing it before the ban, when Russia was the 2nd largest source of your imported oil, ahead of Saudi Arabia. That just disappeared into nowhere? OK... The rest of your stats are very difficult for me to verify, because the API gravity is inverse to specific gravity, In general, I understand boiling points best, like they do it in general chemistry.

HaHaHa! How dumb can you be?

Here are our oil imports by country showing Canada, Mexico, Saudi and Russia. Russia is the red line crawling along the bottom of the graph:

image.png.7c46de64522b2e58367eb2e3c954bfee.png

Above data from EIA at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm

 

API is the metric used for oil. The data I gave you is from the EIA. What don't you understand? 

API gravity is one of the key characteristics of crude oil that, along with other characteristics such as sulfur content, is used by refiners when evaluating different crude streams for processing into petroleum products. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30852

Again, the table below is from the EIA at both https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/xls/api-history.xlsx and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_api_adc_mbblpd_m.htm:

image.png.1c0d15b23d018182d84a2aa58b0e3b7d.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHaHa! How dumb can you be?

Here are our oil imports by country showing Canada, Mexico, Saudi and Russia. Russia is the red line crawling along the bottom of the graph:

image.png.7c46de64522b2e58367eb2e3c954bfee.png

Above data from EIA at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm

 

API is the metric used for oil. The data I gave you is from the EIA. What don't you understand? 

API gravity is one of the key characteristics of crude oil that, along with other characteristics such as sulfur content, is used by refiners when evaluating different crude streams for processing into petroleum products. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30852

Again, the table below is from the EIA at both https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/xls/api-history.xlsx and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_api_adc_mbblpd_m.htm:

image.png.1c0d15b23d018182d84a2aa58b0e3b7d.png

 

 

 

I guess not everybody agrees with the EIA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s

Neither is tidal power an "economic failure"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This is 1968 Soviet tech, way before the green energy craze. This failed because there is no demand for so much power in the "tundra", not because of bad fundamentals.

Appropriate geographic locations are a critical part of the economic fundamentals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Appropriate geographic locations are a critical part of the economic fundamentals. 

Not really. Cost per installed watt is fundamental. Geographic demand is variable, because you can add an HVDC trunk, taking the power a couple of thousand kilometers away.

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

37 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

I guess not everybody agrees with the EIA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/russia-captures-no-2-rank-among-foreign-oil-suppliers-to-u-s

Neither is tidal power an "economic failure"

First of all your article uses EIA data. Russia was our number 2 importer for a few months of total oil and refined products then they fell back to fourth place. The data has only been updated to the end of March when the ban was implemented.

image.png.76adafe6f31e37bc9732c8b7ed898c52.png

U.S imports of Latam oil soar as refiners replace Russian barrels

Imports of fuel oil from Latin America averaged some 200,000 bpd in March and April, 49% higher than in the previous 12 months. Mexico's share of U.S. fuel oil imports climbed to about 27% in March and April, from 19% a year earlier, the data showed.

"The really interesting storyline has been Mexico's ability to capture market share from Russia," said energy strategist Clay Seigle. "The U.S. market for Russian fuel oil has been permanently destroyed."https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-imports-latam-oil-soar-refiners-replace-russian-barrels-2022-05-19/

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not really. Cost per installed watt is fundamental. Geographic demand is variable, because you can add an HVDC trunk, taking the power a couple of thousand kilometers away. This makes the geographic component somewhat variable.

No this tech is an economic failure and appropriate geography is a key part of the fundamental cost.

The failure is overwhelmingly evident as although you claim appropriate tech has existed for 55 years there are exactly two moderately sized facilities in the world. The UK gov't has repeatedly found the proposals for Britain to be uneconomical. 

Here is the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No this tech is an economic failure and appropriate geography is a key part of the fundamental cost.

The failure is overwhelmingly evident as although you claim appropriate tech has existed for 55 years there are exactly two moderately sized facilities in the world. The UK gov't has repeatedly found the proposals for Britain to be uneconomical. 

Here is the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations

 

 

Not the same tech. No prefab submersible blocks, turbines have to be moved between high and low tides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Not the same tech. No prefab submersible blocks, turbines have to be moved between high and low tides.

If no one has used it then it is uneconomical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

First of all your article uses EIA data. Russia was our number 2 importer for a few months of total oil and refined products then they fell back to fourth place. The data has only been updated to the end of March when the ban was implemented.

image.png.76adafe6f31e37bc9732c8b7ed898c52.png

U.S imports of Latam oil soar as refiners replace Russian barrels

Imports of fuel oil from Latin America averaged some 200,000 bpd in March and April, 49% higher than in the previous 12 months. Mexico's share of U.S. fuel oil imports climbed to about 27% in March and April, from 19% a year earlier, the data showed.

"The really interesting storyline has been Mexico's ability to capture market share from Russia," said energy strategist Clay Seigle. "The U.S. market for Russian fuel oil has been permanently destroyed."https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-imports-latam-oil-soar-refiners-replace-russian-barrels-2022-05-19/

So, they found a replacement in Mexico? This works. "Permanent market destruction" is bullshit, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If no one has used it then it is uneconomical. 

Again, look at the size of the production plant, will you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzhin_Tidal_Power_Plant_Project

It is enough for a small country. Where do you suggest putting it to? They can use it for making hydrogen from water, if only "hydrogen economy" plans weren't a scam.

Your list shows that Koreans are busy building new plants. I think hydro and tidal be grid-parity renewable technologies that work up north, where solar is not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Again, look at the size of the production plant, will you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penzhin_Tidal_Power_Plant_Project

It is enough for a small country. Where do you suggest putting it to? They can use it for making hydrogen from water, if only "hydrogen economy" plans weren't a scam.

Your list shows that Koreans are busy building new plants. I think hydro and tidal be grid-parity renewable technologies that work up north, where solar is not an option.

It is only suitable for that one obscure location. That is why geography is fundamental.

No the Koreans have no plants under construction. The two proposed plants both appear to have been cancelled ten years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

So, they found a replacement in Mexico? This works. "Permanent market destruction" is bullshit, though.

It is as permanent as Russia occupying Ukraine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.