Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Good luck with that. 

Are you opposed to the nuclear option? 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Joseph Hall said:

Hahahaha.  An article from Stephen Moore in the Washington Examiner.  That's worth about a cubic foot of NG - almost nothing.

Let me help you out - the age of fossil fuels is over. The age of renewable energy is here. That’s all there is to it…

Who are you? 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

I think my favorite argument to address against nuclear is the waste argument. Because apparently material that's less radioactive than its starting material, encased in a concrete cask and buried a mile underground is a big problem. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

I'm not anti nuclear but the new developments in the UK are certainly drawing some hefty subsidy commitments

In contrast solar gets very little subsidy now. Onshore wind gets none and offshore is falling towards parity with other forms of generation. 

In terms of back up and storage in response to your comment about Lithium mines this is irrelevant in the short medium term because most Lithium is going into EV / appliance uses. Maybe in the long term vehicle batteries will be redeployed as storage in a 2nd life application. 

In the meantime renewables are normally backed up by Gas, Hydro, Pumped storage, biomass or in worst case scenarios coal. 

I'm going to search and see what subsidies are active for solar. As far as nuclear drawing subsidies, I understand that this is a problem. The question is, which solution is the better option for subsidy? Nuclear, but I would prefer no subsidy at all. Which solution stands better on its own without aid? Undoubtedly nuclear. People and their ignorance are the primary reason for the nuclear industry's downfall. All of the technological challenges have been addressed, and arguments fall completely short as soon as we enter the Gen IV sector. 

Do panels require precious metals? My argument about mines isn't confined to lithium only. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So, you don't think that there will be need for more electricity and wires to transport the equivalent energy used by gasoline and diesel through electrical wires?!

Sure we may need more transmission lines and charging stations.

Imagine when the first ICE cars came out... "so we are going to need to install thousands of gas stations across the country?  My horse runs off free grass!  Insanity!"

Yet it happened and so will the next revolution. Electricity is pretty easy to ship and "spills" far less often (it occasionally leaks to ground and kills someone when they touch or dig up a line).

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm going to search and see what subsidies are active for solar. As far as nuclear drawing subsidies, I understand that this is a problem. The question is, which solution is the better option for subsidy? Nuclear, but I would prefer no subsidy at all. Which solution stands better on its own without aid? Undoubtedly nuclear. People and their ignorance are the primary reason for the nuclear industry's downfall. All of the technological challenges have been addressed, and arguments fall completely short as soon as we enter the Gen IV sector. 

Do panels require precious metals? My argument about mines isn't confined to lithium only. 

Tellerium is the main 'rare' metal required

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/23/2020 at 8:30 PM, Meredith Poor said:

This is what is needed using what is available for sale right now. By the time anything like this is built out, batteries would have most likely improved markedly. There are about 135 million households in the US, so 90 million suggests one shipping container for every single family home in the country. This is patently unaffordable for most households.

The larger point is that the land area this needs has already been disturbed for other purposes, typically either power plants, coal piles, cooling water, or transmission lines. A 40' container would fit in most suburban home back yards, although few people would actually install one. Someone living in a farm house with other outbuildings wouldn't find this bothersome in the least.

The methanol economy beats this with a red hand. 

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

On 2/21/2020 at 7:37 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why?  ...

I did some research on this about a year ago and the reasons for this are a bit different than I suspected.

For much of less-developed Africa people lack the infrastructure to bring in gas or electricity. Even if that infrastructure is built it takes constant monitoring or it will be stripped or the commodity siphoned off. That adds significant cost to transporting energy which has to get factored in.

Another factor is that Africa gets more steady 12-hour days than most of the rest of the world. You don't have peak consumption seasons where the sun is only up for 5 hours - peak season in Africa is the the sunniest season.  There is also less need to do load shifting from the day-time to the evening.

Finally, "green energy" projects have the benefit of not needed to build a full grid. A bunch of microgrids get built which theoretically can get attached to each other to create a more robust grid. This self-containment means that costs come in very close to estimates - you rarely hear of solar farm developments going over budget.

There are lots of places where gas makes far more sense than renewables - for instance, Saudi wants to rid itself of oil-fired power generation by developing its gas fields. It's great they're going the way of the US and UK and get rid of the heavy hydrocarbon generators (coal and oil) and switching to gas. I hope China can soon too.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Sure we may need more transmission lines and charging stations.

Imagine when the first ICE cars came out... "so we are going to need to install thousands of gas stations across the country?  My horse runs off free grass!  Insanity!"

Yet it happened and so will the next revolution. Electricity is pretty easy to ship and "spills" far less often (it occasionally leaks to ground and kills someone when they touch or dig up a line).

There is a lot of electricity loss in long power lines and they are very expensive and unsightly. We already have natural gas lines almost everywhere. We could be using natural gas in ICE vehicles as well as gasoline or diesel. I am not against electric vehicles but want them to compete without subsidies. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Are you opposed to the nuclear option? 

 

Yes, because it ends up costing far more money over the lifetime of the plants and we have nowhere to safely store the radioactive waste. The plants just set there after their lifetime is over. Old plants are having their lives extended and consumers are having to pay higher prices for electricity because of it. The nuclear waste is kept all over the country. There is no guarantee that it will be guarded properly for the next ten thousand years or beyond. I favor using our clean, inexpensive, abundant natural gas resources rather than allowing oil companies to flare it off rather than use it. 

See Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xhPQIIW9xpOwn92z5hCGshSF7e6TP3R9sFBAAg-eQe4/edit

Edited February 26, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I think my favorite argument to address against nuclear is the waste argument. Because apparently material that's less radioactive than its starting material, encased in a concrete cask and buried a mile underground is a big problem. 

Yet congress has repeatedly refused to use the Yucca Mountain storage facility which cost billions to construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I think my favorite argument to address against nuclear is the waste argument. Because apparently material that's less radioactive than its starting material, encased in a concrete cask and buried a mile underground is a big problem. 

Where is it buried a mile underground?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Geoff Guenther said:

I did some research on this about a year ago and the reasons for this are a bit different than I suspected.

For much of less-developed Africa people lack the infrastructure to bring in gas or electricity. Even if that infrastructure is built it takes constant monitoring or it will be stripped or the commodity siphoned off. That adds significant cost to transporting energy which has to get factored in.

Another factor is that Africa gets more steady 12-hour days than most of the rest of the world. You don't have peak consumption seasons where the sun is only up for 5 hours - peak season in Africa is the the sunniest season.  There is also less need to do load shifting from the day-time to the evening.

Finally, "green energy" projects have the benefit of not needed to build a full grid. A bunch of microgrids get built which theoretically can get attached to each other to create a more robust grid. This self-containment means that costs come in very close to estimates - you rarely hear of solar farm developments going over budget.

There are lots of places where gas makes far more sense than renewables - for instance, Saudi wants to rid itself of oil-fired power generation by developing its gas fields. It's great they're going the way of the US and UK and get rid of the heavy hydrocarbon generators (coal and oil) and switching to gas. I hope China can soon too.

Natural gas turbines are built in all sizes from micro to very large. They are very suitable and scalable to any size community. Just add another turbine for a growing city. Long pipelines can be avoided by trucking in large compressed gas or even LNG containers.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ronwagn

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

There is a lot of electricity loss in long power lines and they are very expensive and unsightly. We already have natural gas lines almost everywhere.

True, but of course gas lines leak, freeze up with hydrates etc. We already have electric lines essentially everywhere.

Side thought... why don't we use the conductive gas pipes for electricity transmission as well???  Might have to look into that, might be stupid but who knows.

Back when hydrogen was discussed more seriously they said a cryogenic hydrogen pipeline could also carry a superconducting wire (it's already really cold so superconductivity is easy to achieve).  Zero transmission loss.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

True, but of course gas lines leak, freeze up with hydrates etc. We already have electric lines essentially everywhere.

Side thought... why don't we use the conductive gas pipes for electricity transmission as well???  Might have to look into that, might be stupid but who knows.

Back when hydrogen was discussed more seriously they said a cryogenic hydrogen pipeline could also carry a superconducting wire (it's already really cold so superconductivity is easy to achieve).  Zero transmission loss.

As you seem to imply, the electric wire and combustion possibility sounds like a nonstarter to someone like me. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I think my favorite argument to address against nuclear is the waste argument. Because apparently material that's less radioactive than its starting material, encased in a concrete cask and buried a mile underground is a big problem. 

That is a poor rebuttal, the natural radioactive material has to be massively concentrated and enriched, and then therefore the waste is concentrated.

"The dose makes the poison." A.L.A.R.A

Our lab did Ra 226 and Barium isotope analysis and we were allowed to use unsealed radioactive material so I know more than a bit about this stuff.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

As you seem to imply, the electric wire and combustion possibility sounds like a nonstarter to someone like me. 

Do you know the electric fuel pump is inside the gas tank in many cars? Weird, I know, but without oxygen you can't have fire.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

Do you know the electric fuel pump is inside the gas tank in many cars? Weird, I know, but without oxygen you can't have fire.

It sounds scary especially as the gas tank empties! Boeing is having a problem with debris left in the fuel tanks of their airplanes. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It sounds scary especially as the gas tank empties! Boeing is having a problem with debris left in the fuel tanks of their airplanes. 

I didn't know until I had a Nissan Sentra that didn't run.  My journeyman mechanic friend comes over and tests the fuel pressure or something and starts ripping out my back seat! 

"What are you doing taking out my back seat?"

"There is a port into the gas tank under the rear seat.  The fuel pump is inside the gas tank."

"WTF? No way, they put the electric pump in the gas?!"

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Enthalpic said:

I didn't know until I had a Nissan Sentra that didn't run.  My journeyman mechanic friend comes over and tests the fuel pressure or something and starts ripping out my back seat! 

"What are you doing taking out my back seat!"

"There is a port into the gas tank under the rear seat.  The fuel pump is inside the gas tank."

"WTF? No way."

 

I have had two Nissan Sentras in my poorer days. They were great cars, handed off to my daughter. The first one was really a sleek model with an all glass sharply sloped hatchback. Unfortunately my daughter ran it into a ditch and then into a cornfield. Thankfully the sheriff let her slide. The car was finally totaled though. Our smaller cars are Chrysler minivans now. 

[George8944 + 128]

On 2/22/2020 at 11:42 AM, 0R0 said:

So there is a permanent structural bias to fund things that cost more than their output would ever pay back. 

The carbon emission red herring is covering the imposition of costly inefficient energy projects that will cement in physical reality  a permanent economic disadvantage. 

First - with the wheel of death error running in the notification center,  I can't find replies to my posts!  So sorry about the delay.  I'm going to stop commenting in new topics until they fix this.

Wow!  That's a rant!  Are you saying solar projects have a negative ROI forever?   For some of these poor african country solar makes more sense than a fossil fuel since, first they get more sun and second they need to buy the fossil fuesl forever, where daily solar is free.  Again, this comes down to what one is trying to optimize.   For example,  I optimize on debt free living.  When I bought my car I paid cash even though the interest rates were near zero and economically it made more sense to borrow.  However, on a personal level, I don't owe anyone anything so I have more freedom and that's worth far more to me than the money I could made investing the purchase.

I don't beleive solar is a guarentee of cementing a permanent economic disadvantage.   I believe it gives them more control over their own destiny since they don't need to buy their energy.

Last,  these countries don't have the energy infrastructure we have here (North America or Europe).   Building a huge fossil fuel plant and running high power lines to every nook and cranny has an expense you aren't considering.   Solar/Wind has the ability to be built and maintained locally.   No one power source is ideal.  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I have had two Nissan Sentras in my poorer days. They were great cars, handed off to my daughter.

Ex girlfriend gave me one for a song, it was great, but I'm a Toyota guy.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, George8944 said:

First - with the wheel of death error running in the notification center,  I can't find replies to my posts!  So sorry about the delay.  I'm going to stop commenting in new topics until they fix this.

It started working for me again a while ago.  It is sort of fixed?

[Mark Potochnik + 8]

"Natural Gas is a reliable, cheap and abundant "

I live in Wisconsin. we have NO natural gas,oil or coal. We have wind and sun.  We spend $2,500 for every man woman and child for out of state fossil fuels $12,000,000,000 per year.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Mark Potochnik
Grammer and prettyness

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

19 minutes ago, Mark Potochnik said:

We have wind and sun. 

Do you have enough wind and sun to do the job?

If so, you should go for it.