Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.  

It all depends on the project and the terms of its contracts. Chinese BRI projects are non-compete, all China labor at sky high prices (some BRI countries claim they were overcharged by 2.5 fold) and badly structured funding that is sure to fail. That is how World Bank projects used to be; where a Western consortium of contractors and financiers would seek World Bank backing for their sure to fail projects. The World Bank was not there to invest in the poor country's development but to bail out the financiers and the contractors after the target country's finances go belly up. 

In principle, the solar projects are very attractive on their own theoretical merits. But the contracting and financing as done by China cost more than the project will return, not because the project in itself is a bad one, but because the costs charged are a fraud, the community development via work on the projects doesn't happen, and the financing causes foreclosure so the locals don't get to own the solar plant or the port. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Where is it buried a mile underground?

The only reason it is not are moron politicians and ignorant Joe public.  How much does it cost to drill 20k down?  Not much.  Dump the stuff down in a mud mix and move on.   But it is not because everyone is waiting for a fast breeder reaction which takes the majority of that nuclear waste and turns it into power and creates much shorter length waste which certainly can be dumped down a shaft which will never see the light of day before the junk burns itself out. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

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.

Massively concentrated and enriched... to 6%. Now, how radioactive is the waste compared to U-235? Is the waste more dangerous than fresh nuclear fuel? If it's sealed in a concrete cask and buried is it really a big issue? 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dump the stuff down in a mud mix and move on.  

Best place I've read is Halite deposits as the salt (NaCl Ward) rocks are somewhat "self healing" after earthquakes etc.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Where is it buried a mile underground?

It's supposed to be, but there's people that won't let us get shit done. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Massively concentrated and enriched... to 6%. Now, how radioactive is the waste compared to U-235? Is the waste more dangerous than fresh nuclear fuel? If it's sealed in a concrete cask and buried is it really a big issue? 

From what? Part per million probably at best (look up the ore U-235 concentration for me).  Orders of magnitude concentration for sure...

I agree it could be safely disposed of.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

From what? Part per million probably at best (look up the ore concentration for me).  Orders of magnitude concentration for sure...

I agree it could be safely disposed of.

Alright, I'll just give in and say that the waste is very dangerous, especially since my ideal waste from some Gen IV systems decays in 300 years (VERY dangerous). We agree that there is safe disposal methods, and that's all I really care about. I don't see sufficient reason to block the nuclear option because of something as trivial as waste. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Our lab did this leaching test https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/1311.pdf

Mixing persistent pollutants into concrete bricks did appear to work as an effective way to mitigate pollution. 

We did a study where we put PCB containing transformer oils into some cement and then tried to extract it from the ground up bricks.  It worked pretty well but was not adopted.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

I'll know Europe is serious about "renewable energy" when the French Riviera is covered in wind turbines, Zurich is 1000m underwater behind giant dams along with the rest of Switzerland and Austria; until then it is nothing but politics.

Edited February 26, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Wolfgang Horn + 7]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I'll know Europe is serious about "renewable energy" when the French Riviera is covered in wind turbines, Zurich is 1000m underwater behind giant dams along with the rest of Switzerland and Austria; until then it is nothing but politics.

Obviously you are not from Europe. You are just joking.

@nothing but politics - wrong. We are working every day to get CO2 down and quality of life up. That's it. Cowboys work never ends.

 

[Wolfgang Horn + 7]

And, to return to the origin of this discussion: natural gas is good, but not very good. In Austria, we are scaling it down step by step. E.g. in the field of space heating nat gas is no longer option #1 in cities. Nevertheless, nat gas is needed in industrial processes - in that field the gas industry wants to replace it with "green gas" upcomming in large scale around 2025-2030.

Basta cosí.

[D Coyne + 305]

On 2/22/2020 at 7:27 PM, Dan Warnick said:

I watch these discussions/arguments with a fairly open mind, since I am really not "pro" either side:

1.  It is obvious to me that wind and solar should be developed, and developed aggressively where possible, but I also believe the marketplace should drive the efforts; taxpayers should not be forced to fund government mandated targets based on what only a minority representation of the electorate insists upon.  That is not how our Democracy works and taxation is a part of our system of government.  Taxpayers should not be forced to fund technologies with no proof that those investments will pay off within the taxpayer's foreseeable future.  There have to be transparent reviews, and where efforts are found not to be living up to their promise they must be amended or even scrapped, the same as they would be in any commercial enterprise.  The only reasonable way that ANY government should be able to mandate its citizens to pay the bill for R&D with "hopeful" outcomes, is if and when the government puts it to a vote by the citizenry. 

2.  Oil and gas, and current generation nuclear powerplant designs, should be utilized to their fullest.  I simply don't buy into "the world is ending" hysteria.  In this arena, it seems to me that the compromise that both sides of the argument need to come to is a realistically scaled reduction in both emissions and our dependence on oil and gas as our sole sources for energy.  Setting phase out "goals" and "target dates" that are mandated without the majority of the citizens buying into them is not the type of governance we have chosen for ourselves (...government of the people, by the people, for the people). 

Majority rules in our system of government are the norm and must be adhered to, lest we lose control of government completely.

With the above in mind, my searches for information tend to be ones that look for unbiased views to all energy types.  Today's search, prompted by following this thread and reading everyone's comments, lead me to the article at the link below, which seems to provide a realistic status of where wind and solar, together with cutting edge battery storage systems, are today.

Critics: Austin's renewable energy goals unrealistic

An article that shows how reality can be gauged, alternative initiatives developed, and compromises found when successfully put to the ballot box/vote:

California isn’t requiring rooftop solar on every new home after all

This one shows the battle that is ongoing in New Jersey with regards to (mainly) natural gas vs. "the administration's goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2050".

Gov. Murphy's Energy Plan: Here's Why Critics Say It'll Cost You

I'll leave it with you all; I hope you don't mind my intrusion to your discussion.

Dan,

It seems you are talking about the United States, where government is not based on majority ruling.

See Senate and Electoral college where representation is quite far from one person one vote.

I would love to see a representative Democracy where each person's vote in the nation counts equally, currently that is far from true.  Most students undersand this by about grade 8 in the US.

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The only reason it is not are moron politicians and ignorant Joe public.  How much does it cost to drill 20k down?  Not much.  Dump the stuff down in a mud mix and move on.   But it is not because everyone is waiting for a fast breeder reaction which takes the majority of that nuclear waste and turns it into power and creates much shorter length waste which certainly can be dumped down a shaft which will never see the light of day before the junk burns itself out. 

Exactly.  Alberta has the technology - and they know that drilling that far down has no impact on the water table, especially in Alberta which is so geologically stable.  If they got the Canadian government to fund a breeder reactor they could:

1. Import nuclear waste for a hefty fee - everyone wants to rid themselves of waste
2. Use the semi-deplete waste as fuel in the oil sands, making the sands less carbon intensive and
3. Bury the remainder of the waste deep in the Canadian Shield

Great for everyone.  And it would piss the Vancouverites off.

[dgowin + 43]

10 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Dan,

It seems you are talking about the United States, where government is not based on majority ruling.

See Senate and Electoral college where representation is quite far from one person one vote.

I would love to see a representative Democracy where each person's vote in the nation counts equally, currently that is far from true.  Most students undersand this by about grade 8 in the US.

The United States is NOT a democracy! We are a Federal Republic.

The arguments against true democracy's go all the way back to the execution of Socrates.

[dgowin + 43]

The below is what we should be discussing. Energy scatter diagram. The least dense energy sources are on the left. The highest energy content sources per density are on the right. Fossil fuels are right in the middle. For full disclosure nuclear fuel is not on the chart because of magnitude scaling issues. When it comes to ROI and where to invest your limited resources you need to focus on the right side.

[dgowin + 43]

Using Wind Power Contracts (ISO Power Markets)  PEM Electrolysis can produce 99.999% pure hydrogen. This is currently the cheapest form of hydrogen production. We have plenty of depleted Oil & Gas fields for storage. Current generation gas turbines burn hydrogen, as has been required by the DOE for the last 20 years. Please review the attached.

43061.pdf

[dgowin + 43]

DOE: 1 kg of hydrogen has the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy08/43061.pdf

[surrept33 + 609]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

Tellerium is the main 'rare' metal required

 

Tellerium is only used for certain types of thin film PV (basically what FirstSolar makes).

Just extrapolating out based on recent trends, I think successful commercialization of thin film CIGS (think Solyndra) + perovskite tandem cells is likely, which might put a cap on how much Tellerium is needed in the future. Most of the hard physical science issues have been surmounted in a relatively short amount of time by multiple participants, increasing the likelyhood of successful commercialization.

 

The main question is whether thin film PV can compete with regular PV panels from an financial standpoint. If you account for emissions needed to make regular crystalline Si PV panels, they definitely do.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 hours ago, Wolfgang Horn said:

Obviously you are not from Europe. You are just joking.

@nothing but politics - wrong.

Obviously you can't do a simple power calculation.  Area needed to harness said wind.  Nor open a wind map.  Nor understand that the only viable energy storage is pumped hydro storage.

Therefore until you address energy storage(damming up every valley in the alps) and area needed to create said energy(covering the French RIviera for instance), you are nothing but a joke.

Edited February 26, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com
spelling

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, dgowin said:

DOE: 1 kg of hydrogen has the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy08/43061.pdf

And it doesn't matter.  Hydrogen does not drop out of the sky and has this pesky problem of NOT staying where it is put...  and MJ/L specifically DENSITY of the energy matters

Edited February 26, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[surrept33 + 609]

1 hour ago, dgowin said:

The below is what we should be discussing. Energy scatter diagram. The least dense energy sources are on the left. The highest energy content sources per density are on the right. Fossil fuels are right in the middle. For full disclosure nuclear fuel is not on the chart because of magnitude scaling issues. When it comes to ROI and where to invest your limited resources you need to focus on the right side.

 

Keep in mind that hydrogen itself has very hard materials science issues to be overcome, especially hydrogen embrittlement.

Not that that issue won't eventually be overcome, but it's been the subject of gobs of research, but is still a limiting factor in it's (current) commercialization potential.

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

2 hours ago, dgowin said:

The United States is NOT a democracy! We are a Federal Republic.

This is my pet peeve of the week because definitions matter to a constructive debate, so I'll respond to this.

Democracy and Republic are not on the same scale anymore than the number 2 and the colour yellow are.

• Monarchy: the seat of power is with the king (often with a constitution like the UK and Canada)  
• Republic: the seat of power is with the people (often with a constitution like the US and Germany)

On the how we decide who runs things:

• Democracy: people vote for either a decision (referendum) or who makes the decision (representative)
• Autocracy: the leaders appoint who makes the decisions

A republic can be democratic or autocratic - theoretically China is a republic without a king but is completely autocratic. And a monarchy can be democratic or autocratic. The US is both a flawed democracy (they all are) and a flawed republic (arguably vests too much power in the president), but neither of those things is dependent on the other.  

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

2 hours ago, dgowin said:

Using Wind Power Contracts (ISO Power Markets)  PEM Electrolysis can produce 99.999% pure hydrogen. This is currently the cheapest form of hydrogen production. We have plenty of depleted Oil & Gas fields for storage. Current generation gas turbines burn hydrogen, as has been required by the DOE for the last 20 years. Please review the attached.

43061.pdf 131.06 kB · 2 downloads

The recent studies seem to show that we could mix 20% hydrogen with 80% methane before having to retool household boilers/stoves. Pure hydrogen on its own has small atom leakage issues, but in a mix is similar to local "city gas" that residences used to get in the UK 40-50 years ago.

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

46 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Obviously you can't do a simple power calculation.  Area needed to harness said wind.  Nor open a wind map.  Nor understand that the only viable energy storage is pumped hydro storage.

Therefore until you address energy storage(damming up every valley in the alps) and area needed to create said energy(covering the French RIviera for instance), you are nothing but a joke.

France has a per-capita CO2 footprint approaching that of some African countries. 

They also have (if I recall correctly) the cheapest power in Europe.

It's all because of nuclear energy.  Oh, to go back to the days where nuclear paranoia didn't rule the day.

[surrept33 + 609]

On 2/22/2020 at 6:19 PM, markslawson said:

Meredith - it ain't. The wind and solar system may have some storage but at best it would maintain output long enough for the back up plants to kick in .. in the case of wind I have some idea that the on-site storage is about getting the turbines generating again if they have to be stopped for any reason and the grid is down as has happened (you need a little to power up the magnets inside the turbine). Building enough storage to make a real difference unless the grid in question already had heaps of hydro power remains prohibitively expensive.. Norway, for example, has enough hydro power to run 100 per cent renewable but it had that before any of the fuss over carbon. Apart from countries such as Norway I don't know of anyone who has overcome this problem - not even in microgrids (remote towns of a few thousand) where the economics stack up and batteries can make a difference. Storage beyond a few hours ain't going to happen..  

 

I think a more pumped hydro is possible. e.g, from this study a few years ago:

http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/

original study: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/142560/1/1-s2.0-S0306261918305270-main.pdf

The question would be what locations would make sense to build out.  ideally, locations would already be near high power transmission lines.