Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Renewables overtaking fossil fuels in new power generation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

    ​​​​​​Out of curiosity how should environmental costs be calculated?
    Difficult to answer that easily. The first question to be answered is "How much pollution of a particular type is acceptable?" Right now, we are getting "We need to reduce pollution..."

    With solar for example, if you get more ozone and urban heat island effect but less carbon what is the trade off? The way I see it, solar makes small reductions in carbon for large increases in ozone and urban heat island effects making it a negative in terms of pollution. The way the environmental Left sees it, carbon is the only thing that matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    No, the next best is natural gas. There's also co-generation and biomass. Any system where you start off with a 30% deficit in efficiency is doomed to be uncompetitive.

    Hydroelectric itself is great. Maybe in Tasmania if there are running water sources small hydroelectric is the best choice. A 10 MW hydroelectric plant beats the snot out of a 10 MW solar plant using pumped hydro.
    ​​​​​​Out of curiosity how should environmental costs be calculated?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

    So what! If industry cannot maintain coal as a viable source of power then pumped hydro is the next best alternative, only better(where practicable)... and as I've previously said, we have more than enough sites to build. It's all about combining the different sources of power and making it work for our benefit. We still rely heavily on coal, new gas plants are being built, yet places like Tasmania rely heavily on hydro.
    No, the next best is natural gas. There's also co-generation and biomass. Any system where you start off with a 30% deficit in efficiency is doomed to be uncompetitive.

    Hydroelectric itself is great. Maybe in Tasmania if there are running water sources small hydroelectric is the best choice. A 10 MW hydroelectric plant beats the snot out of a 10 MW solar plant using pumped hydro.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Pumped hydro is about 70% efficient. That means you need to generate 30% more energy than you are going to store to have a viable system. That means in turn, you start at a 30% deficit in efficiency compared to direct generation using a reliable means like natural gas. Basically, you can never drive the total cost of solar down to match natural gas, coal, or nuclear. It is simply too inefficient.
    So what! If industry cannot maintain coal as a viable source of power then pumped hydro is the next best alternative, only better(where practicable)... and as I've previously said, we have more than enough sites to build. It's all about combining the different sources of power and making it work for our benefit. We still rely heavily on coal, new gas plants are being built, yet places like Tasmania rely heavily on hydro.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    TAG if you have the time and would be so generous to answer a few questions?

    It seems to me that in the discussion of the efficiency of pumped hydro theoretically instead of actual efficiency is being used. For example most articles I saw state that pumps are 90 percent efficient whereas looking at manufacturers data the high end seems to be around 80 percent?

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    I questioned the 70 percent efficiency of pumped hydro so I did a little research. I came across this article which I thought was interesting. It doesn't directly address the physics but cost may be more relevant anyway.

    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/20...galvan-lopez2/

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
    A recent study shows that just on the east coast of Australia alone, we have a potential of 20,000 locations for pumped hydro, but it said we really only need around 30... so the options for choosing the the most optimum sites are good. But like with anything, it can work in some areas, but not others. My old house was producing up to 25kWh a day at peak sun times, I know all the pros and cons of solar... how much we saved was enough to convince anyone. Solar installation is booming because people and industry are starting to realise the benefits. Where I live brown coal supplies the power, wholesale prices have been steady for about 9 years now, the cost of transmission hasn't blown out... which leaves us the people who sell us the power, they have tripled the price since 2008. Why? Because they can.
    Pumped hydro is about 70% efficient. That means you need to generate 30% more energy than you are going to store to have a viable system. That means in turn, you start at a 30% deficit in efficiency compared to direct generation using a reliable means like natural gas. Basically, you can never drive the total cost of solar down to match natural gas, coal, or nuclear. It is simply too inefficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    A recent study shows that just on the east coast of Australia alone, we have a potential of 20,000 locations for pumped hydro, but it said we really only need around 30... so the options for choosing the the most optimum sites are good. But like with anything, it can work in some areas, but not others. My old house was producing up to 25kWh a day at peak sun times, I know all the pros and cons of solar... how much we saved was enough to convince anyone. Solar installation is booming because people and industry are starting to realise the benefits. Where I live brown coal supplies the power, wholesale prices have been steady for about 9 years now, the cost of transmission hasn't blown out... which leaves us the people who sell us the power, they have tripled the price since 2008. Why? Because they can.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Here's how bad solar does. I did these comparisons fighting Prop 127 here in Arizona.

    Ivanpah solar (the largest solar plant in the US): 400 MW nameplate. Takes up 4,000 acres. Capacity factor 20.5% Makes 940 GW/year Cost $2.5 billion (all money is in 2016 value)

    Palo Verde Nuclear (largest nuclear plant in the US): 4000 MW nameplate. Takes up 4,000 acres. Capacity factor 94%. Makes 32,200 GW/year Cost $11.5 billion.

    To match Palo Verde with Ivanpah solar plants you need to cover 136,000 acres of land (approx. 15 x 15 miles) at a cost of $85 billion. Palo Verde is 46 times as efficient as Ivanpah.

    Solana solar Gila Bend AZ. The largest solar plant in Arizona. 280 MW nameplate 1920 acres. Capacity factor 26.6%. Annual output 724 GW/year. Cost $2 billion.

    TransCanada natural gas plant Coolidge AZ. A typical natural gas plant. 575 MW nameplate. Capacity factor 96%. Annual output 3600 GW/year. Cost $500 million.

    Just to equal the cost of Solana, the TransCanada plant would have to spend $75 million a year for 20 years on natural gas. Worse, Solana has been repeatedly fined for air quality violations including a $1.5 million fine by the ADEQ (Arizona's EPA) for air quality violations. It was also knocked off line in 2016 by a microburst thunderstorm that destroyed approximately 50% of the plant. After 30 days off line it resumed operations at about 30% capacity. Repairs took nearly four months.

    Solar is no panacea for energy production. It is a boondoggle. If the environmentalists were really concerned with Gorebal Warming they'd be going for natural gas and eventually a move to nuclear. But, they're not. They are betting on the disaster of solar.

    As another comparison, to match the output of the TransCanada plant, you'd need 250,000 home solar units each returning 2 KW to the grid while in operation. You can pave massive areas the size of the largest cities in the US over with solar panels and you won't have enough electricity to sustain the economy. Solar is insane.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Pumped hydro is not really cost effective compared to natural gas or nuclear. The problems with it are:

    1. You need water. Most of the best places for solar are in deserts...
    2. You don't get something for nothing. You use a big chunk of your generated electricity pumping water.
    3. Solar is still horribly inefficient. As I pointed out to get 1 KW day of power (24 hours at 1 KW) you need an installed capacity of 4 to 5 KW.

    When solar rises above about 30 to 40% of generation capacity you also get an unstable grid as Germany has learned.

    As I pointed out, Australia has some of the highest electricity rates on the planet. So, people aren't getting a "savings." They're getting raped on the price of electrical power just as people in Germany, Italy, and Spain are. California has some of the highest rates in the US now thanks to heavy investment in solar.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-850419.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/26/u...-to-blackouts/

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...of-renewables/
    Up is down and left is right the ministry of truth is alive and well.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

    Solar will only do so much, that is reality. There is growing consensus for pumped hydro here, good thing is this is old tech... solar can make it even cheaper when combined. Coal was good while it lasted, gas cannot save us because we sell most of it overseas. Renewables is set to take up 80% of the electricity market by 2030 here if the growth continues at the current rate. People are seeing the savings and embracing it.
    Pumped hydro is not really cost effective compared to natural gas or nuclear. The problems with it are:

    1. You need water. Most of the best places for solar are in deserts...
    2. You don't get something for nothing. You use a big chunk of your generated electricity pumping water.
    3. Solar is still horribly inefficient. As I pointed out to get 1 KW day of power (24 hours at 1 KW) you need an installed capacity of 4 to 5 KW.

    When solar rises above about 30 to 40% of generation capacity you also get an unstable grid as Germany has learned.

    As I pointed out, Australia has some of the highest electricity rates on the planet. So, people aren't getting a "savings." They're getting raped on the price of electrical power just as people in Germany, Italy, and Spain are. California has some of the highest rates in the US now thanks to heavy investment in solar.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-850419.html

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/26/u...-to-blackouts/

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...of-renewables/

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    I don't disagree, but solar isn't a substitute for it unless you are willing to pay on the order of $ .35 a KWH or about triple what you should for electricity.
    Solar will only do so much, that is reality. There is growing consensus for pumped hydro here, good thing is this is old tech... solar can make it even cheaper when combined. Coal was good while it lasted, gas cannot save us because we sell most of it overseas. Renewables is set to take up 80% of the electricity market by 2030 here if the growth continues at the current rate. People are seeing the savings and embracing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

    You two are the only ones here talking about agendas and ideology. The economic reality here in Australia is that coal is fast becoming a dinosaur and no longer an attractive investment.
    Coal is poised to overtake iron ore as Australia's biggest export, already worth $61 billion in 2017-18. Australia produces 17 per cent of the world's metallurgical coal. Australia's economy will depend on coal even if it doesn't use it itself.

    There have been a few hiccups on the way to a coal free power grid in Australia. In 2017 an eight hour blackout in South Australia left 2 million people in the dark and disrupted industry for two weeks. That comes on top of the fact that Australian Steel makers pay 5 to 10 times as more for electricity than their U.S. competition. Of course it isn't just industry. No coal policies has been expensive for Australian families. Household electricity prices have roughly tripled since 2000 in Australia.

    Don't trust the media!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post

    You two are the only ones here talking about agendas and ideology. The economic reality here in Australia is that coal is fast becoming a dinosaur and no longer an attractive investment.
    I don't disagree, but solar isn't a substitute for it unless you are willing to pay on the order of $ .35 a KWH or about triple what you should for electricity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Achtung Baby
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

    I accept TAG's arguments on the economic issues. A lot of data today is compromised by people with an ideological agenda so you have to be careful.

    It is also possible that more co2 is a good thing, I don't think the jury is out on that because the climate is basically not being studied only AGW.
    You two are the only ones here talking about agendas and ideology. The economic reality here in Australia is that coal is fast becoming a dinosaur and no longer an attractive investment.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X