Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[IllegalArgument]

are you not mixing your power units.

At the top you are saying kilowatts per day....
Below it's kilowatt hours.

I'll have double check, knocked that out very fast.

 

[macdoc]

This gives a 2010 reference

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption

snip

In the US typical household power consumption is about 11,700 kWh each year, in France it is 6,400 kWh, in the UK it is 4,600 kWh and in China around 1,300 kWh. The global average electricity consumption for households with electricity was roughly 3,500 kWh in 2010.
Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption#yUvQOLDD2U28RYez.99

 

[macdoc]

Solar is going gangbusters in the US...
.the solar power in the US is now equivalent to 4 nuclear reactors or 8 coal plants. Still a long way to go to replace coal.

California More Than Doubles Solar Energy In 2013
Huffington Post ‎- 6 days ago
California installed more megawatts of solar energy in 2013 than it did in ... About 200,000 U.S. homes and businesses installed rooftop solar in ...

CA Installed More Solar In 2013 Than In The Last 30 Combined Years
cleantechnica.com/2014/.../ca-installed-solar-2013-last-30-combined-yea...‎
Jan 8, 2014 - 2013 was a banner year for clean energy and the U.S. solar industry was no exception. California, the nation's solar standout, more than ...

US Likely to Surpass Germany in Solar in 2013 930 MW Installed in
http://www.greentechmedia.com/.../US-Likely-to-Surpass-Germany-in-Solar-in...‎
Dec 10, 2013 - The U.S. installed 930 megawatts of photovoltaics (PV) in Q3, 2013, ... that the U.S. installs more solar capacity than world leader Germany, ...

and the US as a whole installed more in 2013 alone than in the last 20 years combined.

U.S. Installs 723 MW of Solar PV in Q1 2013, According to New U.S. ...
http://www.seia.org › News‎
Jun 11, 2013 - Q1 2013 report highlights continued growth of residential solar in U.S. ... “The U.S. now has more than 8,500 MW of cumulative installed solar ...

2013 is a 'record-shattering' year for solar power in America ...
venturebeat.com/2013/.../2013-is-a-record-shattering-year-for-solar-pow...‎
Dec 11, 2013 - For the first time in more than 15 years, America is on track to install more ... 2013 will go down as a record-shattering year for the U.S. solar ...

and leave it to practical Aussies to combine old tech and new...

Aussie Company Using Steam Engine Technology for Power Storage
Posted by Peter, on November 15, 2013

A group of Australian engineers has formed a company, Terrajule, to develop a novel energy storage solution.
The Terrajoule system combines concentrated solar thermal energy, steam engines and an integrated storage system using an insulated pressure vessel.
The concentrated solar thermal energy is used to produce steam. Since it is impractical to store steam for later use, the steam is condensed under pressure into water where its energy is stored. When needed, the pressure is released and the stored energy flashes the water back to steam which drives a reciprocating steam engine. The energy lost in this steam-water-steam phase change cycle is less than 2%.

According to the company, the result is storage at less than 20% of the cost of batteries, with no degradation, no cycle limits, no toxic or rare materials and a useful life of at least 25 years.

Terrajoule expects that, by 2015, it will be able to deliver power at $1.50 to $2.00 per watt which will be comparable to the price for a photovoltaic system of similar capacity. But this power could be delivered at any time – making the effective cost just a fraction of the cost of a photovoltaic system with battery storage.

Terrajoule power plants are from 100 kilowatts to 10 megawatts in capacity and are modular. Because of this and because all of the system components use well-established technologies, ramping up production requires no new factories, no new materials and no new manufacturing equipment or processes. This means that it can be quickly and massively scaled up to provide gigawatts of distributed power generation.

Terrajoule has built a demonstration plant in California and has just announced an $11.5 million round of funding, which will enable them to continue to develop and scale up their technology.

http://www.aussierenewables.com/?p=2935

And Australia is a natural for solar with it's climate....it already has a great number with solar water heaters.
We have both solar panels and solar water in Cairns.

As for "the poor sods that can't afford it".

ANYONE can save electricity just as industry has done. We have a client here that runs a light manufacturing and office/warehouse on half the power I use in my home business ( which is unfortunately power intensive )
http://www.nextenergy.ca

While the US and Canada are up around 4,500 kWh per person the UK and Germany are below 2,000 kWh.
Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption#P3GXCtVcPvgd4OWB.99

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption

Solar is at the point of being a disruptive technology that like the internet will shift the status quote of great centralized power systems dramatically.
Coal is a sunset industry in the first world for many reasons.

•••

Doing the calculation there on 3 people per household gives 1.83 KWH per person per day in UK and Germany.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Recently finished the book, Sustainable Energy w/o the hot air. He spends a lot of time reviewing our current energy usage vs the theorical max of combined renewable energy techs. The short version, there's no way renewable energy can meet our current energy usage. Nukes, clean coal are probably necessary stop gaps, he perfers nuclear, for polution reasons.

His website:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

I will take a deeper look to it as it looks interesting. However, I was searching for terms like "loan rates", "interest", "break even" and a lot of other financial and economical terms that are essential to any comparative analysis of energy sources in the mid and long term, and I found almost none of it.

 

[aleCcowaN]

but the cooling system runs at about 250f, so about 15psi of system pressure keeps it liquid. Take the cap off and your car "boils over." Don't do it. It leaves scars.

121°C ~ 250°F --> 29.4 psi

 

[macdoc]

"loan rates", "interest", "break even"

Except those will be a given for any tech source and exceptionally variable as it depends on subsidies, initial capital cost, economic conditions where the installation is located and prevailing electricity rates.

Far too many variables to make any blanket statements.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This looks very good....leave to practical Aussie engineers for a fresh approach


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/return-of-the-steam-engine-cheap-storage-for-solar-34662

well the dumb question of the week is why the hell is this not being done

I took the few elements in that article to run a critical analysis. The larger version proposes a storage of 5 MWh what led me to estimate an insulated water tank that can fit inside a 40 feet container without insulations, with a weight of <8 ton (it is 3/8" thick steel). I took 200°C and 15 atm because higher values don't manage much additional energy to pay the cost of tanks standing 50 atm or more.

With that as a base I got some 1.2 Mwh stored overnight at the cost of capital of a grossly estimated 50,000 usd tank and complementary systems. Take some 8% depreciation and maintenance plus a 7% interest rate, and we got 0.0171 usd per Kwh stored a day, which is not ugly at all but it explains why this is not the philosopher's stone.

Of course, to match this to the >625 Kw water heating system, it is required a solar plant of at least two thirds of an acre (3,000 m2) if not the double. That, together with the generator doesn't fit in the other 40 feet container. So, to match the cost of solar panels or wind milld we need the whole system to cost between 1 and 2 million usd, which sounds possible.

The problem will be then the rate of loans, as in all renewable resources using free energy.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Except those will be a given for any tech source and exceptionally variable as it depends on subsidies, initial capital cost, economic conditions where the installation is located and prevailing electricity rates.

Far too many variables to make any blanket statements.

An analysis that ignores that is not worth at all from a realistic standpoint. An analysis that exceeds the mere technical phase must include at least a sensibility analysis regarding spot energy prices and interest in bank loans. And we're talking subsidies apart, because including most kind of subsidies cloud the analyses themselves, and the subsidies policy itself, if any, must be defined in face of those analyses' conclusions. It would be different if we were talking of a business plan for some kind of power plant.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'll have double check, knocked that out very fast.

Are you saying that you got it OK?

EDIT:

The figure is "125 Kwh per day per person" in the UK (195 Kwh for the typical affluent person). This is total energy, which includes all the economy, and it has use of electricity in households as a minor component.

So, oranges and apples more than a matter of power vs energy.

 

[Belz...]

If you had did so you would have realized your reply to Cuddles clearly says that we are not able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity nor we can build a number of them given all the money needed (what is needless to add in sight of your previous implicit statement). Reality tells you're dead wrong or you just won't read that what you'll reply to.

I was answering this:

Do you agree that given enough money we could build any arbitrary number of them?

I included the rest for context. Sorry if that confused you.

But if you want to keep blinkers -an agenda on one side and a list of hates or distrusts on the other-, well, be my guest.

Again, what are you on about ?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I was answering this:



I included the rest for context. Sorry if that confused you.

That didn't confuse me. You clearly replied we are not able to build any number of "them" given the money. I don't think you were confused either. I think you were following some kind of lame agenda like turning every post into "nuke goooood! wind baaad!", otherwise something similarly lame like "sorry me noh entiendeh" when you're replied.

So far, your last replies have failed to change what I think to be your intentions behind your posts in this thread. That could change should you adapt your replies to what is really asked.

 

[aleCcowaN]

...

Terrajoule expects that, by 2015, it will be able to deliver power at $1.50 to $2.00 per watt which will be comparable to the price for a photovoltaic system of similar capacity. But this power could be delivered at any time – making the effective cost just a fraction of the cost of a photovoltaic system with battery storage.

...

http://www.aussierenewables.com/?p=2935

That is the kind of argument you make when you're trying to sell power plants and not when you're trying to sell energy. And that is the kind of argument you make when you try to sell power plants with disregard of how your regional power system works.

By the way, in that system only part of the energy can be delivered at any time. It's the essence of using the exhaust of one cycle to store heat for night use, which is how the system works as far as that technically poor article explains. That's why the virtues of uniflow steam engines are needed, as far as I understand it. By the way, second stages and compound engines are not a novelty in the power industry. The delayed system may be it.

Doing the calculation there on 3 people per household gives 1.83 KWH per person per day in UK and Germany.

Again. Electricity consumption is a fraction of energy consumption. An active caveman or fat modern doughnut eater uses 3.5 Kwh a day just to live. A modern caveman uses up to 100 times that energy. One gallon of gasoline produces 40 Kwh.

By the way, every time anyone compares household use of electricity, why don't they care to explain how heating is achieved? What do the figures stand for if some dude in one country uses tons of natural gas while the other foreign dude uses Joule heating?

 

[Belz...]

That didn't confuse me. You clearly replied we are not able to build any number of "them" given the money.

No, I implied that we can't build an arbitrary number of them, and nothing else.

I don't think you were confused either. I think you were following some kind of lame agenda like turning every post into "nuke goooood! wind baaad!", otherwise something similarly lame like "sorry me noh entiendeh" when you're replied.

You seem to be assuming a lot of things about me. Do you do that often ?

I'm quite happy to have other sources of electricity such as solar or wind. But I don't think we can power the entire grid with them, hence the idea to use combined methods.

So much for your assumptions.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Certain portions--including the access roads, maintenance yards, and turbine pads--are. How much that amounts to depends on the design and local terrain.

Right, but I've looked out over pasture land that is being graved by cattle and the impact of the turbines on tha land is negligilbe. Same for rice patties near Corpus Christi, you get a nice overview if your plane has to circle even a bit. The impact on current usage is miniscule.

And even in the rest of the area there are concerns about land use. Turbines DO fail, sometimes spectacularly. There are also some pretty serious wildlife concerns (not talking about the fear mongers here; I'm going with BLM and EPA requirements for turbine farms, which include requirements for monitoring bird and bat populations).

And other energy sources have similar system failure issues. Pipelines leak, for instance.

If you could provide specifics, I'd appreciate it. Most people dramatically over-estimate the amount of surface disturbance involved in oil and gas production (exploration is different).

No, I'm talking the whole shebang. You know, when they come in and scrape five acres of land so they can set up a drilling operation, including storage tanks and pipe yards and everything. Sure, once the well is completed you are left with less than 1/4 acre footprint, maybe closer to 1/16 for a small pumper.

Not really. Acreage is a limiting factor for solar and wind power in ways that it isn't for fossil fuel or nuclear power.

I would say that acreage is a limiting facto for solar and wind in the same way that available inputs are for fossil fuel or nuclear. Except that once an acreage is developed for wind it can be used indefinitely, it can be upgraded and used more efficiently in the future. Can the same be said for areas that have been strip mined for coal or for gas fields that have been depleted? Sure, some later technology may let you come in and scavenge more of the bits left behind, but you can't come back to the same play and find the same amount of energy every year for as far as you can see into the future.

But hey, if you want to dismiss the answer to Cuddles' question, that's fine. All I ask is that you don't pretend it hasn't been answered. Cuddles IS WRONG. We CANNOT build turbine or solar farms indefinitely. There are limiting factors, one of which is space, and I have demonstrated this point, as requested. That's been my only point in this conversation. I've got no dog in this fight--I think centralized power plants are a pretty bad idea anyway, to be honest, and don't advocate ANY such system.

I don't think it is dismissive to just ask you to be as honest with solar and wind as you are with other sources. We can't build anything indefinitely, but we can build more and it can play a larger role. And the limits are well beyond anything that is currently on the table.

I have a huge dog in this fight. Two actually. They are my kids. I want them to have a better world than I did. I want their kids to have it even better still. So, my dog is that we move forward, make fewer mistakes, and learn as much as we can from the ones we have made. Part of that is evaluating new technology in an honest way. That's all.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No, I implied that we can't build an arbitrary number of them, and nothing else.



You seem to be assuming a lot of things about me. Do you do that often ?

I'm quite happy to have other sources of electricity such as solar or wind. But I don't think we can power the entire grid with them, hence the idea to use combined methods.

So much for your assumptions.

So you'd have to say that your "I don't" and that BS of "They" [solar panels and/or wind mills] "use a disproportionate amount of space and material for the meager electricity that they produce." are completely independent no matter they are in the same sole paragraph and are the whole paragraph and the whole post indeed. It'd be very cheeky of you.

But your intentions were pretty clear. Hence you continue with this "he said ... he said" tail and avoid to provide any figure backing your innuendo, you know, that one with the the disproportionate adjectivation and meager, if any, content.

I'm quite happy to have other sources of electricity such as solar or wind. But I don't think we can power the entire grid with them, hence the idea to use combined methods.

How "happy" are you? How "quite" is quite? Can you put a number -and do put a number- for solar and wind? Otherwise it is just more verbal fluff. You made your innuendo and you use a generic "I like wind mills ...yada yada ... they look very pretty in Holland" kind of statement to suggest you're saying otherwise. So far, typical actions of someone using words to manipulate.

 

[Belz...]

So you'd have to say that your "I don't" and that BS of "They" [solar panels and/or wind mills] "use a disproportionate amount of space and material for the meager electricity that they produce." are completely independent no matter they are in the same sole paragraph and are the whole paragraph and the whole post indeed. It'd be very cheeky of you.

I still have no idea what you're on about. I've clarified my answer more than once, now. Wind and solar could be great techs in the future, but now I feel that they must operate in the margins, and constructing enough of them to power most of the grid would use up way too much space and natural ressources. Nuclear seems like the best option we have now, but it need not be the only option. I'd be more than happy to get rid of it for something better.

But your intentions were pretty clear.

Your continued tendency to mistake your interpretation for reality is amusing.

How "happy" are you?

Depends on the day, but currently I'm pretty good, thanks for asking.

How "quite" is quite?

Really ? You're going to pick individual words in my post and try to discern their hidden meaning ? Boy, reading novels must be really fun for you.

Can you put a number -and do put a number- for solar and wind?

A number of what ?

You made your innuendo and you use a generic "I like wind mills ...yada yada ... they look very pretty in Holland" kind of statement to suggest you're saying otherwise.

I see words strung together in a sentence, but they don't read like legible English. Why don't you make your meaning and accusations clear, mate ?

So far, typical actions of someone using words to manipulate.

Manipulate what ?

Do you see conspiracies everywhere, too ?

 

[macdoc]

Moving on ...this is worth taking the time to read....much encouraged that nuclear is moving forward.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Small-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/

Disappointed that pebble bed is struggling.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm not arguing against the system, I'm just saying, up front, that I want to see some numbers, because it seems to be a highly conditional/situational assessment, by orders of magnitude from any (probably over)simplified BotE calculation.

Well, I wouldn't give 'em my money based on a web article, but the premise of collecting solar energy as heat sound and the premise of using steam to turn heat into electrons is sound. The real tricky bit is whether a state-of-the-art steam engine design with 100 years of development that has been abandoned for almost a hundred years could be mass produced cost effectively with today's engineering and manufacturing.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

121°C ~ 250°F --> 29.4 psi

Your altitude may vary. Radiator caps for cars are designed for low pressure, around 15 psi above ambient. Also, picking nits over these numbers is not helpful for answering a basic question "whats the deal with superheated water."

But thanks for commenting on a hammer swinger's quickly researched numbers.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I took the few elements in that article to run a critical analysis. The larger version proposes a storage of 5 MWh what led me to estimate an insulated water tank that can fit inside a 40 feet container without insulations, with a weight of <8 ton (it is 3/8" thick steel). I took 200°C and 15 atm because higher values don't manage much additional energy to pay the cost of tanks standing 50 atm or more.

With that as a base I got some 1.2 Mwh stored overnight at the cost of capital of a grossly estimated 50,000 usd tank and complementary systems. Take some 8% depreciation and maintenance plus a 7% interest rate, and we got 0.0171 usd per Kwh stored a day, which is not ugly at all but it explains why this is not the philosopher's stone.

Of course, to match this to the >625 Kw water heating system, it is required a solar plant of at least two thirds of an acre (3,000 m2) if not the double. That, together with the generator doesn't fit in the other 40 feet container. So, to match the cost of solar panels or wind milld we need the whole system to cost between 1 and 2 million usd, which sounds possible.

Thanks for this.

The problem will be then the rate of loans, as in all renewable resources using free energy.

I know a guy who put PV panels up on his property. A big part of the decision for him was the pay-off point on the loan, balancing the various costs and benefits. I think it was somewhere in the 10 year range with and estimated 20 year lifespan on the product, with the PV power able to run his meter backwards for at least 3 hours a day making the power bill savings attractive. Of course, he had an unused horse pasture next to his house for the panels, so roof size is irrelevant. Not everyone can benefit from that size of a system.