|
Yucca mountain.
|
# ? Dec 17, 2012 14:20 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 01:51 |
|
LP97S posted:Personally, anyone who would put aside personal politics and a few dozen votes for Harry Reid to re-open and loving use Yucca Flats for what it was built for. Locking away fuel taken from nuclear reactors that still have 95% of their useful energy remaining?
|
# ? Jan 17, 2013 13:39 |
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:Locking away fuel taken from nuclear reactors that still have 95% of their useful energy remaining? Well no one wants to reprocess it because someone might sell it to the Indians or Israelis because the US nuclear security apparatus consists of twist ties and Mr Magoo, or at least that's what Carter claimed when he banned it and Reagan allowed when he reinstated it but defunded it.
|
# ? Jan 17, 2013 14:04 |
|
Unsubsidised solar PV is at socket parity in Europe.
|
# ? Jan 23, 2013 06:26 |
|
The headline is a bit misleading. "Unsubsidised" refers to capital costs, but Germany (on which the report is presumably focused; I can't find a copy of it online) has a feed-in tariff for household solar power. I don't like FIT programs in general because they can seriously distort the market (encouraging deployment in the least-productive areas, such as household rooftops) and then (when the over-investment becomes obvious and the FIT funding mechanism is exhausted) change abruptly. This already happened in Germany, where the "20 year guaranteed FIT rates" were slashed repeatedly between 2010 and 2012. Governments agencies are learning from these kinds of mistakes, albeit slowly. The FIT system here in Ontario was designed with quotas for each tier (household < 10 kW, industrial < 50MW, etc) so that it wouldn't be over-subscribed. Sounds reasonable, right? Applications were submitted, the most promising ones (e.g. the applicants who demonstrated sufficient credit/cashflow to actually build a solar array) were approved, and construction began at several sites. But the original intention wasn't to build solar power per se, it was to build up demand and thereby launch a domestic solar industry (including R&D, manufacturing, and export). Critics pointed out that the PV panels for the new projects were simply being imported from Texas and California, whose well-established PV firms could undersell any nascent local manufacturers. A "domestic content" proviso was added to the program, but the agency doesn't actually pre-approve suppliers/contractors as legitimate; the onus is on FIT participants to prove, if audited, that their project is at least 60% domestic (50% for wind projects). What does this mean for projects that were already underway when the rules changed? OPA has been reluctant to issue a definitive policy, preferring to take things on a case-by-case basis (after all, "regulatory ambiguity and threat of audit" is a great way to encouage investment, right?). Fake Edit: And then homeowners found out about the FIT program and were angry that their taxes/rates would provide windfall profits to politically-connected early adopters; some threatened lawsuits. There were plans to appease them by opening up a bunch of additional slots on a "lottery" basis; this plan was decried by early adopters who had run afoul of the quota limit and had seen their own applications denied. These guys also threatened legal action since they believed that they had a priority claim on any new FIT opportunities. And then the FIT rates were adjusted*, the "windfall" aspect diminished, the complaint-filled web forum was taken offline, the application process was heavily bureaucratized (to avoid the appearance of favouritism), and the hubbub (mostly) died away. *The official MicroFIT rate for rooftop PV is still quite generous (54.9c/kWh) but it does not adjust for inflation; over a 20-year FIT contract it will become steadily less valuable. The homeowner must also bear the cost of inspections, meter upgrades, supplementary insurance, etc...
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:56 |
|
Interesting post GulMadred. Could you talk a bit about what the feed-in tariff is and how it interacts with the various power source options?
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 10:12 |
|
Kaal posted:Interesting post GulMadred. Could you talk a bit about what the feed-in tariff is and how it interacts with the various power source options? In a perfect world, we'd decide on an ideal energy generation mix based on technology and then move towards it as economic factors allow. In the real world we can't do this because because utilities have been deregulated/privatized and 50-year plans don't mesh very well with election cycles; we can only offer incentives and hope that private firms pursue them. These incentives sometimes occur as government subsidy of capital costs for new construction (or, in the case of nuclear power, by special coverage due to the infeasibility of obtaining insurance on the open market). Capital subsidies are politically sensitive, though - if construction costs go over-budget then the Minister of Energy (or local equivalent) is going to face some heat; the government will need to commit more funds to the distressed project (scandal!), writeoff its original investment (scandal!), or try to strongarm other private firms into a takeover/rescue deal (scandal!). There's also the risk that the subsidy deal will be modified or canceled in the aftermath of each election, particularly if the recipient was a political ally of the former government. Feed-in tariffs are seen as a way around some of these problems. The government (or independent grid-operating agency) signs a contract with a private entity, agreeing to buy electricity at price <x> for a fixed term (20 years is common). Since the government pays only for energy that's actually delivered, there's much less "involvement" (and risk of scandal) with any particular firm or venture, and there's no harm to the public interest if a construction project misses its deadline. It's also hoped that succeeding governments will be less likely to rescind or modify any particular tariff agreement, since each one is a standard-issue contract rather than a sweetheart deal. The major risk (as I explained above w/r/t Germany and Ontario) is ex post facto modification of the contract terms. This may be due to political reasons (e.g. the incoming government is much less "green" than the one which signed the original solar FIT deals) or simple economics - FIT power is more expensive than the standard stuff, and honoring those contracts might be seen as a luxury during a recession or budget crisis (e.g. "Minister decides to close schools in order to maintain payouts for hippie power!"). If you're an energy provider who was depending on those favourable 20-year rates, then you might find yourself unable to repay your amortized capital costs. If FIT contracts are consistently modified or dishonoured, then it will be increasingly difficult to attract new participants. Oversubscription is another risk, as I mentioned in the previous post. It's fairly easy to manage it with simple quotas, but then you need to include anti-abuse mechanisms (because you're dealing with a private-profit scenario). For instance, the FIT program in Ontario was plagued by "sockpuppets." Officially, each individual or firm could submit only one application (which would include all of the sites and projects that they planned to develop). This was troublesome for the big enterprises - if you submit a 2500MW plan and there's only 1800MW of remaining unallocated quota, then you're certain to be rejected. If you submit a modest 1000MW plan then you may miss out on lucrative opportunities. To improve the odds, some applicants split up their plans into dozens of individual items and filed each one as a separate application through a separate shell company. The intent, of course, was that their actual "operating" company would simply acquire any shell company whose application was successful, and proceed to develop the site, generate power, and collect the FIT payouts. The reverse problem also occurred, with "squatters" filing applications and then attempting to sell the successful ones to actual operating companies. FIT contracts themselves became a sort of black-market commodity. Because of these sorts of shenanigans, under-delivery is also a problem. You can target 1000MW of new power generation, issue 1000MW worth of FIT contracts, and then find that half of the approved ventures fall apart in the planning/financing stage. So you need to either take a page from the airlines' playbook (overbook using a best-guess estimate of the rate of delivery) or hire extra staff so that you can investigate the applicants, closely monitor their progress, and promptly replace the failures with new applicants. In the case of Ontario, the power agency started collecting security-deposit fees from applicants so that they'd have a greater incentive to actually complete their projects rather than simply flaking out. In order for the program to succeed, the operating agency (and/or regulators) must understand the business. They must correctly assess the capital costs of new construction, cost of borrowing (interest rates and trends), operating and maintenance costs, availability of materials and skilled labour, etc. Inflation is another important factor; the Ontario FIT program uses different inflation-indicexing policies for the various renewable energy technologies. I don't know their rationale for doing so, but I suspect that it's a bit deceptive - they could offer a modest FIT rate which is fully indexed to inflation, but they hope to attract more participants by offering a very lucrative "introductory rate" which is not indexed at all. Trying to predict the competitive landscape over a 20-year period is very difficult, so FIT programs sometimes remove it from the equation by including a priority arrangement. That is, "the goverment/operator must buy, at any hour, as much power as <applicant> is able to generate and willing to sell, regardless of whether government/operator could buy said energy cheaper from other sources." Such clauses reduce uncertainty (thereby encouraging participation in FIT programs) but might expose the government/operator/public to greater risk. If we invented cold fusion tomorrow then we'd still have to pay for the obsolete PV power at an elevated price. Such preferential arrangements may also increase the complexity (or reduce the efficiency) of power dispatch operations - but that's beyond my ken. The exact financial arrangements (e.g. schedule of payments) depend on jurisdiction. If you're bored then you can read up on some of models that were proposed in the UK - "Fixed FIT", "Premium FIT", "FIT CfD", "Regulated Asset Base", and a few more that I can't recall. ------- Interactions with power source options FIT programs are generally intended to balance social, technological, and economic factors. For example, they'll sometimes offer a higher rate for rooftop PV than field PV - the former is technologically inferior but it encourages grassroots involvement (at the homeowner/consumer level) and thus achieves a social benefit (fostering "green" attitudes). Solar subsidies are also usually greater than wind ones, not because of any perceived difference in "virtuousness", but simply because solar requires larger subsidies to be cost-competitive in many countries (especially here in Canada - we ain't exactly equatorial). Small-scale power generation projects usually obtain richer subsidies than their large counterparts*, even when using the same tech, because the large ones are expected to benefit from superior management and economies of scale. Nuclear and fossil energy are not eligible for any FIT program that I know of. Biogas, hydro, and wind usually attract modest subsidies. They're fairly mature (don't hold your breath for any order-of-magnitude improvements in efficiency!) and have decent EROEI; market logic says that they'll expand without assistance. The FIT subsidy simply speeds things up, which is useful if you're eager to retire a set of coal-fired power plants that you promised to get rid of a few years ago (). Of course, people inevitably try to game the system, so the OPA had to clarify the rules - "No, you can't obtain a higher FIT rate by building a bunch of wooden shacks in a field and reclassifying your PV array as 'rooftop.' Stop being a jackass." The Ontario program even offers a bonus FIT payment for involvement of aboriginal people. This is mostly a "social" thing - trying to make aboriginal communities more self-sufficient, and encouraging aboriginal businesspeople to get involved with renewable energy projects. Ideally, it will also provide experience in deploying renewable power to remote sites, which will be of use in future endeavours (such as mine sites and Arctic military bases, which are often reliant on fossil fuels). Thus, you can imagine an ideal FIT system as one which perfectly prices-in all positive externalities (environmental, social, etc). We can't institute a carbon tax for political reasons, but we can try to offer rewards to low-carbon or high-virtue power sources. Depending on where you live, these higher rates will either be passed on to the consumer directly (which encourages conservation but hinders economic growth and directly harms the poor) or paid out of general tax revenue (cheap electricity is popular among voters, and it's easier to get people on-board with progressive action when the costs are hidden). * France took the opposite approach, favouring integrated-power design in large buildings such as hospitals, rather than grid-feed-in from household rooftops. I agree with this approach - so long as we're allocating resources towards any particular technology, I'd prefer to see it deployed in a way that maximizes EROEI.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 15:29 |
|
Thanks for that post GulMadred.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 18:09 |
|
Man... No esta bien. How the gently caress is this problem so complicated... There is so much going on here that trying to orchestrate a goddamned thing with actual individual personal interests is just hosed. I guess we'll burn coal. Might make my climate up here better...
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 20:36 |
|
No but really... we need to fix this cause the government won't. what can i dispense to others in the most basic optimistic fashion fitted for a cocktail party cause that's about all i'm good for. I'm trying to find the optimistic parts through the thread, but i just find another variable that road blocks it.
|
# ? Jan 24, 2013 20:39 |
|
Wow, thanks for that fantastic response GulMadred, that was extremely informative. Someone ought to link to that in the OP has an example of the inner-workings of energy generation. It sounds like FIT programs are still shaking out the bureaucratic bugs. I'm surprised that they're having so many contractual issues - but that might just be coming from an American perspective where every contract is laden with securities and assurances (unless they are deliberately removed to take advantage of government). Does anyone know how we deal with this issue here in the states? My understanding has been that privatization has turned the thing into a bureaucratic nightmare (a la the Enron scandal) but has mostly replaced government liability with consumer liability (i.e. your rates might skyrocket, but your taxes won't change). Of course it also removes our ability to consider non-fiduciary factors entirely. Given the choice, I'd probably choose FIT over Enron. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 24, 2013 |
# ? Jan 24, 2013 22:00 |
|
Lamdo posted:Man... No esta bien. How the gently caress is this problem so complicated... There is so much going on here that trying to orchestrate a goddamned thing with actual individual personal interests is just hosed. I guess we'll burn coal. Might make my climate up here better... We could simplify things and just nationalize energy production and distribution, but of course that's just crazy talk as far as anyone who could make that kind of decision is concerned.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2013 14:37 |
|
At a dinner function last night I was introduced to a man who just recently retired from his job with Santee Cooper as one of their nuclear technicians. When I showed great enthusiasm for his career and wanted to pick his brain about nuclear development in this country, his response was "The young folks I talk to tend to think we're some sort of monster and down here especially the perspective is that VC Summer is some sort of ticking time bomb!" Dude said he had enlisted in the Navy's submarine school back in the 50s expecting a sweet vacation on diesel units in the Caribbean, and was real mad when they punted his rear end to the middle of nowhere working on a nuclear ship. South Carolina is installing two 1,117 MW Gen III Westinghouse reactors. They've started pouring concrete after about 8 years of siting / licensing / regulatory crap. Of all the states I would have thought we would be on the wrongest side of the issue, but apparently it's only us and Georgia currently building new nuclear plants. awesome!
|
# ? Jan 25, 2013 20:02 |
|
Stew Man Chew posted:At a dinner function last night I was introduced to a man who just recently retired from his job with Santee Cooper as one of their nuclear technicians. When I showed great enthusiasm for his career and wanted to pick his brain about nuclear development in this country, his response was "The young folks I talk to tend to think we're some sort of monster and down here especially the perspective is that VC Summer is some sort of ticking time bomb!" Dude said he had enlisted in the Navy's submarine school back in the 50s expecting a sweet vacation on diesel units in the Caribbean, and was real mad when they punted his rear end to the middle of nowhere working on a nuclear ship. I'm interested to see Pandora's Promise when it comes out. Might stand a chance at converting some viewpoints.
|
# ? Jan 25, 2013 22:53 |
|
Citigroup has released an 85 page report projecting that US will achieve energy indepence (with the exception of canada) within 5 years. For those more interested in the ecological impact, there is some good news in that the trucking industry seems to be converting from diesel to natural gas much quicker than expected. However that good news will likely be offset by the fact that achieving energy independence will likely cause alternate energy projects to lose political support. Looks like this will have lots of good short term economic impact for the US, but what do you guys think about the global economic and geoploitical impact? Sounds like it could be quite destablizing. Seems like it could lead to civil conflict due to economic distress in nations that depend on oil exports to fund their budgets. Nigeria, where there is already quite a bit of religious strife between Christians and Muslims, would seem quite vulnerable. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/us-fast-track-energy-independence-report-suggests-1C8344034 quote:US is on fast-track to energy independence, report suggests
|
# ? Feb 13, 2013 10:14 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Citigroup has released an 85 page report projecting that US will achieve energy indepence (with the exception of canada) within 5 years. Meh. Energy independence for awhile. It is still all about pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground, and we know that can't last forever. What happens when fracking pulls out the last drops and trucking burns up all the cheap natural gas?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2013 11:29 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Citigroup has released an 85 page report projecting that US will achieve energy indepence (with the exception of canada) within 5 years. What's the difference? All the major US extractors are privately owned and we charge practically no taxes on extraction. The lower prices are much less a function of independence and more of global supply vs demand, especially as liquefaction takes off. There's no particular benefit to the US from energy "independence", all the gains are pretty much all going to a handful of companies and their heavily concentrated and international owners.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2013 13:03 |
|
Charge practically no taxes, hell states like Pennsylvania gave massive tax breaks to private companies full of out of state workers to "stimulate" the economy.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2013 14:56 |
|
I also find it to be kind of dishonest, to out right bullshit, when people mention the oil boom in North Dakota and the low unemployment there. It is a state of about 700,000 people. It is also one of the few states to ever experience a sustained population decline. Moving the unemployment rate there doesn't take a whole lot of hiring. NBC News comes off as a free market shill of the conservative AM radio variety for even bothering to mention it. As if every state could just drill and frack its way to jobs and prosperity. Why can't we all be more like North Dakota?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2013 21:37 |
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:I also find it to be kind of dishonest, to out right bullshit, when people mention the oil boom in North Dakota and the low unemployment there. North Dakota with its state owned Mill and state owned Bank and the State owned pipeline authority and the state bank and tribal owned refinery soon to be under construction? Make no mistake, the southern led Republican party offer nothing for the state of North Dakota.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2013 10:46 |
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Also quickly, 228 TWh is current consumption, but the ZCA plan produces 325 TWh/year. So the American cost is (theoretically) down to $4.3 trillion, or $425 billion per year. Now or at any point in the future, is America capable of forking out (summoning from thin air) that kind of money? I mean, we did in regards to the wars in the middle east. According to market watch: quote:The nine-year-old Iraq war came to an official end on Thursday, but paying for it will continue for decades until U.S. taxpayers have shelled out an estimated $4 trillion. So, we have shelled out that kind of money in the past, so I suppose the question is, can we do it again at this point? Honestly I have no idea. Is our debt ceiling limitless? Could somebody with more knowledge on economics help me out? This is wild speculation, but perhaps the military resources and budget will be diverted to building emergency power plants when oil and coal really starts to dwindle.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 14:51 |
|
Dengue_Fever posted:This is wild speculation, but perhaps the military resources and budget will be diverted to building emergency power plants when oil and coal really starts to dwindle. That isn't a risk in the foreseeable future. The US has for all intents and purposes limitless coal reserves, a shitload of gas, and plenty of oil if we're willing to give a little on extraction costs. Prices may go up, but that's about it. Burning all that stuff will ruin the environment before it runs out.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 15:49 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:That isn't a risk in the foreseeable future. The US has for all intents and purposes limitless coal reserves, a shitload of gas, and plenty of oil if we're willing to give a little on extraction costs. Prices may go up, but that's about it. Burning all that stuff will ruin the environment before it runs out. I agree that it'll ruin the environment before it runs out, but it will run out, the sticky question is how fast? What do you base your statement on? I have not read too much into the different data sets but here are some facts about reassessment of estimated reserves (via Wikipedia) quote:Are Published Reserve Figures Overstated? The numbers are hardly reliable, and are easily subject to really anyone's manipulation. The 'anyones' who have a lot of money and power and are pretty high up on the corporate/governmental ladder probably manipulate the most effectively though. My view is that these numbers are all inflated to boost market confidence, share prices, etc. Actually, that's really why the freely available info wouldn't be accurate. If you had such valuable information in relation to markets, would you dump it willy-nilly? Well, maybe you would, but first you'd have to not be a greedy industrialist/stock holder.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 17:05 |
|
Dengue_Fever posted:I agree that it'll ruin the environment before it runs out, but it will run out, the sticky question is how fast? I'm not going to claim that current estimates are entirely accurate, but you're thinking too far into the future. Current estimates of recoverable reserves don't matter much beyond a generation or so, mining technology specifically and energy technology generally will have completely changed by then. For example, coal accessible with mountaintop removal probably wasn't being counted in the 1950s, and energy extractors are drilling underwater today at depths that they probably couldn't even explore 20 years ago. Think about all the production today from shale oil and fracking. For the forecastable (read: short-term) future, there is enough in the ground. Too much, really, when you look at the rate of climate change. Not to mention, it's not like a mine or well just goes from producing normally to empty, there are diminishing returns. If/when currently recoverable reserves start to near their end, prices will go up and more will be economically accessible - when oil prices shot up, a ton of "empty" wells suddenly started producing again with new (and more expensive) techniques that weren't economical before.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 17:34 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I'm not going to claim that current estimates are entirely accurate, but you're thinking too far into the future. Current estimates of recoverable reserves don't matter much beyond a generation or so, mining technology specifically and energy technology generally will have completely changed by then. So you think that developments in mining/drilling technology will be able keep up with demand in the space of, let's say a generation is about 25 years, until viable renewables emerge? I suppose it's feasible, but I'm no longer a subscriber to the belief that technological innovation and progress is unlimited. We are not gods. I guess we'll just have to wait it out.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 19:25 |
|
The fact that we are actually producing from tar sands and oil shale means we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. There really isn't much "too hard to get to right now" oil after that stuff is gone, and we aren't doing a whole lot to curb our consumption either.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 21:05 |
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:The fact that we are actually producing from tar sands and oil shale means we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. There really isn't much "too hard to get to right now" oil after that stuff is gone, and we aren't doing a whole lot to curb our consumption either. Yeah be we still have an awful lot of it, which will in general be produced at gradually decreasing amounts for years to come.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2013 23:45 |
|
This article by Vaclav Smil provides an alternative viewpoint to the one being discussed here. The takeaway is that oil production hasn't peaked, probably won't for at least a decade and probably will be non-catastrophic, to say the least, given the huge and varied forcing functions to adopt alternative energy sources. I think there is a lot of room for optimism on the oil.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 00:14 |
|
Just stumbled upon this thread and this is actually stuff I'm very interested in (due to having an Electrical Engineering minor). Out of curiosity has there been any talk about using biomass (basically burning anything from manure to weeds) for power? I listened to an interesting lecture from Clifford Fedler, one of the professors at Texas Tech's College of Civil Engineering (took him for fluids, he's a pretty cool guy) and he had some interesting things to say. He does a lot of work with wastewater systems and such and has some pretty crazy ideas that he's actually made work, albeit on test scales. Basically he was taking in manure from ranches nearby, tossing it in a tank and then simultaneously growing all sorts of plants for study WHILE growing fish in the same tanks to study/eat. It's a bit more scientific than that, but that's the end result. The crop could be anything, from algae to duckweed (which can be used as cattle feed) to water hyacinth, which grows at an absurd rate. The numbers he gave were that if he could round up all the manure from ranches and farms around the country (pig, cow, turkey, etc.) he could produce something close to 35 MWh worth of power. Use it to fertilize a crop of water hyacinth he could multiply the amount of power he got out by 10 to 12 times or more to something closer to 500 MWh because water hyacinths grow like mad (something like 85 tons/acre/year I think was the numbers he used). Where's all that extra power coming from? The sun, it's basically bio-solar power...all while growing a cash crop of salmon or river bass in the same greenhouse tanks to sell at the same time. I'm curious if anyone else has thought or researched along those lines and can reaffirm the research or has come across the opposite.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 00:47 |
|
Alkydere posted:Biomass There's been a ton of research into producing energy from biomass. The huge problem all of this has is that producing energy from very low energy density materials is that the total energy produced has to compete with the amount of energy it takes to harvest and ship to a power plant. In the case of something like corn ethanol production you get less energy out than it takes to produce it.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 01:09 |
|
satan!!! posted:This article by Vaclav Smil provides an alternative viewpoint to the one being discussed here. Well, I don't want to cast dispersions on Mr. Smil, but he wrote that for the "American Enterprise Group," the conservative think tank also known for offering to bribe scientists to criticize the man-made global warming theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Global_warming Look there's so much conflicting information out there that varies so much I wonder how, with our technology, something as simple (but I'm not a geologist, so what do I know) as a geological survey could yield such drastically different information. It almost makes one wonder if there's any money at play, shadowy brokers, hmmm..gee I wonder.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 01:46 |
|
Alkydere posted:Out of curiosity has there been any talk about using biomass (basically burning anything from manure to weeds) for power? BZE (because you all so love hearing about that) use biomass backup for their Zero Carbon Australia plan.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 02:31 |
|
Dengue_Fever posted:Well, I don't want to cast dispersions on Mr. Smil, but he wrote that for the "American Enterprise Group," the conservative think tank also known for offering to bribe scientists to criticize the man-made global warming theory. They didn't write it though, he did. Smil is one of the respected names in energy and environmental science, and he takes a lot of positions that jive with D&D such as reducing conspicuous consumption and eating less meat and so on. It just so happens that in this case that the conservative think tank is correct.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2013 02:51 |
|
Dusseldorf posted:There's been a ton of research into producing energy from biomass. The huge problem all of this has is that producing energy from very low energy density materials is that the total energy produced has to compete with the amount of energy it takes to harvest and ship to a power plant. In the case of something like corn ethanol production you get less energy out than it takes to produce it. I do think you are wrong about biomass on many levels.The energy density of biomass is not "very low". For example switchgrass and woods after drying has a energy density around half of the gasoline. Right now biomass is usually utilized close to where it is harvested so there is no hell lot of money spent on shipping. Also, we don't plant loads of biomass solely for the purpose of burning it for energy so far and most of the biomass feedstock comes from the parts we don't eat on a plant and would otherwise be wasted. So I can't see how we produce less energy out than it takes to produce it. Here are some facts, in year 2006 3.3 quads of biomass energy was produced and the same year EIA estimated 1.4 quads energy in total spent in US farms including fertilizers, labors, electricity, other source of energy etc. This 1.4 quads energy invested not only returned the food you and other people eat but also the 3.3 quads biomass energy...so I guess it should be pretty clear that we are not wasting our time and money on biomass. About the corn ethanol, it is true this is an extremely low efficient solid to liquid conversion as yeast consumes glucose as food and give us ethanol as waste, thus resulting a further 50% energy lost in this process. However, only less than 10% of biomass energy nowadays is coming from biofuel and my gut tells me biofuel is still profitable and even economic competitive even though it might not be produced in the most energy efficient process .
|
# ? Mar 24, 2013 20:19 |
|
Besides, Ethanol is for drinking.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2013 21:50 |
|
askholic posted:Here are some facts, in year 2006 3.3 quads of biomass energy was produced and the same year EIA estimated 1.4 quads energy in total spent in US farms including fertilizers, labors, electricity, other source of energy etc. This 1.4 quads energy invested not only returned the food you and other people eat but also the 3.3 quads biomass energy...so I guess it should be pretty clear that we are not wasting our time and money on biomass. ~2/3 of that 3.3 quads of biomass energy is from wood and wood-derived products, which are not things (for the most part) used to make biofuels. Generating power from woody biomass is old technology, obviously. But it makes a poor transportation fuel, and unfortunately, the technology for transforming lignocellulosic material into liquid fuels at a cost competitive with petroleum-derived fuels is simply not there right now, and most likely won't be for a while. The only reason cellulosic ethanol is blended into gasoline is government mandate.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2013 04:10 |
|
*/BigBobio posted:~2/3 of that 3.3 quads of biomass energy is from wood and wood-derived products, which are not things (for the most part) used to make biofuels. Generating power from woody biomass is old technology, obviously. But it makes a poor transportation fuel, and unfortunately, the technology for transforming lignocellulosic material into liquid fuels at a cost competitive with petroleum-derived fuels is simply not there right now, and most likely won't be for a while. The only reason cellulosic ethanol is blended into gasoline is government mandate. Oh I agree with you, I was simply arguing that we do get more energy out of biomass than the energy we put into them. I don't see a big future in biomass myself despite whatever government incentives are there to offer. I read about almost all the major biomass liquid fuel conversion methods so far and none of them strike me as remotely cost competitive now or in the near future , and even if technology is no longer a difficulty the feedstock itself is problematic: where to grow these energy crops? who would grow them?( Assume we are not going back to cutting woods!) And even if we utilize all the farm land now in the states to grow energy crops(switchgrass)we will only get about 70 quads out before conversion, so biomass is simply not the savior for the energy shortage here. About the cellulosic ethanol thing, I am not sure but I think it is pretty standard to mix 10% ethanol into gasoline nowadays and that hit the maximum an average US car can stand, so basically from 2009 the production and consumption have flattened out. For sure EIA would push for more but I don't think the percentage of ethanol would be further increase in the near future.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2013 16:42 |
|
askholic posted:and even if technology is no longer a difficulty the feedstock itself is problematic: where to grow these energy crops? who would grow them?( Assume we are not going back to cutting woods!) And even if we utilize all the farm land now in the states to grow energy crops(switchgrass)we will only get about 70 quads out before conversion, so biomass is simply not the savior for the energy shortage here. The 10 % ethanol is from corn (mostly), so its not cellulosic, its from starch, a different technology. I did a back of the envelope calculation a few years back using the DOE 'billion ton' study. The US could only sustainably produce ~30% of its liquid transportation fuel needs from lignocellulosic biomass. Even if we could convert the cell wall matter cheaply, biofuels are simply not a panacea for gasoline/diesel use, unfortunately.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2013 01:50 |
|
Domestic generation has to be part of any future energy mix. For example, why not mandate any new house must have a solar panel system for power and hot water, in addition to a geothermal heating/cooling system. Right there, you've made many houses almost carbon neutral. Have a tax deduction that pays for it - and on average this setup would add 15-30K to each new house. In good climates you've got thousands of small solar power sites sending power back into the grid on a regular (sunny) basis. What's the downside? I can't see any.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2013 02:15 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 01:51 |
|
redshirt posted:For example, why not mandate any new house must have a solar panel system for power and hot water, in addition to a geothermal heating/cooling system. Because that's expensive, because there's a problem of way too much existing housing stock that needs to be used up, because there's a lot of places with very minimal usefulness for both solar and geothermal.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2013 02:18 |