|
Deteriorata posted:To add to this, remember that there is still gobs and gobs of oil in the ground in all those places. While extracting it was too expensive with oil at $20/barrel, it becomes viable at higher price points. Oil will be available for quite a while. More or less, of course the actual commodity price will also vary depending on macro-economic circumstances. The world "ended" for gas under 2 dollars, but ultimately it is going to be a while before an actual supply crisis happens where gas is simply unaffordable to the population at large (although gas prices still aren't a joke for many working people). The recent drop in oil prices may complicate recent expansions of production in the US though as some forms of drilling have become significantly less profitable, however it is an issue that is a bit difficult to predict.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:More or less, of course the actual commodity price will also vary depending on macro-economic circumstances. The world "ended" for gas under 2 dollars, but ultimately it is going to be a while before an actual supply crisis happens where gas is simply unaffordable to the population at large (although gas prices still aren't a joke for many working people). It's worth noting that other things are done over time that insulate against the effects of higher gas prices for instance. Move from a drafty old victorian home to one built in the 90s with the same inside space? Probably gonna use a shitload less heat to keep it comfortable in winter, even if you're a wasteful person who decides they'll heat to 80 all the time. Or even having said drafty house remodeled with modest insulation will do a lot. We see similar things with appliances in general. It can be crazy how much you can save on electric/gas/oil/whatever costs with a new fridge, or dishwasher, or washer/dryer and so on. My parents replaced the air conditioner that came with their house back in 1994 with a new one at the start of this summer - the new one was so much more efficient that they were able to run the a/c in the house cooler for longer times and still only used 80% of their normal electricity usage for a/c. And hell, there's still gas guzzling megaSUVs and poo poo out there, but the kind of mileage they get was common for "regular" cars 40 or 50 years ago, and that's with the engines putting out a ton more horespower to boot and even with extra weight for things like "a functioning crash safety system". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's worth noting that other things are done over time that insulate against the effects of higher gas prices for instance. Move from a drafty old victorian home to one built in the 90s with the same inside space? Probably gonna use a shitload less heat to keep it comfortable in winter, even if you're a wasteful person who decides they'll heat to 80 all the time. Or even having said drafty house remodeled with modest insulation will do a lot. Yeah energy savings has brought more efficiency into the system at the same time demand has balanced with increased supply (at a higher price point). I really don't see ourselves in a real energy supply crunch, especially as cars slowly but surely get more efficient and baby steps are taken regarding electric cars. Electric cars are obviously still a luxury item but some of that technology is going to filter down over time. The worst case scenario would be we would have to rely far more heavily on coal power, there are still roughly around 150 years of coal reserves and the US still has the largest amount of reserves. It isn't something we really need to do though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:In any event decomposing plant matter produce methane and nitrous oxide as opposed to burning it which only release CO2. If you have access to large quantities of biomatter you really should either burn it or harvest the biogas from it. Landfilling is both a waste and terrible in terms of greenhouse gasses. Burning plant matter does not "only release CO2"... WHO, who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/ posted:After analysing the risk factors and taking into account revisions in methodology, WHO estimates indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves. The new estimate is explained by better information about pollution exposures among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel, as well as evidence about air pollution's role in the development of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and cancers. ...in addition to the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that are inevitably required for any industrial production of biomass, which will include forests (which are not typically treated with the above), if they are harvested faster than the bedrock below them can release the minerals required to build fertile soil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Burning plant matter does not "only release CO2"... He's talking about power generation from biomass (specifically waste biomass, which is generated anyway), and that's taking about burning it indoors for cooking and heat which is a totally different thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:...in addition to the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that are inevitably required for any industrial production of biomass, which will include forests (which are not typically treated with the above), if they are harvested faster than the bedrock below them can release the minerals required to build fertile soil. Yes smoke is toxic. However, what makes it toxic, airborne particulates, do not remain in the air indefinetely so it's mainly an issue for the general vicinity of whatever is burning and the problem can be mitigated with filters. This is opposed to greenhouse gasses released when it rots which we can't mitigate. I'm specifically talking about biomatter that either ends up in landfills or is collected centrally for recycling. Burn it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
The Ivanpah solar power generation facility isn't generating near as much solar power as it claimed it would: http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/ quote:The Mojave Desert plant, built with the aid of a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, kicked off commercial operation at the tail end of December 2013, and for the eight-month period from January through August, its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated. As a bonus, the plant is applying for a $540 million federal grant to pay off the 1.6 billion loan. So Google and NRG put the taxpayer on the hook to build the plant, want the taxpayer to pay back the loan anyway, and still get paid when they sell the electricity on the market. Pretty sweet job if you can get it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Ivanpah solar power generation facility isn't generating near as much solar power as it claimed it would: Sounds like a nuclear power plant build to me  Except there'll be less electricity coming out but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Sounds like a nuclear power plant build to me And more carbon emissions during operations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Ivanpah will continue to be very interesting to watch (and not just for streamers!) as its the only CSP tower plant of its size that's been operating. Maybe the negatives of tower design will end up making trough CSP more effective? Maybe Bechtel just hosed up and this design is flawed in some way but CSP towers generally will be less effected by these issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Pander posted:And more carbon emissions during operations. Also 1 billion bucks that could have gone into fusion research, NASA, or nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Ivanpah solar power generation facility isn't generating near as much solar power as it claimed it would: Maybe someone should talk to the idiot wearing sunglasses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Maybe someone should talk to the idiot wearing sunglasses. They asked me if I had a degree in theoretical physics, I just told them I had a theoretical degree in physics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They asked me if I had a degree in theoretical physics, I just told them I had a theoretical degree in physics. Life doesn't imitate art, life imitates bad videogame NPCs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Pander posted:And more carbon emissions during operations. At first I was confused, and then I read the article. A solar power plant that burns natural gas, are you loving kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
So is there any way to improve Ivanpah's output, or did we screw the pooch?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So is there any way to improve Ivanpah's output, or did we screw the pooch? Depends, it is unlikely to be able to fix the startup issues. However, a large part of the reduced output cited in the linked article was due to poor weather. So if they're just unlucky, maybe. If the weather model is wrong then the plant is probably poorly sited, which is impossible to really fix. You think Bechtel would have been able to design some steam loops to spec.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:At first I was confused, and then I read the article. A solar power plant that burns natural gas, are you loving kidding me? It turns out sunshine is variable. Having backup gas plants is an effective way to make a wind/solar grid work without astronomical amounts of storage, though it kind of defeats the point and drives costs through the roof since, hey, you're building a ton of gas plants which you want to use as little as possible. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
blowfish posted:It turns out sunshine is variable. Variable sun-shine has nothing to do with why some CSP plants use natural gas. They use it to start up from cold and get the boilers to temp. CSP with thermal storage (molten salt) negate this need except during overhauls. Since Ivanpah has no storage, they need to start it up from cold every morning. The only other power tower CSP under construction in the US has storage so we'll be able to compare the technologies soon. Your second point is true for the current grid too, since we need NG peakers for high demand or when a large plant trips. A high renewables grid does need more responsive capacity, and would require more storage or responsive generation (biopower/NG/etc) but the idea that this is solely a renewables problem is false.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Since Ivanpah has no storage, they need to start it up from cold every morning. The only other power tower CSP under construction in the US has storage so we'll be able to compare the technologies soon. Oh, that is actually interesting (I didn't realise they actually didn't have storage). Also yeah, I may have been exaggerating slightly
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Oh, that is actually interesting (I didn't realise they actually didn't have storage). Also yeah, I may have been exaggerating slightly It will be insightful to be able to compare Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes directly once the latter starts operating. A technology is only tested once its in the field, but I do like molten salt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
That is a ton of natural gas they want to burn. For 377 MW net capacity, and a claimed capacity factor of 31.4%, they estimated annual production at 1000 GWh per year. The natural gas they are allowed to burn itself could produce about 200 GWh per year, though it's unclear how much they have used or are planning on using. Even worse is that compared to the current output of 254 GWh for the last 8 months, January to August. If we charitably assume that's an average performance, over a year that's a mere 381 GWh, or a (pretty darn terrible) capacity factor of 12%. We can only hope that this is a result of horrible plant mis-operation, and that with the natural gas they can up production to somewhere near the design goal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Dilb posted:That is a ton of natural gas they want to burn. For 377 MW net capacity, and a claimed capacity factor of 31.4%, they estimated annual production at 1000 GWh per year. The natural gas they are allowed to burn itself could produce about 200 GWh per year, though it's unclear how much they have used or are planning on using. Even worse is that compared to the current output of 254 GWh for the last 8 months, January to August. If we charitably assume that's an average performance, over a year that's a mere 381 GWh, or a (pretty darn terrible) capacity factor of 12%. Actually, reading the CPUC document, it appears blowfish may have been closer to the mark than I realized. It appears that a big part of the issue is increased early morning cloud cover than expected. So something that might be fundamental or might be occasional depends on if they are unlucky or wrong about their models. However, if you look at the fact that all the other similar CSP projects to Ivanpah have been canceled, that might point towards an answer. Yet another cool technology (power towers) may end up falling to the mundane (power troughs) because of "efficiency".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
You know what's really cool? Not building new fossil fuel power plants for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You know what's really cool? Not building new fossil fuel power plants for any reason. This. While I can understand pre-heating the boiler, this just defeats the purpose and makes it a fossil fuels plant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, reading the CPUC document, it appears blowfish may have been closer to the mark than I realized. It appears that a big part of the issue is increased early morning cloud cover than expected. So something that might be fundamental or might be occasional depends on if they are unlucky or wrong about their models. I can't tell if that last sentence is sardonic or not. Efficiency is good...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Pander posted:I can't tell if that last sentence is sardonic or not. Efficiency is good... Oh I agree, but often the part of us in love with technology would rather the answer with death rays, giant structures, or massive complexity for massive reward win out over the simpler and more efficient answer that might not be as "elegant." At least molten salt is an option, that's still cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Actually, why isn't the facility designed to use grid power for warm-up? Seems a bit odd to be designed so that you have to run the on-site natural gas anything like often.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Actually, why isn't the facility designed to use grid power for warm-up? Seems a bit odd to be designed so that you have to run the on-site natural gas anything like often. Electric heat is far far far less efficient than natural gas heat. It would have driven up the project cost a lot, probably out of the range of feasibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Actually, why isn't the facility designed to use grid power for warm-up? Seems a bit odd to be designed so that you have to run the on-site natural gas anything like often. I'm going to throw my weight behind the entire thing being a conspiracy to get a brand new natural gas power plant courtesy of the US government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Electric heat is far far far less efficient than natural gas heat. It would have driven up the project cost a lot, probably out of the range of feasibility. It already costs a billion dollars and barely functions. It could at least do that without eating natural gas constantly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It already costs a billion dollars and barely functions. It could at least do that without eating natural gas constantly. It would, though. Where do you think that grid power is coming from? It might as well be fusion power if it just soaks up more power than it delivers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Pander posted:It would, though. Where do you think that grid power is coming from? It might as well be fusion power if it just soaks up more power than it delivers. There's this thing called the Hoover Dam, perhaps you've heard of it? It's essentially next door. And there are several nuclear power plants in California itself. Not being 100% powered by fossil fuel means a significant amount less fossil fuel usage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Wish I had some better news to share: Pelarmis, The Scottish company that was leading the charge for wave power, has gone into administration. quote:A WORLD-LEADING Scottish wave energy firm is being put into administration after failing to raise sufficient funds to develop its renewable technology. http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/wave-power-firm-pelamis-goes-into-administration-1-3612769
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's this thing called the Hoover Dam, perhaps you've heard of it? It's essentially next door. And there Fixed that for you, it is only Diablo Canyon now. I think you're also underestimating how inefficient using electric heat is, but I'm sure Bechtel ran the numbers. Hobo Erotica posted:Wish I had some better news to share: I've yet to be convinced that wave power will ever be economic and meet environmental standards at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
This is nonsense. Having a full natural gas station on hand is way more inefficent. The whole project seems to have been a scheme to get a discount when building a natural gas plant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is nonsense. Having a full natural gas station on hand is way more inefficent. Well luckily, they don't have that. They have a natural gas boiler for each solar boiler. But if you wanted to do the math to compare the relative carbon efficiency of electric heat versus NG heat on the California grid, it would be an interesting starting point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well luckily, they don't have that. They have a natural gas boiler for each solar boiler. Right that's a full natural gas station friend. The grid it's connected to, being only a few dozen miles outside Nevada, has significantly less than 100% fossil fuel on it and thus is a lot less. Simple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Right that's a full natural gas station friend. Except you're ignoring the gas->heat->electric->heat conversion losses that electric heaters would experience. Which is significant. Not to mention that a simple boiler is far more efficient at capturing the heat output of gas than the turbine conversion required for electric power generation. You're also ignoring the simple fact that, since existing non-carbon sources don't take up the entirety of the grid, the additional marginal load imposed by the solar boilers is necessarily going to be fossil-fuel based.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Except you're ignoring the gas->heat->electric->heat conversion losses that electric heaters would experience. Which is significant. Not to mention that a simple boiler is far more efficient at capturing the heat output of gas than the turbine conversion required for electric power generation. Yes, it's actually correct that if you burn fossil fuels you might as well : If you just burn gas, you can put close to all the energy to use as heat where it's needed. If you convert it to electricity and then back to heat, the most efficient power stations will give you less than half. That's also why electric space heaters are worse than oil fired heaters, unless you already live in a majority-renewable/nuke area. However, once you do and have the electricity to spare ... Hobo Erotica posted:Wish I had some better news to share: It didn't ever make sense anyway because it was going to take up way too much coastline for its output. In similar news - one of the major domestic wind companies even went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by investors - German wind power has turned out to be a poo poo investment. Unless you were intelligent enough to bet on the 1/3 of wind turbines in sensible places, you're either getting next to no return on investments or will never see your money back. This includes many local utilities which are not exactly drowning in money in the first place. http://www.focus.de/immobilien/energiesparen/wirtschaft-schlaraffenland-ist-abgebrannt_id_4242422.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 09:38
|
|