|
This, as the name would suggest, is a thread for talking about how we power our lives. It is different from the climate change thread, because while the two often overlap, they are in fact separate issues. About 50% of emissions globally come from power generation, sure, but that means 50% come from elsewhere. And energy generation has ramifications far beyond climate - Cancer from coal mines, oil spills, corruption of water tables, social equity, employment, depletion of natural resources, transport infrastructure, etc. So here we can evaluate the pros and cons of each technology and look at the developments in this rapidly evolving field as they happen. Most energy generation is based around spinning a turbine, usually through digging stuff up to burn it to heating water to create steam. But as we'll see here, there are many more than one way to spin a turbine. So without further ado, let’s look at our cast of characters: Solar Thermal.  There is enough energy contained in a meter squared of sunlight to melt steel. We can capture that quite cheaply and efficiently with mirrors directed towards a central tower, which then heats water to make steam to spin turbines. Energy generated during the day can be stored as molten salt to continue generating energy during the night, or during periods of prolonged cloud cover, presently for over 17 hours. These are being used in many countries all over the world, particularly in Spain. The best of these are up to 220 MW, and cost between $800 million - $1 billion per tower. Solar PV.  Good for isolated locations. Portable. No moving parts, so no maintenance. But they do require many rare earth minerals, can be expensive, and aren't as efficient (in terms of watts per square meter) as Solar Thermal. Wind.  Up there as one the cheapest and most efficient forms of energy. Works best when big and high, to capture as much of the good winds as possible. Some of the best winds are off shore, but these are obviously harder to build and maintain. Onshore placement needs to be carefully considered however, to minimise disruption to local communities. Geo Thermal.  The Earth has a lot of heat inside it, more than enough to power our energy needs, and we can dig wells to tap that to get our energy. It's pretty expensive to dig for and location dependent though, so it looks like it won't be a major player for a while yet. Best used for heating things like spaces and water. I don't know too much about this one, except that it's used to power almost 30% of Iceland's electricity. Wave / Tidal.  Technically two different things, but we may as well put them together here. Doesn't get talked about very much, but has pretty significant potential - up to 15,000 TWH of energy worldwide. A big problem is of course maintenance, as well as location dependence. But since a large chunk of the world's population lives near the coast anyway, it's worth investigating. Don't know how the fishes feel about them though. Hydro.  Currently the biggest source of renewable energy around the world, and like tidal energy, has the advantage of not being intermittent. You can turn it on and turn it off as and when you need, so it works as a good back up. The dams need a lot of concrete though, and when you dam a river, you cause significant disruption to local ecosystems. But most of the sites around the world which are good for hydro have already been dammed anyway. Landfills.  When we throw our garbage into landfill, it sits there and rots, contributing about 3% to global GHG emissions. We can catch that gas, and either sell it to chemical companies, or burn it to generate electricity. Many waste sites around the world are doing this already, indeed in some areas it's mandatory for landfills over a particular size to do so. They produce enough power for their own on site needs, and usually enough for a few hundred / thousand homes around the area. Nuclear  Once it's up and running Nuclear power can pack a hell of a punch, and despite a deeply ingrained fear of radioactive disasters, can operate quite safely. The actual production of energy is quite clean, but there is substantial embodied energy in the construction of the plants and the mining of the fuel. There are also issues of social equity to consider, since a lot of the mining and disposal happens on lands which are of special significance to indigenous populations. edit - courtesy of coffeetable, since nuclear physics are not my forte: FUSION  Pros: a hundred years from now, it might be the energy source we've always wanted. Cheap, clean, unlimited power. Cons: the earliest a prototype reactor could come online is DEMO in 2033, the capital costs are ENORMOUS, the current feasible fuel mixes irradiate the lining so there's actually decent amount of waste, it can't be scaled down, and in all likelihood it's always going to be fifty years away. THORIUM  Pros: like uranium fission! But without the proliferation concerns, because a Th-232 bomb would go off in your hands before it was even half done, and without the scarcity concerns bec- well Jakiri already addressed this. Cons: it's a massive pain in the rear end. It's a pain to fabricate, it's a pain to control, it's a pain to dispose of. And as the big proliferation concern nowadays is dirty bombs rather than full-blown nukes, it isn't much better than uranium in that respect either. And office thug had this to add: Five thousand tonnes of lithium would be enough to power the world for a year via fusion, with everything from synthetic fuel production to electricity. Current world output of lithium is 34000 tonnes per year, and the total easily accessible reserves are around 13 million tonnes. You can also mix lithium usage with deuterium usage at the cost of the reactions only yielding 1 extra neutron instead of 2. Basically, fusion has many options and its fuels are easily accessible. Coal.   The historical work horse of human energy generation. Generates about half of our power right now, and is responsible for around the same amount of GHGs. Since most of the infrastructure is in place, and we don't factor in the negative externalities, the price for the consumer is pretty cheap. But as the infrastructure ages and needs replacing, and externalities begin to be included, it will seem less and less appealing. Gas.  Often touted as a ‘transition fuel’, because it burns cleaner than coal, or derided as a distraction, because it just delays further development of renewables. Becoming increasingly hard to find, so we have to resort to less conventional methods of extraction, such as hydrofracking, which involves fracturing underground reservoirs of Coal Seam Gas with chemical cocktails to dislodge and collect the gas. Tar Sands.  We’re starting to look a bit desperate here. Some have claimed peak oil is a myth because we have heaps more energy locked up in the tar sands. But since it involves substantial amounts of energy to extract and clean, the Return On Energy Investment (ROEI) is pretty small. So that's a quick introduction. I'd like it to be more detailed, so may well add to it as the thread progresses. If I wait till I have all the info on all of them the thread would never be posted. What we want: NUMBERS. Data. What is the output of the thing you’re talking about? How much does it cost to build, and what are the ongoing maintenance and operational costs? How much embodied energy is there? How feasible is it? Where has it been proven? Where is it being proposed? Link videos, articles, pictures, graphs and charts. We can also include discussion of Energy Efficiency, since it is the quickest, easiest, cheapest, and most effective way of tackling the problem. If it is going to get discussed, I think here is the most appropriate place. What we don’t want: Stupid stuff. At this stage, everything is on the table, and we can evaluate them on their merits. So we don't want to hear "renewables don't work hippy, we need to build nuclear right now", unless you have detailed plans of how much those plants cost to build and maintain, where you're going to put them, where you're going to get the fuel from, and where you're going to put the waste. nuclear plan. To illustrate this, I'll begin with a summary of a plan of how to power Australia with 100% renewables for $37 billion a year for 10 years. ---- Do you know how much electricity Australia uses at present? 228 TWh/year. To be safe, let's assume that over the next 10 years that will increase by 40% to 325 TWh/year - which will be important if we want to really go 100% renewable, by moving away from oil and gas too. That said, we can actually reduce the total amount of energy required, through some decent efficiency standard measures. But we'll stick with that for now. So we've got a number. 325 TWh per Year. Now let's look at what technology we can combine with our resources, to see if we can meet that renewably.  This is a Solar Thermal plant. On its own, it's rated at 220 MW. Put 13 of them together, and you've got a 3,500 MW (3.5 GW) plant, in an area 15 km x 15 km. Get 12 of those sites scattered around the country, and we're up to 42,500 MW, or 60% of our target, with a total area of 2,760 square km (0.04% of Australia's total landmass). They use molten salt technology to be able to store electricity for up to 17 hours. This is the biggest part of the cost, coming in at $175 billion.  This is an Enercon E126 wind turbine. On its own, it's rated at 7.5 MW. Put 2 or 3 thousand of them together, and you've got between 13 and 22 GW. Get 23 of those sites scattered around the country, and we're up to 40% of our electricity needs. All for a total cost of about $72 billion. Now we all know the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so these sites need to be selected for their meteorological diversity, like so:  Models have consistently shown that this grid will be able to capture and supply enough energy to power our needs. However, to be on the safe side, we will include back ups too. Other sources of energy include our existing hydro electric generators, as well as biomass back ups, which can supply an extra 3% - 5% if needed. As well as decentralized rooftop solar PV, of course, which will be important for reducing the demand spikes we pay tens of thousands of dollars per MWh presently. We can get all that done for a cost of between $10 - $20 billion. Of course if we're going to be serious about this we have to upgrade our transmission lines so we can get the latest High Voltage Direct Current and High Voltage Alternate Current, which would cost about another $92 billion. So when we add it all up, we get a total cost of $370 billion. The actual roll out of the whole thing is a bit more nuanced of course. We build the first one, then progressively ramp it up, while bringing the cost down through experience. At its peak it can employ up to 140,000 people. The whole thing has a time frame of 10 years. That's an average of $37 billion a year - or 3% of GDP. Comparing it to Business as Usual is tricky, because of the huge uncounted externalities of BAU. But on a purely dollar basis it's about $200 billion behind after 10 years, which will quickly close as time goes on and we don't need to keep digging things up and burning them. So there you have it. That is how you power Australia with 100% renewable energy. This is all a very simplified version of the Beyond Zero Emissions 'Zero Carbon Australia 2020' plan, which unfortunately I don't have in front of me at the moment, but which you can download from here: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020 The full report is very detailed, but you can get a good run down in the 17 page synopsis too. Remember, this isn't hypothetical, these are proven, existing technologies, at work around the world right this very moment. The barriers to implementation are neither technological nor economic. --- Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Sep 5, 2012 |
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Awesome first post, that's a fascinating and inspirational plan. It's a bit late for me to launch into suggestions of my own, but I did do a little bit of number crunching to see what it would take to use the Australia plan here in the US. Sure, but what's your GDP? In Australia the plan works out to be about 3% of GDP, or equivalent to how much we spend on gambling, or insurance. (Quick googling shows America's GDP is about $15 trillion - so the yearly cost would be about 5% of GDP. These are all very rounded figures though). Our current energy use is so wasteful it could quite easily be cut in half. In America I'd suspect the potential for savings are even greater. As I said, this is the quickest and easiest way of tackling the problem. You have to compare it Business as usual too - how much is the current American fossil fuel industry costing? What will it be in 10 years? What if you factor in the external costs? Also as the technologies are further developed, prices come right down.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I can't think of any rare earth elements that go into PV production. I wonder if you mean non-earth abundant minerals. Rare earths, like Neodymium, are however incredibly important for wind power generation as those require strong permanent magnets. I've got Cadmium, Tellurium, Gallium, Arsenic, Indium, Selenium, Silane gas, etc. To be honest though I'm not a geochemist so if they're not rare earth elements then I apologise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Awesome first post, that's a fascinating and inspirational plan. It's a bit late for me to launch into suggestions of my own, but I did do a little bit of number crunching to see what it would take to use the Australia plan here in the US. 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. But also, that plan is specifically for Australia, so we'd need to do a proper analyis of America's needs to compare them properly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:On the Nuclear point - Have you heard of or done much research into the Thorium Liquid Fluoride Salt reactors? It's pretty loving amazing stuff, and Australia has the largest reserves of Monazite (The primary ore you extract Thorium from) in the world. I've heard of it, yes, an one of the reasons I started the thread was to learn more about these sorts of things. Preferably with prices.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:None of those are rare earth elements. There is a lot of work into producing PV cells that don't require non-earth abundant and less toxic materials like those you listed above and in fact the most common solar cells available today, poly-crystaline silicon cells use none of them. Right, thanks, and sorry, if you feel like writing a more accurate run down I'd be happy to include it in the OP. Zodium posted:Great initiative, and I really like how pragmatic the approach is. This is the kind of complex perspective I personally hope energy policy will take. I think it's counterproductive that the current energy debate takes the form of a race to the top, where the argument keeps going in circles around which form of energy is the magic bullet that will save us, rather than looking at what each kind of energy generation is good for where in what amounts. As an aside, I think the OP could stand to include fusion and thorium energy for consideration, even if it's currently quite a while away, but that's assuming we will continue assuming the current state of technology and not speculate about future progress. Excellent! Looking forward to it. Denmark already have a lot of wind power, and are going for a very ambitious target that may be something like 100% renewable energy by 2050. Although I could be confusing them with Germany. (I'd like to avoid being this vague in the future, sorry). Also if anyone wants to do a Thorium run down I can include that in the OP too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Australia uses 1463TWh of total energy, not 228, because you have to compensate for the oil used in transportation (among other things). According to the world bank anyway: The plan is talking about stationary energy. Incidentally, the plan actually also details a strategy for replacing our cars with electric vehicles, and includes the energy in its figures. If hooked up to a smart grid, their batteries can be used as storage for surplus energy too, to smooth out demand peaks. But I'll have to go over it again when I get home for more details.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:The calculations in the op are really bad Which calculations? quote:and the costs are likely to be many times higher. You heard it here first folks, the actual cost of a 10 year, $370 bn project to completely overhaul a national energy system, could in fact be higher than the first practical plan that anyone has ever actually done. We need NUMBERS spazzle, it's right there in the OP. Which part of the plan would be more expensive? quote:You cant just overcome intermitancy by splitting your generators into different sites In the plan, they have modeled the amount of solar radiation recieved at each site, as well as the average wind speeds, and factored it all in. Download the report and see for yourself, it's got heaps of graphs and charts and tables and everything. quote:you also have to overbuild and invest in storage. You also need a system that will work all the time, every year regardless of weather. This is in fact exactly what they have done. In the future people let's avoid posts like these. Don't criticize something without reading it, and don't do it without numbers. Lawman 0 posted:So is this thread gonna be our D&D energy Thunderdome? Yeah  I love the ambition of space based solar, there's certainly a lot of potential there, and that's a great link you posted, but it's too far off to be considered viable at this stage. Still, if you want to write a quick run down, I can include it in the OP. coffeetable posted:*twitch* This is not a sentence that makes sense. Sorry, was it the wording or the science that didn't make sense? This is what I meant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtzRAjW6KO0 http://youtu.be/TtzRAjW6KO0 quote:That aside, Cheers, I'll chuck this in the OP, unless office Thug has some objections or wants to clean it up. I'll be honest, I do love all science, but my eyes glaze over with chemistry, particularly nuclear physics. So I'm not as good with that as I should be. Evil_Greven posted:When you talk about energy generation, perhaps a branch of the discussion might be to incorporate what that energy is being used for - and if there are alternatives to how we are using energy now. I do mention Efficiency in the 'what we DO want' section of the OP, but not in any detail. But yes, that is definitely acceptable in this thread. Passive solar orientation rules, so simple yet so effective. I just spent the weekend in a cabin at the snow that was warm as gently caress cos it was done like that. Delta-Wye posted:There are a few issues missed in the OP. One is energy distribution - both the US and Australia have issues with population densities. It's easy to provide services for 90% of the population who are relatively clustered, but what about the other 10% spread across 90% of the country? Ironically, the ultra-rural parts of the US I'm familiar with have been moving towards renewable energy because the high cost of oil has made the payoff for renewable energy sources like wind turbines much quicker. I'm not sure if it's the same for remote parts of Australia. Two ways to approach this. One is with upgraded transmission lines, and the other is with decentralized power. I don't like cables so I prefer the second. There are more Solar Thermal technologies than the just Central Tower thing too, such as the dish, which may be more suitable for smaller scale. And we're seeing a simmilar take up of renewables in regional/rural Australia too. And yeah, pumped hydro will almost certainly play a role in energy storage, and I'm pretty sure that's included in the BZE plan I linked. Bucky Fullminster fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Go with whatever Thug says. I know considerable (considerably) less about thorium than I do fusion, and mainly just wanted to knock it down a bit because People On The Internet tend to be such big fans. Added to the OP. I got confused and may have done the wrong thing with Thorium though, office thug, if you want to do a bit on it which a layman would understand I'll put that in instead. AS for the energy per m^2, I appreciate the clarification, but I feel it's semantics. I like the example I use, because it's easy for people to understand. It's the heat we want in Solar Thermal, that's where the energy for our electricity comes from, and the point is that there's a lot more in a small area than we might think from our sunbathing experience. And I think 'melt steel' is a more powerful illustration than 'boil coffee'. I do accept this could be lazy science writing though, and am curious to hear more. I mean if energy is 'the potential to do work', then I think the way I describe it is basically right. There is enough in that amount of sunlight to do that amount of work. Ideally I link it to the video I posted (or a more professional one with James May for example, but I like the first one because it's just a guy in the backyard).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Lots of good information being posted. Thanks GulMadred for taking care of the ZCA 2020 questions, and office thug for the detailed run down on Thorium. When I have to chance to process it all I'll try and condense it into a digestible paragraph. Also same for dusseldorf for PV.QuarkJets posted:E: what needs to happen is an anti-coal ad campaign that pushes nuclear power as an affordable alternative This would be good, if nuclear power was your end goal. But I don't see why it should be. Energy Generation is the goal. I'm all for an anti-coal ad campaign, and there are various activist groups around the traps doing just that. But there's no reason it can't be used to push for a transition to renewables. Where I see there potentially being a place for nuclear, is in countries like India and China. They're the ones with huge energy demands, most of which is generated by fossil fuels at the moment, that's where the punch of nuclear could be best used I think. Here's an encouraging article about Germany: German grid reaches record reliability in 2011 quote:On Monday, Germany's Network Agency announced that the German grid only had a downtime of 15.31 minutes, even lower than the already impressive 17.44 minutes of downtime during the period from 2006 the 2010. http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-reaches-record-reliability-in-2011/150/537/56183/ And if that's all a bit heavy, here's a good ad which many may have seen but which is still great, speaking of clever marketing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY http://youtu.be/2mTLO2F_ERY This is the sort of stuff we need. If we can use the power of marketing for good, we'll have a much better chance of making this happen. PYF energy ads.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's the United States, too Yeah but I see the US as having more ability and opportunity to go for renewables. Developing countries are just that, developing, and their demand will be increasing faster than already developed countries. So they have more of an excuse to 'cheat' with nucelar, to satisfy their growing consumption, without compromising their opportunity to industrialise. That's just my reading of it though. But some nuclear plants in the US wouldn't hurt too I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
blacksun posted:I posted this in the other thread about nuclear power however I think it's more applicable here. How are these installations getting by now without LFTR? The present grid has blackouts and brownouts, how are the places you're talking about doing it at moment? In any case, Bio Diesel generators should be able to take care of most of your problems. They use 2nd generation fuels - offcuts of agricultural processes. Ultra remote locations are best left off the grid anyway. No point in laying that much cable when you can just generate it yourself. We don't need to get too concerned about "100% RENEWABLES NO EXCEPTIONS". If you've got a scenario where it can't be done, fine. Bit of stretch to say 'we need a LFTR in there' though, especially when you've got no figures to back it up. As for ships, I'd like to see more sails being used. And blimps/baloons/airships as well. Nuclear powered ships could be a good idea, they'd need to be quite rigorously tested for safety obviously. Should we include discussion of transport in here as well? As someone pointed out, it is an energy issue, so may as well I guess. Can kick it off with this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/airships/4242974
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Of course: But "a more flexible generation" means no wind and no solar, for backups. Hydro works well as a back up for these reasons I think. Turn it on, turn it off, in a matter of minutes. And as has been mentioned in the thread, water can be pumped up hill during times of surplus generation to be used when it's needed. Also can I use the 100th post to ask if a Mod can fix the thread title so it's Megathread.. sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Piell posted:Hydro is incredibly limited in where it can be used, and all the good spots have already been used. I know, but those spots that are being used are still good for that turn on/turn off back up. ---- Hey look, my state may have just said they're going to do something good: quote:Pledge to triple wind and solar power in NSW http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/pledge-to-triple-wind-and-solar-power-in-nsw-20120907-25ik3.html Different to actually doing something of course, but it's a good sign. We have a liberal (generally conservative) government, so this makes a pleasant change. I found out about it through a climate-denialist facebook page, who posted it saying "Lets hope that communities in NSW stand up and say NO to the prospect of thousands of new wind turbines blighting our beautiful state."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
 The counter to this is that they're not on the roads... doesn't hold much weight to me though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:I work as an engineer on offshore wind parks so I know a fair amount about them. If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to answer. This sounds interesting, could you tell us some more? Where do you work, what do you, what is it like on the job, what's it like in the market place? As I understand, off shore wind farms are a toss up between getting better winds and using less land on the one hand, but being harder to build and maintain on the other. How does yours fit in to that? Aureon posted:Biomass is a a smokescreened fossil fuel. I should clarify here too, the difference between 1st and 2nd generation Biofuels. 1st generation biofuels are crops grown specifically for fuel. These are bad, almost as bad as oil, for the reasons you mentioned. 2nd generation biofuels use agricultural offcuts, which would otherwise end up in landfill (or perhaps compost). Any self respecting biodiesel operator will only ever use 2nd generation fuels, and when I spoke to BZE they said the fuels in their plan were 2nd generation as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
marmot25 posted:Good news everyone: we won't have to worry about global warming much longer because we'll just accelerate the whole thing to catastrophic levels once we start tapping methane hydrates, which also happens to be closely tied to of the catastrophe scenarios for global warming. You can read a little bit about it here. I don't know much about whether it's a good idea or not, but tapping the deposits for fuel is different to just releasing them into the atmosphere. You're right that those deposits do form one of the biggest threats to the climate though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:Humans are extremely bad at being efficient, especially with energy, as it requires effort and change, two things that as a species we do really really badly. Are you kidding me? You may be right about what we're bad at as a species, but what do you think requires more effort and change - using lightbulb X instead of Y, or having to research and develop and build a whole new system of energy? Efficiency is the quickest and easiest and cheapest way we can work towards solving the problem. We can save 50% of our costs for basically no investment. Ask Amory Lovins. I'm not just talking about lightbulbs and other appliances, I'm talking about the way we orient our buildings and the angles of the eaves, the way they are heated and cooled, the way the grid is structured, the way the demand peaks are met, etc. Everything to do with using less energy, while maintaining our lifestyles. Basically there is a gap between how much energy we presently need, and how much energy we can presently provide renewably. The best way to close that gap is to work from both ends - boost our renewable capacity, while simultaneously reducing our demand, through efficiency. Those saying we don't need to worry about turning the lights out because they're better lights, are missing the point. We're using things we don't need to use. That's what we have to cut out. That is the core of sustainability. Any system that is based on "now you don't need to be as efficient" is doomed to fail. You know why? Because it's not scalable. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. This conception of limtitless energy from limitless resources. Our resources aren't infinite. And even if you build thousands of thorium plants everywhere, you've still got to mine the fuel and ship it around and maintain them and everything. The less energy we use the better, and its saves us billions, if not trillions of dollars. The best example here is refrigerators.  The thin line is size of the fridges, the thicker one is energy use. You can see they go up and up together til the 70s, then some standards come in. The industry complained that it would put them out of business of course, as they always do, but once they got over it, they made more efficient units, and now we save 200TWh per year, worth about $16.5 Billion. Just from fridges. Think of the savings we can make elsewhere. Pvt Dancer posted:Missed your post, sorry! Fantastic, thanks, this is what I'd love to have more of in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Winks posted:Tell that to the Palo Verde nuke plant in Arizona. Far out man. 3 x ~1.1 GW reactors, just sitting there quietly, doing their thing, servicing 4 million people. Cost $6 bn to build. Operating costs are 1.3 cents per KWh. Sells it wholesale for 6.3 cents per KWh. All day, every day. Where do they get the fuel and what do they do with the waste?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Fuel? ... Right, that doesn't answer my question though. Where do they get the fuel, and what do they do with the waste? Even if 99% of it isn't dangerous in 50 years, what do they do with that one percent that is? Drill a hole in Yucca Mountain and stuff it in there? How radioactive is it, what are the legally mandated exclusion zones and storage requirements, and what do you think plain science would mandate?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
That sounds interesting Emnity, cheers. I obviously love the idea of getting energy from landfills. In Australia they're responsible for about 3% of total emissions, and I think that landfills over a certain size are required by law to capture their emissions. I've been out to a couple of sites and seen their set ups, often they're big enough to power a few thousand homes in the area. But yeah, it's more of a waste management thing than an energy generation thing really. Sorry I haven't been on here much lately, I've been flat out with a new job as the sustainability manager for a leading event company in Australia. So now I'm interested in portable energy - namely generators. A few years ago, they wanted to power the whole event with 100% bio diesel, but were told by multiple companies it wasn't possible. It would screw their machines, etc. They found one company who was willing to give it a go, and now they have grown to be Australia's leading generator supplier, with comprehensive range of bio diesel options. All second generation of course, they're not growing crops specifically for it. Anyway the point is that small companies can make a difference and change the shape of an industry, by choosing the right options with the right providers. Now if any other events want to use bio diesel, they can, so it's a good result for everyone. Anyway if anyone has any cool portable generators to show, post em. Looks like these guys can power their groovy music with a cool portable trailer mounted solar unit: http://youtu.be/WgZh89XuUd4
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
Here's a pretty big report from the WWF / Ecofys, about going 100% renewable globally by 2050. I've barely had time to even skim it, but thought I'd offer it up in here for others to go over. 250 pages, the first 90 of which are pretty picture type things, then goes into more figures graphs and tables: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/the_energy_report_lowres_111110.pdf And the website section: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/ Also sorry I haven't been maintaining the thread, works been very consuming and there's only so many sustainability things you can get your head around at once.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
blacksun posted:BZE's plan has been critiqued multiple times in this thread and these criticisms haven't been responded to. Which critiques do you feel haven't been responded to? I'll do my best to go over it in the next few days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
I'll get back to the rest when I can, probably early next week to be honest, (although QM has done a decent job already), butQuantum Mechanic posted:Increasing the size of CST fields and changing how the heliostats interact with a larger array of towers can improve the cost per GW of a CST plant Can I ask what are you getting at here exactly? Heliostats can shine on different towers, depending on the sun conditions?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Also the CSG industry is taking a bit of beating this week in NSW: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-shows-20121114-29c9m.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Uranium mining is much better than coal mining because you do a lot less of it to get the same energy. There I said it with a straight face which was incredibly easy because it's true. It's not really as simple as that.. from speaking to the communities affected, Uranium mining does things to the local environment that coal mining doesn't. Uranium has a higher energy content per tonne than coal of course, but you still have to mine substantial amounts of ore to get to the good stuff. And you still need all the infrastructure (roads, ports, mines etc). It probably is still better, but it's not as straight forward as you made out. Quantum Mechanic posted:Yes, essentially. That, or different towers can be tuned to supply different loads to spread out the power generation, leading to less waste. It doesn't improve the maximum theoretical output (since there is a limit to how hot a single tower can get, dependent obviously on improved engineering techniques and salt mixtures) but it improves the average output. Huh. I never knew that, or even thought it would be possible. I was under the impression the mirrors were specifically placed and aligned to be aimed at one specific tower. Have you got a link or something?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
Yeah fair point. Uranium/nuclear has its problems too of course, and my point was more to say that just cos it's got a high energy content doesn't mean it's immune to the problems of mining. I did say it's probably better than coal though. In other news, Greenpeace just released a global wind power outlook report. Main claim is that it could supply 12% of global energy demand by 2020. Again, have barely had time to skim it, but posting it here if anyone wants to go over it: http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/releases/climate-energy/2012/global-wind-report-beijing/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
blacksun posted:Projected cost of solar thermal plants vs real world figures, such as those for the plant in Spain (which were marginally higher per GW than those in the BZE plan). I'll quote from the plan: (page 61 of the report, page 83 of the PDF) "The total capital cost for the CST system is $AU174 billion for on-grid CST (42,460 MW net) plus $AU15.1Bn for 4,475 MW of off-grid CST(see appendices 2 and 3 for calculations). This is divided into two phases. The first 8,700 MW to be built will be more expensive than end-of-cost-curve solar 220 MW plants. • The first 1,000 MW is priced at similar price to Solar Reserve’s existing Crescent dunes Tonopah project — $AU10.5 million per MW. • The next 1,600 MW is priced slightly cheaper at $AU9.0 million per MW. • The next 2,400 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy’s conservative mid-term estimate for the solar 100 module which is $aU6.5 million per MW. • The next 3,700 MW is priced at Sargent & Lundy solar 200 module price of $AU5.3 million per MW The total cost for the first 8,700 MW of CsT with storage at 72% capacity factor is $Au60 billion. Aircooling adjustment gives this a final net output of 8,587 MW. If installed across the 12 sites, this would be 725 MW (715 MW net aircooled) once 725 MW is installed at each site, the remaining capacity will be built as 220 (217 MW) modules — 13 modules per site. This will result in 3,585 MW of CST capacity per site, that is, 3,537 MW minus aircooling. Across all twelve sites, there will be a total of 43,020 MW CST, 42,460 MW with aircooling. The capital cost data for the solar 220 plant(US$499.9Million) from the Sargent and Lundy report was used as the basis for costing the proposal. This figure was adjusted for inflation and converted to australian dollars with an assumed foreign exchange rate of $aU1 = $Us0.85. The extra capital cost of dry air-cooling has been calculated from data published by NREL separately. dry air-cooling does cost slightly more in capital expenditure, and lowers the efficiency of the steam cycle, but delivers the benefit of requiring only 10-12% of the water of a conventionally wet-cooled plant. The larger the air-cooling capacity, the better the efficiency of the steam cycle. Thus, there is a cost trade-off between the extra capital cost versus the returns made from higher efficiency. Kelly 200677 determined the optimum air-cooling size based on this trade-off, delivering the lowest Levelised Electricity Cost (LEC). The sizing of the air cooling was based on Kelly’s model. Based on these adjustments, the cost for one solar 220 CST plant, (217 MW aircooled), is $AU739 Million. 156 solar 220 (217 MW) modules, will cost $Au115 billion. 4,475 MW of CsT for off-grid installations have been costed at the same price as end-of-cost-curve solar 220, $aU3.41 Million/MW — $Au15.2billion. Therefore the total cost to supply 60% of Australia’s projected 2020 demand under the ZCA2020 plan would be $Au190 billion. That doesn't sound too off the mark for me. It took me a few goes to understand it, but the way they do it is by building small and expensive plants at each site to get the site activated and up and running, and then start building the cheaper 220 MW plants. However, these things are obviously hard to predict, and who knows what could happen when trying to roll out a project of this scale. It could be less, or it could be more. They have deliberately over estimated in their projections - just look at the exchange rate, $AU1 = $US0.85, when now it's at $AU1 = $US1.04 If it does cost twice as much, I personally would still vote for it. 3% of GDP vs 6% of GDP is not a deal breaker for me. I don't expect everyone to feel the same of course, and it does change the discussion somewhat, but it doesn't make it out of reach. It is still very achievable. If we look at what we are able to accomplish in war time, we can definitely do this. It depends on how seriously we want to take it. quote:Estimates of availability of wind power generating capacity. Specifically how BZE have used our current generation capacity per turbine and multiplied it to get their figures needed to meet their 40% generation goal. This completely ignores the fact that these turbines already occupy the best positions and further wind turbines will be less economically viable as each will produce less and potentially cost more (depending on location). QM covered this well - Australia has no where near enoug installed capacity to have covered 'all the best spots'. quote:This interrelates to the problems other posters have mentioned above, like how BZE and proponents of 100% renewables in this thread have used very generous and optimistic assumptions relating to a downward pressure on costs due to mass production for renewables, but refuse to do the same for nuclear power. Well they are quite different beasts. I'll admit that if we order 20 nuclear plants the price will be different to if we order one, but probably not to the same extent that it is with CST. Much of the cost of nuclear is to do with safety regulation, and that doens't get cheaper the more you do. You could argue it's over regulated and we can ease some of the restrictions and make them cheaper, of course, and there may be a case for that. Construction wise though, I think the projected downward pressure from mass production for renewables is about right. But sure, I don't know much about the downward pressure for nuclear, so maybe it would be the comparable. If so, that's good news. quote:The applicability of similar plans to any other nation on the planet considering that the plan has modeled for Australia, which outside of the Sahara, is the best location in the world for solar thermal. Not really a valid criticism since all it ever claimed to talk about was Australia. If we are the best location in the world for CST though then we should be building the poo poo out of it. Having said that, part of the point of the plan is to inspire other countries to do similar things. Not the exact same of course, but if we have a plan that other countries can point to and say 'hey we should do one of those for our country', that's a good thing. quote:The different standards regarding how long different power sources have to be modeled for. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't BZE only done two years modelling for their plan? Shouldn't a plan for the future energy infrastructure be modeled for a significantly longer time? For instance, if we see a rise in global temperature leading to higher precipitation levels and more cloud cover, lower energy intakes from solar thermal will be a significant problem. Even aside from global warming, significant random occurrences of cloud cover combine with low wind could be disasterous. Two years is completely insufficient. Nah, again, QM covered this quite well, but they have taken extensive meteorological data. Let's talk costs. There's been a few prices floating around for cost per GW for a nuclear plant. Traditionally they've been around $6-8 billion per GW, that could come down to $4-6 billion. China's claiming $2 billion. Let's allow for economies of scale and call it $4 billion per GW. For CST, we've got them available for $729 million for 220 MW. Not even allowing for economies of scale, that's roughly $3.3 billion per GW. So by those numbers, CST is actually cheaper, but we can call them comparable. Even if CST turned out to be twice as expensive as the estimate, at $6.6 billion per GW, that's still only slightly more expensive than the most optimistic nuclear projections, and cheaper than more reasonable estimates. At the end of the day, none of this has been done before and so forecasting it all is problematic. I think we're mostly in agreement, that we need to be investigating and building anything that is Not Coal (Or Gas) as quickly as possible, and we're bickering over numbers. It's good to thrash out the different quotes gathered from all over the shop of course, but lets' try and remember we're all on basically the same side. Ultimately, we need to think about the type of future we WANT to create. If we want to dig up uranium and burn it, then we can certainly accomplish that. And we can do it safely and cheaply. That's fine. But if we want to get energy from the sky, without needing to continually dig up fuel, we can do that too. And we can do it safely and cheaply. And we can do it today. If everyone sits on their hands and says 'oh, renewables aren't reliable, it's not been done', then it'll stay that way. But JFK didn't stand up and say 'well folks, no one's been to the moon before, so probably best not to try'. He said 'we're just going to loving do it.' And it worked. We can loving do it. We've got smart people around the globe working on this. The BZE report is one of the first of its kind, and if you looked at some of the first aeroplane designs, you'd never expect aviation to be the industry it is now. I posted it here to get a thorough critique, and I'm happy with how it's gone so far. It's not meant to be a final version to be rolled out now, it needs people like us to go over it and pore through the details and identify weak points so that we can improve it. Pander posted:A question I had is why is this thread so Australian-centric? For an "Energy Generation Megathread" there is way too much space being devoted to solar. I'm lukewarm about wind and even I would argue that it should be talked about more than solar. I get that it theoretically has a chance in Australia, but even that is a marginal sell that seems steeped in nuclear NIMBY more than engineering sense. This is a good point. As someone said, I'm Australian, and posted the BZE plan 'to start things off'. You're absolutely right though, and I deliberately called it the Energy Generation Thread to discuss all forms of it, and I'd really like to see more than back and forthing between solar and nuclear. That's why I posted the cast of charecters in the OP, kind of hoping that collectively we'd be able to fill in the gaps and get a decent spread sheet going with all the data for different technologies. It would also make for a better thread. I want to hear about how wind has gone in Texas, I want to hear about facebook using solar powered servers, I want to hear about transparent solar PV, and algae based oils (I checked out an algae-producing unit the other day, it's an astonishly versatile resource). I want to hear about how rolling out renewable has made electricity prices more or les expensive, in the short or long term. quote:Another question would concern how the terms "renewable" vs. "green" vs "CO-2 Neutral" vs. "zero GHG emissions" are utilized. I don't see why someone who claims to support 'green' causes or dislikes GHG emissions would promote any-generation bio-fuel, since it still requires the basic formula of FIRE + CARBON = CO2 Bio fuels are considered carbon neutral because their emissions are on a time scale short enough to be included in the natural carbon cycle. i.e: Plant decomposes in 10 years, releases its carbon =(is basically the same as)= Plant burns in 10 minutes, releases its carbon. Which is not the case for fossil fuels. I think anyway, that's my understanding of it. I only ever talk about bio fuels in terms of using waste products, and would never advocate growing crops specifically for fuel, for all the reasons already mentioned. Specifically competing with food crops, and the resources needed to grow them. flaky posted:I'm just going to go back and quote this again, because it makes some interesting claims. Things like the price of solar PV has decreased 75% in 2010-11 and will drop a further 30% in 2011-2012. Things like renewables generated 26% percent of power in Germany in the first 9 months of 2012, and cut a huge hole out of the profits of the traditional energy generation sectors. Stuff like the QLD state owned generator in Australia closed half of it's capacity this year because it simply wasn't needed, indeed the excess power in the grid meant it could have been removed altogether. Things like new solar PV under development at Melbourne Uni could provide 25GWH capacity in 10 years for only $25 million (that's the entire current demand of Australia). Australia has the lowest wholesale electricity price it has ever had, but the retail price is the highest ever. A sizeable chunk of this has been possible due to efficiencies implemented to reduce demand. Essentially most of the current historically high costs in power is due to new investment in unnecessary infrastructure replacement, poor regulatory practices by government and corporate greed. Thanks for reposting that video, I'm making my way through it now, and if work stays this way I should be able to finish it this afternoon. Aureon posted:Because the OP is australian and really sold on that BZE plan. It's right now the only large-scale plan of solar, so it's not a bad discussion, and its proponents have already admitted that it would be completely unfeasible anywhere outside Australia or Sahara. It's completely unfeasible inasmuch as it's drawn on a map of Australia, so no, the plan as it is wouldn't work in another country. That is not to say that other countries do not have the potential to be able to be able to greatly increase their renewable output, and if Australia starts developing some of the ideas in the plan then it will be even easier for everyone else. The point is more to start the conversation and stimulate interest, not to say 'every country should switch to a 60% solar thermal / 40% wind power mix.' Aaaaaand that's enough for now, sorry for the mega post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Electric cars get way too much hype. They sound good at first glance, but when you think about it, they don’t actually accomplish very much by way of solving problems at all. Imagine if we somehow instantly changed every car in the world to an electric motor. You’ve still got traffic, you’ve still got parking shortages, you've still got people not getting fit, and unless you’re getting your electricity renewably, (which in most Australian cities isn’t the case), you’re still burning fossil fuels, with an emissions intensity which as bad or worse than petrol or diesel, let alone LPG. The only problem they do actually solve is tailpipe particulate emissions. So the air on our streets will be a little bit cleaner, because the combustion which is the source of the energy happens in a power station a few hundred kilometers away, rather than under the hood. Push bikes 4 life.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Without energy you just stay still, so options for transport infrastructure are completely relevant in this thread. I forgot about noise, yes, thats another benefit. And their engines do work better in stop start traffic. It's just a thing for me because I was at a conference last week and one of the panels was 'rethinking transport infastructure', and all they did was talk about cars. And the operations manager for the Nissan Leaf came right out himself and said powering your car with electricity produces more emissions than petrol. Power plants might be more efficient, but they're still more emmisions intensive. Must be cos of the fuel I guess. So it's frustrating when people talk about electric cars as if they're going to save the world (which you guys weren't necessarily doing, it's more the companies and whatnot), when they actually save very little. Seriously, we need more bikes. Which is relevant becaus the energy comes from your legs trees rather than dead dinosaurs. And the effects it has on our lifestyles (traffic, health), are therefore also relevant, albeit more tangentially. Also yes 80% of people in Aus drive less than 100 km a day. On a phone, hope that made sense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
UK Labor party commits to ~zero carbon by 2030:quote:Ed Miliband commits Labour to 2030 decarbonisation target http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/22/ed-miliband-labour-decarbonisation-energy?fb=optOut
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Wait, wait, last I remember the UK was hyping up switching everything to natural gas that they could (because they had a lot of natural gas from the North Sea) - that seems like a bit of a reversal doesn't it? It's the opposition party, so could well be, yeah. Interesting to see what the government does. As I understand there's been a lot of back and forthing over Wind Farms in the public domain, which is now being reflected in the government, which is creating uncertainty in the investment sector. So the (centre left?) opposition has come out with this plan today, so that the industry can move forward with confidence. It's what Needs To Happen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Aureon posted:How long for space elevators Don't know what you're watching, but my call is 150 years at this rate, 75 years if we put our minds to it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
Speaking of Chinese Solar potential... China to install 3,000mW solar thermal power by 2015 quote:China will have 3,000 megawatts of solar thermal power installed capacity by 2015, with the total market value reaching 45 billion yuan ($7.15 billion), according to a report released on Wednesday. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-11/22/content_15950340.htm
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Pfox posted:From your post, and the contents of the thread in general, it's pretty apparent that you're talking about electricity generation, and as a result, I think you're doing yourself a significant disservice by conflating the top group (used for electricity generation) with the oil sands (used for fuels), and a second disservice by so easily brushing off oil as a necessary resource, and thirdly, why you've selected the oil sands rather than oil as a whole. That's a fair point, to be honest I didn't think about it that much. The idea was to catalogue all forms of energy generation, and you're right, if tar sands are in there then oil should be too. I don't remember deliberately omitting it, so it must have been an oversight. It was a little rushed because I wanted to get the thread up before my contract kicked off. If I did it again I'd include it in a similar fashion to the Coal part, being an historical workhorse, with the advantage of having all of our infrastructure built for it. The picture would be something fair and impartial, like:  Or  As you said, our current oil consumption is on track to rise, but the point is we can and must change these patterns. We're still going to need some oil, of course, but if we overhaul our transport system we can use substantially less, and thus be less dependent on digging up dead dinosaur juice to burn. In other news, I'm starting training as a presenter for this stuff tonight, so wish me luck, and thanks for all the helpful discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Pander posted:(4) Are you seriously arguing for the mass generation of energy from petroleum in this thread? Maybe you misunderstood, since it is a bit of a misnomer as is, but I believe this thread is about the generation of ELECTRICITY more than it is simply pure ENERGY. If you ARE advocating using $100/bbl oil as a source of grid electric generation, I'd love to hear what sort of plants you propose building. I'll get stuck in to the rest later, but just to quickly clarify, the thread is about Energy as whole, so discussion of oil is definitely relevant. Pfox if you want to write a short summary I can include it in the OP. Stationary energy / Electricity is a big/biggest part of it, but any form of energy generation is legit. Pretty sure I was talking about push bikes before. Pfox, how do you feel about ANWR?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Is deepwater horizon not on here because it wouldn't fit or what I know it's just tanker spills, but that highlights the problem of the graph
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Pander posted:Yes, hobo took a cheap shot at oil (he's VERY VERY fixated on solar to the annoyance of many others), and yes oil is here to stay, but I don't think singing the praises of off-shore drilling is really what the doctor ordered here. I wouldn't say I'm fixated on solar specifically. Fixated on not digging things up, yeah probably.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:You'll have to dig a lot of things up to build solar plants. Yes of course, and it'd be the same for wind or anything else, but after they're built I mean. 'Not having to keep on digging up the fuel' I suppose would be a more accurate way to describe it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Kaal posted:So, without trying to play gotcha too much, are you good with recovering uranium from sea water? My understanding is it's too far off to be taken seriously at this stage, and I don't know much more about it, but if really works, then sure why not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 03:43
|
|