The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

It's dated (2008) and Photovoltaic is considered expensive but it is a decent link to have unless there is a better one http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power

quote:

But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution�including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change�by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2012 02:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:05

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

MrL_JaKiri posted:

So would wind power, nuclear power, etc. "It wouldn't cut air pollution enough" isn't a reason people don't think solar is a usable global solution.

You'd be surprised how many people want to know the answer to the question posed and the link is provided for informational purposes. Where the 'solar (photovoltaic) is a usable global solution' was claimed/implied is anyone's guess.

Aureon posted:

The study reports on US panels, though. China-made panels would be somewhat different.

Also fails to report "90%" in relation to what: Coal releases something like 4 times the CO2 of gas.

The cited report posted:

a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour.

Now they didn't specify brown or black coal or indeed which particular coal fired power station (emissions vary there as well).

The Chinese situation may very well be different. The report suggests that (in the US) the situation in 2012 may very well be different (The report suggests manufacturers are moving to solar powered production). If there is a better study please link it to improve our collective knowledge.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2012 04:32

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Install Gentoo posted:

<SNIP>
My utility bill at this apartment has gone down drastically over the past like 2.5 years I've lived here. First, they replaced the heating and air conditioning units with newer models, and my utility bill went down even though I now have it set to heat to 70 instead of 68 in winter, and cool to 72 instead of 74 in summer. Then I replaced my old 24 inch CRT which broke with a 32 inch LCD - it uses like 38% the power and looks better. I switched from a few incandescents and mostly CFLs to a few CFLs and mostly LED bulbs and that power usage dropped a lot. I got rid of my old Pentium 4 computer with a CRT for a Core i7 computer and LCD combo that's way faster but also uses way less power. The fridge that came with the unit broke and was from the mid-90s - the new fridge I got in uses way less power and is even bigger and has an icemaker now.

Basically efficiency is great, and you don't have to compromise to get it.

Unfortunately new appliances commonly bring another inefficiency with them. http://standby.lbl.gov/faq.html

quote:

How much power is used for standby in the US?...Worldwide?
Nobody knows for sure, but it's typically 5-10% of residential electricity use in most developed countries and a rising fraction in the developing countries (especially in the cities). Standby power in commercial buildings is smaller but still significant. Altogether, standby power use is roughly responsible for 1% of global CO2 emissions*.
Is standby growing or shrinking?
It's probably growing. Programs directed at consumer electronics have stimulated manufacturers to cut standby power use in many products. At the same time, the number of new appliances that continuously draw power is increasing rapidly, especially in the developing countries. We suspect that standby continues to increase. Recent Japanese policies to reduce standby appear to be effective since the latest studies (2008) suggest that standby power is decreasing. The reduction is a result of both improved technologies and heightened consumer awareness.

Here is a rough guide to costs, by appliance. http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/standby-energy.aspx

The installation of a simple master switch that turns off all the power to non-essential appliances is a simple yet uncommon fix.

* I suspect that 1% should be >1% but haven't checked any source or done any calculations myself.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 00:44

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Vermain posted:

Is there a good book that deals with presenting the actual facts of nuclear power in a concise manner? It'd be nice to have something to give to people to help to dispel a lot of the myths surrounding it. I enjoyed Superfuel, though something written from a more academic context would also be good.

Or if you don't want to buy a book http://www.scribd.com/doc/19467068/Nuclear-Energy-Fallacies. This is in the OP of the issues affecting the implementation of Nuclear Power thread. It is a book, just in web format. 2005 makes it decently current. Could be better written.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 02:32

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Frogmanv2 posted:

<SNIP> plus I dont think the water is irradiated after being used in a solar plant,<SNIP>

Only the water actually in contact with the fuel is 'irradiated' and as the very most that you can do to water by irradiating it is boil it, nobody sees this as much of an issue. You can't make Heavy Water in a light water reactor for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water. People would be cock a hoop if you could. Irradiating water is used to kill nasties in dirty water so maybe it's a good thing?

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 04:00

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

ductonius posted:

What all this means is that any coal or nuclear power station will "use" many thousands of liters of water every day to get rid of waste heat. Use is in quotation marks because it means "temporarily come into contact with", rather than "consume"; the water is invariably returned to the environment almost exactly where it was removed and only slightly hotter.

As it effects almost all energy sources, has anyone ever calculated the effect on global warming that the energy exchange between the heated vapour and the atmosphere involves?

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 06:36

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Aureon posted:

China can't build solar plants more cheaply, because it really can't import desert land into their confines.

It isn't just 'The Sahara and Australia'. Specific to China, Takla Makan and the US, The Great Basin.

(Source)

# ¿ Nov 23, 2012 02:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:05

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Aureon posted:

Which are already down from 270 to 220.
Which are nowhere as near to the main energy need as Australia's plants are. (Long-ranged power transmission is a costly.)[citation required]*
Which are not as near to the Equator (Being near gives you shorter nights during the winter, and having to build for the worst case, this is very relevant)

This brings us to an interesting point: Solar has to build enough reservoirs and power to be able to run on under 10h/day, since during winter, that's the duration of the day (In Spain, atleast, in Australia varies around 10h-10h20min depending on latitude).
It gets worse and worse the further you get from the equator, all the way to practical infeasibility on the Poles.

Australia 9hrs (source) - 11 hrs (source)

Most geographies have some capacity for Hydro and basin storage is relatively efficent.

quote:

Efficiency losses will mean that approximately 20% of the energy pumped into the system will be lost and not returned out of the system

(source)

* The latest data I have seen for transmission losses on the entire Australian grid is around 5% so 95% efficient.

quote:

The exploitation of remote energy sources at low cost (e.g. hydro or mine-mouth, coal-fired plant suitable for producing electricity at a cost of the order of 10 - 25 mills/kWh) is now feasible and economical for distances never before entertained. For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c. such that, by offering an acceptable reliability level for the receiving system concerned, present costs small enough (from 5 to 20 mills/kwh) as to make advantageous the exploitation of those sources, when compared to generation at 30 - 35 mills/kWh located in the vicinity of load centers.

(source)

Even in the US which is acknowledged to have one of the worst and most inefficient grids around it's losses are 7% (93% efficient).

quote:

According to EIA data, national, annual electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 7% of the electricity that is transmitted in the United States.

(source)

Now those 5% and 7% figures are for the aggregated grid so include all the short transfers. This will mask the (worse) efficiency of the longest transmissions.

As to the solar availability data I note you left out:

Middle-East, Arabian 270
South America, Atacama 275

More saliently the 'Only sahara and Australia' claim flies in the face of the enormous areas of the earth (especially in Africa - see map provided) that have very good solar availability. Remember this is in the context of 'Why are we only talking about Australia?'.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2012 04:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges