Environment Solar best bet forward??

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUpride123, Aug 19, 2014.

  1. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,676
    Likes Received:
    16,607
    Why not start equipping new homes with it? Would make the most since and require less of power plants. In fact, that should be the majority of solar IMO

    Just massive amounts of land


    Again, it would be better to start with homes reducing the burden on the grid.

    large solar plants are not the way to go IMO.

    Its not moot. It waste water and some areas cannot afford that.

    It would make since that if in a drought stricken area you don't plop a plant that needs massive amounts of water.
     
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    No problem for many people. My house is shaded by oak trees and it makes no sense. Not enough sun and potential damage from falling debris during storms.

    Land that is not harmed and still useful as the pasture, farms, open water or whatever was there before. The footprint of the turbines is minimal.

    Sure, but it will not replace any coal plants.

    Not here, but they work very well in desert areas.

    So does coal. You can't get something for nothing. Much of the water is recycled, what do you think those big towers are for. In Louisana The CLECO plant in Boyce made an big lake, they dump hot water in one in and withdraw cool water from the other end. Fishermen love it, the warm water in the winter draws fish.

    Not a nuclear plant or a coal plant either.
     
  3. Rolan

    Rolan Back to my roots

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    2,083
    Likes Received:
    1,117

    I believe coal uses more water than anything. I am not an expert, just remember reading that recently.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02b.html
     
  4. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,676
    Likes Received:
    16,607
    @Rolan I can post later the chart, but nuclear uses the most coal with a not to distant second

    @red55 I think you might misunderstand me. I am not a proponent of coal. I work out here in west Texas in the process management/oil and gas industry. Out here, wind and natural gas are replacing coal, however companies or towns cannot just mothball billions worth of coal plants.

    Also with regards to water recycling, in Louisiana water is everywhere so I can see your points, however out here their has been a 10 year drought. Water usage is critical. Most of the reason why so much wind, solar and gas is popping up. Texas will have the largest wind farm in the US soon.

    You would also be surprise by the advancements in solar. You mentioned shade, they do work in the shade and improvements to solar cell performance are improved all the time. Last month i read about a team at MIT that made one that had better performance levels in shade than some models in open light. You would also find the panels themselves are very durable. Even withstand hail out here.

     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    What? :D

    The article was a proponent of coal. The coal plants can't be removed until they are replaced. That will take a while. It takes 10-20 years to build a nuclear reactor.

    West Texas is one of the places with wind all the time and sun most of the time. And the coal has to be hauled in.

    A lot of folks around here wanted to add solar panels for the tax credit a couple of year ago. The companies that sold them would look at your house on Google Earth and if more than 50% was covered by shade trees, they told you it wasn't a good spot for one. Lots of houses under big trees around here . . . and the wind is intermittent. However there is talk of offshore wind farms on the Louisiana continental shelf.
     
  6. LaSalleAve

    LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    44,037
    Likes Received:
    18,027
    We have a big ass battery we orbit that ain't runnin out of juice any time soon. Why not use it. Why do we have to continue to destroy and poison underground springs, and drill in oceans or tinker with what could end up being a Chernobyl or Fukushima when we have a power source like the Sun? Is it because of jobs? Oil company influence? Misinformation, stupid articles about birds blowing up in the sky?

    David Vitter's stupid ass told a Senate committee that Louisiana wouldn't be able to run off solar and wind. Which is a complete crock of shit, I can't believe people voted for this stupid fuck.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Vitter is a stupid shit, but he is correct on this issue. Solar cannot replace fossil fuels by itself. Not even close.
     
  8. mancha

    mancha Alabama morghulis

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    3,237
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Land could be repurposed if money could be made by generating enough power. It's the cloud cover that limits Louisiana from big solar farms. Too much time not generating power . . . and it goes dark every night. There will always have to be a component that generates power at night to accompany solar power.

    Tesla always thought that he could transmit electrical power wirelessly but never perfected it. He was a friggin' genius about every other thing he developed (like AC power) so I hope he was right. If that is ever perfected, then huge solar power stations could be built in orbit and we could receiver power like it was a DirecTV signal. There is no night in space once the constellation of power stations is completed. And it would fund NASA and all other space agencies and space corporations for centuries to come.
     
  10. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Before everyone decides they know what the potential is for solar etc, maybe we need a clear understanding of where we are. The US Energy Information Association http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3In provided the data below
    In 2013, the US generation capacity was over 1 billion (1,000,000,000) megawatts. Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were
    • Coal 39%
    • Natural Gas 27%
    • Nuclear 19%
    • Hydropower 7%
    • Other Renewable 6%
      • Biomass 1.48%
      • Geothermal 0.41%
      • Solar 0.23%
      • Wind 4.13%
    • Petroleum 1%
    • Other Gases < 1%
    Every means to generate power except solar & wind uses steam or water to turn a turbine the runs the generator converting mechanical power to electric. Coal, Natural gas, nuclear and the other so called renewables convert water to steam via heat. This provides the most thermally efficient of converting power. I make this point so everyone understands the context of what is being discussed.

    In essence this whole discussion is about cost. Cost of producing the power (including:building & operating the plants and fuel); the cost of transmitting and distributing the power and the cost to the environment.

    The nature of AC power transmission makes it better to have the generation close to the load (user). For every mile of line the losses increase in several factors. Likewise balance and control of these large blocks of power is a challenge.

    As Red noted wind and solar are limited in where there is sufficient wind or sun and the availability of both is limited and intermittent. It is estimated that for every MW of demand there needs to be 4MW of generation for wind. Hawaii has the greatest number of hours available/day that solar generation is feasible at 6hr. Neither form is power dense enough or available for 24hr/365 reliability the nation's grid demands. No matter what there battery capacity to store a portion of the 1 billion MW is practically impossible.

    Other limitations are distance from generation to user. For most of the US wind power is too far from where it is used. I worked on supplying equipment for power plants in the 90s when people were putting a gas fired combined cycle plant at every point a power line crossed a gas pipeline in La. The transmission grid in the state could not accommodate the projected load and Entergy charged every potential plant millions to upgrade the transmission line, SO much that many were cancelled. This would be magnified many fold for wind power. Another obstacle is the NIMBY attitude so many have stopping addition of needed transmission line and pipelines. Finally the maintenance for wind turbine generators is very high and they have significant downtime.

    Coal is a dying source. Pollution control has cost utilities billions and as a rule every coal fired plant less that 250MW will be decommissioned in 10 years. When CO2 emissions are required to be scrubbed the number of plants will be further reduced. However look at the table at the top. Coal produces 39% of power today. That is a lot of new power plants that need to be built. At several hundred million $ and several years to build a 250mw combined cycle plant it will take years.

    Nuclear has much merit. It is the least expensive to produce power BUT the most expensive to build. It generates the least pollution EXCEPT when disaster strikes. Attempts to reduce the cost of construction have not been as successful as hoped.

    Natural gas seems to be the great hope for now and the future. It is plentiful enough here for generations to come. It produces relatively lower emissions particularly CO2 (which can be scrubbed). For the time being it is the best source of producing the big blocks of power required to keep us in the manner we are used to living (AC, computer, etc, etc, etc).

    By all means put solar in your home just realize without the government subsidy it will take 30 years to make it pay. (I have run the numbers while selling solar systems). Look at the percentage of power production it has now and try to grasp how much it will take to make a meaningful contribution. It may be a future solution but there are miles and mile of development required before it happens.

    Yes look to the future but don't forget that to get there we must keep the present prosperous.
     

Share This Page