RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal

RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 7:34:12 PM)
Lucky hoo boy- who came up with tidal power? Massive civil engineering- and horrible fouling problems- doesn't withstand storms well which we have too. It's one of those ideas that just isn't practical- how do you go down and do maintenance on the generator when it's on the bottom. Basically you're trying to take advantage of lots of energy- but it's massive and not moving far- which means that you need very large installations to capture much. Big civil engineering projects haven't gotten much cheaper over the years- wouldn't expect cost savings from doing a lot. Great Lakes are only adjacent to New York (unless you consider Ohio part of the Northeast, which people from Ohio often do, while us Nutmeggers would consider them Midwestern) and wave energy is horrible to predict. Again, you've got massive engineering and if you build an efficient installation that works with a 4 foot wave- it gets wiped out by an 8 foot wave. We also have lots of trees-tall ones- not so good for solar exposure if you only get direct sun 2 hrs a day- plus we can get pretty cloudy. Since we're built up- wind patterns are way down compared to plain states. Solar on box stores though- that can make sense. Thompson- don't know of anybody who can sell power back to the grid and actually get a check from the utilities. When that happens- then we'll be in much better shape, because right now, power generation resembles the efficiency of the Soviet collective farm. Sam

erebus -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:07:18 PM)
I remember reading in the late 80s or early 90s (mid 90s?) about this guy in Stanislaus county, California who charged people $1.00 to dump each tire. Eventually, he had something like 4 million tires (do the math!). He refused to do anything with the tires. Just refused. The county hemmed and hawed. Eventually, the county rented this portable tire shredder/incinerator from West Germany (I guess that puts the story in the 80s). This machine generated electricity while burning the tires. I followed the story for a couple of years. Yet the next time this problem arose, no incinerator from Germany, no electricity, nothing, so somehow the tire pile (different county) catches on fire, massive air pollution, etc. I wondered, why not call up the Germans? I guess no one thought of that. So...they have already been there. Go ask the Germans.

erebus -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:15:51 PM)
There are two solutions to our energy crisis. Eliminate totally immigration (otherwise we are chasing a moving target). And nuclear power. There is a newer technology that seems quite interesting. It's called the Energy Amplifier, and what it does is use abundant thorium to make a radioactive fuel. It leaves very little waste, and it fact it can reprocess spent conventional fuel. Conventional nuclear fuel can be reprocessed in breeder reactors that that idiot Carter outlawed, dooming us to years of subservience to the oil sheikdoms. Nuclear power is the answer for the short term. For the real long term solution, look up Dyson spheres.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:15:52 PM)
Heck, there are some US companies that have figured out how to shred tires using a lot less energy than 80s technology looking for investors. Most shredded tire doesn't go into the landfill- I think it's going into roadways. Sam

thornhappy -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever Hmm... this is big news, yet it hasn't made any headlines. Perhaps those among the current oil/coal/energy elite aren't very happy about this breakthrough. Front page of the NYTimes today covers it. thornhappy

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/20/2007 8:25:25 PM)
Nuclear? Nonsense- now you're back to Russian collective farms. Nuclear only makes sense near large population centers and this siting is political suicide due to the perception that they're terrorist targets. Probably not- but people don't want to take the risk. We don't have a burgeoning energy requirement- as our economy gets more energy efficient, we need less energy for more GNP. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is something of a terrorist target- stuff could be pretty nasty in something like a dirty bomb although you'd probably sacrifice a bunch of people setting it up- I don't think Carter was such a moron for leaving this technology alone- although I'd certainly like to see nuclear engines for space travel- chemical ain't hacking it. There are better alternatives to nuclear now- as the OP pointed out. Oh- and by the way- Sandia's numbers for the amount of area needed to supply the US's energy needs in the Southwest- 80 sq. miles assuming 20% efficiency. Come on- even Rhode Island's bigger than that- and if we generate enough pizza cartons to cover all of RI in a week, then I think we can generate some solar cells too. Sam

CuriousLord -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 1:10:25 AM)
It's a neat story. Too tired to do a fair analysis, though solar does have considerable drawbacks. Not to say viable solutions can't be made, but this is to say it's not the obvious choice at this day in time.

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 1:42:55 AM)
Actually wave generators sit under the water, and are not affected by storms, nor big waves short of a tsunami. Every sort of energy has a drawback, and tidal is easily doable, perhaps the draw backs make it unfeasable where you are. But it is very easy to work under water.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 6:46:35 AM)
Lucky Who came up with that pile of nonsense? I'm a sailor- shore installations are very much affected by shifting sands- the coast is a very dynamic environment. Construction is challenging to say the least. And very easy to work under water? Have you ever done it? Because I've been on capsized boats in just some lousy 4 foot waves in the Sound (which is pretty protected) and it's NOT easy. I came out black and blue and bloody. Dealing with marine growth is a nightmare- the stuff you use is either toxic to the environment, or doesn't often work on the surfaces you can make cheaply. Yes there have been tidal installations- such as the one in Rance, France. That one was such a raging success that the company said we're not doing any more- plus that type of installation wreaks havoc with the established environment- and the coast is a critical part of the ecosystem. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 12:14:18 PM)
Sam Comercial divers work under water every single day on Oil Rigs, the under side of boats ect. To compare planned under water maintence to dealing with an emergency capsizing, on the surface, in a storm is simply ridiculous. Have you never been diving? those big waves and storms pass right by with you barley even noticing. You can duck 4 ft under water and let a 20 footer break on you and be just fine. Yes sands shift, fortunately we perfected the technology of anchoring a Buoy over a thousand years ago. Your simply disagreeing with me out of principle here, why bother. Storms and waves do not affect wave generators. It is quite easy to pull one up and do maintence on it/ scrape off the barnacles, or go down and check its anchor. Tidal is not usefull everywhere, I accept that. France and a natioanl energy policy and Total is tied to the french Gov in ways that Halliburton dreams of, and they chose a policy of Nuclear for everyone, everywhere. I suspect that had much to do with thier decisions regarding Tidal power. We do have one of the best candidates for Tidal power in the world, 25-35 foot tides 2x a day, in my town, so Perhaps I hype it more than warranted for the rest of the planet

pahunkboy -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 12:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erebus I remember reading in the late 80s or early 90s (mid 90s?) about this guy in Stanislaus county, California who charged people $1.00 to dump each tire. Eventually, he had something like 4 million tires (do the math!). He refused to do anything with the tires. Just refused. The county hemmed and hawed. Eventually, the county rented this portable tire shredder/incinerator from West Germany (I guess that puts the story in the 80s). This machine generated electricity while burning the tires. I followed the story for a couple of years. Yet the next time this problem arose, no incinerator from Germany, no electricity, nothing, so somehow the tire pile (different county) catches on fire, massive air pollution, etc. I wondered, why not call up the Germans? I guess no one thought of that. So...they have already been there. Go ask the Germans. In nearby Northeast pennsylvania a dude would rent an aprtment pay cash. big wad of money. after nonpayment months later the owner would bust in- only to find tires floor to cieling wall to wall every room. try to go for damages and the dude can not be traced

soul2share -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 1:47:51 PM)
My plans are to build a green house sometime in the next 5 years. I have looked into solar energy, as I live in Arizona.....and it amazes me the number of homes here that don't ahve solar panels, at least to augment the power usage. Most states and the federal goverment offer incentive programs and tax breaks for those who use solar energy options on their houses. In Arizona, you can get a rebate of up to $9000, give or take, for putting solar power to use on a residence, and I'm not sure what the rebstes/incentives are from the gov't, but the information I've heard breaks the cost of a $20,000 solar panel/shingle system in half. I'll be putting solar shingles on a flat roof. I'll be staying on the grid because I don't want to have to give up space for the batteries needed to go off the grid, plus what energy I don't use, I sell back to the power companies.....I've read it's possible to literally have a negative electricity bill in various magazines, the first article I read was in Mother Earth news several years ago. That article outlined a family who put solar shingles on the roof of their house in the Northeast. Anyway, I figure what I can save in electricty use will pay for the system in about 10 years. Give or take...math is not my strong suit! I've done a bit of homework, and due to my location, solar is a great alternative.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 1:59:30 PM)
Lucky the whole point of wave action IS that there are waves- and you'll note that most installations are put there when it's calm. People work on oil rigs when its calm, as well as scraping the bottoms of boats. You don't do that with a 4 ft swell running or higher- or if you do, the insurance is gonna be pretty stiff. I've been diving- and I know that a ruckus on the surface gets damped out pretty quickly the further down you go- but then where's your energy source? And anchoring a buoy really doesn't do a lot in terms of power generation- all the tidal generators I've seen that have used that technology are either too small to do much of anything, or else take up a lot of valuable coastal water. And yeah- why not ask the coast guard how often they have to replace buoys after a storm? There have been plenty of folks that have looked at the Rance installation- it wouldn't fly these days due to environmental concerns, but it also required a lot of capital. Nobody's made a good economics case for these installations- wind economics are much better- and it looks like solar's mounting a good challenge as well. There aren't that many areas of the country with a 25 ft tide- are you in Nova Scotia? There may be a few regions where this type of power generation makes sense- hell, go for it- but it's not going to be a significant part of the energy mix needed. I put it down to red herring- same as the hydrogen economy -which now looks a bit more doable, but still has lots of major research to go- i.e. distractions from technology available today- especially with more political willpower. Using these types of installations for energy storage though- similar to a dam- makes much more sense- hydro generation is pretty efficient. Sam

philosophy -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 2:59:51 PM)
FR ...there isn't a single holy grail of energy production out there utilisable in the near future. What seems to me to be the solution is a change in the way we think about energy production. A poster earlier mentioned the idea of all houses having a few solar cells on the roof....they wont produce all the power you need probably but they'll probably pay for your light bulbs. If you live in a windy place then there are a range of technologies to claim a bit of power from that. If you live by the sea, ditto. But it doesn't have to be windmills 100 feet high, or wave barrages 2 miles long. Generate just a bit of electricity, increase the efficiency of the appliances in your house and just take from the grid the extra. Decentralise some energy production, not all of it, and that buys the time we need for some of these blue sky techs to become viable.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 4:56:01 PM)
Philosophy I agree with most of your post- until the last line. The hangup now is far more political than technical. Saying we don't know how to do stuff just provides people an out for doing nothing. It's a case where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 6:24:28 PM)
Samboct, I live in Alaska, and we have exceptional tidal generation capacity a mere miles from my home. Yes you would not attempt to scrape barnacles in 4 foot seas, but diving in such is not a problem, and most oil rigs are in seas regularly over 4 ft. Its not a problem to dive in and work on them, below the surface. At the surface it is difficult to work in high seas, 4 meters down it makes no difference. Wave generators do not sit on the surface. Yes a major storm could cause some damage and rip a few loose. What would be the effect of a Tornado spawning Storm hitting the Giant Desert Solar farm ,supplying all the electrcity the nation uses, that is proposed in the Sci Am article, cited earlier in the thread?

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 6:42:55 PM)
One advantage of solar and wind that doesn't make headlines is that these technologies don't need fresh water to operate. Most other technologies including nuclear, CSP, and biofuels need lots of fresh water- and that's running out faster than oil. Solar and wind can also be used to run fresh water stills if sited near oceans. If there's no need for power, just make fresh water instead. Lucky- A few? Ever read what happened to the Mulberry Harbor they built when they invaded France in '44? It didn't last long. I'm sorry- but massive sea installations are very expensive to build and operate- oil rigs probably take little maintenance compared to the engineering needed here. And if wave generators aren't near the surface- where are they? (the proposals I've seen have them on the surface in a series of buoys.) As you point out- if you go further down, there's not much wave action. They're having lots of trouble with the lousy little turbine installations in the East River in NYC- and that's a little peanut installation. Yes, you've got lots of energy in the ocean- but it's not moving much distance which makes it hard to deal with. There are better alternatives- this is pie in the sky. Geothermal is easier- there at least your installation is relatively fixed. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/21/2007 10:24:33 PM)
I am not at all surprised that something built in the middle of a battle didn't last very long. I do not see that that has anything to do with the price of tea in China. The stuff I have seen on Wave generation has under water buoys, that go up and down with every wave, generating a little bit of power. They hang 15-20 feet below the surface so small boats can go right over with out even noticing. You have just as much power down below a wave as you do at the top, you just dont have a breaker, or a capsised boat going up and down as the surface changes. But you can watch all the plants go back and forth with each wave, on the bottom. Then you have an array of thousands, and you get some serious power generation. I think it is far less pie in the sky than trying to make all of Americas electrcity from a set of Solar farms crammed into 80 Square miles, then shipping it accross the continent. I do agree that a bottom based turbine would be a pain in the ass to keep free of derbis, but I am not advocating those. I do agree Geothermal is a great source of power and is extremely underutilised. You are right that need for water in many forms of generation makes them poor choices for the future.

samboct -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 7:06:41 AM)
Lucky As an FYI- the Mulberry was destroyed by a storm. Sam

luckydog1 -> RE: solar $0.01 a watt? cheaper then coal (12/22/2007 10:54:48 AM)
And sam, I have no doubt that a harbor built for short term use durring a battle didn't last very long, but I do not see why that has any relevance. But what would a storm do to a masive solar array that fuels the entire continents energy?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0309906