Slashdot Mirror

Geothermal, solar, and wind

I look outside and while it's sunny, it's not windy - if my power supply isn't consistent it's worthless, so scratch wind and solar.

Many of those off the grid do great with solar and wind. A national smart grid can be supplied nationwide, solar can provide electricity 8+ hours a day, it's always windy somewhere, and geothermal always works. Ignoring this shows a bias, or ignorance.

Falcon

you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.

I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.

As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.

Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.

With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.

For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.

Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.

Falcon

Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source.

Electrical transmission losses over long distances is only a problem if the electricity is AC. Over long distances the losses from transmission is much lower using High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC. Now there are losses for conversion from AC to DC but those losses are less than the losses from transmitting via AC. And conversion is getting more efficient. But using the right stuff what is converted can be reduced. That computer you're using, it's power supply converts the AC power from the wall socket to DC. Radios and TVs do the same. Those who build Off the Grid take all that into consideration when designing their system.

Heck, Thomas Edison's Con Edison power company transmitted DC. It was only after Nicoli Tesla came along when AC was used. In an attempt to discredit AC Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant, Topsy. Because Topsy had killed 3 men she was sentenced to death and Edison saw that as a good way to show how dangerous AC was. However he was not successful right away, Topsy had to be executed a few tymes before she died, in agony.

Falcon

No such competition exists for things like electricity and water (at least in most cities). For those products, you can neither decide to purchase from a competitor nor decide not to purchase at all.

Well, you can "kinda sorta" - you could build an outhouse in your backyard or a full septic tank in your backyard, provided your local building code allows it. You could install a rainwater collector, filtration system, or simply purchase what water you need from an alternate supplier (though at the cost per gallon, that's suicidal). You could, provided the groundwater quality in your area isn't shit and again that local building codes would allow it, even dig your own well and install your own pump.

Some places have outlawed new septic systems, instead they require hook ups to the municipal system. At the same tyme though composing toilets are being used more and more. Some places have also outlawed rainwater collection. In Colorado for instance they are illegal. Legally you, people, do not have rights to the water that falls on their land. The state has all rights. Which it gave away when it agreed to the Colrado River Compact. Even though the river doesn't run through California, CA now has "rights" to some of it's water. As does Mexico.

You could install a gas/propane/etc generator, or solar cells and some battery storage, if you want to try to go without being "plugged in" to the electric grid

Go Off the grid.

Of course, good luck managing to do this in any major city or if you have kids, unless you're Amish or Mennonite. Raise kids in that environment, and the local constabulary will be up your ass with "child welfare" authorities in tow, looking for any excuse they can manufacture to take your kids away and force you to pay up for local utilities...

Actually more and more places are getting off the grid friendly, as well as homeschooling friendly. Many states and local governments offer help such as rebates for alternative energy systems, DSIRE is a database of what is offered.

Falcon

Um... no. No they would not.

Yes they would. Simple economics says that as the cost of something goes up people look for cheaper sources or reduces the amount needed. That has been proven throughout history, even if not by choice. And as today's conventional energy gets more expensive people will move to other sources.

Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?

The only reason it is not big here, in the US, is because little has been done to develop it. And it is even used in New York City. I myself have proposed geothermal in Yellowstone, but you're right so called environmentalists even oppose offshore and onshore wind farms. "Not in my backyard!" Of course I'd want a Yellowstone geothermal power plant to be blended into the landscape and I'd love both solar panels and a wind turbine on my property.

Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist

Wow! Solar power got $62 million for R&D. That's dwarfed by coal's $3.302 Billion in 2007 alone or Nuclear Power's $145 Billion over the years. "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Wars are even started over oil.

There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective

Tell all those who build off the grid that it's not effective. Solar hot water has a payback period as short as 5 to 6 years, and the equipment lasts a lot longer. The payback for PV panels is much harder but estimates have been as low as 7 years and panels come with 20, 25, even 30 year warranties. Even pro-rated replacing equipment is cost competitive. Individually owned PVs aren't the only way to go solar either. The same publication you provide a link to your article, Science Daily, also has this article, Solar Power in Ontario Could Produce Almost as Much Power as All U.S. Nuclear Reactors, Studies Find. On large scales concentrated solar power may be more effective. Another article it has, Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Hurting Global Environment, Security, Study Finds.

Oh, and does he consider the subsidies conventional energy gets too in the study? Does he factor in the billions of dollars coal and nuclear power get? The only mention I see about them is where "he favors more state and federal funding for research and development." Personally I don't think government should be subsiding most of what it does, whether energy or farms or ...

Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?

I don't know how many tymes I commented, but I didn't find any, I posted about how Kennedy or that NIMBY environmentalists opposed wind farm o

We absolutely MUST replace coal fired electricity generation with low CO2 methods. Coal is the worst CO2 emitter.

I didn't say anything about replacing coal in the post you replied to. All I said was that nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.

I very much doubt that current renewable technologies are sufficient. The only stuff that is immediately deployable is wind and solar.

They are sufficient now. Those who build off the grid do so every day. And yea, solar and wind is employable today unlike nuclear power. According to Infoplease the Palo Verde 2, Ariz. is the largest reactor in the US, at 1,335 MWs. According to Wiki construction started in 1976 with it's first year of commercial operation in 1988, 12 years later. Now take wind turbines, erect and connect 10 5 megawatt turbines a month, and there are larger turbines, and in 1 year you've added 600 MWs or in 2 years 1,200 MWs. That's almost as much as Palo Verde 2 provides, in 1/6 the tyme. SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan says solar power "could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States, created by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the Department of Energy, details the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains along contain enough potential energy to electrify the US, but that's not the only region with large wind potential. On the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina offshore wind farms could "supply all the energy needs of much of the East Coast and then some". From British Columbia to Southern California on the Pacific Coast could provide a lot as well. Actually hook a hard left in S Ca through AZ and NM to western Texas and the wind potential grows.

For baseloads geothermal is good though not for all of the baseload. Until large scale storage is available currently used power plants could provide the baseload.

Enhanced geothermal is very promising but there is still no commercial size power station.

Ah but there is commercial scale geothermal right now. In CA geothermal provided 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007. It provides 20 percent of Hawaii's Big Island electricity. Geothermal provides 27% of Philippine's energy. Geothermal is even available and used in New York City.

If it comes to raising the planet's temperature by 5C or nuclear power, I'd have to say nuclear is the clear choice.

Fine, let businesses pay for it not taxpayers. No loan guaranties, limited liability, or other subsidies. However left to their own devices corporations will not build nuclear power plants.

When all is said and done, I think that the carbon pollution problem will only be solved by inexpensive clean electricity. Some hard choices will have to be made.

Unfortunately there is no inexpensive clean electricity. Well, except for the Negawatt, the energy not produced due to energy efficiency or simply cutting the energy used. Therein lies the hard choice, people don't want to give up what they have even if they will s

Well how about the fact that we're slowly computerizing the electrical grid for remote shutoff?

And you want to make it easier for government to do that, turn off the grid remotely?

We're becoming more and more interconnected and from a security standpoint it's not a good thing.

That's why it's better to be off the grid. If you must be connected to the grid then you should use two inverters, one from the grid connected to the other. That way when the grid goes out the first inverter will disconnect while the second one supplies power to the house.

Falcon

Fair enough. But if I was Obama (i.e. a radical progressive), then I'd toss a billion dollars at this if the science is good. Would do more than all the money spent on the weatherizing boondoggle.

Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing. That is why when people go, build, off the grid the first thing they do is work on efficiency/weatherizing. Doing so can save a bundle of money. According to one graph by the Department of Energy the single largest use of energy in the US home is space heating, at 31%. Tied for number two is water heating and space cooling, at 12%. A properly designed and built building needs little if any heating or cooling.

>>About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding.

Nah. Right to Work states like North Carolina (IIRC) made unionizing in critical sectors outright illegal. So no police unions, firefighter unions, and, yeah, teacher unions.

Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education. Competition between schools will. Now why is it people complain about competition when it affects their pay but like it when it drives their costs down? People complain about how Walmart drives other businesses out of business but then they're perfectly willing to shop at Walmart and Sam's. People complain about drug prices but how many liked it when Walmart lowered the price of thousands of drugs to $4? So yes, I shop at Walmart and am a member of Sam's Club. What I don't like is that I pay to be a member of Sam's whereas anyone can shop at Walmart yet by company policy Sam's can not offer a lower price on the same item as Walmart does. It only makes it worthwhile because Walmart doesn't offer the same bulk quantities as Sam's.

I like competition!!!

Falcon

People use less gas, sure, but at higher prices.

Until they don't use gas. All three Detroit companies, Chrysler, Ford, and GM, have or are releasing EVs. Along with Tesla they are also working on fuel cells and plug-ins. Only Natural Gas benefits from either of these, not oil. LNG is used to produce hydrogen and LNG supplies 21.4% of the USA's electricity, second only to coal. Petroleum only supplies 1.1%. However alternative sources are growing as fast if not faster than other sources of energy. Actually more and more people are going off the grid and are producing their own energy. They are finding it a practical alternative. Combining EVs with solar and wind doesn't leave petroleum much moving space. However the ones using their profits to invest in alternative energy sources, Exxon-Mobile is researching the use of algae to produce hydrogen and BP Solar is part of British Petroleum, will come out ahead. In 2004 BP had 20% of the world market for solar panels.

And you still have people worried that China will buy up everything that Canada can supply.

And where did I say that? Or is that more FUD?

Why is it "astroturfing for oil companies" to point out that it is stupid to expect them to conduct climate studies or absorb the cost of a tax increase?

Why is it using the oil companies as boogey men to point out oil companies have more money to spend on research than others have? Others have pointed out just as I have that it is in the interest of those accused of polluting to prove that what they do has no effect. When you stop making things up I'll stop saying you're astroturfing.

Falcon

How long they are 'guaranteed' for is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the first place, trusting in that means trusting the company offering the guarantee will be around and will honor it, and in the second place that the owner will remember to invoke the 'guarantee' and obtain replacements.

If people don't stand up for thenselves nothing is relevant, people usually have to stand up for themselves, no matter what it's over. This is no different. People need to investigate installers and the products they use if they are not specified. Plenty of people have built off the grid and share information and their experiences. There are a number of publications, magazines, touching on various things these people do or are interested in. I've personally been reading magazines like Homepower, Backwoods Home, and Solar Today for 10 or 20 years if not more.

Even if the 'guarantee' exists, and is honored, that still doesn't change what I said. Panels that need replacement for whatever reason mean new panels need to be manufactured.

This doesn't change the fact that old panels can be recycled and that new one have better efficiency so less are needed to supply the same amount of power if not more.

Learn to think, rather than parroting.

I suggest you do the same, PV Panel Disposal and Recycling, The Value and Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.

Falcon

What about nuclear, you never hear about state wide blackouts in France.

You don't hear about how nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies either. Or how "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Sure you'll need a non-retarded grid to get that power everywhere but it seams like your grid is in need of a rework anyway

It's estimated that because of the poor condition of the electrical grid in the US it costs up to $83 billion a year in loses to business. No matter what generation technology is used the grid still has to be upgraded. That was one of the few things I agreed with Obama on, however he hasn't done anything about it yet. Like so many of his other promises.

do you really have DC power lines in places?

In Europe too. High Voltage DC current is terrific for transmitting electricity long distances, there is less loss of power with DC over long distances than with AC. DC is used widely by off gridders. If the electricity is generated as DC why convert it to AC?

Falcon