This is an interesting point. I'm not sure if typhoon risk areas coincide with really top wind resources far from any grid. You'd have to use your judgement: http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resourcemap/index-world.html I like the Aleutians, south of Iceland, and just north of Antarctica. The flow battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery would really just be the electrolyte aboard a ship that could maneuver out of the way of risky weather (as could the turbines with enough lead time). Obviously the Navy process for converting sea water to jet fuel does involve producing hydrogen. It would be tended by a tanker that could also maneuver. The efficiency trade off is between getting good use from the turbines (say 0.8 capacity factor) and taking a hit on the charge cycle efficiency which looks pretty good for a battery. For producing liquid fuels, it is more a matter of economics. Liquid fuels are not used efficiently but they are convenient. The Navy claims a $3-$6 cost per gallon using their rather expensive nuclear reactors. High capacity factor wind, even offshore, should be less expensive. Below $2/gallon production cost, such an effort should make money under current market conditions. Certainly, some fracking operations are running on a smaller margin.
As it turns out, typhoon risk is something that a solar island project has been looking into. They do well along the equator in this respect. http://www.solar-islands.com/
Floating wind powered structures used to be extremely common. The Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria, the May Flower and Arbella all raked the sky with sailcloth. Yet they could not be plugged into the grid. That is something we are learning to do now.
The "unproven" part is the floating platforms. And, in this case a floating transfer station as well. But it is true that these installations are becoming more common. And they seem to have an advantage in installation and maintenance since less rugged tow boats can be used for installation and maintenance can be done on shore. Eventually, I expect that these will be used to charge floating flow batteries or synthesize hydrocarbon fuels is the highest wind resource areas such as south of Iceland which are too remote for grid hookup. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
It has struck me that towing and EVs ought to be natural allies in some applications. With EVs, one wants to know where to put the batteries. Towing points to some extra space that might be convenient. Ev's are mostly aimed at the passenger market for now. Batteries are still expensive. But that might change.
It will be interesting to see if Texas will start bringing in solar power from New Mexico. It is hard to see nuclear power as much more than a blip with only about 70 years of uranium left. But once big solar gets established, patterns will be set for centuries.
The Silverado Hybrid is getting 21 mpg city/25 highway. There are some PEV's under development as well. So, CAFE standards are having an effect. Trucks are on the road longer than passenger cars so you should still be able to get 9 mpg model for a while on the used market if you want one.
But that is not what is happening. Rather, incomes are rising. It is economic growth, not fuel efficiency, that is driving growth in oil consumption in China.
No. Oil is still very expensive. Has to be now. Fracking is fracking expensive. Very sad really. The Saudis can still do it for about $7/barrel so all we needed to do was break OPEC to get gasoline well under $1/gal. But now we have intrinsically expensive oil in the supply chain.
It is an important distinction. As President Obama has said, we can't drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. Cutting consumption does work. Prices are still high, but since we are using less, we are not hurt so much.
I see what you are thinking. More cars does not need to mean more driving really. If you already have a 3.5 hour commute, your second car is not going to get a lot of miles on it. In China, where there are many new roads being built, and many people who have no cars at all, cheaper to run cars may speed adoption, but that is not Jevon's Paradox, that is regular growth.
Driving is pretty saturated (note short term stiffness in gasoline demand) so it seems unlikely this is important. And, the effect has never been shown to increase demand though it may at times make the demand reduction softer.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting point. I'm not sure if typhoon risk areas coincide with really top wind resources far from any grid. You'd have to use your judgement: http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resourcemap/index-world.html I like the Aleutians, south of Iceland, and just north of Antarctica. The flow battery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery would really just be the electrolyte aboard a ship that could maneuver out of the way of risky weather (as could the turbines with enough lead time). Obviously the Navy process for converting sea water to jet fuel does involve producing hydrogen. It would be tended by a tanker that could also maneuver. The efficiency trade off is between getting good use from the turbines (say 0.8 capacity factor) and taking a hit on the charge cycle efficiency which looks pretty good for a battery. For producing liquid fuels, it is more a matter of economics. Liquid fuels are not used efficiently but they are convenient. The Navy claims a $3-$6 cost per gallon using their rather expensive nuclear reactors. High capacity factor wind, even offshore, should be less expensive. Below $2/gallon production cost, such an effort should make money under current market conditions. Certainly, some fracking operations are running on a smaller margin.
As it turns out, typhoon risk is something that a solar island project has been looking into. They do well along the equator in this respect. http://www.solar-islands.com/
No, it is not tough to say. China's prosperity is built on the bones of slain coal miners. Efficiency has not been a big contributor at all.
Then I guess you missed what it had to say about wind power and how it affects the price of electricity.
You don't seem to have read it.
Here in the US, wind power is putting nuclear power out of business. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf So, your cost estimates may be a little off.
Floating wind powered structures used to be extremely common. The Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria, the May Flower and Arbella all raked the sky with sailcloth. Yet they could not be plugged into the grid. That is something we are learning to do now.
The capacity factor for Japanese nuclear power is zero and prior to the accident it was around 0.8.
Maine put in a floating wind turbine this summer. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/us-floating-wind-turbine-maine_n_3380208.html but Maine's governor recently wrecked an expansion of offshore wind there as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/maine-offshore-wind-project_n_4101271.html
The platforms are moored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
The "unproven" part is the floating platforms. And, in this case a floating transfer station as well. But it is true that these installations are becoming more common. And they seem to have an advantage in installation and maintenance since less rugged tow boats can be used for installation and maintenance can be done on shore. Eventually, I expect that these will be used to charge floating flow batteries or synthesize hydrocarbon fuels is the highest wind resource areas such as south of Iceland which are too remote for grid hookup. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
It has struck me that towing and EVs ought to be natural allies in some applications. With EVs, one wants to know where to put the batteries. Towing points to some extra space that might be convenient. Ev's are mostly aimed at the passenger market for now. Batteries are still expensive. But that might change.
I don't think electric motors use lubricants in quite the quantity as ICEs. Probably not a big issue. Chemistry is your friend.
It will be interesting to see if Texas will start bringing in solar power from New Mexico. It is hard to see nuclear power as much more than a blip with only about 70 years of uranium left. But once big solar gets established, patterns will be set for centuries.
The Silverado Hybrid is getting 21 mpg city/25 highway. There are some PEV's under development as well. So, CAFE standards are having an effect. Trucks are on the road longer than passenger cars so you should still be able to get 9 mpg model for a while on the used market if you want one.
But that is not what is happening. Rather, incomes are rising. It is economic growth, not fuel efficiency, that is driving growth in oil consumption in China.
No. Oil is still very expensive. Has to be now. Fracking is fracking expensive. Very sad really. The Saudis can still do it for about $7/barrel so all we needed to do was break OPEC to get gasoline well under $1/gal. But now we have intrinsically expensive oil in the supply chain.
Sometimes I think various streams directed into the wind is a better description.
He seems to have got CAFE Standards moving. Makes him smarter than most recent Presidents.
There isn't any need for nuclear in the US. It is actually going away. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/former-nrc-chairman-says-us-nuclear-industry-is-going-away Iran wants nuclear power. Perhaps your expansion should happen there once they can be trusted.
It is an important distinction. As President Obama has said, we can't drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. Cutting consumption does work. Prices are still high, but since we are using less, we are not hurt so much.
I see what you are thinking. More cars does not need to mean more driving really. If you already have a 3.5 hour commute, your second car is not going to get a lot of miles on it. In China, where there are many new roads being built, and many people who have no cars at all, cheaper to run cars may speed adoption, but that is not Jevon's Paradox, that is regular growth.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/11/china_now_world_s_largest_net_oil_importer_surpassing_united_states.html
They seem to be working since oil consumption keeps heading down.
Perhaps it is because the film is untruthful. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pandora-nuclear-energy-opinion-cavanagh-cochran/
Driving is pretty saturated (note short term stiffness in gasoline demand) so it seems unlikely this is important. And, the effect has never been shown to increase demand though it may at times make the demand reduction softer.