So Europe, how's that green energy thing working out?

[sawyerloggingon]

If you succeed in reducing the amount of fossil fuel plants required? Reasonably green.

That's the thing, you don't reduce the amount of fossil fuel plants. There needs to be a complete fossil fuel power grid ready to go when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

 

[Visbek]

That's the thing, you don't reduce the amount of fossil fuel plants.

Unless you do. Energy storage technology is part of the development of renewal technology; some sources generate during peak usage times (solar, biomass, waste); some sources put power generation right where it's needed (solar, wind); again, some are quite consistent and controllable (hydro / river turbines etc)

And again, the more power generated by renewable sources, then the less fossil fuel you need to burn to generate power. Last I checked, your car doesn't use any gas when it sits in your garage, while you ride your bike to work every day.

 

[flogger]

Unless you do. Energy storage technology is part of the development of renewal technology; some sources generate during peak usage times (solar, biomass, waste); some sources put power generation right where it's needed (solar, wind); again, some are quite consistent and controllable (hydro / river turbines etc)

And again, the more power generated by renewable sources, then the less fossil fuel you need to burn to generate power. Last I checked, your car doesn't use any gas when it sits in your garage, while you ride your bike to work every day.

Given finite fossil fuel resources are greater today than at any time in the 40 odd years the eco gloomers have said it should have run out. Why are we doing this ? Gas fracking and tar sands oil recovery are estimated to be good for at least the next century with coal deposites lasting longer still.

Why be forced to cross a bridge we cannot currently afford to using technologies that currently dont work ? Why not just clean up and modernise existing plant at a fraction of the cost ?

 

[longview]

So why isn't that being done in these big power plants, there must be some reason. Cost maybe?

Costs absolutely, and other factors.
New concepts and technology take a while for people to get used to.
The idea of storing energy using evil hydrocarbons, does not fit into the mind
of the passionate environmentalist. Keep in mind many of these people are all about
image, and how others perceive their environmental awareness.
What is lost in this, is that for energy storage, hydrocarbons look like the best game in town,
until we crack fusion.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Unless you do. Energy storage technology is part of the development of renewal technology; some sources generate during peak usage times (solar, biomass, waste); some sources put power generation right where it's needed (solar, wind); again, some are quite consistent and controllable (hydro / river turbines etc)

And again, the more power generated by renewable sources, then the less fossil fuel you need to burn to generate power. Last I checked, your car doesn't use any gas when it sits in your garage, while you ride your bike to work every day.

As of now there is not one less fossil fuel plant because of wind and solar, they need 100% fossil fuel backup. I notice now that you want to lump hydro into the mix. Dams are anything but green, they destroy free flowing rivers and decimate salmon populations, sound green to you? River turbines sound good but as of yet are not economically feasible.

 

[DDD]

All I hear is how Europe is so green with all its solar and wind power but apparently that is not meeting their needs and they are buying US coal. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. :lol:

"European utilities’ preference for burning coal to generate electricity is pushing up carbon emissions even after the region invested twice as much in renewable energy as the U.S. since 2004. In Europe, gas costs three times as much as in the U.S., cutting competitiveness at industrial users such as Germany’s BASF SE (BAS), the world’s largest chemical maker."

Gas Golden Age Darkens in Europe on U.S. Coal: Energy Markets - Bloomberg

I am from Europe and none of green energy is applied here. The title misleads the reader to think that Europe is one big country. We are not there yet.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Costs absolutely, and other factors.
New concepts and technology take a while for people to get used to.
The idea of storing energy using evil hydrocarbons, does not fit into the mind
of the passionate environmentalist. Keep in mind many of these people are all about
image, and how others perceive their environmental awareness.
What is lost in this, is that for energy storage, hydrocarbons look like the best game in town,
until we crack fusion.

I think someday we just may have a way to store energy and that technology is where we should be putting our resources. Right now we are literally putting the cart ahead of the horse by putting in all these wind and solar plants before the storage technology is viable. It's like building a house with no foundation.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I am from Europe and none of green energy is applied here. The title misleads the reader to think that Europe is one big country. We are not there yet.

We know Europe is not one big country but it is not easy to list every country doing every thing one by one. Easier to just say Europe.

 

[DDD]

We know Europe is not one big country but it is not easy to list every country doing every thing one by one. Easier to just say Europe.

Kind of saying just "North America" but including Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and every other country there is in the area.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Kind of saying just "North America" but including Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and every other country there is in the area.

No more like Canada and Mexico. Europe on the other hand has countries the size of our states and damn near as many. Besides that "North America" does generally include Canada.

 

[csbrown28]

That's the thing, you don't reduce the amount of fossil fuel plants. There needs to be a complete fossil fuel power grid ready to go when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.

This is a silly argument. Speaking specifically for wind.... The US operates on a power grid, in the case of wind, the wind is always blowing somewhere at greater than 7 miles an hour (enough to generate power). With a large enough wind power grid there would always be power produced somewhere....

As far as efficiency numbers....Those that claim that wind is only 30% efficient are simply taking the maximum potential output of a windmill called the Faceplace Capacity, usually around 3MWh or 26,280 MWh per year (on newer units) and subtracting that from the average that we're actually getting, or about 7,900MWh, called the Capacity Factor.

These systems were never designed to run at full capacity, nor do they have to to be considered efficient or viable. The question is, how much energy does a windmill have to produce at a specific location in order to justify its cost. That will vary by location, but I promise you, it's no where near 28,280 MWhper year.

It's also important to remember that, when discussing windmill technology, output has increased while costs decrease over time. Anyone who wanted to buy an LCD TV 10 years ago paid a huge premium, today they are a fraction of the cost. Early adopters of wind (Denmark?) are at a disadvantage as their infrastructure is larger than it would have to be if it started fresh today. This is why the US cell phone network sucked for so long. We adopted reasonably early and the costs to constantly upgrade as the technology plowed forward in huge leaps was expensive.

As subsidies assist the industry, not just in the creation of the windmills, but in the infrastructure to support them, the costs will fall quickly, something that other energy industries are terrified of.

technically speaking, there is enough wind in Texas and the Dakota's to produce all of the power the US needs, but before you tell me how unsightly that would be, I'm not literally suggesting that we should do this.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

This is a silly argument. Speaking specifically for wind.... The US operates on a power grid, in the case of wind, the wind is always blowing somewhere at greater than 7 miles an hour (enough to generate power). With a large enough wind power grid there would always be power produced somewhere....

As far as efficiency numbers....Those that claim that wind is only 30% efficient are simply taking the maximum potential output of a windmill called the Faceplace Capacity, usually around 3MWh or 26,280 MWh per year (on newer units) and subtracting that from the average that we're actually getting, or about 7,900MWh, called the Capacity Factor.

These systems were never designed to run at full capacity, nor do they have to to be considered efficient or viable. The question is, how much energy does a windmill have to produce at a specific location in order to justify its cost. That will vary by location, but I promise you, it's no where near 28,280 MWhper year.

It's also important to remember that, when discussing windmill technology, output has increased while costs decrease over time. Anyone who wanted to buy an LCD TV 10 years ago paid a huge premium, today they are a fraction of the cost. Early adopters of wind (Denmark?) are at a disadvantage as their infrastructure is larger than it would have to be if it started fresh today. This is why the US cell phone network sucked for so long. We adopted reasonably early and the costs to constantly upgrade as the technology plowed forward in huge leaps was expensive.

As subsidies assist the industry, not just in the creation of the windmills, but in the infrastructure to support them, the costs will fall quickly, something that other energy industries are terrified of.

technically speaking, there is enough wind in Texas and the Dakota's to produce all of the power the US needs, but before you tell me how unsightly that would be, I'm not literally suggesting that we should do this.

One of the problems with wind is they tend to be put out in the middle of nowhere because people don't want these monstrosities next door. The farther you run elec the more elec just evaporates so to speak. Now you want to stretch those lines even farther? Even less bang for the buck.

 

[longview]

One of the problems with wind is they tend to be put out in the middle of nowhere because people don't want these monstrosities next door. The farther you run elec the more elec just evaporates so to speak. Now you want to stretch those lines even farther? Even less bang for the buck.

You are correct, distance and transformer losses in moving electrical power add up quite a bit.
Most of the losses end up as heat or em noise, but are losses none the less.

 

[csbrown28]

Given finite fossil fuel resources are greater today than at any time in the 40 odd years the eco gloomers have said it should have run out. Why are we doing this ? Gas fracking and tar sands oil recovery are estimated to be good for at least the next century with coal deposites lasting longer still.

Why be forced to cross a bridge we cannot currently afford to using technologies that currently dont work ? Why not just clean up and modernise existing plant at a fraction of the cost ?

There are costs associated with fossil fuels that have nothing to do with their availability.

While I'm not a militant "greener", I think that, like a good fiscal portfolio, that we should diversify power generation from as many sources as possible. Those sources should be inversely proportional to the costs ratios of production. That is if you live in a windy area, then wind, if you live in an area with lots of sun, then solar, Hydro, geothermal, tidal ect.....

Let's remember that oil, coal and gas had to have infrastructures built to support them and so will other technologies.

Having said all of that, there is a responsible way, both environmentally and fiscally to move forward with diversifying our energy sources. One that takes advantage of all potential sources of energy to ensure that we can leverage advances in technology and keep costs in line.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You are correct, distance and transformer losses in moving electrical power add up quite a bit.
Most of the losses end up as heat or em noise, but are losses none the less.

That is why my solar panels are right next to my house. The farther you go the larger gauge wire you have to use and the more elec is lost in space.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

There are costs associated with fossil fuels that have nothing to do with their availability.

While I'm not a militant "greener", I think that, like a good fiscal portfolio, that we should diversify power generation from as many sources as possible. Those sources should be inversely proportional to the costs ratios of production. That is if you live in a windy area, then wind, if you live in an area with lots of sun, then solar, Hydro, geothermal, tidal ect.....

Let's remember that oil, coal and gas had to have infrastructures built to support them and so will other technologies.

Having said all of that, there is a responsible way, both environmentally and fiscally to move forward with diversifying our energy sources. One that takes advantage of all potential sources of energy to ensure that we can leverage advances in technology and keep costs in line.

I am all for roof top solar or a wind mill in your yard if you live in the right place. The technology is there for small scale use of these technologies because you can charge your own batteries or feed the power back into the grid. What I am against is these huge redundant, waste of tax payer money subsidized mega power projects.

 

[csbrown28]

One of the problems with wind is they tend to be put out in the middle of nowhere because people don't want these monstrosities next door. The farther you run elec the more elec just evaporates so to speak. Now you want to stretch those lines even farther? Even less bang for the buck.

What do you think happens now? You think that sources within a few miles of major cities, like New York, LA, Boston, Baltimore ect, supply all the power for those cities? No.... The power is often carried hundreds of miles. This is nothing new.

What about rural areas? Do you really think that isolated areas all have a nuke, coal or gas plant nearby?. Actually, this is a great argument for wind. The average windmill (if in the right place) can supply power for about 350 homes. This means that areas that have to pipe in power from hundreds of miles away could build just a few windmills in rural areas to help supply power reducing transmission losses that exist today in rural areas. Now before you make your "wind don't always blow" argument, I'm not suggesting that local wind could completely supplant other sources, but every KWh supplied would offset transmission losses from far away sources, thus helping to justify cost by increasing efficiency.

Having said that, you're right, there are losses inherent with transporting electricity over distance, but we already face that problem, this is nothing new.

Oh and good job ignoring most of what I wrote...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

What do you think happens now? You think that sources within a few miles of major cities, like New York, LA, Boston, Baltimore ect, supply all the power for those cities? No.... The power is often carried hundreds of miles. This is nothing new.

What about rural areas? Do you really think that isolated areas all have a nuke, coal or gas plant nearby?. Actually, this is a great argument for wind. The average windmill (if in the right place) can supply power for about 350 homes. This means that areas that have to pipe in power from hundreds of miles away could build just a few windmills in rural areas to help supply power reducing transmission losses that exist today in rural areas. Now before you make your "wind don't always blow" argument, I'm not suggesting that local wind could completely supplant other sources, but every KWh supplied would offset transmission losses from far away sources, thus helping to justify cost by increasing efficiency.

Having said that, you're right, there are losses inherent with transporting electricity over distance, but we already face that problem, this is nothing new.

Oh and good job ignoring most of what I wrote...

You were the one that said we could ship wind power vast distances to get power to places where the wind wasn't blowing. I merely pointed out that you would lose a lot of power in the process. Another thing is once you ship the power from a wind powered area that has wind to a wind powered area without wind what happens to the windy city? They are now without their power that's what. You greens are pie in the sky dreamers not based in reality.

 

[DDD]

No more like Canada and Mexico. Europe on the other hand has countries the size of our states and damn near as many. Besides that "North America" does generally include Canada.

I know it does.

 

[csbrown28]

You were the one that said we could ship wind power vast distances to get power to places where the wind wasn't blowing. I merely pointed out that you would lose a lot of power in the process. Another thing is once you ship the power from a wind powered area that has wind to a wind powered area without wind what happens to the windy city? They are now without their power that's what. You greens are pie in the sky dreamers not based in reality.

You really don't understand the concept of distributed networks. Again, no one (that I know of) is advocating 100% wind power.

Second, I addressed the issue of transmission losses. They already occur (5-7% losses), large cities import much of the electricity used to power them from long distances, this doesn't make the source of that electricity inefficient. The current system is a type of distributed network. You need to shed the thought that industrial sized windmills would be wired to specific homes and that if they stop, power is lost. This is a total strawman and demonstrates, with all due respect, that you don't understand how the technology works and what its advantages are.

 

[flogger]

There are costs associated with fossil fuels that have nothing to do with their availability.

Just like there are costs using more expensive and unreliable sources when we dont actually need to

While I'm not a militant "greener", I think that, like a good fiscal portfolio, that we should diversify power generation from as many sources as possible. Those sources should be inversely proportional to the costs ratios of production. That is if you live in a windy area, then wind, if you live in an area with lots of sun, then solar, Hydro, geothermal, tidal ect.....

If they are the most affordable alternatives then I'd concede that point. Its difficult to imagine wind or solar being more affordable than the alternative fossil fuel equivalents under any set of circumstances though frankly

Let's remember that oil, coal and gas had to have infrastructures built to support them and so will other technologies.

So why contemplete the unecessary expenditures of building duplicate infrastructures for unreliable renewables

Having said all of that, there is a responsible way, both environmentally and fiscally to move forward with diversifying our energy sources. One that takes advantage of all potential sources of energy to ensure that we can leverage advances in technology and keep costs in line

But they arent in line though are they ? Just today in the UK a further 8.2% rise in our annual energy bill was been announced making that 50 % of an increase in total since 2009. This is almost entirely due to green taxation underwriting these useless and expensive green projects. Would this be acceptable in the US ? I doubt it

 

[csbrown28]

Just like there are costs using more expensive and unreliable sources when we dont actually need to

Unreliable in what sense?

Cell phones haven't always been reliable and one could argue that they still aren't. But as the technology has been invested in the quality gets better and the price comes down. So can you not see a point in the foreseeable future where investments in green technologies will get to the point that they will net a positive ROI?

When calculating the costs of fossil based alternatives, I assume that you don't see any value in decreased environmental imact. I mean even if you don't see a benifit to decreased CO2 emissions, surely you recognize the benefit of decreased mercury emissions,

"Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (Source: 2005 National Emissions Inventory)."

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.

I base my assumptions on the fact that I do see a value in reducing C02 emissions in a fiscally responsible manner, and development of certain types of green energy qualify in my opinion. This helps justify increased costs (again, to some extent) in the R&D of long term sustainable energy.

If they are the most affordable alternatives then I'd concede that point. Its difficult to imagine wind or solar being more affordable than the alternative fossil fuel equivalents under any set of circumstances though frankly

How many years has oil, coal and gas been subsidized? You can't imagine a future where some, or most green technologies benefit from advances in technology and broader acceptance and usage to the point that prices fall and output and efficiency increases?

The internal combustion engine has been around in it's current form for 100 years and we're still making advances in efficiency, power, and emissions. Wind, in it's present form goes back what? 10-15 years with most of the advances coming in the last 5-7 years?

So why contemplate the unecessary expenditures of building duplicate infrastructures for unreliable renewables

Again, unreliable in what sense?

And to reiterate another point, with such a new technology, most of the advances are made in the first few years. I can imagine as demand increases and profitability becomes easier to attain, that significant advances are still to come.

The automobile hasn't always been as efficient as the horse and carriage, but investment and time have changed it to the point that horses as a mode of transportation is nothing but quaint.

But they arent in line though are they?

Not yet, but I'd put my money on a future where they will be, perhaps not all, but at least some.

 

[flogger]

Unreliable in what sense?

That they dont work for much of the time and theres no getting round that the weather is unreliable however much future investment is made.

Cell phones haven't always been reliable and one could argue that they still aren't. But as the technology has been invested in the quality gets better and the price comes down. So can you not see a point in the foreseeable future where investments in green technologies will get to the point that they will net a positive ROI?

No I cannot . Due to insurmountable problems of storage and elemental unreliability. If a cellphone doesnt work thats no big deal if the power goes off it is

When calculating the costs of fossil based alternatives, I assume that you don't see any value in decreased environmental imact. I mean even if you don't see a benifit to decreased CO2 emissions, surely you recognize the benefit of decreased mercury emissions,

The CO 2 question isnt a problem and the pollution question can be greatly reduced especially with the use of shale/fracking gas which leave far fewer harmful particulates in the atmosphere

I base my assumptions on the fact that I do see a value in reducing C02 emissions in a fiscally responsible manner, and development of certain types of green energy qualify in my opinion

And I base my assumptions on the fact there is no empirically established reason to do so. I'm more of the opinion that the extra CO 2 will actually be more beneficial in terms of increased plant growth and increased plant resistance to water stress like drought. These are well established and well proven benefits

This helps justify increased costs (again, to some extent) in the R&D of long term sustainable energy.

Nonsense I've already supplied evidence of their non viability earlier. Developing 'sustainability' is a catch all phrase to endlessly suckle at the taxpayer tit . We dont need these technologies now and we wont for at least a century so lets cross our bridges when we come to them and when the technology base is there to eventually solve this issue. I suspect wind and solar will not be the ones we turn to at that time.

How many years has oil, coal and gas been subsidized? You can't imagine a future where some, or most green technologies benefit from advances in technology and broader acceptance and usage to the point that prices fall and output and efficiency increases?

In their entire history they will not have recieved subsidies that are often more than the value of the electricity they generate

The internal combustion engine has been around in it's current form for 100 years and we're still making advances in efficiency, power, and emissions. Wind, in it's present form goes back what? 10-15 years with most of the advances coming in the last 5-7 years?

The internal combustion engine actually worked to start with and then got better though thats the difference

And to reiterate another point, with such a new technology, most of the advances are made in the first few years. I can imagine as demand increases and profitability becomes easier to attain, that significant advances are still to come.

It doesnt matter what those advances are the fundamental problems with this method of power remain. Elemental unreliabilty and the necessity of standby fossil fuel generation infrastructure for when they dont play ball

The automobile hasn't always been as efficient as the horse and carriage, but investment and time have changed it to the point that horses as a mode of transportation is nothing but quaint.

Once again the car worked from the start and then got better

Not yet, but I'd put my money on a future where they will be, perhaps not all, but at least some

On the contrary I think this will be seen as one of the greatest human follys ever by the end of the century

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You really don't understand the concept of distributed networks. Again, no one (that I know of) is advocating 100% wind power.

Second, I addressed the issue of transmission losses. They already occur (5-7% losses), large cities import much of the electricity used to power them from long distances, this doesn't make the source of that electricity inefficient. The current system is a type of distributed network. You need to shed the thought that industrial sized windmills would be wired to specific homes and that if they stop, power is lost. This is a total strawman and demonstrates, with all due respect, that you don't understand how the technology works and what its advantages are.

Not specific homes, specific areas and if you take area A wind power and shift it to area B who has lost wind what does area A do?

 

[csbrown28]

That they dont work for much of the time and theres no getting round that the weather is unreliable however much future investment is made.



No I cannot . Due to insurmountable problems of storage and elemental unreliability. If a cellphone doesnt work thats no big deal if the power goes off it is



The CO 2 question isnt a problem and the pollution question can be greatly reduced especially with the use of shale/fracking gas which leave far fewer harmful particulates in the atmosphere



And I base my assumptions on the fact there is no empirically established reason to do so. I'm more of the opinion that the extra CO 2 will actually be more beneficial in terms of increased plant growth and increased plant resistance to water stress like drought. These are well established and well proven benefits



Nonsense I've already supplied evidence of their non viability earlier. Developing 'sustainability' is a catch all phrase to endlessly suckle at the taxpayer tit . We dont need these technologies now and we wont for at least a century so lets cross our bridges when we come to them and when the technology base is there to eventually solve this issue. I suspect wind and solar will not be the ones we turn to at that time.



In their entire history they will not have recieved subsidies that are often more than the value of the electricity they generate



The internal combustion engine actually worked to start with and then got better though thats the difference



It doesnt matter what those advances are the fundamental problems with this method of power remain. Elemental unreliabilty and the necessity of standby fossil fuel generation infrastructure for when they dont play ball



Once again the car worked from the start and then got better



On the contrary I think this will be seen as one of the greatest human follys ever by the end of the century

Flogger always a pleasure, but it's obvious to me that we differ in opinion on such a fundamental level that there seems little point in proceeding.

-Cheers