Wind and solar and nuclear

[UtahBill]

David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Contents.
(quote)

In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That's equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs.

And most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. What are our post-fossil-fuel options?

Among the energy-saving options, two promising technology switches are the electrification of transportation (electric vehicles can be about four times as energy-efficient as standard fossil-fuel vehicles) and the use of electric-powered heat pumps to deliver winter heating and hot water (heat pumps can be four times as energy-efficient as standard heaters).

Among all the energy-supply technologies, the three with the biggest potential today are solar power, wind power and nuclear power.

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels. (end quote)

anybody ready to start conserving, using half the energy we do now, just so we can STILL be unable to supply even a small fraction of our energy needs with wind and solar?

actually, I think he exaggerates a bit, but you get the idea.

 

[Orion]

Americans don't know the meaning of conservation. Just saying.

 

[UtahBill]

Americans don't know the meaning of conservation. Just saying.

We got a taste of it when gasoline got to $4 a gallon...:lol:
Problem is, we have short memories about that kind of thing.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Considering the US has a total petroleum reserve on the order of two trillion barrels, it's not like there's any urgency to rush out and conserve, nor any urgency to build exotic power plants.

Now, I've noticed all the blowhards hang out in the state and national capitals, the very last place they'll allow anyone to build wind turbines. Scratch that idea.

Direct solar-to-electric conversion on the scale mentioned isn't practical. Ever. Not to mention energy transport issues.

Nuclear power could certainly do the job...but far to many ignorant people say NIMBY! NIMBY! BACK EVIL FIEND OF HELL! NIMBY!

So that's that.

When the nation's intelligence rises above the level of Jane Fonda, the country should try discussing energy issues again.

 

[rathi]

Direct solar-to-electric conversion on the scale mentioned isn't practical. Ever. Not to mention energy transport issues.

Prove that outrageous statement. Germany is in the middle of switching to solar as a primary energy source. Solar scales as long as you have enough land for it, and is quite cheap in the long term. Energy transport is no different than any other energy. The problem with solar is that it doesn't generate energy all the time, and you either need to find a way to store extra energy or use supplemental power generation.

Nuclear power could certainly do the job...but far to many ignorant people say NIMBY! NIMBY! BACK EVIL FIEND OF HELL! NIMBY!

Fear mongering aside, nuclear power is hideously expensive in terms of upfront costs, and requires quite a bit in terms of safety. It is certainly viable, but not a cure-all.

 

[PeteEU]

Interesting link. However I question its methodology and numbers. Plus as far as I can see it does not take into consideration technology advancements in the renewable energy sector, especially in the solar part.

Just putting a solar panel system on each house and building to heat water would save a ton of energy for example. Spain has been doing that on all new buildings for the last half decade or so and are now leader of the world in renewable energy production... last I looked had met its 2011 targets of 30% for renewable energy production already and is looking for a 50% production within a few years. And in 2006 it was only 19% of energy produced from renewable.

And no we dont have solar panels plastered all over the place

What it comes down too is the will to do it. And the US does not have the will unless its energy costs get driven up to levels. So the US will forever be the "pig" of energy consumption in the industrialized world unless attitudes change on so many levels.

 

[UtahBill]

Interesting link. However I question its methodology and numbers. Plus as far as I can see it does not take into consideration technology advancements in the renewable energy sector, especially in the solar part.

Just putting a solar panel system on each house and building to heat water would save a ton of energy for example. Spain has been doing that on all new buildings for the last half decade or so and are now leader of the world in renewable energy production... last I looked had met its 2011 targets of 30% for renewable energy production already and is looking for a 50% production within a few years. And in 2006 it was only 19% of energy produced from renewable.

And no we dont have solar panels plastered all over the place

What it comes down too is the will to do it. And the US does not have the will unless its energy costs get driven up to levels. So the US will forever be the "pig" of energy consumption in the industrialized world unless attitudes change on so many levels.

I would love to dispute the bolded part, but I cannot...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Prove that outrageous statement.

Don't have to.

The flaming lefties already did it for you. Don't you remember the ads a month or so ago which claimed that a mere 10,000 square miles (oh, they said a square 100 miles on a side) would be enough to power the energy needs of the US with solar?

Ya manage to figure out how many STATES are smaller than 10,000 square miles, not to mention the energy transport costs or the loss issues.

Germany is in the middle of switching to solar as a primary energy source. Solar scales as long as you have enough land for it, and is quite cheap in the long term.

Yeah, in high latitudes in the winter, like Germany? Good luck, won't work.

Energy transport is no different than any other energy.

You are aware that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever, right?

For solar-electric, the losses in transmitting the direct DC output are enormous. Thus the product has to be converted to AC, using either static inverters or motor-generators (losses) and then the voltage boosted (losses) and tranmitted over wires (losses). Not an efficient process.

The problem with solar is that it doesn't generate energy all the time, and you either need to find a way to store extra energy or use supplemental power generation.

Wow.

Fear mongering aside, nuclear power is hideously expensive in terms of upfront costs, and requires quite a bit in terms of safety. It is certainly viable, but not a cure-all.

Nuclear power is absolutely safe, has the most minimal of environmental impacts, and can be scaled up to meet the energy requirements. And if the lawyers are shot, the expenses of nuclear power can be reduced by a full order of magnitude.

 

[PeteEU]

I would love to dispute the bolded part, but I cannot...

Sadly no you cant. The US is an over consumer on just about everything.. food, water, energy and so on. I remember when family from America came to Europe almost 15 years ago now, they were almost amazed in the amount of water saving instruments in the house... things we had for over a decade. The idea of having a water saving toilet was alien to them.. wtf. Now that might have changed now but still, was rather shocking then.

 

[rathi]

The flaming lefties already did it for you. Don't you remember the ads a month or so ago which claimed that a mere 10,000 square miles (oh, they said a square 100 miles on a side) would be enough to power the energy needs of the US with solar?

Ya manage to figure out how many STATES are smaller than 10,000 square miles, not to mention the energy transport costs or the loss issues.

You are debating me, not flaming leftists. I can't vouch for the truth behind the 10,000 square mile claim, but I can say that the U.S. has far more than 10,000 square miles of usable land for solar. The Mojave desert alone is 25000 square miles.

Yeah, in high latitudes in the winter, like Germany? Good luck, won't work.

You expect me to believe your completely unsupported opinion over the detailed technical analysis of an entire nation famous for the skill of its engineers?

You are aware that this sentence makes no sense whatsoever, right?

Actually its spot on. Once electricity is generated, it uses the same distribution infrastructure regardless of source.

For solar-electric, the losses in transmitting the direct DC output are enormous. Thus the product has to be converted to AC, using either static inverters or motor-generators (losses) and then the voltage boosted (losses) and tranmitted over wires (losses). Not an efficient process.

The losses you mention are not high enough to prevent the technology from being useful. Gasoline has to be pumped as crude from Saudi Arabia, shipped by tanker the to the U.S., refined, and piped to gas stations. Surprisingly enough, gasoline is rather popular despite its inefficiencies.

Wow.

Are you disputing the fact that solar doesn't produce power all the time?

Nuclear power is absolutely safe,

True, but it requires money and resources to ensure that safety.

has the most minimal of environmental impacts,

Not true. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but hardly has the least environmental impact.

and can be scaled up to meet the energy requirements.

Correct.

And if the lawyers are shot, the expenses of nuclear power can be reduced by a full order of magnitude.

No they can't. Nuclear power is tremendously expensive regardless of lawyers. The soviets found it expensive, and they had little safety and no trial lawyers.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You are debating me, not flaming leftists. I can't vouch for the truth behind the 10,000 square mile claim, but I can say that the U.S. has far more than 10,000 square miles of usable land for solar. The Mojave desert alone is 25000 square miles.

Okay.

You do the comparison comparing the area to the various states. After all, the loonie lefties said it was "only" 100 miles on a side.

I already told you a comparison. You can find state rankings by area on Wiki.

You expect me to believe your completely unsupported opinion over the detailed technical analysis of an entire nation famous for the skill of its engineers?

Sure.

The US of A has engineers, too.

Actually its spot on. Once electricity is generated, it uses the same distribution infrastructure regardless of source.

Actually, you didn't say that, and no, the energy has to be of the correct form. Most people don't find pleasure in hooking a DC supply into a AC distribution system. Things get exciting.

The losses you mention are not high enough to prevent the technology from being useful.

They are when the nations are bigger than Maryland or Texas. The United States is bigger than Texas, isn't it?

Gasoline has to be pumped as crude from Saudi Arabia, shipped by tanker the to the U.S., refined, and piped to gas stations. Surprisingly enough, gasoline is rather popular despite its inefficiencies.

Suprisingly enough, gasoline has a high energy density and a form amenable to physical transportation, unlike electric current from solar cells.

Are you disputing the fact that solar doesn't produce power all the time?

Are you aware of the fact that it periodically gets dark out?

True, but it requires money and resources to ensure that safety.

Not really, we're not Mother Russia, Home of Socialism, here, we stopped using those obsolete designs ages ago.

Not true. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but hardly has the least environmental impact.

You mean like it has the least environmental impact of any of the aformentioned "sources" of energy.

No uncontainable pollutants, no dead birds, no DC-to-AC issues, nothing.

Just juice in a form completely compatible with the present US electrical grid.

No they can't. Nuclear power is tremendously expensive regardless of lawyers. The soviets found it expensive, and they had little safety and no trial lawyers.

The Soviets found it expensive because they were incompetent.

 

[obvious Child]

Nuclear power could certainly do the job...but far to many ignorant people say NIMBY! NIMBY! BACK EVIL FIEND OF HELL! NIMBY!

Aww. Look, another person who doesn't understand the relationship between financing and nuclear power and why that is the reason no one builds plants in America.

 

[Voidwar]

What we need is a durable, sectional, interlocking and replacable solar panel, that can perform the entire function of current shingles or roof tiles.

 

[UtahBill]

Aww. Look, another person who doesn't understand the relationship between financing and nuclear power and why that is the reason no one builds plants in America.

so, what is your preferred energy mix?

 

[PeteEU]

Lets see.. Nuclear power needs fuel.. that is not renewable and frankly very dirty.

Solar, wind and wave power.. needs fuel, that is not only abundant but 100% renewable..

And Voidwar is correct. Every house should as a minimum have solar panels for water heating, that could save a lot of money. Or as they are doing in Spain, putting up street lighting that is connected to solar panels. Also saves a lot.

Like it or not, the US should be in the forefront of Solar power generation because it has wide vast areas with many many hours of yearly sunshine. There is no excuse for places like California, Arizona and over to Texas and Florida should not generate much of their power from solar..

 

[winston53660]

And Voidwar is correct. Every house should as a minimum have solar panels for water heating, that could save a lot of money. Or as they are doing in Spain, putting up street lighting that is connected to solar panels. Also saves a lot.
.

We have solar powered signs

 

[UtahBill]

Lets see.. Nuclear power needs fuel.. that is not renewable and frankly very dirty. Solar, wind and wave power.. needs fuel, that is not only abundant but 100% renewable..

And Voidwar is correct. Every house should as a minimum have solar panels for water heating, that could save a lot of money. Or as they are doing in Spain, putting up street lighting that is connected to solar panels. Also saves a lot.

Like it or not, the US should be in the forefront of Solar power generation because it has wide vast areas with many many hours of yearly sunshine. There is no excuse for places like California, Arizona and over to Texas and Florida should not generate much of their power from solar..

How is nuclear very dirty? Its waste is "hot", but there is very little of it per person, per MW generated. Newer fuels generates even less waste.

And it works even when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow....

 

[celticlord]

What it comes down too is the will to do it. And the US does not have the will unless its energy costs get driven up to levels. So the US will forever be the "pig" of energy consumption in the industrialized world unless attitudes change on so many levels.

How much wind, solar, and nuclear power does China consume?

How much coal and oil does China consume?

 

[UtahBill]

How much wind, solar, and nuclear power does China consume?

How much coal and oil does China consume?

China is likely to become the new energy pig. We are giving up on manufacturing here in the USA. The fewer "dirty" jobs we have here, the cleaner our air, and the poorer our economy.

 

[Voidwar]

Aww. Look, another person who doesn't understand the relationship between financing and nuclear power and why that is the reason no one builds plants in America.

Like NIMBY has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Name a power plant built in California in the last 2 decades.

 

[UtahBill]

Like NIMBY has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Name a power plant built in California in the last 2 decades.

We should stop building ALL power plants that pollute in any way. Wind is a visual pollutant so no windmills. Solar arrays need to be designed such that they look like regular roofing, and since the sun doesn't shine at night, every home using solar should have a bunch of batteries for backup. Of course, batteries are more polluting than most people are aware of. From mining to disposal, batteries are messy and toxic.
So forget about batteries, and we just won't have any electricity after dark.
Starting to sound like there are NO alternatives that are perfect.
Huh, who would have thought that?

As for California in particular, they should be banned from receiving ANY electricity generated outside their borders, likewise for other states that import more than they generate. The coal fired plant in Delta, Utah can just shut down.....not to mention all the other plants of various types that send juice to the stupid wasteful Californians....
Same for water. Californians can just desalinate sea water. Wait, they need electricity for that as well....:2razz:

 

[rathi]

Wind is a visual pollutant so no windmills.

Visual pollutants are complete crap. Comparing pollutants that kill people and destroy the environment to "looking pretty" is insane.

Solar arrays need to be designed such that they look like regular roofing, and since the sun doesn't shine at night, every home using solar should have a bunch of batteries for backup.

Batteries are not a useful solution to deal with solar being non-functional at night. Energy storage would have to occur on a massive scale to be useful, and that would probably require something exotic like using compressed air underground. More likely, solar would simply provide the majority of the power, while other sources take over at night.

As for California in particular, they should be banned from receiving ANY electricity generated outside their borders, likewise for other states that import more than they generate.

An unwise choice. California could simply revoke all your software licenses and food imports in retaliation.

 

[obvious Child]

so, what is your preferred energy mix?

I'd wait on serious nuclear power expansion until we can produce an economically feasible thorium eater reactor to dispose of the waste. As for everything else, I got no problem with clean coal, natural gas, wind, solar and geothermal. As for hydro, IMO that is one of the largest untapped power sources. I remember an estimate something like if we tapped the currents off of 1/10th of America's coast line, we could replace all of our other electrical generation methods.

 

[obvious Child]

Like NIMBY has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Name a power plant built in California in the last 2 decades.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46844-expansion-nuclear-power-requires-more-government.html

Education! How about that!

NIMBY is irrelevant when the bankers won't give you the financing because they are afraid of construction overruns, design changes, and unstable energy prices massively increasing risk to them. Figuring out the NOI from a nuclear plant is entirely a different animal than from a shopping center. Especially when you have no idea just how much that plant is actually going to cost and what the actual NOI is going to be.

 

[Voidwar]

An unwise choice. California could simply revoke all your software licenses and food imports in retaliation.

Talk about unwise choices, what will you Californians be eating 3 months into the stand-off ?