Why I Advocate Renewable Energy Sources

[bilby]

I am not, in any sense, arguing for coal power plants, which do disastrous and demonstrable harm to Nevada every single day. The two systems are barely even comparable in terms of environmental, aside from the resource and water extraction issues which affect both. But I do not need to argue for coal power in order to object to the absence of a viable long term solution for nuclear disposal. I don't even need to argue against nuclear power production in general, and indeed I do not. My only beefs with the proliferation of nuclear power are the above issue, and the blatant political inequality of picking and choosing which nations are "allowed" to have it.

The problem is you don't get to choose only your fantasy solution. Renewables are not ready for prime time. It's nuke or fossil fuel, there is no third choice.

And what politics are you talking about? Anybody who wants peaceful nuclear power isn't going to have a problem. The countries that are having problems are the ones who are looking for bombs, not for electricity.

- - - Updated - - -

If you look carefully, you can find out what they don't talk about. A big one is synthetic fuels. I've seen many more articles about electric cars than about synfuels. This lacuna I find rather curious, since it is hard to compete with liquid hydrocarbons as a vehicle fuel. Liquid hydrocarbons have much higher usable-energy densities than batteries, and they are easy to store and handle. Batteries would be impractical for ships and airplanes.  Energy density collects some numbers, but in a rather disorganized way.

Synfuels are not a power source. They are a power storage system.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the potential to use hydrocarbons made in this way as a storage solution to rival not just vehicle batteries but also grid power batteries (which I suspect can never be sufficiently cheap to play a significant role).

The efficiency is way too low.

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

 

[Jokodo]

I am not, in any sense, arguing for coal power plants, which do disastrous and demonstrable harm to Nevada every single day. The two systems are barely even comparable in terms of environmental, aside from the resource and water extraction issues which affect both. But I do not need to argue for coal power in order to object to the absence of a viable long term solution for nuclear disposal. I don't even need to argue against nuclear power production in general, and indeed I do not. My only beefs with the proliferation of nuclear power are the above issue, and the blatant political inequality of picking and choosing which nations are "allowed" to have it.

The problem is you don't get to choose only your fantasy solution. Renewables are not ready for prime time. It's nuke or fossil fuel, there is no third choice.

And what politics are you talking about? Anybody who wants peaceful nuclear power isn't going to have a problem. The countries that are having problems are the ones who are looking for bombs, not for electricity.

Except that's not true.

 

[Jokodo]

The problem is you don't get to choose only your fantasy solution. Renewables are not ready for prime time. It's nuke or fossil fuel, there is no third choice.

And what politics are you talking about? Anybody who wants peaceful nuclear power isn't going to have a problem. The countries that are having problems are the ones who are looking for bombs, not for electricity.

- - - Updated - - -



Synfuels are not a power source. They are a power storage system.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the potential to use hydrocarbons made in this way as a storage solution to rival not just vehicle batteries but also grid power batteries (which I suspect can never be sufficiently cheap to play a significant role).

The efficiency is way too low.

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

 

[bilby]

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

World oil consumption is about 50 billion litres; assuming that that's (on average) decane, we would need 6 Trillion kg of carbon per annum from the air (about 22 trillion kg of CO₂) That's a LOT of air. But air is cheap.

 

[Jokodo]

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

World oil consumption is about 50 billion litres; assuming that that's (on average) decane, we would need 6 Trillion kg of carbon per annum from the air (about 22 trillion kg of CO₂) That's a LOT of air. But air is cheap.

How does that work? How's 50 billion litres of decane going to translate to two orders of magnitude more kgs of carbon? That would imply a specific mass of decane of more than 100kg per litre, plus whatever its non-carbon-content. Or is one value daily and the other yearly?

 

[bilby]

World oil consumption is about 50 billion litres; assuming that that's (on average) decane, we would need 6 Trillion kg of carbon per annum from the air (about 22 trillion kg of CO₂) That's a LOT of air. But air is cheap.

How does that work? How's 50 billion litres of decane going to translate to two orders of magnitude more kgs of carbon? That would imply a specific mass of decane of more than 100kg per litre, plus whatever its non-carbon-content. Or is one value daily and the other yearly?

Nah, you're right; I fucked up the sums again. I should know better than to attempt mental arithmetic when I have a head cold.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing I have not seen mentioned is the potential to use hydrocarbons made in this way as a storage solution to rival not just vehicle batteries but also grid power batteries (which I suspect can never be sufficiently cheap to play a significant role).

The efficiency is way too low.

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Synfuels can run airplanes, batteries can't. Doesn't mean the efficiency is equivalent. Batteries have a higher round trip efficiency than synfuels in anything but a fuel cell have in the fuel -> work stage. (Except if your objective is heat, but that's a pretty small segment of the market.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not, in any sense, arguing for coal power plants, which do disastrous and demonstrable harm to Nevada every single day. The two systems are barely even comparable in terms of environmental, aside from the resource and water extraction issues which affect both. But I do not need to argue for coal power in order to object to the absence of a viable long term solution for nuclear disposal. I don't even need to argue against nuclear power production in general, and indeed I do not. My only beefs with the proliferation of nuclear power are the above issue, and the blatant political inequality of picking and choosing which nations are "allowed" to have it.

The problem is you don't get to choose only your fantasy solution. Renewables are not ready for prime time. It's nuke or fossil fuel, there is no third choice.

And what politics are you talking about? Anybody who wants peaceful nuclear power isn't going to have a problem. The countries that are having problems are the ones who are looking for bombs, not for electricity.

Except that's not true.

What nation is having trouble getting peaceful nuclear power?

Iran is after enrichment levels normally used for bombs, not reactors. That's not peaceful.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

"130-ish milligrams of carbon."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

World oil consumption is about 50 billion litres; assuming that that's (on average) decane, we would need 6 Trillion kg of carbon per annum from the air (about 22 trillion kg of CO₂) That's a LOT of air. But air is cheap.

I think you slipped some zeroes.

 

[Politesse]

The problem is you don't get to choose only your fantasy solution. Renewables are not ready for prime time. It's nuke or fossil fuel, there is no third choice.

Either read my posts or don't bother to reply to them, please.

 

[Jokodo]

Except that's not true.

What nation is having trouble getting peaceful nuclear power?

Iran is after enrichment levels normally used for bombs, not reactors. That's not peaceful.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's good enough for vehicles, then it's got to be at least comparable to batteries. So yes, it needs some work.

The big problem, paradoxically, is getting enough carbon dioxide; 450-500ppm is a lot for the climate, but it's not a lot for chemistry.

Not taking your word at it, so I went to Wolfram Alpha:

One cubic meter of air, at sea level, is about one 1.2 kg.

At 400 ppm(m), that's about 480 mg of carbon dioxide, or 130-ish grams of carbon. To get one kg of carbon, you'd have to filter around 7600 cubic meters of air with 100% efficiency.

You may have a point.

"130-ish milligrams of carbon."

Yeah, what I meant. I was trying to be nice to people who don't understand 1.3e-4 kg, but failed at the conversion.

 

[ImGod]

I advocate renewables because they make money for my company faster then it could be printed. California has renewable mandates that are all but impossible for local entities to meet. We build and operate power plants around the country, so we build renewable plants there. The mandates allow us to build on speculation and lock in long term power purchase agreements to sell power at much higher prices then we could get from market prices in the Day Ahead (DA) or Real Time (RT) on average. The plants pay back quickly (3 to 4 year time span) and debt can be restructured easily during the first several years to free up capital for other renewable projects.

And as a bonus all of our employees are part owners in the plants so we get bonus checks from the CA rate payers every year and will get a cash distribution if the project is ever sold. The rate payer gets the renewable energy they voted for right now even if it's more expensive. So win-win.

We've installed 1000 MW of solar and 500 MW of wind in the last 4 years to help meet demands. We have another 500 MW of wind in the pipeline and will probably add more solar to southern California in the SP15 marketplace given the temperatures down there recently. They'll cover the energy required to cool the LA area with natural gas plants and screw up their renewable accounting, requiring them to build more renewables to meet the state mandates. Like I said, better then printing your own money.

Our biggest problem with renewables is they will purposefully curtail our operations at times to make sure natural gas plants stay running because they need them on when the sun goes down. Most of the high efficiency combined cycle plants can only be started once a day and they are needed for the morning ramp. So they keep them going during the day at min load and turn everything else down so the plants can be ramped back up to handle evening peak. In Texas there is so much wind being added, they are considering making the wind plants pay the base load to be available when the wind doesn't blow, otherwise renewables could push generation out of the market completely and affect overall grid reliability and availability. As much as politicians champion renewables, they aren't dumb enough to let the lights go of and the AC shut down in the heat just because there are no alternatives available when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow. Brownouts, blackouts, and just the general lights going off at random times will get you unelected quickly.