# Solar and Wind



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 5, 2009)

You know, I'm sick of money being thrown at this technology. They need to spend money on developing battery tecgnology. Without a good storage media, solar and wind will never succeed since they can't produce 24/7. But, nooooo, all the money is for freakin' windmills and PV cells.

Why can't they put some money towards developing better batteries?

And, towards passive solar building standards? That would do a good bit of conservation.


----------



## Supe (Mar 5, 2009)

Or better yet, screw them both, and put the money towards developing a fusion reactor and be done with this nonsense.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 5, 2009)

Supe said:


> Or better yet, screw them both, and put the money towards developing a fusion reactor and be done with this nonsense.


When I started my first job, while waiting on access to the area I'd eventually be working, I had an office in a building where they did fusion energy research. Those guys that did that stuff were nuts. They had all these crazy equations posted outside their offices, and some of them had cots in there. They were definately the stereotypical mad scientists.

On topic, its well documented that I'm pro-nuke power. While wind and solar sound good, all you have to do is look at the watts/square foot of a solar array vs. a nuke plant and its pretty clear to me what we should do.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 5, 2009)

Fusion would solve a lot of problems.

And, yeah, solar is not energy dense at all.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 5, 2009)

Why can't we do both? The good PV cells need to come down in price a whole lot before people will start taking a serious look at them. But once they reach that price point, and lots of houses start having them installed, the load on power plants (and the grid itself) will be reduced greatly. I really don't understand why PVs aren't used more on big commercial buildings (like Wal-marts). They have large, flat roofs that are largely useless, and they suck up a ton of energy off the grid.

But for the energy demands that remain on the grid, we should advance nuclear energy. Although, we really do need to figure out what do do with the spent fuel before we get too far along that path.

Wind is fairly useless except where it is already prevalent. It's largely impractical for residential and commercial use because wind generators big enough to meet the demands of those buildings would be too large to install in those settings. But out in the middle of nowhere, where there's lots of wind (like just east of the Inland Empire), it makes sense to have some large wind generators.


----------



## Freon (Mar 5, 2009)

What pisses me off is the "Can power XXX homes" line you always hear. They need to put the figures into industrial and commericail facilities. I'd like to hear "enough power for XXX 200-store indoor shopping malls" or "enough power to supply XXX 10,000 SQFT machine shops". Then people would see how crappy some of the "renewable energy" systems are.

As someone once said "Renewable energy is great for people who are bad at math"

Freon


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 5, 2009)

Freon said:


> What pisses me off is the "Can power XXX homes" line you always hear. They need to put the figures into industrial and commericail facilities. I'd like to hear "enough power for XXX 200-store indoor shopping malls" or "enough power to supply XXX 10,000 SQFT machine shops". Then people would see how crappy some of the "renewable energy" systems are.
> As someone once said "Renewable energy is great for people who are bad at math"
> 
> Freon


That was my point. We need to focus on making affordable PV systems that can provide "enough power for 1 home"...and install them on all new homes. After a while, the residential load on the power grid will diminish. At the same time, we can focus on better alternatives for providing power to the grid.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 5, 2009)

If it in fact turns out that PV is an economical way to generate power, then the market will provide this solution. Instead, the government is going to artificially inflate demand through subsidies, and inflate the cost of these technologies such that your average citizen won't be able to afford PV for his/her house without a government grant.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 5, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> But for the energy demands that remain on the grid, we should advance nuclear energy. Although, we really do need to figure out what do do with the spent fuel before we get too far along that path.


Heres a thought. Why don't we put it in a big hole in Nevada. All we need to do is spend the time and money to design and build it.

Oh wait, we already did that. Now we just have to convince the politicians to actually use it.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 5, 2009)

Here's a question I'd like answered: Why do environmentalists ONLY support wind and solar. And a lot of them don't like wind (kills birdies)?

Nukes? No.

Coal? No.

Natural gas? No.

Are they really that completely clueless?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Mar 5, 2009)

^ A lot of them are not clueless at all. I think you are misreading their objective. I don't think a lot of them care nearly as much about the environment as they claim. Their objective is that everyone, except the important people(them), restrict our lifestyles and conduct our lives in the manner that is strictly controlled and approved by them.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 5, 2009)

I have always believed that the environmental movement was the cause that the collectivists/socialists/communists took up when the Soviet utopia crumbled. Since their system failed they are now trying to enact the same system through the guise of environmentalism.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 5, 2009)

chaosiscash said:


> Heres a thought. Why don't we put it in a big hole in Nevada. All we need to do is spend the time and money to design and build it.
> Oh wait, we already did that. Now we just have to convince the politicians to actually use it.


Is there really no way to re-refine the spent fuel into future fuel? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that some European nuclear plants recycle their spent fuel rods into new fuel rods. That seems like a much better thing to do with them than simply put them in a big hole in the earth.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 5, 2009)

Actually, a lot of European countries just store it. Its really not as big a deal as the environmentalists and politicians want you to believe.

You can reprocess, but its not 100%. There is still going to be waste. And its cheaper to enrich.

Complete reprocessing (or, conversion from high-level to low-level, which serves the same purpose) is the whole idea behind breeder reactors, which were researched back in the 70's. They were going to build one (here, in Oak Ridge, in fact) back then as a prototype, but Carter killed it.


----------



## TXengrChickPE (Mar 5, 2009)

store it. eventually, someone will come up with a way to use it.


----------



## Supe (Mar 5, 2009)

Maybe NASA can put together a vessel that they don't lose, and just launch it all into space. We can put the launch pad in North Dakota. That way, if it crashes, nobody will really care.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 5, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I have always believed that the environmental movement was the cause that the collectivists/socialists/communists took up when the Soviet utopia crumbled. Since their system failed they are now trying to enact the same system through the guise of environmentalism.


Shit, if wasn't for the environmentalists, you wouldn't have a job Chucktown. Your clients would just be discharging raw sewage straight into the river. Screw those expensive treatment plants.

But I know which environmentalists you are talking about - the watermelon kind. But honestly, as much as I despise them, you have to admit that it was them (their forefathers in the 60s and 70s anyway) who started the whole secondary treatment push that has give both you and I our livelihoods.


----------



## cement (Mar 6, 2009)

I agree. but then water quality is real science, as opposed to man made global warming...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 6, 2009)

I try to point that out, but you'd be surprised how many people believe GW is 'science.'


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 6, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Shit, if wasn't for the environmentalists, you wouldn't have a job Chucktown. Your clients would just be discharging raw sewage straight into the river. Screw those expensive treatment plants.
> But I know which environmentalists you are talking about - the watermelon kind. But honestly, as much as I despise them, you have to admit that it was them (their forefathers in the 60s and 70s anyway) who started the whole secondary treatment push that has give both you and I our livelihoods.



That is absolutely not true.

It would take me a few hours to type the history of property rights in this country but if you get a chance, look up what happened with "public waterways" in the reconstruction south.

Pollution used to be controlled by the citizenry that were looking out for their own property. In the reconstruction south the government made that propery "public" and took away any incentive for private citizens to monitor pollution all in the name of attracting industry. And do you really think that in this day in age the citizenry would not object to wastewater plants discharging raw sewage into surface waters. Also, my company has been in business since 1915, well before the clean water act was in place. I have also worked on many, many plants where secondary treatment was in place before the clean water act. The technology improved because smart people realized they could make money improving treatment plants, not because a bunch of hippies declared that it should be so.

Also, I have a job in this field because I realized the potential to make money. I didn't go to medical school because I knew that by the time I graduated the government would have hijacked the system and I wouldn't be any better off than if I had become an engineer. If there wasn't a potential to make money in this business I would have gone to business school, or become another type of engineer. If the clean water act ended tomorrow, there would still be state regulators that would and could monitor treatment plants.


----------



## Wolverine (Mar 6, 2009)

Holy crap, where have I been when there's a hot thread about renewable energy including side tangents about nuclear? Oh yeah, I was at an IEEE renewable energy seminar all day! :true:

Ya know, when I was a kid, I really loved magic. I thought it was very cool. Then for my birthday, I got a magic book that explained how to do lots of amazing tricks. But I was disappointed - the tricks were so stupid! To pull a dollar bill out of a freshly cut lemon, you first hide a dollar bill in a hole in a lemon. To pull a rabbit out of a hat, you reach through a hole in the hat to a secret compartment in the bottom of the table. It's all fake! Smoke and mirrors! Slight of hand deception! I thought "There must be something more to this!" Show me some REAL magic! But as I grew up, I realized, no, that's really all there is. It's not magic. That's when I think I became an engineer. :rtft:

ld-025: That's how I feel about renewables - the reality is very disappointing. Show me the magic? Show me 1 GIGAWATT, 2 cents/KWH, and an 80 year lifespan, like a nuke unit. Renewables are really cool, and maybe some day there will be a break through, but there is no magic (keep in mind, I'm talking about mainland US energy production - I don't want to discount their value for remote areas or non-traditional markets).

The seminar was good, interesting, with good knowledgeable instruction, but until I see a breakthrough that moves a decimal point two steps to the right , I remain unimpressed. These are the pros and I'm asking "Is that all you got?"

- solar - makes a cute science fair project; not much output, fabulously cheap when you make someone else subsidize it.

- wind - it actually has some applications; you can get a little out of it, so it's not all bad; but it's a regional solution at best

- ethanol - takes more energy to make than it puts out. Creates smog, corn kills the soil, and you would have to plant 97% of US to meet present gas needs.

- tidal &amp; wave (actually two separate things) - very cool - very small - very useless.

- biofuels - see solar.

- landfill gas - see wind

- efficiency - now there may be something to see here; more efficiency is always mo'better; but it can't outpace the growth rate in the long term.

(if anyone disagrees and wants to take me to school on any of these :15: with something other than a sales bochure, I will humbly yield the soapbox)

(But I'm making China's Three Gorges Dam off limits - that is a freaky big "renewable" - but it's a one-shot project.)

And now I will peer through the murky haze and tell you what the future holds: *Micro-nukes*. No, stop laughing. The technology is right around the corner. Oh, no wait a minute, that technology is actually thirty years old. How do we power deep space satellites and submarines? Oh yeah, now I remember. But I preach to the choir, I'm sure.



Freon said:


> As someone once said "Renewable energy is great for people who are bad at math"


 If no one complains, I'm taking credit for that one. 1 nuke equals 1100 megawatts. Show me 1100MW of renewables.Now show me four of those on one site (that's one nuke plant)

Now show me two or three sites that size in one state. It won't be Rhode Island or Connecticut.



TXengrChickPE said:


> store it. eventually, someone will come up with a way to use it.


 Taking credit for this one too. Start the timer - within the next 100 years.
And Charles, unbunch your panties. LightenTFU.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 6, 2009)

^^ :appl:


----------



## Flyer_PE (Mar 6, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> Taking credit for this one too. Start the timer - within the next 100 years.


Hell, France is recycling most of their fuel already. That's a lot better than storing 40+ years worth of the stuff at each plant site. If we re-enriched it would dramatically reduce the amount of waste waiting to never be put in Yucca Mountain.


----------



## Slugger926 (Mar 6, 2009)

The best way to produce and store solar energy is by producing biomass that can be turned into electricity, bio-deisel, or ethanol. Of course, water is required if you want to produce biomass effeciently.

Wolverine - There has been some breakthroughs in gasification ethanol production that creates a 300% energy gain. Their are still some economic issues with it when I attempted a business plan to put one in Western OK. The best places for cheap biomass production are not close to ethanol demand locations (dallas, or north east). It would cost for a plant in Western OK producing at least 50 million gallons per year, 96 cents per gallon to ship via truck to Dallas. It would cost $1 per gallon for production, so unless oil is a lot more expensive than it is now, there is no profit. Of course there will be breakthroughs in supply chain transportation.

Also a plant like this would require 180 trucks per day of hay with 20 trucks per day outgoing of ethanol. This would be like hauling oil from an oil well to the refinery in 5 gallon buckets.

Why haven't we done the micro-nukes yet? I would love one for my house.


----------



## Freon (Mar 6, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> If no one complains, I'm taking credit for that one. 1 nuke equals 1100 megawatts. Show me 1100MW of renewables.



I will give you due credit in all future uses of that axiom.

Freon

What ever happened to that little project our neighbors to the North were working on "CADU" I believe it was called. Canidian Deuterium reactor or something like that.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 6, 2009)

Flyer_PE said:


> That's a lot better than storing 40+ years worth of the stuff at each plant site. If we re-enriched it would dramatically reduce the amount of waste waiting to never be put in Yucca Mountain.


Thats why all those enrichment plants are scheduled for construction over the next 5 years. I smell money.


----------



## benbo (Mar 6, 2009)

I agree with much of what everybody says here. If the government is bent on wasting a bunch of money I could see worse things to waste it on than energy stuff, but I’m sure they’d do it in a stupid way, so better not.

I also like market driven “green” technology like many here. For example, I’m a fan of nuclear, and cogeneration if it is market driven. If some refinery thinks they can make some money by building a turbine to use the steam they’d blow off into the air, more power to them, as long as they pay for the wire to get it to the grid. In CA cogen powers about 20% or so of the state. I’m guessing 10% nuclear, 10% wind, 10% hydro, a little solar, biomass, and geothermal. The rest is primarily combined cycle (which Al Gore might not consider green, but is pretty good with the kind of heat rates they get now). The old steam boilers barely run, except on really hot days.

To me, the problem about most energy storage schemes is that they involve a lot of loss and some kooky ideas. With the market the way it is, the most profitable are really only built around economic arbitrage and actually waste energy through conversion. Like pumped storage (use cheap energy to pump water uphill to flow downhill through a turbine when energy is expensive, so you can sell it). Others are wacky – like some guy who proposed using windmills to create energy to compress air to release into the intake of a gas turbine. In other words converting wind into electricity and back into wind (not really, but it sure sounds inefficient to me).

All this IMO.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 8, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> - solar - makes a cute science fair project; not much output, fabulously cheap when you make someone else subsidize it.- wind - it actually has some applications; you can get a little out of it, so it's not all bad; but it's a regional solution at best
> 
> - ethanol - takes more energy to make than it puts out. Creates smog, corn kills the soil, and you would have to plant 97% of US to meet present gas needs.
> 
> ...


Well put!

On the issues of ethanol and biofuels, I'd like to take credit for this one: You can either grow food, or you can grow fuel. But not both. I've been saying this to my raving lunatic ag friends for years as they went on and on about how corn, and then sugar, and then switchgrass were going to revolutionize and "green up" the energy fields. But they could never answer the question of "what are we going to eat?" and "how much more of the earth will need to be tilled to do this?"


----------



## Dleg (Mar 8, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> That is absolutely not true.
> It would take me a few hours to type the history of property rights in this country ... blah blah blah.... hippies.... blah blah .... libertarianism.... blah.... If the clean water act ended tomorrow, there would still be state regulators that would and could monitor treatment plants.


Dude, I wish I could live in the nice little white-picket fence world you live in. But unfortunately for me, I have had the pleasure of living outside wealthy world, and have seen that, quite contrary to the neat and tidy world of market theory, most people in the world live in squalor, and "the market" doesn't give a rat's ass.


----------



## jeb6294 (Mar 9, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Although, we really do need to figure out what do do with the spent fuel before we get too far along that path.


Uhhh...hello...I've only got two words for you...

[SIZE=14pt]Superman IV[/SIZE]

Sure it's nuclear weapons -vs- nuclear waste, but it'd still work.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 9, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Dude, I wish I could live in the nice little white-picket fence world you live in. But unfortunately for me, I have had the pleasure of living outside wealthy world, and have seen that, quite contrary to the neat and tidy world of market theory, most people in the world live in squalor, and "the market" doesn't give a rat's ass.



I know we don't agree on political or economic theory and I know that you live in an impoverished part of the world. I also understand that what you call the "free market" has ruined the quality of life for many people where you live. I think the breakdown in our communication always comes in what you call the free market and what I call the free market. I consider it to be something that hasn't really been in existence in this country since before the war fought over the South's secession. You consider it to be Tom DeLay's idea of the free market which bears very little resemblance to what I, Adam Smith, or our founding fathers deemed it to be.

I was reading an article on rationalism this weekend. Interesting stuff for the most part but the big take away for me was that for hundreds of years now we have had government intervention in our economies, government intrusions into our lives, loss of privacy, curtailing of liberties, etc. and yet always the solution to our problems in more government intervention. This then creates more poverty, more intrusion, more loss of privacy, more curtailing of liberty, and again the solution is more government intervention. I believe that the government intervention exacerbates the problems, not improves them. A perfect example which was dismissed as "blah, blah, blah" was my point about private property rights before Reconstruction. Government deemed property as "public" (by stealing it from the citizenry through immenent domain) such that industry couldn't be held accountable by private property owners for dumping pollutants on their land. Since there was no incentive for industry to not dump, they were given free reign to dump whatever the hell they wanted into rivers, lakes, etc. Government created the pollution problem by dismissing private property rights and then created the EPA to "deal with it."


----------



## Dleg (Mar 9, 2009)

Again, I think you assume that all private property owners are created equal, and that there would be no other external influences. But what really happens, and why economics (as a "science") marched onward after Smith, is that all kinds of other things intervene to interfere with the workings of the market, at a local level anyway. Monopolies, corruption, etc. Sooner or later JoeBob's steel mill would become so powerful he could buy the local judges and the polluted property owner would be screwed. Power rests with those who make money. Even Adam Smith saw this and never once suggested that government wasn't necessary to intervene and prevent the "capitalists" (whom he disdained) from rolling over everyone in their paths.

Also, as I mentioned before, I am reading the Federalist Papers, which you say you disagree with, so I guess there's little chance we'll ever see eye to eye. Suffice it to say that I am comfortable our founding fathers did a good job in setting up our form of government.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 9, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Again, I think you assume that all private property owners are created equal, and that there would be no other external influences. But what really happens, and why economics (as a "science") marched onward after Smith, is that all kinds of other things intervene to interfere with the workings of the market, at a local level anyway. Monopolies, corruption, etc. Sooner or later JoeBob's steel mill would become so powerful he could buy the local judges and the polluted property owner would be screwed. Power rests with those who make money. Even Adam Smith saw this and never once suggested that government wasn't necessary to intervene and prevent the "capitalists" (whom he disdained) from rolling over everyone in their paths.


Okay, so the government can't be corrupted? And I disagree with you on Smith. Smith saw government as necessary to protect life, liberty, and property of capitalists. (for whom he did not hold disdain, but rather as a philosopher opposed the "trappings of wealth")



Dleg said:


> Also, as I mentioned before, I am reading the Federalist Papers, which you say you disagree with, so I guess there's little chance we'll ever see eye to eye. Suffice it to say that I am comfortable our founding fathers did a good job in setting up our form of government.


Agreed, that they did a good job in setting up a great form of government, but what we have today bears very little resemblance to what they created. The 10th amendment is a great example. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In that case, where did the Department of Education, the EPA, NASA, Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, and etc. come from? Those would have required constitutional ammendments per our Constitution/Founding Fathers.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 9, 2009)

Why do you say what we have today bears "very little"resemblance to the form of government we have today? I would say what we have today is very much what was envisioned. The changes you speak of do not alter the form of our government in as significant a manner as you portray. We still have to overall structure of checks and balances that was the primary thrust of the framers.

And as to your question of whether or not government can be corrupted, well of course it can and that was the whole purpose behind the Constitution, to prevent such corruption.

And yes, Adam Smith was not personally fond of the "capitalist" class - I don't have a reference nearby, but I remember direct quotes from him referring to them as "greedy" and "money grubbing" etc. He thought that society was driven and benefitted from them, of course (that was his whole point), but his descriptions of them as a class give away a general distaste for them.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 11, 2009)

chaosiscash said:


> Heres a thought. Why don't we put it in a big hole in Nevada. All we need to do is spend the time and money to design and build it.
> Oh wait, we already did that. Now we just have to convince the politicians to actually use it.


Well, we may have the hole, but we're not going to use it.



> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reports in a message to Nevadans that President Obama has ended the government's bid to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain and that instead, Obama will try to come up with another plan.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 11, 2009)

^Thgat makes me sick. Billions spent and The Great One decides to 'devise a new plan.'

Wonderful. How long has that project been going and how much $$ was spent?

Man, I'm livid.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 11, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> ^Thgat makes me sick. Billions spent and The Great One decides to 'devise a new plan.'
> Wonderful. How long has that project been going and how much $$ was spent?
> 
> Man, I'm livid.


6.5 years (July 23, 2002) and $9 Billion (as of 2008) according to Wikipedia.


----------



## Supe (Mar 11, 2009)

Don't fret guys, we all know that Obama will come up with a new solution. Because politicians make better scientists and engineers than... scientists and engineers.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 11, 2009)

Supe said:


> Don't fret guys, we all know that Obama will come up with a new solution. Because politicians make better scientists and engineers than... scientists and engineers.


Bingo.

Just reinforces my opinion that he's in so far over his head its pathetic. Too bad the media didn't look a little closer at his qualifications.

I guess he'll 'miracle' a solution.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 11, 2009)

So why do we want to put him in charge of more money?


----------



## Supe (Mar 11, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> So why do we want to put him in charge of more money?


WE don't. Societal scum do, because he'll give them cell phones.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 11, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Well, we may have the hole, but we're not going to use it.


That was my point. We built a perfectly good hole, and now we can't use it. The same thing happened with the Breeder Reactor in the 70s. We designed (not built) a perfectly good prototype, and then Carter decided not to build it. And now we're 30 years behind where we could be in nuke tech.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 11, 2009)

What killed me about Carter killing the breeder is that he was NAVAL NUCLEAR!!!!

What was he thinking?


----------



## Wolverine (Mar 11, 2009)

When do the utility companies who paid that "insurance" money to the government in advance to develop the solution to the nuclear waste disposal, (oops) I meant nuclear waste "STORAGE" problem get their money back?


----------



## snickerd3 (Mar 11, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> When do the utility companies who paid that "insurance" money to the government in advance to develop the solution to the nuclear waste disposal, (oops) I meant nuclear waste "STORAGE" problem get their money back?


when the lawsuits start flying in and head to court


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 11, 2009)

I was thinking more like when we start getting social security checks.


----------



## snickerd3 (Mar 11, 2009)

Chucktown PE said:


> I was thinking more like when we start getting social security checks.


so you mean never


----------



## Chucktown PE (Mar 11, 2009)

snickerd3 said:


> so you mean never



correct


----------



## Supe (Mar 24, 2009)

Solar and wind? How dare you tear up our pristine, otherwise useless desert!

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/...-and-solar-too/


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 2, 2009)

Pelosi has blocked a PV generating array in the Mojave.

Ted Kennedy blocked a wind farm off Nantucket.

I'm beginning to suspect they are purposely blocking this projects so that alternative energy isn't exposed for the inefficient scam that it is.


----------



## Dleg (Apr 2, 2009)

No. They're just NIMBY dumbasses, like most people are.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2009)

I am surprised nobody brought this up in this thread ...

Wind turbines could more than meet U.S. electricity needs, report says

:huh:

:deadhorse:



Capt Worley PE said:


> Pelosi has blocked a PV generating array in the Mojave.
> Ted Kennedy blocked a wind farm off Nantucket.
> 
> I'm beginning to suspect they are purposely blocking this projects so that alternative energy isn't exposed for the inefficient scam that it is.






Dleg said:


> No. They're just NIMBY dumbasses, like most people are.


I would say that is a fair assessment .. seeing some of that some thinking in my new hood. :true:

JR


----------



## Wolverine (Apr 6, 2009)

jregieng said:


> Wind turbines could more than meet U.S. electricity needs, report says


Thanks JR, that's an interesting read.




> Simply *harnessing the wind in relatively shallow waters* -- the most accessible and technically feasible sites for offshore turbines -- *could produce at least 20% of the power demand * for most coastal states, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, unveiling a report by the Minerals Management Service that details the potential for oil, gas and renewable development on the outer continental shelf.
> The biggest wind potential lies off the nation's Atlantic coast, which the Interior report estimates *could produce* 1,000 gigawatts of electricity -- enough to meet a quarter of the national demand.
> 
> The report also notes large potential in the Pacific, including off the California coast, but said the area presented technical challenges.


 Yeah right; cynical me is screaming, "Yeah? Well we could power 1000% of the nation's energy needs if we could tap into the sun, or geothermal, or celestial mechanics for that matter! Now get real." The reality I'm guessing is about 20-30% efficiency on total capacity for wind. I'm all for it, but I hate when articles quote theoretical values versus reality. The truth is that much less than that is economically feasible (20%) and much less than that is fully available (20%).
I'm thinking it would be helpful if we could get maybe 5% on wind, and I'm all for it, but they've got to stop presenting this fluff as magic.


----------



## MonteBiker (Apr 6, 2009)

I am a big fan of low profile green technology. While I think wind has it's place, why not take advantage of things which do not take up any real additional real estate and generate relatively continuous power. I have done a little bit of reading about underwater turbines for use in constant low flow environments. They generate electricity by having a constant current turning a "fan blade". The turbine is moving slow enough as to not harm wildlife... This is about the same idea as wind but with consistent power generation as opposed to just when the wind is blowing or when the sun is shining.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213223.html

There are also ideas out there to install piezoelectric materials in sidewalks, floors and roadways and generating electricity on a pretty small level but over a large area. This could help offset the cost of public sidewalk or roadway lighting. I have read about where they had installed a similar system in a subway station. The continuous foot traffic and shifting of feet was able to produce much of the power needed to light the underground station.

http://www.seas.yale.edu/admin/uploads/465...ed06b348ec7.pdf

http://hubpages.com/hub/Piezoelectric-Energy-Harvesting

Just a couple of different ways to look at alternative energy sources...


----------



## Dleg (Apr 7, 2009)

We have all kinds of carpet baggers show up out here with questionable schemes to sell us OTEC (ocean thermal energy something), underwater turbines, wave energy harnessing, solar, wind, nuclear, and all kinds of crazy crap (like the Chinese guys who told me they had a new machine that could convert used oil to 90% diesel fuel with no emissions and no waste - turned out it was a coal-fired, 1960s portable refinery). I know I live ina weird place, but it seems like the biggest problem with all the schemes I see are the promoters - who are usually not what you would call "credible" in any sense of the word. Alternative energy is (unfortunately) the flavor of the decade for the shoe-salesman class.


----------



## wvgirl14 (Apr 8, 2009)

We may need an alternate source. They are trying to get rid of what I work in which provides energy. I am in the coal industry. They say we hurt the enviroment, but windmills kill birds and bats which eat they insects, and then they will have to spray for the insects which pollutes the air etc... Everything affects something.


----------



## Supe (Apr 9, 2009)

wvgirl14 said:


> We may need an alternate source. They are trying to get rid of what I work in which provides energy. I am in the coal industry. They say we hurt the enviroment, but windmills kill birds and bats which eat they insects, and then they will have to spray for the insects which pollutes the air etc... Everything affects something.



Same here. Granted I could always make the swing to our nuclear division, but I've got a lot more freedom in what I do here on the Fossil side (albeit a mixed blessing). We're putting in bids on two coal jobs here in TX, and I'm hoping we win them so I can come back here in 2 1/2-3 years!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 9, 2009)

They're building a coal plant in SC and there has been nothing but bellyaching about it from the greenie weenies. Even more noise that they are generating over the two reactors going in at Jenkinsville.


----------



## Supe (Apr 9, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> They're building a coal plant in SC and there has been nothing but bellyaching about it from the greenie weenies. Even more noise that they are generating over the two reactors going in at Jenkinsville.


I think I've posted this before, but this is the job I'll probably end up at in 2 months: http://www.stopcliffside.org/news.php

We're also going to be the ones doing those reactors in Jenkinsville, as well as two more in GA and FL. They're just too far out for anyone to make a huge stink yet.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Apr 9, 2009)

Supe said:


> I think I've posted this before, but this is the job I'll probably end up at in 2 months: http://www.stopcliffside.org/news.php
> We're also going to be the ones doing those reactors in Jenkinsville, as well as two more in GA and FL. They're just too far out for anyone to make a huge stink yet.


Are there actually nuclear power plants being constructed now? I thought there was a moratorium on them after TMI.


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 9, 2009)

They are working on completion (of design) of Watt's Bar Unit Two (TVA) right now. Construction will start soon to finish the unit.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2009)

Related but not entirely on point ... Northeast Utilities Planning Network Of Electric Car-Charging Stations

I wonder who will be blamed when auto companies are pressured to produce a product that doesn't deliver?



wvgirl14 said:


> We may need an alternate source. They are trying to get rid of what I work in which provides energy. I am in the coal industry. They say we hurt the enviroment, but windmills kill birds and bats which eat they insects, and then they will have to spray for the insects which pollutes the air etc... Everything affects something.


Those are very valid points wvgirl.

I find it interesting that as this country is trying to systematically dismantle the backbone of our electrical generating industry (coal, petroleum) fuel sources that other countries continue to build/operate the very same plants we are contesting with fewer environmental controls. No matter where your belief structure falls on the climate change argument - one thing cannot be refuted: mandating added air pollution control measures in the U.S. without other countries following in kind isn't going to put us on the path to what is considered to be 'rehabilitative' reductions in green house gases. If this is the REALITY of the situation, I don't understand the push to compel the coal/fossil fuel electrical generating industries to implement these costly measures without a yardstick for the net environmental benefit.

Unfortunately ... the most that can be said about this now is ... :deadhorse:



Supe said:


> Same here. Granted I could always make the swing to our nuclear division, but I've got a lot more freedom in what I do here on the Fossil side (albeit a mixed blessing). We're putting in bids on two coal jobs here in TX, and I'm hoping we win them so I can come back here in 2 1/2-3 years!


Good luck!

You know the funny thing about nuclear power - it takes A LOT more people to run a nuke plant than a fossil fuel plant. The certifications are much more difficult to obtain and retain not to mention the security presence required.

I haven't heard too many people raise the cry that there aren't enough LICENSED operators and technicians to construct/operate these plants. It will be interesting to see how that develops ...

The other major issue I see is the rising price in concrete and steel - that is making a number of pipeline projects problematic. I can't imagine it is helping the 'attractiveness' for the bottom-line on nuclear power plants either.



Capt Worley PE said:


> They're building a coal plant in SC and there has been nothing but bellyaching about it from the greenie weenies. Even more noise that they are generating over the two reactors going in at Jenkinsville.


The same was true in Florida - two sites for coal-fired plants were rejected due to the political pressure/threat of rejecting the siting permits from the Governor's office. I thought it was particularly sad that the politics of the situation made the decision presumptive ... rather than allowing for a consideration of all pertinent facts.

JR


----------



## chaosiscash (Apr 9, 2009)

jregieng said:


> I haven't heard too many people raise the cry that there aren't enough LICENSED operators and technicians to construct/operate these plants. It will be interesting to see how that develops ...


Thats because us nukeworkers know that if the supply stays the same as demand goes up, so will our rates. So we try to keep it quiet.

Actually, thats a huge issue for a lot of the companies I contract to. There is a large concern around the NWC that as more nuke power plants are designed/built/operated, a lot of the nukeworkers in the non-power side of the industry will jump to power, causing staffing problems. Combined with an average worker age of around 50 in the NWC, we're seeing a lot of new college grad hiring by some of the major prime contractors (Bechtel, B&amp;W, WGI, URS, etc).

This, combined with all the stimulus money, has made the job market around here crazy. Its going to be an interesting 18-24 months in the nuke industry.


----------



## Supe (Apr 9, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Are there actually nuclear power plants being constructed now? I thought there was a moratorium on them after TMI.


...


----------



## wvgirl14 (Apr 9, 2009)

We had two big rulling the past two weeks that has majorly effect the industry. One basically says the Corps in worthless. There are so many regulations and stimpulations that the industry has to go through to even be permitted to mine and strip mine. I don't think people realize how much bond is put up to reclaim the land and the regulations they have to meet. Not only is coal used for energy but it is also used for steel. If we can't mine it will cripple our state (and most of the families here) which one of the seven states that has a surplus thanks to coal. If you want to view something intersting go to Google Earth and click on the Gloabl Awarness icon and look at all the enviromentalist groups comments over the mines, which I don't agree with. Most of these groups members are not even from here and some are even from a country north of us. It is a distortion of the truth. Lets face it all the global good we try to do in th US is being offset by the bad that is being allowed in other countries.



jregieng said:


> Related but not entirely on point ... Northeast Utilities Planning Network Of Electric Car-Charging Stations
> I wonder who will be blamed when auto companies are pressured to produce a product that doesn't deliver?
> 
> Those are very valid points wvgirl.
> ...


----------



## Supe (Apr 9, 2009)

:wv: : That's why I was absolutely astounded that Obama won Pennsylvania this past election.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Apr 9, 2009)

Supe said:


> : :wv: :: That's why I was absolutely astounded that Obama won Pennsylvania this past election.



He and Joe even said they were going to bankrupt the coal industry. But Pennsylvanians will get what they voted for and all of us will be worse off.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 9, 2009)

Supe said:


> 6 domestic contracts right now based on the Westinghouse AP1000 design, 1100 MW a pop. Expected completion starting around 2016 for the first units. I think they may even be doing dirt work on some of the sites, or at least have people staffed there.


I don't think Jenkinsville is close enough for the dirt work, but I've heard they are well along in getting the necessary permitting.

The wife and I went up and toured the World of Power at the Oconee reactors last summer. That is a beautiful area and an impressive facility.


----------



## wvgirl14 (Apr 9, 2009)

I can't believe Penn either, but I also have my own take on why alot of votes went that way, media hype, wanting a historically presidency, wanting another JFK type era. Alot of issues went ignored and now people are oh is record is really liberal, what? Look at Notre Dame, before the election they were supporters after the election and they found out his stance went against the catholic values they don't want him speaking there. Anyway that is another topic. Your right Chucktown they did say they would bankrupt it, and now along with the EPA they are trying too. Of course they back traked before election day and say no no we didn't mean that. No one wanted to believe it and some said it couldn't happen, but it looks like it is in the works.



Chucktown PE said:


> He and Joe even said they were going to bankrupt the coal industry. But Pennsylvanians will get what they voted for and all of us will be worse off.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2009)

Supe said:


> I think they may even be doing dirt work on some of the sites, or at least have people staffed there.


When I was down in Homestead, Florida in January 2008, the geophysicals for two (2) new nuclear units were almost complete. The preliminary results were to place the units in a swamp area - just excavate to bedrock and backfill up to grade with structural fill. :true:



wvgirl14 said:


> We had two big rulling the past two weeks that has majorly effect the industry. One basically says the Corps in worthless.


Which rulings are you referring to? You don't mean the Supreme Court ruling on Clean Water Act where variances from the CWA can be based on cost-benefit analysis??



wvgirl14 said:


> There are so many regulations and stimpulations that the industry has to go through to even be permitted to mine and strip mine. I don't think people realize how much bond is put up to reclaim the land and the regulations they have to meet. Not only is coal used for energy but it is also used for steel. If we can't mine it will cripple our state (and most of the families here) which one of the seven states that has a surplus thanks to coal.


You are right about the general lack of awareness on most people's part about what goes into generating electricity.

BTW, do you recognize the image in my avatar? 



wvgirl14 said:


> If you want to view something intersting go to Google Earth and click on the Gloabl Awarness icon and look at all the enviromentalist groups comments over the mines, which I don't agree with. Most of these groups members are not even from here and some are even from a country north of us. It is a distortion of the truth. Lets face it all the global good we try to do in th US is being offset by the bad that is being allowed in other countries.


Interesting ... I will have to check that out when I get home.



wvgirl14 said:


> Of course they back traked before election day and say no no we didn't mean that. No one wanted to believe it and some said it couldn't happen, but it looks like it is in the works.


I think this presidency, regardless of who was elected, was going to be problematic. The problem is that so many people focused on the presidential race that they lost sight of what the congress was/hsa been doing. I blame them just as much because what little good Obama seemed prepared to offer up is rapidly getting eaten away by the people who helped him into office. I am not condoning his position(s) ... I am just pointing out the political reality of the situation.

JR


----------



## wvgirl14 (Apr 9, 2009)

Oh I agree, I don't know if McCain would have been much better. I just wish that they realize the the impact the industry has and what it will do to many Americans if you stop it. I don't know if they realize it but we are in a recession so stop trying to tinker around with enviromental issues especially when it will drastically eliminate jobs and start worrying about the bigger picture.



jregieng said:


> When I was down in Homestead, Florida in January 2008, the geophysicals for two (2) new nuclear units were almost complete. The preliminary results were to place the units in a swamp area - just excavate to bedrock and backfill up to grade with structural fill. :true:
> 
> Which rulings are you referring to? You don't mean the Supreme Court ruling on Clean Water Act where variances from the CWA can be based on cost-benefit analysis??
> 
> ...


----------



## Slugger926 (Apr 9, 2009)

wvgirl14 said:


> We may need an alternate source. They are trying to get rid of what I work in which provides energy. I am in the coal industry. They say we hurt the enviroment, but windmills kill birds and bats which eat they insects, and then they will have to spray for the insects which pollutes the air etc... Everything affects something.



How about turning your coal into ethanol using the Coskata (Oklahoma State University) process? The coal would be processed in a contained system into ethanol, and used in cars which then would give off the green house gases.


----------



## Slugger926 (Apr 9, 2009)

wvgirl14 said:


> We may need an alternate source. They are trying to get rid of what I work in which provides energy. I am in the coal industry. They say we hurt the enviroment, but windmills kill birds and bats which eat they insects, and then they will have to spray for the insects which pollutes the air etc... Everything affects something.



How about turning your coal into ethanol using the Coskata (Oklahoma State University) process? The coal would be processed in a contained system into ethanol, and used in cars which then would give off the green house gases.


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2009)

^^^ The idea that's so nice ... you had to state it twice?? 

Sorry .. I just couldn't resist!!

JR


----------



## wvgirl14 (Apr 10, 2009)

That's a good idea, but we still have to be allowed to get the coal.


----------



## Slugger926 (Apr 10, 2009)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ The idea that's so nice ... you had to state it twice??
> Sorry .. I just couldn't resist!!
> 
> JR


Sorry, the flux capacitor was acting up mid post.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2009)

And more fodder for the cannon ... :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

New city in Florida to run on solar power

There's more to the story than what is printed .... I visited the ranch about five years ago before the state sale. It is interesting to watch how the stories get more warped as time marches on.

JR


----------



## Wolverine (Apr 13, 2009)

Supe said:


> 6 domestic contracts right now based on the Westinghouse AP1000 design, 1100 MW a pop. Expected completion starting around 2016 for the first units. I think they may even be doing dirt work on some of the sites, or at least have people staffed there.


 They're doing some site prep work at Vogtle (GA) right now, taking down some of the old buildings. The PSC agreed in March to certify the two new units, which is one obstacle down (4,639 to go).

I heard some biddy on the news a few weeks ago bragging about the BANANA* outcry they generated that has seemingly sabotaged a new coal unit intended for south GA. To quote her:



> "We are sending a message that we don't want any more of these dirty power plants. We only want CLEAN energy!"


 I am so busy working on my static generator right now. I already have the specs outlined (must produce 1.21 Gigawatts; must be no larger than a kitchen juicer).

* (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)


----------



## Supe (Apr 13, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> * (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)


Definitely telling my coworkers that one later today.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Apr 13, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> They're doing some site prep work at Vogtle (GA) right now, taking down some of the old buildings. The PSC agreed in March to certify the two new units, which is one obstacle down (4,639 to go).


I believe they're doing the initial excavation and concrete work for South Texas Units 3 and 4 and I just saw a blurb this morning that Florida Power &amp; Light is getting ready to start the initial work for two new units at Turkey Point.


----------



## Supe (Apr 13, 2009)

We're currently bidding on two new clean coal jobs in TX, one in Corpus Christie, and another one further south. I'm REALLY hoping that we get them (it will bring me back to TX in 3 years, and give this division of the company a much needed financial boost for long-term scope of work), but getting those permits through won't be a walk in the park.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2009)

And even more hot wind .... :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

Obama Uses Stimulus To Advance Environmental Policies

:sharkattack:

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 5, 2009)

Is anyone really surprised?

I'm waiting to see what will happen when the CAFE rules force the domestic automakers to build tiny little cars Americans don not want.


----------



## wvgirl14 (Jun 12, 2009)

An article from the local paper:

http://www.register-herald.com/local/local..._162221350.html

This was on the next page:

http://www.register-herald.com/local/local..._162221609.html

ALl this and gas is going up!


----------



## Santiagj (Jul 1, 2009)

The reactor that is slated (cross your fingers) for Calvert Cliffs (Maryland) is the Areva EPR 1600 MW reactor. This one reactor has the same output as the two units that are already there.


----------



## Wolverine (Jul 1, 2009)

1.600 Gigawatts - nyyice!

That's one obstacle down, one to go. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get it down to the size of a juicer.


----------



## Santiagj (Jul 1, 2009)

Plus the facility was designed for an ultimate build of 4 reactors. So theoretically they can have 800+800+1600+1600 = 4800MW coming from one location. Assuming the 4th reactor was another Areva EPR.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 1, 2009)

Santiagj said:


> Plus the facility was designed for an ultimate build of 4 reactors. So theoretically they can have 800+800+1600+1600 = 4800MW coming from one location. Assuming the 4th reactor was another Areva EPR.


I think I know of a untapped form of energy that would put those reactors to shame. Has anyone thought about putting wind turbines in the White House and in the Capital? All of the hot air blowing around should be able to power the USA .

:unitedstates:


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2009)

Santiagj said:


> The reactor that is slated (cross your fingers) for Calvert Cliffs (Maryland) is the *Areva EPR 1600 MW reactor*.


Is that anything like the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator??









Slugger926 said:


> I think I know of a untapped form of energy that would put those reactors to shame. Has anyone thought about putting wind turbines in the White House and in the Capital? All of the hot air blowing around should be able to power the USA .
> :unitedstates:


:appl: :appl: :appl:

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2009)

Slugger926 said:


> I think I know of a untapped form of energy that would put those reactors to shame. Has anyone thought about putting wind turbines in the White House and in the Capital? All of the hot air blowing around should be able to power the USA .
> :unitedstates:


Severe overspeed problems were encountered.


----------



## Santiagj (Jul 2, 2009)

jregieng said:


> Is that anything like the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator??



Hehe. Had to look that up.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 2, 2009)

Santiagj said:


> Hehe. Had to look that up.


You wouldn't have if his picture was still showing up. It was a huge pic of Marvin the Martian.


----------



## OSUguy98 (Jul 2, 2009)

Okay... being mostly (if not compeltely) ignorant when it comes to power stations/power grids/etc... I have a few questions...

On a given summer day (what I'd assume is worse-case, with all the continents ACs running), what's the power requirements for the US?

What are some typical power outputs for different types of plants/wind farms/solar arrays/etc? (loaded question, I'm sure)

With the "Grid", are all areas of the country connected in some way or another? or is that just a misconception? Regional Grids? etc?


----------



## benbo (Jul 2, 2009)

OSUguy98 said:


> Okay... being mostly (if not compeltely) ignorant when it comes to power stations/power grids/etc... I have a few questions...
> On a given summer day (what I'd assume is worse-case, with all the continents ACs running), what's the power requirements for the US?
> 
> What are some typical power outputs for different types of plants/wind farms/solar arrays/etc? (loaded question, I'm sure)
> ...


I mainly know California.

In California, the peak consumption is around 50 MW. I'd assume a few TW in the US. In California the SEGS group of solar generators generates around 350MW. It depends on the solar technology. THe Altamont Pass Wind Farm generates around 500 MW, comparable to a combined cycles plant, but it takes a lot more space.

The problem is that during the summer months, wind is most often unreliable, although obviously solar works better in the summer.

I believe that most areas of the country are connected in one way or another, but it's not like California would buy power generated in New York. It would basically be shipped or "wheeled" ion from a neighboring state, which would in turn trade power with its neighbors.

I don't think anybody expects renewable energy to provide the baseload power in the US for a long time to come. It is too unreliable. We will be relying on nukes and fossil plants for a long time to come, with small renewable concentrations on the edges. I think California is talking about a renewable portfolio of around 33% by 2020, but I think that is wildly optimistic. California currently gets about 8% of its power from renewables (not counting hydro which provides about 20%).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 2, 2009)

benbo said:


> I mainly know California.
> In California, the peak consumption is around 50 MW.


Don't you mean 50 GW?


----------



## benbo (Jul 2, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Don't you mean 50 GW?


yeah. 50,000 MW.

I don't think conservation has been that effective.


----------



## OSUguy98 (Jul 2, 2009)

So what's a (new) nuke plant produce?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 2, 2009)

^Anywhere from 1300 MWe to 1600 MWe seems to be the norm.


----------



## Wolverine (Jul 14, 2009)

OSUguy98 said:


> Okay... being mostly (if not compeltely) ignorant when it comes to power stations/power grids/etc...  I have a few questions...
> On a given summer day (what I'd assume is worse-case, with all the continents ACs running), what's the power requirements for the US?
> 
> What are some typical power outputs for different types of plants/wind farms/solar arrays/etc? (loaded question, I'm sure)
> ...


I can tell you for the southeast, not including Florida, it's just slightly lower than California's, around 45GW.

The "Grid" is really a set of independent systems with specific interconnect points. The West is pretty much it's own system. So is Texas. East of the Mississippi, things interconnect a little easier, but there are regional territories each containing one or a few major players - the Southeast, Florida, the Midwest, the Northeast - and only a certain number of intertie points. Each system has it's own characteristics. There is one federal regulatory overseer, individual regional overseers, and then each state has it's own Public Service Commission, so there are a lot of layers of regulation.

Then to make it even more complicated, each area has it's own load profile. The south is hot in summer, but not so much in winter (summer peaking). The north is opposite (winter peaking). Arizona is pretty much hot all the time. The Left Coast (help me out?) I believe has strong seasonal power flows, north in the winter, south in the summer.

To make it even more complicated, you can have a heat wave where a stormfront cuts across the botom of the region making the north hotter than the south for the day, or something squirrelly like that. That makes it hard to say what the National (or even Regional!) peak load is.

A rough heirarchy of practical generator sizes follows: (my ranges are certainly debatable)

Portable generators = 0.3-5 kilowatts

Fuel cell = 1-100kW

Solar = 1-500 kW

Wind = 0.5-100 megawatts

Diesel = 0.1-100 MW

Hydro = 0.1-500MW

Coal/Nat. Gas = 100-1000MW

Nuclear = 0.8-1.6GW per unit (1-6 units per site)

Roughly: renewables are measured in kilowatts, fossil fuel is megawatts, nuclear is Gigawatts.

(This space reserved for corrections that there are many larger installations than what I've detailed here. Three Gorges Dam in China is 22.5 GW's!)


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> Ihree Gorges Dam in China is 22.5 GW's!


That's impressive. There is a collaborative effort between two companies in MI where the hydro generation is *1,872 megawatts*. The penstocks and generators are going through a massive overhaul/updating project where that capacity will be increased (don't have a figure for that one).

You can read about it here: CEC/DTE Pumped Storage Facility

Important Cost-Technology Note:

It takes approximtely 3-units of energy to pump the water vs. 2-units of enegy generation. The feasibility/cost savings is realized and achieved by actively pumping when the baseload draw is at it's nadir (e.g. night). So, while this technology, at face, is not feasible, offsetting the pumping vs. discharging with 'surplus' energy is what makes it happen. Something most people don't seem to take into account when evaluating various alternative.

Wolverine - can you comment/explain 'smart grid' technology in terms of how that plays out on the grid system as well as practicality/feasiblity of implementing/operating?

JR


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 15, 2009)

How many people were displaced with the 3 gorges dam? It was like millions, right? That was a huge undertaking.

22.5 GW... very impressive.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2009)

TouchDown said:


> 22.5 GW... very impressive.


What the hell is a jigga-watt ?! (Marty McFly)

JR


----------



## OSUguy98 (Jul 15, 2009)

in power, is the scale measured base-10? or does 1 kW = 1024W (like PCs and the 1 GB = 1024 MB)?

edit---"base-10" not "based-10"


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 15, 2009)

jregieng said:


> What the hell is a jigga-watt ?! (Marty McFly)
> JR


1.21 to be exact.


----------



## Supe (Jul 15, 2009)

OSUguy98 said:


> in power, is the scale measured base-10? or does 1 kW = 1024W (like PCs and the 1 GB = 1024 MB)?
> edit---"base-10" not "based-10"



Base 10. Though personally, I'd like to see it rated in hex.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2009)

Supe said:


> Base 10. Though personally, I'd like to see it rated in hex.


I am surprised that some EE g33k hasn't tried to rate it in hex ....

JR


----------



## Wolverine (Jul 16, 2009)

jregieng said:


> Important Cost-Technology Note:
> It takes approximtely 3-units of energy to pump the water vs. 2-units of enegy generation. The feasibility/cost savings is realized and achieved by actively pumping when the baseload draw is at it's nadir (e.g. night). So, while this technology, at face, is not feasible, offsetting the pumping vs. discharging with 'surplus' energy is what makes it happen. Something most people don't seem to take into account when evaluating various alternative.


I think it's an irony that (on my system at least), it's the low cost of nuclear that make pump-storage economically viable (although coal is also running 24 hours.) 
[For the unitiated, you can pump water from the bottom of the dam back up to the top to refill the reservoir at night, allowing you to reuse the hydro the next day during peak hours when it's needed. With nukes and coal running 24 hours and the load way down at night, there is enough cheap energy available to make it cost effective.]



jregieng said:


> Wolverine - can you comment/explain 'smart grid' technology in terms of how that plays out on the grid system as well as practicality/feasiblity of implementing/operating?


 At risk of exposing my cynicism, I've heard "Smart-Grid" applied to everything from the proposed 765kV super-grid to residential smart meters, often including the other favorite buzzword "Green Energy". I'm waiting for some politician to start promising "765kV Smart Energy Green Jobs".
Smart meters are communications enabled devices that send data back to the system operator. For reliability, they're great because they give a clear overview of system conditions - no calling in to report a problem. Also, they're useful for real-time pricing and load curtailment for large customers who want to save a buck by reducing load during peak hours, the expensive hours, where their industrial process allows for that.

They are also sold as snake oil by politicians as an efficiency that will reduce power consumption; theoretically possible, but impractical. The premise is that with a smart meter, the public can elect to use less power during peak hours. The reality is that the second time your air-conditioning and fridge cut off at noon in August in the south, the save-the-planet mentality goes out the window for all but the most fervent environmentalists. (cue Jeff Foxworthy voice: "Ta' hell with the planet, I ain't havin' Grandma sweatin' all over my La-Z-Boy no more. Get me a coldbeer."). We see it in industrial customers who, on the 7th curtailment day in a row, must get product out the door, forget the cost of electricity.

Theoretically, if everybody had a magic black box micro-generator on the side of their house, a smart grid would function magnificently to allow reliable energy for everyone through the interconnections. The reality is that electricity is produced by burning stuff to make steam to turn a massive generator, and those are located far away from the load. That's the way dad did it and it's worked pretty well so far.

Smart meters are useful to the utility, which is why we've already installed a million of them - no, literally, one million. They are useful to politicians because few understand what they are, but they sound really cool. They are useless to consumers, unless you think Jimmy Carter's oil conservation program was a big success. Unless you fundamentally change American psychology away from entitlement to cheap, reliable electric power, "Smart-Grid"(IMHO) is just a cool concept being abused as a buzzword for political and financial gain.

Oh, and I'm not sure how putting in more automation creates more jobs?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 16, 2009)

I think I'm going to start saving wolverine's treateses on power generation and cut them paste them on other boards as necessary.

You explain stuff really well, wolv.


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 16, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> [For the unitiated, you can pump water from the bottom of the dam back up to the top to refill the reservoir at night, allowing you to reuse the hydro the next day during peak hours when it's needed. With nukes and coal running 24 hours and the load way down at night, there is enough cheap energy available to make it cost effective.]
> 
> 
> Oh, and I'm not sure how putting in more automation creates more jobs?


Ameren's Tom Sauk Reservoir worked pretty good until they had a level indicator go bad... oopsie.

Tom Sauk Reservoir Pics after emptied...

For more jobs, it has to be only a TEMP creation simply to do the installation /setup. Once it on line, if anything, it allows the utility to shed jobs if they had someone manually doing any of it before... My SIL used to be a meter reader for Colorado Public Service until they put in meters that talked to a central distribution office (or some that are too far out, you drive by to get data I think???). She became obsolete.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 16, 2009)

A truck drives down the street and reads our meters by remote now. Put a lot of readers out of work, I'm supposing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I think I'm going to start saving wolverine's treateses on power generation and cut them paste them on other boards as necessary.
> You explain stuff really well, wolv.


That's a why I always ask ...

I am waiting for him to say ... "for your ciphinin' pleasure ..."

JR


----------



## Dleg (Jul 17, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I think I'm going to start saving wolverine's treateses on power generation and cut them paste them on other boards as necessary.
> You explain stuff really well, wolv.


Agreed. I have learned a lot from Wolverine's posts and responses.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 17, 2009)

I've learned an awful lot. Being mechanical, I hear a lot of stuff about power generation and the grid that doesn't sound quite kosher, but I don't have the background to figure out and explain why. Wolv's posts have explained a lot to me, in terms I can understand. the guy would make a great writer.

I can hoild my own on solar, but I did a lot of research on it on my own.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2009)

TouchDown said:


> For more jobs, it has to be only a TEMP creation simply to do the installation /setup. Once it on line, if anything, it allows the utility to shed jobs if they had someone manually doing any of it before... My SIL used to be a meter reader for Colorado Public Service until they put in meters that talked to a central distribution office (or some that are too far out, you drive by to get data I think???). She became obsolete.


The method for reading meters here has gone 'electric' too - the pilot-scale study has started in the town I live in and will be progressively phased to the other customers.

[sarcasm]

I have to say it was a great success. So far, the company has hit the mark every single month - it has been necessary to make a call to get the billing corrected. Every single time. I guess you can say they are CONSISTENT. Heckuva job!!!

[/sarcams]



Capt Worley PE said:


> I've learned an awful lot. Being mechanical, I hear a lot of stuff about power generation and the grid that doesn't sound quite kosher, but I don't have the background to figure out and explain why.


Same here ... talking these things out with the insights of wolvie and a few others who have REALLY, REALLY helped out with understanding the nuances of what is happening behind the scenes.

What is also kinda cool is that I get to learn a little from my job now - I will be taking an employee orientation on Wednesday that covers the following:


Energy Overview and History
Energy Business Model Part 1
Energy Business Model Part 2
Fundamentals of Electricity
Fundamentals of Natural Gas

If you have any questions - I will be happy to ask the experts. 



Capt Worley PE said:


> Wolv's posts have explained a lot to me, in terms I can understand. the guy would make a great writer.


+1 on that!!!

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 27, 2009)

Ocean turbines

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/27/ocean.turbines/index.html

I'm sure soner or later we'll hear 'they kill whales!!!'


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 27, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Ocean turbines
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/27/ocean.turbines/index.html
> 
> I'm sure soner or later we'll hear 'they kill whales!!!'


That's alright, the Sea Shepherds will attack them with butyric acid.


----------



## Supe (Jul 27, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> That's alright, the Sea Shepherds will attack them with butyric acid.



I can see it now. Metallurgists for the OEMS of ocean turbines frantically doing corrosion studies that they just can't explain.


----------



## Santiagj (Jul 30, 2009)

So with ocean turbines... Has anyone figured out how to keep the barnacles off them? Simple problem not so simple solution.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2009)

^^^ Has anyone figured out how to adequately secure them to a foundation when the ice comes ...

JR


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 2, 2009)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ Has anyone figured out how to adequately secure them to a foundation when the ice comes ...
> JR


Billy Mays did...THAT'S THE POWER OF MIGHTY PUTTY!!!


----------



## Santiagj (Aug 7, 2009)

Well ice shouldnt be a problem everywhere. They can be placed in warmer areas and deeper areas. But barnacles will grow pretty much everywhere. Once you get them on the prop they will ruin the aerodynamic properties.


----------



## Dleg (Aug 30, 2009)

Tell me this isn't cool.


----------



## Supe (Aug 31, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Tell me this isn't cool.



Not for $60 it isn't!

Also, because of the BANANA rule, you could never actually assemble it.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2009)

Supe said:


> Not for $60 it isn't!


I'm going to have to agree.

Maybe that's the cost of 'doing the right thing.'


----------



## Supe (Aug 31, 2009)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm going to have to agree.
> Maybe that's the cost of 'doing the right thing.'



Maybe carbon offsets for the Lego Racers?


----------



## Dleg (Aug 31, 2009)

Most clever responses. But in fairness, all Legos are super-expensive (check out Princess Leia's spaceship - $150!!!)


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2009)

This item is added to my christmas wish list ....

C'mon Santa!!!!!! 

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 10, 2009)

Google working on a better mirror for heliostats.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalClima...E58867I20090909

Note that even if they do get the four fold improvement in efficiancy (a big IF), they would still about as expensive as a nuke.


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 10, 2009)

Wow, I'm shocked! A straightforward, honest perspective on the viability of solar - I'm having a hard time finding anything to mock.



> "Google Inc. is disappointed with the lack of breakthrough investment ideas in the green technology sector but the company is working to develop its own new mirror technology that could reduce the cost of building solar thermal plants by a quarter or more."


 I can't complain about this - putting up their own money.



> "Typically what we're seeing is $2.50 to $4 a watt (for) capital cost," Weihl said. "So a 250 megawatt installation would be $600 million to a $1 billion. It's a lot of money."


 I can't complain about this - it's honest.



> Google hopes to have a viable technology to show internally in a couple of months, Weihl said. It will need to do accelerated testing to show the impact of decades of wear on the new mirrors in desert conditions.


 Wow, honest engineering econ., not rainbow powered magic.



> Another technology that Google is working on is gas turbines that would run on solar power rather than natural gas, an idea that has the potential of further cutting the cost of electricity, Weihl said.


 Okay, I can mock this just a little - isn't this like working on an internal combustion engine that runs on bicycles? (Maybe the author just didn't understand the concept enough to explain it very well.)



> Google is invested in two solar thermal companies, eSolar and BrightSolar but is not working with these companies in developing the cheaper mirrors or turbines.
> Weihl said there is a lack of companies that have ideas that would be considered breakthroughs in the green technology sector. After announcing its plans to create renewable energy at a price lower than power from coal, it has invested less than $50 million in other companies.


 Uh-oh; time to short sell on Google before they bankrupt themselves chasing rainbows.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm just waiting on Lego to release a solar thermal plant kit. That's when I wil know this is a viable technology.


----------



## benbo (Sep 11, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> Okay, I can mock this just a little - isn't this like working on an internal combustion engine that runs on bicycles? (Maybe the author just didn't understand the concept enough to explain it very well.)


Poorly worded. Maybe what he was talking about is the combined cycle application here-

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_systems.html


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 14, 2009)

That's pretty interesting.

I'm reminded that beyond my passionate rants about the MW numbers not being there for renewables vs nukes, there is still some pretty cool technology to be explored. Some of these plants have been in service since the late 80's. Cool.


----------



## benbo (Sep 14, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> That's pretty interesting.
> I'm reminded that beyond my passionate rants about the MW numbers not being there for renewables vs nukes, there is still some pretty cool technology to be explored. Some of these plants have been in service since the late 80's. Cool.


Your rants are correct, at least IMHO, that solar and wind will not be able to replace fossil fuels and nuclear as the system backbone, at least not in my lifetime. Even hydro is very climate dependent. THey can however be used in a supplementary manner, through careful planning. I also believe that these government renewable mandates are only helpful in a very marginal manner. THese new technologies will only really explode if and when the profit margin kicks in.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> Uh-oh; time to short sell on Google before they bankrupt themselves chasing rainbows.


Actually, what will happen is that though the return on investment isn't there in terms of savings in electrical generation, they have an alternate mechanism for picking up some $$ - publicity.

There's a large wind turbine in MI that was purchased for $250k - there's NO WAY to recoup your money on that but the commercial entity is getting a lot of press and buzz from it and figures to not go broke on the venture.

FWIW - I just heard some statistics on moderate-sized wind turbines today ....

3 MW (delivered) generating wind turbine, captial investment = $13k. Return on investment (in years) is approximately 13 yrs.



Dleg said:


> I'm just waiting on Lego to release a solar thermal plant kit. That's when I wil know this is a viable technology.








Wolverine said:


> I'm reminded that beyond my passionate rants about the MW numbers not being there for renewables vs nukes, there is still some pretty cool technology to be explored. Some of these plants have been in service since the late 80's. Cool.


I think your rants are far from rants - they are on point. You have never argued that the technology has no applicability - just limited applicability and certainly very little viability in today's commercial energy market based on cost of generation/transmission.



benbo said:


> Your rants are correct, at least IMHO, that solar and wind will not be able to replace fossil fuels and nuclear as the system backbone, at least not in my lifetime.


Very true.



benbo said:


> Even hydro is very climate dependent. THey can however be used in a supplementary manner, through careful planning. I also believe that these government renewable mandates are only helpful in a very marginal manner. THese new technologies will only really explode if and when the profit margin kicks in.


Agreed.

Also, not to sound like an alarmist or conspiracy theorist .... but ....

The only way that these technologies are going to be able to outcompete fossil fuels is by artificially inflating the market for coal-fired generation through cap-and-trade commodities for emissions or very onerous regulation on fuel/residuals. Keep in mind the general numbers I was given for generation are as follows:

$45/MW = Coal

$100/MW = Wind

$500/MW = Solar

And .. for hydro power (pumped storage) ... $2/unit of energy generated for every $3/unit of energy pumped

Just sayin' ...

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 17, 2009)

What was the $/MW for nukes and natural gas?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Sep 17, 2009)

Had this one emailed to me recently and thought of this thread.


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 17, 2009)

jregieng said:


> 3 MW (delivered) generating wind turbine, captial investment = $13k. Return on investment (in years) is approximately 13 yrs.


 That cost seems a little low. A quick Google puts it at more like 1 million per MW. Maybe that should be 3kW/$13k (not that I EVER mix up kW/MW  )



jregieng said:


> The only way that these technologies are going to be able to outcompete fossil fuels is by artificially inflating the market for coal-fired generation through cap-and-trade commodities for emissions or very onerous regulation on fuel/residuals.


 That's it. But who would do such a silly thing - make power more expensive in order to promote inferior technology? Who? Hmm? Who, who, who?
Here is some more random data for you:

Fuel costs in cents per kwH

Oil &amp; Gas ~ 7

Coal ~ 3.5

Nukular ~ 0.5

Add to that a few cents for operating costs and you and I get similar cost/MW for coal, and can then extrapolate natural gas costs at around 8-9 cents/kWh. That sounds about right to me. Then Wind is about double the cost of coal and solar is 10X. Nuclear is half price.

Critics will cry about factoring in construction costs, but if you also factor in availability &amp; reliability, fossil wins again, with nukes placing nicely.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 17, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> That cost seems a little low. A quick Google puts it at more like 1 million per MW. Maybe that should be 3kW/$13k (not that I EVER mix up kW/MW


3kW/$13k = 1MW/$4.3M


----------



## Supe (Sep 17, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> Critics will cry about factoring in construction costs, but if you also factor in availability &amp; reliability, fossil wins again, with nukes placing nicely.



Mind you, after the first few nukes go up, the price of construction will drop dramatically once the facilities putting together the modules become well established.


----------



## benbo (Sep 17, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> 3kW/$13k = 1MW/$4.3M


I don't know anything about these cost numbers, but this discrepancy could be explained by economies of scale. It's more expensive to build a big windmill than a little one, but maybe less expensive proportionally. Also, once you start up the windfarm, it may not be equally expensive to add more windmills. Just an idea (guess).


----------



## Wolverine (Sep 17, 2009)

wilheldp_PE said:


> 3kW/$13k = 1MW/$4.3M


Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2009)

Wolverine said:


> That cost seems a little low. A quick Google puts it at more like 1 million per MW. Maybe that should be 3kW/$13k (not that I EVER mix up kW/MW  )


My quote is supposed to be 3 *kW* - leave it to the civil environmental to screw up the units! :rotflmao:



Wolverine said:


> Here is some more random data for you:Fuel costs in cents per kwH
> 
> Oil &amp; Gas ~ 7
> 
> ...


In round terms, those numbers sound right to me. Interestingly, the market for natural gas has been way down as to make it more affordable but I suspect that is a random market fluctuation rather than a true trend.



Wolverine said:


> Critics will cry about factoring in construction costs, but if you also factor in availability &amp; reliability, fossil wins again, with nukes placing nicely.


Construction costs and rise in cost for materials (e.g. steel, concrete) factor in heavily but actually the larger 'constraint' on the pricing models regards the cost/uncertainty of regulation. I have looked at some strategy plans and was surprised at how other interests began to compete when you factor in the cost of regulation, hence my earlier comments.



wilheldp_PE said:


> 3kW/$13k = 1MW/$4.3M


Yep - that's it.



benbo said:


> I don't know anything about these cost numbers, but this discrepancy could be explained by economies of scale. It's more expensive to build a big windmill than a little one, but maybe less expensive proportionally. Also, once you start up the windfarm, it may not be equally expensive to add more windmills. Just an idea (guess).


There's some truth to that but here's the real kicker benbo ...

For Michigan, the real 'escalation' in the price for wind generation comes from TRANSMISSION because the locations most viable for sustainable wind fields happen to coincide with the least populated areas hence little to no infrastructure to trasmit the electricity once it is generated.

Makes a lot of sense eh? 

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 25, 2009)

http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/956637.html



> PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The Obama administration must juggle competing interests surrounding offshore wind farms proposed for the East Coast as it decides how the nation's ocean waters can be used, officials said Thursday.
> Wind power was among several concerns Obama's Ocean Policy Task Force heard during a public meeting in Providence, its only stop on the wind-rich East Coast. The meeting came a week after the task force recommended creating a National Ocean Council to coordinate and hold accountable a hodgepodge of federal agencies responsible for conservation and marine planning.
> 
> The task force's next job is figuring out what uses the country should allow in its waters and where. Three states - Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine - are already creating their own management plans, in part to decide where offshore wind turbines could be placed.
> ...


----------



## Supe (Sep 25, 2009)

> Those wind turbines would also serve a market that already faces some of the highest electricity prices in the country because of its reliance on fossil fuels.


Uhhhh, the rest of the country also relies on fossil fuels for its electricity, so how does that factor in whatsoever?


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2009)

You are trying to bait me on a Friday ... you can't do it!! 



Supe said:


> Uhhhh, the rest of the country also relies on fossil fuels for its electricity, so how does that factor in whatsoever?


You know it's funny how things get reported ...

Ironically, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that any wind turbine projects would not be used for baseload, meaning, they would be used to supplement existing load during peaking operations due to ongoing reliability concerns.

As an aside, what makes it even funnier ...

One of the largest stressors (if not the largest stressor) on the peaking demand is hot weather because that's when people crank-up the air conditioning, thus driving up the need for more power. Guess what happens during 'hotter' weather ... there's less wind. Studies show where the releationship between wind and 'hot' weather is inversely proportional. Brilliant!!

Or, how about the infrastructure necessary to distribute this power that will be generated. I don't think they have that in place off the eastern seaboard ... but then I am just an environmental engineer .. what do I know?

Or how about the environmental impact studies that will demonstrate the vast acreage that will be disturbed to construct these behemoth windmills and the associated ancillary facilities that will be needed to support not only the power generation but the transmission and distribution as well.

Or how about wind corridors that will be disturbed to all of our avian friends? Or the sea turtles that are already confused by light interferences, now they will have additional out-of-synch resonances from the machinery to further confuse them as to which direction they should be heading.

Or how about ... Damn ... I got baited!

[/rant]

JR


----------



## benbo (Sep 25, 2009)

jregieng said:


> Ironically, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that any wind turbine projects would not be used for baseload, meaning, they would be used to supplement existing load during peaking operations due to ongoing reliability concerns.


Sort of true, but not exactly. It’s used to supplement but it is the first thing used, if that makes any sense.

Obviously, you can’t turn wind on and off like a peaker, and as you say, there is statistically less wind on hot days. It is all pretty complicated because there can also be such a thing as too much wind (but that’s another tangent).

I can tell you how it works in California. Consider the power supply as a pyramid with the stuff they will use first at the bottom. At the bottom are the nuclear plants, which they always run at nearly full load. After that comes all the renewables - including wind (QFs), cogens, and other small power producers, which they are forced to use because of governmental regulations. So even though these things provide extremely variable and difficult to predict power, they are used a lot, and whatever they produce gets purchased first.

To make up for the fluctuating load off these generators, you have all the fossil fueled plants up at the top. In California they will dispatch them based on a lot of different variables (contract, location on the grid, etc.), but all things being equal they try to dispatch the units with the lowest heat rates first. That means that all the new combined cycle plants are running at near baseload. Then you have the peakers.

Now for the really stupid part. Up at the top, providing peaking or load following, are not only real peakers (gas turbines), but 50 year old steam plants. The reason for this is that they are so inefficient they don’t want to use them unless they have to. So you have them cycling these dinosaurs all over the place, which in turn makes them break down.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2009)

> At the most recent meeting for the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), Matt Hale, EPA Director for the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery included a discussion regarding one of EPA's primary objectives in the rulemaking continues to be to ensure that the Agency has direct federal enforcement authority over the final regulations. EPA lawyers reportedly are advising EPA management that the only option for obtaining this authority is to regulate coal combustion by-products (CCBs) as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. *While Matt Hale conceded at last month's ECOS meeting that Subtitle D non-hazardous waste rules for CCBs can be fully protective of human health and the environment (noting that EPA is sending ash from the Kingston release to a Subtitle D landfill), he advised that EPA is still leaning strongly towards proposing to regulate CCBs as hazardous waste to ensure federal enforceability. *Therefore, while the proposal will contain a range of options for regulation of CCBs, including under Subtitle D, we expect that the Agency’s favored option will be regulation of CCBs as hazardous waste under Subtitle C, with an exclusion for qualified CCB beneficial uses.


*Translation:*

We don't care that the science supports EXISTING solid waste disposal and beneficial reuse regulations as protective of human health and the environment; we must use all means at our discretion to ensure that the cost of producing electricity via coal-fired means escalates to the point to where it is no longer cost-competitive as a fuel source. We will not be satisfied until our will is forced upon the public because we must have separate, enforceable authorities even though we are crying like babies because we don't have the funding to accomodate the increased paperwork and reporting required under Subtitle C regulation.

:violin:

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 30, 2010)

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10713041/1/...olar-plant.html



> FREDERICK, MD. (TheStreet) -- BP Solar, the solar panel manufacturing subsidiary of British petroleum giant BP(BP), is shutting its solar panel plant in Frederick, Maryland and laying off 320 plant employees.
> BP's move is another sign of the disconnect that exists between the political rhetoric in Washington D.C. to link green energy's development to U.S. job growth, and the reality of globalized manufacturing and, in particular, the drastic reductions in solar module prices in the past year.






> Even Evergreen Solar(ESLR), which received a big paycheck from the state of Massachusetts to set up a plant in the state, has since capitulated to the reality of globalization and Evergreen Solar is moving a large portion of its manufacturing to China.
> The Evergreen example, in fact, may be the starkest example in the reality of manufacturing trends: it costs Evergreen less to pay workers in China to manufacture solar components and ship those components back to the U.S., then to have a state-of-the-art robotic assembly line in Massachusetts complete the brunt of the manufacturing.
> 
> It was a little over three years ago that BP and Maryland state officials hailed the $70 million plant as a green-jobs winner. Last Friday, BP said it would save up to 45% in costs by closing the plant.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 16, 2011)

Article about solar plant in Michigan.

The thing that struck me as funny is the [part] owner's fancy math to try to make it look like the government is anti-Solar when, in fact, his business simply isn't profitable.



> The $27,689 tax bill for the Charleston Township prop­erty means that the owners are losing money, even when being paid a premium price of 45 cents a kilowatt hour by Consumers Energy, he said.
> “That Michigan property tax burden works out to a cost of 12.3 cents per kilowatt hour,” Field said. “That amount is more than the retail value of the electricity.”
> 
> For comparison, Field re­searched the property tax for the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township along Lake Michigan. He found that the annual real and personal property taxes for Palisades are just over $12 million or .2 cents per kilowatt hour.
> ...


That solar farm is 1.5 acres, so they are paying about $18,500/acre. The Palisades Nuclear Plant is 432 acres, so they are paying about $27,800/acre. If you actually look at the property taxes in relation to the SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, the solar farm is getting a deal. Who the hell calculates property taxes on a "per kilowatt hour basis"?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (May 17, 2011)

The comments section was pretty good.

Those are some pretty high taxes...no wonder people are leaving MI.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 9, 2011)

Interesting site if you want to price out building your own solar PV system:

http://www.windsun.com/


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 9, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Interesting site if you want to price out building your own solar PV system:
> http://www.windsun.com/


Reading that site name, all I can think of is "You windsun, you lose sun."


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 18, 2011)

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/08/f...sy-of-wind.html



> Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes on the "wind myth". Texas, he says, has 10GW of installed wind-generation capacity - nearly three times as much as any other state. But during three sweltering days last week, when the state set new records for electricity demand, this "vast herd of turbines" proved incapable of producing any serious amount of power.
> On 2 August, when electricity demand hit 68GW, output was just 1.5GW, or about 15 percent of installed capacity – equivalent to 2.2 percent of the total power demand. And this was no anomaly. On four days in August 2010, when electricity demand set records, wind energy was able to contribute just one, two, one, and one percent, respectively, of total demand.
> 
> Over the past few years, about $17 billion has been spent installing wind turbines in Texas. Another $8 billion has been allocated for transmission, bringing the total to $25 billion. That sum could have bought 5GW of nuclear or as much as 25GW of natural-gas-fired capacity.
> ...


Found my new tagline: *"Yet these are the fools who sit on top of the manure pile and crow"*


----------



## csb (Aug 18, 2011)

How have I never commented in this thread?

When oil and gas come into our state, we end up trying to back money for some of the damage they do to our infrastructure while putting in the wells/camps/etc. No one squawks, because they are the big bad energy industry. Plus, well, they should pay for that damage done to the infrastructure.

On the same note, we have quite the wind industry in the state. In case you've never seen a windmill, they are HUGE. The blades are on a huge extended trailer and it's an oversize load for sure. However, we can't touch them, because they are "green" and apparently non-accountable. Meanwhile, we keep trying to fix roads destroyed by their construction.

Plus, they kinda kill the scenery. There's my NIMBY statement for the thread.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 18, 2011)

Windmills belong on a mini-golf course.

There was some controversy here a while back when a plan was passed to build a bunch of windmills off Cape Cod. Two watermelons here were gushing over it. I thought, wow, way to ruin the scenery.

Plus there's the issue of screwing with the equilibirum of people that live near them that has never really been addressed.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 18, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> There was some controversy here a while back when a plan was passed to build a bunch of windmills off Cape Cod. Two watermelons here were gushing over it. I thought, wow, way to ruin the scenery.


I thought they were supposed to be over the horizon from the beach.

A rogue ship would play hell on an offshore farm, methinks.


----------



## csb (Aug 18, 2011)

They also destroy migration paths, but they seem to get around that, and they can be pretty disruptive to a light aircraft.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 18, 2011)

All those blinking red lights. At least they synchronize them around here so you know you're looking down at a wind farm.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 18, 2011)

^driving up I-55 at night is sort of creepy with all the blinking redlights.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 18, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> ^driving up I-55 at night is sort of creepy with all the blinking redlights.


You sure that isn't Mothman?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 18, 2011)

csb said:


> Plus, they kinda kill the scenery. There's my NIMBY statement for the thread.


I guess to play devil's advocate, I just love the way the sunset highlights the great views of a coal power plant...


----------



## csb (Aug 18, 2011)

At least it's consistently producing power!


----------



## Supe (Aug 18, 2011)

A) That picture is photoshopped. B) Most of that "smoke" is steam from the cooling towers!


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 18, 2011)

^its funny how often people complain about that awful smoke coming out of the stacks at the power plant...


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 18, 2011)

Supe said:


> A) That picture is photoshopped. B) Most of that "smoke" is steam from the cooling towers!


A) I know this one isn't (ash spill in Knoxville TN)...






B) I know that it's steam, still doesn't make it look any more "pretty"

My whole argument is that I find it annoying when people talk about how "ugly" the wind farms are, but you don't hear a peep from anyone concerning the existing coal plants...


----------



## FLBuff PE (Aug 18, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Supe said:
> 
> 
> > A) That picture is photoshopped. B) Most of that "smoke" is steam from the cooling towers!
> ...


Oh, common. That'll buff right out.


----------



## csb (Aug 18, 2011)

No one is telling me that a coal plant is supposed to be majestic, nor are they shoving it in my face.

I'm really not that bothered by alternative energy, but I am bothered by uppity hippies.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 18, 2011)

Hey, that looks like where my wife got her first degree. I call her a hippy all the time because of it.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 18, 2011)

They should put up windmills with blades covered in solar PV cells. That way you can generate wind AND solar energy on the same footprint.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 19, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


> They should put up windmills with blades covered in solar PV cells. That way you can generate wind AND solar energy on the same footprint.


That's so crazy, it just might work!


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 19, 2011)

Clean, renewable, carbon-free energy for the 21st century:


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 19, 2011)

csb said:


> No one is telling me that a coal plant is supposed to be majestic, nor are they shoving it in my face.
> I'm really not that bothered by alternative energy, but I am bothered by uppity hippies.


I almost went there for grad school.

Also, I lived in Vermont for several years, my hippie radar is pretty keen at this point.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 19, 2011)

Here's where she spent most of her time there (the Architecture building):


----------



## csb (Aug 19, 2011)

I've run into that stadium on 19 Memorial Days


----------



## maryannette (Aug 19, 2011)

I'll tell you all what I find truly majestic:

A house that is warmed and cooled to a comfortable temperature.

Running water that is clean and warm to bath in and wash dishes and laundry.

A refrigerator that keeps things cold.

A stove in the house to cook food.

A car to get me places too far to walk.

Airplanes that take me farther places.

Computers, cell phones, television, boats, farm tractors, microwaves, dishwashers, lawn mowers, factories that make products, ....

What is intolerable to me is people who enjoy these things, and will not give them up, but talk about how we should all do the "right" thing. How do they know what is "RIGHT"? Scientific studies, right? Well, there have been so many scientific studies and theories that have been disproved that I don't consider science very reliable any more.


----------



## csb (Aug 19, 2011)

Merrimac said:


> I'll tell you all what I find truly majestic:
> A house that is warmed and cooled to a comfortable temperature.
> 
> Running water that is clean and warm to bath in and wash dishes and laundry.
> ...


I want to hug you I agree with you so much.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 19, 2011)

csb said:


> Merrimac said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you all what I find truly majestic:
> ...


x2

You nailed that one, mary.


----------



## MGX (Aug 19, 2011)

Recently I visited a windfarm under construction. The foundations were of the most interest to me. I learned the airfoil on the back of the generator is for the oil coolers. If the turbine oil overheats then naturally they catch fire.

I haven't crunched the numbers to determine the efficacy of wind turbines, but they seem a decent idea if you have enough wind for enough days of the year. The biggest problem I can think of is there seems no way to store the excess energy so without a buffer they only work when the wind is blowing. A community still needs fossil plants.


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 19, 2011)

It's pretty simple:

Hot weather =&gt; daytime =&gt; high loads =&gt; no wind.

Cool weather =&gt; night time =&gt; low loads =&gt; steady wind


----------



## FLBuff PE (Aug 19, 2011)

csb said:


> No one is telling me that a coal plant is supposed to be majestic, nor are they shoving it in my face.
> I'm really not that bothered by alternative energy, but I am bothered by uppity hippies.


Ah, the People's Republic of Boulder. Living there for four years was enough for me.


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 22, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Supe said:
> 
> 
> > A) That picture is photoshopped. B) Most of that "smoke" is steam from the cooling towers!
> ...


That was in Kingston, not Knoxville.


----------



## Supe (Aug 22, 2011)

FLBuff PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Supe said:
> ...



Apples to oranges. One or two stacks and a boiler with sheet metal siding, or an entire landscape full of windmills.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Aug 22, 2011)

The boiler also has the advantage that it will produce enough energy to pay for itself before it requires replacement. The last analysis I saw indicated windmills weren't even close.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 22, 2011)

Supe said:


> FLBuff PE said:
> 
> 
> > Dexman PE said:
> ...


*But windmills are pretty.*


----------



## csb (Aug 22, 2011)

Pretty like an ugly hat


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 22, 2011)

csb said:


> Pretty like an ugly hat


Depends on the windmill, probably. Ocean-based ones? I can see those being very beautiful looking in the first year, and decaying quickly after that.

Personally, I prefer the single facility (or limited facilities) view for almost everything. Solar, sure - panels, in my opinion, look nice. But wind farms generally require too much area to be useful without being ugly.

I prefer nuclear energy. If only there wasn't such a nasty public opinion of it.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

csb said:


> Pretty like an ugly hat


I see what you did there.


----------



## pbrme (Aug 23, 2011)

I had an idea like this back in college:

http://www.gizmag.com/piezoelectric-road-h...ctricity/10568/


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Hey!!! This "wind energy" thing can produce gobs more energy than that!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

> Evergreen Solar Inc., once a darling of the U.S. solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection this week, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese competitors without a reorganization—a sign of the difficulty in creating "green" U.S. manufacturing jobs amid bruising competition across the globe.
> The market for solar panels is expanding world-wide. But the key thing driving demand is increasingly lower prices, which is forcing U.S. firms into a cutthroat cost-cutting war with rivals in China and elsewhere.
> 
> "When margins are getting squeezed, pennies count," says Pavel Molchanov, a solar analyst with Raymond James Financial. "Quite frankly, as a solar manufacturer, it is a lot better to pay workers $1 an hour in China than workers $15 an hour in Massachusetts."
> ...


More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...article_onespot


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 24, 2011)

I keep up on silver investing news since I have some. I read an interesting article saying that the price of silver might explode in the next year or so due to the number of solar panels going into production in China. They have already almost monopolized the buying of silicon and solar PV components. Now that they are about to start assembling all of the panels, they are going to need a shload of silver. Are they setting up a bunch of solar "farms," or are they just incentivizing people to install PV panels on their homes?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

They, who? The Chinese? I doubt it...I think they're just providing cheap PV panels for global markets (mostly Europe). Way I understand it, they're pretty heavily into coal generated electricity.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I keep up on silver investing news since I have some. I read an interesting article saying that the price of silver might explode in the next year or so due to the number of solar panels going into production in China. They have already almost monopolized the buying of silicon and solar PV components. Now that they are about to start assembling all of the panels, they are going to need a shload of silver. Are they setting up a bunch of solar "farms," or are they just incentivizing people to install PV panels on their homes?


Personally, I think standard PV panel usage in farms (by which I assume you mean dedicated swaths of land) and homes are both (largely) a waste of energy. We have so many warehouses that can install them, or office buildings that can install vertical-ish ones, that it seems pointless to me to waste that much land area on standard PV panels. Now, if you're talking about higher-efficiency panels with setups to redirect light, or something along those lines, that's different. Homes are a little different, but quite frankly most of them (from what I've been told, regarding local houses) are better served by making them more passive (requiring the solar energy to heat) than by adding PV panels to power the electronics inside. A shed or porch roof is different, but too small for an effective system.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 24, 2011)

we don't have power out to the shed, but we are looking at some form of solar power for lighting out there when we replace it this fall.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> we don't have power out to the shed, but we are looking at some form of solar power for lighting out there when we replace it this fall.


Look into 12V lighting components from RV and boat outlets. Solves a lot of converter issues and you can run straight off common deep cycle batteries.


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> They, who? The Chinese? I doubt it...I think they're just providing cheap PV panels for global markets (mostly Europe). Way I understand it, they're pretty heavily into coal generated electricity.


We had a discussion just today about how we anticipate at some point much of our coal will be transported up in to Canada and then over to China.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

csb said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > They, who? The Chinese? I doubt it...I think they're just providing cheap PV panels for global markets (mostly Europe). Way I understand it, they're pretty heavily into coal generated electricity.
> ...


Well the coal companies will have to find someone to buy it after Obama makes coal pretty much illegal for use in the US.

But China has HUGE coal resources. that's really the only energy source they have, from what I learned from Chinee grad students.


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)

My in-laws house is coal-heated. They have an actual coal burning furnace and just huck a few chunks in every so often. So crazy.


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 24, 2011)

^ so do they have the chute on the side of the house for coal deliveries?


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)

Nope. The house was built in the 1970s. They have one of those trailers that used to be a truck bed. They go, get the load, and then just park it in the garage/basement.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 25, 2011)

csb said:


> My in-laws house is coal-heated. They have an actual coal burning furnace and just huck a few chunks in every so often. So crazy.


The house that I grew up in was built with a coal fired furnace. There was a chute out front and a huge coal hopper in the basement that to this day probably has more than a ton of coal left in it. I was told that there was a huge screw drive mechanism that fed the coal to the furnace, but it was long gone by the time I was born.

The coal would show up in our stockings when we were kids.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 31, 2011)

1000 'green jobs' disappear on the wind...

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyn...-128802718.html


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 23, 2012)

Just finished reading Earth: The Sequel

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Sequel-Reinvent-Energy-Warming/dp/B005FOF96Q/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1330009136&amp;sr=1-1-catcorr

Pretty interesting book. The edition I read was published in 2008, and was surprising frank about the shortfalls of the technology at the time. It was, history shows, woefully optimistic about the shortfalls being overcome in a few short years. There were some interesting ideas for harvesting wind from the jet stream that I'd never seen before.

Also, a lot of the 'green' companies in this book have disappeared in the years since publication.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Apr 11, 2012)

Interesting chart here (scroll down) comparing costs of generating electricity through various means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


----------



## cdcengineer (Apr 11, 2012)

Interesting - thanks for posting Cap'n


----------



## snickerd3 (Apr 11, 2012)

we have some farmers down here installing single turbines and solar panels to power their farms. one did it about year ago with a small turbine and solar panel set up...they apparently haven't had a power bill since they put them in...they have been able to generate enough. The other which is right down the st from us but in a slightly larger turbine about a month ago...so it is too soon to tell.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 15, 2012)

Interesting article about solar in SC.

http://www.thestate....ml#.UHv-nG_R4TY

I don't think the writers grasp the difference between solar generation for the grid and solar cells on houses.

I KNOW they don't understand the ramifications for the different ways to configure the system.

To the EE guys: Is there really that much of a technical issue with your home system feeding back to the grid? The local electric companies make a huge deal about it (moreso than this article reflects).


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 15, 2012)

Must be green energy day or something with the local paper.

Proposed offshore wind farm: http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/15/2481564/study-offshore-wind-farms-could.html#.UHwCuG_R4TY


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 15, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> To the EE guys: Is there really that much of a technical issue with your home system feeding back to the grid? The local electric companies make a huge deal about it (moreso than this article reflects).


Yes. Electric distribution systems (i.e. from the substation to the house) are designed for power to flow in one direction. Once you start connecting sources that can back feed it causes all sorts of problems. It can cause protective devices (fuses and reclosers) no longer to coordinate so either you trip off a lot more customers than required for a fault--or worse, don't trip at all and the line burns down. If the amount of generation is large enough it can island with the load--that is, the customer's generation backfeeds other customers at a time when the utility end has tripped off. This will often result in bad voltage and frequency, which will damage electrical equipment. And of course, there's the risk of backfeeding into a downed wire, which could cause injury or death. There's probably other issues as well, but these are the ones that jump to my mind.

The IEEE standard 1547 is supposed to address these issues. As long as each generator interconnection is compliant, these shouldn't be a major problem. However a lot of these people are nut jobs who think they shouldn't have to comply and the big bad utility is simply out to get them... which results in them putting everyone's safety in jeopardy.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 15, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > To the EE guys: Is there really that much of a technical issue with your home system feeding back to the grid? The local electric companies make a huge deal about it (moreso than this article reflects).
> ...


Thanks for the info. Makes sense.

If the system was designed not to feed back to the utilities, this shouldn't be an issue, though, right? I'm thinking of systems that feed off the PVs primarily and suck utility power when excess is needed (most of the time).


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 15, 2012)

No, actually it makes very little difference how big the customer's load is in comparison to the amount of generation (within reason--if the customer is installing a huge amount of generation there are other concerns to deal with). The problem is in the case of a short circuit on the utility side, the electricity will backfeed the short regardless of how big the load is.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 15, 2012)

So the only way to get around that is go completely off grid or install an offgrid electrical subsystem (which logcally doesn't make much sense).

Dad had to jump through similar hoops when he rigged their house to switch between his generator and the grid.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 15, 2012)

Yeah, a big driver behind that is safety. At the voltages we're talking about (anywhere from 5,000 to 35,000 volts) it only takes tens of milliamps to hurt/paralyze/potentially kill someone. Nothing against your dad personally, but if I were a line worker I wouldn't want to trust my life to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a generator out back.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 15, 2012)

No, I hear you.

The electricity company basically put a "check generator switch before work" notation on his line after blessing it. He has one of those big dudes that runs off his tractor PTO.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 18, 2013)

> Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (STP) became the first company from mainland China to default on its bonds after failing to repay $541 million of notes due March 15, breaching terms of other outstanding loans.
> 
> The move pushes what was once the world’s biggest solar panel maker into default on credit lines it has with International Finance Corp. and Chinese domestic lenders, Suntech said today in a statement from its headquarters in Wuxi. China Development Bank Corp (SDBZ). has loans to Suntech.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/suntech-says-it-received-notice-of-default-on-bonds-due.html

So, it appears not even the Chinese could make a go of solar cell production...even with all the EU and US incentives, low Chinese wages (which aren't so low anymore), and lax pollution regs.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 26, 2013)

> Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
> Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.
> 
> According to _Der Spiegel,_ even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”
> ...




http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 26, 2013)

Holy carp! Look at the subsidies per megawatt-hr!







http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 26, 2013)

Why are subsidies being paid at all to oil, gas, or coal power plants when an attempt is being made by the government to shut them down? Also, in most areas, power companies are allowed to charge customers for whatever the power costs to produce, plus any past or future upgrades to equipment, plus a set percentage of profit. They are regulated monopolies that cannot fail to turn a profit by law. Why in the hell do they need federal subsidies in the first place?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 26, 2013)

They do turn a profit, but that profit is legilated.

Honestly, I didn't think solar was that high.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 22, 2013)

> Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms










> "I didn't put anything to the turbines -- we heard it and *didn't like the thump,* thump, thump and* didn't like seeing them,* but we didn't put it together," she told ABCNews.com.




Yeah..I think you put it together just fine.

Don't like something? Develop an ailment and blame it on something you don't like.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wind-turbine-syndrome-blamed-mysterious-symptoms-cape-cod/story?id=20591168


----------



## Dleg (Oct 29, 2013)

Sounds like anxiety symptoms, to me. This is very telling:



> One 2013 study on the wind turbine effect published in the journal Health Psychology examined the power of suggestion and concluded it may have caused the reported health problems.
> 
> In the study, researchers exposed 60 participants to 10 minutes of infrasound and then silence. Beforehand, half the group was shown television footage of people who lived near wind farms and were recounting the harmful effects. Within this group, the people who scored high for anxiety developed symptoms, even if they were exposed to sham infrasound.


Even worse:



> Rauch also cautions against those who say complaints are psychological in nature.
> 
> "That's a slippery slope, blaming the patient in medicine," he said. "I am not a wind industry businessman or a policy maker. I am a doctor, and I take care of my patients."


As an engineer, I can't help but wonder, why hasn't anyone attempted to log the air pressure and sound within their house to see whether or not "infrasound" is present? Or, for a bigger cost, run a bunch of lab rats or dogs through a controlled infrasound experiment. Leaving this to the quacks and lawyers won't answer anything.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 29, 2013)

That's over my head but I thought you all would find this interesting...

I got a letter in the mail from my new power company here in Colorado. It had a picture of a windmill and some blue skies, birds etc.. Then it wanted to know if I wanted to elect to pay around $20/ extra / month to have my power delivered from windmills instead if the normal "fossil fuels". That shit may go over in boulder but give me the cheap stuff!

So that's how they make a go of wind power by charging people a surcharge just to use it?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 30, 2013)

Dleg said:


> Sounds like anxiety symptoms, to me.


It isn't that at all. They admit they don't like the windmills. This is just an attempt to use the ADA act to get rid of them, at least that's my guess (full disclosure, I had a case where a coworker threatened to sue a company I worked for under ADA because she didn't like smelling the welding fumes).



Road Guy said:


> That's over my head but I thought you all would find this interesting...
> 
> I got a letter in the mail from my new power company here in Colorado. It had a picture of a windmill and some blue skies, birds etc.. Then it wanted to know if I wanted to elect to pay around $20/ extra / month to have my power delivered from windmills instead if the normal "fossil fuels". That shit may go over in boulder but give me the cheap stuff!
> 
> So that's how they make a go of wind power by charging people a surcharge just to use it?


They apparently have that in Charlotte, and a bunch of people signed up for it (general of the more liberal persuasion).

I call it a dumbass fee.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 30, 2013)

Road Guy said:


> That's over my head but I thought you all would find this interesting...
> 
> I got a letter in the mail from my new power company here in Colorado. It had a picture of a windmill and some blue skies, birds etc.. Then it wanted to know if I wanted to elect to pay around $20/ extra / month to have my power delivered from windmills instead if the normal "fossil fuels". That shit may go over in boulder but give me the cheap stuff!
> 
> So that's how they make a go of wind power by charging people a surcharge just to use it?


My company has offered this type of program for about 10 years, but that's pretty much fallen by the wayside now because there is so much tax subsidy of wind power that they don't need to charge extra to make a profit now.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 30, 2013)

I don't want to subsidize your company why does everyone expects a government handout these days


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 30, 2013)

Road Guy said:


> I don't want to subsidize your company why does everyone expects a government handout these days


Lol, yeah... honestly we didn't want to get into the wind power business, but the government made it so attractive that we didn't really have a choice.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 30, 2013)

mudpuppy said:


> the government made it so attractive that we didn't really have a choice.




The epitaph on the USA's tombstone.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Oct 30, 2013)

Watch out for those nasty storms:

http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&amp;from=en-us_msnhpvidmod#/video/65831814-e025-4967-9dc5-8bb037d18050


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 30, 2013)

woah! that was cool!


----------



## Dleg (Oct 30, 2013)

That was pretty cool. Any idea on the story behind this?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Oct 31, 2013)

No idea. I only saw the video on MSN yesterday.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 31, 2013)

Video blocked. What was it, a windmill self destructing?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Oct 31, 2013)

Pretty much. I looked like it was in some seriously nasty winds and was spinning faster than it should have been when one of the blades delaminated and caused the whole thing to shred itself.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Oct 31, 2013)

^ was probably either an older model or something malfunctioned internally. The dynamic braking feature should have kicked in long before it even ramped up to that velocity. And then it should have been locked in position until the storm passed. But if it was older, it may not have had DB or even speed detection.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 31, 2013)

OK, I've seen that one. From what I recall, K1 pretty much nailed it. Overspeed prevention failed. The big debate was whether the blade failed due to speed or vibration.


----------



## Master slacker (Oct 31, 2013)

In gas / steam turbine world, that blade "liberated" itself.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 6, 2013)

> A long-awaited analysis of "net metering," the policy that allows homeowners, school districts and businesses to offset the cost of their electric use with the rooftop solar power they generate and export to the grid, finds the policy will cost California's nonsolar customers $1.1 billion a year by 2020.




More: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24182761/popular-solar-net-metering-policy-will-cost-california


----------



## Exception Collection (Nov 7, 2013)

Capt Worley PE said:


> > A long-awaited analysis of "net metering," the policy that allows homeowners, school districts and businesses to offset the cost of their electric use with the rooftop solar power they generate and export to the grid, finds the policy will cost California's nonsolar customers $1.1 billion a year by 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wait, allowing people to sell the energy they generate back to the electric company is a bad thing? Aside from the fact that the electric company is (maybe) forced to pay retail rates, this seems like an incontrovertibly good thing. Or should the people that own panels pay for the electricity they aren't using as well?

It looks like they're currently paying (I'm making up variables here)

(Kwu - Kws) * $kwdi

when the formula should be something like

Kwu * $kwdi - Kws*$kwdo

Kwu: Kilowatts used (incoming from electric company)

Kws: Kilowatts supplied (outgoing to solar company)

$kwdi: Retail Delivery Charge per KW incoming (used)

$kwdo: Wholesale Delivery Charge per KW outbound (supplied).

Of course, I'd be willing to bet that the utilities truly, absolutely, DO NOT want to do this. Why? Because during the summer - when power consumption in CA is at it's highest - the peak power supplied by the panels is more likely to be during peak consumption hours (meaning a higher delivery charge rate). If a home uses "x" kw at night and "zx-y" during the day, the company will have to pay more for any extra power if y &gt; zx and (y-zx)*$kwdo(day) &gt; z*$kwdi(night). Solar panel installations in *Oregon* can manage that much, and the efficiency there is a lot lower due to cloud cover.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 7, 2013)

I didn't read the article, but my utility is dealing with the same thing: when you pay the customer back in the form of offsetting his regular bill, that customer does not pay his share of the base costs of running the utility (T&amp;D, overhead), which then have to be passed on to the non-net metered customers. It's something that is apparently coming back to bite many utilities right in the balls, espcially as the other customers are realizing they are being screwed and are beginning to take legal action.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 7, 2013)

Not sure about the load curve in CA, but here, peak demand occurs around 4-5 PM, which is well after peak sunshine.

In theory, utilities don't care too much about net metering as long as it's mandated by their regulators. The costs will be passed on to the other customers. Granted I work for a utility... but as a customer I think net metering is grossly unfair to those who don't want to slap solar panels on their houses, because they end up subsidizing those who do.


----------



## Ble_PE (Nov 8, 2013)

^You should be used to subsidizing other people by now.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 8, 2013)

mudpuppy said:


> Not sure about the load curve in CA, but here, peak demand occurs around 4-5 PM, which is well after peak sunshine.
> 
> In theory, utilities don't care too much about net metering as long as it's mandated by their regulators. The costs will be passed on to the other customers. Granted I work for a utility... but as a customer I think net metering is grossly unfair to those who don't want *can't afford* to slap solar panels on their houses, because they end up subsidizing those who do.




Fixed.

Although I still say the best plan is a house designed ground up to be totally off grid. Battery tech ain't there yet, but it is progressing nicely.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2013)

TX looks to be going big with wind lately:

http://m.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2013/09/24/dallas-company-plans-1100-mw-wind.html?r=full

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2013/09/23/texas-wind-power-growing-fast.html

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2013-10-02/wind-power-project-coming-crosby-county#.UoKAo9KsiSp


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 12, 2013)

^ and CNG plants. I'm working on 2 projects right now with Invenergy to have 2 simple cycle systems installed with plans for additional units.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2013)

knight1fox3 said:


> ^ and CNG plants. I'm working on 2 projects right now with Invenergy to have 2 simple cycle systems installed with plans for additional units.




Do they have to have dedicated pipelines or something? Always wondered how they bought the fuel to the plant.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 12, 2013)

They have various taps throughout various counties. And the size of the plant and gas demand/psi will dictate how large the header and corresponding pipe needs to be. But then that length of pipe will need to be run to the site through a regulating station.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2013)

^So they can only be x miles from the wellhead?


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 12, 2013)

Depending on the service requirements and budget constraints, closer is better.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 12, 2013)

And it sounds like converting coal plants to CNG would be a bust, generally, for that reason.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 12, 2013)

There is a massive wind farm about 90 miles north of Indianapolis on I-65. It goes on for about 10 miles with windmills as far as the eye can see along each side of the interstate. There has to be over 1000 windmills up there.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 12, 2013)

Capt Worley PE said:


> And it sounds like converting coal plants to CNG would be a bust, generally, for that reason.




Maybe &amp; maybe not--it just depends on where the gas transmission infrastructure is vs. where the electric transmission infrastructure is. They both cost a lot to build. Not to mention water availability, as it takes a lot of water to run a plant (combined cycle at least). We don't have simple cycle plants around here, but I guess down there in TX it is worth it.

There are consultants that specialize in siting power plants, since there's a lot more that goes into it than just this (finding enough land, environmental constraints, etc).

We have a combined cycle NG plant here in my town--they built about 5 miles of high pressure gas main, two 3-mile electric transmission lines, a large switching station ($40 million) and a huge water supply line (they use something like 20% of the city's water), and that's a relatively small 580 MW plant. It was built on an old Goodyear factory site (contaminated) and they pay no taxes.

I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see some of the old coal power plant sites redeveloped as combustion turbine sites--the water and electric infrastructure are already there, you just have to get gas to them. Plus most of these sites are already contaminated, so you might as well reuse them for something.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 13, 2013)

mudpuppy said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see some of the old coal power plant sites redeveloped as combustion turbine sites--the water and electric infrastructure are already there, you just have to get gas to them. * Plus most of these sites are already contaminated, so you might as well reuse them for something.*




Completely agree with that, and I'm sure it benefits the power companies by not having to clean up the site like they would if they abandoned it.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 7, 2014)

> A Georgia state lawmaker on Tuesday introduced legislation that would encourage more solar power in the state by making the solar panel purchase process more like buying a car — allowing citizens to lease, rather than buy, solar panels for their homes.
> 
> Republican Rep. Mike Dudgeon, an electrical engineer, said the bill would let property owners lease solar panels instead of having to buy them with cash up front. Though the bill if passed may very well result in an increased incentive for people to power their homes with renewable energy, Dungeon says the main reasons for introducing the ill are enabling free-market financing.








> Current law in Georgia states that, if citizens want a solar paneled home, they must buy the technology from the state electric utility. Property owners are allowed to arrange financing through banks to buy and install their own solar panels, but they are not allowed to work with companies that are specifically dedicated to both financing and operating the panels for them. Those kinds of financing agreements are permitted in 22 states, according to the Athens Banner-Herald, but the law in Georgia blocks those deals.
> 
> Dudgeon insists that his bill would not change the part of that law that gives the state utilities exclusive power providing rights, but would only change the rules for small, individual solar projects. Major power providers would be still be in direct contention with the law if they sought to build or finance their own solar farms. And though the projects opened up to leasing would be small, they would eventually add up to big business for the state’s growing solar industry, according to Jason Rooks, president of Clean Energy Strategies LLC.
> 
> “The last few years have seen a drastic drop in prices for solar technology,” he told the Chronicle. “We’re certain that under this [legislation], national and international investment will come to Georgia.”




http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/30/3224161/solar-panel-leasing/

I'm not a giant fan of these leasing companies. Generally they end up with all the benefit and the homeowner doesn't see much....


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 7, 2014)

I'm not so sure about the residential programs, but we are doing something similar here at work, and the partnership though while skewed, still gives us some benefits...


----------



## Supe (Feb 7, 2014)

mudpuppy said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > And it sounds like converting coal plants to CNG would be a bust, generally, for that reason.
> ...




We're already doing quite a bit of this. We've been building a standard plant design 600MW combined cycle for a few years now with 6 more in the works. Typically being erected as new units on smaller 250MW coal jobbers so they can phase out the old units, some of which are 60+ years old.


----------



## iwire (May 30, 2014)

There is definitely a potential in solar panels in the residential side if the pricing come down drastically. I have no problem with solar panel as we are not storing the energy but back feed into the grid instead


----------

