Solar and Wind

[Santiagj]

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]

Tell me this isn't cool.

 

[Supe]

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]

Not for $60 it isn't!

I'm going to have to agree.

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

 

[Supe]

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]

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

 

[Guest]

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

C'mon Santa!!!!!!

JR

 

[Capt Worley PE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[Flyer_PE]

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

 

[Wolverine]

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 )

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 & 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 & reliability, fossil wins again, with nukes placing nicely.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

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]

Critics will cry about factoring in construction costs, but if you also factor in availability & 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]

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).