Pickens Plan -alternative energy Text - Physics Forums Library

taylaron

Jul9-08, 12:11 AM

OmCheeto

Jul9-08, 02:49 AM

"The Pickens Plan"
I've started this thread because I recently heard about a billionaires plan to utilize the alternative energy resources which the united states can provide and I am interested in what other people think about it. This effort is to help solve/ drastically reduce the United State's dependency on foreign oil by mainly utilizing wind and natural gas sources.
pretty much all the information you need is on their website (below)

The main website's link is here: http://www.pickensplan.org/
a general information youtube video here: there is also a pretty good one on their site(above)http://youtube.com/user/pickensplan

Input from some professionals regarding their opinion on alternative energy and / or solutions the world energy crisis would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Beat ya to it by almost two hours.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1795573&postcount=106

For me it seems a no brainer. But then again, I'm not a professional anything.

I've only been "schooled" in thermodynamics, nuclear engineering, economics, electrical engineering, computer science, materials sciences, foreign language, electrical power transmission, physics, 7 terms of calculus, 1 class of philosophy, read my sisters college level psychology text when I was 14, and have an IQ of 160.

As I mentioned, energy independence is a no brainer. Modifying peoples behavior to achieve such a thing is the greatest challenge, IMHO.

Aspects of this question have been discussed from many points of view over the last few months:

Cost of driving: electricity vs. gasoline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=238787)
Algae to the rescue (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274)
$139 a barrel (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=239058)
Fuel saving thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232274)
Energy storage (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10454)
I just paid £70 to fill the car with fuel. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=231887)
Sustainable Economics and Ecological Psychology (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210033)
Green Homes
(http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211862)

There may be a lot more. I've not been here long.

taylaron

Jul9-08, 07:30 PM

thanks, its hard to find these threads... even using PF's search engine.
then when you do find it you're like ......durr why didnt i think of that.

taylaron

Jul9-08, 07:33 PM

its nice to see some people with bucks willing to spend some.........
hopefully more will turn out like Pickens...

OmCheeto

Jul9-08, 08:39 PM

thanks, its hard to find these threads... even using PF's search engine.
then when you do find it you're like ......durr why didnt i think of that.

I would ignore the PF search engine and use either google or yahoo. Their spiders are fighting for world domination.

I've found that if you type something unique in the forum, sometimes it shows up just minutes later on the two search engines.

Try "Lesbian auto mechanics repair Schwarzenegger's Noggin"

In quotes of course.

its nice to see some people with bucks willing to spend some.........
hopefully more will turn out like Pickens...

I doubt he will lose a penny on the venture. Wind and solar may seem expensive, but the long term payoff is almost a sure thing. But you never know, someone might invent something like cold fusion in a couple of years. :rolleyes: Then all the naysayers can say "See! Told ya it was a stupid idea!" But I doubt it.

taylaron

Jul9-08, 10:26 PM

Im praying Chetto
I'm praying.....

OmCheeto

Jul10-08, 01:18 AM

Im praying Chetto
I'm praying.....

Did you try the google bot test? It worked.

Oh, and by the way, the Pickens Plan isn't all that innovative.
It's just that now it's getting to be more than just an environmental issue.
My electrical utility has had a "clean wind" option available for years.
I pay an extra $3.50 a month and they take the money and buy their fancy windmills.
I'm not sure if you saw my post last week where I mentioned that one of the wind farms was producing so much energy, they had to flip the switch as the power lines were at maximum capacity.

So, for the first time, BPA power managers began calling wind-farm operators with orders to curtail power generation. (http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-25/1215303553325340.xml&storylist=orlocal)

I thought I was going to cry. TOO MUCH ENERGY!

How serendipitous that our measly pittance to save the salmon would one day be a piece in an energy independence puzzle.

vanesch

Jul10-08, 03:18 AM

I thought I was going to cry. TOO MUCH ENERGY!

But that's exactly the problem: too much energy one hour, not enough the next...

Astronuc

Jul10-08, 07:31 AM

I thought I was going to cry. TOO MUCH ENERGY! BPA should send the excess energy to California, and displace some of the generation from gas turbines which cycle more rapidly than hydropower.

If one believes in the market place, the demand is there, so the federal government does not need to be subsidizing energy generators.

FredGarvin

Jul10-08, 10:39 AM

OmCheeto

Jul10-08, 12:45 PM

But that's exactly the problem: too much energy one hour, not enough the next...

How many liquid-solid-gas hydrocarbon, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar plants are there?
One simply turns down the output of the dirty plants when the clean outputs are operating.
It's called load shifting.
I used to do it all the time.
And it's not like it's a square wave or something.

BPA should send the excess energy to California, and displace some of the generation from gas turbines which cycle more rapidly than hydropower.

When I heard the news on the radio, that was the situation they stated. The power lines to California were maxed out.

If one believes in the market place, the demand is there, so the federal government does not need to be subsidizing energy generators.
Well...... maybe not the generators. But the deep pockets of the Feds might get the transmission lines up for California a bit faster. Something like the works projects they had during the depression.

Although I'm not a commy or a socialist, the market place hasn't always stuck me as having the national interest at heart. If we'd waited for the market place to get us into space, we'd never have gone.

Pickens plan is fine, but it is just one of a number of mega-projects that should have been started years ago.

Astronuc

Jul10-08, 03:26 PM

I have yet to see a truly free market. I do notice that prices seem to be the same, and that there is little competition. And certainly Enron and others manipulated the market by withholding supply until the California market was desparate to pay many times the normal price.

In NY, there was a move to deregulate with the idea that electricity would become less expensive through competition. The local utilities sold their generation and became strictly T&D. In theory, I could buy electricity from any provider and then pay a T&D fee the local utility. However, the cheap electricity is far away and there essentially was no savings.

The financial companies and lawyers made millions of $ doing deals, but the consumers did not save anything. Some people who switch ended up paying more, and when the grid went down, we were without power for a couple of days, even though the local utility's grid was attached to several power plants. They should have been able to isolate the local area and provide power, but thanks to deregulations and restructuring - that wasn't possible. :rolleyes:

Astronuc

Jul10-08, 03:29 PM

I'd like to see someone divert the obscene amount of energy used for the big lift to get water to southern California. Put some energy into making that area self sufficient in water and the country could save a very large amount of energy. What I don't understand is why the mid-west gets horrific floods yet the aquifers and California are dry.

Why can't the flood waters be collected and diverted to the aquifer or to California?

In S. California, they ought to use solar thermal desalination plants way down south from LA down to San Diego. Every time I fly to SD, I see aqueducts going through the desert. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

taylaron

Jul10-08, 06:57 PM

Did you try the google bot test? It worked.

Oh, and by the way, the Pickens Plan isn't all that innovative.
It's just that now it's getting to be more than just an environmental issue.
My electrical utility has had a "clean wind" option available for years.
I pay an extra $3.50 a month and they take the money and buy their fancy windmills.
I'm not sure if you saw my post last week where I mentioned that one of the wind farms was producing so much energy, they had to flip the switch as the power lines were at maximum capacity.

So, for the first time, BPA power managers began calling wind-farm operators with orders to curtail power generation. (http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-25/1215303553325340.xml&storylist=orlocal)

I thought I was going to cry. TOO MUCH ENERGY!

How serendipitous that our measly pittance to save the salmon would one day be a piece in an energy independence puzzle.

a big issue here is being able to store and or transmit that energy to where it its needed...

What I don't understand is why the mid-west gets horrific floods yet the aquifers and California are dry.

Why can't the flood waters be collected and diverted to the aquifer or to California?

In S. California, they ought to use solar thermal desalination plants way down south from LA down to San Diego. Every time I fly to SD, I see aqueducts going through the desert. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

im no expert astornuc but my guess is that there is too much water coming down from the mountains too fast to either store or divert; resulting in floods. fixing this is not a small undertaking and would cost tens of millions.

and i also agree with vanesch about supply and demand.

oh boy, if we came up with a brilliant way of mass producing effective energy storage; we wouldent have many of these problems we have today.

its just an issue of someone willing to spend a lot of money to fund the research. i think we should be putting more and more into this; knowing that is a blockade for technology in a big way.

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-08, 02:22 AM

I think Pickens has his eye on the ball. This isn't about oil or the environment, this is about the almost $700 Billion sent annually to foreign oil suppliers. We need to solve the rest of the problems, but we can't do it if we bankrupt the country, which is what Pickens is worried about. He describes it as the "largest transfer of wealth in history", and he thinks we are running out of time to end this rape.

I think his idea is brilliant: The easiest way to immediately reduce the dependence on foreign oil is to burn natural gas currently used for the grid, instead of petro, as much as possible, and replace the NG with wind power for the grid.

Brilliant!!! No wonder he's a billionare.

My uncle [worked for an oil company - Richfield, which is now part of ARCO] drove a NG powered car when I was a kid. It is a tried and true technology.

Note also that he says what I've been saying all along: We don't have the time to build and commission enough nuclear plants, even if we wanted to.

PRDan4th

Jul12-08, 05:16 PM

I think Boone is on the right track! Both wind and CNG is proven technology today. The idea of replacing natural gas with wind in power generation is great. Natural gas in compressed form is used widely in many countries today. Much more gas could be produced with new technology for producing from sub-sea hydrate formations in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore South Carolina in 1000 ft. water depths. If this production is commercialized natural gas would be plentiful for many years.

Solar power is also a good prospect for reducing power generation's dependence on gas. Both solar and wind have cycling production capabilities based on sunny days and wind speed. Power generation must follow the demand curve and this leaves gaps that must be picked up be storage (batteries or pumped hydro) or the use of peaking turbines on gas or diesel. Coal and nuclear will continue to provide the base load power generation.

What the US Government must do is provide the land use in areas that are ideally suited for wind or solar and streamline the permitting process to expedite the development of this type of power generation.

stewartcs

Jul12-08, 05:54 PM

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-08, 06:08 PM

I like the hydrate idea...but I don't think they have any way of harvesting it.

The main problem with Pickens idea is the required area of land. The government doesn't own it so in order for them to acquire it they would have to take it by Eminent Domain. This is good for everyone except the guy who owns the land.

CS

The people who own the land could still retain ownership and use the land for cattle or agriculture, while making an additional profit by renting the land for wind use. It could be a real sweet deal for landowners.

One of the richest families around here owns an ideal site for radio and cell towers - a small hill along the I-5 corridor. They rent the land out for antennas and make a small fortune each year.

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-08, 06:50 PM

I thought 22% was the amount of energy supplied to the grid from natural gas, but in my own notes [DOE 1998] I show NG at 23.2%, and petro at 38.8% of our TOTAL energy supply. This is of ~ 100 Quads of energy annually.

If we can really generate that much power using wind, then we could virtually eliminate the need for imported oil. I didn't think that was possible. Is it possible to produce 22 Quads of energy annually using wind?

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-08, 06:58 PM

Imagine what this would mean to our economy. It would be like handing out $2300 checks to every person in the US, every year.

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-08, 07:18 PM

But that's exactly the problem: too much energy one hour, not enough the next...

I don't know that this will be such an issue if we are talking about generators ranging from the Northern to Southern border of the US. I am thinking that we would see enough averaging to negate the dead zones. Also, it's not like solar where we go dead at night. In principle, in many parts of the US, turbines could operate almost continuously. We also have some buffering from coal, nuclear, and hydro power in that they can go to maximum output when wind conditions are generally unfavorable. Likewise, high-wind days would allow coal plants [in particular] to reduce their outputs.

stewartcs

Jul12-08, 09:55 PM

The people who own the land could still retain ownership and use the land for cattle or agriculture, while making an additional profit by renting the land for wind use. It could be a real sweet deal for landowners.

One of the richest families around here owns an ideal site for radio and cell towers - a small hill along the I-5 corridor. They rent the land out for antennas and make a small fortune each year.

I suppose that's true. But there's still the problem and cost of the transmission lines from these areas to the grid.

It seems like it would take a tremendous amount of land though to replace the energy currently obtained from fossil fuels.

As a side note, there is a huge amount of natural gas off the coast of the Carolinas and Virginia too. I suspect that the states would eventually ease the bans on exploration in those areas.

CS

taylaron

Jul13-08, 01:06 AM

Solar power is also a good prospect for reducing power generation's dependence on gas. Both solar and wind have cycling production capabilities based on sunny days and wind speed. Power generation must follow the demand curve and this leaves gaps that must be picked up be storage (batteries or pumped hydro) or the use of peaking turbines on gas or diesel. Coal and nuclear will continue to provide the base load power generation.

What the US Government must do is provide the land use in areas that are ideally suited for wind or solar and streamline the permitting process to expedite the development of this type of power generation.

Imagine what this would mean to our economy. It would be like handing out $2300 checks to every person in the US, every year.

beauty aint it Ivan...

-----------------------------------------------

im all for windmills; but there are some characteristics about them that i dont like.
something i think many people don't realize or know is that whither it is a windy day, or a really windy day, it doesn't matter. windmills are either turning at 1 possible speed, or not at all. this is because of the US's default 60Hz in the grid. different inputs from power sources of different frequencies will produce "beats" which we cant have. windmills don't crank out more juice into the grid if it is an especially windy day. unfortunately.

i wish this could be easily overcame. its easy for a single house that has a generator on top of the house being AC/DC depending on the electronic device; unfortunatly that is not society's norm...

-------------------

i think my next car will be natural gas...........yep.

Ivan Seeking

Jul13-08, 04:17 AM

It just happens that the NG slice of our total fossil fuel energy, and the NG slice of the grid are both about 22%. That lead me to think he meant total energy.

We use about 500,000 million cubic feet of NG monthly to produce electricity.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html#_ftnref3

We get about 1020 BTU per cf of NG
http://www.energy.rochester.edu/units/conversions.pdf

So we burn a total of about 5E11 BTU of NG monthly for electrical power.

At 125,000 BTUs per gallon for gasoline, and assuming approximately the same efficiency [as a best case], we get the equivalent of about 4 billion gallons of gasoline per month, or 130 million gallons per day. We use about 400 million gallons of gasoline per day.

So this would displace about 25%-30% of our gasoline consumption. It would all cost well over a trillion dollars just for the turbines and infrastructure. So at $4 per gallon equivalent for gasoline, I show a payback in about 6 years if we consider only capital costs. But aside from operating costs, etc, I'm not sure how much we need to derate the efficiency for NG as compared to gasoline combustion.

We wouldn't kill the $700 billion dollar annual petro deficit, but we might reduce it by 100 billion or so.

taylaron

Jul13-08, 05:39 PM

......
We wouldn't kill the $700 billion dollar annual petro deficit, but we might reduce it by 100 billion or so.

anything at this point to help the petro deficit would be awesome. for the usa (haha Pakistan!!)

regarding NG cars; if i had a cheap supply of NG (propane right now costs about the same as gas......) i would use it to fuel the (unleaded fuel) car i have now. all i would have to do is exchange the fuel tank meant for NG and then get a different carburetor. among other little things.
could methane provide enough energy per cf to run a car effectively? compared to propane.

methane sources are all around us; waist and compost are going to be a nice thing to have around.... (for methane generation) i still don't understand why that isn't more popular in the US. hey!--you could generate your own methane at your home from your waste! (enough for a car?)
there's green thinking for you; using your crap to fuel your car (from the fumes in principal)

------------------------------
what is the problem with powering your car with CO2? obviously we've got too much of that. that's the dream green car for ya...

OmCheeto

Jul14-08, 12:49 AM

it doesn't matter. windmills are either turning at 1 possible speed, or not at all. this is because of the US's default 60Hz in the grid. different inputs from power sources of different frequencies will produce "beats" which we cant have. windmills don't crank out more juice into the grid if it is an especially windy day. unfortunately.

Can your provide a reference for this?
It runs contrary to my experience in electrical power transmission.

taylaron

Jul14-08, 01:14 AM

Can your provide a reference for this?
It runs contrary to my experience in electrical power transmission.

My father is an Electrical Engineer and we were talking about the ups and downs of windmills. please correct me if he is wrong. the technology might have changed since he was taught.

i do admit it is unfortunate.

but it does however make sense because you've got a generator up there that outputs x amount of electricity during low winds and 2x energy in high winds....in order to have the energy applied to the grid; you would need to store it in a battery somewhere and then use an inverter to convert the electricity into 60Hz. A lot of the energy will be lost to heat when you use an inverter; they are very very inefficient. right? you cant have a windmill that increases its frequency based upon how fast the rotor is turning. based on how AC generators work.
that is my understanding.

LowlyPion

Jul14-08, 01:38 AM

im all for windmills; but there are some characteristics about them that i dont like.
something i think many people don't realize or know is that whither it is a windy day, or a really windy day, it doesn't matter. windmills are either turning at 1 possible speed, or not at all. this is because of the US's default 60Hz in the grid. different inputs from power sources of different frequencies will produce "beats" which we cant have. windmills don't crank out more juice into the grid if it is an especially windy day. unfortunately.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-047f5.gif

Actually the whole purpose of the DC to AC inverter/converter is to establish synchronicity with the grid power I believe. The battery banks provide a reservoir in which to capture the power over a range of wind conditions and then they supply the home or the grid or both.

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-08, 04:10 AM

My father is an Electrical Engineer and we were talking about the ups and downs of windmills. please correct me if he is wrong. the technology might have changed since he was taught.

i do admit it is unfortunate.

but it does however make sense because you've got a generator up there that outputs x amount of electricity during low winds and 2x energy in high winds....in order to have the energy applied to the grid; you would need to store it in a battery somewhere and then use an inverter to convert the electricity into 60Hz. A lot of the energy will be lost to heat when you use an inverter; they are very very inefficient. right? you cant have a windmill that increases its frequency based upon how fast the rotor is turning. based on how AC generators work.
that is my understanding.

From what I have seen, we are now using variable pitch blades that allow the turbine to compensate for wind conditions.

Today, inverter technology is extremely efficient - having a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 95%. This results from PWM and PFM [pulse width, and pulse frequency modulation], that allows the transistors to operate near peak efficiency at all times. In the bad old days, using linear technology, half of the energy was lost in the transistors. but today that 50% is down to nearly 5%. Also, modern field effect transistors [FETs], and insulated gate bipolar transistors [IGBTs], can have an on resistance as low as 0.3 ohms or lower, which also helps to reduce the losses.

There is also the notion of intelligent field control on the coils and rotors of the generators or alternators. I don't know how sophisticated we get in regards to wind generators or how this is usually managed, but there are ways to control the generator fields to allow for increasing power production given a fixed shaft speed - in effect, electronic gears.

OmCheeto

Jul14-08, 04:29 AM

My father is an Electrical Engineer and we were talking about the ups and downs of windmills. please correct me if he is wrong. the technology might have changed since he was taught.

i do admit it is unfortunate.

I asked for a reference because I've been out of the industry for about 25 years. So I'm a bit rusty myself. And I know very little about the multimegawatt windmills.

Ok. I'll do the research...........

They use 3 phase asynchronous generators (http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/specs.htm). That is very peculiar. I'm only familiar with synchronous grid generators.

Ah ha!

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/async.htm
This type of generator is not widely used outside the wind turbine industry

but it does however make sense because you've got a generator up there that outputs x amount of electricity during low winds and 2x energy in high winds....in order to have the energy applied to the grid; you would need to store it in a battery somewhere and then use an inverter to convert the electricity into 60Hz. A lot of the energy will be lost to heat when you use an inverter; they are very very inefficient. right? you cant have a windmill that increases its frequency based upon how fast the rotor is turning. based on how AC generators work.
that is my understanding.
No, you do not need to store the energy.

If you have 3 electric plants online supplying the grid(coal, nuclear, natural gas), and a wind farm comes online, you reduce the output of the least desirable source of energy, thus extending the life of that fuel source.

Until Ivan perfects algae-oil, we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels.

But there's still the problem and cost of the transmission lines from these areas to the grid.

I keep seeing these kind of statements. I do not see this as a problem. It is a fact. We will have to pay for improved infrastructure.

After all, the existing transmission lines didn't grow on trees. Our parents and grandparents paid for them.

taylaron

Jul14-08, 03:25 PM

From what I have seen, we are now using variable pitch blades that allow the turbine to compensate for wind conditions.

Today, inverter technology is extremely efficient - having a theoretical maximum efficiency of about 95%. This results from PWM and PFM [pulse width, and pulse frequency modulation], that allows the transistors to operate near peak efficiency at all times. In the bad old days, using linear technology, half of the energy was lost in the transistors. but today that 50% is down to nearly 5%. Also, modern field effect transistors [FETs], and insulated gate bipolar transistors [IGBTs], can have an on resistance as low as 0.3 ohms or lower, which also helps to reduce the losses.

well there ya go kids, this another example of old technology in a modern world....
those improvments are great! haha, that changes a lot of my perspective.
thanks.

There is also the notion of intelligent field control on the coils and rotors of the generators or alternators. I don't know how sophisticated we get in regards to wind generators or how this is usually managed, but there are ways to control the generator fields to allow for increasing power production given a fixed shaft speed - in effect, electronic gears.

im afraid i don't understand your statment on electric gears ivan because you cant generate more energy by uping the gears. you will only lose or gain torque in proportion to your gear ratio. loss of energy from friction. but you know all this.
i suppose i don't understand your concept.

I asked for a reference because I've been out of the industry for about 25 years. So I'm a bit rusty myself. And I know very little about the multimegawatt windmills.

Ok. I'll do the research...........

They use 3 phase asynchronous generators (http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/specs.htm). That is very peculiar. I'm only familiar with synchronous grid generators.

Ah ha!

No, you do not need to store the energy.

If you have 3 electric plants online supplying the grid(coal, nuclear, natural gas), and a wind farm comes online, you reduce the output of the least desirable source of energy, thus extending the life of that fuel source.

Until Ivan perfects algae-oil, we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels.

I keep seeing these kind of statements. I do not see this as a problem. It is a fact. We will have to pay for improved infrastructure.

After all, the existing transmission lines didn't grow on trees. Our parents and grandparents paid for them.

i suppose your statement on transmission lines is correct; but in order to upgrade to more powerful systems, work must be done about it. but that is another thread.

your statement on the equalizing of your three energy sources (wind, coal, nuclear) makes perfect sense but wouldn't that kind of undermine the problem about energy loss/ shortages across the USA?

but clearly you would want to reserve as much of the non renewable sources as possible.

OmCheeto

Jul14-08, 05:15 PM

im afraid i don't understand your statment on electric gears ivan because you cant generate more energy by uping the gears. you will only lose or gain torque in proportion to your gear ratio. loss of energy from friction. but you know all this.
i suppose i don't understand your concept.

As an electrical engineer, your father should be able to explain why gearing is necessary in windmills.

i suppose your statement on transmission lines is correct; but in order to upgrade to more powerful systems, work must be done about it. but that is another thread.

Without an improved transmission system, the Pickens Plan is just a bunch of windmills. So I'd say it's not another thread. This is an integral part of the plan, whether he states it explicitly or not.

your statement on the equalizing of your three energy sources (wind, coal, nuclear) makes perfect sense but wouldn't that kind of undermine the problem about energy loss/ shortages across the USA?

No. As I stated earlier, the Pickens plan is only one of many megaprojects that should be going on.
For starters, I'd like to see:
a. 2000 watts of grid connected photo-voltaic panels on every home in the US. (Individual energy storage is optional)
b. 10000 watt passive solar collectors on all those homes as well.
c. A well researched national wind project.
d. 50 new nuclear plants.
e. Detroit spitting out 30 million plug in EV-hybrids a year.
f. Ivan, CEO of CEC*, now the richest man in the world, being picketed by PETA.(People for the Ethical Treatment of Algae.)

*Chlorophyta Energy Consortium

but clearly you would want to reserve as much of the non renewable sources as possible.

Exactly. With the exception of d & f above, I would like to see all of the above implemented within the next 3 years. We can worry about full energy independence in 10 years.

Perhaps we should buy our last barrel of foreign oil on the 4th of July, 2018.
Now that would be something to celebrate.

taylaron

Jul14-08, 05:46 PM

OmCheeto

Jul14-08, 06:34 PM

I agree with everything you just said; although 50 nuclear plants produces an enormous ammount of radioactive waste. other than that; im all for it.
lets just hope the people who count (have money and authority) think the same as we do...

As a former nuclear industry employee, having gotten 500 milli-rem's of extra radiation in the 4 years I worked around the reactor, I'd always hoped they'd supply me with a glass & concrete encased thermal nuclear waste module, buried 10 feet under my house, for my hot water & heating needs. But that's asking a bit much.

taylaron

Jul14-08, 06:50 PM

As a former nuclear industry employee, having gotten 500 milli-rem's of extra radiation in the 4 years I worked around the reactor, I'd always hoped they'd supply me with a glass & concrete encased thermal nuclear waste module, buried 10 feet under my house, for my hot water & heating needs. But that's asking a bit much.

haha, it certainly has it's ups and downs

taylaron

Jul14-08, 06:51 PM

thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.

OmCheeto

Jul14-08, 07:02 PM

thats how they power low energy electronics in cold environments. they use the hot energy from the nuclear cell with the cold outside temperature to run a sterling engine. ingenious.

Can you provide a reference for that?
From my sterling engine research, this idea doesn't sound very plausible.

taylaron

Jul14-08, 07:04 PM

why not cheeto?

Ivan Seeking

Jul15-08, 07:34 PM

mheslep

Jul15-08, 08:51 PM

...No, you do not need to store the energy.

If you have 3 electric plants online supplying the grid(coal, nuclear, natural gas), and a wind farm comes online, you reduce the output of the least desirable source of energy, thus extending the life of that fuel source.Once a highly variable power source like wind becomes more than some small percentage of the the over all power grid then, yes, some method will have to be implemented to store the energy, as has been discussed at length in other threads. Hydro power plants can store excess wind power for instance. Then the wind has to have a transmission connection to the hydro, and unfortunately not much hydro is located in the wind belt Pickens plans to develop. It doesn't make good technical or economic sense to rely heavily on large, centralized coal or nuclear plants for a 1:1 backup as suggested here. Large boilers can not be quickly turned on and off, and the boiler runs less efficiently this way. Gas turbines can be, but then Mr Pickens wants to move all the CNG over to transportation. And for any large plant, the owners want to run it at maximum capacity for economic reasons, selling every possible kWh to pay for that large initial investment.

The Pickens' plan has a goal of 20% (200GW), and that is right at the limit of what is thought feasible.

DoE sponsored web site, introducing their '20% by 2030' plan:
http://www.20percentwind.org/default.aspx
the detailed report here:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_wind_energy_report_05-11-08_wk.pdf
Edit:
Interesting Details from the report:
-Chapter 4 discusses plans to overcome the variability problem, entitled:
"Transmission and Integration into the U.S. Electric System"
-Modern wind turbine capacity factor has been growing, reaching 36% average for US 2005 farms, with some hitting 45%, Figure 2-4. I've read elsewhere turbine capacity is expected to reach 40% average eventually.

mheslep

Jul15-08, 09:36 PM

Attached is Figure 4-1 from the '20% ...' report, as it nicely shows the situation. Its simulated but realistic data for two weeks from an area in Minnesota. The conventional power grid there has a peak capacity of 10GWatts, and of 1500 MW nameplate capacity has been installed. The green curve at the bottom shows the wind varying from occasionally zero up to peak, and averaging ~30 some percent.

The authors make the point that since both the demand and the wind generation are independent random variables, combining the two gives a total system variability of only sqrt( 2 * variability(wind) x variability(load) ), and not the raw sum of the two.

nucleus

Jul16-08, 01:11 AM

There was an article in a Toronto newspaper a couple weeks ago regarding the Danish wind system.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080711.RREYNOLDS11/TPStory/TPBusiness/

rolerbe

Jul16-08, 11:21 AM

There are 3 basic "energy independence" problems to be solved:

'Alternative' energy sources (including grow your own corn for ethanol, etc.) have their place, but do not have sufficient total energy capacity to meet even current world population needs, let alone the needs generated by growing future demand. Also if alternative sources were utilized to the full, there would be significant ecological ramifications.

Petrochemical (including coal) resources are finite. Even fission nuclear does not last that long due to limits on uranium deposits, etc. One can debate the projections, but they are all around 50 to 100 years at best -- even with all the exotic extraction methods not yet in play. I think we can all agree that we'd like to see human civilization continue longer than 100 years.

Petrochemical use places us at risk due to ecological impact. One can debate whether global warming is due to the greenhouse effect of petrochemical energy use or not, but one cannot debate that it would be better to hedge our bets on this question by reducing carbon emissions

So what's a poor human race to do? Yes, we can optimize, exploit, and multipath the use of the various current energy sources, but its a short term holding action at best. Where's the promised land after all these efforts? Currently there isn't one. No matter how efficient and clever we get with the current sources we fall off the cliff in about 100 years.

Are we doomed to go dark, or is there an out? Yes -- Fusion. Leads to solutions for all the issues above. But, its too long of a play for the corporate world to take on. We need to push our governments to start doing what governments should be doing -- which is looking long term -- 60+ years, not just the myopia of the 6 year election cycle. We need to fund Fusion research big time, not the piddles it is currently getting. If the US were serious about maintaining the premier superpower position, they would lead this charge, not just tag along as an ITER also ran. Write your congressman!

OmCheeto

Jul16-08, 03:19 PM

I'd like to see someone divert the obscene amount of energy used for the big lift to get water to southern California. Put some energy into making that area self sufficient in water and the country could save a very large amount of energy.

I'd never heard of the "Big Lift" until you mentioned it. (Proper name: Edmonston Pumping Plant)

Researching the California Aqueduct, the Big Lift only consumes about a third of the energy to run the whole thing; 2.87 gigawatt's. (ref) (http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/95/view/tables/ti-3.htm)

hmmm....
12,563,473,215 kwh/yr to run the California aqueduct system(assuming running at 50% capacity 24/7)
0.1 $/kwh
$1,256,347,321.47 annual cost

Powering this set of pumps would require about 2.5 billion dollars worth of the 1.5mw ge wind turbines. (ref) (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/)

So wind turbines could potentially pay for themselves in 2 years.

It is interesting to note that the people who designed the aqueduct have installed power generating plants to recoup some of the energy expended in pumping the water over various elevations.

http://www.publicaffairs.water.ca.gov/swp/swptoday.cfm
Water flowing down the East Branch generates power at Alamo Powerplant then is pumped uphill by Pearblossom Pumping Plant. The plant lifts the water 540 feet. From there, it flows downhill through an open aqueduct, linked at its end to four underground pipelines which carry the water into the Mojave Siphon Powerplant, which discharges the water into Lake Silverwood. When water is needed, it is discharged into Devil Canyon Powerplant and its two afterbays.

So the storage problem of overactive wind farms seems to already have been solved.

And the turbines might pay for themselves in less than 2 years.

LowlyPion

Jul16-08, 03:45 PM

OmCheeto

Jul16-08, 05:32 PM

Of course they should fund alternative energy. Not sure that the question about giving it to Pickens is exactly the right choice, but surely with no limits set on population growth world wide, the only choice on the population/energy treadmill is to develop more energy.

Although overpopulation is the primary factor (http://home.europa.com/%7Egarry/populationoverlast12000years.jpg) in our running out of energy, it probably deserves a thread all it's own.

But just to tie it in a bit, if the world had discovered oil around the time we had reached a world population level of 300 million, and maintained it there, the oil might have lasted 3000, rather than just 150 years.

But since we didn't, it didn't, and all we can do now is fix it.

LowlyPion

Jul16-08, 06:27 PM

But since we didn't, it didn't, and all we can do now is fix it.

I agree, that is the only variable that can be addressed today. And energy technology that will last longer than in ground oil supplies surely must be the most useful legacy we can give off to the next generation.

mheslep

Jul16-08, 07:31 PM

[RANT = ON]

There are 3 basic "energy independence" problems to be solved:

'Alternative' energy sources (including grow your own corn for ethanol, etc.) have their place, but do not have sufficient total energy capacity to meet even current world population needs, let alone the needs generated by growing future demand. Also if alternative sources were utilized to the full, there would be significant ecological ramifications.
This is entirely incorrect. The wind energy in the atmosphere by itself, or the solar energy incident on the earths surface by itself, both far exceed the current energy demands of the planet. And that is only counting energy realizable with existing technology. The problems lie in issues like matching the energy source to the demand type (electricity vs gasoline/diesel for transportation), location (Arizona sun vs Maine winters), having the energy when you need it (calm days/ cloudy days), and of course the economics - even if the technology exists does the renewable source cost much more than existing fossil or nuclear sources. Regards demand growth, the energy required per $ of GDP has been dropping for some years in the advanced industrial countries. One can expect the third world demands to grow but as those countries mature economically their energy demand growth will also slow. Regards ecological impact, the only issue I'm aware of that might be called ecologically significant is the use of biofuels (like corn) that compete for food crop land; alga oil or cellulosic switch grass are better upcoming alternatives.
Spend some time here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/

mheslep

Jul16-08, 08:05 PM

I'd never heard of the "Big Lift" until you mentioned it. (Proper name: Edmonston Pumping Plant)

Researching the California Aqueduct, the Big Lift only consumes about a third of the energy to run the whole thing; 2.87 gigawatt's. (ref) (http://wwwswpao.water.ca.gov/publications/bulletin/95/view/tables/ti-3.htm)

hmmm....
12,563,473,215 kwh/yr to run the California aqueduct system(assuming running at 50% capacity 24/7)
0.1 $/kwh
$1,256,347,321.47 annual cost

Powering this set of pumps would require about 2.5 billion dollars worth of the 1.5mw ge wind turbines. (ref) (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/).
Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

rolerbe

Jul16-08, 08:16 PM

This is entirely incorrect.

I stand corrected. Thanks for making me do a little more direct research on this. I will have to amend the first statement, but believe the net conclusion is still correct. It appears true that the total incident energy on the earth from the sun is something on the order of 3,000 times current total human energy consumption.

Of course, even in the best of cases, we can harvest only a very small fraction of this incident energy. How large the fraction can be, either by technological or ecological limitation remains to be debated. I think it is too small, but will be doing more research.

Ivan Seeking

Jul17-08, 07:14 PM

Due to the fact that CNG has a higher octane rating than gasoline, CNG engines can use higher compression ratios. So it appears that autos designed to run only on CNG are about as efficient as gasoline powered IC engines. Autos that are converted or designed for multi-fuel options are less efficient.

Natural Gas Vehicles

A Metrobus using natural gasCompressed natural gas (methane) is a cleaner alternative to other automobile fuels such as gasoline (petrol) and diesel. As of 2005, the countries with the largest number of natural gas vehicles were Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Italy, Iran, and the USA. [16] The energy efficiency is generally equal to that of gasoline engines, but lower compared with modern diesel engines. Gasoline/petrol vehicles converted to run on Natural Gas suffer because of the low compression ratio of their engines, resulting in a cropping of delivered power while running on natural gas (10%-15%). CNG-specific engines, however, use a higher compression ratio due to this fuel's higher octane number of 120-130.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas

If you're thinking of joining the league of CNG drivers in the U.S., your choice of new vehicles is limited this year to one: The Honda Civic GX, a natural gas-powered version of the Civic. Compared with a Civic Hybrid, you'll pay $2,290 more for the Civic GX, although you'll be eligible for a $4,000 tax incentive instead of the Civic Hybrid's current credit of $2,100. In addition, CNG vehicles such as the Civic GX are eligible for most of the same parking and carpool lane privileges as hybrids; in many states, CNG vehicles were using HOV lanes long before hybrids.

Is it possible for individuals to pump CNG into their vehicle from home? Yes. FuelMaker developed Phill, the world's first home-based fueling appliance, which can be mounted to a garage wall, indoors or outdoors, to allow natural gas-powered vehicles to be refueled overnight directly from a homeowner's existing natural gas supply line.

...Early in 2006, the average price of CNG in the United States was $1.99 per GGE, while gasoline was $2.23 per gallon. While a 24 cent-per-gallon price advantage sounds attractive, CNG vehicles have lower fuel efficiency than hybrid vehicles. A Civic GX, for example, averages 32 mpg, while a Civic Hybrid is rated at 50 mpg. So while a GGE of CNG is cheaper, the Civic GX needs more fuel to operate, and therefore costs per mile are actually higher. [continued]
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/

... Dynamometer testing of the natural gas hybrid prototype on the certification FTP-72 duty cycle revealed very low emissions and mileage greater than 33 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent. This hybrid option utilizes a domestic, cost-effective fuel with renewable sources. With multi-fuel capability (methane, hythane and gasoline) it is also designed for use within the emerging hydrogen market. This hybrid option offers reliability and cost-effective technology with immediate wide spread market availability...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116325157/abstract

taylaron

Jul17-08, 10:09 PM

....
Are we doomed to go dark, or is there an out? Yes -- Fusion. Leads to solutions for all the issues above. But, its too long of a play for the corporate world to take on. We need to push our governments to start doing what governments should be doing -- which is looking long term -- 60+ years, not just the myopia of the 6 year election cycle. We need to fund Fusion research big time, not the piddles it is currently getting. If the US were serious about maintaining the premier superpower position, they would lead this charge, not just tag along as an ITER also ran. Write your congressman!

I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)

With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.

Should our next President carry such ambition? I think so. Because it's up to the people in power to see past their desk and succumb to reality and do the right thing.

I too encourage everyone to write a letter to your respected governor or congressman about this crisis. Help them see past their desk...

taylaron

Jul17-08, 10:11 PM

I think Pickens Plan is a good start; capable of giving the 'green' trend some momentum around the world. They've got some good forums and updates about all this stuff on the Pickens website.

Ivan Seeking

Jul18-08, 08:12 PM

Pickens will be on Lou Dobbs, next Monday.
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/

As for the potential for fusion discussed earlier: No time. Just like McCain's battery, fusion is a forty year old promise.

The day for each may come, but we can't wait for all of these already dated, pie-in-the-sky promises. Also, I doubt that fusion would prove to be the ideal source of energy that many people expect. IMO, if there is one lesson to be learned from the pursuit of the ideal energy source, it is that there is no perfect option.

Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.

mheslep

Jul19-08, 05:13 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121547405022734039.html?mod=Letters

...Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank's auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fueled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the U.S., with differences driven by local fuel taxes. For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. Adding in a battery amortized over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in early years, but electric cars won't need costly engines or complex transmissions like today's autos...

Ivan Seeking

Jul19-08, 05:56 PM

When they have a battery that costs less than the price of two cars, let me know.

mheslep

Jul19-08, 07:34 PM

Ok, they do, now, letting you know.

Ivan Seeking

Jul19-08, 07:48 PM

Ok, they do, now, letting you know.

This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.

There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.

This is why Pickens is pushing for NG combustion, rather than electric cars. This is also why McCain wants to offer a 300 million dollar prize for the company that can make a viable battery [which is silly since the incentive already exists].

Are you saying that McCain is simply lying and trying to dupe the public?

taylaron

Jul19-08, 08:36 PM

vanesch

Jul20-08, 03:18 AM

Many people were inappropriately led to believe that nuclear fission power would be "too cheap to meter". In fact, it has never been able to compete [pricewise] with coal.

For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

vanesch

Jul20-08, 03:47 AM

I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)

I would like to chime in. It is not about "saving the planet" (that's some Gaia worshippers' religion's claim), but about "saving our lifestyle". So we should find solutions compatible with our lifestyle to save it in the first place. That means that whatever we are going to use as energy sources must be plentiful and economical (including external costs).

There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us: net energy production has not even been demonstrated in extremely sophisticated LABORATORY conditions. So doing this on an INDUSTRIAL scale, and in a COMPETITIVE WAY, is still science fiction. We need to "shift gears" technologically before this becomes conceivable. So putting some brilliant scientists together and giving them unlimited budget for a few years (like the Manhattan project) won't do. Making a nuke was child's game compared to this challenge. Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it.

With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.

ITER is going to run for 30 years, to try to demonstrate for the first time the possibility of producing as much energy as has been put in. Halfway through ITER one will have to determine the design parameters of "DEMO" which should start around 2050 or so, which should demonstrate the possibility of *practical* (but not economical) power production. After that, one should find out whether it is industrially and economically feasible to design a genuine reactor (DEMO will be an international collaboration of which every KWh will be several times the market price if everything works well).

I think one should do that. But I don't think one should include any speculations about any results in any serious energy policy for the coming decades.

dlgoff

Jul20-08, 11:00 AM

Before you plan to install your own wind turbine or wind farm, you must know if the wind resource in your location is adequate.http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
If we only had wind everywhere.

Ivan Seeking

Jul20-08, 03:11 PM

For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

I should have said in the US, where we have plenty of cheap coal.

Ivan Seeking

Jul20-08, 03:19 PM

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
If we only had wind everywhere.

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344

dlgoff

Jul20-08, 07:08 PM

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344
Oh. I agree.
My hope is your algae oil will come to age sooner than later.

mheslep

Jul20-08, 10:05 PM

...There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. ... Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it...Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall:

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.

Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.

taylaron

Jul20-08, 11:16 PM

mheslep

Jul20-08, 11:36 PM

This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.

There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.
Perhaps we could both be more precise then and drop the 'price of two cars' rhetoric and stick to exactly how much battery is required, and at what price.

The price of Li ion, cited previously, is $450 to $1000 per kWh [1][2]

You used the same assumption earlier to calculate:...So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1793313&postcount=121
That one - gallon equivalent is plenty, in a 50 mpg equivalent PHEV, to cover the daily short distance driving requirements of most of the US population [3][4], not some small percentage, and not in a golf cart.

All electric cars are not required to have a large impact on oil use. No serious policy makers are pushing all electric in any case; the non-feasibility of recharging in short times on long trips blocks this. As I've made clear previously, it is PHEVs than can seriously impact oil usage. There is serious literature saying the same:
Impact of Drive Cycles and Powertrain Configurations on PHEV Battery Requirements
Date Published: April 2008
Author(s):
Jason Kwon - Argonne National Laboratory
Aymeric Rousseau - Argonne National Laboratory

Abstract:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) offer the ability to significantly reduce petroleum consumptions.. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), working with the FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership, participated in the definition of the battery requirements for PHEVs. Previous studies have demonstrated ...
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1337

A Preliminary Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Wind Energy Markets
...PHEVs
....For the average driver, the use of a relatively small battery delivers much of the benefits of a pure electric vehicle, without the disadvantages of prohibitive cost or limited range....[5]

[1] $450/kWh http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5490/3
[2] $1000/kWh http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/bob-lutz-drives.html ($1000/kWh)
[3] Table III.A-6. 29.5 average miles per day, light passenger vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf
[4] http://www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/02/power-and-speed.jpg
[5] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39729.pdf, page 2

Now, please, no follow ups about how I am implying this solves all problems, or betting everything on one technology, or that this is the only way to go. I only point out what other (cited) sources say, that PHEVs offer a potential substantial reduction in oil usage.

OmCheeto

Jul21-08, 01:53 AM

Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Ok. So it'll take 10 years for the wind farms to pay for themselves.

Some more interesting numbers can be derived from the given reference:

$1.70 "now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate)" ($/watt) (ref: mheslep)
5600000000 "a total capacity exceeding 5,600MW" (watts) (ref1 (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/))
$9,000,000,000 "with annual revenues of more than $9 billion".(ref1)
$9,520,000,000 initial total investment (ref1 capacity * $1.70/watt)
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
8549 hrs/year
47,875,968,000 kwh/yr (=0.37*5.6GW*8549/1e6)
$0.19 $/kwh (=$9e9/47.9e9kwh)

So using your numbers and theirs, it would appear that they now have annual revenues slightly less than their total worst case investment. Perhaps their windmills ended up paying for themselves.

btw, that was an excellent reference you provided: www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
248 pages of numbers. Pure Cheeto candy.

rolerbe

Jul21-08, 09:13 AM

... I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us:

With the current ITER approach, I believe you are right, or perhaps even optimistic. However, with a 10X increase in funding, I think this schedule can be cut in half. So, not $2B/yr, but $20B/yr. Less than a little local sand war, and way more important.

The best way to go, and cheaper in the long run, would be to have TWO projects. The only way to make fast progress in this world is to turn it into a competitive sport. Look at the atomic bomb program (easier, yes, but then they were computing on punch cards...), Man on the Moon, Human Genome sequencing, etc.

LowlyPion

Jul21-08, 10:59 AM

mheslep

Jul21-08, 01:20 PM

...
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
...Sorry for the trouble, here is a more direct reference:

Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/43025.pdf
Figure 27, shows individual projects and average capacity factor in blue. Midwest 'heartland' projects averaged ~37% w/ a range of 29% to 48%. Note the two projects in Hawaii totalling 41MW averaged ~45%.

mheslep

Jul21-08, 01:35 PM

Interesting article on the Wind Power industry in Spain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/

"In fact, wind supplied 10 percent of all Spanish electricity in 2007. On one record day, March 4, 2008, wind gusts sweeping the country provided 28 percent of the country’s total electricity."Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

LowlyPion

Jul21-08, 02:53 PM

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

I am less sure about how much was spilled, because there seems to be a heavy emphasis on measuring and predicting energy contribution from the individual wind turbines and if the data from the readings from the wind generators is online as I believe, that could give Spain the ability to follow the progress of weather effects across the country and know that if wind was picking up on the west coast it would arrive in a few hours as contribution on the eastern generators. (A side benefit is that weather modeling now has a new data source for refining models.)

But the variability of wind generation ranges does point out an inherent problem - matching generation with weather predicting and loading. These problems will be of growing concern as the % contribution rises.

dlgoff

Jul21-08, 07:32 PM

LowlyPion

Jul21-08, 07:45 PM

Well, I'm thinking that the 28 percent was an instantaneous value.
Why do you think the energy was "spilled"? I don't know about Spain but here in the US, most electrical power companies make use of SCADA to get real-time data inorder to automatically control generator outputs.

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again. Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/p8.aspx

taylaron

Jul22-08, 12:48 AM

I agree Pion

vanesch

Jul22-08, 12:58 AM

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

vanesch

Jul22-08, 01:32 AM

Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall: Einstein's quote.

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.

mheslep

Jul22-08, 01:41 PM

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.
Great historical post - thanks.

mheslep

Jul22-08, 06:19 PM

GM is working with the the electric utilities to smooth the way for their upcoming PHEVs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121669299205472651-email.html
GM Teams With Dozens Of Utilities on Plug-In Cars Collaboration Seeks To Smooth the Path For Electric Vehicles
By REBECCA SMITH and JOHN STOLL

...After more than a century of relying on gasoline as the main fuel for automobiles, GM and its rivals are scrambling to diversify energy sources. The Chevy Volt, due in late 2010, is intended to be the boldest effort yet, designed to run at full speed for at least 40 miles solely on lithium-ion batteries. Unless plugged in for a recharge, the gasoline engine kicks in at that point...

...At the most basic level, intelligence that will be embedded in the cars in the form of computer chips and software needs to be met with equal intelligence on the utility side. That way, a car that plugs into a garage electric outlet will be recognized as a car by the utility and recharged when it is best for the electric system and, perhaps, at a price that will be lower for cars than other appliances.

What utilities don't want is for cars to recharge during hot summer afternoons, when they could push wholesale electricity prices into a more expensive tier. Off-peak recharging actually could make the electric system more efficient by slightly increasing production at power plants with capacity to spare. Research shows there is enough excess electrical capacity at night to recharge tens of millions of vehicles....

...As utilities begin to confront the integration issues, they also are considering how much they want to encourage deployment . Austin Energy, a city-owned utility that serves the Texas capital, has decided to offer a $1,000 incentive to people who buy plug-in cars.

BWV

Jul22-08, 06:23 PM

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. However the problem is too complex and with too many technological wild cards such potential breakthroughs in PV technology for a big government solution to work. The gov can create incentives or at least level the subsidy playing field for clean energy sources but it cannot direct, Manhatten project style, a solution to the problem.

The main issue with BP's plan, which I had not seen addressed here is how you handle the peak power needs when you replace natural gas - which is primarily used for peak generation with wind, which is a base electric generator (and actually has its lowest output during hot afternoons when demand peaks).

Solar is the only feasable alternative to gas for peak generation and is quickly becoming competitive.

Fusion has consistently been 40 years away since the 1950s. There is still no way to create more energy than is consumed by the reactor. It would be foolish to give the technology anything more than token funding.

mheslep

Jul22-08, 07:04 PM

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. ...What is centralized about the BP plan?

russ_watters

Jul22-08, 07:37 PM

That is merely your opinion Ivan. I for one like to keep my hopes up. Still aim for that ultamate goal 'up in the sky'. (not offense) Well, the part about fusion being a 40 year old promise is historical fact. Based on that fact logic would dictate that we cannot base a "now" energy policy on hope. It's fine to have hope and I think we should aggressively fund fusion research, but if we want to get off oil and coal, and we want to start now and make some real progress quickly, we need to do things now, not just hope for a breakthrough that we've already been hoping for for 40 years. That would be irresponsible.

mheslep

Jul22-08, 08:00 PM

His prepared opening statement:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/072208Pickens.pdf

C-span video
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/energy/energy072208_initiatives.rm

Items he is asking for in the way support from the US Govt:
For Wind:

Ten year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind. Currently being extending 1 year at time. At the full build out of Pickens 20% / 200GW of Wind the total tax break is $15B/year (5 - 10 yrs from now or whenever that happens).
Pass Senator Reid’s bill, S. 2076, which would provide for the identification of National Renewable Energy Zones.
Siting Authority, for the substantial new transmission line capacity required. This could be tricky; the large Minn. line put in a few years ago had people shooting out tower insulators on a regular basis.
Federal lands and permitting. Permission for transmission lines to cross.
Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery. Give FERC direction to spread the costs of the transmission lines.

For the CNG transportation switch:

All Government vehicles run from CNG.

T Boone bites:

GM makes 19 natural gas fueled vehicles, all made in S. America and EU.
Paraphrasing: "People told me at breakfast this morning that wind is there only 40% of the time. Ok, I don't know, this is not my field, I'm a geologist. Baseload it with something, peak it with something"
"Offshore wind, central part of the country wind, electric car, everything American is good. I'm for that. Offshore, OCS drilling, ANWR drilling, yes, all of it. I want to see all of it. I want to get off of foreign oil."
"Natural gas is clean, abundant, affordable and, again, domestic. We have approximately 80 years supply of natural gas available to us from sources in North America. Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves., In fact, 98% of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the US and Canada."
~90B barrels of offshore of 'in place' off the East / West coats. 'Im not a big believer ... I think you'll be surprised when those tracks [offshore US] are put up for sale.'
Largest bus fleet in the world is Beijing. 4000. All CNG.

mheslep

Jul22-08, 11:17 PM

US has become the #1 wind energy producer in the world per first half of 2008. Not the most nameplate, but the US has better wind thus more kWh. So far not even one offshore tower in the US mix.

US takes wind-power lead

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: July 22 2008 03:50 | Last updated: July 22 2008 03:50

The US rush into wind power has enabled the country to pass Germany to become the world’s biggest generator of such energy, according to estimates for the first half of 2008 from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The US had not been expected to reach this milestone until the end of next year. It achieved this early, while still running behind Germany in total installed capacity, because its average wind speed in significantly stronger.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45827516-5767-11dd-916c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

vanesch

Jul23-08, 01:38 AM

Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Sorry to be OT, but it even occurred to me that if we make chain reaction too easy, it wouldn't be possible either! Increase, say, the amount of U-235 (longer half life), increase the fission cross section, but especially, increase the number of neutrons per fission (say, 5 or 6 instead of 2.3), lower the capture cross section... and you would get a natural critical mass of say, a few grams, which would mean that all fission already occurred in nature: there wouldn't be any natural uranium left!
So the parameters of the fission reaction are tuned such, that it just doesn't occur spontaneously, but it does 'with a little help'.

taylaron

Jul23-08, 04:17 PM

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

vanesch

Jul23-08, 04:58 PM

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.

mheslep

Jul23-08, 08:03 PM

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.Well very generally I agree it doesn't make sense to 'Manhattan' ITER fusion since, yes, there isn't yet some newly discovered phenomenon that promises big returns if explored and understood a little better. That is, doing a crash fusion project now would be akin to trying Manhattan fission before 1932 and Chadwick's neutron - likely would have gone nowhere after spending vast sums and repeating Madam Curie's radiation induced death numerous times.

That said: 'unexpected ... discover[y]'?? I think you are still placing fission on a shaky pedestal w/ the 'natural' description. Fusion in stellar cores is natural enough.[1] I think one can only say the particulars of a fissile chain reaction happen to be such that they reveal themselves with much less trouble than ... whatever process might make fusion successful.

[1] For the usual refrain in these fusion/fission discussions: Yes I know the Solar core P-P power density is useless for a terrestrial power reactor, thankfully, or the Sun would have winked out long ago. Neither is there a load of enriched Uranium hiding under some mountain, for the same reason.

Ivan Seeking

Jul31-08, 05:05 PM

related:

At the time of unveiling, the Volt project had been in existence for less than a year. The Volt was targeted to cost around US$30,000. As of April 2008, General Motors Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Robert Lutz was quoted as saying that the realistic unsubsidised price had risen to US$48,000,[40][41], that he reckoned that US$40,000 might be possible, without making any profit, and that only government tax incentives could take the price tag nearer to US$30,000. When asked directly about the price later, Lutz indicated that this was a misquote - and said "The answer is that we don’t know."[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

I noticed last night in the Nova episode, "Car of the Future"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/
that when asked about the readiness of the Chevy Volt, the spokesman responded, ~ "we will be ready when we have batteries".

mheslep

Aug1-08, 03:21 PM

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again.
So I would call that plan 100% renewable, wind + pump storage + hydrogen (turbine?) storage, and not 100% wind.
Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.Unlikely that anyone there is considering H2 for transportation - thats out there with fusion IMO. In this case they're likely talking about H2 storage for later use in electric generation via H2 turbines during wind lulls.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

mheslep

Aug1-08, 03:37 PM

This might put a grin on T Boone's face. GM's VP for R&D likes using a natural gas based engine for combustion end of the PHEV Volt.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/07/natural_gas_an_enticing_alternative.html
Natural Gas: An Enticing Alternative
By Larry Burns
GM Vice President, Research & Development
...In the near term, we can use compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines. Mid term, we can leverage natural gas to create electricity for the Volt and future variants. In the long term, natural gas could be an excellent source for making hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, either at the filling station or in people’s homes...

thewhills

Aug4-08, 03:56 AM

The US needs nuclear energy, but we complain it isn't safe...Nuclear Energy is VERY safe if properly funded. It shouldn't be long term, just until we have efficient solar panels.

While we are at it, work on a space elevator to dispose of radioactive waste...Until then, but it in a I,believe, a 9in think steel box and launch it into space.

I feel like saying to people

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

Topher925

Aug4-08, 09:19 AM

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.
Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.
Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.

mheslep

Aug4-08, 01:53 PM

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.Close to 20% has already been done in a geographically smallish country like Denmark.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/11/thar-she-blows-dongs-wind-woes/?mod=WSJBlog
10 to 15% wind electrical is almost certain to happen in the US without help from the government, 20% w/ government collaboration, maybe 30% with a big government (non-economic) push.
Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.Only from the energy use to make Si crystals. Thin films not so much.

Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.For other than on the spot use, H2 is not viable as an energy carrier. Can't transport it economically.

LowlyPion

Aug4-08, 02:13 PM

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

It would be no worse than now wouldn't you think? Why would back-up systems be abandoned? If diesel is the current means of power generation, why would a reserve not be maintained?

From what I've read about the Canaries it seems a pretty windy place. Why not capture that and essentially be off grid as far as hydrocarbon usage - except of course in the case of anomalous weather systems?

LowlyPion

Aug4-08, 02:46 PM

Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.) As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.

mheslep

Aug4-08, 03:34 PM

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.) The numbers of turbines produced are already quite large world wide (10000-20000 MWe / year) and there is already decades of experience especially in Germany and Denmark. The low hanging fruit has been picked, the manufacturers are mature (Vestas, GE, Siemans, Mitsu.). There's no reason to expect the price to come down, it is actually going up a little due to the cost of steel, concrete, and spiking demand. You will not find any $1/W figures for 2008 installed turbines anywhere.

As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.Wind is no longer an experiment.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.A one time sunk cost implies the turbines/towers can be maintained indefinitely; I don't think this is case. Instead I believe after 30 years its closer to wholesale replacement of blades and generators, versus maintenance. Still, I expect refurbishing the entire wind farm is cheaper than the comparable job at a 30 year old nuclear plant.

LowlyPion

Aug4-08, 04:51 PM

Wind is no longer an experiment.

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.

mheslep

Aug4-08, 05:26 PM

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.Agreed.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.Yes not quite 2x yet, $1.8/W for large buys now. However, the Canaries will necessarily not be a large buy and they're remote, so figure at least $2/W.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.Sure some, but the raw material and manufacturing costs (tower,blades, turbine) have matured, so the cost of a given size tower is not going to come down much. What has been increased dramatically over the last 10-20 years is the amount of energy a given sized turbine/tower can physically capture from the air stream w/ enhanced aerodynamics (the Danes are kicking themselves about this). It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

LowlyPion

Aug4-08, 06:03 PM

Well all I can say is that as far as wind power is concerned I am a fan.

thewhills

Aug4-08, 06:35 PM

I still think hydro need to be explored more especially in cities like Boston or San Francisco that sit on top of the water.

Hydro on the coast,Wind in the midwest and solar in the south and southwest is ideal I imagine.

Topher925

Aug5-08, 08:34 AM

It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

Its called the Betz limit, and its just a tad over 59%. This is due to the kinetic effects of the air passing through the rotor disk area. Today's most efficient VSVP WT can capture about 85%ish of the total available wind energy. Thats converting about 50% of the kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy of the turbine itself.

The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

mheslep

Aug5-08, 01:57 PM

...The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.
So Pickens' plan to use the midwest good wind corridor, request grid upgrades and transmission right of ways is prudent. The transmission plan is there, but I haven't yet seen a detailed base load power plan. I expect existing hydro will play a role in firming US wind, but what else? Compressed air (CAES) is getting more attention.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/38270.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

Notable NREL conclusion:
...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant....

LowlyPion

Aug5-08, 02:28 PM

Notable NREL conclusion:
"...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant...."

In the article on Spanish wind power I note that they place a strong emphasis in predicting power contributions. This should mitigate somewhat the fluctuations in nature. If and as windfarms become more widespread over larger areas then wind fronts passing through the windfarm grid can be more predictive of upcoming gains and losses in contributions and holes in the grid may even be targeted for deployment to help smooth transitions in wind passing through.

mheslep

Aug5-08, 05:21 PM

Atlantic Monthly article on GM's PHEV "Volt"
Electro-Shock Therapy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors

Discusses the PHEV players, history, critics, motivations, estimates, and of course the drama.

Alfi

Aug5-08, 08:10 PM

mheslep

Aug5-08, 08:40 PM

Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

????

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.
This is very big deal if it holds up. Appears Nyocera et al have done this using common materials.
In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

DANIEL NOCERA PROFILE:
Hydrogen Economy? Let Sunlight Do the Work
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/789
(subscription reqd)