Jonger Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Exactly right.....and it isn't that "even" oil and gas are subsidized, it's that they get MASSIVE subsidies that we can a) ill afford and that delay adoption of technologies that are ALREADY competitive if the true costs of fossil fuels are priced in. Solar is the premier example of this, but I'll bet wind qualifies as well. As for "bridge" technologies in transportation, we should be enabling hybrids (and to a lesser extent high MPG diesel) now in as many ways we can while bringing on less well developed alternatives (e.g. battery tech for EVs). Unfortunately this is primarily a political problem, since opposition to the needed subsidies (and removal of fossil fuel corporate welfare) consists of a) yelling SOLYNDRA and pushing things (e.g. fuel cells) that require oodles of bucks and infrastructure, but don't actually save anything even when implemented. Hybrids will be around for longer than some folks think, since they actually save carbon use directly. I'm getting 70 MPG this week (admittedly summer) in my Prius, which is a direct carbon savings over the 22 MPG beast I used to drive. But it does use gasoline, and so is only part of the answer. EVs (Leaf, Tesla roadster, to some extent Volt and other plugins) save carbon only by relaying the costs of electricity production (up to 61% efficiency from base fuels) directly to the road, rather than burning the base inefficiently (typical ICE = 30% or less). This saving is real, but like the hybrid (which bumps up the efficiency of the ICE to comparable levels to the EV, but only if you try hard and in the summer), is only part of the solution. We're going to have to look at autodriving cars and alternative ways of making and distributing electricity (solar, wind) before we can really fix this. My wife works for the state of Michigan economic development and was on the "Wind Power team". If you have questions about wind power subsidies, ask me. BTW, we have hundreds of wind towers going up and they are subsidized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I also attended the AWEA conference in Atlanta. It was a shame to see the massive amounts of uncertainty the political atmosphere has caused in the renewables industry. I think Karl Rove actually had a few good points on his speech regarding the political nature of renewables (surprisingly). Heck, oil/gas are subsidized permenently (or in 10-20 year chunks)! We need a long term extension to the PTC, or you will continue to see this boom/bust type trend in renewables in the US. Sustainable growth is how you foster new technology (though the wind industry has done quite well impoving efficiency and noise output despite the uncertainty). Please call your senators to put a stop to this madness called politics. Unfortuanately I only had an exhibitor booth pass, so I missed the talks. The PTC is the number one issue with the industry. Even a long term extension with a gradual phase out over say ten years would be HUGE. That way the industry could prepare itself to eventual stand on it's own, which I am fairly certain it will at some point. Allowing subsidies to sunset is not the way to keep creating jobs in an industry making leaps and bounds. If the PTC is allowed to expire, 30,000 people will lose their jobs and an even larger number of jobs will never be created. It's not only the tax incentive side with uncertainty as well. I deal with the permitting aspect of these projects, and over the past several years many big issues have sprung up to conspire to make these large scale developments extremely difficult to get off the ground. I could go on and on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Solar energy is not 24/7/365 more like 9/7/365 if it is not raining,cloudy or when the sun goes down. Wind energy is not 24/7/365 since the wind doesn't blow 24/7/365 it is not reliable during the two peak hours of generation for power companies. Hydro energy is not 24/7/365 since you can not use it in time of drought. Tidal energy is not 24/7/365 more like16/7/365 since the tide changes the turbines will stop. This is not good if that happens during both peak hours. Wave energy is not 24/7/365 since the wind doesn't blow 24/7/365 it is not reliable during the two peak hours of generation for power companies. Geothermal is pretty good but there are inherent risks for earthquakes. Not enough of it close to load sources....... Gulfstream energy always there on demand 24/7/365. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Came across a new article on a technology for more efficient large energy storage for renewable energy i know a few touched base on the subject. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711104809.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Problem with wind/solar is that you need transmission facilities to get the power from places of generation to the users. Tight now a fight is developing here in AZ between a company that wants to set up power lines from proposed Solar/Wind generating plants in AZ/NM to various users and environmental groups wanting to protect sensitive habitat and riparian areas. A series of meetings is being held to try to hash out the issues. However, as pointed out above, these kinds of issues pop up all the time. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Problem with wind/solar is that you need transmission facilities to get the power from places of generation to the users. Tight now a fight is developing here in AZ between a company that wants to set up power lines from proposed Solar/Wind generating plants in AZ/NM to various users and environmental groups wanting to protect sensitive habitat and riparian areas. A series of meetings is being held to try to hash out the issues. However, as pointed out above, these kinds of issues pop up all the time. Steve I can see that this type of thing will only get worst as time goes on as the push for solar/wind etc continues to rise. I look at it that it's one or the other save the environment as a whole globally or worry about small regional areas that more then likely will be fine if dealt with care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I can envision cell tower sized objects with this material attached like an artificial Christmas Tree.... Place thousands of them in spots on the planet, lower them with hydraulics, place a tube over the structure and agitate the CO2 off with water. Inject the CO2 into underground caverns. Watch CO2 levels drop. http://www.energynow.com/video/2011/08/01/recycling-carbon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I can envision cell tower sized objects with this material attached like an artificial Christmas Tree.... Place thousands of them in spots on the planet, lower them with hydraulics, place a tube over the structure and agitate the CO2 off with water. Inject the CO2 into underground caverns. Watch CO2 levels drop. http://www.energynow...ecycling-carbon Yea something like this. http://www.greenplanet.com/artificial-trees-to-capture-carbon/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I am all for solar energy and to stop our addition to fossil fuels as soon as possible, since there are many negative effects from fossil fuels to the environment, (with climate change not being one of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Yea something like this. http://www.greenplanet.com/artificial-trees-to-capture-carbon/ We have the technology and means, its just a matter of putting the money up and getting something started. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Natural gas finally surpasses coal in power generation for the first time. Coal dying a quick death.... Ironic that the only country that never signed Kyoto is leading the world in co2 reduction. Embrace fracking. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6990 from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Natural gas finally surpasses coal in power generation for the first time. Coal dying a quick death.... Ironic that the only country that never signed Kyoto is leading the world in co2 reduction. Embrace fracking. http://www.eia.gov/t...ail.cfm?id=6990 from my phone, please excuse my grammar! While that is certainly good news, to bad it has not made much of an impact to this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 While that is certainly good news, to bad it has not made much of an impact to this: China. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 China. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Right. A global problem requiring a global solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Right. A global problem requiring a global solution. Sequestration is probably the only solution.... China will most likely choose a path they can afford. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Natural gas finally surpasses coal in power generation for the first time. Coal dying a quick death.... Ironic that the only country that never signed Kyoto is leading the world in co2 reduction. Embrace fracking. http://www.eia.gov/t...ail.cfm?id=6990 from my phone, please excuse my grammar! The inconvenient truth about natural gas from shale is that the production rate from thses wells drops off very rapidly and thus the wells have a short production lifecycle. Here's a hypothetical example from the blog Geology Today: Production Decline of a Natural Gas Well Over Time Hypothetical Decline Curve for a Horizontal Well This graph shows how the yield of a hypothetical natural gas well has declined over time. It shows a rapid drop in production during the first year and a slowing decline rate in subsequent years. Eventually the well will yield so little gas that it will be uneconomical to operate and will be abandoned. The rate of decline varies from well to well and even from basin to basin. There is not enough long-term experience to accurately predict the productive life of wells in the shale gas formations of the United States. By the end of the first years production drops by 80%, and by year 5 production drops by 95%. And here is a comparable chart from the EIA 2012 Energy Outlook report: The EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012 report includes information about projected average production profiles for shale gas wells in major United States shale plays by years of operation. The current fracking boom has been likened to a Ponzi Scheme with new investors being drawn in by the high royalties being paid to earlier investors. But the boom has also lead to a temporary glut in production and a corresponding drop in the price of natural gas, reducing those same royalties. What I see as a danger to our economy is that energy utility planners looking at today's ample supply and low prices may decide to emphasize natural gas power plants for new construction. Remember that power plants have about a 50 year lifespan - so what happens in 15 years or so when the new plants have increased natural gas demand but declining production has chopped supply and pushed prices to record highs? Who will pay for planner shortsightedness? We consumers, of course. My point is that as a finite resource natural gas is only a bridge to other, more sustainable, energy technologies. It isn't a long-term replacement for coal and oil. All of us need to keep our focus on the need to move away from inherently limited, Inherently destructive fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Nuclear fusion though is another matter... I agree Thorium is worth looking into for fission. There are also various types of small-scale "hot" fusion concepts - will be interesting to see if any of these work, such as Polywell, or dense plasma focus. And there is the ongoing "cold" fusion or more currently termed LENR. For example Andrea Rossi, an Italian entrepreneur, has been doing some intriguing power generator development and testing on the so-called E-Cat. We'll see if he (or someone else) has something marketable within the coming year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The inconvenient truth about natural gas from shale is that the production rate from thses wells drops off very rapidly and thus the wells have a short production lifecycle. Here's a hypothetical example from the blog Geology Today: Production Decline of a Natural Gas Well Over Time Hypothetical Decline Curve for a Horizontal Well This graph shows how the yield of a hypothetical natural gas well has declined over time. It shows a rapid drop in production during the first year and a slowing decline rate in subsequent years. Eventually the well will yield so little gas that it will be uneconomical to operate and will be abandoned. The rate of decline varies from well to well and even from basin to basin. There is not enough long-term experience to accurately predict the productive life of wells in the shale gas formations of the United States. By the end of the first years production drops by 80%, and by year 5 production drops by 95%. And here is a comparable chart from the EIA 2012 Energy Outlook report: The EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2012 report includes information about projected average production profiles for shale gas wells in major United States shale plays by years of operation. The current fracking boom has been likened to a Ponzi Scheme with new investors being drawn in by the high royalties being paid to earlier investors. But the boom has also lead to a temporary glut in production and a corresponding drop in the price of natural gas, reducing those same royalties. What I see as a danger to our economy is that energy utility planners looking at today's ample supply and low prices may decide to emphasize natural gas power plants for new construction. Remember that power plants have about a 50 year lifespan - so what happens in 15 years or so when the new plants have increased natural gas demand but declining production has chopped supply and pushed prices to record highs? Who will pay for planner shortsightedness? We consumers, of course. My point is that as a finite resource natural gas is only a bridge to other, more sustainable, energy technologies. It isn't a long-term replacement for coal and oil. All of us need to keep our focus on the need to move away from inherently limited, Inherently destructive fossil fuels. Its all a bridge to renewable... The more scarce it becomes, the more attracive renewables are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
left_gulley Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 While that is certainly good news, to bad it has not made much of an impact to this: Increased natural gas use will also raise methane levels due to leakage, which appears to be a particular problem with fracking. Also, switching from coal to natural gas will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions which should also lead to additional warming. According to this article (and cited paper from Climatic Change) switching from coal to natural gas leads to a net warming for many decades under a vast array of possible leakage rates: http://www.scienceda...10908124505.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Increased natural gas use will also raise methane levels due to leakage, which appears to be a particular problem with fracking. Also, switching from coal to natural gas will reduce sulfur dioxide emissions which should also lead to additional warming. According to this article (and cited paper from Climatic Change) switching from coal to natural gas leads to a net warming for many decades under a vast array of possible leakage rates: http://www.scienceda...10908124505.htm I guess we can always harness fairy dust and magic to power our current needs. Btw, we are buying new diesel trucks for our business, diesel trucks exhaust is is treated with urea spray and no visible particulate exhaust or smell is found anymore. I'm guessing this will lead to additional warming without the sulphur and NOx. Truck exhaust is clean or cleaner then cars now, but co2 is unchanged, except economy improvement probably help. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I guess we can always harness fairy dust and magic to power our current needs. Btw, we are buying new diesel trucks for our business, diesel trucks exhaust is is treated with urea spray and no visible particulate exhaust or smell is found anymore. I'm guessing this will lead to additional warming without the sulphur and NOx. Truck exhaust is clean or cleaner then cars now, but co2 is unchanged, except economy improvement probably help. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Yea it's pretty impressive the changes they have made on diesel engines and how clean they are from 5-10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Fresh article out says that is bunk.... Plus methane only has a 10-12 year lifespan in the atmosphere compared to 200+ for co2. http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/cornell-researcher-rebuts-colleagues-on-fracking-leaks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Yea it's pretty impressive the changes they have made on diesel engines and how clean they are from 5-10 years ago. You can put a wet white tissue over the exhaust pipe and after 10 minutes there is no visible blackening. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 You can put a wet white tissue over the exhaust pipe and after 10 minutes there is no visible blackening. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Yup tho i still love to see stacks blowing smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Yup tho i still love to see stacks blowing smoke. In 2007 they reduced sulphur ppm to 15 in all US diesel, Europe is mostly running less then 5ppm and they have been using diesel emmision fluid since the early 2000s. Sent from my phone, please excuse my grammar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
left_gulley Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Fresh article out says that is bunk.... Plus methane only has a 10-12 year lifespan in the atmosphere compared to 200+ for co2. http://mobile.bloomb...king-leaks.html Interesting, thanks for posting that. Just because a paper is newer doesn't necessarily mean it's more accurate, though. The authors you cited state that they use "industry data" which may be somewhat biased. Also, according to the article I linked we're worse off in terms of warming even assuming a 0% leakage rate until 2050 due to decreased SO2 (and we know that some methane is leaking). Obviously there are other benefits of decreasing SO2, but I think that natural gas's green properties have been overhyped. Relying on natural gas to solve our problems and delaying research/incentives for renewables would be a big mistake IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Interesting, thanks for posting that. Just because a paper is newer doesn't necessarily mean it's more accurate, though. The authors you cited state that they use "industry data" which may be somewhat biased. Also, according to the article I linked we're worse off in terms of warming even assuming a 0% leakage rate until 2050 due to decreased SO2 (and we know that some methane is leaking). Obviously there are other benefits of decreasing SO2, but I think that natural gas's green properties have been overhyped. Relying on natural gas to solve our problems and delaying research/incentives for renewables would be a big mistake IMHO. I'm wondering if there is a cleaner aerosol we could use to reduce sunlight compared to sulphur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I'm wondering if there is a cleaner aerosol we could use to reduce sunlight compared to sulphur. I'd suggest that if we try to reduce the sunlight hitting the ground that would slow down photosynthesis for plant growth and evaporation that drives the water cycle. Perhaps undesirable side effects? Also aesthetically it's nicer to look at clearer skies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SN_Lover Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I think technologies for renewable energies has increased tremendously. Pretty exciting to see new ideas being spread about. I do however think that there is not a technology that can match coal at the moment. I'm not saying to stop production on the technology we have at the moment. i'm just saying we can not cut coal and oil out totally just yet. coal and oil is our bridge to a future technology that will be sustainable. I for one can not wait until we solve our energy problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Record-Breaking Laser Shot: National Ignition Facility Fires Off 192 Laser Beams Delivering More Than 500 Trillion Watts http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120716134508.htm ''Additionally, experiments at NIF are laying the groundwork to revolutionize energy production with fusion energy to provide abundant and sustainable clean energy.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.