To my comment about drilling for oil being blocked by the environmental wackos, the Demo Left and dummy RINOs being an OLD excuse, he responded with about the only comment that lets Bush off the hook.
Drilling for oil in America wouldn't do much for the present crisis. It's like a heroin junkie saying they'll quit using in two weeks.
Uh, having quit smoking one time I can tell you that what you have to do is "quit." Rationalization does nothing towards solving the problem. Plus, a President screaming for new oil drilling would send a huge psychological shot across OPEC's bow.
His solution?
My solution is using solar power in a variety of applications including CSP, as outlined in a recent article on Salon.com
Well now, that's pretty definitive. It solves the problems of how the power can be stored and used later, like say "night time." It also solves the problem of transmission of the power from the acres and acres of solar panel farms, including, of course where they will be located. (Sarcasm alert.)
CSP makes use of the most abundant and free fuel there is, sunlight, and key countries have a vast resource. Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a 92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest could generate electricity for the entire United States.
I mean you do understand something called Ohm's law don't you?? What it says is that when you run current through resistance, a voltage drop occurs between the generation point (the CSP) the transmission lines and the "load," of the users.... Now that's a great simplification, but I trust you get the idea.
Simpler. There is a finite distance you can transmit electrical power without suffering an unacceptable loss.
As for heat storage to keep the generators running when the sun is not available, there is another small problem called The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Again let me help you. What that says is that hot things become cold if not continually heated. And no place have I seen a reasonable solution to this problem. If it requires X amount of energy to heat the source of power to turn the turbines, then the amount required to be generated is equal to [(2)(X)] plus the nominal loss of initial storage. In other words, if 10 watts are required to run the generators, and additional 10 watts must be stored at a temperature that overcomes the storage loss, and the linear loss over time.
Can it be done?? I don't know. But I haven't seen anything that would persuade me that it can. Especially if the 8 to 10 cents per KWH is to be met. Instead I see:
So what do we need to do to ramp up CSP? Interestingly, most CSP executives don't talk much about the need for government R&D. They mostly need policies aimed at creating initial market demand that would help bring down costs quickly over the next several years. One such policy is a so-called national renewable portfolio standard, which would require utilities to get a minimum percentage of their electricity from new renewable forms of power, or purchase such power from other utilities. After that, the typical manufacturing learning curves and economies of scale -- plus a market price for carbon dioxide set by the cap-and-trade system -- should do the rest.
Simpler. Provide us a market a much higher price than what we have now. Heck. No wonder they don't want government R&D. They want a much better deal.
Having said all of the above, am I for it? Yes. If it is at the same price I pay now.
So your solution is an unproven technology available in an unknown time frame at an unknown cost.......?
I rest my case. Drill, jawbone and threaten.
my comment about drilling for oil being blocked by the environmental wackos, the Demo Left and dummy RINOs being an OLD excuse,
ReplyDeleteActually, none of those folks were mentioned in your response:
In any event I suspect you would be in fevered opposition to drilling for oil in the US and/or advising OPEC that we see them as taking hostile actions.
It solves the problems of how the power can be stored and used later, like say "night time." It also solves the problem of transmission of the power from the acres and acres of solar panel farms, including, of course where they will be located. (Sarcasm alert.)
Link
I mean you do understand something called Ohm's law don't you?? What it says is that when you run current through resistance, a voltage drop occurs between the generation point (the CSP) the transmission lines and the "load," of the users.... Now that's a great simplification, but I trust you get the idea.
The amount of power that can be sent over a transmission line is limited. The origins of the limits vary depending on the length of the line. For a short line, the heating of conductors due to line losses sets a "thermal" limit. If too much current is drawn, conductors may sag too close to the ground, or conductors and equipment may be damaged by overheating. For intermediate-length lines on the order of 100 km (60 miles), the limit is set by the voltage drop in the line. For longer AC lines, system stability sets the limit to the power that can be transferred. Approximately, the power flowing over an AC line is proportional to the sine of the phase angle between the receiving and transmitting ends. Since this angle varies depending on system loading and generation, it is undesirable for the angle to approach 90 degrees. Very approximately, the allowable product of line length and maximum load is proportional to the square of the system voltage. Series capacitors or phase-shifting transformers are used on long lines to improve stability. High-voltage direct current lines are restricted only by thermal and voltage drop limits, since the phase angle is not material to their operation.
Finally, we will need more electric transmission in this country. The good news is that because it matches the load most of the day and has cheap storage, CSP can share power lines with wind farms. When the country gets serious about global warming, we will need to get serious about a building a transmission system for a low-carbon economy
As for heat storage to keep the generators running when the sun is not available, there is another small problem called The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Again let me help you. What that says is that hot things become cold if not continually heated. And no place have I seen a reasonable solution to this problem. If it requires X amount of energy to heat the source of power to turn the turbines, then the amount required to be generated is equal to [(2)(X)] plus the nominal loss of initial storage. In other words, if 10 watts are required to run the generators, and additional 10 watts must be stored at a temperature that overcomes the storage loss, and the linear loss over time.
Commercial projects have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy by heating oil or molten salt, which can retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly with water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers.
Did you miss reading the above the first time you read the article?
Somehow, I don't think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics are being broken. All the system has to do is to generate energy from a heat reservoir from sunddown to sunup.
Simpler. Provide us a market a much higher price than what we have now. Heck. No wonder they don't want government R&D. They want a much better deal.
That means Congress and the president must renew the 30 percent solar energy investment tax credit through 2016. After all, it's the least they can do. From 2002 to 2007, fossil fuels received almost $14 billion in electricity-related tax subsides, whereas renewables received under $3 billion. From 1948 to today, nuclear energy R&D exceeded $70 billion, whereas R&D for renewables was about $10 billion.
So your solution is an unproven technology available in an unknown time frame at an unknown cost.
This electricity must meet a number of important criteria. It must be affordable: New electricity generation should cost at most about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, a price that would probably beat nuclear power and would certainly beat coal with carbon capture and storage, if the latter even proves practical on a large scale. The electricity cannot be intermittent and hard to store, as is energy from wind power and solar photovoltaics. We need power that either stays constant day and night or, even better, matches electricity demand, which typically rises in the morning, peaks in the late afternoon, and lasts late into the evening.
Improvements in manufacturing and design, along with the possibility of higher temperature operation, could easily bring the price down to 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour.
CPS is used in commercial
applications, hardly the sign of an 'unproven' technology.
The United States has already lost the leadership it had in solar photovoltaics and wind, thanks to deep budget cuts by President Reagan and the Newt Gingrich-led Congress. By 2010, China will be the top manufacturer of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines. Must we also abandon our historical leadership in CSP to conservative doctrine? Other countries, particularly Spain but also Israel and Australia, are poised to be dominant. And China, which has already begun importing coal and pursuing CSP projects, will not be far behind. CSP could well be one of the major job-creating industries of the century.
No, although the same objections could've been made in response to Einsteins's letter to Roosevelt about the possibility of an atomic bomb and the need for funding thereof.
All you have done is repeat back what I noted. I see no examples of actual commercial success.... And I wish I did... If CSP could actually produce power at 6-8 cents per KWH the utilities would be beating a path to their door.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder you believe in Global Warming...
Now. What does that have to do with getting oil down to say $75.00? Or does high energy prices help you meet your "low carbon" agenda??
What does that have to do with getting oil down to say $75.00? Or does high energy prices help you meet your "low carbon" agenda??
ReplyDeleteIt can be used with existing fossil-fuel plants:
The only point that he missed is the potential for hybridization with existing coal and gas plants. By preheating steam for an existing fossil fuel fired turbine, CSP can make an old power plant operate much more efficiently. Arnold Leitner of SkyFuel (www.skyfuel.com) tells me “Our preliminary engineering estimates, satellite imagery of the locations and solar data show that SkyFuel could supply 50-100 MW-electric solar steam to the Comanche power plants generating an estimated 65,700-131,400 MWh of pure solar power at the facility via the existing steam turbine. SkyFuel could deliver this solar-generated steam to the power plant at an effective fuel cost commensurate to the fuel cost of burning natural gas at a modern combined cycle power plant at fuel price of 7-8 cents/mmBtu. In other words, through a FuelSaverTM at a coal-fired power plant SkyFuel could provide solar energy at the price of natural gas generation.”
I see no examples of actual commercial success....
Perhaps you need to do some research:
Energy
Concentrating Solar Power Plant in Spain and Powerful Solar Power Plant in Portugal Combat Climate Change
By
Oct 7, 2007, 4:15pm
The first commercial scale concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Europe was inaugurated in the Southern Spanish city of Seville in March 2007. The 11 MW plant has been designed to produce 23 GWh of electricity a year, enough to supply a population of 10,000. This production of solar electricity avoids the emission of about 16,000 tonnes of CO2 each year.
The CPS project called PS10 produces electricity via 624 movable mirrors (heliostats) of 120 m2 surface each that concentrates solar radiation to the top of a 115-m- high tower where the solar receiver and the steam turbine are located.
The PS10 solar plant is situated 25 km west of the city of Seville and is promoted by the company Abengoa. The investment costs amounted to €35 million, with a contribution of €5 million from the European Union's Fifth Framework Programme for research awarded for its highly innovative approach.
and this fact:
The first commercial plants have been in operation in California since the mid-1980s, providing the 354 megawatts of the world's lowest-cost solar power.
and:
Ausra has said with new CSP technologies they expect to reach $0.08/kWh, and some within the company have said that with economies of scale and implementation of developing technologies the cost could be as low as $0.05/kWh. When you make these charts it is important to use expected costs rather than historical costs. The current costs of CSP is already only in the $0.14 range in the newest CSP facilities.
You can deal with the facts, or remain in ignorance and snark away, the choice is yours...........