Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:21am PT
|
Why are we destroying thousands of acres/square miles of desert for large scale solar power when we have ample natural gas reserves to support combined cycle gas fired power plants is much more environmentally and economically sensible?
This whole "green energy" thing is being embraced without a proper vetting. Windmills kill birds and redirect wind currents. Solar mirrors redirect the heat/radiation from the ground back into the atmosphere. I am not a physicst or heat exchange engineer, but think we have embraced "green energy" before we understand the consequences.
I am working as an engineer on several solar plant rights now.
Do we really understand the effect on the enviroment from the solar and wind powered energy technologies? It took decades to recognize the impact of petroleum based energy. Whatever souces of energy we persue will have impacts. There have been many solar energy plants deleoped around the world in the last several years. Everyone wants to base the recent heat wave on warming due to petroleum use. How do we know the solar plants are not having an impact?
The economic price of "green energy" on a cost per mW basis is significantly higher than gas fired combined cycle and I question if in the end these technologies will prove to be environmentally friendly.
Tremendous strides have been made to increase the efficiency and reduce the emmissions of coal and natural gas powered power plants. These are very efficient and relatively low impact technologies in which the US has resources.
I have been climbing and backpacking since 1973. This is not a polical rant. I have worked in the energy field for 20 years. My take.
Flame at will.
Rant over.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:25am PT
|
welcome to democracy
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:26am PT
|
Flame at will.
Why? Because you've asked an intelligent question?
Oh, right, I forgot, this is the internet. So of course you'll get flamed.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:29am PT
|
So your solution to not wanting to harass foxes is to drill wells with big footprints all over Pennsylvania, likely contaminating drinking water and impacting areas with considerably more biomass than where your solar panels are? Plus the simple fact that we are continuing to pump unfathomable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere which heats the Earth (the reflection of light/heat from the mirrors would actually cool the Earth). Solar farms (or anything at all) are not impact-free but the idea that natural gas is the more environmentally sensitive option seems dubious.
The economic price of "green energy" on a cost per mW basis is significantly higher than gas fired combined cycle and I question if in the end these technologies will prove to be environmentally friendly.
Significantly higher at this point in time when economies of scale have not been employed and a century of government research subsidies have not been afforded. The idea that solar is even hoping to be competitive at this stage is pretty heartening. People love to freak out about Solyndra but nobody ever seems to want to point out that the only reason they went bust was because China began producing much, much cheaper (gov't subsidized) solar panels on a large scale. Nuclear power required billions in gov't subsidies and support and the only reason it is viable now is because people saw it as the power of the future and wanted to make it happen. The only way we'll get to something better is if we support innovation and new technologies.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:30am PT
|
Oh, right, I forgot, this is the internet. So of course you'll get flamed.
exactly
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:37am PT
|
HDJ-
Do you have a clue as to the resources consumed to produce 1,400 acres of mirrors and the resulting impact of disposal cost when they have ended their life? The mirrors are produced in China, where there is no concern as to the environmental impacts of toxic discharges.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:39am PT
|
The only way we'll get to something better is if we support innovation and new technologies.
Agreed, but we should not accept and implement them blindly.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:42am PT
|
This whole "green energy" thing is being embraced without a proper vetting. Windmills kill birds and redirect wind currents. Solar mirrors redirect the heat/radiation from the ground back into the atmosphere. I am not a physicst or heat exchange engineer, but think we have embraced "green energy" before we understand the consequences.
Seriously? I mean did you really think that one through in terms of what energy source is without costs or consequences?
Gas fracking could be done with less consequences, but it won't be as nothing ever is in the middle of a gold rush. And that goldrush will currently is an environmental disaster and that's highly unlikely to change until long after the damage is done. The fact that the industry and states are doing everything possible to avoid federal oversight tells the whole story - it's hard to pay off epa staff on a large scale whereas it's easily manageable at the state level.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:46am PT
|
The idea that solar is even hoping to be competitive at this stage is pretty heartening.
No where close. We can build 1200 mW gas fired plants for $700 million.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:47am PT
|
Sure you can if you bury or institutionalize the true environmental costs at the state level as they do with coal.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 12:53am PT
|
Seriously? I mean did you really think that one through in terms of what energy source is without costs or consequences?
I think I stated that any energy souce will have impacts.
My question is why are we allocating so much money and resources to technologies that have not been vetted? To me this seems a knee jerk reaction.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:58am PT
|
No where close. We can build 1200 mW gas fired plants for $700 million.
And the cost of 1200mW of PV solar is currently around $2.5 billion. However, the fuel cost of the solar plant is zero over its 20 or 30 year lifetime. What is the cost of gas consumed in the gas fired plant over that same period of time?
Curt
|
|
Adamame
climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:59am PT
|
I keep wondering why we have to build these things in open spaces. There is a school by where I work that has solar panels over their parking lot. That is a great use of space which has already impacted the landscape. I know that they will not be as efficient in the bay area climate, but there has to be a huge benefit of the panels being local and being able to link into the local infrastructure without new transmission lines and EIRs.
I work at a promising solar start up based in the bay area and see a huge problem with having panels come for overseas. We real need to think on a more regional basis with how these panels are made and how where they are installed. Less impact in all steps and sides of the equation are needed to make these panels beneficial to our planet in the long run.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:06am PT
|
Tremendous strides have been made to increase the efficiency and reduce the emmissions of coal and natural gas powered power plants. These are very efficient and relatively low impact technologies in which the US has resources.
Some strides have been made, but building a new coal-fired plant is currently more expensive than PV solar is (about $4/Wp) even without carbon sequestration.
Curt
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:11am PT
|
People love to freak out about Solyndra but nobody ever seems to want to point out that the only reason they went bust was because China began producing much, much cheaper (gov't subsidized) solar panels on a large scale.
Not exactly. Solyndra failed because they employed a colossally idiotic technology--one that had no hope of competing cost-wise with other domestic module manufacturers, let alone the Chinese.
Curt
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:12am PT
|
So basically these are all rhetorical questions.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 01:14am PT
|
What is the cost and environmental impact of production and disposal of the mirrors?
The US has a surplus of natural gas. So yeah, let's send a bunch of cash to China for mirrors we will have to dispose of.
As I wrote earlier, I have been in the energy market for 20 years. Been a climber and hiker since 1970's and appreciate nature and protecting the environment as much as any of you. I am an engineer, not a janitor, although some times I wish I were. As an engineer that has worked in the industry for a long time, this is my take.
I don't want to get into a pissing contest. This my perspective.
Take it for what it is worth.
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:18am PT
|
Adamame is on the correct path with thier viewpoint. Solar energy expansion should be done on existing buildings by giving them incentives to plug into the power grid by fixing solar panels to their structures. In addition new development should be required to utilize solar energy as part of their construction plan. Most cities have plentiful rooftops that could be exploited for solar power without disturbing natural habitat. The problem is then the big energy companies dont get subsidized from their rate payers for building the plant so they lobby against this option. Also no source of energy whether it is coal, oil, wind, solar, geothermal is completely without an environmental cost the question is wich option is the best when all factors are considered. I think we do not take into account the environmental impact of what world we leave for future generations while considering the most profitable option first.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:20am PT
|
Natural gas produces CO2.
Nothing is perfect Solar has issues for sure.
CO2 production is my biggest worry environmentally so for me Natural gas is a non-starter.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:21am PT
|
My question is why are we allocating so much money and resources to technologies that have not been vetted?
I guess I'd like to know what you mean by "not vetted?"
Germany's Day in the Sun: Solar Hits 22 GW Mark
By Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
New Hampshire, USA — With the sun beaming overhead and the nation hard at work, Germany turned to solar like never before last Friday and Saturday as the nation's PV installations fed 22 gigawatts of electricity into the grid at one point, providing nearly half of the country's energy needs.
In doing so, Germany answered some critical questions as it reshapes its policy away from nuclear power and toward renewable sources like solar, wind and biomass. Chief among the concerns is how much intermittent solar Germany can seamlessly integrate into its grid without causing major disruptions.
During one 24-hour period, Germany’s PV accounted for nearly a third of the nation’s energy needs on midday Friday when the nation’s factories and offices were humming along, and then it approached 50 percent midday Saturday as residents enjoyed a sun-filled weekend.
The milestone comes at a critical crossroads for a country that is eager to move on from its dependence on nuclear power, but has been increasingly at odds over which path to take. If nothing else, the achievement is certain to add to the growing confidence that solar can fill much of the nuclear void. Germany currently gets about 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources, with solar contributing about 4 percent annually.
According to the International Economic Platform for Renewable Energies in Muenster, the power produced at its weekend peak was greater than the capacity of 20 nuclear power plants. The timing of the peak is particularly important since it comes during times when energy use is at its highest.
Curt
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!