Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:32pm PT
|
This is the first time I have seen anyone even talk about the subject. The PCness of any public discussion has greatly limited thinking. The general public still has no idea about the the basic trade-offs that happen with any technology. The concept that the solution may involve multiple technologies as situations differ across the whole country - that blows the mind. Solar can't be the only solution given current technology in many populated areas. The subsidies to make it competitive are still enormous. The payback for many homeowners exceeds the average time that a homeowner will live in a house. The deterioration in performance of solar panels over time is not widely appreciated. The techonology to maximize the production is expensive - moving the arrays, etc.
You are correct that acres of solar arrays affect the animals and the plants, thus also have an effect on the ecosystem. I personally think the trade-offs are oftentimes better for wind than solar given the footprint and careful siting to avoid migratory paths for birds. My company builds and operates natural gas plants, wind farms, and solar farms.
Most people and businesses expect that the lightswitch will work no matter what the weather and no matter how many other people are using the system at the same time. Anything that can be done to reduce the load helps. ANything that can be done to store the energy helps. Our technology and understanding of how to effectively store energy is way behind our ingeniusness in generating energy. The first efforts at energy storage generally involve pumping water uphill and storing behind turbines or batteries. The footprint of water storage has big implications, and the issue of battery disposal is not appreciated. The heavy metals and landfill space for batteries is a growing problem. The disposal of electronics in general is a contamination problem.
To the extent that we can reduce our dependence on externally generated energy and conserve every bit of the energy we need, we are better off.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:42pm PT
|
Windmills kill birds
be curious how many birds have been killed by oil.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:44pm PT
|
Getting off the grid may seem appealing, however, grid tied PV makes way too much sense. Way more efficient and no need for batteries. My cost to be grid tied is about five bucks a month. Grid tied also helps to level the demand curve because it pumps power into the grid during peak demand. Solar in California has elimianated the need to build at least one power plant.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:19pm PT
|
John, you ask for a rational discussion, but you don't engage on the points raised.
1. You indicate there are environmental costs to producing and disposing of the solar equipment. Yet, when it is pointed out that extraction of the fossil fuels to power a gas or coal fired plant also carry a significant environmental cost...whether fracking, mountaintop removal, or even less impactful extraction methods, you fail to acknowledge or address this.
2. You say that emissions of fossil fuel plants have been reduced. While this is somewhat true for particulates - PM10, PM25, as well as SO2, and NOx, you cannot effectively reduce the CO2 output. The CO2 from 20 years of solar amounts to the total involved in producing the equipment. For gas/coal it involves the production of the equipment and the fuels to power it.
The only remotely legitimate issue raised in this "discussion", is decentralization vs centralization. Grid tie-in/net metering is a start. Allowing actual payment vs. credit (i.e. allow people to install capacity well beyond their actual usage and get paid for the excess rather than having a credit on their bill), would change the game. As pointed out, this is a political issue. SCE and PGE will not roll over quietly.
|
|
Daphne
Trad climber
Black Rock City
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:36pm PT
|
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:39pm PT
|
You want to know what kills birds?
Windows.
Domestic cats.
Both account for more bird deaths than wind turbines by many orders of magnitude.
Turbines: 33k (USFWS stats)
House cats: 100M (Audabon stats)
Windows: 100M to 1B (multiple studies)
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:41pm PT
|
TFPU Daphne! that picture says it all about solar. Although we are waiting on John to elaborate on the evils of solar power production.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 02:00pm PT
|
Concentrating solar projects require water, but so does the production of fossil fuels. In the current drought, this is becoming a big issue.
Oil companies desperately seek water amid Kansas drought
By Blake Ellis | CNNMoney.com – 3 hours ago
Oil companies drilling in the drought-ridden fields of southern Kansas are taking desperate measures to get the water they need to tap into the state's oil reserves.
Huge amounts of water are required to extract oil, especially when companies use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which requires millions of gallons of water to crack the shale rock and bring oil to the surface. But now that the entire state is in emergency drought status, with only 1.19 inches of rainfall last month -- the 10th driest July on record -- unprecedented water shortages are making it difficult for drillers to get the water they need.
Some companies are paying farmers for any remaining water they have left in their ponds, drilling their own water wells, digging ponds next to streams or trucking in water from as far away as Pennsylvania -- all of which is costing them a handsome sum of money and time...
Photovoltaic (PV) solar does not require water, BTW.
Curt
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 02:35pm PT
|
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.
You must be referring to Fracking? Ooops, you're not. But you should apply the same logic.
The US has a surplus of natural gas.
And your solution is to get rid of the surplus, so we are dependent upon foreign sources????
John you mention that you are working at a solar facility startup. How many acres are involved?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 06:23pm PT
|
The only smart thing is to Decentralise Power Production
BUT, the people making money on Power don't want that, they want to sell you their power, and not encourage you to make your own
I'm not sure who "the people" are you are referring to.
For example, I attended a talk by the head of LADWP, and he COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE SUPPORTIVE of decentralized power.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 06:27pm PT
|
One thing no one has mentioned:
the petroleum (and coal) based products are a huge source of energy....but they are also a huge (and in some cases only) source of a vast array of chemicals.
For example, all plastics technology comes from that.
Is there anything more insane than BURNING IT?
Another issue that I haven't seen discussed is energy diversification.
Ideally, we should have no source producing more than about 30%, so if there is a problem with that source, others can pick up, even if temporarily.
John, how many acres is the facility where you are working?
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:02pm PT
|
China had it right....no more than 2 children per household. Not forced though, perhaps a simply a financial incentive?
If we can decrease the worlds population, I think more problems could be solved than just energy, pollution, and poverty.
Ideally we could recognize overpopulation problems, and do something about it socially, without law.
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 07:11pm PT
|
does anyone remember snargs?
|
|
whoops
climber
paradise, ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:24pm PT
|
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.
So Curt, Where did you get this? Are you in the solar business? I'm curious.
Brad
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 07:29pm PT
|
John, you ask for a rational discussion, but you don't engage on the points raised.
1. You indicate there are environmental costs to producing and disposing of the solar equipment. Yet, when it is pointed out that extraction of the fossil fuels to power a gas or coal fired plant also carry a significant environmental cost...whether fracking, mountaintop removal, or even less impactful extraction methods, you fail to acknowledge or address this.
2. You say that emissions of fossil fuel plants have been reduced. While this is somewhat true for particulates - PM10, PM25, as well as SO2, and NOx, you cannot effectively reduce the CO2 output. The CO2 from 20 years of solar amounts to the total involved in producing the equipment. For gas/coal it involves the production of the equipment and the fuels to power it.
I'm just calling it as I see it. Combined cycle gas powered plants have very little impact. Yeah, you are right about the effects of coal mining and mining in general. And yes, sourcing our domestic reserves of fossil fuels does have an impact.
If you are worried about CO2 production, stop breathing.
I will say it once more- the "green" technologies have not been vetted for impact; everyone has jumped on the bandwagon blindly. Jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:33pm PT
|
I read a piece a while ago which made the case that these big solar arrays out in the desert have a fatal flaw. That is that they lose efficiency rapidly as they get covered with dust and windblown sand, and that there is no sufficient water source out there to clean them.
Anyone else seen any info in this regard?
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 07:36pm PT
|
I read a piece a while ago which made the case that these big solar arrays out in the desert have a fatal flaw. That is that they lose efficiency rapidly as they get covered with dust and windblown sand, and that there is no sufficient water source out there to clean them.
Anyone else seen any info in this regard?
BINGO! That is my involvement in solar plantz. I are a H20 enigineer.
edit: that is what I mean that the true cost and environmental impacts have not been addressed.
|
|
whoops
climber
paradise, ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:54pm PT
|
[quote]WASHINGTON — The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.
This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/29/158593/prominent-climate-change-denier.html#storylink=cpy[/quote]
I don't care if it's not perfect. CO2 is the issue and even the famous global warming denier now agrees. Anything that is burned for power produces greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as clean coal. Most solar panels are warrantied to produce 80% output for 25 years and who knows how much longer they'll actually produce power. Solar works. The Germans, the Japanese and every one of my customers have proved it. There is no going back.
John, your concerns about location are legit and should be addressed but to say solar isn't vetted is simply wrong.
Brad
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:55pm PT
|
Solar panels also loose efficiency fairly quickly due to other reasons. We have output curves that reflect that expectation as we forecast the production from our arrays.
The CAISO supplky chart is just one day, so it isn't reflecting the curve for a single plant/panel/turbine over time. It does show one of the inevitable issues - that many renewable resources aren't suitable for base load. Natural gas is worlds better than coal or oil for baseload. We will fire it up when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, but customers are demanding power. THere is also a lot of load balancing issues with hydro. It is a fascinating exercise to look at balancing the load from a stack of resources and prioritizing the stack given the environmental attributes. This is done every ten minutes of every day on the grid. When the wind lets up, and a large percentage of the supply suddenly stops, you must fire up something. Gas comes on quick and burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels. Not all gas plants are created equal - the time to ramp up and the efficiency varies considerably. Don't let the biomass label fool you. That stuff is burning and emitting CO2.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!