Alternative =/= renewable =/= clean

[strawman]

It's a bit too late for the recent election, but just keep in mind generally that when someone is trying to get you to vote one way or another on any energy policy, the following are very different things, and cannot be used interchangeably:

Alternative energy
Renewable energy
Clean energy

For instance, if your state votes for a referendum forcing power companies to produce a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" resources, expect to see a lot of "biomass" energy, which is essentially burning trees in coal plants. The power stations weren't designed to burn plant matter, though, so it's significantly dirtier than the coal they used to burn, even after the conversion.

But biomass is still cheaper than solar and wind power, so that's where the power companies are generally going in order to meet the requirements of the mandate.

Anyway, be careful when approaching energy issues. The waters are muddy.

 

[GasBandit]

Look out, here comes the unicorn farts.

 

[Bowielee]

I honestly am surprised that people would need the distinctions between these phrases explained to them.

 

[Eriol]

I honestly am surprised that people would need the distinctions between these phrases explained to them.

I'm not. How many times have you seen Nuclear Cooling Towers gushing out steam (water vapour) and that being shown as a pollution and/or global warming issue? People are dumb, this doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Covar]

stienman Stop dividing equal signs. You should know better!

it's !=

 

[strawman]

stienman Stop dividing equal signs. You should know better!

it's !=

Yeah, I just wasn't sure how many people would understand that better than =/=.

 

[DarkAudit]

"Clean coal" is just a buzzword invented by the Friends of Coal in order to justify their more destructive practices to a gullible Appalachian populace. don't like mountaintop removal? You're just an America-hating, Obama-loving Commie Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy our "way of life".

 

[blotsfan]

Man, you really hate coal

 

[Krisken]

Man, you really hate coal

You tend to hate something when you can see the effects of it in your backyard.

 

[Yoshimickster]

So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.

 

[Ravenpoe]

So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.

Wasn't that only, like, three weeks?

 

[strawman]

So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.

Photovoltaic (solar cells) solar power has been holding pretty steady at $4[USD] per watt for small volume (home) systems for many years now. Commercial large scale systems are cheaper, but the price has remained steady. Further, no solar technology at this price point lasts more than 20 years with more than 50% of the original rated output.

That's even before you consider insolation levels of any given area (ie, arizona = good, seattle = bad), cleaning the arrays, etc, etc, which apply to all solar technologies such as the mirror and furnace arrays that are much cheaper per watt per year than photovoltaic arrays.

This is still more expensive per watt per year than most other energy sources, and right now it's being funded by gov't grants, research grants, and investors under the assumption that the technology will pay off once oil, coal, and other common energy sources quadruple in cost.

As expensive as oil and other non-renewable sources are getting to be, they are still significantly cheaper than any solar technology we might practically put into service.

 

[Shakey]

As expensive as oil and other non-renewable sources are getting to be, they are still significantly cheaper than any solar technology we might practically put into service.

Solar doesn't involve cutting off mountain tops though. Also, solar doesn't always mean solar cells. There's also solar heating panels.

Just because something can be done cheaper, doesn't always mean it should.

 

[Yoshimickster]

How about wind power, how close are we to THAT being affordable?

 

[Eriol]

If it ever got even a MODICUM of funding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor It's not even "20 years away" perpetually like Fusion. It's WORKED already. The fuel is abundant, it's safe (if it gets too hot, it naturally cools down), and it doesn't cause emissions. Hell, the fuel (thorium) is a BYPRODUCT of other mining and is stockpiled as "waste" that they can't dump.

 

[GasBandit]

So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.

How about wind power, how close are we to THAT being affordable?

This is what I meant when I warned of incoming unicorn farts.
None of that stuff is even remotely ready for primetime.

 

[Krisken]

What jerks, wanting to know how the future energy sources are doing and how far along they are until they replace the shit we've been using for far too long.

 

[GasBandit]

What jerks, wanting to know how the future energy sources are doing and how far along they are until they replace the shit we've been using for far too long.

... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.

 

[Krisken]

... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.

Then our world is doomed to world war in the next 100 years over fuel. It's that simple.

 

[DarkAudit]

You tend to hate something when you can see the effects of it in your backyard.

Sago. Upper Big Branch. Don Blankenship buying judges and bragging about it (until SCOTUS told him to cut that shit out). The "Friends of Coal". Mountaintop Removal.

Welcome to West Fucking Virginia.

Not to mention coal's collapse during the Reagan recession killed my dad just as much as if you'd caved a mine in on him.

 

[Azurephoenix]

One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).

 

[GasBandit]

One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).

Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.

Then our world is doomed to world war in the next 100 years over fuel. It's that simple.

Ready to wage war over a tank of juice?

Seriously though - Maybe so. Definitely over one thing or another. Natural resources is usually a prime excuse. Or maybe in 100 years we'll have cold fusion or that salt reactor Eriol was linking, or something else we haven't even thought of yet. But that probably won't avert a world war in the next 100 years.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.

True, but it is easier to mitigate optimal conditions than crap conditions (i.e. shutdown wind generators, cover solar panels, etc). Really though, to do these kinds of power production methods at either the small or large scale requires an insane amount of money and a lot of very thorough planning.

 

[strawman]

Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.

The systems are designed so that doesn't happen. They change the blade angle to produce less energy when less energy is required, and have a number of fail safes in the design so that even if an individual turbine fails it doesn't harm the grid power - at worst it damages itself.

 

[Covar]

One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).

I could be mis-remembering, but I heard of people with solar power on houses staying tapped into the grid, allowing them to purchase energy from the power companies when the solar power is unable to meet your houses demand, as well as sell their surplus energy to the power company.

 

[GasBandit]

The systems are designed so that doesn't happen. They change the blade angle to produce less energy when less energy is required, and have a number of fail safes in the design so that even if an individual turbine fails it doesn't harm the grid power - at worst it damages itself.

But it's not that simple. When the power grid in oregon is overloaded and they shut down the turbines, it's california that doesn't get power. And apparently it's even worse in europe.

 

[strawman]

I could be mis-remembering, but I heard of people with solar power on houses staying tapped into the grid, allowing them to purchase energy from the power companies when the solar power is unable to meet your houses demand, as well as sell their surplus energy to the power company.

That's the primary method in most areas. In many states power companies are required to buy customer generated power at the utility rate, so you can use the power company as your battery for free. Generate more than you use during the day, use more than you generate at night. As long as the power bill doesn't go negative, it's all good. They won't actually pay you for power, though, just reduce your bill by the amount you put back in, so you need to size your solar power to produce less than you use on a monthly basis, and you can get rid of the cost, space, and liability of battery storage.

People who use battery arrays typically want to stay off grid, or want to have power backup when the utility goes down and want to avoid generators.

 

[strawman]

But it's not that simple. When the power grid in oregon is overloaded and they shut down the turbines, it's california that doesn't get power. And apparently it's even worse in europe.

Ha, that has to do with the inability of the grid to transfer power to places that need it, combined with existing utilities that don't want to sell less.

The power grid is like a miniature stock market. All the providers want top dollar for their energy, and they want to sell as much of it as they can. Energy they have that they don't sell is lost revenue.

So if you have a power plant that's providing all your local town needs, then someone else sets up a power plant and starts pushing electricity on the grid, unless you keep up pace with them, you will have to lower your output. This translates to lower revenue.

Further, they may be trying to send power to the own beyond yours, who could use it, but their power has to traverse your grid to get there. That's fine on most days, but on hot days when everyone's running their air conditioner, your grid is already at capacity and it can't handle someone else's power.

So they sue you for not upgrading your infrastructure to keep pace with consumer demands and stifling their competition, when your two and your plant were perfectly matched, and they just want to use your electrical freeway to sell to someone else without additional fees.

The wind operators sunk billions into their generators. They don't care if they drive down the cost of electricity, as long as they can sell their electricity. They aren't interested in building reservoirs and using other storage techniques. So they push what power they have available onto the grid whether people are willing to use it or not. And it's not due to wind power itself, or the technology, these are the decisions of the plant operators.

The real problem with wind energy is variability. A nuclear plant runs at 100% or not at all, and it's not an issue of getting someone to take their electricity. But a wind plant might generate 45% now, and 35% in 5 minutes, and 85% briefly, then 25% for an hour, etc.

Users don't have that same pattern. They are pretty consistent in aggregate. So when a wind utility chooses to force all available power onto the grid, some other plant has to reduce their power output to compensate, and they have to do it on a minute to minute basis, constantly adjusting.

Meanwhile the wind plant operator is laughing all the way to the bank and taking utilities to court for not allowing them to take a share of the pie.

But this is no different than the other power plants - it's just that they have a lot more control over their output, so the arguments with others are more easily controlled using contracts.

Wind energy is annoying to "business as usual" but if power companies are smart and play their cards right they can turn it into a benefit for themselves. And that's what's being worked out in the courts right now. Of course they're going to use propaganda to push their position that wind energy is "hurting" the grid if it gives them an edge in negotiations, but wind energy doesn't hurt the gird any more than coal, natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric power.

 

[Bowielee]

The main issue is that any form of fossil fuel is completely un-renewable. We WILL run out of natural gas and oil at some point. The problem is that human beings in general tend to be extremely short sighted and don't really care about what happens to future generations.

 

[GasBandit]

The sun will also burn out at "some point." People like to portray us as running out of fossil fuels a lot sooner than we will. The main issue is not how much there is, it's how we get to it/retrieve it/process it. And THAT science has shown definite progress over time, leading to discovery of new deposits and new methods of extracting energy from previously untapped resources, such as oil shale.

 

[Bowielee]

Yes, the sun will burn out at some point, that's the reason space exploration is actually important for the continuation of our species. We will run out of non-renewable energy, so there needs to be support to find alternatives.

The problem is that the people who are making money hand over fist with these resources want to see those alternatives blocked as it would cut into their profit margin.

 

[Krisken]

Heh, oil shale. At the expense of our drinking water. Yeah, that's a GREAT alternative to working on clean energy.

 

[The_Khan]

step 1) get solar or wind array

step 2) set up hydrogen fuel cell for powering home

step 3) run your pee through electrolysis and produce hydrogen

step 4) drink a tonne of beer.

 

[Yoshimickster]

... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.

Well not so much imaginary, as the government could've invested money in making more efficient fuels. Really their probably is a cost effective way to make these methods , but as long as big oil runs the show it'll be practically forever until actual change.

 

[strawman]

EARTH FIRST!

(We'll strip mine the other planets later)