U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2017, 01:45 PM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137

Advertisements

Simple cycle natural gas plants are cheap, quick to operate and easy to build. We can comfortably rely on them until technology provides an "all renewables" option. A combination of wind, solar, and conventional hydro actually leaves very few holes in the energy supply. In addition, heavier transmission provides an averaging effect for wind and solar. "It blows somewhere all the time." all you have to do is connect up the windfarms in large control areas like PJM.

Just a side point, pumped storage as a technology is quite limited. There are not that many location in the country where you can establish both an upper and lower reservoir. In addition large impoundment facilities are becoming increasingly difficult to site due to environmental concerns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2017, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
12,903 posts, read 4,881,056 times
Reputation: 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Simple cycle natural gas plants are cheap, quick to operate and easy to build. We can comfortably rely on them until technology provides an "all renewables" option. A combination of wind, solar, and conventional hydro actually leaves very few holes in the energy supply. In addition, heavier transmission provides an averaging effect for wind and solar. "It blows somewhere all the time." all you have to do is connect up the windfarms in large control areas like PJM.

Just a side point, pumped storage as a technology is quite limited. There are not that many location in the country where you can establish both an upper and lower reservoir. In addition large impoundment facilities are becoming increasingly difficult to site due to environmental concerns.
There are however a few places that have very large potential capacity. Mead, Pwell, Grand Coulee, Niagra Falls and probably a dozen others have a suitable geometry for immense storage capability if we want it.

And I think we will want it if solar gets cheap enough. I suspect you could back up all of the western states with pumped storage. I do not however claim it is cost effective...just doable. Lots of water in Lakes Mead, Powell and FDR. And note part ot a recirculate might include a fancy facility to get the salmon over Grand Coulee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2017, 06:38 AM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
There are however a few places that have very large potential capacity. Mead, Pwell, Grand Coulee, Niagra Falls and probably a dozen others have a suitable geometry for immense storage capability if we want it.

And I think we will want it if solar gets cheap enough. I suspect you could back up all of the western states with pumped storage. I do not however claim it is cost effective...just doable. Lots of water in Lakes Mead, Powell and FDR. And note part ot a recirculate might include a fancy facility to get the salmon over Grand Coulee.
If you check with the people who operate those damns, their ability to impound water is limited by minimum and maximum flow rates in the rivers. Operators are typically utilizing those facilities fully at this time, in my experience. That's less impoundment than they were doing 15-20 years ago by and large. I don't think there is a pot of gold waiting for you in these facilities.

There are some additional sites that have never been developed in the US and I don't doubt that some of them will be developed in the future, but the economics of simple cycle gas turbines and cheap natural gas are a drag on the potential for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 03:07 PM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 732,369 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Toshiba, owner of Westinghouse Nuclear is about to be delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange due to massive losses building four nuclear units in the United States. Westinghouse Nuclear has already filed for bankruptcy.

Looks like nuclear is NOT coming back.
1 nuclear company down, 10,000 solar companies bankrupt.

Do you feel solar, being a much larger failure than nuclear, is also indefensible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 04:15 PM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
1 nuclear company down, 10,000 solar companies bankrupt.

Do you feel solar, being a much larger failure than nuclear, is also indefensible?
The thread is about nuclear, but if you want to start a new thread on the failure of solar, start with the 3 thousand MW installed in the US in 2015.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 06:30 PM
 
178 posts, read 101,397 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Forward scouts have relatiely low life expectancy.

More seriously there is volumes of evidence that utlitiy level arrays will have life exceeding 20 years.

It is clear that solar PV is troubled in snowy cold climates. You can fix it but you need enclosures to protect the arrays which impacts costs. Actually have degradation problems in high desert environments due to the impact of heavy UV. Not enough though to prevent 20 year lives. And likely solvable over time.

And there are existence proofs. Kyocera has a couple of 30+ year old installations still working.. There are now lots of installations that have successfully past 10 years but it will be a while before we have lots past 15 and the 20 years.

Note the roof top solar companies are basically guaranteeing performance to 20 years.
Kyocera has plants that are working after 30 years but they dont produce anywhere near their initial values.
The biggest problem Ive had is the glass coverings loosing their transparency due to abrasion of sand and dust.
I really havent had any trouble with snow. Actually the opposite. The colder the panels, the more they seem to produce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2017, 06:56 PM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 732,369 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
The thread is about nuclear, but if you want to start a new thread on the failure of solar, start with the 3 thousand MW installed in the US in 2015.
The thread is about the viability of an energy source due to a single bankruptcy of a corporation.

My point is if we investigate, it's easy to see which sorts of power source companies go bankrupt almost daily.

The premise of the OP is flawed, and my post quite clearly pointed this out.

I'll add, private sector dollars were risked and lost, whereas for many renewables taxpayers get stuck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2017, 12:29 AM
 
Location: PRC
2,986 posts, read 3,230,846 times
Reputation: 2770
Look, no-one is going to argue with me over this one. We already have the ability to generate far more power than we will ever need, but the technology has not been released yet.

As I have said in other threads, craft flying in our skies hover silently, move very slowly or super fast at incredible angles, triangular or cigar-shaped, they are seen by many, many people. There is no doubt about this. What kind of power source can keep a huge craft sometimes perhaps thousands of yards long in the sky and then suddenly shoot off at amazing speeds?

Think about it, we dont need nuclear, wind, solar, water electricity generation. We need the technology the military of every large country in the world has available to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2017, 05:09 AM
 
Location: DC
6,530 posts, read 6,466,290 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
The thread is about the viability of an energy source due to a single bankruptcy of a corporation.

My point is if we investigate, it's easy to see which sorts of power source companies go bankrupt almost daily.

The premise of the OP is flawed, and my post quite clearly pointed this out.

I'll add, private sector dollars were risked and lost, whereas for many renewables taxpayers get stuck.
As the OP I can tell you the thread is about the commercial viability of nuclear power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2017, 07:52 AM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 732,369 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
As the OP I can tell you the thread is about the commercial viability of nuclear power.
You can tell me that, as your respondent I can tell you it was perceived as an attempt to slam nuclear power based on a singular bankruptcy. The title you chose was "For the Nuclear Power defenders".

Your premise for evaluation was bankruptcy of a company. My opinion is your premise is flawed, you did ask for comments.

In defense of nuclear, per your challenge, I pit your single private sector bankruptcy against thousands of bankruptcy's of renewable power companies often with taxpayer dollars invested.

Applying your standard against renewables, we determine renewables are a power source very very very very very very very (each an order of magnitude) inferior to nuclear.

My defense, is using your standard. My nearby nuclear plants are putting out as much power as usual today, but it's overcast in my area, with no wind. Guess which is producing power regularly, solar no, wind no, nuclear yes. This is the problem most often for green energy other than geothermal, tidal or hydro. When it gets dark, or there is no wind, consumers don't stop switching on lights or watching TV. Heck, it's an overcast, windless day, and he I am on Internet using a PC with a giant monitor. Thanks nuclear, thanks fossil, no thanks solar no thanks wind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top