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.
Well, you're right again in that enough hot air from lectures could provide significant 'green' energy... 'clean,' even, if the speaker didn't have garlic toast with his lunch.
Quit waving your hands and post hard data from reliable sources on projected limits of each major renewable energy source. I suspect you don't know it offhand and might be... shocked (see what I did there?) to learn how short it falls from all the chest-beating and prognosticativitivness.
Well, you're right again in that enough hot air from lectures could provide significant 'green' energy... 'clean,' even, if the speaker didn't have garlic toast with his lunch.
Quit waving your hands and post hard data from reliable sources on projected limits of each major renewable energy source. I suspect you don't know it offhand and might be... shocked (see what I did there?) to learn how short it falls from all the chest-beating and prognosticativitivness.
huh? Do you make sense to you? Real Question.
You are asking "What is the Practical Limit to Energy Production from Silicon Solar PV?" Is that what you mean to ask? Sure. I work in these numbers daily.
There is no practical limit. We can toast ourselves and the world with Silicon Solar PV.
But there is not really any point in making more Electricity than we use.
For US -- that is about 4E15 Watt-hours per year.
In more common terms that you may be used to . . . Kilowatthours -- kWh -- that you probably pay about 10 to 15 cents -- that is 4,000,000,000,000 kWh.
That is how much Electricity the US presently uses per year.
We can do all that and more with Silicon Solar PV. We already know this. In practice, we will not likely go with 100% of any one source. There will likely be a mix of Big Wind, Hydro, and back-up Nat-Gas Peakers, with coast-to-coast HVDC and International Grid Ties.
Is that what you are trying to ask?
So . . . anything from the Macro Econ perspective on this?
You have babbled nearly religious nonsense since the first post and called everyone else names for not joining in the whoopin' and hollerin'.
If you aren't aware that very sober, informed estimates of renewable energy's limits fall far short of both national and global needs, you need to stop making an ass of yourself with this wishful nonsense.
But then, I guess I'm just a boomer... who knows how to use this forum's best feature. Bye. Good luck with that EE doodad.
Good Questions -- but you are still just on the Technical side and totally missing the Macro Economics issues . . .
1. Texas and California, along with points North and in between are the typical areas I have worked. All the High Growth areas, in general.
2. Free. Yeah. Free. Even if Natural Gas Fuel Costs were Free, it cannot compete on Electricity Generation. Two places Gas has a niche are in A. Heat and B. Quick Spin-up.
2A. Heat -- you understand how Combined Cycle Gas Turbine sites work? They have two layers (the Combined Cycle, as it were). They have a BIG Gas Turbine (like a Jet Engine) as the primary Generator(s) Drives. And then (second) the exhaust heat is routed to a Steam Boiler to spin an Olde School Steam Turbine. But where CC has a great niche is for Process Heat -- like at PetroChem sites. So here in Texas, these are popular as "Co-Generation" to get both Electricity and the Process Heat from the Steam Boiler.
2B. Quick Spin-up. CCGT also can come up and generate quickly, as the Turbine portion begins spinning quickly (compared to Nukes, Coal, etc.).
3. I do not personally handle all aspects -- we work in teams. I am what is considered a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on the Electrical Power and Control aspects, and I am either supported by or support Civil Engineering (routing and permitting, for example) and Industrial (Economics) Engineering on the Cash Flow and Profit Analysis. But as per miles . . . . I suppose into the 100s, so far. Do not really tend to think of Projects in those terms. But here is a sample one a firm I worked with did. It is about 50 Miles and is placed in the mud under San Francisco Bay. >>> Trans Bay Cable | Home
so . . . answered your ponders -- what do you have in Macro Economics, for me?
So you're an engineer involved with a 60 mile DC underground transmission project (much more ineficient than an AC oil static pipe type or submarine cable line) with fiber optic. The project is a business venture by Florida Power and Light for profit and you got the world by the nads and tell us how to solve our oil woes. Armpit farts.
As a side note I wager the cable has crosslink polyethylene insulation (plastic) made from, you guessed it, petroleum.
EDS, you are really Dinosaur Level way out of date on this.
We can run all Pharma with ZERO Oil. Your Naptha claim is silly as well, as it can be made from Natural Gas, as well -- and even if not -- does not even make a single percent use of Oil. This was about MACRO Economics, remember? Not silly and incorrect trivia.
You are not a Chemical or Process Engineer, and I work this field. You are just looking silly.
Anyway == I am TRYING to ask you about are MACRO ECONOMICS aspects of a Post-Oil, or at the very least Severely Reduced (happy with that?) Oil Economy. If you do not know, or do not have any insight, that is fine, as well.
Thanks for you time, btw.
Engineer or not your claim the we can "run all pharma" with zero oil is literally the dumbest comment I've ever read on CD and that is really saying something.
My oil/naphtha/plastics claim is an economic one that you simply don't like. We don't process enough naphtha from natural gas to fill our needs not even close. Shut down naphtha from oil and prices would skyrocket.
So you're an engineer involved with a 60 mile DC underground transmission project (much more ineficient than an AC oil static pipe type or submarine cable line) with fiber optic. The project is a business venture by Florida Power and Light for profit and you got the world by the nads and tell us how to solve our oil woes. Armpit farts.
That was just one from over 10 years ago. That information is public domain, and not under NDAs.
US is lagging the world on this, but there are more on the way, and in planning, but under NDAs.
But no, I am not trying to tell or sell you anything.
My question is about the Macro Economics of going Post-Oil.
The technical aspects are questions by the forum and have nothing to do with the Macro-Economics.
But overall, the technical issues are about like trying to explain fire to cavemen.
Do you have any perspective on the Macro Economic issues of a Post-Oil US or World?
Engineer or not your claim the we can "run all pharma" with zero oil is literally the dumbest comment I've ever read on CD and that is really saying something.
My oil/naphtha/plastics claim is an economic one that you simply don't like. We don't process enough naphtha from natural gas to fill our needs not even close. Shut down naphtha from oil and prices would skyrocket.
. . . . and how will we make buggy whips? <rolls eyes>
Just how much Oil do you think it takes to make All-the-Naptha-used-in-Pharmco? Real Numbers?
But you do not have a clue on Macro Economics portion of this, either?
This thread continues to spin on non issues. The medical use or other such things are not an actual issue. We will continue to have huge amounts of oil for multiple decades. And that is true however the electric stuff breaks.
The real key is that silicon solar plants are now being built with an ability to provide electricity at a cost under $.03 per kwh. That number is well below the cost to operate a natural gas plant or any other petroleum system. So at that point all the utilities in the sun belt at least are going to duplicate their power plants with solar ones. And you simply run solar when and as much as you can.
And $.03 per kwh is not the bottom. It appears that $.02 per kwh may well be reachable in large utility installations. And at that point the things which are workable change even more. It may well be workable to form hydrogen at competitive prices. Now we have a portable fuel as well as a fuel that can be stored in quantity.
This whole thing will likely take a couple of decades to roll out but I would suspect things will have become much clearer by 2030. At that point it will be clear we are going to phase out some uses of oil like transportation and electric generation.
The economics however appear over powering. $.02 per kwh simply changes the world permanently.
Medicines are wonderful, but what about farming (as in food supplies)? I’ve yet to see a battery-powered tractor that can plow 40 acres in an afternoon. Modern farm equipment uses a tremendous amount of energy and requires diesel ICEs to get work done.
Hey Tim,
Missed this in the background. Yeah, farming is heading Electric, but changes in farming are a slow process. Wandered into this domain over 10 years ago, and have since done stuff with some of big names, and even Caterpillar. Even CAT is heading off of Diesels.
You have likely seen more Electricity in the Farming Field (haha) that you were aware? You have looked at Center Pivots probably? Those are all Electric. Usually the Central Pump, as well. So that is usually 100s of acres of each field covered with 100% 480V Electric Supply.
If you have an interest in Electric Farm Equipment -- wrote this about 10 years ago >>>
This thread continues to spin on non issues. The medical use or other such things are not an actual issue. We will continue to have huge amounts of oil for multiple decades. And that is true however the electric stuff breaks.
The real key is that silicon solar plants are now being built with an ability to provide electricity at a cost under $.03 per kwh. That number is well below the cost to operate a natural gas plant or any other petroleum system. So at that point all the utilities in the sun belt at least are going to duplicate their power plants with solar ones. And you simply run solar when and as much as you can.
And $.03 per kwh is not the bottom. It appears that $.02 per kwh may well be reachable in large utility installations. And at that point the things which are workable change even more. It may well be workable to form hydrogen at competitive prices. Now we have a portable fuel as well as a fuel that can be stored in quantity.
This whole thing will likely take a couple of decades to roll out but I would suspect things will have become much clearer by 2030. At that point it will be clear we are going to phase out some uses of oil like transportation and electric generation.
The economics however appear over powering. $.02 per kwh simply changes the world permanently.
Yeah. You get it.
The Technology is easy. And things are moving faster than what appears on the surface.
The Money Part is going to rock the World.
hence this thread.
=====================
But drifting towards the tech part -- have run and been part of the groups on Hydrogen.
The result(s): The money does not work out. Even with FREE energy input.
We have FREE Electricity at night in Texas, already. Hydrogen was a wishful use for it.
Like with Gas -- the Hardware Costs are what takes Hydrogen down. Not the energy costs.
Dunno what Toyota is thinking.
Hydrogen may have a niche for ships. Dunno. Will see.
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.
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.
