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.
Just because it's in the queue doesn't mean it will get built! Very much the opposite! Once a project hits the transmission interconnect study phase many projects die on the vine......
Quote:
Still, interconnection queue data, especially in the West, show new solar-plus-storage projects outcompeting gas plants. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report Hybrid power plants: Status of installed and proposed projects indicates California’s interconnection queue included 29 GW of proposed solar-plus-storage plants, as of year-end 2019, while Western utilities’ queues had another 33 GW. Yet planned gas units totaled only 200 MW in California’s queue and 4 GW in Western utilities’ queues.
A trivially obvious observation about the huge fires out west is that the same area doesn't burn again for many decades...One big blaze and it takes decades for the fuel to build up again....
That's not true. Without active salvage logging and forest management, areas can burn frequently.
Here in Oregon we had a big one, known as the Biscuit Fire in 2002 that burned half a million acres of the Siskiyou National Forest. Sierra Club lawsuits blocked salvage logging and replanting. The western portion burned again in 2017 in the 190,000 acre Chetco Bar Fire. Fire crews could not access the Siskiyou NF portion because of the danger of falling snags left over from the 2002 fire.
A sad thing is that PNW forests sprouted when the climate was cooler and wetter. Without active replanting, areas like the Siskiyou NF will never recover. Instead, the cedar and fir will be replaced with underbrush and desert adapted vegetation. The forest will be gone forever.
we looked at repowering a steam plant to burn wood products instead of gas... No good supply of fuel was available anywhere closes enough to insure a constant supply........Tore the biolers out and built a NG engine plant. Sold the turbine to a steel mill in Canada. The engine plant has been in the money since it commercial..........
There was a coal fired plant along the Columbia at Boardman. They cooked up a biomass conversion years ago and planted hybrid poplar to convert the plant to biomass. Then somebody installed all those wind turbines in the Gorge, that produce electricity for a fraction of the cost of logging and hauling all those trees, so they shut down the coal fired plant for good.
The great thing about NG turbines is that they can come online quickly to pick up variations. Without a national electrical grid, wind power depends on local weather conditions. If the wind dies, you can fire up a turbine to pick up the load. Nuclear is great, but it takes days to bring a nuclear plant online and weeks to bring one back to cold shutdown. Hydro is quick and responsive, but you have to deal with fish runs and flooding downstream of a dam. All those "Water level may change rapidly" signs are real warnings. If you are out there fishing in waders, you better have water wings too.
If we could transmit power long distances, we could give up burning fuel to make electricity. We could replace all those coal trains from Wyoming to Chicago with a grid of high voltage DC power lines. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
That's not true. Without active salvage logging and forest management, areas can burn frequently.
Here in Oregon we had a big one, known as the Biscuit Fire in 2002 that burned half a million acres of the Siskiyou National Forest. Sierra Club lawsuits blocked salvage logging and replanting. The western portion burned again in 2017 in the 190,000 acre Chetco Bar Fire. Fire crews could not access the Siskiyou NF portion because of the danger of falling snags left over from the 2002 fire.
A sad thing is that PNW forests sprouted when the climate was cooler and wetter. Without active replanting, areas like the Siskiyou NF will never recover. Instead, the cedar and fir will be replaced with underbrush and desert adapted vegetation. The forest will be gone forever.
When we figure energy cost do we factor in how much it cost to replace your house when you get burned out because the dead trees were not salvaged? Do we factor in the days we go without power and the cost to our industry?
What I am saying is that we have a problem and I am asking if we are going to do anything about it or are we going to ignore that problem?
When we figure energy cost do we factor in how much it cost to replace your house when you get burned out because the dead trees were not salvaged? Do we factor in the days we go without power and the cost to our industry?
What I am saying is that we have a problem and I am asking if we are going to do anything about it or are we going to ignore that problem?
People who live in the woods buy the fire when they build the house. It's paid for. If it's private property and they don't salvage log, that's their nickel too. Rising sea levels will destroy hundreds of thousands of coastal houses in the next few decades. That's the cost of beach front property. If people want to pay for it, it's their money, and not our problem.
People who live in the woods buy the fire when they build the house. It's paid for. If it's private property and they don't salvage log, that's their nickel too. Rising sea levels will destroy hundreds of thousands of coastal houses in the next few decades. That's the cost of beach front property. If people want to pay for it, it's their money, and not our problem.
I don't think that you can make that statement. If a fire takes out one of the transformers that send electricity to your city; then it becomes your problem. You want to take a ride in the Country but your road is blocked by a dead tree of fires. You want to escape the city but you have no place to go.
Granted rising sea levels will be a problem in the future. They are already starting to take a toll. While it is easy to say that it is their problem; they will be working hard to make it our problem. Especially if they make the right political donations.
But I am trying to see if there is a way that it becomes nobody's problem. If we can use that energy to our advantage and take care of a dangerous situation at the same time. Does anybody know how much it cost to cut and chip one good size tree? Does anybody know how many BTUs can be produced by that same tree? How much does it cost to dry and transport that one tree? Is there anyway we can solve our dead wood problems without spending mega bucks?
Then somebody installed all those wind turbines in the Gorge, that produce electricity for a fraction of the cost of logging and hauling all those trees, so they shut down the coal fired plant for good.
It's only cheaper while the govt subsidies and tax breaks are in effect. Disposing of spent wind mills is also a problem. It isn;t quite that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
That's not true. Without active salvage logging and forest management, areas can burn frequently.
Here in Oregon we had a big one, known as the Biscuit Fire in 2002 that burned half a million acres of the Siskiyou National Forest. Sierra Club lawsuits blocked salvage logging and replanting. The western portion burned again in 2017 in the 190,000 acre Chetco Bar Fire.
.
2002-2017 is a decade and a half...My point wasn't about the timing, but that small frequent fires don't do any harm. Infrequent large fires are devastating. Moving 500 lb upstairs is easy if you do it 10 lb at a time. Try it all at once and you'll break your back.
In fact, some trees like those Giant Sequoias require burns to get the cones to pop out the seeds-- no fires, no new sequoias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Taking 10 -15 years to raise a tree that is burned up in one season, is NOT a renewable source of energy.
Deforestation is Stu-Phd.
?????
Burn one tree every year. Plant one tree every year. Keep repeating. In year #16, you burn the first tree you planted. And so on....That's the definition of "sustainable."
Here in WI, we have a problem with our oak forests-- they're thick and acorns need open sunlight to properly germinate and turn into saplings. WI has plenty of oaks 50yrs+ in age and not enough younger trees to replace the old ones as they will eventually succumb to nature...At least the areas logged are replanted, and that logging is a major part of the forest management plan to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
Periodic, natural fires in WI would clear patches of forest, giving oaks an advantage, and maintained the health of the oak forest.
Now, with the modern Smokey Bear attitude, there are fewer fires, giving the more shade tolerant species like maple the edge....This why WI's oaks are aging and not being replaced fast enough....
Add in the problem of increasing numbers in the deer herd. Deer love to nibble on (and kill) oak seedlings/saplings.--Oaks need more wolves or more hunters.
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.
