ot. drought

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]Advanced coal still has the problem of environmental destruction from mining (ever seen a strip-mine?), plus CO2 emissions, even if sulfur dioxide and particulates are scrubbed. [/quote]

Ever see the windmill farms or a big thermal Solarvoltaic installation?

Little difference, IMHO.

Also, those environmental costs are reflected in the variable costs of the operation.

[spdrun]

Yes and yes. Difference is that neither spreads toxic, acidic, sludge around if accidents happen. Neither wind farms or solar farms tear off entire hilltops either.

Lastly, environmental costs can’t be quantified adequately by the beancounters in my book. We have only one planet that’s currently suitable for human life, and we have to treat it right till something better comes along.

Nit to pick: it’s either thermal solar or photovoltaic. There’s no such thing as “thermal solarvoltaic”

[an]

Please do tell, how much wind mill and solar panel would it take to power all of our houses and cars? Secondly, what would happen if you put that many wind mills and solar panels in place. I’m not even talking about the financial cost. Just the pure size. Then there’s other unintended consequences, such as changing the wind pattern and killing endangered birds. Lastly, China and India alone has 9x more people than US. How many windmills and solar panels do you think would be needed to provide enough power for all of those people if their living standard matches us?

[spdrun]

One person pegs it at 10,000 square miles or 100 x 100 square miles.

This assumes no conservation and no other clean sources of power like hydroelectric:

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2008/02/25/running-the-u-s-on-solar-power/

Here are some calculations for rooftops:

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2007/07/27/a-solar-thought-experiment/

It’s actually somewhat doable. You’d need a storage mechanism like pumped hydro or molten salt though.

[an]

And how big of a battery do we need to store the sun energy? How toxic is that battery? After all, solar is no good when you’re in the middle of a snow/rain storm.

[spdrun]

The “battery” will probably be a turbine running in reverse pumping water into a reservoir, or hot fluid from a solar-thermal plant being circulated through a salt bed capable of storing energy through phase change. Not a chemical battery.

Of course, there are other, interesting (for now theoretical) alternatives that may not require as much storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

Huge satellites orbiting so that several are always exposed to the sun, combined with a world-spanning power grid and microwave power transmission. Hell, even without the satellites, a worldwide grid based on very high voltage (hench, low loss) DC power would solve a lot of day-night problems.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Of course, there are other, interesting (for now theoretical) alternatives that may not require as much storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power%5B/quote%5D
I did read about that and that makes a lot more sense. But how likely will we see that in reality anytime soon and at what cost?

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Hell, even without the satellites, a worldwide grid based on very high voltage (hench, low loss) DC power would solve a lot of day-night problems.[/quote]Last I checked, AC won out the AC vs DC many years ago. Do we need to repeat the battle?

[spdrun]

We’ll probably see a worldwide transmission grid based on DC voltages upwards of 1 MV (maybe even 10x that level) sooner than that. Practically doable today with a link across the Bering Strait.

It would provide a similarly good solution. Lots of empty land in North Africa near enough to the equator not to suffer from seasonal effects.

Day-night usage can also be balanced to some extent using smart grids. You don’t need to run your washing machine RIGHT NOW often enough, but it can be set to start during times of low grid load…

[spdrun]

Last I checked, AC won out the AC vs DC many years ago. Do we need to repeat the battle?

Edison vs Tesla concerned power sent to the end user. Edison: 110/220V DC
Tesla: 110/220V AC

AC won because it could be converted to higher voltage for transmission and then dropped down to lower voltage at customer sites more easily with the equipment of the day. DC would have required motor-generator sets or mechanical inverters plus transformers at the time.

On the other hand, long distance high-voltage DC transmission has become more common in the last 50 years. DC doesn’t have capacitative and inductive losses, and the equipment to produce DC from AC at one end and convert it back to AC at the other has become cheaper and more efficient.

Plus, you don’t have to worry about matching phase angles across continents.

[The-Shoveler]

LADWP has a DC power transmission line coming down the coast from Washington State,

they use one cable and use the earth as a return, fascinating really,

[The-Shoveler]

One major advantage of High-voltage direct current over AC is that the DC current penetrates the entire conductor as opposed to AC current which only penetrates the so-called skin depth, which is inversely proportional to the square root of the frequency. Even for a frequency as low as 60 Hz the skin depth is less than the 1.6″ radius of the conductor used for the Intertie. Hence the effective resistance is greater with AC than DC, so that more power is lost to heat. A DC line is also ideal for connecting together two AC systems that are not synchronized with each other. Also, cascading blackouts are less likely.
The Pacific Intertie takes advantage of differing power demand patterns between the northwestern and southwestern US. During winter, the northern region operates electrical heating devices while the southern portion uses relatively little electricity. In summer, the north uses little electricity while the south reaches peak demand due to air conditioning usage. Any time the Intertie demand lessens, the excess is distributed elsewhere on the western power grid (states west of the Great Plains, including Colorado and New Mexico).[2]’

The Pacific DC Intertie (also called Path 65) is an electric power transmission line that transmits electricity from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area using high voltage direct current (HVDC). The line capacity is 3,100 megawatts, which is enough to serve two to three million Los Angeles households and is 48.7% of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) electrical system’s peak capacity.[1]

[svelte]

[quote=UCGal]San Diego county only gets 5% of its water from the California water project (aqueducts from Oroville). [/quote]

The aqueduct does not actually go to Oroville Dam.

It starts at the San Joaquin Delta, the Clifton Court Forebay actually.

You could argue that the water in the delta came from the water behind Oroville Dam, but at that point water from Oroville has been mixed with water from rivers as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]You have not experienced high water and utility rates until you look at Hawaii.

One argument is that people would save and retrofit to more efficient systems once the higher rates force them. But that is not that case because retrofitting is a very inefficient, slow, one by one process. It’s much better to build the infrastructure at the onset.

New house prices are set by a combination of factors but mostly by what buyers can afford monthly payment wise. If the costs are lower, the builders just pocket the extra profit margins. When costs are higher, they may try to pass on some costs of solar of water reclamation systems, but certainly not 100%.[/quote]

Agreed. And what builders pay to install solar, especially with their economies of scale and their ability to include all the infrastructure for it at the outset, is far less than what Joe Sixpack has to pay after the fact.

If we all had solar, and if the govt controlled distribution, then the energy monopolies could not gouge us like they do. I firmly believe that the system is designed they way it is (private corporate monopoly/control of distribution lines and no solar) because dirty money has changed hands.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter][quote=SD Realtor]Definitely Jeff… Had a thread on this site about 5 years ago about gray water systems. That should have been well thought out about oh…. 40 or 50 years ago and should have been mandated for builders to install them for residential landscape irrigations.

[/quote]

Could not agree more. I also have a problem with using potable water for toilets. Not sure about you guys in SD, but my DH and I remember well the drought in the 80s up in LA. One has to wonder why haven’t we done anything about it in the past 30+ years? It’s not like we’ve ever had abundant water supplies here.

Same goes for solar, too. All recent developments should have had solar installed on the roofs, IMHO.[/quote]

According to US Department of Energy, Solar is 60% more expensive in total than coal. 40% more expensive than advanced coal cleaning technologies and more than DOUBLE the total cost of Natural Gas in a conventional plant. And these aren’t dirty plants, these are plants going into production in 2018, so they have the current environmental cleaning factors.

The report is Levelized Cost in New Energy Production

So, new advanced combined cycle natural gas plants produce for 6.6 cents/KwH, and Solar production with photo-cells comes in at $14.4 cents/KwH.

Individual house installation are even more inefficient and expensive with real production cost coming in the 20-30 cents/KwH range.[/quote]

It’s not just about cost. Environmental factors matter, and I also think that having the most diverse sources of energy creates the most flexible system. If one resource becomes more scarce or the supply is disrupted for some reason, we’re not as vulnerable.

[Author]

Posts