Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 30, 2010, 10:07:49 pm
-
Another example of environmentalism gone awry (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2010-04-28-wind-farm_N.htm)
The Obama administration on Wednesday approved the USA's first offshore wind energy project, but opponents to the turbines off Cape Cod vowed the fight is not over.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his decision after a nine-year federal review of the project that pitted environmentalists against one another and drew opposition from across party lines.
Among opponents to Cape Wind in Massachusetts was Edward Kennedy, a Democrat whose family estate is in nearby Hyannis Port. Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who now holds the Senate seat long held by Kennedy, also opposes it. He has called the Nantucket Sound "a national treasure that should be protected."
So because of 9 years worth of litigation this project has been long delayed and massively overbudget. See here (http://www.wickedlocal.com/barnstable/news/opinions/x1870701325) for more about that aspect.
-
Save the environment but don't do it in my back yard.
-
in this case i think they do have at least have a leg to stand on. the generation capability of a single wind plant is going to be piddly, and cape cod is something of a national landmark. i don't know what actual impact it will have, so i'm not gonna come out on one side or the other.
-
in this case i think they do have at least have a leg to stand on. the generation capability of a single wind plant is going to be piddly, and cape cod is something of a national landmark. i don't know what actual impact it will have, so i'm not gonna come out on one side or the other.
Everything is something of a landmark in some way or another, but electricity doesn't come from nothing. The biggest problem with wind and solar is because of their fundemental inefficiencies they take a lot of land (or in this case sea) in order to generate a meaningful amount of power.
-
Among opponents to Cape Wind in Massachusetts was Edward Kennedy, a Democrat whose family estate is in nearby Hyannis Port. Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who now holds the Senate seat long held by Kennedy, also opposes it. He has called the Nantucket Sound "a national treasure that should be protected."
He doesn't want harmless fans sitting in the ocean near where he lives? Oh no, this'll change the beautiful view from his patio to the ocean. This is dumb.
-
He doesn't want harmless fans sitting in the ocean near where he lives? Oh no, this'll change the beautiful view from his patio to the ocean. This is dumb.
I agree with this.
Come to think of it, this reminds me of an episode of some English crime show, where this rich guy got some lackeys to kidnap some other people under the guise of extremist environmentalists, just because he didn't want the view from his house ruined by the construction of a road. I know it's not exactly the same thing, though, but really the environmental reasons for not building the road (i.e. chopping down lots of trees) were far more important than the aesthetic reasons, in my opinion.
So I think that the environmental benefits outway the 'possible aesthetic problems'.
-
i want nuclear damn it!
-
I think a bunch of off shore wind turbines would look cool.
-
The wind power industry is the biggest scam to come out of the "greening" movement yet. "Oh, wind power is the future!" - bull****, wind power is a convenient distraction that is going to make a few people very rich before the powers-that-be realize they've been completely had.
Wind power has one essential flaw that makes it useless as a primary power generation tool - it has no capacity for storage and can supply only peak-demand alternatives. Even in places where the wind blows continuously and rotors continually turn, the system does not always function at peak capacity, which makes it totally unreliable. The only way wind energy is useful is to take the load off other power generation systems by throttling back the primary systems and allowing the power generated from wind turbines to absorb the slack when it is available. When the wind systems drop in production capacity, primary systems again must take up the slack. It is useful as an alternative to reduce demand on larger, reliable facilities, but that's it.
Now, take a long hard look at the ecological impact of wind power generation. Oh sure, there are no CO2 emissions from wind power, but what about other factors? Must like the idiotic move towards biofuels, which decimate arable land that could be used more productively to generate food, wind power generation leaves a massive and permanent ecological footprint. Wind farms, in addition to taking up valuable land space that could be used for all kinds of things (including preservation and conservation) has a large impact on local bird populations. Some preliminary studies have found significant impacts on bird populations, particularly in migratory routes, as a result of bird strikes at wind generation farms.
It's an inefficient red herring designed to do nothing but make money on the grants given to construct it, and then vanish into the night.
There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present: hydroelectric, and nuclear. The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be. Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.
Most "environmentalists" and proponents of "green technology" have their hearts in the right place, but they don't have a ****ing clue when it comes to the technical aspects of these projects and it is absolutely infuriating. The idea that wind generation can replace current coal-fired facilities and therefore affect climate change is completely and utterly laughable.
Disclaimer: I currently work in environmental law enforcement.
-
ITT: trolling
-
Hydroelectric dams aren't great either. From what I understand, for the first few years of operation they emit more greenhouse gas then some coal-burning powerplants. Vast lakes full of rotting vegetation and all that. Not to mention the localized environmental destruction. Really big dams flood a very big area, which effects anything upstream and downstream (particularily if the dam bursts). You should check out the Three Gorges Dam.
The thing about practically all renewable sources of energy that its inconsistant. But rather than saying that the problem with renewable resources is the inability to store it, we should say storing the energy is just a part of producing renewable energy.
And I would say the biggest scam to come out of the greening movement is biofuel. I can't imagine why anyone thought that was a good idea (other than making more money for corn farmers). I hear producing it isn't even carbon neutral, to say nothing of burning it.
-
if you use a feedstock that has more energy density than paper (i.e. sugar cane as opposed corn) it works better.
-
the way i understand it is biofuel's original draw is the "when oil runs out" thing. i think i've said this before, but the ideal setup IMO is renewables for peak demand capability, and nuclear base load. hydro is great for backup/emergency power. at least one of the nuclear stations uses hydro instead of diesel backup generators. solar is decent for small-scale individual use, for those who don't mind the upfront cost. if people put wind generation somewhere like out in the desert then fine, but massive wind farms that generate peanuts all over the place is not a good solution at all.
-
There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present: hydroelectric, and nuclear. The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be. Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.
Is there something wrong with geothermal energy? [/not an expert]
-
There are two forms of efficient, economically practical, and ecologically sustainable power generation known to man at present: hydroelectric, and nuclear. The sooner the do-gooders at Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc get that through their thick skulls, the better off we'll all be. Solar is efficient only for small-scale projects, and the production cost is so significant that it isn't a feasible solution - though it will be when someone finally sorts out biological solar power generation on a commercial scale.
Is there something wrong with geothermal energy? [/not an expert]
It's very hard on the equipment. Geothermal gases are extremely corrosive, so the maintenance and replacement costs add up really quickly.
Hydroelectric dams aren't great either. From what I understand, for the first few years of operation they emit more greenhouse gas then some coal-burning powerplants. Vast lakes full of rotting vegetation and all that. Not to mention the localized environmental destruction. Really big dams flood a very big area, which effects anything upstream and downstream (particularily if the dam bursts). You should check out the Three Gorges Dam.
I grew up in British Columbia (on the banks of the Columbia River, actually), where virtually the entire province is powered by hydroelectricity (the surplus of which is sold to the United States). Done properly with thorough logging of the to-be-submerged areas ahead of time, there are no significant carbon emissions beyond a natural lake, and the environmental consequences of vegetative destruction along the now-submerged shoreline are offset by the ecological significance of the larger reservoir - which doesn't even have to be that large depending on the local terrain.
Hydro is also very adaptable to localizing power supplies - small generation facilities can easily power small and medium-sized towns, and many rivers lend themselves to multiple dam projects in a short distance (see the Kootenay River) due to vertical drop.
Nepal's mountain villages use hydroelectricity extensively, a perfect example of the adaptability of the technology to scale, yet hydroelectric generation in a small area of British Columbia, Idaho, and Washington states power virtually the entire west coast of the United States and Canada from the northern border of California to Alaska.
Done properly with attention to environmental impact and mitigation of initial flooding, hydroelectric is the most efficient and environmentally-friendly form of power generation known. It even beats out nuclear due to its scaling, low-maintenance requirements, and lack of any negative by-product or contamination.
-
Still, though. The sun is the biggest source of energy available to us. In fact, most of our sources of energy are by products of sunlight. Wind, coal, oil, hydroelectric, biofuel all come from the sun's energy. With the exception of maybe nuclear, geothermal, and tide generators. Just because the solar panel technology isn't great right now doesn't mean that the other alternatives trump it. The ultimate source of energy is right there, we can see it everyday. Its just a matter of working towards it.
-
Solar power is intermittent, expensive (in both start up and maintenance), polluting (ever wonder what those panels are made with?), and notoriously bad at holding power after the sun goes down (barring the liquid salt method). Summation: It's impractical, and other forms of power do indeed trump it. If you want, I can have a dozen pages of evidence linked from nearly as many sources.
(Alternative energy was the Debate topic last year.)
-
Solar power is intermittent, expensive (in both start up and maintenance), polluting (ever wonder what those panels are made with?), and notoriously bad at holding power after the sun goes down (barring the liquid salt method). Summation: It's impractical, and other forms of power do indeed trump it. If you want, I can have a dozen pages of evidence linked from nearly as many sources.
(Alternative energy was the Debate topic last year.)
What he said.
Current solar technology is too expensive and has a high environmental production cost for materials. However, there is some very interesting preliminary work being done using biological solar power which could be very promising. Chlorophyll has immense potential for power generation, if properly harnessed. We may eventually see the day where a durable, biological coating on the roof of your home powers everything inside it, in all weather conditions.
But back on topic, wind generation is idiotic.
-
I heard conflicting stuff about this when i was doing my debate topic for solar/wind. A lot of solar panel factories are switching to using solar power to minimize the environmental cost. Not to mention the salt storage method works pretty well. And Wind Power is extraordinarily cheap to build in a relative sense, and we don't use a lot of the land we could be placing it on. And note how the article says it can be making power in 2012. Basically nothing else we can deploy can be up and running that fast.
Nuclear for the US is pretty impractical itself, we canned the site we were planning to use to store our nuclear waste, and there's so much red tape in zoning one that it takes years before you can even break ground. Wind Turbines may be ugly/bird-killing, but a nuclear plant is the NIMBY from hell.
Last I heard, they're apparently finding ways to use solar power pretty well in Europe, since the deployment of it over there has exploded in recent years (any Euro-HP's want to enlighten us?)
Also : we're still running like 70% fossil fuel in the US, so take in mind there's probably some biased studies against anything that would try and compete with coal/oil. And any environmental cost the other power methods have has to be put in perspective, since next to cars, power generation is most of the remaining pollution we generate. And as long as we run off of coil/oil, that electric car you're hoping they make is worthless in an environmental sense, since you charge it with power that probably came from a fossil fuel plant.
EDIT : Although i don't get, is what's up with using the ocean for placing wind turbines? You're taking a really cheap to build power source, and finding a way to make it much more expensive to build and maintain.
-
Current solar technology is too expensive and has a high environmental production cost for materials. However, there is some very interesting preliminary work being done using biological solar power which could be very promising. Chlorophyll has immense potential for power generation, if properly harnessed. We may eventually see the day where a durable, biological coating on the roof of your home powers everything inside it, in all weather conditions.
Solar still has the same problems as wind, it is inefficient and unreliable. What do you do when the sun goes down? :p Also to get the power equivelent of one nuclear reactor out of solar you'd need acres and acres of solar cells. For baseline power nuclear is still the better choice.
Hydro is great, but it has some serious fundemental limits.
It's very hard on the equipment. Geothermal gases are extremely corrosive, so the maintenance and replacement costs add up really quickly.
It's also extremely location specific. Iceland IIRC gets most of their power from geothermal, but they can do it because they are sitting on top of an active volcano.
-
Regarding the storage of wind power...why can't we just build some big ol' battery arrays to hold the generated energy until we need it? I'm not really seeing where the massive conceptual problem lies.
-
Current batteries are inefficient as hell, not to mention that they're usually made out of extremely enviromentally unfriendly materials, and don't last very long. Our battery-tech overall needs a ton of work.
-
Regarding the storage of wind power...why can't we just build some big ol' battery arrays to hold the generated energy until we need it? I'm not really seeing where the massive conceptual problem lies.
1.) Batteries suck.
2.) Even if batteries didn't suck, in order to store the "extra" energy, you'd have to create more energy. Because of the inefficiencies of wind that means wind farms will get much much larger in order to make that happen.
-
I heard conflicting stuff about this when i was doing my debate topic for solar/wind. A lot of solar panel factories are switching to using solar power to minimize the environmental cost. Not to mention the salt storage method works pretty well. And Wind Power is extraordinarily cheap to build in a relative sense, and we don't use a lot of the land we could be placing it on. And note how the article says it can be making power in 2012. Basically nothing else we can deploy can be up and running that fast.
Nuclear for the US is pretty impractical itself, we canned the site we were planning to use to store our nuclear waste, and there's so much red tape in zoning one that it takes years before you can even break ground. Wind Turbines may be ugly/bird-killing, but a nuclear plant is the NIMBY from hell.
Last I heard, they're apparently finding ways to use solar power pretty well in Europe, since the deployment of it over there has exploded in recent years (any Euro-HP's want to enlighten us?)
Also : we're still running like 70% fossil fuel in the US, so take in mind there's probably some biased studies against anything that would try and compete with coal/oil. And any environmental cost the other power methods have has to be put in perspective, since next to cars, power generation is most of the remaining pollution we generate. And as long as we run off of coil/oil, that electric car you're hoping they make is worthless in an environmental sense, since you charge it with power that probably came from a fossil fuel plant.
goddamit this board keeps eating my posts.
i forget what i said originally, something about renewables. but let me jump in a sec here and comment on this post. a few inaccuracies. (as a nuclear engineer, i feel the need to jump in just about any time it pops up. i don't mean to jump on anyone if thats what it seems like, but i like to set the record straight whenever possible). if i may be frank, nuclear power is a headache to deal with only because politicians have their heads up their asses when it comes to the word "nuclear". the Yucca Mountain cluster**** SHOULD be a non-issue. we are certainly capable of closing the fuel cycle (the waste goes back in the reactors), but washington is essentially blocking progress on that front. advanced reactor designs are essentially not being funded in the US (around $100 million a year vs. several billion in some european nations). in any event, we don't really need a waste repository for a good while, there is plenty of room to store waste fuel on-site at plants. as for the red tape, that's finally started coming down. there actually has been groundbreaking at at least one new plant that i know of, and several more have site approval. the NIMBY mentality is really unfortunate, since it is simply a result of misunderstanding. a nuclear plant is FAR better to have in your backyard than a coal plant. you'd get more radiation from the crap coming out of a coal plant's stack 5 miles downwind than you would hugging the containment building of a nuclear plant. (don't try that, they WILL shoot you :P)
anywho, off the nuclear stuff now. transportation IS a large source of emissions, but not larger than electricity generation. though you are quite right in that electric cars don't do a whole helluva lot to cut emissions, only about the 20-30% that is not fossil generation is really a benefit there. last point: wind generation isn't as cheap as it seems. the only thing that is keeping it economically competitive is the MASSIVE tax benefits the government gives on it. for how much they generate, those turbines are rather expensive.
EDIT: you are all aware that the storage issues you're discussing are to same for any sort of electricity, no matter how it's generated, right? once it is generated, it goes to the grid and it's all the same. it ALL has to go somewhere just about immediately. this is why there's the "smart grid" thing popping up. i honestly have no idea what it actually entails, other than it's supposed to improve this sort of loss.
-
Current batteries are inefficient as hell, not to mention that they're usually made out of extremely enviromentally unfriendly materials, and don't last very long. Our battery-tech overall needs a ton of work.
Yeah, batteries do admittedly suck right now, but even a sucky backup system is better than no backup system, and I'd expect that battery technology will continue to progress to the point where said suckiness and toxicity can be largely mitigated.
2.) Even if batteries didn't suck, in order to store the "extra" energy, you'd have to create more energy. Because of the inefficiencies of wind that means wind farms will get much much larger in order to make that happen.
I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place. In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power. During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day. At least conceptually, it seems like it'd be worth looking into.
(Interestingly enough, my college's secondary campus located in Lewes, DE is currently erecting a wind turbine (http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/LewesTurbine/) that's expected to power the whole complex and then some.)
-
I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place. In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power. During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day. At least conceptually, it seems like it'd be worth looking into.
It's actually been more than looked into, it's been field-tested. The problem is that storage is expensive and takes up additional land space, the distribution system for stored energy is more cumbersome, and wind power is really not all that efficient to begin with. It sounds good in principle, but as both myself and someone else pointed out, wind generation is only profitable for builders and operators due to large government subsidies, grants, and tax benefits.
Really, it's a pointless exercise that does very little but leave a massive blight on the landscape.
Nuclear power really is the best option because it can be produced virtually anywhere, waste can be re-used as fuel, and it has no emissions. Hydro is a reliable second. Coal- and petroleum-fired generating stations are reliable but have massive emissions issues, geothermal is geographically limited and has large maintenance costs, solar has a nasty ecological footprint due to construction materials AND is difficult to maintain AND has issues with energy storage, and wind leaves a blight on the landscape, negatively impacts bird species and other animals, and is painfully unreliable. In other words, we should be building nuclear generating stations.
-
I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place. In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power. During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.
What about when the wind isn't blowing?
-
What about when the wind isn't blowing?
We'll grab your woman. I hear she's a real blaster.
-
I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place. In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power. During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.
What about when the wind isn't blowing?
Then chemical batteries release stored electricity. The issue with that is eventually the batteries need to be disposed of, which means that a minimum of ounces of hazardous chemicals (typically manufactured) is released, usually into the environment. Filling out landfills with more batteries isn't doing anyone a favor. The "fun" thing is that nuclear power is probably the best, cleanest, most sustainable method of making electricity. At least the risks of radiation can be isolated and shielded against. It's not perfect, but you're turning small amounts of matter into enormous amounts of energy. So long as the mistakes are learned from, the risks are greatly reduced. The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.
-
Then chemical batteries release stored electricity.
And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?
The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.
It's also worth mentioning that all the reactors in the US are 30+ years old, and aren't as good as modern reactors like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP-1000)
Btw, how many people were hurt because of that 2002 accident in Ohio?
-
Then chemical batteries release stored electricity.
And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?
Then there's no more power available. Usually having them at an altitude is the best way to solve the issue of not having any wind, but having too little wind is a very real possibility. Plus, as I pointed out, you could have batteries enough to supply full power for weeks or months, but those batteries will eventually go bad and need to be disposed of, which is extremely dirty.
The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.
It's also worth mentioning that all the reactors in the US are 30+ years old, and aren't as good as modern reactors like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP-1000)
Btw, how many people were hurt because of that 2002 accident in Ohio?
Perhaps a few workers who chose to risk life and limb to service a nuclear power plant, but the valve was replaced and the accident (of not having the valve's failure on record prior to critical time) was averted. Mind you, there are many dangerous occupations. Servicing a nuclear power plant isn't that dangerous anymore, especially as radiation is more fully understood now and the employees are fairly compensated. You can say that anyone and everyone deserves a 6+digit salary for hazardous occupations, but the value of the job is in how much you're willing to pay.
The sites are 30+ years old, but reactors don't last forever and there have been quite a few shutdown and replaced. Last one I remember hearing about was a new reactor at an existing site being completed around 2007, I think. I would not mind having a nuclear plant in "my backyard"; much safer than the high-output alternatives (oil, nat'l gas, coal).
-
there have been ZERO nuclear industry fatalities in the united states. as far as i am aware, no one has even been exposed in excess of the NRC dose limit for radiation. yes, the plants are old, but their equipment is constantly upgraded and replaced. the design lifes for most have been extended from the original 40 years to upwards of 80.
-
And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?
then you picked a _really_ ****ty place to build a wind farm.
also with all of the talk of batteries, I'm getting the idea that most people think that you would be dealing with a huge pile of NiMH or LiIon batteries, the technology for storing huge amounts of electricity in a fixed facility is vastly different than you would use in a car or a cell phone. what you would use would be something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_Redox_Flow_Battery).
-
hmmm. i think this number is important to note
25 Wh/kg
so a kilogram of this stuff can power a lightbulb for less than half an hour.
-
energy density is not important when you don't have to move it. what is important is the thing never wearing out.
-
Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.
-
Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.
Usually has to deal with efficiency and reliability. How good is an air turbine if the pressure varies wildly? In short, it's not very good at all. What COULD work would be tens of thousands of smaller chambers released at regular intervals, but you're still looking at an issue of efficiency to first store the energy (hopefully with a minimum of CO2 emissions and chemical waste) and then how efficient it is to release the energy. A common idea to store energy (and a pretty good one at that) is to heat water. That works a touch better than air I'd presume.
-
Of course even the best method isn't going to be incredibly efficient, but again, we're talking about at least some amount of recoverable energy being better than none at all.
-
Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.
Usually has to deal with efficiency and reliability. How good is an air turbine if the pressure varies wildly? In short, it's not very good at all. What COULD work would be tens of thousands of smaller chambers released at regular intervals, but you're still looking at an issue of efficiency to first store the energy (hopefully with a minimum of CO2 emissions and chemical waste) and then how efficient it is to release the energy. A common idea to store energy (and a pretty good one at that) is to heat water. That works a touch better than air I'd presume.
Why would the gas (it doesn't have to be air) pressure vary wildly? We do have the tech to make air pressure regulators. If you live in a building that has gas furnace (propane, natural gas, etc.) you *will* have pressure regulator. If you don't have the pressure in the reserve to run turbine at optimum, then you just shut down, rather than try an squeeze every last put of energy out of the store. That way when you start generating with the primary again, the store does not have to start at atmospheric pressure.
Also, if we are going to use pumped storage, I would suggest a liquid in an accumulator as we have much higher efficiency liquid pumps and turbines.
We could also put the fluid into a pipeline and join the wind farms together. In fact I have heard suggestions of just doing away with the electric generators in the wind farm and just have the farms generate compressed fluid, which is then run to bigger electric generating plants. This system to join them together would also average out the variations in generating capacity. Admittedly, it is not quite as convenient to do in the ocean, but nevertheless, we know how to run pipelines under the ocean.
-
As the current situation shows, we'd just have to make sure the fluid isn't something that could wreak utter ecological havoc if it leaks.
-
IMHO, we should be doing our darnest to reduce power consumption.
America, I'm looking at you.
-
why? wasteful use is everywhere.
i'm one of those crazy guys who goes around turning off everything that's not in use.
-
Also, if we are going to use pumped storage, I would suggest a liquid in an accumulator as we have much higher efficiency liquid pumps and turbines.
We could also put the fluid into a pipeline and join the wind farms together. In fact I have heard suggestions of just doing away with the electric generators in the wind farm and just have the farms generate compressed fluid, which is then run to bigger electric generating plants. This system to join them together would also average out the variations in generating capacity. Admittedly, it is not quite as convenient to do in the ocean, but nevertheless, we know how to run pipelines under the ocean.
Isn't that going to dramatically increase the expense? All that tunneling isn't going to be cheap.
-
Geothermal power was last addressed a couple pages back, but I don't think it should be so quickly dismissed. Just because the produced fluids are corrosive isn't a show-stopper. Most of the fluid produced in oil and gas wells is pretty corrosive as well. I designed a completion system for one well that had upwards of 15% CO2 and 2% H2S, and the completion fluid had to be a CaBr2 salt-water brine just to be heavy enough to keep the formation under control, and the bottom hole temperature was in excess of 400°F. That's just the nastiest well I personally dealt with. I've heard of much worse. I and the other engineers didn't just look at those wells and decide, "Well, I guess we're going to have to forgo these." They are currently online and producing natural gas at a prolific rate, and the corrosives are being dealt with by surface separation equipment.
My point: we're quite capable of dealing with nasty corrosive fluids. We are actually very good at it. It gets expensive, and you can't go into it half-assed, but it can be done. If we can find a hot enough formation to make it worth while, I'd be more than happy to get involved in a geothermal project. Besides, any decent geothermal plant is going to be a binary loop anyway so the wellbore fluid will never come in direct contact with the turbine loop, just like the nasty radioactive coolant loop in a nuclear plant (almost) never comes in contact with the turbine loop. The problem with geothermal has been a lack of funding and motivation. Advanced research into HDR (hot dry rock) geothermal has been almost impossible to fund despite the fact that, if it works, it could support all our power needs just about forever.
-
Besides, any decent geothermal plant is going to be a binary loop anyway so the wellbore fluid will never come in direct contact with the turbine loop, just like the nasty radioactive coolant loop in a nuclear plant (almost) never comes in contact with the turbine loop.
that's only true of PWR designs. BWRs boil the coolant directly in the reactor core and send that steam to the turbine. the secondary (or tertiary in PWR i guess it's called) loop that supplies coolant for the condenser is segregated however.
-
Is anyone still building those designs??? That technology is 60 years old! Reactor design has gone 3 more generations past that. I mean, I know there are still some of those old plants out there, but I had been under the impression that they were outnumbered by the pressurized water reactors with their triple-loop systems.
I actually got a chance to work at the Comanche Peak nuclear plant for one summer about ten years ago. It was a neat and very worth-while experience. No human being could possibly have convinced me at the time that I didn't want to go to work at a nuclear power plant. If I hadn't had a chance to intern there, I probably would have continued to try like mad to get a permanent job at one. That would have been... "unfortunate" to put it lightly. Sheesh. You have no idea what true boredom is. The engineering team I was working for, their job was essentially to make sure nothing ever happened. It was glorified maintenance. Important, yes, absolutely, but there was zero room for creativity. I'd love to get involved in the design of some of these monstrosities, but being an engineer at an operating power plant is boooooo-ring.
Still, I'm very grateful I had the chance to learn this first hand. And she was a beauty, make no mistake. The entire facility was a truly awe-inspiring piece of engineering. It's a pity more people cannot see what I saw first hand. No matter what side of the nuclear debate you fall on, walking where I walked, standing where I stood, you cannot help but be impressed.
-
yes, they are still being made. BWR/PWR are basic design concepts that will likely never go away. they get refined and things like the safety systems get drastically changed, but the basic operating principles remain the same. the ESBWR and AP1000 are the two leading generation III+ designs marketed and soon to be built today, which are a BWR and PWR design respectively.
-
Hmm. Well well. I did not know that BWR's were still considered a viable approach in Gen 3 reactors.
Be that as it may, the point I was trying to make is that in geothermal applications, the highly corrosive produced fluid / gas need not come into direct contact with the turbine loop. So, the fact that the fluid can be (not necessarily "will be") highly corrosive is not a show-stopper in and of itself.
-
Personally I can't wait until we get nuclear lightbulb reactors working.
I'd love to get involved in the design of some of these monstrosities, but being an engineer at an operating power plant is boooooo-ring.
Then study nuclear physics. :) I do think the term "nuclear engineer" is something of a misnomer because it isn't really engineering.
-
:wtf:
huh? if designing a nuclear plant isn't engineering, i don't know what is.
as for the nuclear lightbulb, NCSU had one of those. pulse power mode. you get a nice bright flash of Cherenkov radiation by ejecting a control rod out. the power spikes to like 2000% for a couple microseconds. but they took it out of the licensing a while back because it doesn't do anything useful. (btw, there's always a cherenkov glow when a reactor is at power).
-
huh? if designing a nuclear plant isn't engineering, i don't know what is.
Nuclear engineers don't actually design nuclear power plants, they just maintain them. The reactors are designed by nuclear physicists and the plants themselves are designed by mechanical and electrical engineers.
as for the nuclear lightbulb, NCSU had one of those. pulse power mode. you get a nice bright flash of Cherenkov radiation by ejecting a control rod out. the power spikes to like 2000% for a couple microseconds. but they took it out of the licensing a while back because it doesn't do anything useful. (btw, there's always a cherenkov glow when a reactor is at power).
Gas core reactors (aka nuclear lightbulbs) operate at insanely high tempuratures, which allows for greater energy. Whats needed are more efficient ways of getting electricity out of the plasma generated by it as well as the radiation. So, with those no more heating water.
-
sort of like how train engineers don't design trains.
-
GeoThermal is probably our best option for natural power sources at the moment, it's pretty constant compared to wind and solar power, and hydro-electric, at least my experience of the system in Wales relies heavily on economics, i.e., that using fossil/nuclear generated electricity at night to pump the water back uphill is cheaper than the cost of energy the dam produces during the day.
The down side to geothermal is that in countries that do not have access to open geothermal vents, it could be a serious engineering work to establish, and some places, like Yellowstone Park in the U.S. might be suitable, but I sure as hell wouldn't start mucking around there.
-
nuclear engineers most certainly DO design reactors. design is the definition of engineering for christ's sake. nuclear physicists work in national labs doing research.
anywho, i've never heard them called "nuclear lightbulbs", but the reactor designs you are referring to are HTGC (high temperature gas cooled). the problem with these designs is we don't have the material capability to build them to withstand those kinds of temperatures. the high temperatures allow for better thermodynamic efficiency; the actual power output won't be drastically higher. we're still limited by melting temperatures of the fuel. and i can assure you that the gas coolant is NOT in a plasma state. that requires millions of degrees.
-
GeoThermal is probably our best option for natural power sources at the moment, it's pretty constant compared to wind and solar power, and hydro-electric, at least my experience of the system in Wales relies heavily on economics, i.e., that using fossil/nuclear generated electricity at night to pump the water back uphill is cheaper than the cost of energy the dam produces during the day.
The down side to geothermal is that in countries that do not have access to open geothermal vents, it could be a serious engineering work to establish, and some places, like Yellowstone Park in the U.S. might be suitable, but I sure as hell wouldn't start mucking around there.
Suitable schmutable. Just drill deeper. ;7
Seriously, drill deep enough just about anywhere, even Antarctica, and you will hit a zone of hot rock eventually. Up to this point, we've been relying exclusively on zones which are not only hot but also contain pressurized water, so all we have to do is drill the hole and crack open a valve, and boom, you have geothermal power. Hot dry rock is a tougher nut to crack, but I'm convinced it can be done. And once it is, that's technology that you can use ANYWHERE. You just have to drill deep enough.
I swear, if even 1% of the R&D that is poured into going after hydrocarbons was invested in HDR geothermal wells, we would have it by now.
-
funny thing 'drill deeper' technology is extremely important to oil as well, so there is actually quite a lot of R&D going into it.
-
GeoThermal is probably our best option for natural power sources at the moment, it's pretty constant compared to wind and solar power, and hydro-electric, at least my experience of the system in Wales relies heavily on economics, i.e., that using fossil/nuclear generated electricity at night to pump the water back uphill is cheaper than the cost of energy the dam produces during the day.
The down side to geothermal is that in countries that do not have access to open geothermal vents, it could be a serious engineering work to establish, and some places, like Yellowstone Park in the U.S. might be suitable, but I sure as hell wouldn't start mucking around there.
Suitable schmutable. Just drill deeper. ;7
Seriously, drill deep enough just about anywhere, even Antarctica, and you will hit a zone of hot rock eventually. Up to this point, we've been relying exclusively on zones which are not only hot but also contain pressurized water, so all we have to do is drill the hole and crack open a valve, and boom, you have geothermal power. Hot dry rock is a tougher nut to crack, but I'm convinced it can be done. And once it is, that's technology that you can use ANYWHERE. You just have to drill deep enough.
I swear, if even 1% of the R&D that is poured into going after hydrocarbons was invested in HDR geothermal wells, we would have it by now.
From what I've heard, there are a few high-stress and highly heat-conductive materials that could be used to construct huge 'rods' that transfer heat up to the surface where it can be utilised. The problem is finding a material that is cheap to manufacture in the quantities desired.
The best thing about geothermal, if you have the drilling tech, is that, as you say, it doesn't matter where you are on the planet, dig a deep enough hole and you'll find an almost inexhaustable power source, you'd simply need a water tank which these rods would rise up into, heating the water and generating steam.
-
GeoThermal is probably our best option for natural power sources at the moment, it's pretty constant compared to wind and solar power, and hydro-electric, at least my experience of the system in Wales relies heavily on economics, i.e., that using fossil/nuclear generated electricity at night to pump the water back uphill is cheaper than the cost of energy the dam produces during the day.
The down side to geothermal is that in countries that do not have access to open geothermal vents, it could be a serious engineering work to establish, and some places, like Yellowstone Park in the U.S. might be suitable, but I sure as hell wouldn't start mucking around there.
Drilling that deep is hugely expensive so no, it isn't our best bet.
-
I didn't say bet, I said option, not all options are available in all situations, and, as I mentioned in the post, it could be problematic in areas where the geothermal energy is not easily accessible, but for pure power/investment ratio, and, as I also mentioned, if research that is currently taking place turns out to be productive, it is the most reliable and cost-effective option, maybe not for everywhere, but near crust-depth drilling is certainly an option that should, and, as Bobbau mentioned, is, being investigated.
-
Honestly, it isn't the drilling that is the biggest issue. We are capable of achieving depths today where we can reach rock with temperatures up in the 500°F range. That's more than hot enough to run a geothermal plant. It isn't easy or cheap to drill that far, and certainly you'd prefer to pick targets that are naturally hotter at a shallower depth. But the reality is we've drilled wells in excess of 40,000 feet (12,000 meters) deep. That technology is already adequate to the task of geothermal power, and it will only continue to improve.
The biggest issue I see is making it work with hot dry rock. You could drop in some highly conductive material and essentially turn the well into a glorified radiator, but it won't take too long before you cool down the bottom of the well. Part of the key to making geothermal work is drawing your heat from a fairly large area; just using the borehole itself isn't going to be enough for long-term use unless you are siphoning heat off at a really slow rate (slow enough to make the whole endeavor of questionable value).
To increase the area from which you are drawing heat, the old-school way is to just tap into an area that already has hot geofluid and produce that up the well. In a dry rock application, you must supply the fluid yourself through (an) injector well(s), force it to meander through a large area of hot rock where it soaks up heat, and then force it into a production well from which it can be returned up to surface. Then you have hot fluid on surface. Most likely approach will be to run that hot fluid through a heat exchanger to heat water or some other fluid in a turbine loop. The now-cooler produced fluid is pumped to the aforementioned injector wells, and the process repeats. Unless you chose your formation very carefully (must have little-to-no natural porosity) and execute your hydraulic fracture of said formation perfectly, the amount of water that gets lost per cycle is going to be horrific. That last bit is the biggest barrier at the moment to hot dry rock geothermal power.