Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on November 29, 2011, 08:10:04 pm
-
Just saw this gem (http://www.kgw.com/news/local/TriMet-solar-energy-project-construction-begins-in-SW-Portland-134694858.html) on tv:
PORTLAND - Construction began Tuesday morning on a solar energy station at the end of the TriMet MAX line near Portland State University.
The $370,000 Solarworld project is expected to produce more than 67,000 kilowatt hours of power each year.
TriMet said renewable energy generated by the solar panel system will go directly into Portland General Electric's power grid, offsetting the energy required to power electrical systems.
TriMet expects to get back about $3,680 per-year in energy credits.
Some critics say it will take TriMet too long to pay it off.
Solar energy experts say most solar panels have a lifespan of 20-30 years.
For a little background information Trimet is the local mass transit agency and usually does a pretty good job. The intent of this little project is to partially power the light rail. Beyond its cost problems, one other problem is reliability. Anyone who has ever been to the northwestern US knows that most of the year is rain, clouds and more rain, not much sunshine.
-
67,000 kilowatt hours of power
Uuuuuugggghhhhhhhhh..... Units?! Can anyone use them???
-
what's wrong with the units?
-
I closed the page the second time I was interrupted by an add, and at that point the only thing I saw wrong with the thing was "67,000 kilowatt hours of power per year". For those of you who haven't taken a physics class in a while, the Watt is the unit of power, equal to 1 joule of work done per second. When people say "kilowatt hours" they usually are referring to energy or work, but I'm sure it's nothing but bad reporting using power synonymously with energy.
As for the cost-benefit of all of this, I'm hesitant to say too much because I just don't know that much. The money saved per year, solar panel lifetime, and the total cost are probably all correct, but given the obvious lack of money saved I'm guessing most of that $370,000 is overhead that won't be needed to be re-spent when the panels are replaced. Course, I didn't watch the video so I could be totally wrong, in which case pls enlighten me.
-
Except kWh is the standard unit for energy when some one is billing you. Any one who has had to pay electric/energy/power bills is quite well aware of the fact. Joule happens to inconveniently small unit for anything but lab experiments (and it often is inconveniently large unit for those) and is based on inconveniently small unit of time.
-
All true. My qualm was that they called kWh a measure of power, not that they weren't using something like megajoules.
-
kwh is watts*time. power is just watts. not an unusual mistake for a writer or reporter to make. there is a reason they're not engineers.
-
in non-engineering/academic use, the terms "power" and "energy" are pretty much used interchangeably.
-
67,000 kWh per year is actually a correct unit within some parts of the power industry. Given that a year is 8760 hours (not accounting for leap years), this is a power output of 7 kW, or enough power to run 7 washing machines, 2 kettles or 1 storage heater. Of course it is enough to run 280 flouresant tube lights, but compared with real power plants, this is nothing. Even a wind turbine is usually 1000kW these days, while a small gas power plant would be 500,000 kW, and coal and nuclear plants are often 2-4 million kW. Add to that they could, with a little more investment get a linear Fresnel plant, or if they can get planning permission, a heliostat (or power tower) which would produce up to 10 times the maximum power output, still produce power (at a much reduced rate) when it is cloudy, and store power until it is needed. Unfortunately being microelectronics rather than heavy industry, solar panels are very fashionable)
Disclaimer: I work in the power industry, and the only sort of solar my company works on is using a heliostat (producing 10,000 times as much power as this installation)
-
portland seems a little north to be very efficient at capturing solar power
-
portland seems a little north to be very efficient at capturing solar power
You'd be surprised, Oregon actually has a pretty favorable climate for solar energy capture.
-
in non-engineering/academic use, the terms "power" and "energy" are pretty much used interchangeably.
Would you call the construction of a large solar panel array a non-engineering use? If people want to be informed of how the technology their society runs on works, they should be using the terms correctly. Hell, they should be using the terms correctly all the time, but it's just plain stupid if they care enough to read/write news about power generation but not enough to know what power is.
-
I'm in Portland too, and whenever I look out my window, the two things that usually strike me are the overcast skies and the huge solar array on my neighbor's roof. On the one hand, it was only a good buy for him because of the government subsidies, so I feel sort of ambivalent about it, but on the other hand, it put people to work during the recession and at least it isn't fossil fuels, though I'm sure a ton of those were burned during the production and installation of the equipment.
I feel like you sort of have to let the buzz ride on stuff like this though. I sort of doubt that the alternative being considered was a modern nuclear plant or something else useful; it's probably this or nothing. Considering the futility of most of our public works projects atm (this road needs another lane!), I'll take what I can get. Until someone mans up at the national/international level and builds a high speed rail corridor to Seattle/Vancouver, we'll just have to settle for hippy **** like good public transit and bike accessibility. Or maybe it's a Field of Dreams thing where we will get actual sunshine once they finish construction, in which case it's the best investment in Pacific NW history.
-
Maybe it's a Field of Dreams thing where we will get actual sunshine once they finish construction, in which case it's the best investment in Pacific NW history.
If that works, put me down for three.
-
in non-engineering/academic use, the terms "power" and "energy" are pretty much used interchangeably.
Would you call the construction of a large solar panel array a non-engineering use? If people want to be informed of how the technology their society runs on works, they should be using the terms correctly. Hell, they should be using the terms correctly all the time, but it's just plain stupid if they care enough to read/write news about power generation but not enough to know what power is.
no, but an article mentioning it to the general public is non-engineering use. this is really not a big deal.
-
The people that don't know the difference may not mind, but I'd like my news to tell me things that are correct. :p
-
portland seems a little north to be very efficient at capturing solar power
You'd be surprised, Oregon actually has a pretty favorable climate for solar energy capture.
Yes, having lived here for most of my life makes it surprising for me too. Half the year is usually almost nothing but clouds and rain.
For those of you who also dont know, 3/4 of Oregon's electricity comes from hydro, one of the only two renewables to have ever been economically competitive and dependable (the other being geo). Solar is dramatically more expensive.
On the one hand, it was only a good buy for him because of the government subsidies, so I feel sort of ambivalent about it, but on the other hand, it put people to work during the recession and at least it isn't fossil fuels, though I'm sure a ton of those were burned during the production and installation of the equipment.
Those subsidies wont last forever, like all artificially inflated markets renewables will have their reckoning.
-
$370,000
$3,680 per-year
ok, so in about 100 years it will have paid for it's self.
except if you factor interest into things it would have like 54 million by that time.
-
Solar is dramatically more expensive.
Well, the main benefit is that anyone who has enough money can put some panels on his roof and get money from the government for it.
It's much better than a paying a greedy big company a fair and lower price for energy, because the greedy company doesn't make profit or isn't it ? ;)
-
Oh god dammit. MarkN puts me to shame. kW is power (the time rate of energy), so multiplied by time makes it energy, kWh, but then divided over a year and it's back to power. Derp.
Well fine. I'll still wager that the guy writing the article didn't know any of that. :p
-
Oh god dammit. MarkN puts me to shame. kW is power (the time rate of energy), so multiplied by time makes it energy, kWh, but then divided over a year and it's back to power. Derp.
Well fine. I'll still wager that the guy writing the article didn't know any of that. :p
didn't the article say "67,000kWh of power per year" and not "67,000kWh per year of power?" or did I misread that too? :nervous:
-
I don't even know anymore. I just saw "67,000 kWh of power," rolled my eyes, made my post, and left. :D
-
In layman's terms, power is the thing wot makes the machines keep going. I don't think the use of the word here is an especially egregious error.
-
In layman's terms, power is the thing wot makes the machines keep going. I don't think the use of the word here is an especially egregious error.
You are right in the way that nothing will break when people read this and think that kWh is power. You are wrong in the way that you think it's okay for news institutions to continue to tell people things that are wrong. Both of these points together mean that there are probably bigger mistakes I should be complaining about, but this is the only one that I actually saw recently that has a topic here all ready for complaining. :p
-
It would be sort of like saying "We've got this new car that can travel at 10,000 miles of speed in one year"
-
no, it's not. whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time. i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school. the same can't be said of speed and distance.
-
No, it's exactly like that, and if it weren't there would be no reason to pay attention to most news.
-
no, it's not. whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time. i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school. the same can't be said of speed and distance.
I realize in everyday speech they mean the same thing because for most people the difference doesn't matter. I was using speed vs distance to illustrate how silly it sounds to people who know better, since those are units everyone would be familiar with.
-
no, it's not. whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time. i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school. the same can't be said of speed and distance.
I realize in everyday speech they mean the same thing because for most people the difference doesn't matter. I was using speed vs distance to illustrate how silly it sounds to people who know better, since those are units everyone would be familiar with.
Isn't one of Godwin's other laws something to do with using automotive metaphors in online discussions?
-
Maybe. I mean they both make sense though. The Nazis/Hitler are a good point of comparison for some really bad dudes that most everyone is familiar with from recent history, and cars are complex machines that most everyone use regularly.
/me shrugs
-
no, it's not. whether you like it or not, "energy" and "power" have been synonyms in conversational use for a LONG time. i'll wager even you didn't distinguish them before the first time you learned the terms as scientific units in school. the same can't be said of speed and distance.
Oddly, they're only used as synonyms in the technical sense when it should be clear that they're distinct. One wouldn't speak of a lust for... energy.
-
Unless you are insinuating that that kind of power is measured in watts (as in Obama has more wattage than McCain), I'm not sure that comparison is meaningful.
They are two different meanings for the same word. Different issue.
-
1.21 jigawatts.
-
jiggawut
-
Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.
But we can't v.v
Also, energy and power have been conversational synonyms for so long that we call it a "power plant" instead of an "energy plant" :p
-
Also, energy and power have been conversational synonyms for so long that we call it a "power plant" instead of an "energy plant" :p
Why would we call it an energy plant? It really does produce power (energy per unit time).
-
Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.
Low-altitude wind would be just as useful if we had an adequate and cheap energy-storage technology. As it is, wind turbines blight the landscape and are only capable of providing power as it is produced.
Even with adequate storage capacity, wind and solar still have significant disadvantages compared against reliable and fairly clean nuclear technologies.
-
Wind power would be competitive if we could harness the jet stream.
Low-altitude wind would be just as useful if we had an adequate and cheap energy-storage technology. As it is, wind turbines blight the landscape and are only capable of providing power as it is produced.
Even with adequate storage capacity, wind and solar still have significant disadvantages compared against reliable and fairly clean nuclear technologies.
Answer: Massive, low-friction flywheels.
-
better answer:
impale the snake!
-
better answer:
impale the snake!
I'm assuming my solution is flawed, then. Or is that just part of Nukism?
-
Your solution is flawed in that it isn't a set of batteries. Or pumped-storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity). In other words, since wind power is only really efficient when using quite a few generators operating in concert, solutions that only work for single generators (like the flywheels you propose) are inefficient.
-
Your solution is flawed in that it isn't a set of batteries. Or pumped-storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity). In other words, since wind power is only really efficient when using quite a few generators operating in concert, solutions that only work for single generators (like the flywheels you propose) are inefficient.
My earth science textbook from last year mentioned pumping compressed air into underground shafts/caverns and letting it flow back out (through a turbine) when it is needed. would that be more or less efficient than pumped-storage hydroelectricity?
-
better answer:
impale the snake!
I'm assuming my solution is flawed, then. Or is that just part of Nukism?
well i think you've dropped the iq of the thread (and others) by tens if not hundreds of points, and your not the only one, but you make a good target.
-
Anyway, my personal standpoint is that we should use natural gas as a stepping stone while we make the transition from primarily a coal-powered society to a nuclear-powered society supplemented by solar and wind power and possibly OTEC.
-
Your solution is flawed in that it isn't a set of batteries. Or pumped-storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity). In other words, since wind power is only really efficient when using quite a few generators operating in concert, solutions that only work for single generators (like the flywheels you propose) are inefficient.
My earth science textbook from last year mentioned pumping compressed air into underground shafts/caverns and letting it flow back out (through a turbine) when it is needed. would that be more or less efficient than pumped-storage hydroelectricity?
It's an alternative in cases where you do not have the geographical features necessary for hydro.
-
Your solution is flawed in that it isn't a set of batteries. Or pumped-storage hydroelectricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity). In other words, since wind power is only really efficient when using quite a few generators operating in concert, solutions that only work for single generators (like the flywheels you propose) are inefficient.
My earth science textbook from last year mentioned pumping compressed air into underground shafts/caverns and letting it flow back out (through a turbine) when it is needed. would that be more or less efficient than pumped-storage hydroelectricity?
It's an alternative in cases where you do not have the geographical features necessary for hydro.
Yeah, but my thing is, damming is already a controversial issue.
I just realized what an idiot I am.
-
well the greenies cant really shut down hydro because that the main cash cow in power generation and its renewable, and we can solve the problems with wildlife with fish ramps and the like. dams arent as controversial as they once were. its free power for the taking but only where you have the geological features necessary to build one.