RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I am saying that generally when building a dam it is for water control, not electricity.

well, that's why i included all those links

if you look at just one, look at the Hydro-Quebec link - most all of those massive projects were built solely for power generation - the rivers below them are considered to be spillways, and in many cases, development is not allowed
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I am sorry but 2.7 GigaWatts sound weak for any electrical power plant.

Ginna nuke plant in upstate new york is half a gigawatt :idunno:


the A1B reactor in nuclear aircraft carriers is estimated at 0.7 GW

the biggest coal fired plants (chinese) put out around 5-6 GW, using multiple boilers/generators rated around 0.5 GW each


the biggest nuke facility uses seven reactors of around 1.1 GW each:
Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan is currently the world's largest nuclear power plant, with a net capacity of 7,965MW. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa has seven boiling water reactors (BWR) with a gross installed capacity of 8,212MW.




palo verde is the biggest nuke plant in the US, using three reactors of 1.4 GW capacity each



the biggest solar project, in india, covers 10 square kilometers and generates 0.648 GW

the biggest wind project, in california, uses 586 turbines to generate 1.5 GW
 
Last edited:

Kit the Coyote

New member
I am sorry but 2.7 GigaWatts sound weak for any electrical power plant.

Our local coal power plant is rated at 257 MW.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal-fired power plant is around 600MW. Any plant measuring output in GW is considered a 'large' scale plant.
 
Last edited:

Kit the Coyote

New member
Solar panels finally produce more energy than it takes to make them, study finds

It seems that Solar panels passed the point where they use more energy to produce than they generate in 2013 and are fully expected to exceed (repay) all the energy costs making them by 2020.

all the solar panels online around the world last year produced enough energy to make up for the energy it took to make them

The future looks even brighter, according to the study, with researchers projecting that the industry will be generating enough power between 2015 and 2020 to offset all of the historic creation costs.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

Technology is largely a lie, it is today's vernacular for miracles.

Technology has transformed life today. It's just absurd to deny the fact.

There is no such thing as renewable energy

Biofuels, for example, are renewable. Anything you can grow more of, is renewable. Stuff that can't be renewed includes coal, oil, natural gas etc. Technically even that is renewable in geologic time. It's just not practical to wait millions of years for it.

Sunlight, and wind, at least for the next four billion years or so, are inexhaustible.

I find it unbelievable that most conservatives are unaware of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You must be a conservative. You clearly don't get the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So the only alternative is they really want the liberal agenda.

It's really not accurate for you to use "liberal" as a synonymn for "rational." It's often true, but they aren't really the same thing.

You cant renew energy

But since the Earth is always gaining energy from the sun, crops, trees, wind, and sunlight are renewable or inexhaustible. As I said, you don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

and you can't use water.

I use it every day. If you don't, you'll find people will start to avoid you.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, it only goes in one direction, it is always less available, always!

Hint: outside inputs can cause local decreases in entropy. The Earth is such an example.

And last night while I was sleeping I inventoried all the water on earth, and it is still there, LOL so YES, you can't use water, deal with it.

I showered a couple of hours ago. So you're wrong. The water then goes to the sewers,gets treated, and is released. Eventually, it gets reused.

I believe it is axiomatic that if a technology works, liberals will be opposed to it.

Wind power works. In Iowa, for example, about 35% of the state's electricity is by wind, and thereby, Iowa has one of the lowest costs for electrical energy in the United States.

Solar works. That's why, as the costs drop and efficiencies rise (technology, again!)more and more people and corporations are using solar to reduce energy costs.

If a technology doesn't work, liberals and many conservatives will be 100 percent for it. Do I dare say a "wall" not very tech

Didn't work in the old days, either. Ask China.

Technology that doesn't work, Solar panels: Solar panels produce no net increase in available energy.

They merely convert sunlight to usable energy. The tools in my shed, my electric mower, and Mrs. Barbarian's potting shed use solar. So does my security system. All of these charge batteries that hold energy to be used at night or when the sky is very cloudy. Works great. If the curve of cost/effciency continues in a few years, it might be cost effective for a 70+ y/o guy to invest in solar panels for his house. If it the payoff is longer than 20 years, I'm not interested.

Solar Panels are a ponzi scheme where you send very valuable potential energy (coal) to China, they send back worthless solar panels and liberals and others love them.

So do many other Americans. The amount of solar energy utilized by panels is rapidly growing now.


Solar panels "produce NO net increase in available energy".

Right. They merely convert sunlight to a useable form of energy.

In fact they produce negative amounts of energy.

Nope. You see, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It's just converted to some other form of energy.

The number one problem with solar panels are; Their power is never on demand and they are always at full load.

Right. So for the time being, fossil fuels will continue to be a significant, albeit declining part of our energy budget. Until technology can find a way to store that energy efficiently, we'll still need oil and natural gas.


So no mater how many panels there are, you can never ever reduce even one power plant, as the sun doesn't always shine. You must understand that ALL energy is produced with energy. To have a net gain, in any energy source, you must produce a multiple amount of new available energy to have a net gain[/quote]

No. Remember, energy is never created or destroyed. It's merely converted to a different form of energy.

There are many facilities that do now burn refuse for energy, and that's a good thing, too. It just doesn't have the potential that other sources represent.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
worth taking a look at:


Production of fuels from regenerative electric power is a component of the energy turnaround. The first 200 l of synthetic fuel have now been produced from solar energy and the air's carbon dioxide under the SOLETAIR project. The mobile chemical pilot plant that can be used decentrally produces gasoline, diesel, and kerosene from regenerative hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808182423.htm

 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It's hard to predict what mix of technologies will transition us to completely renewable/inexhaustible sources, but this is one promising approach.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
it's tough to beat liquid fuels for energy density and ease of storage

i wouldn't aim for diesel, kerosene and gasoline, though, and i wouldn't use atmospheric CO2 as a feedstock - there's just not enough of it in the air

i'd aim for methanol and use biomass or garbage as a carbon source

easy enough to convert the methanol into t-butanol if you want fuel for IC engines

easier still to burn it to generate heat
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It's hard to predict what mix of technologies will transition us to completely renewable/inexhaustible sources, but this is one promising approach.

We need to pick one and get going on it.
Electric is the only real choice, the rest are gimmicks or stop gaps.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
fuel cell tech has promise, if we could figure out how to store liquid hydrogen at STP

electricity strips water into H2 and O2

store H2

use stored H2 combined with atmospheric O2 to make electricity as needed
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
worth taking a look at:


Production of fuels from regenerative electric power is a component of the energy turnaround. The first 200 l of synthetic fuel have now been produced from solar energy and the air's carbon dioxide under the SOLETAIR project. The mobile chemical pilot plant that can be used decentrally produces gasoline, diesel, and kerosene from regenerative hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170808182423.htm


This sounds promising.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
tough to store electricity as electricity

Pretty much impossible. The usual method is to store it as chemical energy. I was surprised to learn how many people think that batteries have to be "charged up" when they are made. They don't seem to realize that there is no electrical energy in the battery, until the terminals are connected in a circuit.

There is some research into storing it as thermal energy, but so far, that hasn't worked out very well.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Pretty much impossible. The usual method is to store it as chemical energy. I was surprised to learn how many people think that batteries have to be "charged up" when they are made. They don't seem to realize that there is no electrical energy in the battery, until the terminals are connected in a circuit.

There is some research into storing it as thermal energy, but so far, that hasn't worked out very well.

There's someplace out west here they're using extra energy during the day to drive a train of freight cars full of rocks up a hill, then it generates power as it slowly rolls back down over night.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
There's someplace out west here they're using extra energy during the day to drive a train of freight cars full of rocks up a hill, then it generates power as it slowly rolls back down over night.

I heard about that. Storing electrical energy as potential gravitational energy is pretty creative. Of course it depends on having a hill.

One similar approach is in France, where they trap high tides behind a dam, and let the water run out past turbine blades, generating electricity.

I expect that we'll be doing many different things to generate useful energy. Solar ovens matched with Stirling engines would be a good approach to generating household electricity. Stirling engines were widely used before steel was inexpensive enough to use for steam engines (iron pressure vessels blew up a lot).

They suffer from low torque, but a solar collector could produce enough heat to make them run efficiently.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
niagara falls, american side:
The pump-generating plant in the Lewiston Dam is atypical, in that the dam was constructed not to control the flow of water in a natural river, but rather to contain a man-made 1,900-acre (770 ha), 22-billion-US-gallon (83,000,000 m3) upper reservoir (named the Lewiston Reservoir) which stores the water before being released into the forebay of the Robert Moses Power Station. Water enters the forebay via tunnels from the Niagara River controlled via the International Control Dam upstream of the natural falls. Water in the forebay is then either pumped up into the upper reservoir or immediately sent down over the escarpment downstream of the natural falls into the Robert Moses Power Station turbines. The Lewiston Pump-Generating Plant 43°08′33″N 79°01′18″W houses 12 electrically powered pump-generators that can generate a combined 240 MW (320,000 hp) when water in the upper reservoir is released.

At night, a substantial fraction (600,000 US gal (2,300 m3) per second) of the water in the Niagara River is diverted to the forebay by two 397 ft (121 m) tunnels.[6] Electricity generated in the Moses plant is used to power the pumps to push water into the upper reservoir behind the Lewiston Dam. The water is pumped at night because the demand for electricity is much lower than during the day. In addition to the lower demand for electricity at night, less water can be diverted from the river during the day because of the desire to preserve the appearance of the falls. During the following day, when electrical demand is high, water is released from the upper reservoir through the pump-generators in the Lewiston Dam. The water then flows into the forebay, where it falls through the turbines of the Moses plant. Some would say that the water is "used twice". This arrangement is a variant of what is called pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Engineers copied what had been built by Ontario Hydro, across the river, when a similar system was built during construction of the Sir Adam Beck generating station II in the 1950s.

This system allows energy to be stored in vast quantities. At night, the potential energy in the diverted water is converted into electrical energy in the Moses plant. Some of that electrical energy is used to create potential energy when the water is pumped into the reservoir behind the Lewiston Dam. During the day, part of the potential energy of the water in the Lewiston reservoir is converted into electricity at the Lewiston Dam, and then its remaining potential energy is captured by the Moses Dam, which is also capturing the potential energy of the water diverted from the river in real-time.

Beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2020, the pump-generating plant will be undergoing a $460 million modernization that will increase the plant's efficiency and service life. The Robert Moses Plant was refurbished in 2006.[7]


the canadian side has something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Adam_Beck_Hydroelectric_Generating_Stations
 
Top