Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Use dams as backup

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Use dams as backup

Unread postby Clouseau2 » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 14:55:38

Hydro power should be used only as a "backup battery". Speaking just for the United States, 7% of the power is hydro.

Build 1.5X as much capacity as you need with solar & windmills. Then use the Hydro as a backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining enough.

At the same time, also manage the demand side ... Everyone gets variable metering and big energy users like appliances go into reduced power usage when the price rises.

Yes, electrify the railroads, definitely.

And we DID have a few trillion lying around, otherwise we couldn't have funded the war, the taxcuts, the pharma boondoggle, etc., right? A few trillion in CREDIT anyhow.
User avatar
Clouseau2
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco, CA
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 15:21:01

Dams are good, especially as regulating the difference between base load and peak load. The problem with your idea is that wind and solar is too exepensive.

Electric trains are good though.

edit: And peak oil is not about electricity by the way.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby OneLoneClone » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 15:39:17

Dams are crap. They almost completely silt up in 20-30 years and stop providing electricity without contstant maintenence.

Our existing dams are in complete disrepair, you think we will be able to maintain them in the future without cheap energy?
OneLoneClone
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri 07 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 15:55:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Clouseau2', 'A')nd we DID have a few trillion lying around, otherwise we couldn't have funded the war, the taxcuts, the pharma boondoggle, etc., right? A few trillion in CREDIT anyhow.


Credit is the key word. Sure, there were better ways to spend money that we didn't have in the first place. But we didn't. The jig is up.
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Andy » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 16:00:07

Starvid,

Why do you keep repeating that wind and solar are too expensive when in many areas of the world, wind as currently deployed is "Least Cost"? It is cheaper than natural gas in North America, New Zealand, probably Argentina etc. etc. at 4 - 5 US c/KWH and way cheaper than nuclear, especially if we go the breeder route. Solar is not yet cheaper but rapidly approaching that point. Very soon, concentrating solar in the US Southwest will be cheaper than natural gas and by the end of the decade, concentrating distributed photovoltaic will also be cheaper than centralized natural gas. There are companies right now with plans to start manufaturing concentrating home sized PV systems of 35% efficiency at retail prices of $1.5 per Wp working out to around 5- 6 c/KWH in the US Southwest. They use the Spectrolab type cells at 500 sun concentration.
For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
User avatar
Andy
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby coyote » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 16:08:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'e')dit: And peak oil is not about electricity by the way.

I've never really understood that argument. Peak Oil means Peak Energy. All of our power sources affect the cost and availability of all other power sources. A decline in one increases the demand for another. And every year after the Peak, all fuels and power sources become more and more expensive -- most definitely including natural gas and coal, which produce so much of our electricity. Unless you expect nuclear power to immediately ramp up on an absolutely colossal scale worldwide, instantaneously jumping beyond all political, economic, uranium resource, environmental and NIMBY obstacles (a possibility that is, frankly, a little unbelieveable), then Peak Oil is very much about electricity. All of these projects are feasible when oil is cheap. Not so feasible when oil is expensive, and becomes more so with each and every passing year.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
User avatar
coyote
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: East of Eden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 18:52:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', 'S')tarvid,

Why do you keep repeating that wind and solar are too expensive when in many areas of the world, wind as currently deployed is "Least Cost"? It is cheaper than natural gas in North America, New Zealand, probably Argentina etc. etc. at 4 - 5 US c/KWH and way cheaper than nuclear, especially if we go the breeder route. Solar is not yet cheaper but rapidly approaching that point. Very soon, concentrating solar in the US Southwest will be cheaper than natural gas and by the end of the decade, concentrating distributed photovoltaic will also be cheaper than centralized natural gas. There are companies right now with plans to start manufaturing concentrating home sized PV systems of 35% efficiency at retail prices of $1.5 per Wp working out to around 5- 6 c/KWH in the US Southwest. They use the Spectrolab type cells at 500 sun concentration.


I repeat that wind and solar is too expensive probably because I live in Sweden, a country

1) Where no one use natural gas for anything. In places where gas have pushed electricity prices high enough, wind can of course be cheap enough. But in almost all places nuclear or coal will be even cheaper and there will hence be a bigger incentive to build those kinds of plants.

2) Where electricity use is very high due to our very heavy electricity intensive industry (pulp, steel etc). Cheap power is needed to keep Sweden competitive.

Wind costs, as you say, 4-5 cents/kWh depending on the local wind condition. Offshore is more exepnsive though. Prices are falling as the wind mills become larger and it become possible to exploit the wind resource in massive industrial parks.

Nuclear and coal is around 3 cents per kWh. Breeders are a lot more expensive but no one really know how much they will cost (and might ultimately be more expensive than wind power and thus outcompeted).

I am a lot more pessimistic on solar. We have in Uppsala a leading researcher and manufacturer of thin film solar (Ångström Solar Centre) and they tell me baseload power is a very long way away. Decades.

Solar stirling might be a good idea. Time will tell. Solar hot water heating is good and already rather widespread in Sweden.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 19:06:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'e')dit: And peak oil is not about electricity by the way.

I've never really understood that argument. Peak Oil means Peak Energy. All of our power sources affect the cost and availability of all other power sources. A decline in one increases the demand for another. And every year after the Peak, all fuels and power sources become more and more expensive -- most definitely including natural gas and coal, which produce so much of our electricity. Unless you expect nuclear power to immediately ramp up on an absolutely colossal scale worldwide, instantaneously jumping beyond all political, economic, uranium resource, environmental and NIMBY obstacles (a possibility that is, frankly, a little unbelieveable), then Peak Oil is very much about electricity. All of these projects are feasible when oil is cheap. Not so feasible when oil is expensive, and becomes more so with each and every passing year.


Peak oil does not mean peak energy, a fact strenously stressed in the Hirsch report which you might profit from reading.

Oil is not needed to mine or transport coal, nor is it much used in the mining of uranium or the extraction of natural gas.

And we do not need to do everything immedeatly after a peak. Peaking is not running out. Peaking is peaking. The year before the peak year will have as big oil production as the year after peak.

And my electricity is not provided by coal or gas. Nor is my heat. It's hydro and nuclear all the way.

Nuclear power rose from a 0 % power share in Sweden in 1970 to a 50 % share in 1985, replacing one third of our oil consumption. 12 reactors built by 7 million people in 15 years.

If we could do build 1 GW nuclear capacity per 1 million citizens in the middle of an oil crisis, so can you.

That's 400 reactors in 15 years for America, by the way.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby grabby » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 19:14:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Clouseau2', 'H')ydro power should be used only as a "backup battery". Speaking just for the United States, 7% of the power is hydro.

Build 1.5X as much capacity as you need with solar & windmills. Then use the Hydro as a backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining enough.
.


hydro is a great backup! Good idea!

at the grand coulee the pump water at night up into a lake called BANKS LAKE (HUGE TOTALLY MANMADE, and there are pipes you can drive a double decker bus through thand there are like 20 of them each with a motor and generator, at night, rather than spill the water over the spillway they pump water up into banks lake, at peak heat of the day these pumps revers and GENERATE electricity as if flows into coulee reservour again

lots of power shifted back and forth

a nice amazing syste.

hydro is really a great energy source.


I suuppose you could use windmills to push water up into a lake and then generate it coming back down, on peak needs, or even solar pumps.

I think the most efficient would be giant mirrorss (CHEAP)
focusing rays on a black boiler

Or wave machines that pump plain water up a hill into a dammed area from the ocean then run it back down to generate power,

pipes are cheap and hydraulics con move around corners without loosing energy (Pressure)

But whatever we use, we have to cut back on our car driving.
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 19:29:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OneLoneClone', 'D')ams are crap. They almost completely silt up in 20-30 years and stop providing electricity without contstant maintenence.

Our existing dams are in complete disrepair, you think we will be able to maintain them in the future without cheap energy?

Well, maybe you don't prioritize maintenance. Most of our (Swedish) big dams are from the 60's and they still work excellently. Our oldest dams will soon be 100 years old and are practically money machines. Water is free you know. And of course, they are still in perfect shape. And produce 50 % of our power.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 19:40:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'W')ell, maybe you don't prioritize maintenance.


Isn't that obvious? We have too many concrete flyover highways to build to be concerned with such monotonous work as keeping our levees and dams intact. Voters see traffic jams everyday, but see dams twice a year.
:roll:
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Caoimhan » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 20:26:55

How much oil does it take to build a dam?

That's a lot of concrete to haul.
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby OneLoneClone » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 20:33:31

I still insist that dams are crap. That doesn't negate all hydro-power. The tides, microhydro, all of it has a place, but the big dam projects are just f*cked.

The waters of "Lake" Powel and "Lake" Mead are barely generating ANY electricity, after 20 years of silt buildup and years of drought there is hardly any water in them at all anymore.

This 'free' water comes at enormous cost. Big dam projects dont work as reservoirs after 20-40 years they silt up. They cause massive ecological harm and mess with fish reproduction for a short term solution.

The dam project in China is not what I would call 'Green Energy", more like ecocide, really.
OneLoneClone
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri 07 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: San Francisco
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Etalon » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 22:10:26

The issue here is not about electricity generation, it is about backup storage. Backup storage dams need not silt up, as they do not need to be built on a river.

Electricity producing dams need to go on a river. Here, they silt up due to the water slowing down and despositing whatever it had.

Electricity backup dams do not need to be build on a river, but can be anywhere of the correct geology.
Etalon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby coyote » Wed 15 Feb 2006, 23:28:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'P')eak oil does not mean peak energy, a fact strenously stressed in the Hirsch report which you might profit from reading.

Thank you. I have read the Hirsch Report. He does stress that, saying:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the sense that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels.

...but he says this after he has already extensively discussed producing liquid fuels from coal and natural gas (coal liquefaction and LNG), both of which are currently used to produce electricity for much of the world. (Note also, of course, the tight supplies and rising prices of natural gas and even, according to some sources,coal.) There will also certainly be increased use of EVs and Electric Trains to try to make up for some of the shortfall in oil. The issue is one of substitution, which he also discusses, especially regarding the industrial sectors. I think the decline of oil production will have an impact on other energy sources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'A')nd we do not need to do everything immedeatly after a peak. Peaking is not running out. Peaking is peaking. The year before the peak year will have as big oil production as the year after peak.

Yes of course I understand that peaking is not running out. Do you understand that the curve may not be perfectly symmetrical? Given your location, I assume you have noted the severe decline of North Sea production and thought of the possible implications. In any case, we're talking about oil, and everything it does, getting more expensive every year.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')hat's 400 reactors in 15 years for America, by the way.

What about the rest of the world, with an average purchasing power somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of places like Sweden and America? Don't see it happening. Please note, I am not anti-nuclear. I think we should expand the industry, and I'm sure we're going to. But it's not a panacea. There is no panacea. Personally, I think the folks installing solar panels are pretty smart.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
User avatar
coyote
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: East of Eden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby grabby » Thu 16 Feb 2006, 03:15:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Etalon', 'T')he issue here is not about electricity generation, it is about backup storage. Backup storage dams need not silt up, as they do not need to be built on a river.

Electricity producing dams need to go on a river. Here, they silt up due to the water slowing down and despositing whatever it had.

Electricity backup dams do not need to be build on a river, but can be anywhere of the correct geology.


good point, rivers with silt may silt up, but its not just silt, it is usually sewage, wherever they dump in treated sewage, it collects at the dam, so, don't dump in sewage anymore.

here is a photo of Grand coulee 50 years after built, that lake is very deep.

Coulee recent photo aerial

It has lots of fish and I can't figure out what damage was done, it provides a lot of farm land now. Tons of geese and ducks and fish and lots of small animals around it.

60 years later it is still deep and powerful in fact it increased production after 50 years from 3500 to 7000 megawatts.

. When we boat out there you can still see the original rocks on the bottom.

The are the most efficient way to produce power. Theya re clean and pure, lots of water and white noise and a great laser light show every night.

they bounce it off the falling water, and during the show they will dumpa few minutes of water every evening, tremondous roar.

enough power in that dump to run a large city for an hour.

whatever works, I just think of it this way, every day that dam runs we use 280,000 barrels of crude oil LESS each day.

When we get nuked you bet this dam will take a hit or two. its the biggest in the usa, but until then we will have some power.

So you can see I like dams and water and electicty - abolutly no polution.

As for the animals it displaced, as the water filled up, they walked away from it, none died. The rabbits just have sex 1/2 a mile further west. as do the coyotes and other varmints.
No more damage was done here than paving a 4 lane highway fot 100 miles, and the highway causes animal deaths, this gives them drinking water. I don't get what all the commotion is about dams, it is a red herring, It is a good way to supply power to those who cut back.

The first source of power and probably the ONLY willl be water power, we will not be able to make rare earth windmill magnets with AC inverting transistors.

Dams we can make. It was one of the first technologies in Edisons time all you need is wire.
Panels will not be made the technology will be gone.
User avatar
grabby
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue 08 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Doly » Thu 16 Feb 2006, 05:01:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '
')I suuppose you could use windmills to push water up into a lake and then generate it coming back down, on peak needs, or even solar pumps.


Using dams as a backup in this way is already done in countries with lots of hydro, like Spain, to compensate for the different demand between day and night. They pump water up in the night and generate electricity coming down in the day.

Some people don't realise that the fact that solar doesn't work at night may be a feature, not a bug. Electricity demand at night is lower (yes, we switch on the lights at night, but most businesses and many factories don't use electricity at night).
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 16 Feb 2006, 11:08:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OneLoneClone', 'I') still insist that dams are crap. That doesn't negate all hydro-power. The tides, microhydro, all of it has a place, but the big dam projects are just f*cked.

The waters of "Lake" Powel and "Lake" Mead are barely generating ANY electricity, after 20 years of silt buildup and years of drought there is hardly any water in them at all anymore.

This 'free' water comes at enormous cost. Big dam projects dont work as reservoirs after 20-40 years they silt up. They cause massive ecological harm and mess with fish reproduction for a short term solution.

The dam project in China is not what I would call 'Green Energy", more like ecocide, really.


Our dams don't silt up. I wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with the kind of soil you are or something like that.

And neither do they hurt fishing. In Sweden hydropower companies must plant new fish upstream the dams to compensate for the damages the dam create. Many dams also have "fish stairs" which fish can climb.

On the Three Gorges Dam, I think it is good. The alternative would have been 20.000 MW of coal capacity and that would have been even worse. But it would have been even better building several smaller dams than one gargantauan.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top

Re: Use dams as backup

Unread postby Starvid » Thu 16 Feb 2006, 12:01:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'T')hank you. I have read the Hirsch Report. He does stress that, saying:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the sense that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels.

...but he says this after he has already extensively discussed producing liquid fuels from coal and natural gas (coal liquefaction and LNG), both of which are currently used to produce electricity for much of the world. (Note also, of course, the tight supplies and rising prices of natural gas and even, according to some sources,coal.)

Correct. Increasing coal and natural gas use in tranportation will of course open a window for nuclear and renewables in the heating and power sector. But I don't really know how big this pressure will be. Have there been done any studies on this subject?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '
') There will also certainly be increased use of EVs and Electric Trains to try to make up for some of the shortfall in oil. The issue is one of substitution, which he also discusses, especially regarding the industrial sectors. I think the decline of oil production will have an impact on other energy sources.

The power use of electric trains is extremely small. Even if it increased ten times over it wouldn't mean much for the requirement of new electrical capacity. Check this link http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/PDF_graphs/SEBSFC.pdf

If electric cars are introduced and become widespread (something I both hope will happen and believe will happen) electricity use will increase robustly. According to a simple calculation I made, replacing all ICE cars in Sweden with electric equivalent would eruire 25 % more elctrical energy. And since tranportation consume rouughly 50 % of all Swedish oil use one could hazard that replacing all Swedish oil use might require 50 % more electrical energy. The numbers are surely different for other countries as Swedish energy use already is very high due to our heavy industry (we use three times as much power per capita as Denmark for example).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '
')Yes of course I understand that peaking is not running out. Do you understand that the curve may not be perfectly symmetrical? Given your location, I assume you have noted the severe decline of North Sea production and thought of the possible implications. In any case, we're talking about oil, and everything it does, getting more expensive every year.

That is of course true. While we have seen some horrendoues decline rates in the North Sea I don't think they are representative. I think ASPO is pretty close to the truth. They have peak in 2010, 75 % of peak production in about 2020 and 50 % of peak production in about 2040.

An interesting thing is to look at consumption decline rates to see what is possible under certain circumstances. For example in 1973 Sweden consumed 28 million tonnes of oil. In spite of the oil crisis it stayed about the same (with some wobblyness) until 1979. Then it fell to 17 million tonnes in 4 years. A 40 % consumption decline in 4 years. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/PDF_graphs/SEOIL.pdf

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')hat's 400 reactors in 15 years for America, by the way.
What about the rest of the world, with an average purchasing power somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of places like Sweden and America? Don't see it happening. Please note, I am not anti-nuclear. I think we should expand the industry, and I'm sure we're going to. But it's not a panacea. There is no panacea. Personally, I think the folks installing solar panels are pretty smart.
When we built our nuclear power plants in the 70's and early 80's the Swedish GDP/capita was a little more than 1/2 of what it is today when you remove inflation.

Image

If you count purchasing power parity GDP/capita it has increased 4 times over since 1975. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_d ... Country=SE

So I think that countries that are around $5000(PPP) or $15.000 (non-PPP) and with the technology should be able to go nuclear as we did 25 years ago.

If you posses the technology and the skilled workers already (like we did) it should be possible to go with the low PPP value as you can make the technology at home for a lower price, while if you lack the technology you need foreigners to make it for you and will be more expensive. Then the higher GDP ($15.000) might be closer to reality.

But then most countries won't need the massive amounts of power per capita Sweden need. http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy- ... e-574.html
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Top
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests