How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.
by skyemoor » Thu 01 Nov 2007, 22:00:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'Y')ou may not have asked that question, but if you don't get the nuclear plant, what do you think you are getting? Wind and solar? *rejection buzzer sounds*
Interestingly enough, Costa Rica uses no coal or nuclear. In fact, the majority of its electricity production (~75%) is renewable.
http://www.oas.org/dsd/SpecialMeetings/ ... es_eng.pdf
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by skyemoor » Thu 01 Nov 2007, 22:41:51
They are embarking on a program to increase solar and wind. Reductions in baseload are commonplace with DSM.
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Fri 02 Nov 2007, 10:13:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rattleshirt', 'W')here I live solar/wind would indeed replace coal. 95% of our electricity here is from coal.
Where do you live? Defiantly not the US because no grid gets 95% of it's power from coal.
If one gets their power from Duke Energy, as one example, it's very close to 95%.
http://retail.dom.com/offers/pdf/cge_q1 ... losure.pdf Not sure what context that link was taken from but from Duke Energy:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')uel Mix, by generation:
51% coal, oil and gas
48% nuclear
1% hydro
Also, they would not be replacing coal if they added wind or solar, they would be replacing NG or oil.
http://www.considerthecarolinas.com/abo ... energy.asp
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by jbeckton » Fri 02 Nov 2007, 10:28:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'Y')ou may not have asked that question, but if you don't get the nuclear plant, what do you think you are getting? Wind and solar? *rejection buzzer sounds*
Interestingly enough, Costa Rica uses no coal or nuclear. In fact, the majority of its electricity production (~75%) is renewable.
http://www.oas.org/dsd/SpecialMeetings/ ... es_eng.pdf
Com'n Skymoor, you can't use a country with an abundance of hydro power as a comparison for new generation in the US. You didn’t really think that was gonna fly did you? They also have no nuclear capabilities so they really have no choice do they?
Solar and wind will replace oil and NG plants when they are built in the US, they will not offset coal power to any extent, only nuclear power can do that. This must be understood when having the discussion of energy mix.
People often assume that the pro-nuclear camp is anti-renewable. This is a fundamental flaw in their argument. I am pro-nuclear and pro-renewable, but I understand the capabilities and limitations of each.
Most people that do, feel the same.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Fri 02 Nov 2007, 16:58:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rattleshirt', 'W')here I live solar/wind would indeed replace coal. 95% of our electricity here is from coal.
Where do you live? Defiantly not the US because no grid gets 95% of it's power from coal.
If one gets their power from Duke Energy, as one example, it's very close to 95%.
http://retail.dom.com/offers/pdf/cge_q1 ... losure.pdf Not sure what context that link was taken from but from Duke Energy:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')uel Mix, by generation:
51% coal, oil and gas
48% nuclear
1% hydro
From the Environmental Disclosure: Coal Power 93%, with another 7% unspecified. This must be what Dominion Power exports to Duke.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Also, they would not be replacing coal if they added wind or solar, they would be replacing NG or oil.
http://www.considerthecarolinas.com/abo ... energy.asp
NG would probably remain for quick dispatch. Oil would drop off, due to costs. I see no reason why coal could not be supplanted with an effective DSM program.
In 2005, U.S. electricity providers reported total peak-load reductions of 25,710 megawatts resulting from demand-side management (DSM) programs, a 9.3 percent increase from the amount reported in 2004. See a DoE initiative at http://gridwise.pnl.gov/
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Sat 03 Nov 2007, 10:01:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')From the Environmental Disclosure: Coal Power 93%, with another 7% unspecified. This must be what Dominion Power exports to Duke.
Exactly, and Duke does not have anywhere near a 95% power mix. If Dominion were to build a wind farm and sell the power to Duke, Duke is going to ust that wind power in place of existing oil and NG. It is not going to use it to replace a coal plant, which is my point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Also, they would not be replacing coal if they added wind or solar, they would be replacing NG or oil.
http://www.considerthecarolinas.com/abo ... energy.asp NG would probably remain for quick dispatch. Oil would drop off, due to costs. I see no reason why coal could not be supplanted with an effective DSM program.
Oil and gas would drop off first, only when they are completely replaced would you start to get into dropping off intermediate load coal plants.
Duke has 2500MW of NG power so that's quite a bit to replace before you get to the int. coal. Solar will only be useful during the late afternoon when the peaker plants are running, so it will almost certainly replace peaker plants only.
You might be able to find select locations where the energy mix allows for replacement of some coal, but these apps are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
Do you believe that solar and wind power are capable of replacing a
significant amount of base load power in the near future (~10 years)?
And when I say
significant, I am talking about providing as much power as the proposed nuclear plants would. Because after all, if you are making the argument that it's either alternatives or nuclear, they must be able to provide the same amount of power right?
I believe that at the height of the nuclear push in France they were bringing on 24 plants a year. Can you imaging bringing that much solar or wind equivalent a year? (And you must account for the fact that you need to build 3 times the capacity if the source is only producing 33% of the time, not to mention storing excess power and using it later when it's needed.)
If you want to push for alternatives, you must understand their limitations as well as their benifits.
http://www.roe.com/powerseminar/images% ... Energy.pdf
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Sun 04 Nov 2007, 22:07:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')NG would probably remain for quick dispatch. Oil would drop off, due to costs. I see no reason why coal could not be supplanted with an effective DSM program.
Oil and gas would drop off first, only when they are completely replaced would you start to get into dropping off intermediate load coal plants.
Duke has 2500MW of NG power so that's quite a bit to replace before you get to the int. coal. Solar will only be useful during the late afternoon when the peaker plants are running, so it will almost certainly replace peaker plants only.
NG would certainly remain as peaking capacity. Wind and solar can displace coal insofar as their profiles at specific locations permit, though I see no reason why coal could not be further supplanted with an effective DSM program in concert with wind and solar.
In 2005, U.S. electricity providers reported
total peak-load reductions of 25,710 megawatts resulting from demand-side management (DSM) programs, a 9.3 percent increase from the amount reported in 2004. See a DoE initiative at
http://gridwise.pnl.gov/The use of DSM allows demand to be flexible depending upon the amount of energy available at any one time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'D')o you believe that solar and wind power are capable of replacing a
significant amount of base load power in the near future (~10 years)?
And when I say
significant, I am talking about providing as much power as the proposed nuclear plants would. Because after all, if you are making the argument that it's either alternatives or nuclear, they must be able to provide the same amount of power right?
I've never made the argument that "it's either alternatives or nuclear". I believe that many control areas could utilize up to, and more than, 20% of their mix from renewable sources. Of course, Denmark already gets 20% of their energy from wind. Texas is expected to avoid 3.3 million tons of CO2 emissions annually with its RPS, which requires 2000 MW of new renewable generation by 2009.
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_ ... es/rps.cfm$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'I')f you want to push for alternatives, you must understand their limitations as well as their benifits.
You must also understand their potential when combined with storage and DSM.
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Mon 05 Nov 2007, 10:20:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')NG would certainly remain as peaking capacity. Wind and solar can displace coal insofar as their profiles at specific locations permit, though I see no reason why coal could not be further supplanted with an effective DSM program in concert with wind and solar.
You are making the mistake of assuming that all NG plants are "peaker plants", this is not the case. many NG plants operate on a load following scale:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')oad following power plants include hydroelectric power plants and steam turbine power plants that run on natural gas or heavy fuel oil, although heavy fuel oil plants make up a very small portion of the energy mix. A relatively efficient model of gas turbine that runs on natural gas can also make a decent load following plant.
These intermediate load plants will be replaced first, an the peaking demand will be less due to more alternative generation. Alternatives will replace NG and oil plants. Base load plants cannot have intermittency, therefore alternative power that does have intermittency will not be relied upon the provide base load power.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')The use of DSM allows demand to be flexible depending upon the amount of energy available at any one time.
DSM is moves usage off peak, in order to use solar off peak, you need to store it and then you lose energy in the process. Solar is better used during the afternoon to supplement expensive peaking plants.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')I've never made the argument that "it's either alternatives or nuclear". I believe that many control areas could utilize up to, and more than, 20% of their mix from renewable sources.
Sure, but we need to replace more than 20% of our mix and we need to do if fast, because the demand is rising. So you agree that we need nuclear power to offset a significant portion of coal power? My argument was that alternatives alone will not do it, which seems to be the anti-nuc claim.
Do you disagree?
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Tue 06 Nov 2007, 09:21:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')NG would certainly remain as peaking capacity. Wind and solar can displace coal insofar as their profiles at specific locations permit, though I see no reason why coal could not be further supplanted with an effective DSM program in concert with wind and solar.
You are making the mistake of assuming that all NG plants are "peaker plants"
I've not made that claim. You, however, have said;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Oil and gas would drop off first, only when they are completely replaced would you start to get into dropping off intermediate load coal plants.
...which I believe you would restate differently now. In fact, I foresee little reduction in the number of NG plants, as they will be helpful in filling in intermittency with some forms of renewable energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')The use of DSM allows demand to be flexible depending upon the amount of energy available at any one time.
DSM is moves usage off peak, in order to use solar off peak, you need to store it and then you lose energy in the process. Solar is better used during the afternoon to supplement expensive peaking plants.
DSM reduces baseload production as well, as I've supplied the reference in my last post on more than one occasion. Do you disagree with this reference that use of DSM reduces baseload requirements?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')I've never made the argument that "it's either alternatives or nuclear". I believe that many control areas could utilize up to, and more than, 20% of their mix from renewable sources.
Sure, but we need to replace more than 20% of our mix and we need to do if fast, because the demand is rising.
A wider use of DSM would obviate this 'demand', as would carbon taxes, so I don't see it as a given.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So you agree that we need nuclear power to offset a significant portion of coal power?
Actually I do. But not in a business-as-usual energy wasting manner. What incentives do you envision would close coal plants?
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Tue 06 Nov 2007, 09:43:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Oil and gas would drop off first, only when they are completely replaced would you start to get into dropping off intermediate load coal plants.
...which I believe you would restate differently now. In fact, I foresee little reduction in the number of NG plants, as they will be helpful in filling in intermittency with some forms of renewable energy.
The number will not change, they are not going to close them down, just use them less often.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')So you agree that we need nuclear power to offset a significant portion of coal power?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Actually I do. But not in a business-as-usual energy wasting manner. What incentives do you envision would close coal plants?
Regulations.
Coal PP's are now forced to buy emissions credits or build expensive auxiliary components to keep their emissions down such as SCR's and Scrubbers. This is causing the price of coal power to steadily rise, all the while the cost of alternative energy drops. Nuclear power is the only large scale base load source that can compete with coal on a cost basis today in most areas.
I think that this is already pushing us towards nuclear power. I would like to see a progressive bill that requires power companies to generate a percentage of their portfolio from alternative sources.
One of the best ideas that I have seen is a company that rents you a solar system. They come out and install the system and are responsible for all of the upkeep, and they do it for free. You just pay whatever you were paying to your local provider and have the assurance that your rates will not rise. This accomplishes several important things-
1) Anyone can afford it
2) There is no maintenance
3) The power is generated close = no transmission losses
4) Takes a tremendous load off the grid while keeping everyone connected
5) Excess power can be sold to the grid at peak hours
6) It generates jobs in several sectors
This system is still dependent on a stable grid, and base load power. That base load should be nuclear.
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.c ... ran=136327
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Tue 06 Nov 2007, 17:27:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'O')ne of the best ideas that I have seen is a company that rents you a solar system. They come out and install the system and are responsible for all of the upkeep, and they do it for free. You just pay whatever you were paying to your local provider and have the assurance that your rates will not rise. This accomplishes several important things-
1) Anyone can afford it
2) There is no maintenance
3) The power is generated close = no transmission losses
4) Takes a tremendous load off the grid while keeping everyone connected
5) Excess power can be sold to the grid at peak hours
6) It generates jobs in several sectors
Citizenre. This model has yet to deliver. Indeed, they've made so many promises that are all difficult to achieve it remains to be seen how many, if any, they can actually achieve. The first panels were to have been installed in Sept, yet it's unclear if the manufacturing plant has even been built yet (they've just hired their finance team). The idea is interesting, but don't assume Citizenre will make it work.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')This system is still dependent on a stable grid, and base load power. That base load should be nuclear.
I see a number of possibilities, including hydro, geothermal, tidal (intermittent but guaranteed timing and amplitude), and again, DSM to reduce baseload requirements.
In 2005, U.S. electricity providers reported total peak-load reductions of 25,710 megawatts resulting from demand-side management (DSM) programs, a 9.3 percent increase from the amount reported in 2004. See a DoE initiative at
http://gridwise.pnl.gov/
Do you agree that DSM can reduce baseload demand? You've only addressed peak load so far.
Last edited by
skyemoor on Wed 07 Nov 2007, 11:39:17, edited 1 time in total.
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Wed 07 Nov 2007, 09:18:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Do you agree that DSM can reduce baseload demand? You've only addressed peak load so far.
From your link:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ominal DSM expenditures have increased significantly since 2003, averaging 16.5 percent average annual growth over the period. Actual peak load reductions have improved by an annual average of 5.9 percent, while energy savings have risen 8.3 percent on average since 2003.
I see where they say peak has been reduced, but saw nothing about base load. Did I miss it? The only time of the day that I can see solar/wind reducing base load is during off peak hours when intermediate and peaker NG plants aren't running. Of course at that point they would shut down the base load NG plants first anyways. The coal will still be the last to go. Nuclear will never go.
Tidal, hydro, and geothermal are a different beast. These sources are much more predictable and can be relied upon to contribute on a very consistent basis. And consistency is important when you are talking about replacing coal because you can't just flip a switch and turn the coal plant on when the wind stops blowing or the clouds roll in, it takes up to 10-12 hours to reach full load.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Wed 07 Nov 2007, 13:31:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
I see where they say peak has been reduced, but saw nothing about base load.
Ask and you will receive;
IEEE RTS Case Study (requires some reading)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The sensitivity of avoided energy cost and avoided cycling cost with respect to the number of
[coal power] 76 MW units out from the total generating system is plotted in Figure 2. It can be seen that the avoided cycling costs does not much effect with reduction in reserve margins, however, the avoided energy cost increases with reduction in the reserve margins. This is due to the fact that as the system reserve margin becomes less the unserved energy becomes more and doing DSM becomes more profitable in terms of avoided energy cost. Figure 3 plots the
sensitivity of apparent revenue loss and actual revenue loss with respect to the number of 76 MW unit out from the total generatirig capacity. It can be observed that the trend of actual revenue loss and apparent revenue loss is the same. Both are decreasing with the reduction in reserve margin. The actual revenue loss becomes negative when the reserve margin is 253 MW from the base peak
load.
This means when the generating capacity reserve margin is less in a utility system doing DSM results in gain of revenue rather than the loss of revenue. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')The only time of the day that I can see solar/wind reducing base load is during off peak hours when intermediate and peaker NG plants aren't running. Of course at that point they would shut down the base load NG plants first anyways. The coal will still be the last to go. Nuclear will never go.
NG intermediate plants are used far less in these days of high natural gas prices. So then the baseload in question to go next is coal, as the study found practicable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Tidal, hydro, and geothermal are a different beast. These sources are much more predictable and can be relied upon to contribute on a very consistent basis. And consistency is important when you are talking about replacing coal because you can't just flip a switch and turn the coal plant on when the wind stops blowing or the clouds roll in, it takes up to 10-12 hours to reach full load.
There are a number of factors in play here, from type and quantity of dispatchable storage, to the breadth and level of DSM employed, to the number of peak NG plants available.
Weather forecasts are roughly accurate out to 72 hours with respect to wind and solar resources, so 10-13 hours is nothing. And longer range forecasts can be used as predictive tools. NG plants can be used as gap fillers for those times when the predictions are off appreciably.
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Wed 07 Nov 2007, 14:35:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
I see where they say peak has been reduced, but saw nothing about base load.
Ask and you will receive;
It appears that that aricle must be purchased?
Do they take into account the effect that cyclic loading has on a coal PP? Just like an automobile, a PP is most efficient and requires less maintenance when it operates at a steady load. The ramping up and down of power not only leads to a inefficient heat rate, but also to mechanical failures and forced outages. I suppose this cost is not included in their revenue calculation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')NG intermediate plants are used far less in these days of high natural gas prices. So then the baseload in question to go next is coal, as the study found practicable.
Not exactly true, NG plants are used less in the coal states (I don't see anyone ready to invest much in wind or solar in the coal states other than maybe wind in the mountains, but you don't have a population in that region so add the cost of HVDC), but in the south and southwest NG plants make up a big part of the energy mix. (And this is where you would probably have the most luck with renewables such as wind/solar/geothermal)
Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma are rich in natural gas, and make extensive use of it for electricity generation. Much of the Nation's petroleum-fired generation is concentrated in Florida. California's strict emissions regs result in a lot of NG fired generation in that region as well. These are the places that they will build wind/solar farms first, and those will offset mostly NG plants.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Weather forecasts are roughly accurate out to 72 hours with respect to wind and solar resources, so 10-13 hours is nothing. And longer range forecasts can be used as predictive tools. NG plants can be used as gap fillers for those times when the predictions are off appreciably.
And what about when the forecasts show a lack of generating potential for several days? What then? Are you proposing that we build extra coal plants to use for when the alternative sources are useless? Surely you are not going to offset 20% more from DSM in 72 hours than you are already offsetting with current DSM programs right?
Alternative energy (wind/solar) alone cannot be relied upon to any degree. It must be used to supplement existing capacity when it's useful. It's not going to eliminate the need for nuclear power no matter what kind of DSM you try to enforce
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Wed 07 Nov 2007, 15:14:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
It appears that that aricle must be purchased?
The link came right up from me, and I don't have an active IEEE subscription.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
Do they take into account the effect that cyclic loading has on a coal PP?
Absolutely, even separating out turbine spinup costs, cold starts (and taking into consideration cool-down time constants). The title is
Impact of DSM on Energy Production Cost and Start-up and Shut-down Costs of Thermal units
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Not exactly true, NG plants are used less in the coal states (I don't see anyone ready to invest much in wind or solar in the coal states other than maybe wind in the mountains, but you don't have a population in that region so add the cost of HVDC), but in the south and southwest NG plants make up a big part of the energy mix. (And this is where you would probably have the most luck with renewables such as wind/solar/geothermal)
Can you provide current numbers for those states where you believe there is a high level of baseload NG?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Weather forecasts are roughly accurate out to 72 hours with respect to wind and solar resources, so 10-13 hours is nothing. And longer range forecasts can be used as predictive tools. NG plants can be used as gap fillers for those times when the predictions are off appreciably.
And what about when the forecasts show a lack of generating potential for several days? What then?
Easy; fire up the coal plants that have been inactive for some length of time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Are you proposing that we build extra coal plants to use for when the alternative sources are useless?
Nope, just use the ones we have currently.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Surely you are not going to offset 20% more from DSM in 72 hours than you are already offsetting with current DSM programs right?
Explain your numbers and there sources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')Alternative energy (wind/solar) alone cannot be relied upon to any degree. It must be used to supplement existing capacity when it's useful. It's not going to eliminate the need for nuclear power no matter what kind of DSM you try to enforce
You keep coming back to this claim, but have yet to acknowledge the serious references I've provided. "To any degree" is an overly broad and abstract statement. I believe it's easy to see that diverse mix of hydro, geothermal, tidal, and others can easily reduce the need for baseload nuclear.
One thing that must be kept in mind is that demand will undoubtedly drop as the economy takes a hit from PO. So projections of steadily increasing demand based on an infinitely growing economy are fantasies in the minds of some theoretical economists.
-
skyemoor
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1512
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
-
by jbeckton » Wed 07 Nov 2007, 16:42:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Can you provide current numbers for those states where you believe there is a high level of baseload NG?
Ask and you shall recieve.
You seem to think that the mix is fairly consistent across the US, but it is anything but. 17 states currently get at least 25% of their electricity from NG or oil, and many are over 40%. Are you going to offset 40-50% with DSM?
Alaska 32% NG
Florida 43% (21% NG, 22% petroleum)
Oklahoma 32% NG
California 50% NG
Connecticut 27% (10% NG, 17% petroleum)
DC 100% petroleum
Delaware 57% (24% NG, 23% petroleum)
Hawaii 77% petroleum
Louisiana 40% (35% NG, 5% petroleum)
Massachusetts 49% (26% NG, 23% petroleum)
Maine 63% (55% NG, 8% petroleum)
Mississippi 50% (40% NG, 10% petroleum)
Nevada 35% (31% NG, 4% petroleum)
New York 37% (25% NG, 12% petroleum)
Oklahoma 32% NG
Rhode Island 98% NG
Texas 46% NG
The fact is that even though half of the nation’s power comes from coal, most of it is in a few states, and most of those states are not idea locations for solar or wind power. Coal by state:
Indiana 98%
Kansas 72%
Missouri 83%
Minnesota 67%
NC 62%
Ohio 87%
Tennessee 62%
Wisconsin 72%
West Virginia 99%
The only possible way to even get wind power from the Mountains to most of those states is to use HVDC, which would have to be factored into the cost, not to mention what it would do to the maintains.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state ... m/state=FL
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by Pixie » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 13:51:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')
Solar and wind will replace oil and NG plants when they are built in the US, they will not offset coal power to any extent, only nuclear power can do that. This must be understood when having the discussion of energy mix.
People often assume that the pro-nuclear camp is anti-renewable. This is a fundamental flaw in their argument. I am pro-nuclear and pro-renewable, but I understand the capabilities and limitations of each.
Most people that do, feel the same.
I'm antinuclear, but I agree that renewables won't "repalce" coal. I am just one of those in favor of slowly (or not so slowly) transitioning to a lower energy lifestyle. We'll keep on burning coal, though probably less of it, since coal and oil and natural gas are all sort of co-dependent. Over time, as we run out of easy-to-reach coal, we will power down.
Nukes are too dangerous. Their cost in long-term waste is too high. I'd rather give up my playstation and my space plane.
Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
-
Pixie
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
-
by jbeckton » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 14:32:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pixie', '
')I'm antinuclear, but I agree that renewables won't "repalce" coal. I am just one of those in favor of slowly (or not so slowly) transitioning to a lower energy lifestyle.
I don't think that the public is any more in favor of powerdown, than nuclear power. If they knew the real choices, they might not be so anti-nuc. They are assuming that we have the ability to just build solar and wind instead of nucler power, and go on with life where the world is made of marshmallows.
My point all along is,
that is not the case. A massive grid upgrade and extensive
Demand
Side
Management (credit:Skyemoor) program would need to be implemented for alternatives to even stand a chance of producing the energy that nuclear power can provide.
This would be very expensive, even compared with nuclear power construction, and woud require an major lifestyle change.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by Andy » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 15:32:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jbeckton', 'M')y point all along is, that is not the case. A massive grid upgrade and extensive Demand Side Management (credit:Skyemoor) program would need to be implemented for alternatives to even stand a chance of producing the energy that nuclear power can provide.
I disagree on what you think nuclear can realistically provide safely Jbeckton. Massive expansion of nuclear will also require substantial grid upgrades in the absence of storage technologies to follow demand. I think you underestimate what the broad combination of renewables plus demand side management can cost effectively supply. I have shown that simply replacing bulbs with CFLs and (LEDs when they get get more cost effective) can eliminate 5% or more of electricity use overnight at 1/2 or less the cost of new capacity and much faster implementation. Remember, nuclear now provides 20%. 1/4 of that is very significant and that is just lighting.
As Pixie also says, the assumption of constantly increasing electricity use as energy prices skyrocket is fallacious and laughable. Demand will be killed far faster than new capacity can be added. I will bet on that!!!!!!!!!
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
-
Andy
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00
-
by Andy » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 15:38:57
Sorry, reference should have been to Skyemoor rather than Pixie
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
-
Andy
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00
-
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
