- #211
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
Very interesting article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...lar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#461d925ed440
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...lar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#461d925ed440
Interesting? Those sorts of articles make me (and should make you) MAD!zoobyshoe said:Very interesting article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...lar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/#461d925ed440
Technically correct - but only during the day, not as 24 hour average.That means 1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy.
Filling 1% of the Sahara with nuclear reactors, coal or oil power plants would give even more power. Sounds ridiculous? Exactly.There is no way coal, oil, wind, geothermal or nuclear can compete with this.
Well, I think what's needed is to see the Sahara idea as something like a gedanken fiction to make some points. The 1.2% of the Sahara Desert example gives a vivid picture of just how much solar energy if hitting the Earth and how little of it we would need to collect for our purposes. The Sahara hydrogen farm is a fictional gathering into one place of what would, in fact, be many of them spread out all over the world, located anywhere in a comparable insolation zone. It's like saying, "If you took all the X's in the world and laid them end to end, you could circle the Earth so many times."NTL2009 said:Interesting? Those sorts of articles make me (and should make you) MAD!
That kind of headline leads non-technical people to think "Oh, we don't have an energy problem, there's plenty of green energy for all of us! We consumers don't need to do anything, just let the engineers get busy collecting sunshine to make my computer go. I 'll go back to watching cute kitten videos on youtube. Problem solved".
I'll leave it to you to pick the article apart. Find independent sources for their numbers on solar energy per m^2 at the equator, and panel efficiencies (which degrade as temperature increases), and last I heard it is HOT in the desert, and a black solar panel will get very, very hot! See if the numbers make sense.
Wow, a little optimistic on costs? They say "The total costs currently run about ninety cents to a dollar per Watt installed. In this proposal we have assumed the realistic thirty cents per Watt. "
Thirty cents/watt INSTALLED is realistic? I've never heard such a low number ever. Show me. Panel costs may still be on a downward curve, but inverters are not on such a steep curve, and certainly metal frames and labor and copper wire are not.
And I didn't see more than a hand wave at the little detail that the sun sets in the evening. Storage costs anyone (ignore that Inconvenient Fact behind the curtain)? Or that not very many people live in the desert. How about the cost of getting that power to the people? They just hand-wave that away too, turn it to hydrogen and pipe it to people. As if that is free and lossless.
Really, you need to take a critical eye towards these claims.
When you say "utility class storage," you mean what? The figure you gave earlier: enough to run the utility for three months?mheslep said:Getting serious with utility class storage (TWhrs) using batteries is an oxymoron. SD&E may be collecting more revenue from customers.
0.00000000004% of the total luminosity of the sun. Add a few zeros to compare it to the luminosity of the galaxy.zoobyshoe said:The 1.2% of the Sahara Desert example gives a vivid picture of just how much solar energy if hitting the Earth and how little of it we would need to collect for our purposes.
That doesn't make cost go down by a factor 3 magically.zoobyshoe said:His cost per watt installed was based on the idea of whoever was building this vast installation manufacturing their own panels rather than buying them from a third party.
We have already done the equivalent in the form of the grid as it exists now. That took over 100 years. If we have 90 years of natural gas left, it would probably be a good idea to get going and not leave a change over till the last minute.mfb said:Installing solar power on an area equivalent to 1% of the Sahara would be a huge project, no matter if you actually use the Sahara or other areas.
If it makes the cost go down enough to have been worth the effort, then it's the right way to be thinking about this.That doesn't make cost go down by a factor 3 magically.
The existing grids transmit a much smaller power. Total power consumption is much larger than total electricity consumption.zoobyshoe said:We have already done the equivalent in the form of the grid as it exists now.
Why do you expect costs to go down at all?zoobyshoe said:If it makes the cost go down enough to have been worth the effort, then it's the right way to be thinking about this.
Nuclear fission. Plenty of fuel of hundreds of years, perhaps a couple thousand. No contraction.zoobyshoe said:The future is going to be a contraction back from that
Say, 12 GWh, 1 GW power, sufficient to replace a power plant over night. A pumped storage plant can be 30 GWh, 3 GW.zoobyshoe said:When you say "utility class storage," you mean what? The figure you gave earlier: enough to run the utility for three months?
Russ told me (different time, different thread) that we had about 50 years of known or 'reasonably assumed to exist' nuclear fuel left at current rates of usage and current means of usage. "Means of usage," is the important concept here because If, but only if, all nuclear plants converted to breeder reactors, that figure could be extended by a fantastic 100x. 5000 years.mheslep said:Nuclear fission. Plenty of fuel of hundreds of years, perhaps a couple thousand. No contraction.
So, it looks like you mean 12 hours of running from storage.mheslep said:Say, 12 GWh, 1 GW power, sufficient to replace a power plant over night. A pumped storage plant can be 30 GWh, 3 GW.
I don't understand what this means. I was responding to your comment that the Sahara project was huge. I meant to point out that, if there were no grid right now, no power plants, no fracking, etc proposing that we build such an energy distribution system from scratch could easily be dismissed as 'too huge a project to take seriously.'mfb said:The existing grids transmit a much smaller power. Total power consumption is much larger than total electricity consumption.
The grid is being constantly maintained, replaced as needed bit by bit, and enlarged. Not one month ago they just spent three days replacing a utility pole outside my house. One pole: it was a huge undertaking; they had several large trucks, an enormous crane, about 20 guys. They shut down the street for a block in both directions. I wish I could find out the cost of replacing that one pole, because I bet it was much more than anyone suspects.Solar panels won't run for 100 years, solar panels that are supposed to work in 2117 cannot be installed today.
Obviously, if you buy from someone else, there's a markup so they can make a profit. If you manufacture something for your own use, there's no markup.Why do you expect costs to go down at all?
And the current price. As discussed earlier, an increase in price would be no problem, and it would extend the range a lot.zoobyshoe said:Russ told me (different time, different thread) that we had about 50 years of known or 'reasonably assumed to exist' nuclear fuel left at current rates of usage and current means of usage.
You don't have to wait for anything. You can store nuclear waste, and if you decide you want to use it more in the future you can build a breeder reactor and feed the interesting part of the waste into it.zoobyshoe said:So, in the meantime, we are committing grotesque waste by continuing to use the finite nuclear fuel that exists on Earth for cheap immediate gratification, when, with forbearance and patience, we could wait until such time as we have the facilities to get the full, two orders of magnitude greater, use out of it.
The current electricity grids globally handle about 2 TW, the current electricity consumption.zoobyshoe said:I don't understand what this means.
Instead of two companies, you now have a larger company. A larger company wants to make larger profit (to keep the same ratio of profit/company size). Nothing changes.zoobyshoe said:Obviously, if you buy from someone else, there's a markup so they can make a profit. If you manufacture something for your own use, there's no markup.
More time doesn't help. Batteries need replacement every 8 or 10 yrs.zoobyshoe said:So, it looks like you mean 12 hours of running from storage.
The entity, "SDG&E" consists of ten power generating plants of various kinds whose total output capabilities is 3100 MW.
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/newsroom/factsheets/SDG&E%20Electric%20Generation%20Fact%20Sheet_2.pdf
3100 x 12hours would be 37,200MWh.
So far they have installed a 7.5MW, 30MWh battery bank in El Cajon, A 30MW, 120MWh facility in Escondido, and the next one will be an 83.5MW, 334MWh. All the batteries store only 4 hours of usable power, it seems.
Add up the MWh: 30+120+334 = 384MWh.
37,200MWh - 384MWh = 36,816MWh. We are very far from your goal, yes.
I did some more calculating. If each increase of 334MWh's of storage (83.5MW @ 4 hours) means a percent increase of .6% of your electric bill, then, to run the whole SDG&E 3100MW off batteries for 4 hours would require a 22.27% increase in people's electric bills from where they were before any batteries were installed. 12 hours, therefore, would be 3 times more, a 66.81% increase, and 24 hours of running off storage would be double that, a 133.62% increase.
If I haven't screwed up the math somewhere, that would not be psychologically unbearable if spread out over enough time. (But many might say, with good reason, "speak for yourself!" Because my electric bill is very low. Last month I paid $18.16 for electricity.)
zoobyshoe said:I'll buy your "hundreds of years, perhaps a couple thousand," years, though, because, if we had breeder reactors, a lot more would be brought online and nuclear would replace fossil, so the "current rate" would increase.
Some googling tells me that the higher the price of U, the more people are willing to extract it from lower grade sources. So, how much there is at any given time seems to be capped by how much they're willing to pay for it.mfb said:And the current price. As discussed earlier, an increase in price would be no problem, and it would extend the range a lot. Breeder reactors would be looked into more seriously if there would be a shortage of uranium. There is not.
Somehow I got the impression there was a physics barrier to this. Googling tells me there are actually several different ways to recover usable stuff from the waste. In principle. In practice I see there are big political obstacles due to the fact the products of waste refining can be used for bomb making: they're afraid of private sector security, of it getting diverted to rogue states and terrorists.mfb said:You don't have to wait for anything. You can store nuclear waste, and if you decide you want to use it more in the future you can build a breeder reactor and feed the interesting part of the waste into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Valley_Demonstration_ProjectDespite over 30 years of cleanup efforts and billions of dollars having been spent at the site, the West Valley Demonstration Project property was described as "arguably Western New York's most toxic location" in 2013...
...The plant reprocessed spent reactor fuel at the site from 1966 to 1972. During this time period, the facility processed 1,983.7 kilograms (4,373 lb) of plutonium and 625.7 metric tons (1,379,000 lb) of spent uranium.[4]:10-12 Using the PUREX process, the plant was able to recover 1,926 kilograms (4,246 lb) of plutonium and 620 metric tons (1,370,000 lb) of uranium. Most of the recovered uranium was depleted or slightly enriched; only 0.9 metric tons (2,000 lb) was highly enriched.[4]:1-2
The reprocessing of fuel also resulted in the accumulation of 660,000 US gallons (2,500 m3) of high-level radioactive waste in an underground storage tank.[1][5] An additional 15 acres (0.061 km2) of the property was licensed by New York State for burial of low-level radioactive waste in 20-foot (6.1 m) deep trenches.[6] After reprocessing operations ceased in 1972, Nuclear Fuel Services continued to accept low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the site until it was discovered that contaminated water was leaking from the trenches. Nuclear Fuel Services was unable to obtain regulatory approval to remove and treat the contaminated water, and stopped accepting waste for burial in 1975. In total, approximately 2,400,000 cubic feet (68,000 m3) of low-level waste was buried at the site.[7]:44
Escalating regulation required plant modifications which were deemed uneconomic by Nuclear Fuel Services, who ceased all operations at the facility in 1976. After Nuclear Fuel Services' lease expired in 1980, the site and its accumulated waste became the responsibility of New York State.[1]
The former plant remains the only privately owned nuclear fuel reprocessing center to have ever operated in the United States.[5] Two additional private nuclear fuel reprocessing plants were constructed (one by General Electric in Morris, Illinois, and another by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_General_Nuclear_Services&action=edit&redlink=1 in Barnwell, South Carolina), but were never permitted to operate. Other reprocessing plants in the United States have been operated by the U.S. Department of Energy rather than private companies.[4]:4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_StationUpgrades designed to last 20 years were made to the reactor units in 2009 and 2010; however, both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in replacement steam generators that had been installed in 2010 and 2011. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently investigating the events that led to the closure. In May 2013 Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the modifications had proved to be "unsafe and posed a danger to the eight million people living within 50 miles of the plant,” and she called for a criminal investigation...
I went back and looked at the article and see that I misread it: it didn't register he was talking about all the worlds energy use. I thought it was just it's electricity use.mfb said:The current electricity grids globally handle about 2 TW, the current electricity consumption.
The project discussed would have 14 TW, the current total energy consumption (including heating, vehicles, ...). It would need a much larger grid than we currently have.
Of course you could build such a grid (well, multiple grids actually). You could also build so much solar power. But the costs would be ridiculous.
In the US public utilities are non-profit.mfb said:Instead of two companies, you now have a larger company. A larger company wants to make larger profit (to keep the same ratio of profit/company size). Nothing changes.
Right. They aren't going to get "utility class storage" from batteries. I agree.mheslep said:More time doesn't help. Batteries need replacement every 8 or 10 yrs.
Very interesting, but still very experimental.gleem said:It should noted that companies as TerraPower have designs in development (Generation IV) that use non fissionable to "breed and burn" fissionable materials. Thus they use depleted uranium or thorium rather than uranium 235. We have beaucoup stockpiles of depleted uranium and there is much more thorium than uranium. These reactors burn also fuel more efficiency. Fuel supply with these designs is not much of an issue.
This is not just about the US.zoobyshoe said:In the US public utilities are non-profit.
zoobyshoe said:In the US public utilities are non-profit
Pumped hydro does have some attractive qualities. Relatively efficient round-trip, should have a long life and low maintenance.zoobyshoe said:A few people have mentioned pumped hydro storage. I read up on that, and was impressed.
The problem with uranium based breeders is political, in that they inevitably produce plutonium for the fission power. Technically there is a good argument that breeder plutonium doesn't worsen proliferation risks, but politically plutonium is Mount Everest, a daunting climb.gleem said:...use non fissionable to "breed and burn" fissionable materials. Thus they use depleted uranium
The phrase "can be used" is not helpful technically. Technically it would be simpler to make a weapon fissile material by starting from shoveling dirt off the side of the road in Australia.zoobyshoe said:In practice I see there are big political obstacles due to the fact the products of waste refining can be used for bomb making:
France has 'got it done' for years, reprocessing its own waste and that of other countries in Europe. In the US politics stopped reprocessing and permanent waste storage.zoobyshoe said:...gap between what nuclear proponents say can be done and what actually gets done.
Gas pipelines explode, coal mines collapse and burn, coal storage hills collapse and bury people, gasoline depots explode. And yet there's never been a fatality caused by commercial nuclear storage.zoobyshoe said:Storage of nuclear waste is fraught with every conceivable problem,
but the main obstacle, as far as I can see, is that there is no politician in the US who will allow a storage site in their state. It would be political suicide.
zoobyshoe said:...my electric bill is very low. Last month I paid $18.16 for electricity.)
Just a note about non-profit, that is with respect to the equity in the business and not at all about trying to run a "zero margin" business. In other words a non-profit might have higher margin than a "for profit" or vice versa.mfb said:This is not just about the US.
With non-profit, you don't have the markup in either case, so where is the argument?
Yes. The bill actually says 85kWh. My energy use is split between electricity and gas. The stove/oven, space heat, and water heater are all gas. Everything else: electricity. My bill as a whole more than doubles in winter months because they charge more for both gas and electricity during the winter and, in the winter, I use much more gas to heat. The 85kWh electricity bill is a 'sweet spot' kind of month, when the rates are low and the weather isn't hot enough to go into full cooling mode.OmCheeto said:Did you really only use 86 kwh last month?
I'm getting the impression from this thread some people in some parts of the country are charged by time of day, but I'm not sure. Here we are not: a kWh costs the same no matter what time of the day you use it, EXCEPT in the case of people with electric cars. If you recharge from midnight to 6 A.M. they charge less than half the daytime costs. That's a special program you have to sign up for.She sent me her last SDG&E bill, so I think I understand how your rates work. But probably not.
My mistake. I should have specified publically owned utilities.gleem said:That is not true. They are publically traded on stock exchanges and are considered a conservative investments and valued for their dividends. They are however heavily regulated by the government and must obtain approval for any rate increase.
You're right, but I have to confess to chauvanism. I am personally unconcerned about anything that doesn't apply to the US. So, my posts are going to have that bias behind them.mfb said:This is not just about the US.
A non-profit still has to buy things from for-profit companies, like the companies that make these batteries SDG&E just bought. If it were feasible for SDG&E to manufacture it's own batteries, they'd save money because they wouldn't be marking them up to make a profit.mfb said:With non-profit, you don't have the markup in either case, so where is the argument?
OK. Sounds like a good example of it being possible not just in principle, but in practice. So far, this hasn't translated to the United States.I don't know what the US is doing in West Valley, La Hague works nicely and reprocesses the spent uranium from half of Europe (and a bit from Japan).
mheslep said:The phrase "can be used" is not helpful technically. Technically it would be simpler to make a weapon fissile material by starting from shoveling dirt off the side of the road in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessingIn October 1976,[8] concern of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle...
Sorry to wave my hand at it, but there is some sort of blockage here in the US that has prevented it from getting done here:mheslep said:France has 'got it done' for years, reprocessing its own waste and that of other countries in Europe. In the US politics stopped reprocessing and permanent waste storage.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...les/countries-a-f/france.aspx#ECSArticleLink8
see above wiki article said:In March 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reversed its policy and signed a contract with a consortium of Duke Energy, COGEMA, and Stone & Webster(DCS) to design and operate a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. Site preparation at the Savannah River Site (South Carolina) began in October 2005.[13]In 2011 the New York Times reported "...11 years after the government awarded a construction contract, the cost of the project has soared to nearly $5 billion. The vast concrete and steel structure is a half-finished hulk, and the government has yet to find a single customer, despite offers of lucrative subsidies."
The criteria for nuclear waste storage is that you have to guarantee it isn't going to leak for some unbelievably long period of time, that it's not going to kill people now or ever. You and others excuse Fukushima as a freak, but freaks happen, and the longer the time you have to go depending on the absence of a freak, the less you can say the freak accident won't happen to some storage site somewhere. I brought up San Onofre. Despite you and Russ especially often claiming that the nuclear industry has learned its lessons and safety is now unparalleled, they, never-the-less installed some defective steam pipes. There was no accident, thank God, but they had to shut the plant down.mheslep said:Gas pipelines explode, coal mines collapse and burn, coal storage hills collapse and bury people, gasoline depots explode. And yet there's never been a fatality caused by commercial nuclear storage.
A one-of-a-kind site in that the public opposition didn't end up killing it, or maybe the fact it was essentially a military disposal site (waste from nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power plants) made it unstoppable.mheslep said:New Mexico, 1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
NTL2009 said:Pumped hydro does have some attractive qualities. Relatively efficient round-trip, should have a long life and low maintenance.
But... there just aren't many places that can support a good sized pump-storage facility. You need a place to put a lake nearby at a higher altitude. Gravity is a weak force, it takes a lot of mass * height to store much power. In some places, evaporation is an issue.
Isn't this a double standard? We have deaths from all other types of power sources constantly, but nuclear has to show there is absolutely no way it could ever harm anyone?zoobyshoe said:The criteria for nuclear waste storage is that you have to guarantee it isn't going to leak for some unbelievably long period of time, that it's not going to kill people now or ever.
I'll put a finer point on it: @zoobyshoe is factually correct that the criteria for storage in the USA is for extremely long term extreme safety. There are two different standards, one for 10,000 years and one less stringent for 1,000,000 years.mfb said:Isn't this a double standard? We have deaths from all other types of power sources constantly, but nuclear has to show there is absolutely no way it could ever harm anyone?
A very low risk is not sufficient?Coal power plants kill 1-2 million people per year. That is a big city every year.
Meanwhile nuclear power has to investigate the remote possibility that a few people in 1000 years get slightly higher cancer risks.
That is just wild. Both my San Diego sister and I use a minimum of 285±5 e-kwh per month.zoobyshoe said:Yes. The bill actually says 85kWh.
That's basically my sister's situation.My energy use is split between electricity and gas. The stove/oven, space heat, and water heater are all gas. Everything else: electricity. My bill as a whole more than doubles in winter months because they charge more for both gas and electricity during the winter and, in the winter, I use much more gas to heat. The 85kWh electricity bill is a 'sweet spot' kind of month, when the rates are low and the weather isn't hot enough to go into full cooling mode.
I'm getting the impression from this thread some people in some parts of the country are charged by time of day, but I'm not sure. Here we are not: a kWh costs the same no matter what time of the day you use it, EXCEPT in the case of people with electric cars. If you recharge from midnight to 6 A.M. they charge less than half the daytime costs. That's a special program you have to sign up for.
But, it looks like that's changing, and they are shifting to charging by time of day. At this point, it's voluntary: you can sign up for time of day rates if you think you'll save money that way.
https://www.sdge.com/whenergy/residential.php
I do not know how that will affect my bill, but I'm thinking not so much, being a night owl.
I've a 300 foot tall hill near my house, with a 50,000,000 gallon reservoir on top. From my calculations, it could supply a weeks worth of Zooby-trons to 2400 homes. (20 kwh)zoobyshoe said:Yes. I googled one particular pumped hydro plant and took note of the elevation difference between reservoirs. It was 500 meters (or 1640 feet, or 1/3 mile). Not like you could build water towers to use that kind of storage anywhere. Requires very special pre-existing natural conditions.
Which brings me to the question of why power plants have to store off hour production. It's because they can never shut off the steam heating systems, right? It takes too long to get them going again.