Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 393 Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
OilFinder2 wrote:
Companies will build two solar power plants in California that together will put out more than 12 times as much electricity as the largest such plant today, the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve significant scale.
The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant.
...
A recently built plant that uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight, called Nevada Solar One, can produce 64 megawatts of power.
So if I understand this correctly then it is 800 MW together and not each. (12x64~800)
Two Large Solar Plants Planned in California
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: August 14, 2008
Companies will build two solar power plants in California that together will put out more than 12 times as much electricity as the largest such plant today, the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve significant scale.
The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store.
[...]
At 800 megawatts total, the new plants will greatly exceed the scale of previous solar installations. The largest photovoltaic installation in the United States, 14 megawatts, is at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, using SunPower panels.
Spain has a 23-megawatt plant, and Germany is building one of 40 megawatts. A recently built plant that uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight, called Nevada Solar One, can produce 64 megawatts of power.
[...]
You would need to build more than 100 of these plants every year just to keep pace with a modest rate of decline in oil of even 2% (Current world energy output is roughly 14.6 terrawatts x oil's share of the pie; 35% or 5.1 TW. 2% of this figure is over 100,000 megawatts. 100,000 MW/800MW = 125!
Total area devoted to building these installations would be over 1500 square miles annually.
We haven't even factored in an allowance for growth in energy consumption over time (assuming a continuation of business as usual), or say an increase in the rate of oil decline, so the number of plants needed would be much greater than this.
Also how does the generation of electricity address the problem of peak oil which, technically speaking, is a liquid fuels problem?
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
Setting asside the issue of whether your figures are right here, you're setting up something of a strawman here.
I have seen now one claim that new solar alone could ever make up for all of the decline in oil. Obviously (to anyone who thinks about it for more than a moment) we need a multipronged approach, the major one being reduction in demand through conservation, efficiency, doing without...
Don't get me wrong. I undestand that we've put off transition to powerdown too long and we will not be able at this point to avoid extreme pain, at the least.
And I know that right now solar, especially PV, does not have the best EROEI, but why the enormous animus against solar? Do you not see it playing any useful roll in whatever transition we can make from here? If so why?
And of course it doesn't immediately address the transportation issue, but it is clear to most here that most of our car culture has got to go--and good riddance to it. But electric vehicles have been, are being, and will be made, not to replace the entire fleet ever, or even much of it soon, but enough that added electric capacity from alternatives will doubtless be useful.
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
Quote:
Setting asside the issue of whether your figures are right here, you're setting up something of a strawman here.
I believe those figures are right, others are welcome to check them.
Are you being an apologist for OilFinder2, or the capitalist system? After all, "Abundance - what a concept!" is his tag line, and the mantra of "flat-earthists" everywhere, so he can't possibly entertain a lessening in consumption of all things, growth must, well, keep growing. After all the earth is a magic pudding right?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against renewable energy, I hope there is enough in place to at least keep the lights running when my kids are adults, but to think that it can somehow replace the enormous amount of energy contained in oil, let alone for coal and natural gas too, which are also finite, is an exercise in wishful thinking, as these figures show. Run them for just a few years, add wind farms with 3 MW turbines, or nuclear reactors at 1000 MW each to the mix if you like and see how ludicrous the replacement figures become within just a short space of time.
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
peripato wrote:
Quote:
Setting asside the issue of whether your figures are right here, you're setting up something of a strawman here.
I believe those figures are right, others are welcome to check them.
In terms of energy alone they are correct but in terms of replacement they are definitely in the strawman direction, not that it's intentional, just that replacement of personal transportation via electrics wouldn't pan out in a 1:1 ratio due to the high costs of batteries and greater efficiency of electric motors compared to ICEs.
For example, in order to have 100+ miles per charge, a (PH)EV must be very efficient or very expensive. The only manufacturer bringing a full EV to the market, Aptera, offers an efficient two seater that goes 100+ miles per charge on a 10kWh pack using ~.1kWh/mile or less at a bit less than the average MSRP of a car in America. Even much heavier vehicles, like the RAV4-EV only use ~300Wh/mile cruising at 65mph, so something like the Volt or Prius PHEV would only use ~200-300Wh/mile during all electric operation. The average vehicle in the US gets ~17mpg, and w/ ~36.6kWh/gallon of gas, uses ~2150Wh/mile. There are vehicles that would use more energy, such as large electric SUVs, but at $60000+ they're out of the reach of most consumers. All things considered ~200Wh/mile seems like a reasonable average since most would probably end up w/ a smaller more efficient EV due to the cost barriers associated w/ throwing enough batteries into a large SUV. For the most part people would have to drive either PHEVs that use ~200-300Wh/mile for commutes less than ~25+miles or pure electrics that use ~100Wh/mile for longer commutes upwards of ~100+miles w/ the overall average being ~200Wh/miles, unless of course we all come up w/ ~$60-100k to pay for large electric SUVs/Pickups.
W/ the US vehicle fleet traveling about three trillion miles, we would need ~600 billion kWh/year or, assuming these are at the equivalent of peak output for 4hours/day, at ~3.2x10^6kWh/day per plant and ~1.2x10^9kWh/year per plant. ~500 plants would cover the US private vehicle fleet, which is ~50-60% of US oil demand. Assuming oil drops at 2% of current rates per year, a steeper decline rate than just 2% per year, we would need to build these over the course of ~25-30 years at a rate of ~17-20/year.
peripato wrote:
Are you being an apologist for OilFinder2, or the capitalist system? After all, "Abundance - what a concept!" is his tag line, and the mantra of "flat-earthists" everywhere, so he can't possibly entertain a lessening in consumption of all things, growth must, well, keep growing. After all the earth is a magic pudding right?
I think you're confusing a statement acknowledging how much energy we have, and waste, w/ the belief in continued growth.
peripato wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against renewable energy, I hope there is enough in place to at least keep the lights running when my kids are adults, but to think that it can somehow replace the enormous amount of energy contained in oil, let alone for coal and natural gas too, which are also finite, is an exercise in wishful thinking, as these figures show. Run them for just a few years, add wind farms with 3 MW turbines, or nuclear reactors at 1000 MW each to the mix if you like and see how ludicrous the replacement figures become within just a short space of time.
The energy we use from fossil fuels is indeed ludicrous, likely by design IMO, since the longer a finite resource is used the more likely it is to be replaced and less likely it is for supply/demand to clash, raising prices. In terms of the energy we would need to run the country, it's a small fraction of what we use/waste currently. Things like climate control in buildings, most energy spent on personal transportation, and other similar uses are cost neutral in terms of replacement when considering externalized costs may even be cost positive. This assessment of GHG abatement (doesn't include externalized costs of alternatives IIRC) gives a good idea of what improvements could reduce energy consumption for free.
_________________
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to understand your position. As I said, I agree that nothing will be able to replace the oil we use to feed our rapacious use of energy. It just sounded like you were picking out solar for special abuse, and wasn't sure what was behind that.
One problem with having folks like oilfinder on the forum is that they tend to polarize any issue just by being associated with it. I certainly don't condone his positions.
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
yesplease wrote:
A big difference? A half a percent drop, probably less, due to line losses is a big difference? Efficiency is nice and all, but even at 100% efficiency fossil fuels aren't gonna cut it. We're going to need solar thermal/PV, geothermal, wind, etc... regardless of if their efficiency is lower. While the sun will probably rise for the next billion years, I don't think we'll have plenty of fossil fuels for that long.
So... Do you think the price of oil won't rise now? Not that is has to, since CA mandated a 20% renewable mix by 2020 due to externalized costs, but I'm curious why you think a PV installation won't be viable when your example stated it wasn't viable due to low oil prices, something I doubt we'll see any time soon.
3-4% of a 15% efficient system is not a half percent. But there are probably some confusions regarding (percentage of what). In solar PV installations large wire must be used just to prevent the losses from the panel to the home/batteries. Its a safe bet that you will be pissing away up to 15% of your power on systemic losses even in a grid tied app. I mean if you have a panel which produces 100 watts, you will be getting 85 watts at the breaker.
line losses can be very high and as I understand it they were a factor in the shutdown of the Carrizo plant. They simply were not getting the kind of power they wanted out of the investment.
I fully agree that there is no reason to expect a major drop in oil prices (perhaps short of a 2nd great depression)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar PV. But its not well suited for grid scale applications.
Oh and in reference to it being deployed in CA.... TX, AZ, NM, GA and several other states have insolation and large urban centers as well. So yeah I think its tax and subsidy related.
-G _________________ I Have and will continue to vote against ANY politician who supports the various bailouts. Curse you for selling out our future for status quo now!
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
gnm wrote:
3-4% of a 15% efficient system is not a half percent.
Sure it is. .03(.15)=.0045 aka .45%, .04(.15)=.006 aka .6%. .45-.6% seems pretty close to half a percent, doesn't it?
gnm wrote:
But there are probably some confusions regarding (percentage of what).
No confusion, just basic math via the figures I've seen for the grid's transmission efficiency and the 15% efficiency you assumed.
gnm wrote:
In solar PV installations large wire must be used just to prevent the losses from the panel to the home/batteries. Its a safe bet that you will be pissing away up to 15% of your power on systemic losses even in a grid tied app.
I doubt it. Why would a CA spend billions on a solar grid but not spend an extra million or few on wiring? Even home systems have decent rules of thumb regarding losses compared to optimal wire size. Granted, if the owner wants to run the wrong wire for the job, they'll see losses, but that's their choice and not a rule of thumb regarding efficiency losses.
gnm wrote:
line losses can be very high and as I understand it they were a factor in the shutdown of the Carrizo plant. They simply were not getting the kind of power they wanted out of the investment.
Well lets compare what the line losses are for US grid transmission, ~3-4%, w/ the price of oil needed for the plant to be profitable, oil above ~$40/bbl (1980s price). On one hand, we have a few percent difference in output and cost, on the other, oil prices fell to a quarter of what they were, resulting in lack of competitiveness for the Carrizo plant. Which do you think impacted the viability of the plant more, a few percent from transmission losses or ~75+% from oil's price drop?
gnm wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar PV. But its not well suited for grid scale applications.
Apparently thin film manufacturers and CA utilities don't share your views. _________________
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
Where do you get the 3-4% number? A quick google and I see 7.2% quoted. I know its higher than that because I have installed and run PV systems for years. Yes of course you use the right wire. Heck I sized up from recommended on mine. I STILL see losses around 15% after conversion (at the breaker) Where are you getting your information?
Thin film panels degrade rapidly compared to poly and monocrystalline silicon panels. Why the heck would they go with thin film? They are more tolerant of shading but they also have significantly lower efficency.
PV is just not suited to grid sized apps. Solar thermal trough (sodium) and dish sterling are far more efficient. Why not use those?
-G _________________ I Have and will continue to vote against ANY politician who supports the various bailouts. Curse you for selling out our future for status quo now!
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
yesplease wrote:
gnm wrote:
3-4% of a 15% efficient system is not a half percent.
Sure it is. .03(.15)=.0045 aka .45%, .04(.15)=.006 aka .6%. .45-.6% seems pretty close to half a percent, doesn't it?[
hmmm.
Lets try this a different way...
1000 watts/sq meter. (optimum)
polycrystalline PV panel at 15% efficiency (thin film lower) = 150 watts at peak out.
systemic losses in DC/AC conversion and line (heat is also a BIG factor) = 12-15% so lets be generous and say 130 watts to grid.
Another 3-4% (really low) for 50 mile transmission (conversion to HV and back (heating transformers basically) = 3-4% loss off what you have left. So now you are down to 124.8 (125 watts). The losses are stacked, each taking a bite out of what you had left. Kind of like taxes on products after your income tax already nailed you.
These are optimum numbers. And yes they can edge up a bit the other way if its a particularly cold day for instance. The heat in low lying desert areas will basically insure no advantage there...
And you can kiss off another 15% at each wall wart (transformers) so the end user can charge his ipod etc... I hate those things...
We can nit pick numbers all you want on PV and line losses but solar thermal parabolic trough systems are still more efficient so why choose one less so? SEGS type systems and newer models of the same can also run into the night on stored thermal energy. Total efficiencies are around 32-38%. Yes they will still have conversion and distribution losses but why not start with higher output and night flexibility?
-G _________________ I Have and will continue to vote against ANY politician who supports the various bailouts. Curse you for selling out our future for status quo now!
More recently, the term boondoggle has come to refer to a government or corporate project involving large numbers of people and usually, heavy expenditure, where at some point the key operators have realized that the project is never going to work, but are reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors. Generally there is an aspect of "going through the motions"—for example, continuing research and development—as long as funds are available to keep paying the researchers' and executives' salaries. The situation can be allowed to continue for what seem like unreasonably long periods, as senior management are often reluctant to admit that they allowed a failed project to go on for so long. In many cases, the actual device itself may eventually work, but not well enough to ever recoup its development costs.
-G _________________ I Have and will continue to vote against ANY politician who supports the various bailouts. Curse you for selling out our future for status quo now!
Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: 2 solar plants of 800 megawatts to be built in Californi
Thought you guys would enjoy this article on Sacramento's clean energy. Twenty years ago, Sacramento voted to scrap its dinosaur of a nuclear plant and "pursue more affordable alternatives." Now, 40% of their energy comes from wind, geothermal, water, biomass, & other forms of renewable energy.
"The consequences for the utility, its customers, and its namesake city have been profound. SMUD provides its 600,000 ratepayers with some of the lowest priced electricity in the West. Electricity prices are a competitive advantage in the Sacramento region, which has been one of the state’s strong job generators. California’s capital city has earned national distinction for being among the cleanest, greenest, and most energy efficient in America."
...
"Some of SMUD’s steps were designed to provide more energy. SMUD, for instance, provided hundreds of its customers with rooftop photovoltaic equipment to generate electricity and sell some of it back to the utility. It is planning to expand what is already one of the state’s largest windfarms. It is working with local dairies to generate electricity from farm wastes."
Anyone who wants to bash renewable energy should check out this article. I seriously support this diversification of Sacramento's energy portfolio. Please read this, in its entirety, and then come back and tell me that renewables don't make enough of a dent to be worthwhile. I think you'll find answers to many of the debated questions in this thread. I did!
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
