Cost of renewable energy

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Success_Machine, Jun 22, 2001.

  1. Bagman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    Spacecat27,

    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    US oil consumption could be cut dramatically if we made an effort to develop, purchase and drive vehicles with greater efficiency- and stop this SUV madness.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You seem to be overlooking the fact that more miles will be driven as driving is cheaper per mile.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    As Chagur mentioned, cities are large heat sinks. Ever notice that when you are driving into a city it becomes hotter as you approach it?

    I agree with wayne_j that the fuel cell is to way we should go. One of the big problems with the hybred systems is range between fill ups. Another is speed and load carrying ability. There is a trade off here if you wish to haul weight. It needs more energy to move so you have even less range between fillups. Electric modes is out of the question for anything but city travel as many of us can not afford to wait a day for a recharge between uses.

    When using solar energy it makes more sense to put then in orbit. No worry of things like storms and cloudy days to lower the available energy that can be converted. No worry of vandalism or special construction costs assoicated with the use of them on roads. No worry of recieving less energy, filtered by the earth's atmosphere. It was estimated that to convert to solar cells to power the US it would take an area the size of Arizona (if I remember correctly) paved with solar cells to supply the current needs for power. In the days to come I don't think we will be willing to give up that much surface space for energy manufacturing, much less the costs to do so.

    One of the nice things is that we can grow our energy needs. Plants are in development that will supply much our energy needs. That is to say, not only corn. Another is the idea that it might not be that hyrocarbons are made as we were taught in school. There is increasing evidence that hydoocarbons might have had their origin in the comets. That as they migrate from the deeps of the earth that they condense into pools that slowly, where possible, work their way ever closer to the earth's surface. It has been found that one of the best places to find oil is where deep impacts of meteors have fractured the crust of the earth. While seepage will not supply the demands of an oil hungry society, it is possible that given time they may well renew. New methods are also showing oil where none was previouly thought to exist. Places where geologists would not look because there where no signs that any was ever found before. What I am saying is that oil too, may well be renewable. Not on human time scales though.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wayne_j Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Plants are a great source, look at corn for example. It burns clean and has no harmful emission's. The two draw backs are, we can't grow enough to feed the world let alone our cars, and winter climates in the great percentage of the growing belt limit total year around production.

    Hydorgen is the best and cheapest method the problem is no oil or power company in the world wants to see us devolope it. Think of what would happen if you could just take your bath water, apply a little electrical power to it, and have enough fuel to drive on for a week. Oil and power companies would go broke.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Disagree that most oil and power conglomerates would go broke. A bit of belt tightening maybe.

    1. Most oil companies go through times of boom or bust. Rarely is it anything in between. Because of this they have diverged into other avenues of income to support them when things are bad for the oil business.
    2. Power companies will do just as good as before. They will ensure that it is cheaper to buy power from them then it is to make your own. There are already fuel cells for purchase for those who would make their own power and it is not cheap. Businesses that need regular sources of uninterrupted power are buying them for computer networks, for hospital backups, and the like.
    3. Oil is being found where none was thought to exist before and in places where it was it is being found that there are as yet untapped reserves. True, those reserves in developed fields are smaller than those earlier found. However, there are fields that were closed because it was not economical at the time to produce them. With new technologies come other possibilities, including the possibility of reopening them as the cost for the product rises. Something you can be sure will happen when the reserves dwindle and the commodity becomes scarce.
    4. No matter what source of energy, you still need lubrication for bearings. Oil fills that need.
    5. No matter what you propose to make to replace what is now in place for transportation, you will need energy to power the equipment to do so. Where will you get it? From the power companies, naturally.
    6. Hydrocarbon molecular chains provide unheard of uses in the line of chemicals. They are complex and can be broken down in untold of ways for products from benzene to food additives. So the need will always be there, even if there is no use for vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel. And how will airplanes function without fuel? (Jets, at least)

    While hydrogen is cheap, it presents problems in storage. It is a flammable gas to say the least. Providing storage for such is best done in liquid form but then you can only get so much storage from each container. In refineries, such gaseous products are stored in spherical tanks, each especially made for the task. They consume a large amount of ground space per vessel. Because they are flammable it is required that they be spaced apart for safety which consumes yet more space.

    This is not the end of the problem. When you put this type of fuel into moving vehicles, you run again into the safety aspect. Because this product is a gas, or in it's liquid form will revert to gas, ruptures of the fuel tank is a thing to be dreaded. People now commonly sue the vehicle manufactures for the dangers of fuel tanks. What do you think the results of putting such a product into vehicles will result in?

    A few thoughts to pass the time...
     
  8. Bagman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    wayne_j,

    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hydorgen is the best and cheapest method the problem is no oil or power company in the world wants to see us devolope it. Think of what would happen if you could just take your bath water, apply a little electrical power to it, and have enough fuel to drive on for a week. Oil and power companies would go broke.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where would you get the electrical power? What makes you think it would be "a little"? What makes you think your bath water would give you enough hydrogen to drive on for a week?

    If hydrogen is the "cheapest method," how do you explain the fact that we're not already using it?
     
  9. Bagman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    wet1,

    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Chagur mentioned, cities are large heat sinks. Ever notice that when you are driving into a city it becomes hotter as you approach it?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You mean "source," not "sink." A heat sink is something that gets rid of heat by absorbing it or conducting it away. For example, when soldering, you can use some metal object as a heat sink, to avoid damaging a sensitive component.

    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While hydrogen is cheap, ...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I do not understand in what sense hydrogen is supposed to be cheap. It is not even an energy source, rather it's an energy carrier; I don't know the figures, actually, but I'd be surprised if you could get more than half the energy from it that you'd use to free it.


    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not the end of the problem. When you put this type of fuel into moving vehicles, you run again into the safety aspect. Because this product is a gas, or in it's liquid form will revert to gas, ruptures of the fuel tank is a thing to be dreaded. People now commonly sue the vehicle manufactures for the dangers of fuel tanks. What do you think the results of putting such a product into vehicles will result in?
    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've read that this isn't the problem that many people think it is. Hydrogen dissipates very rapidly, so you'd only get an explosion in an enclosed space, such as your garage. (Recently it's been shown that the Hindenberg's problem wasn't hydrogen but some kind of shellac or material that was used.) It's supposed to be no more dangerous than gasoline. In case that's not quite true, the problem could be overcome by having the car gradually free it from metallic hydrides, but that would raise the car's weight.
     
  10. Bagman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    31
    Deadwood,

    quote
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actually, I have come up with an idea for a renewable energy car. You see, it has solar panel on the roof the bonnet and back. So that provides the energy to get the car started. However, you also have wind turbine, about 25cm (10 1/2") on top of the car. Like two or more. This is surrounded by a wired cage for safety, but still lets the wind through. So when the car goes, the wind turbines power it. When at traffic lights you have the solar power. What to do when there is no sun. Don't worry I though about that to. At night time, push your car underneath a street light, or shine a torch on it, everyone takes shifts.

    Do you like my idea?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It's cute, but it wouldn't come anywhere near working. The energy used to move the car can't replenish itself, so the turbine would be no good at all unless the wind was blowing on its own, and even in that case the power output would be very small. All you need to do to appreciate that latter fact is to notice that you could stop it with your hand.

    The solar panels would only supply a small amount of energy, nowhere near enough to run your car, __even__ if they were 100% efficient, which they're nowhere near. I think someone else here said that they were 17% efficient. With the sun directly overhead, you get about 900 watts/square meter. That's what goes __in__. At 17%, you'd get 153 watts out, so with 10 square meters of solar panel, you'd have 1530 watts, or about 2 horsepower. Even supposing the impossible miracle of 100% efficiency, you'd get less than 12 horsepower. The only solar cars that do anything like working are extremely lightweight with large surface area, and they're almost completely useless for any practical purpose.
     
  11. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Bagman ...

    wet1 properly referred to my post.

    In describing a 'heat sink' you should have stated: "... gets rid of heat by absorbing it and conducting it away."

    That is why good ventilation and/or a fan is required when a heat sink is attached to a CPU.

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    You are right wet1, the Siljan Ring (Sweden) experiment of deep drilling (more than 8,000 meters) performed by astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold, from Cornell University. proves his theory that hydrocarbons (oil) are not "fossils", but it is being constantly formed in the upper mantle of the Earth, a by product of radioactive decay (helium + methane).

    Please check this article and see:

    Hydorcarbons are Not Fossils
     
  13. tomskiaroo Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I haven't heard any discussion of the cons of renewable energy sources. My basic question is where is the energy coming from, more importantly, from where is it taken. Is it possilbe to build enough wind generators to affect weather patterns and climate; could we cover enough land area with solar panels to have an impact on the sun?
     
  14. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    "But such claims have failed to take into account the stabilizing, effects of high pres-sure on temperature-related excitation. In any case, Gold has confirmed that between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. "
    from the above linked article.


    ummmmmm...you can find long strings of carbon atoms inside a crystaline carbon structure??? where would you put it? it would break the crystaline structure of the dimond, which in itself shows that the heat/temp would not have been enought o denature the hydrocarbon structure. more time and pressure- the job isn't done yet.

    I have be a supporter of the idea that "fossil" fuels may not be biological in origin, the above linked article is full of enough presumption and wholy inacurate information to render it useless at best. At worst, it makes the whole idea sould like a wacko's daydream.


    1)Wind- loud, intrusive and inconsistant enough to make it a non-relyable method of generating energy.
    2)Water- dammed water- possible huge effect on the aquatic ecosystem, from the flooding of large areas of land to the prevention of upstream migration make this a consistant method of power generation that should be avoided in it's current design. Not to metion that 2 of the four largest rivers in the US currently do not reach there terminus because of irrigation over-use as it is. more dams will not help that situation.
    3)Solar- current cost make it prohiobative, but that is largley due to it's limited use. more production=better methods=lower costs/watt output. and 27% efficiency may seem low, but plants, who have had a few billion years to get it right, only get about 30% efficency.
    4)fuel-cell. A great idea. implimentation is a problem, though. the fuel cell which outputs H20 requires liquid Hydrogen as it's source of fuel, which is a bit more dangerous to handle than gasoline. Fuel cells that require ethanol need to be re-fueled often, and output CO2-oops, greenhouse gas. H20-fueled fuel cells give off a very low wattage, and you end up with salinated waste water you have to pump every refill.
    Not to mention the cost of making the various fuel-cell fuels available at any given gas station.
    Fuel-cells are one of the best solutions we currently have in the works. but it still has alot of kinks that need to be thought about in order for fuel cells to be accepted by the general public.
    5)nuclear- output of nuclear waste, possible chance of meltdown/leak. once radioactive material is used, it is still dangerous, but cannot be used for anything. hollow mountains full of barrels of toxic crud is in the future for this.
    6)SNAP unit- a 6" steel ball with a table spoon of Uranium. Output suitable for powering 1 average city block for 20 years. Works via thermo nuclear couplings in a star-array around the steel ball. as the uranium radiates, the steel heats up. the couplings convert this to e- any leaks would be minor, as there is only a tablespoon of radioactive material involved. aboiut 45% efficiency for heat- to - electricity output. Invented in 1950's by NASA, rights owned by joint OPEC-like Oil alliance. Only lisenced for use by NASA and the US NAVY. How do you think they fit an entire nuclear facility into a submarine? (I know about this because I was the head of the student Nasa-club @ my college. the ex-NASA officer in change told us about it. He was tryiing to get us to join NASA-kept pushing that the US needed astronaughts for the Manned Mars flight in 2012. seems that mission has been pushed back to 2023.)
    7)fossil fuels- limited supply currently. some scientists figuring out methods to creats hydrocarbons in the lab. pollutive output of CO, CO2, and others when burned. less than 3% of fossil fuels are used for energy output. plastic, oil lubricants, tar for roads, latex paint, clothing, all have a fossil fuel chemical base. A replacement for hydrocarbons needs to be found, not just fossil fuels for energy production.

    hemp, corn, bambo, and papyrus plants are solar convewrters. they grow quickly, and can be converted readily to ethanol, which can be used as a fuel. if we can figure out how to use them to creat general use hydrocarbons, we can stop using oil. Then we will be dependant on soil. Soil run off and depletion from the extra demand for crop production would kill the useable land quickly and possibly create more desert around the world, like this one in Maine (caused by glatiation, it expaned 10 fold due to poor farming methods):
    http://www.desertofmaine.com/desert.htm

    building solar cells to avoid the soil depletion issue would require more mining to aquire the needed metals. once these metals become harder to find, we will be in the same boat that we are in now. Wind mills- same deal.

    So far, the best truely reniewable source of energy I can see is geothermal. It will only run out as the planet is dieing. at that point, renewable energy is not going to be a concern. questions of weakening the strength of the crust of the planet by drilling tons of deep wells to harness this energy is a concern, but I do not see it as a huge one. The most immediate issue would come from the accidental "poping" of underground lava pillows (such as the one under Yellowstone, and the one under the Three sisters volcanos in Oregon), which could cause the eruption of a super volcano. They are triggered by sudden drops in pressure, so breaking the seal on one may trigger an explosion. Less of a threat than nuclear meltdown, I would say...
     
  15. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Read again your quote from the article: <I>“In any case, Gold has confirmed that <b>between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals</b> that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. "</I> That’s the place where the hydrocarbons are: <b>interstitial spaces.</b> You know (I guess) that diamonds have impurities inside their crystalline structure, that lessen their values. And those impurities do not break the diamond structure. Most of those impurities are hydrocarbons. Simple, isn’t it?

    You should read the book by Dr. Gold before making such a claim. It sounds somewhat “presumptuous “. The article just scratched the surface of the issue, but what it said meant a lot to knowledgeable people –many well respected scientists have acclaimed the book and Dr. Gold’s theory.

    You seem to lack enough information on the subject of nuclear energy. What you say sounds much as Worldwatch Institute or Greenpeace leaflets. Output of nuclear waste is a scientific and technical problem that has been solved many, many years ago, as you would find if you visit the websites of National Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Sandia, etc. The solution for practical, safe and cheap storage (or even better, recycling of spent fuel) of radioactive waste is available, just waiting for the political decision for implementing it.

    Meltdowns and leaks have been happening since the first days of the inception of nuclear energy, and have become scarcer as times goes by (Play it again, Sam…) making nuclear power stations safer than ever. Just one incident and one accident are remembered today and used as a battle horse by the greens: There Mile Island, where not more than 1 mrem got out of the plant, nobody got hurt nor contaminated. Go to <B>The Psycho Meltdown at Three Mile Island: </B> http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PsychoMeltdown.html A short report about the truth on what really happened during the infamous nuclear incident of Three Mile Island reactor, and the way the press misinformed it. Twenty years later, the antinuclear groups still try to scare the population with a Big Lie.

    And Chernobyl, of course, whose consequences have been exaggerated out of proportion by the green press. It Is not my opinion, but the conclusion of the <B>Fifteen Years Later: Living After Chernobyl</B> at http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/Chernobyl-15/unscear.pdf">

    I tried to find the report they had on "Summing up the Consequences of the Accident, Vienna, Austria 8-12 April 1996", but it seems the IAEA have taken it from its database. (It makes me feel suspicious about this). Too bad, because the scientists from all over the world said things that demonstrate that the effects were quite minimal (on the radiation fallout side) but very high on the psychological side of the population of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Both articles are informing and enlightening.

    Any kind of energy source is welcome, as long it is feasible, practical, reasonably safe, and has a good cost/benefit ratio. On the other hand, forbidding other kinds of energy source on basis of neurosis and paranoia (as the nuclear energy neurosis) or the use of “not so” fossil fuels because an unproven global warming or climate change, is not only antiscientific and ridiculous but simply stupid.

    So far, you seem to see not very far. To broaden and sharpening your vision, you should keep researching more on the field of energy. Try <B>The False Promises of Renewable Energies:</B>: Pros and Cons of renewable energy sources, as windmills and photovoltaic cells, by Stanford University professor John McCarthy at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/RenewableEnergy.html
     
  16. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
  17. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    I am well aware of the problems with so-called "reneiwable" energy sources, as I had hoped would be conveyed in my post.

    As for Three miles island, I live not too far from there, and have grown up hearing both sides of the issue, and you are correct - the press greatly blew the event out of proportion.

    I stand by my "presumptions and inacuracies" statement, though, because of quotes like this:
    "The Diamond Evidence:

    Another item supportive of the abiogenic theory is the data Gold gathered from diamonds, which are a pure form of carbon. The temperatures and pressures required to form diamonds begin at depths of 70 miles. This far down, where the pressures are nearly 600,000 pounds per square inch, is far below the reach and survival of fossils. Environmentalists and others claim that hydrocarbons cannot be created in the domains of such high temperatures; dia-monds would disassociate there, they say, and, therefore, could not have possibly been crea-ted there. But such claims have failed to take into account the stabilizing, effects of high pres-sure on temperature-related excitation. In any case, Gold has confirmed that between the interstitial spaces of the carbon crystals that comprise the diamonds, one finds hydrocarbons. The biogenic theory of "fossil fuels" has no explanation for this fact of nature."

    While I completly agree with Gold theories, the above has so many holes in it as a logical proof, that no self-respecting scientist would listen to it as "evidence". We know this from the article-diamonds can be created so far down that fossils can't survive. and some diamonds have hydrocarbons. are we talking about the same diamonds in these two statements? Or could it be that the diamonds created at deeper regions be hydrocarbon free? Is it possible that the hydrocarbons mentioned are found only in diamonds created at shallower depths/lower tempuratures? If diamonds can only be created at 70 miles down and further (a point I would argue as possibly inacurate, it's dependant on the temp/pressure, not specifically depth. volcanic acticity may be able to *create* diamonds at mich higher elevations), then how could one say that diamonds would be de-natured at the same depths? This paragraph makes no sense. What do environmentalists know about the chemical creation of diamonds at high pressures? why are you asking chemical know-nothings to provide your anti-point? Why not say "Chemical engineers say that diamonds would de-nature at these depths"? (hint: because I doubt a chemist would be so foolish) Does this reporter mean to say that Gold collected diamonds known to have been created at the mentioned depths, and he then found hydrocarbons inside *those particular diamonds*? Was the procedure done under controled conditions so that the subject material was unlikely to be contaminated?

    and this quote:
    "More compelling, in my mind, is the issue of carbon-13. In the last decade, it has been proven that plants do not inhale carbon dioxide containing the heavy isotope C-13. The process of diffusion used by plants during respiration allows only the carbon dioxide containing C-12. Now, C-13 occurs in nature at a rate of just 1 percent. This means that if the hydrocarbons that were layed down over millions of years are the result of decomposing plant life, then these "fossil fuels" should show an absence of C-13. However, the samples of hydrocarbons taken from deep wells show no such isotopic constituency."

    what about the possibility of C13 being introduced from the surrounding substrate over time? what about the c-13 of the bacteria doing the decomposing? fungi? animals that were in the area? dirt that the plants were growing in? the current theory of fossil fuel creation does not assume that only plants were removed from their environment, cleaned, disinfected, and decompsed in controlled environments. Any study disproving classical fossil fuel creation theories that does not deal with the possibilities of contanimation is useless.

    The thoery itself is sound, in my opinion. I see no reason that hydrocarbons can only be created by living tings. If that were the case, then how did life get hydrocarbons to begin with???. The linked report, however, is not sound; in any way, shape, or form.



    as for the carbon structure/impurities of diamonds issue...after doing some reaserch, turns out I was incorrect about the structure of the diamond crystal. I can see how a small hydrocarbon molecule could be found in the spaces of the crystal structure.
    http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk.picts/a4.s.png

    sorry

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    [edit]
    if the problems with nuclear waste have been solved, you should let these guys know:
    http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/npf.htm

    these guys too:
    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9707/McFarlane-9707.html
    specifically note:
    "Many types of fuel may eventually be directly disposed in a geological repository as proposed for commercial spent nuclear fuel, but some will require treatment prior to disposal"

    we are not turning this stuff into fertilizer or shampoo. we are canning it up and hiding it in a big hollowed out mountain. This paricular mountain was picked because it doesn't allow much rain water to penetrate the core, which help reduce the chance of this stuff being introduced into the ground water of the area.


    [edit1]
    thanks for all the links BTW, very informative

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2003

Share This Page