(10-21-2014 12:53 PM)BobL Wrote:  Keystone is oil, 1% of the power generated in the US come from petroleum products.

Currently 7% of our power is from Hydro, 19% nuclear, Coal is 39%, NG 27%. Renewable is 6%.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Ideally we begin to lower that coal percentage. Coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than NG and wind and environmentally destructive. The majority of the coal power plants in the US are over 40 years old. These need to be decommissioned or transitioned to biomass or NG.

Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, gave an estimate for a new nuclear plant of US$ 5,339/kW and for onshore Wind $2,438/kW. Operating costs are also lower for the wind. A NG plant is still much cheaper to build and operate than any other plant. So with the NG estimated to be drilled via fracking this makes the most sense economically.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html

Realistically in 15 years we would see 20% renewables, 20% nuclear, 5% hydro, 30% NG and 25% coal, with coal gone in 30 years.

Keystone is oil. And we indeed don't use oil for electricity much. For driving ... ON THE OTHER HAND ......

Also .... coal is FAR cheaper per kW than wind. And I would also dispute the notion that wind isn't polluting. It has several major problems:

1) Bird blending. If you care about endangered species of birds, don't put a wind mill anywhere near their habitat.

2) Picket fence shadowing. AKA: Not in my backyard!

3) Incessant noise. AKA: Not in my backyard!

4) Visual pollution. There is nothing sexy or awe inspiring about a wind mill. AKA: Not in my backyard!

You can't place them near airports. You can't place them near dense or even moderate to low density dwellings. You can't place them near endangered avian species. You can't place them in areas of high avian density. You can't place them anywhere the wind doesn't blow consistently and with a fair amount of speed. In other words ... you can't put them in most places.

There are a lot of crappy investments when it comes to renewable energy. Wind is probably the worst.

If you're after carbon reduction ... the prices of natural gas thanks to fracking are putting coal out of business at a staggering pace.

If you're after "green" sources, you should continue to root for global solar production to go up. Every time you double global capacity, prices drop roughly 20%. You should also root for off-peak "storage" methods which can store otherwise wasted production windows from nuclear/hydro/geothermal/wind/solar, such as hydro retention ponds.

(10-21-2014 01:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 12:53 PM)BobL Wrote:  Keystone is oil, 1% of the power generated in the US come from petroleum products.

Currently 7% of our power is from Hydro, 19% nuclear, Coal is 39%, NG 27%. Renewable is 6%.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Ideally we begin to lower that coal percentage. Coal plants are more expensive to build and operate than NG and wind and environmentally destructive. The majority of the coal power plants in the US are over 40 years old. These need to be decommissioned or transitioned to biomass or NG.

Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, gave an estimate for a new nuclear plant of US$ 5,339/kW and for onshore Wind $2,438/kW. Operating costs are also lower for the wind. A NG plant is still much cheaper to build and operate than any other plant. So with the NG estimated to be drilled via fracking this makes the most sense economically.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html

Realistically in 15 years we would see 20% renewables, 20% nuclear, 5% hydro, 30% NG and 25% coal, with coal gone in 30 years.

Keystone is oil. And we indeed don't use oil for electricity much. For driving ... ON THE OTHER HAND ......

Also .... coal is FAR cheaper per kW than wind. And I would also dispute the notion that wind isn't polluting. It has several major problems:

1) Bird blending. If you care about endangered species of birds, don't put a wind mill anywhere near their habitat.

2) Picket fence shadowing. AKA: Not in my backyard!

3) Incessant noise. AKA: Not in my backyard!

4) Visual pollution. There is nothing sexy or awe inspiring about a wind mill. AKA: Not in my backyard!

You can't place them near airports. You can't place them near dense or even moderate to low density dwellings. You can't place them near endangered avian species. You can't place them in areas of high avian density. You can't place them anywhere the wind doesn't blow consistently and with a fair amount of speed. In other words ... you can't put them in most places.

There are a lot of crappy investments when it comes to renewable energy. Wind is probably the worst.

If you're after carbon reduction ... the prices of natural gas thanks to fracking are putting coal out of business at a staggering pace.

If you're after "green" sources, you should continue to root for global solar production to go up. Every time you double global capacity, prices drop roughly 20%. You should also root for off-peak "storage" methods which can store otherwise wasted production windows from nuclear/hydro/geothermal/wind/solar, such as hydro retention ponds.

I never said wind was the end all, I used it as an example..and yes solar be it PV or concentrated solar systems are a great source as well.(Concentrated solar is now at odds with bird lovers as well). I also agree with storage, the compressed air storage mentioned above is a very intriguing idea.

Here in the midwest turbines are installed on farm land..the land is still farmed and the farmer gets paid by the utility. They are far away from population centers and in areas where wind is typically unobstructed. Seems like a win win.

(10-21-2014 01:46 PM)BobL Wrote:  Here in the midwest turbines are installed on farm land..the land is still farmed and the farmer gets paid by the utility. They are far away from population centers and in areas where wind is typically unobstructed. Seems like a win win.

Except for availability of transmission facilities and line losses when transmission is available.

(10-21-2014 01:01 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Duke Energy just partnered with a couple other companies though to build a huge wind farm with compressed air storage out west though. The compressed air will be stored in underground salt caverns. It'll be interesting to see how effective this is.

I read an article a while back that suggested compressed gas in salt caverns as the solution to the storage problem for large scale solar farms as well. This is the first I've heard of a large scale test of the concept.

(10-22-2014 10:16 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2014 01:01 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Duke Energy just partnered with a couple other companies though to build a huge wind farm with compressed air storage out west though. The compressed air will be stored in underground salt caverns. It'll be interesting to see how effective this is.

I read an article a while back that suggested compressed gas in salt caverns as the solution to the storage problem for large scale solar farms as well. This is the first I've heard of a large scale test of the concept.

Here is the press release about it if you want to learn a little more:

http://www.duke-energy.com/news/releases/2014092301.asp

They're throwing some lofty numbers out there, so like I said, it'll be interesting to see if it works as planned.