(03-17-2017 08:04 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-17-2017 06:07 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  it is fundamental to your argument.

My argument is only that greenhouse gases need to stop being pumped into the atmosphere, in the future.

That has nothing to do with the physics of storing charge from PV cells.

I do like solar energy, though!

Do you like having lights and heat at night?

Immaterial details, Bull. Immaterial...

Yea, lets let everyone else develop the replacement for a 120 year old technology. Sounds like a plan

(03-17-2017 10:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea, lets let everyone else develop the replacement for a 120 year old technology. Sounds like a plan

Well wind power is 7000 years old.... So let's throw that away as well...

Or..... The age of a technology does not alone limit it's future.

(03-17-2017 10:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yea, lets let everyone else develop the replacement for a 120 year old technology. Sounds like a plan

When the 120 year old technology is better than any of the replacements, that's not a bad idea.

A couple articles on energy storage and resulting grid benefits ...

http://midwestenergynews.com/2016/10/03/...-the-grid/

Grid operators like PJM have to make sure power flows are consistent and stable despite the rise in variable energy sources like wind and sun. Typically, that spare capacity is ensured by keeping fossil fuel plants running in case of a sudden change in supply or demand.
Batteries, like the one being installed at Shedd, offer a cleaner alternative for managing the grid.
“If you had enough batteries out doing this … you could shut down those plants,” Wengel said. “Now think of the natural resources you save.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/no-batteries-...age-79785/

There is a complementary energy storage system that is well established globally, with ~143GW of storage currently accessed in 40 countries. This power can handle massive capacity requirements and also allows seasonal storage. This is pumped hydro and it is attractive because it involves recycling of water between adjacent upper and lower reservoirs which have a substantial height differential. The cycle efficiency of modern pumped hydro is ~80 per cent, which compares favourably with CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) cycle efficiency of 30-60 per cent.


Also, as mentioned above almost all electric utilities offer the option to purchase power generated from renewable sources. Where i live its about $0.015 per Kwh, we also have an electric aggregation program, so using the renewable option in this program is cheaper than buying straight from the utility. In any event, i choose to pay the extra 1.5 cents per Kwh. It follows with my beliefs, and if more of us did that it might help to increase the renewable sources available.

Again, IMO using renewable energy benefits us all. Fossil fuel supply is finite and as mentioned elsewhere, FF's are used for much more than energy.

Really, Hydro is the best option we have, but were not allowed to use it. It's cheaper than most, it's renewable, it's not quite as stable as FF but a hell of a lot more consistent than wind or solar.

(03-18-2017 08:54 AM)BobL Wrote:  http://reneweconomy.com.au/no-batteries-...age-79785/

There is a complementary energy storage system that is well established globally, with ~143GW of storage currently accessed in 40 countries. This power can handle massive capacity requirements and also allows seasonal storage. This is pumped hydro and it is attractive because it involves recycling of water between adjacent upper and lower reservoirs which have a substantial height differential. The cycle efficiency of modern pumped hydro is ~80 per cent, which compares favourably with CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) cycle efficiency of 30-60 per cent.

I think pumped hydro storage has a role going forward. The issue with it will be finding the right land where to construct it.

The discussion of the efficiency of pumped hydro is misleading though. Pumping the water up and then bring it back down may bring back 80% of the storage energy. However, the energy you are storing is from the CCGT mentioned in the article. Without the CCGT, there is no pumped storage. With the pumped storage, you gain storage, but you still use more energy than if you hadn't included it in the system. The math problem would be is the pumped storage more efficient than running something along the lines of a peaker plant of some sort?

(03-18-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Really, Hydro is the best option we have, but were not allowed to use it. It's cheaper than most, it's renewable, it's not quite as stable as FF but a hell of a lot more consistent than wind or solar.

It is really the no free lunch argument too. Are the impacts from the "clean" power generation better than the impacts to fish passage, accumulation of sediment/downstream starvation of sediment, etc.? I don't have the answer.

I know the push in our area is to take out dams, which are almost exclusively low head and quite old, to restore the native/natural stream ecology.

(03-17-2017 03:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  This is the solar farm, north of Mpls, that is supplying Xcel with solar energy: https://communityenergysolar.com/project...tar-solar/

I don't know if any govt subsidies, grants, or otherwise dollars were used to build it or operate it.

On their home page they say they have "public policy support" in building these monstrosities. Sorry to tell you Bison..but..You are getting ripped off just like I am in NC. If these things cant be built without putting a gun to your head to finance them? They are a terrible investment. Only the land owners, and construction companies come out on these.

Santee Cooper in SC has the right approach. They sell stock to customers to build these and cut their bills by a large percent when they come on line. No government theft is used in their construction.