The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008 [View article]
Interesting reading in those links you provided. Thanks!
On Dec 10 02:23 PM frflyer wrote:
> The hand > You mentioned line loss over long distances. > That's why all the sensible energy plans call for new high voltage > DC transmission lines or HVDC to bring power from solar and wind > farms to other parts of the country. There is much less line loss > with HVDC over long distances. Anything over 30 miles favors DC > in fact. Don't confuse this with the use of superconductors that > john s. gordon mentions in his comment. > > > Andy 1234 -you may be an engineer, but you are under-informed. > The numbers have been crunched and these ideas are mostly well thought > out. Solar thermal power plants with heat storage can act as base > load power, as they produce a steady output of power even at night.
> > What's more, they can store heat 20-100 times cheaper than storing > electricity. > They will be able to provide power at 5-8 cents a kWh once they are > up to scale in several years. > They are fast to build and use ordinary building materials. So low > tech we could have done it 100 years ago. They can be air or water > cooled, and can even desalinize water at the same time, when water > cooled. Molten salt is the best medium for storing heat. United > Technology's Sunstrand/Rockedyne division has developed advanced > systems for molten salt use. They have also created a new solar > thermal company called Solar Reserve. There are about 10 companies > I've heard of in solar thermal. > > See the article in Scientific American that proposes building solar > plants in the southwest, achieving 69% solar grid by 2050 and spending > less in tax dollars over 35-40 years than we spent on the internet > in the last 35 years. > One fourth or less than we now give oil companies in subsidies and > tax credits. > www.sciam.com/article.... > > For more on solar thermal: > > www.salon.com/news/fea...
> > > solarsouthwest.org/ > > Combining centralized solar in the southwest with distributed power > from solar panels all over the country will give us solar on a vast > scale. Photovoltaics are within a few years of grid parity, not > including the external or hidden costs of fossil fuels. > > Wind is also much cheaper to build than coal or nuclear plants and > about a third the cost of building nuclear. A recent govt report > says we could have 20% wind power by 2030. Solar could be bigger. > > > Geothermal with advanced technology could be huge. > > The costs of not switching to renewable energy far exceeds the cost > of doing it. > > In the U.S. with a tiny fraction of our power coming from wind and > solar, we talk constantly about the "intermittency&... of solar > and wind. > Meanwhile Denmark already has 20% wind power. Parts of Denmark and > Germany have 40% wind power. > > Yes we need more storage solutions, better battery technology etc. > What people don't get is that we can make a big start toward renewables > with current technology. > > I would argue that solar is already cheaper than fossil fuels when > you consider the hidden costs of those. and wind is already cheaper > without those considerations. > > While there are several energy plans I've seen they all have the > same elements. Solar, Wind, HVDC, plug in hybrids, biomass, geothermal, > energy conservation and efficiency, etc. > > I recommend reading the following articles. > > > www.setamericafree.org... > > An Introductin to Core Climate Solutions > analyses and updates the solutions outlined in the Science magazine > article on stablilization wedges below. > climateprogress.org/20.../
> > > Science magazine article on Stablilization Wedges to solve global > warminghttp://carbonse... > > climateprogress.org/20.../
> > > > What makes it hard for renewable to compete with fossil fuels is > the massive subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear receive. > > See my comments on subsidies at yesterday's article on solar at > Seeking Alpha > seekingalpha.com/artic...
The Five Most Important Energy Forecasts of 2008 [View article]
On Dec 10 02:23 PM frflyer wrote:
> The hand
> You mentioned line loss over long distances.
> That's why all the sensible energy plans call for new high voltage
> DC transmission lines or HVDC to bring power from solar and wind
> farms to other parts of the country. There is much less line loss
> with HVDC over long distances. Anything over 30 miles favors DC
> in fact. Don't confuse this with the use of superconductors that
> john s. gordon mentions in his comment.
>
>
> Andy 1234 -you may be an engineer, but you are under-informed.
> The numbers have been crunched and these ideas are mostly well thought
> out. Solar thermal power plants with heat storage can act as base
> load power, as they produce a steady output of power even at night.
>
> What's more, they can store heat 20-100 times cheaper than storing
> electricity.
> They will be able to provide power at 5-8 cents a kWh once they are
> up to scale in several years.
> They are fast to build and use ordinary building materials. So low
> tech we could have done it 100 years ago. They can be air or water
> cooled, and can even desalinize water at the same time, when water
> cooled. Molten salt is the best medium for storing heat. United
> Technology's Sunstrand/Rockedyne division has developed advanced
> systems for molten salt use. They have also created a new solar
> thermal company called Solar Reserve. There are about 10 companies
> I've heard of in solar thermal.
>
> See the article in Scientific American that proposes building solar
> plants in the southwest, achieving 69% solar grid by 2050 and spending
> less in tax dollars over 35-40 years than we spent on the internet
> in the last 35 years.
> One fourth or less than we now give oil companies in subsidies and
> tax credits.
> www.sciam.com/article....
>
> For more on solar thermal:
>
> www.salon.com/news/fea...
>
>
> climateprogress.org/20.../
>
>
> solarsouthwest.org/
>
> Combining centralized solar in the southwest with distributed power
> from solar panels all over the country will give us solar on a vast
> scale. Photovoltaics are within a few years of grid parity, not
> including the external or hidden costs of fossil fuels.
>
> Wind is also much cheaper to build than coal or nuclear plants and
> about a third the cost of building nuclear. A recent govt report
> says we could have 20% wind power by 2030. Solar could be bigger.
>
>
> Geothermal with advanced technology could be huge.
>
> The costs of not switching to renewable energy far exceeds the cost
> of doing it.
>
> In the U.S. with a tiny fraction of our power coming from wind and
> solar, we talk constantly about the "intermittency&... of solar
> and wind.
> Meanwhile Denmark already has 20% wind power. Parts of Denmark and
> Germany have 40% wind power.
>
> Yes we need more storage solutions, better battery technology etc.
> What people don't get is that we can make a big start toward renewables
> with current technology.
>
> I would argue that solar is already cheaper than fossil fuels when
> you consider the hidden costs of those. and wind is already cheaper
> without those considerations.
>
> While there are several energy plans I've seen they all have the
> same elements. Solar, Wind, HVDC, plug in hybrids, biomass, geothermal,
> energy conservation and efficiency, etc.
>
> I recommend reading the following articles.
>
>
> www.setamericafree.org...
>
> An Introductin to Core Climate Solutions
> analyses and updates the solutions outlined in the Science magazine
> article on stablilization wedges below.
> climateprogress.org/20.../
>
>
> Science magazine article on Stablilization Wedges to solve global
> warminghttp://carbonse...
>
> climateprogress.org/20.../
>
>
> www.americanprogressac...
>
>
> climateprogress.org/20.../
>
>
>
> What makes it hard for renewable to compete with fossil fuels is
> the massive subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear receive.
>
> See my comments on subsidies at yesterday's article on solar at
> Seeking Alpha
> seekingalpha.com/artic...