Originally posted by russ
View Post
Enphase Battery?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by russ View PostYou asked a question for which there is no answer today - a dumb question in reality.
The 97% you refer to - do you give lawmakers credit for knowing their ass from a hole in the ground? If so you give them too much credit. They vote for what gets them re-elected - whether it makes sense or not. Remember - most are probably lawyers which gives them a terrible disadvantage as far as having any common sense.
As for the Hawaiian lawmakers, you are partially right, some (not most) are lawyers. Some are also former military, mothers, fathers, grandparents, business owners, CPAs and teachers. I suppose they are all also common sense challenged as you allege? If so, you are going to need a wider brush to paint with!Comment
-
Originally posted by Samsolar View PostAsking questions isn't dumb Russ, nor is asking someone to share how they reached their conclusion. Dumb would be something like saying an idea is "total stupidity"
Many questions asked are stupid - to say otherwise places yourself in the group making those questions.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
An example of stupidity - the potential dam sites listed in the attachment - try utilizing even one of those in the NW and listen to the greens scream - not gonna happen.
The greens are insisting on removing dams so fish can migrate even.
The document listed 600 dams that are not producing power that could produce between 1 and 500 mW - Does anyone realize how little that amounts to?
A good sized hydro project (like one near where I grew up in Oregon) produces 45 mW max and usually well less than 50% of that. Stream and river flow regulation and wildlife protection over rule power production every time![SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
Originally posted by russ View PostWhen a law is made with no practical path forward it is total stupidity. The representatives know they can always change the game later.
Another thing you'd pickup (if you read it) is that they have broken out the move between 40% and 100% saying that this migration "shall be undertaken in a manner that benefits Hawaii's economy and all electric customers, maintains customer affordability, and does not induce renewable energy developers to artificially increase the price of renewable energy in Hawaii." This would appear to be an provision to ensure that the RE percentage has to be done in a financially viable way to be done at all.Comment
-
Well, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostWithout some large load shedding at night by the people, running the state 100% on RE (pv, wind, hydro, battery, etc) will be very hard and expensive to do.
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.
I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.Comment
-
Originally posted by bberry View PostI have no passion to eliminate fossil fuel. Getting the use well down is good enough.
Nuclear is dead based on pure economics. The noise you hear is simply the asset owners trying to extend the life as long as possible.
And again, you simply do not understand the cost curves of technology vs. fuel. Even low tech manufactured goods follow a log/log cost curve. The trend of even batteries is considerably better than basic manufacturing. You can't dig up increasingly rare fuel and compete with a downward exponential cost curve.
The price of PV falls 20% with every doubling of installed watts. Batteries appear similiar. Volume reduces price which incentivises more volume. That's why in the early days subsidies are needed. That's why, at a point, RE technologies blow away fuel. We are already past that point in some places.
Most of everything you see and use was built in the last 50 years. Yet power generation can't be substantially rebuilt over 30 years?
If you want to dream about 100% electricity being generated from RE then you might also believe in anti-matter or black hole power generation. Both are theoretically possible but neither is even close to being practical. Heck even fusion was supposed to be in place before the 21st century yet it is not even perfected in the lab.
Call me a skeptical but IMO even 30 years is not enough to over come the barriers to convert 100% to RE power generation.Comment
-
Originally posted by emartin00 View PostWell, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.
Going to the moon was very hard and expensive, but we did that...
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.
I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.
You miss my position. I have been involved with solar cell research since the mid 1970's. I have also been closely associated with electrical power generation and distribution for close to 40 years. I am very interested developing new technology concerning energy storage and generation but I also do not wear rose colored glasses and believe all that hype coming out of the research labs. Most of that is generated to get people to invest.
So yes I feel we should continue to find and build a better mousetrap but to believe the result is close at hand is misleading and naive.Comment
-
Originally posted by emartin00 View PostWell, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.
Going to the moon was very hard and expensive, but we did that...
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.
I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.
2) Hydro in Hawaii? Do you have any idea of the size of reservoir required for a small hydro project? You sure don't!
3) The off shore technologies are still way out there from what I read.
4) Geothermal is one of the hardest sources to tap and use - a really nasty solution you are handling plus the natives start to whine about earthquakes.Last edited by russ; 05-20-2015, 12:18 PM.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
The time between the Wright brothers first flight and the moon landing was 66 years.
Many cities in the U.S. entire existences lies within the sequential lifespan of two people.
What do the physics and desirability of space flight have to do with the economics of power production?Comment
-
Originally posted by donald View PostThe time between the Wright brothers first flight and the moon landing was 66 years.
Many cities in the U.S. entire existences lies within the sequential lifespan of two people.
What do the physics and desirability of space flight have to do with the economics of power production?
85% of all Power production in the US is from coal and nuclear. To covert even half of that over to RE would make the cost of space travel look like a dime store purchase.
30 years is a long time for some people (little less than half my life) and you would expect major breakthroughs in technology during that time. But if there isn't a profit to be made from those changes then breakthroughs tend to be very few and far between.
As long as existing power generation stays low in cost converting to anything else will not happen very fast. There just isn't enough need for the people that can make it happen.Comment
-
Originally posted by SunEagle View PostAs long as existing power generation stays low in cost converting to anything else will not happen very fast. There just isn't enough need for the people that can make it happen.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Comment
-
Comment
Comment