Enphase Battery?

[bberry]

Talk about changing the scope to suit your BS line! Virtually no more available hydro locations available.

An Assessment of Energy Potential from New Stream-reach Development in the United States led by DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) provides a national picture of the remaining new hydropower development opportunities in U.S. rivers and streams. This study leverages recent advances in national geospatial data sets to provide the highest fidelity national study yet, including the identification of social, economic, and environmental attributes of the stream reaches in addition to the technical power potential. The assessment concluded that the technical resource potential is 85 GW of capacity. When federally protected lands—national parks, national wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness areas—are excluded, the potential is over 65 GW of capacity or 347 TWh/year of generation.

http://energy.gov/eere/water/hydropo...aracterization

[bberry]

Nuclear is dead and buried based on pure economics, according to nuclear industry managers.

What managers?

If I told you, you would call me a liar.

[Samsolar]

You 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.

Asking 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" and then admitting that there isn't any information that supports your conclusion. "You asked a question for which there is no answer today" I'm willing to bet you did nothing more than read a headline and perhaps scan a news article. Did you take a look at the bill itself? (HB623)

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!

[russ]

Asking 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"

When a law is made with no practical path forward it is total stupidity. The representatives know they can always change the game later.

Many questions asked are stupid - to say otherwise places yourself in the group making those questions.

[russ]

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!

[Samsolar]

When a law is made with no practical path forward it is total stupidity. The representatives know they can always change the game later.

I guess you still didn't read it. HB623 is amending the EXISTING statutes that detail the state's renewable portfolio standards. Hawaii has been on this path for years (an early milestone seems to be 10% by 2010) and is adjusting their goals as they are reaching goals previously set FASTER than they originally thought. Said another way, they already have a established path forward that is working and they are adjusting their goals accordingly. Hardly "no practical path forward" wouldn't you say?

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.

[emartin00]

Well, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.

Without 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.

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.

[SunEagle]

I 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?

Back in the 60's everyone was imagining living in space or colonizing the moon or other planets by 1999. Yet after 50 years the US doesn't even have a reusable vehicle to get to near orbit and back again. Why, because it costs to freaking much to do it with not enough return on incentive for our government.

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.

[SunEagle]

Well, 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.

Why are you so scared of nuclear power? There have been maybe 3 events world wide with literally decades of safe operation providing many Gigawatts of power all over the world. There have been more deaths and injuries from accidents in other types of power generation facilities as compared to nuclear.

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.

[russ]

Well, 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.

1) No one is saying it can't be done - we are saying it ain't on the table today

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.

[donald]

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?

[SunEagle]

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?

Advancements in technology have certain drivers behind them. Space Flight had it's day and because it got expensive it was dropped.

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.

[russ]

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.

100% correct - but don't tell anyone the cost of power has to go up - both ends of the political spectrum become frantic.

[russ]

The gov shows Hawaii's potential hydropower resources at zero it seems.

http://energy.gov/eere/water/hydropo...aracterization

[donald]