Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Study Shows Way to Power Grid with Solar and Renewables

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Study Shows Way to Power Grid with Solar and Renewables

    In an ideal world, we would get low cost power without significantly damaging the environment. While such an idea currently seems like a dream, new research findings suggest this could be a reality within the next two decades. Thanks to recent advances in solar and wind technologies, the U.S. has the potential to rely primarly on solar energy and other renewables in the future. The University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College recently concluded a study, the findings of which suggest that by 2030, the energy needed to power a large electrical grid could come 99.9% from solar and other renewables. Even better, renewables could provide the necessary power at prices that are comparable to current electricity expenses.

    More...

  • #2
    These studies are not very effective since they cannot be achieved. The timeline for something like this is 100 years and only after someone finds that no more oil can be produced and all nations work together to come up with a humanity-saving solution. It would take literally billions of Solar PV modules and hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.

    Even if every home and business covered their roof with solar and 100K more wind turbines were installed, there is little hope to run this energy-hungry nation on renewables alone. Hydro is very renewable and is a substantial generator now of 24x7 power. There should be work in bringing the new spent-Uranium power plants online in the next few decades. I think that burns U-235 rather than 238. (There was a TED talk about that, from 2010).

    Conservation-wise, try to convince this nation as a whole to conserve. It'll never happen. So, the problem with these studies really does come down to wasted effort. They do try to make a point but this herd of humanity will have a hard time adopting to any massive conservation + renewables switch especially due to the costs associated with such a roll-out. Today, renewables rely heavily on subsidy even to get any project started and that's with the current falling prices of Solar PV systems. $2.50/Watt installed without incentives is a point where you will start to see 2KW systems on every home (or larger) just to produce "some" power that they consume daily.
    PowerOne 3.6 x 2, 32 SolarWorld 255W mono

    Comment


    • #3
      We have to start somewhere.

      Saw in the news this past 2 weeks, a story on German solar, this June they hit a recored 32% national output from solar for that 5 hour window," equal to 16 Nuclear power plants".
      They installed more panels in Feb. 2012 than the US DID in the entire year. Next June they areexpectingg a new record of possible 40% total national consumption for that 5 hour day. Quite anachievementt. But all we need NOW is those 30%efficiencyy panels that have been talked about for my 29 years of being off grid. Awaiting sunkings negative comment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TomP View Post
        Awaiting sunkings negative comment.
        Really not necessary. Anyone who reads the article should pick up real quick the study is done by a two-year technical college who's faculty does not have one single scientist or engineer to their credit. It is predicting some miracle battery wil be found to compete with conventional fuels. Let me put that into perspective only using fuel cost and nothing else considered.


        Right now the conventional fuel cost are about $.034/Kwh and going lower as we speak. The very best industrial batteries known today have a life span of about 5 years before needing replaced and they are expensive on the order of $240 Kwh. So with a 5 year replacement @ 20% DOD plan just the battery cost alone are $1200/1825 Kwh = $.657/Kwh or roughly 19 times more than conventional fuels. To speculate a battery can someday compete with conventional fuels is just absurb or just plain delusional.

        Sent via Drode.
        MSEE, PE

        Comment


        • #5
          Hello Sunking
          How was your vacation in Hawaii ??

          About the article: What they say is - If you have very large grid you don't need energy storage.
          Even if 90% of the generators are renewable, there will always be enough energy produced somewhere

          For example: you will never have clouds over all of the USA right??
          And at night, there are some places with lots of wind which can produce enough energy for the entire continent

          Well I cannot say if it is true or false but I think that is the general idea.
          SW

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SolarWatt View Post
            Hello Sunking
            How was your vacation in Hawaii ??
            Still in Hawaii using my tablet soaking up sun.

            Originally posted by SolarWatt View Post
            About the article: What they say is - If you have very large grid you don't need energy storage.
            Even if 90% of the generators are renewable, there will always be enough energy produced somewhere
            There is a huge flaw. You cannot transport electric power over large distances. Secondly commercial solar and wind power generation is geographically limited. Solar is mainly in the Southwest part of the Country where there is little cloud cover and long winter Insolation.

            Sent via Droid.
            MSEE, PE

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Sunking
              I suspected that the Achilles heel in this concept is the power delivery.

              Enjoy Enjoy .........

              Comment


              • #8
                I said nothing about batteries, which is a red flag to some long walkers off short piers, this record was set during peak sun light, one would assume it grid tie being talked about due to the 5 hour time frame mentioned. This would lead one to think that on many other Day they get 20%. We have to start somewhere.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TomP View Post
                  They installed more panels in Feb. 2012 than the US DID in the entire year. Next June they areexpectingg a new record of possible 40% total national consumption for that 5 hour day. Quite anachievementt. But all we need NOW is those 30%efficiencyy panels that have been talked about for my 29 years of being off grid. Awaiting sunkings negative comment.
                  Wow! A green pissing contest - the 32% and 40% numbers are really taken out of context and meaningless. They still have to have 100% of the baseline power from coal, gas and nuclear plants. The coal and nuclear plants do not ramp up and down easily. Germany has some hydro storage available.

                  Until new storage systems are available the German experience is cute but of no real help.
                  [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Even with 100% efficient cells, a whole lot of supplemental non-renewable energy generation is needed until we can drop our own per-capital energy usage by at least 60%. The TerrawattHours of world electrical usage cannot be replaced by renewables at our current consumption rate. It's not cell efficiency. It would be cell proliferance along with supplemental "non solar" power generation. Batteries to store a day's multiple TerrawattHours of production? No way, unless we can store it in the mantle of the earth. There are some physics problems in the statements of that original story.

                    Just look at the growth ramp:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_e...Primary_energy

                    There is a power cliff coming in centuries ahead. When oil usage drops, along with nat gas, what then? 9 Billion people scratching their heads wondering what to do. But, we'll be fine. It's our grand-children who will have to solve this problem. So, let's party today, right?

                    Modern "industrialized" humans have painted ourselves into a corner with our energy consumption per-capita. It's going to be some interesting times come 2030-2100. Our leaders should be looking at ways to support per-capita conservation by 50% by 2025. The whole "north american energy indepedence by 2020" is more of the same and is simply a political message and doesn't solve anything. But they won't impose conservation - that would "show weakness". It's better to lead as if energy was of infinite supply and also 'show no weakness until fully-defeated". Their terms of office will be over long before things go bad. I wonder if we could tie their pension funds, which are paid out for life, based on how well they set up the country for future generations.
                    PowerOne 3.6 x 2, 32 SolarWorld 255W mono

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bonaire View Post
                      Even with 100% efficient cells, a whole lot of supplemental non-renewable energy generation is needed until we can drop our own per-capital energy usage by at least 60%.
                      Never going to happen. Electrical use has gone up each and every year for the last 120 years. A person would have to be dellusional to think we can cut our use by 60%. Besides where does the power come from the 16 hours each day when the sun does not shine?

                      Sent via Droid
                      MSEE, PE

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What I am sort-of saying is:

                        A typical small USA home using maybe 800 kWh a month could possibly go off-grid if they dropped their use to maybe 300kWh.
                        * that won't happen

                        Then if a company dropped its energy usage by 60% as well through conservation methods, they could perhaps account for most of their daytime energy usage by throwing up a big array on their roof.
                        * that won't happen

                        But what about Las Vegas, NYC and other high energy consumption cities which cannot use local renewables? What about home heating where homes using nat gas or oil heat?

                        I really doubt we can ever have renewables be much more than 5% of our national electrical energy production. But that doesn't take into account oil usage for transportation. Trucks, commuters and heating oil - those are the tough ones.

                        (this doesn't include hydro-power which is doing well but nothing compares to Nuke/NG/coal in terms of volume)

                        The Amish are the model our children will have to mimic going into the 22nd century. I don't know if you share my thinking here but "oh, it's going to be bad..." is how I look at the energy cliff later this century.
                        PowerOne 3.6 x 2, 32 SolarWorld 255W mono

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bonaire View Post
                          But what about Las Vegas, NYC and other high energy consumption cities which cannot use local renewables? .
                          Well FWIW Las Vegas primarily uses RE for electricity. It comes from the Hoover Dam

                          But here is the problem and most people do not even realize or understand it. Germany and California are beginning to catch on with their Energy Policy. For every watt of RE production, you have to have a conventional power plant standing by, on-line, hot, and ready to go to replace it in a moments notice. What that means you are not off-setting any emmisions or saving fuel. Quite the opposite. All it really does is add unnecessary expanse and complexity.
                          MSEE, PE

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sunking View Post
                            Well FWIW Las Vegas primarily uses RE for electricity. It comes from the Hoover Dam

                            But here is the problem and most people do not even realize or understand it. Germany and California are beginning to catch on with their Energy Policy. For every watt of RE production, you have to have a conventional power plant standing by, on-line, hot, and ready to go to replace it in a moments notice. What that means you are not off-setting any emmisions or saving fuel. Quite the opposite. All it really does is add unnecessary expanse and complexity.
                            Maybe if Germany kept their Nuclear generation systems they would have the base needed to support their RE systems.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sunking - yes, Hoover Dam = renewable.

                              Many people don't equate hydro to renewables. It is the best of the renewables. I do equate it as I grew up within walking distance of a 2.4GW hydro-plant (Robert Moses in Niagara). But many want more renewables in the form of wind and solar. I'd like to see more hydro planning, where appropriate.

                              Ugh - and the misinformation continues on "the tveee". On CNBC today just now, some young talking head lady said that "by buying a NEST device for her home, she saved about $300 per month on her electric bill". Either she has a huge house (doubt it for a 20-something) or she's misrepresenting how technology devices like a NEST thermostat work.
                              PowerOne 3.6 x 2, 32 SolarWorld 255W mono

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X