PV and Hawaii

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/17/nation/la-na-hawaii-solar-20121118

Solar power can only only be collected ~5 hours a day. What do you do when there is more solar power than the grid requires?

How does the utility deal with voltage fluctuations due to clouds? (hint - poorly)

Are the green solutions comprehensive enough to make a significant dent in MMGW?

 

Solar and wind without adequate energy storage are worse than useless.

 

Here's just one of many solutions being developed at this time.

Making 'Renewable' Viable: New Technology for Grid-Level Electrical Energy Storage Developed
ScienceDaily
July 11, 2012

 

The electrochemical flow capacitor is interesting as a quick method of recharging an electric car (just change the fluid). But, like melting salts to store solar termal energy, the energy density is low, and storage volume becomes a problem. Energy storage is rarely good for be good for more than a few hours. Not for overnight, especially for 3 days of overcast.

The point is, just like in Europe, where the incentives are also very high, alternative energy is only good for about 20% of the total demand.

There is no "alternative energy", just a patchwork of partial solutions.

 

If it worked worth a hoot, it would be doing a land-office business. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.

No path beaten yet, so we can assume this storage scheme hasn't proven itself to be a better mousetrap.

Contrast this against shale fracking. Everybody and his dog is fracking shale - because the idea works beautifully.

 

Vanadium flow redox, liquid metal, sodium sulphur batteries, Hydroelectric storage, compressed air storage etc etc etc

Does it make ANY sense whatsoever that our current system has no storage capacity?

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3410

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/...storage-set-to-complement-solar-feed-ins.html

http://www.popsci.com.au/science/en...ry-a-building-sized-36-megawatt-hour-behemoth

The innovations coming down the pipeline for electricity storage will rival the innovations seen in the computer industry

 

Pity it has such drastic environmental outcomes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/new-york-fracking-regulations-cuomo_n_2167454.html

 

Perhaps you're confusing old information with the latest developments? The energy density they're talking about with these is not "low" and the energy can be stored for a long time, not just hours, as you mistakenly claim.

Wrong again, I'm afraid. Alternative, non-carbon-emitting energy sources can supply all of the power our civilization needs.

Carbon Dioxide-Free Energy Can Meet the World’s Energy Needs in 2050, Danish Report Finds
ScienceDaily
Dec. 6, 2010
(excerpt)
Taken as a whole, energy sources with low or no carbon emissions could easily cover the global energy supply in 2050, according to a new report from Denmark's Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy.


The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
Stanford Report
BY Louis Bergeron
January 26, 2011
(excerpt)
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it? According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels. "Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American
By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
October 26, 2009
(excerpts)
...A 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power—all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector. Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society. Is it feasible to transform the world’s energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.


Wind could meet many times world's total power demand by 2030, Stanford researchers say
Stanford Report
By Andrew Myers
September 10, 2012
(excerpts)
If the world is to shift to clean energy, electricity generated by the wind will play a major role – and there is more than enough wind for that, according to new research from Stanford and the University of Delaware. Researchers at Stanford University's School of Engineering and the University of Delaware developed the most sophisticated weather model available to show that not only is there plenty of wind over land and near to shore to provide half the world's power, but there is enough to exceed the total demand by several times, even after accounting for reductions in wind speed caused by turbines. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

 

You can bring out all the press releases you want. 24+hour storage for "the grid", and the "complete solution" are not on the horizon.

It isn't just about providing "power", it is converting the world to that type of power. Do you know how extensive the infrastructure changes are, required to just replace gasoline powered cars with electric?

How many home would need retrofit for eletric heat vs gas or oil?

 

You can deny reality all you want but the technological advances are happening anyway in spite of your denial. We will soon have the ability to store all of the solar and wind power that we can produce and release that energy back into the grid whenever needed. There will soon be no need to keep stand-by gas turbines spinning continually to keep the grid stable.

We're already making that conversion. The use of electric vehicles is going to explode as the next generation of batteries comes into production, batteries that will enable cars to go 3 or 4 hundred miles on a charge, that will charge in less than 6 minutes and that will last longer than the vehicle. As soon as we can drive three hundred miles for a cost (for electricity) that is only a fourth or fifth of the cost of the gasoline that would be required for the trip, then who is going to want to drive fossil fueled IC engine cars any more? Nobody! Switching over to the new energy systems is going to be great for our economy and will create a lot of new jobs, as well as saving us an enormous amount of money that we're currently shipping over to the oil producing nations of the world.

 

Just did a quick calculation, using lithium ion batteries, which have the highest energy density of any non-hydrocarbon storage medium.

Using the energy consumption of Australia, 16 hours of storage (in support of solar power) would require over 2 billion kilo's of batteries, which would need to be replaced every 2 or 3 years.

With your population of 22 million, storage would cost approximately US$252 a month.

That is why it makes sense that there is no storage.

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Bloody HEll mate!

What a load of crock - there is simply NO way we would stay with centralised storage in a country like Australia. The ADVANTAGES of systems like this (and we are already using Vanadium batteries in remote areas) is that we do not have to run out hundreds of thousands of kilometres of cabling to connect rural and remote areas to the grid!!

And NO-one is talking about 16 hours of storage for national grids - that is a straw man

 

Who said centralized storage?

I said 16 hours to allow use of solar (actually, a bad sotrm could extend that into 48 hours. How many hours of storage do you think you need, and why?

 

Wrong again. Liquid hydrogen has a higher energy density than any hydrocarbon fuel.

Since nobody is talking about using the current type of lithium ion batteries for grid storage, you have once again lost the fight to your strawmen.

 

Personally I would be happy with ONE hour - until the back-up kicks in

But at the moment there is NO back up

http://www.popsci.com.au/science/en...ry-a-building-sized-36-megawatt-hour-behemoth

One hour does not sound like much but it is enough time usually to work out what to do with the meat in the freezer for example not to mention keeping a lot of critical systems ticking over on EPS

 

That depends on how you measure it, you are correct per kilo, but not per liter.

The question is how do you store energy, by the pound, or by the liter?

I picked lithium ion because it has high enbergy density. What would you prefer?

 

I built back up systems for nuclear power plants, a 30 minute battery followed by diesel generators. The generators usually kicked in in less than a minute, but if they didn't, you wanted enough time for a graceful shutdown.

Having been through 3 of San Diego's firestorms, where power was out for 3+ days, an hour, or even a generator, wasn't enough to prevent spoiled food. And, it was too smokey for solar power. Being the fires occurred during the Santa Ana winds (gusting to 70MPH), wind power would work, but the average wind speed is 6MPH - not suitable the rest of the year.

As far as the article, note the size, and cost to provide a 1 hour back-up for 12,000 homes in China (how many Chinese homes does it take to make one average home in Australia?) Storage sounds like a good idea, it isn't on the horizon.

 

And when electricity replaced kerosene lanterns - how many homes needed to be "retrofitted"

 

A person could set up his own system for his own home off the grid.

I remember reading about wind systems being set up in the rual U.S. before the power lines were run in the 1930s. The power was stored in nickle cadium batteries. The same thing could be done with solar today.

And every home should have a generator and fuel for emergencies.

 

I just finished watching as series call "The Men Who Built America", telling the story of business at that time. If it is available there watch it. Monopolies were the rule of the day during that transistion.

So, how many homes "needed" to be retrofitted, none. They were done as the home owner saw fit, based on cost savings, safety, etc. The electric company added wiring as their customer base grew, but only if there was enough customers to support profits.

 

I can remember my Father setting up the wind power battery system for my Great Uncle living out west. He used plain old lead acid batteries. Uncle George would have been over the moon with today's off grid electricity - doubt he ever would have paid the thousands to be connected to the grid in the first place.

 

And that is how it is rolling out now

REad Politicalcanter's posts. He, like many many Americans are looking to go "off grid". There are companies looking into this as long term cost savings. It will even happen on a smaller scale in cities - slowly but surely

 

So, the problem is?

 

I don't see a problem but then I am not among those posting threads about how the new light bulbs are worser than the old light bulbs lols!!

 

No, but this is the first time I've seen you willing to let the market drive green tech.

The problems with light bulbs is that the change was government mandate, not market driven. The market only succeeds when the benefits outweigh the problems. Government mandate elinimates competition and allows companies to ship crap - which they do.

1. I have to buy more CCFL's than I need to keep from having greenish tint bulbs mixed with pinkish tint bulbs in the same fixture. Colors weren't a problem in the 4' bulbs, why did they "lose the recipe"?

2. CCFL bulbs are 2 to 3 times the cost of incandescent, and last about the same time (planned obsolescence, if they don't die, I won't buy more). Even at $0.35 a KWH, the higher purchase price more than offsets the energy savings.

3. CCFL's start very dim, and take 5 min to reach full brightness. If I am looking for something in a closet, I turn on the light, and do something else until the bulb warms up.

Why do we complain, simple, I don't have any other choice....