Huge US solar plant lags in early production

November 17, 2014 by Michael R. Blood
This Aug. 13, 2014 photo shows an array of mirrors at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating site in Primm, Nev. The largest solar power plant of its type in the world, promoted as a turning point in green energy, isn't producing the expected energy and one of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as often as expected. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)

The largest solar power plant of its type in the world—once promoted as a turning point in green energy—isn't producing as much energy as planned.

One of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as much as expected.

Sprawling across roughly 5 square miles (13 sq. kilometers) of U.S.-government desert near the California-Nevada border, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened in February, with operators saying it would produce enough electricity to power a city of 140,000 homes.

So far, however, the plant is producing about half of its expected annual output for 2014, according to calculations by the California Energy Commission.

It had been projected to produce its full capacity for 8 hours a day, on average.

It could take until 2018 for the plant backed by $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees to hit its annual peak target, said NRG Energy Inc., which operates the plant and co-owns it with Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy.

In this Feb. 11, 2014, file photo, made with an extreme wide-angle lens, Jeff Holland takes a picture of some of the 300,000 computer-controlled mirrors that reflect sunlight to boilers that sit on 459-foot towers at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating site in Primm, Nev. The largest solar power plant of its type in the world, promoted as a turning point in green energy, isn't producing the expected energy and one of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as often as expected. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

In this Feb. 11, 2014, file photo, workers monitor the 300,000 computer-controlled mirrors, each about 7-feet high and 10-feet wide, that reflect sunlight into three boilers that sit on 459-foot towers, at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating site in Primm, Nev. The largest solar power plant of its type in the world, promoted as a turning point in green energy, isn't producing the expected energy and one of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as often as expected. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

Explore further: Google invests $168 million in solar power plant

Related Stories

Solar loan guarantees announced

June 30, 2011

(AP) -- The Department of Energy has announced nearly $4.5 billion in conditional commitments for loan guarantees for three California solar projects, the agency said.

Ivanpah solar plant in California starts energy feed to grid

September 27, 2013

The world's largest solar thermal plant began to feed energy into the power grid on Tuesday, considered a solar energy milestone, in a project scheduled to be fully operational by the end of the year. The system delivered ...

Huge US thermal plant opens as industry grows (Update 2)

February 13, 2014

A windy stretch of the Mojave Desert once roamed by tortoises and coyotes has been transformed by hundreds of thousands of mirrors into the largest solar power plant of its type in the world, a milestone for a growing industry ...

Recommended for you

Inferring urban travel patterns from cellphone data

August 29, 2016

In making decisions about infrastructure development and resource allocation, city planners rely on models of how people move through their cities, on foot, in cars, and on public transportation. Those models are largely ...

How machine learning can help with voice disorders

August 29, 2016

There's no human instinct more basic than speech, and yet, for many people, talking can be taxing. 1 in 14 working-age Americans suffer from voice disorders that are often associated with abnormal vocal behaviors - some of ...

Apple issues update after cyber weapon captured

August 26, 2016

Apple iPhone owners on Friday were urged to install a quickly released security update after a sophisticated attack on an Emirati dissident exposed vulnerabilities targeted by cyber arms dealers.

159 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
4.6 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2014
One of the reasons is as basic as it gets: The sun isn't shining as much as expected.


And this is why renewable energy absolutely needs seasonal storage and stockpile of energy on the Terawatt-hour scale as well as short term storage for daily variations. Good years are followed by bad years. The same thing happens with hydroelectric power, wind power, and biomass growth as well.

The natural gas network in Germany is providing them with a stockpile of 220 TWh of energy. That's enough to supply the country for months in case there's a shortage.

The same needs to work with renewable power before you can talk of energy security. If not, you simply can't get rid of the fossil fuels.
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
Ahh, a newly discovered unlimited supply of renewable energy, burn fruitcakes.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2014
Huge US solar plant lags in early production


no surprise here. part time energy is, by definition, part time.

small scale (home sized) solar is great. Large and Very Large scale solar (solar power satellites) are the cat's whiskers, and the bee's knees, but medium scale solar is; power generation only a nutter would love.
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
Promising more than you can deliver seems to be par for the course in renewable energy.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
Lets see if I understand the situation, the West is suffering from a major drought but the solar plant is not producing as much power as expected due to clouds. Perhaps it is due to all of the incinerated birds and insects covering the mirrors.
Tom_Andersen
1.9 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
The plant lists promised output at 1079 GWh or so per year, so at 50% we have 500 GWh of power. At 5c per kwh, ($50 per MWh, which is a normal wholesale price), we have about $25 million worth of electricity. For a 1600 million $ investment.

A 1.6 billion investment should return over $150 million per year. But I am pretty sure that cleaning and maintenance is well over $25 million.

Complete waste.
nilbud
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
Lots of stupid comments from right wing simps who can't cost things properly.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2014
They would probably make more money selling cooked birds.
http://www.weathe...20140818

And so the AGW Cult shall save the earth.
SciNews_ro
4 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2014
From the original article ""Factors such as clouds, jet contrails and weather have had a greater impact on the plant than the owners anticipated," the agency said in a statement."
Could we please see the statement? I tend to distrust such vague affirmations.
dirk_bruere
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2014
WTF is the "standard house" when it comes to energy production? Are we supposed to be retards reading this, who cannot understand standard scientific units of energy and power?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2014
dirk, the energy use of households is changing. When I worked for PG&E, we took it to be on average, a kW. But then we got more electrification, and it rose to about 1200 Watts. Now, household energy use is going down because of technology. Your question is a good one.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (22) Nov 18, 2014
"Promising more than you can deliver seems to be par for the course in renewable energy."
---------------------------------------

Look into what happened at Fukushima last week. We still have three intensely-radioactive and molten cores and the remains of the reactor vessels in the trashed ruins of the three powerplants. Have you followed the problems they have there? Japan has classified the goings-on as state secrets and actually passed a law against saying negative reports about Fukushima.

What will be the eventual cost of a kWh from Fukushima? A hundred dollars? A thousand?
Eikka
4.9 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2014
the energy use of households is changing. When I worked for PG&E, we took it to be on average, a kW. But then we got more electrification, and it rose to about 1200 Watts. Now, household energy use is going down because of technology.


Actually, the average household electricity consumption in California today, according to the EIA, is about 6500 kWh a year, or 740 Watts - the lowest in the whole US. The per-household energy consumption on the other hand has risen to 62 million Btu, or approx. 2.1 kW per household and rising.

The electrification you're talking about happened between 1960-70 when electricity use in the state doubled. The amount of electricity used per capita has since remained pretty much the same with a slight increasing trend and no sign of going down.

http://www.voxeu....d-or-not
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
What will be the eventual cost of a kWh from Fukushima? A hundred dollars? A thousand?


Irrelevant comparison.

What will be the eventual cost of a kWh from a single wind turbine that burns down by accident on the first day?

Well, if the turbine cost you $1.5 million, it's going to be quite a lot. See, this is how you make pointless rhetorical appeals by selecting your samples and framing the question.

Japan has classified the goings-on as state secrets and actually passed a law against saying negative reports about Fukushima.


A lie if I ever saw one.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 18, 2014
Eikka, if I show you proof, will you apologize? Or give me the email address of your mother?

Meanwhile, look up the cost of the replacement power for the failed nukes in Japan, and see what it has done to their entire economy.

Now, go here:
http://www.thegua...-secrets

http://www.npr.or...japanese

http://www.theeco...own.html

http://rt.com/new...law-712/

An apology will do. No bowing or crawling necessary.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
Here is an interesting comparison. Has anyone noticed how inaccurate the predictions of energy output of these projects really are. In fact they are about as inaccurate as the AGW predictions.

And you ask why I think that the whole save the earth movement is run by a bunch of charlatans and hucksters!
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2014
How do I find out who rated me in the posts?

And this: "And you ask why I think that the whole save the earth movement is run by a bunch of charlatans and hucksters!"
----------------------------

Because it is you are an outsider, with no direct experience or education in the field.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
Green Pollyanna Dept::

I went into Staples the other day and recycled printer paper cost more than the regular stuff. Don't you think that if producing recycled paper actually saved energy or any meaningful resource that it would cost less than new paper? It does not so it must be a waste of energy to produce it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2014
How do I find out who rated me in the posts?
Sorry, this is usually only taught to engineering candidates. Its on the test you never took. You dimwit.
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2014
Green Pollyanna Dept::

I went into Staples the other day and recycled printer paper cost more than the regular stuff. Don't you think that if producing recycled paper actually saved energy or any meaningful resource that it would cost less than new paper? It does not so it must be a waste of energy to produce it.


That you came to that conclusion speaks volumes about your thought processes.

That explains a lot.

Thanks!
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2014

"The amount of electricity used per capita has since remained pretty much the same with a slight increasing trend and no sign of going down."
- Eikka
--------------------------------------------------
"Energy consumption per home has steadily declined over the last three decades:"

- http://www.eia.go...dential/
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
I will admit Rockwood that I neglected to include the feelgood factor into my calculations. There is no way to put a price on that warm fuzzy feeling.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
Oh but look at all the trees we saved. Meanwhile we are cutting thousands of acres of timber that we ship to England for their Green CO2 neutral wood to electric power plants.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 18, 2014
mrnovember
4.3 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Green Pollyanna Dept::

I went into Staples the other day and recycled printer paper cost more than the regular stuff. Don't you think that if producing recycled paper actually saved energy or any meaningful resource that it would cost less than new paper? It does not so it must be a waste of energy to produce it.


I'm sorry, but you're implying that the only value of something is it's dollar value. So if it costs slightly more to recycle paper than to simply get new paper, then it's of no value. The value is not in the cost of the item, the value is in the opportunity cost of the trees we would use to generate more paper. Some people actually value things that don't have a dollar value attached to them. You should consider expanding your collection of metrics to include other things.
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
I will admit Rockwood that I neglected to include the feelgood factor into my calculations. There is no way to put a price on that warm fuzzy feeling.


No. What you neglected was to factor in the various marketing schemes, agreements and other factors that dictate retail prices.

A 250 mL can of Coca-Cola costs more than a 355 mL can at my local grocery store.
Does that mean it costs the company more to make less of the same product?

Obviously not. But there are other factors which set the retail price such as production volume, production capacity, location, demand etc.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2014
"No. What you neglected was to factor in the various marketing schemes, agreements and other factors that dictate retail prices."

Are you trying to tell me that an Eco-responsible company is trying to rip off the public? I cannot believe it.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (20) Nov 18, 2014
Hi MR166. :)
Are you trying to tell me that an Eco-responsible company is trying to rip off the public? I cannot believe it.
As a scrupulously objective observer on discussion, I am moved to comment that your arguments/logics/conclusions are looking somewhat based in bias and/or ignorance and/or mercenary/political prejudices on climate change issues.

Can you not understand that recycling paper is more labor intensive, and hence the marginal extra costs are for labor (which provides more jobs which are 'green' jobs that are more sustainable and environmentally beneficial/neutral?

As a friend in science and humanity, I ask you to please get off your one-eyed high-horse and actually think more deeply on ALL the factors so you can avoid posting such patently faulty 'arguments/opinions' like the above.

Also, 'green' energy is good economy/sense for more reasons other than climate dangers. The sooner we start the transition to alternatives the better/cheaper in the end. :)
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2014
"Can you not understand that recycling paper is more labor intensive, and hence the marginal extra costs are for labor (which provides more jobs which are 'green' jobs that are more sustainable and environmentally beneficial/neutral?"

More labor intensive most likely means that it is more CO2 intensive also. So how green can recycled paper be if it results in higher CO2 emissions.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (18) Nov 18, 2014
Hi MR166. :)
More labor intensive most likely means that it is more CO2 intensive also. So how green can recycled paper be if it results in higher CO2 emissions.
No. The costs/benefits are sustainable; unlike the stripping of land/environmental resources/benefits.

Consider: 'green' recycling of plastics, glass and metals and plant matter waste has saved us all from the rapidly diminishing resources and environmental damage/poisoning situation we faced decades ago. If not for recycled glass, metals and plastics, you would now be paying a LOT more for such because of scarcity of raw materials.

Look mate, just do yourself a favor and stop with your 'preprogrammed' biased reading/thinking in all this, and try to RETHINK it all from scratch, not missing all those OTHER factors which you seem to have missed in your present stance. Give it a rest with your prejudiced kneejerk responses/comments, and really think deeply and long before engaging on this topic again. Good luck!
Eikka
5 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
Eikka, if I show you proof, will you apologize?


I would if you did.

You claim that "Japan actually passed a law against saying negative reports about Fukushima.", while your sources confirm that no such laws have been passed. Instead, a generic law against revealing "state secrets" was, which might be used against whistleblowers on Fukushima IF any of the information was declared a state secret.

You misconstrued the situation to support your agenda.

You lied.
"The amount of electricity used per capita... increasing

""Energy consumption per home... decreasing"


Notice the different metric? Per capita vs. per home?

The difference is explained by the fact that Californians now live larger with fewer people per domicile which negates the gains in household energy efficiency.

How do I find out who rated me in the posts?

Click on your name on the left, then on "Recently commented" click on "all ""

Eikka
5 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
"Energy consumption per home has steadily declined over the last three decades:"


I can't even find where you took that quote, or what it applies to, from the site you are referring to. You need to do a bit better than that if you want to refer to some piece of information.
Eikka
5 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
From

http://www.eia.go...sumption

in 1980, the "West", "Pacific" energy consumption which corresponds to California, was 76.9 million Btu per year per household, so it seems that the main drop in energy use per household took place towards the end of the 80's and the consumption figures have remained more or less the same since.

Except for the rising population and number of households, which has resulted in rising energy demands and rising energy demand per capita.
Eikka
5 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
The editing system cut off the first paragraph after the link, which said that over the last 20 years, the household energy consumption in California has gone down from 65.2 to 62 million Btu per year, which is a decrease of only 4.9%

The second link for the source of the now remaining paragraph on 1980 data is:

http://www.eia.go...980.html
Eikka
5 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
No. The costs/benefits are sustainable; unlike the stripping of land/environmental resources/benefits.


That's very case sensitive.

Although it is true that recycled and "green" products cost more mostly because they have a psychological marketing advantage.

But, recycling is often only economically sustainable when the recycling is free to the company that accepts the waste. If the waste collection, separation, transport is paid by the municipalities, the true cost is hidden because the amount of energy people spend to recycle doesn't count towards what the company uses to re-use the materials collected for them.

If it truly made sense, i.e. if the recycling were less resource intensive than virgin material, the company could afford to pay you a return fee instead of demanding it returned for free, and that sorts out what really is sensible to recycle.

They pay you for copper and cans, but not for paper and plastics or glass.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2014
I went into Staples the other day and recycled printer paper cost more than the regular stuff. Don't you think that if producing recycled paper actually saved energy or any meaningful resource that it would cost less than new paper?

And I thought supply and demand had something to do with price in your neck of the woods. Wasn't aware you lived in a communist country where that argument would actually make sense. You kow: 'profit' and all that jazz has a tiiiiny bit to do with pricing.
Eikka
5 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2014
Most recycling isn't even recycling to begin with. For example, PET plastic bottles can only accept 10% of recycled materials to make because the plastic loses its properties the first time through the system. If more than 10% recycled material was used, the quality of the product would start to decline over time.

So 90% of the waste stream is necessarily just thrown away, or "downcycled" to secondary uses like plastic bags or road filling where better, more environmentally friendly alternatives could be use but aren't because of the availability of waste plastic that is literally cheaper than dirt.

Eikka
5 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2014
Wasn't aware you lived in a communist country where that argument would actually make sense. You kow: 'profit' and all that jazz has a tiiiiny bit to do with pricing.


Actually, "communism" has quite a lot to do with the oddities of recycled paper.

For example, the Germans mandate that paper imported to the country should be manufactured with a certain amount of recycled materials. Problem is, they buy a lot of paper from Finland, where there isn't enough domestic waste to put into the paper to fill the regulations, so in order to sell to Germany they have to buy paper waste from mainland Europe and truck and ship it over to mix it in the paper.

All this costs extra money and causes extra CO2 emissions as compared to the Germans simply burning their waste paper for heat and electricity. After all, it's technically bioenergy.

The reason is German protectionism of their own paper industry by making imports more expensive.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
I am not sure if this is still true but a while back some municipalities that had forced recycling laws and separate pickups had no market for the waste and wound up dumping everything in the same landfill anyway. NYC was one of these.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
The Green movement likes to think that everything that they support has a firm basis in science but in reality many of the true economic, environmental and energy costs are disregarded in order to make pet projects look feasible.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
" . . . many of the true economic, environmental and energy costs are disregarded in order to make pet projects look feasible."
----------------------------------------

Found a way, any way, to store those deadly and highly-radioactive nuclear wastes?

Thanks for bringing it up.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel , . . with a cannon.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
", . . . municipalities that had forced recycling laws and separate pickups had no market for the waste and wound up dumping everything in the same landfill anyway."

What a backwards area. We have the problem of thieves getting to it before the truck arrives. You folk need to clean up your operations and get with the program.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
"Found a way, any way, to store those deadly and highly-radioactive nuclear wastes?"

Yea, It was called Yucca Mountain. It was a great plan until the Green people blew a fuse. As a result each nuke plant is a repository and that IS a potential terrorist target.

Also, these so called "wastes" can be the source of power for generations with newer reactor technologies.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
"We have the problem of thieves getting to it before the truck arrives."

I agree pre-sorted metals are worth good money. I guarantee that they were not taking the glass, plastic and paper except possibly deposit containers.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
Show me. Nobody has a successful system. Stop relying on faith for your answers.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2014
@MR166 & Eikka
What both of you seem to be forgetting is that recycling is not only about recovering materials.
Part of the issue is where to put all the garbage, and with landfills filling up fast it made sense to reduce the volume going to the there.
Also, re trucking the waste: Either way the waste needs to be shipped somewhere. Either to a recycling facility, an incinerator or a landfill.
Does it generate more CO2 to recycle paper than produce new? I don't know but my guess is that its dependent on local factors such as proximity of the supply to the facilities and energy costs. But it would seem likely that the trees that were not cut down to make new paper could sequester the extra CO2 created while making recycled paper.
New paper costs more than recycled? There are tons of possible factors for why that is including the recycled paper was made locally and the new was made in a developing country with reduced labor costs and energy subsidies.
The possibilities are legion
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2014
"The possibilities are legion".
---------------------------------

Yes, but the objections are political.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
I find many products made from recycled materials to be of inferior quality. One time I purchased some "Green" fire logs made from recycled god knows what and they were virtually fireproof.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 19, 2014
"I find many products made from recycled materials to be of inferior quality."
------------------

Stop buying at WalMart. It is cheap Chinese crap.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Nov 19, 2014
This is cool: Every time I see a one rating, I know I have gotten to Uncle Ira!
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
While I am on a recycling rant I need to mention how hypocritical a Green Hollywood is. They routinely demolish 10 year old homes, send them to the landfills and put up new ones. They will then brag how they saved the earth by using recycled floor boards from some old 1700s barn. They then take their chauffeured Maybach to an event to protest plastic bags.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2014
"They then take their chauffeured Maybach to an event to protest plastic bags."
-------------------------------------

Yup.

All of us liberals do that.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
Gkam you can tell a lot about the validity of a movement by who their leaders and representatives are. Al Gore is a prime example of this.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
"Leaders"?

I got my opinion in 1980 when I finished my coursework for my Master of Science degree in this field. How did you get yours?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
"I got my opinion in 1980 when I finished my coursework for my Master of Science degree in this field. How did you get yours?"

I hope you did not pay too much for that degree chum. At least in the old Soviet Union brain washing was free.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2014
Pretty weak, but what I would expect from somebody with none.

What is your field? Have one?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
Gkam it is oblivious that you have been brain washed and not educated. Your hatred of Bush allied with your inability to find fault with the present administration and it's policies is living proof of that.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2014
So, your opinion is political, and not due to science after all.

Now, go look up the meaning of oblivious.
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
"Leaders"?

I got my opinion in 1980 when I finished my coursework for my Master of Science degree in this field. How did you get yours?


A degree in what field exactly? You keep calling yourself a Climatologist. You've also never stated your alumni or your name. What are you so scared of if you are who you say you are?

Also, a Master's is not based on coursework, and I have never heard anyone state that they got their MS because of their finals. It has nothing to do with coursework, and everything to do with writing. If you don't put out a thesis. you don't get a Master's.

Oh, LOL at you trying to steal my lines. It doesn't work if you're a tool that doesn't understand logic.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
How do I find out who rated me in the posts?
@gkam
go here: https://sciencex....m/?v=act
it will not give specifics (unless there is only one rater) but you can usually figure out who rated what based upon the content and the rater

hypocritical a Green Hollywood is
@mr
you answered your own question with the question
IMHO- hollywood is based upon greed and money, not "green" tech or anything else, sorry
many of the true economic, environmental and energy costs are disregarded in order to make pet projects look feasible
when you make a claim you should provide proof of claims
and your BS about printer paper is stupid, as though what you pay in wal-mart (say "New China town") are representative of the cost of unharvested tree's that beneficially supply your stupidity with O2 and more, etc?

get real... you talk about hidden costs on one point but ignore the hidden benefit on another?
this is AKA- pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
Every time I see a one rating, I know I have gotten to Uncle Ira!
@gkam
he is trying to make a point... back up your claims with evidence so that your argument is supplied by science and studies, etc... just link/reference it so it can be found (links are best)

and you will not get any rest now that Otto is latched onto your claims, either

Otto is not bad, he just wants proof (of course, he will argue that when he sees it as well)

it is simple: when you make a claim, back it up with links/proof
this is a failure of most pseudoscience posters here, like Mr above, and tegiri... when you don't support your claims, you get labeled
so when you make claims (like how you can have cold weather from global warming), give a link, like this: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

then ask for a refute with equivalent evidence
SCIENCE is about evidence and being able to support your argument
not making claims
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2014
Gkam you can tell a lot about the validity of a movement by who their leaders and representatives are. Al Gore is a prime example of this.
@mr166
well, considering that the movement to undermine climate science is lead by big oil, big money and koch brothers etc, then i suggest you choose differently
because that is exactly what you are "choosing" to believe in
their propaganda http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

also... the "leader" of people like me is Science and the scientists... i don't follow moron politicians who are known to be two faced and lie regularly... that is the only way to be a politician in today's federal gov't system

there is plenty of scientific evidence proving AGW and it's warming
what you dislike is the "fear mongers" and the negative possibilities
but the neg's DO exist and CAN be a reality if it is not addressed

so do something
or refute the science
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
Tell me how to send him/her a pdf. I tried to get direct access to the sources, but cannot. I can only send him the copy of what I was sent by the AF. He/she has tried to smear me to dodge the issues, and I want them to know I am real, to their great dismay.

If I give out my name, these malicious nasties will use it against me. I suggested Eikka open a temporary email account so I can send it, then he can close it. He/she is afraid to do so. How about you? Have an address I can send to?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
"@mr166
well, considering that the movement to undermine climate science is lead by big oil, big money and koch brothers etc............"

Capt I am glad that I have reduced your arguments to blaming funding from the above. In reality their funding of opposing opinions is miniscule in comparison the monies supplied to academia for "climate research" by the UN and world governments that want to impose a carbon tax based on the results.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
If I give out my name, these malicious nasties will use it against me. I suggested Eikka open a temporary email account so I can send it, then he can close it. He/she is afraid to do so. How about you? Have an address I can send to?


OBAMA-FAN-SOCKS-Skippy. You over played it Cher. You are on drugs again. 56 posts in 12 hours and 42 of them all about the wonderful expert things you done. That's how you blew the last time (truth be know the last 10 or so times),,,, you ALWAYS end up claiming to more than 8 or 7 peoples can do in 12 or 11 lifetimes.

OBAMA-SOCKS-Skippy, we KNOW it is you. Go away for a month or so, again. Start off slow with targeted posts to join a "team", again. And try not to do the drugs the drugs that make get carried away, again.

OBAMA-SOCKS-Skippy YOU know WE know.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
166,
One funds research, the other propaganda for Big Money-men.

Which has the most credibility? It ain't Big Oil.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
Yea, Right, Governments never fund Propaganda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2014
166 must not know the carbon tax scheme came from industry and Republicans trying to dodge the law about Best Compliance Technologies. Instead of the polluter cleaning up his own stink and toxics, he got to clean up a like amount somewhere else where it would be cheaper.
That was "emissions trading". Then, they monetized it into the Carbon Tax with emissions credits. Always looking for a dodge and a buck.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
Right,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Al Gore was a Republican!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2014
If I give out my name, these malicious nasties will use it against me
Yo schizo

You just claimed you posted this info.
If cjn goes to 1stwave online, he can see one of the sites for Batcats, those of us in the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, with my name and picture on it
Did you forget? Does not one of your schizoid personas talk to the others? Are they disgusted with him/her/you/it like the people here are?
https://www.youtu...AjKyHecs
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2014
Tell me how to send him/her a pdf. I tried to get direct access to the sources, but cannot. I can only send him the copy of what I was sent by the AF. He/she has tried to smear me to dodge the issues, and I want them to know I am real, to their great dismay.

If I give out my name, these malicious nasties will use it against me. I suggested Eikka open a temporary email account so I can send it, then he can close it. He/she is afraid to do so. How about you? Have an address I can send to?
your best bet is to set up a profile somewhere with a PM function, like Sapo's joint here: http://saposjoint.net/Forum
or (i am here: sciforums.com http://www.scifor....279155/ )
they both have PM and also you can keep some anonymity for yourself
you can link your own e-mail but keep it private as well

contact me at either place as Truck Captain Stumpy and i can provide more info if needed
OK?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2014
Capt I am glad that I have reduced your arguments to blaming funding from the abov
@mr166
are you illiterate?
YOU are the one making the suggestion and blaming the funding, moron

i believe in the SCIENCE
that is it...
tell you what... i have posted a LOT of links in the past to studies... where is any refute with equivalent evidence?

NONE?

that means:
1- you are a TROLL
2- you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE
3- you believe in a conspiracy

all supported by evidence in your own words in your own posts.. like this
Yea, Right, Governments never fund Propaganda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


feel free to refute it
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
Stumpy, . . meet you at Peet's in the AM on MD Blvd?

If that is your reel link, . . .
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
The Primm plant has a noticeable self-generated cloud near the collectors. I don't know what the impact is upon efficiency, but some light is being scattered and not collected by dust or disturbances exacerbated by the electromagnetic intensity

In any case people only learn from failure so education is never a waste. A prototype that operates at 50% is still light years beyond what fusion achieves, even with much greater funding. Also 5 cents/Kwh is extremely cheap as many places in the world are much higher at twenty or thirty cents
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2014
Stumpy, . . meet you at Peet's in the AM on MD Blvd?

If that is your reel link, . . .

@gkam

I have no idea what you mean... just go to one of the sites i linked above and set up a profile and send a private message (PM)

also - i will be traveling this AM
headed to different corner of the state for business
Eikka
5 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
Part of the issue is where to put all the garbage, and with landfills filling up fast it made sense to reduce the volume going to the there.


Yes, but there's more than one way to do that.

We don't need to pick our garbage for banana peels and plastics and separate them in bins and have different trucks carry them to different locations when the waste can be separated simply to regular and hazardous waste, and ground up and incinerated for energy.

There are waste disposal machines that sift through the pulverized waste to remove ferromagnetic metals, non-ferromagnetic metals, and the rest is sent through a floating bed incinerator that reduces it to ash.

If there's any other separation or sorting necessary, like cans and bottles, the companies that need the material can pay a return fee for them. Otherwise it's better to just chuck everything in a single bin and cut down on the dump truck racing.

Eikka
5 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2014
Also 5 cents/Kwh is extremely cheap as many places in the world are much higher at twenty or thirty cents


It's not, after you consider what it costs to deliver the electricity to consumers.

The customer end price is a sum of all the different sources and transmission costs of the energy you need to use to keep delivering the power on demand. If you got something like solar power or wind power which is random and unyieldy, you have to balance it out with more expensive means like batteries or gas turbines and diesel generators etc. which are more expensive, so the solar power in turn must be very very cheap to average it out.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
The customer end price is a sum of all the different sources of energy you need to use to keep delivering the power on demand

It's a bit more complicated,a s you have to figure in the taxes the consumer has to pay which go towards subsidies as well as the taxes that go towards mitigating effects of the power source used on the environment (as well as healt hrelated expenses should the power source be of the respiratory affecting/cancer rate increasing kind)

you have to balance it out with more expensive means like batteries or gas turbines and diesel generators

Sure. But if you run gas turbines 100 days of the year and get the rest from solar then you've already won 256 days less of pollution. And since the gas turbines aren't running 24/7 the powerplant's lifetime is extended - so the argument that you have double expenditure is also bogus. (And as soon as a storage solution is at hand those 100 days can be reduced to nil or just super-emergency backup.)
MR166
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
"Sure. But if you run gas turbines 100 days of the year and get the rest from solar then you've already won 256 days less of pollution. And since the gas turbines aren't running 24/7 the powerplant's lifetime is extended - so the argument that you have double expenditure is also bogus................"

Anti they still are running 24/7 as a backup in case the wind or solar stops generating. I suppose that in backup mode they don't burn as much nat gas but they are still running and the employees still have to be paid.

That is why some sort of power storage is so critical to the future of renewables.
Lord_jag
4.3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
And this is why renewable energy absolutely needs seasonal storage and stockpile of energy on the Terawatt-hour scale as well as short term storage for daily variations.


No... And for crying out loud get off this ridiculous storage kick.

You don't need storage, all you need far more production. If solar would get a fraction of the subsidies that are provided to non-renewable energy it would be so cheap that having 100x the production would be easy.

Imagine if a half of the 4 trillion dollars in one year spent on making sure the cheap Iraqi oil didn't stop flowing into the US went towards building solar panels - free to whoever would install them.

If there's always an abundance of supply that can be wasted without concern then storage is moot - just like your oil loving fearmongering.
Lord_jag
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
Lets see. Panels retail at $0.89/watt right now. 2 trillion dollars makes more than 2 trillion watts. And that's buying retail. At today's prices, without taking any mass production factors into account.

And... that money could be paid putting Americans to work in factories in their home towns. Instead of buying guns and bunkers they could be buying solar panel production equipment and factories. Instead of paying people to die, they could pay them the same wage to work at home and care for their families.... They could then pay income taxes. Buy groceries for their families, paying more taxes. Buy a car for their family, pay more taxes.

Or they could go to Iraq, get shot, die, ensure more terrorists are motivated to attack US targets to ensure we have one more year of stolen oil.

Your choice.
Lord_jag
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014

It's not, after you consider what it costs to deliver the electricity to consumers.

How about free? I like free. If tax dollars funded solar panels instead of wars over oil the energy would be free. Paid in full by the government.

gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
"Anti they still are running 24/7 as a backup in case the wind or solar stops generating. I suppose that in backup mode they don't burn as much nat gas but they are still running and the employees still have to be paid."
-----------------------------------------------------

The new batteries have proven better, faster, and cheaper in the long run than fossil fuels for load trimming.

Look into Nuclear plants, which have to be kept cooled even if there is no power being generated. The decay heat is tremendous, . . . MegaWatts.

When I was in Rancho Seco, it had been down for more than a year, and was still staffed and heavily guarded, but the cooling tower was running, so technology would not kill us.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2014
Jag, these folk come up with their paranoia-fueled ideas, not understanding these "limitations" are not secrets to those actually using the technologies successfully.

Every day we get Eikka showing us how it cannot work, . . . while it works here. His folk cannot make it work well, apparently. Perhaps he should hire us to help.

Meanwhile, he refuses to take the nuclear waste. If it is going to be so valuable as a fuel, perhaps 166 and the others want to capture the world market on the "Fuel of the Future"?
MR166
not rated yet Nov 20, 2014
Gcam you claim to be/have been in the power generating industry and know how hard it is to control the grid when generators go on and off line unexpectedly. How do you propose to deal with that if solar and wind provide say 50% of our power generating capacity and gas generators are off line. Lets face it economical battery storage could still be 10 or more years away.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
Any reversible process can be used for energy storage. Hydrogen can be split from water. Oil can be made from waste material. Water can be pumped uphill. When the US grid can be taken out by a single overhead nuke or sunstorm for two years, worrying about how to prevent blackouts at any price is very absurd. You should be more concerned about keeping a two year survival stock of provisions and weapons to thwart your starving neighbors. Not that most can worry about much more than next month's paycheck in bankrupt US
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2014
" Lets face it economical battery storage could still be 10 or more years away."
------------------------------------

I used to think so, too. I will find the new link for you I read a day or so ago. They have already been used.

Here is one:
http://energystor...erb5607.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2014
MR166, wind is easier to forecast than you realize. And all of that is factored into the calculations when it is employed, to much more detail than you realize. This is serious stuff with huge capital investments and consequences for our industrial strength, as well as the economy, and is taken as such. I try to tell folk about the professionals in these fields, and how everything is hashed out, engineered, defended, proven, before a dollar is spent.

Utilities are very conservative in their investments, by necessity and culture.
MR166
2 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
I suppose that one could have just enough battery backup to enable conventional generating capacity to ramp up. That would make for smaller batteries and extended life since they would never go into deep discharge. Even so Lith ion batteries are still quite expensive and only have a useful life of 10 years I think.
Lord_jag
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
No... There was a story on here recently about hybrid LION batteries. They do decay over 10 years, but they may have decayed to 50% or so. No good for the car, but still having plenty of capacity. So take hundreds of them out of the cars and put them all in a warehouse. Hundreds upon thousands of 10 year old batteries, more coming in all the time, powering a UPS of gigantic proportions.

No that they would be of any use if the renewable sector got even a tiny fraction of the money wasted on non-renewable energy.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
jag, in the early 1990's EPRI put a warehouse of batteries together for peaking and voltage correction, just regular lead/acid.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
Lord that could work if there is a big enough supply of old batteries and if the ultimate failure mode does not present a hazard. Right at this moment the number of electric and hybrid cars sold is not really great enough to supply old batteries for that market. Private homes perhaps but not power stations.
MR166
2 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
"jag, in the early 1990's EPRI put a warehouse of batteries together for peaking and voltage correction, just regular lead/acid."

Gkam how did that work out? Did it make economic sense. I used to work at a server farm where there was battery backup that kept the power on long enough for the diesel generators to kick in.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
If it had worked out, we would be seeing them. According to the guy who did it, it was not exorbitant, but they were waiting for better technology.

Do you go to 7 X 24Exchange conferences? I used to speak there every year.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2014
About ten years ago at the conference in Boston, I took along a fuel cell and the advice to convert some of their battery area, already hydrogen-approved, into a natural gas reformer and fuel cells. Or use a Molten Carbonate or Solid Oxide fuel cell which do their own reforming. The power company can be your backup.

The costs of multiple power conversions generated too much waste, which was all manifested in heat. The fuel cell produced the DC needed by the units directly.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
Furthermore, natural gas pipes in the ground have much better reliability than exposed elevated electrical circuits, making the self-generated power not only more efficient, but much more reliable.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
Gkam I can see that many of your ideas are based on reality. I just have a problem with government mandates and the crony capitalism that it supports. Yes governmental support of research is needed but government control is like a cancer it seeps into everything and corrupts it.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
Okay. Give Alternative Energy 10% of what has been given to oil and gas.

BTW, if you go to one of those conventions, they will know who I am. I haven't been there for about eight years.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
" Yes governmental support of research is needed but government control is like a cancer it seeps into everything and corrupts it."
----------------------------------------

No, it is those who come into government and corrupt it who do the damage.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
"No, it is those who come into government and corrupt it who do the damage."

Ah, I see! So the ideal government is one without people. HAL2000 here we come.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
It may be inevitable. But who will have the key to the back door?
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
I got voted down. Probably by one who does not know programmers put secret accesses, back doors, into their programs.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
Of course Gkam that also. First things first, who will be the "unbiased" scientists/programmers who will write the code and who will pay them???????????????
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
Paid? Aren't they immediately killed?
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
Sure. But if you run gas turbines 100 days of the year and get the rest from solar then you've already won 256 days less of pollution. And since the gas turbines aren't running 24/7 the powerplant's lifetime is extended - so the argument that you have double expenditure is also bogus.


Except you won't be getting 256 days worth of solar energy per year because the capacity factor of solar power prevents you from scaling up beyond what your demand is. The situation is rather the opposite: 100 days of sun and 256 days of gas turbines.

And the gas turbine lifespan would actually be extended if they were allowed to run 24/7 because ramping the turbines or boilers up and down causes thermal stresses, and the accelerations and decelerations from load following cause other wear. Steady state operation is the least damaging.

Besides, it's not the wear on the turbine that decides how long the plant runs, but everything else from land leases to financing and wages.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
Hmmm, Eikka, I think you missed the fact that we're nowhere near providing anything but a small offset to current base load with renewables; thus, there won't be lost power from them until they're several orders of magnitude more common than they are now.

I really think power storage is going to be enormously important for widespread adoption of renewables; 85% is just too low. We need a physical battery, not a chemical one, for efficiency, and current research is working on ultracapacitors that may well fit the bill.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2014
Every day we get Eikka showing us how it cannot work, . . .


It's not me. It's the facts and figures that show how it doesn't.

while it works here.


By "works", you mean "isn't causing too much trouble".

Batteries for frequency adjustment and power conditioning or quick load following are only competetive with the very highest price production which is responsible for less than 5-10% of the demand in the grid.

They're not displacing polluting cheap coal or cheap gas, they're displacing diesel generators and, ironically, hydroelectric dams.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
Hmmm, Eikka, I think you missed the fact that we're nowhere near providing anything but a small offset to current base load with renewables; thus, there won't be lost power from them until they're several orders of magnitude more common than they are now.


Well it gets a bit tedious to repeat the same point every time over and over.

Like gkam's California, where they haven't run into the integration limits yet. If you have 15% of your electricity from wind turbines, and good interties with neighboring states, you have no problems. The taxpayers have problems because you're wasting their money by exporting surplus wind power on the cheap and buying it back at a higher price, but technically it just "works".

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2014
It's my California too. :D

I'm willing to pay for these subsidies until it becomes common enough to offset some baseload; where I think it should stop will depend upon how well the market serves the power consumers/providers. I'm not looking to put PG&E out of business, but I'm also not looking to subsidize any more plants of theirs until we've got a pretty good buildout of renewables, and I'm looking to avoid subsidizing or even buying from coal plants permanently, and I'd far rather see nuclear than more gas plants. I seem, unfortunately, to be in a minority; but I have no hesitation in criticizing self-identified "environmentalists" who want to build more gas or even coal plants rather than nuclear plants. It's insane, if you care at all about carbon emissions.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
I'm willing to pay for these subsidies until it becomes common enough to offset some baseload;


Californian wind power is running at an average capacity factor of 0.241 and meets on average 5% of the electricity demand, which means it is producing a 20% magnitude swing in the average electricity output between times of high and low winds.

The daily variation in power demand is about 50% of the whole, and during low demand, this is already displacing baseload power for the part which cannot be exported. When the proportion of wind power in the electricity supply increases over 12.5%, it will displace baseload power even during peak demand, especially in conjunction with solar power, unless exported to neighboring states.

Which is to say, it will be simply exported to neighboring states because the utilities aren't run by idiots who can't count. They will sell it or even give it away for free and pocket the subsidies, just like what happens in Europe.

Eikka
4.5 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2014
In other words, having much more wind turbines than you have now isn't going to power more homes in California because you're already starting to run out of room on the grid.

Having more intermittent renewables increases the average production, but it also increases the amount of peak output, and since half of the energy output of wind power comes in at the peak hours, and nearly all of the energy output of solar power comes out at its peak hours, you have the obvious problem of low average, high peak, nowhere to put it.

And so a great deal of the energy is spilling out of the state, sold by the utility, paid by the taxpayer, forced by the politician who is in bed with the utility.

MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
All of the imagined savings (economic or environmental) of renewables will never be realized until some sort of storage or power to fuel conversion system is created. As Eikka has pointed out the market for intermittent power is very limited. In theory smart meters or perhaps smart receptacles could help. Perhaps things like non vital factory processes or home water heaters/appliances could be remotely controlled to draw power only when renewables are available. Still a financial incentive IE lower rates for renewables would have to be offered to make this a viable option.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
@Eikka The Eternal Pessimist
Yes, but there's more than one way to do that.

We don't need to pick our garbage for banana peels and plastics and separate them in bins and have different trucks carry them to different locations when the waste can be separated simply to regular and hazardous waste, and ground up and incinerated for energy. Otherwise it's better to just chuck everything in a single bin and cut down on the dump truck racing.


It's nice to see that your eternal pessimism and negativity is only matched by your laziness and wastefulness.

There is nothing logical about using wood fibers only once and then burning them simply because you are too lazy to recycle.

In a world that will be strained to provide resources for a growing population that is becoming more wealthy it only makes sense to reuse as much as possible.

There aren't enough forests in the world to supply to future demand of wood fiber especially if we waste it needlessly by burning it all.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2014
It's insane, if you care at all about carbon emissions.

If carbon emissions were the only (environmental) factor to evaluate when deciding on the merit of a power source then I'd agree. But it is not (at least not for densely populated regions of the planet).

Limiting CO2 emissions to a fraction of current levels is very important. Eliminating all CO2 emissions is probably not important. The planet can handle SOME man-made CO2 without going down the drain. So having CO2 producing powerplants as backup isn't catastrophic (and having gas powerplants that can be run on biogas is probably the best alternative)
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
Instead of trying to adapt the grid to intermittent power perhaps we should try to convert some manufacturing processes to draw more power when renewables are available.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
"There is nothing logical about using wood fibers only once and then burning them simply because you are too lazy to recycle."

If that is true then why are wood to power projects considered to be green?
kochevnik
not rated yet Nov 21, 2014
@Eikka Having more intermittent renewables increases the average production, but it also increases the amount of peak output, and since half of the energy output of wind power comes in at the peak hours, and nearly all of the energy output of solar power comes out at its peak hours, you have the obvious problem of low average, high peak, nowhere to put it.
No, you have peak demand matching peak supply. Not a case that the wolves are full, and the lambs are whole
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2014
All the theorizing is interesting and important. But then, you have to do it.

And it can be done. All of you seem to keep on thinking one or two technologies will be used, when all of them will be used as appropriate. We do not just plant a magic box somewhere and pump out juice.

Eikka screams about wind and geothermal, looking, looking, for weak spots in the plans. Sorry, those weak spots are nothing like trying to find ways to store high-level waste or millions of tons of toxic coal slurry.

I tried to give you folk real examples, but you turned them to character assassination.

gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2014
"If that is true then why are wood to power projects considered to be green?"
--------------------------------------

Because it is carbon-neutral. And burning biomass is not considered green by many environmentalists.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2014
Biomass should be returned to the soil to rebuild it, to add the tilth required for plants, to provide the substrates needed by the beneficial bacteria which do much of the work in fixing Nitrogen and other nutrients for plants.

Enzymatic Hydrolysis for energy is possible for excess.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2014
I see I got marked down by somebody with nothing to say. I'll bet he/she wanted to argue over enzymatic hydrolysis versus acidic or basic hydrolysis for cellulosic feedstocks.

Maybe not.
mooster75
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2014

It's not, after you consider what it costs to deliver the electricity to consumers.

How about free? I like free. If tax dollars funded solar panels instead of wars over oil the energy would be free. Paid in full by the government.


"paid for by the government" equals "free"? Okay...
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2014
I see I got marked down by somebody with nothing to say. I'll bet he/she wanted to argue over enzymatic hydrolysis versus acidic or basic hydrolysis for cellulosic feedstocks.

Maybe not.

I have to admit I take a perverse pleasure in downvoting some of the people here. There's spammers, cranks, and another category: snark throwers. You know, people like antigoracle who offer nothing but snark. You are dangerously close to joining that group.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
"There is nothing logical about using wood fibers only once and then burning them simply because you are too lazy to recycle."

If that is true then why are wood to power projects considered to be green?


I have never, and will never endorse such a scheme.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2014
"You are dangerously close to joining that group."
---------------------------------

Let's see you debate my assertions.

You can have your "perverse pleasures" later.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
Eikka, I'm not just talking about wind power set up by the power company. I'm talking about individuals putting solar panels on their properties, and getting paid (or having their bills offset, anyway) by the power company. I'm willing to get paid a little less, is what I'm saying; if they sell the power somewhere else, great! They've offset baseload in another state. That much less carbon. Plus, now my electricity costs less; when they have to buy, they've got money to do it with, that they made selling the extra power across the intertie.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2014
That is already happening, in the small utility co-ops in the Midwest. Years ago, I traveled around with the Exec VP of Toyota, looking for examples of stationary uses for their automotive fuel cell. Some of the co-ops already sold "power" with propane-supplied generators, which would be cheaper than running lines. They also were working on having their owner-customers integrate their own potential into the grid, so it is supported from the inside as well, allowing all to be integral parts of a system, each covering for the other.

Got cows? A seven thousand head dairy can provide all its own hot water power, and supply 1000 households as well.

The PV and wind interjections into the grid makes it the ultimate in both capitalism and socialism, where everybody owns it, all can participate and choose suppliers, or take and receive as needed.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
"Biomass should be returned to the soil to rebuild it, to add the tilth required for plants, to provide the substrates needed by the beneficial bacteria which do much of the work in fixing Nitrogen and other nutrients for plants."

Wow I gave you another 5 Gkam. You are really on a roll.

People seem to forget the farmers return as much biomass as possible to the soil to keep it fertile. Thus many of the proposed sources of cellulose for biofuels should not really be used for that purpose. As an allied question, can we really create millions of gallons of fuel from corn and not destroy the soil that it is growing on?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2014
Corn is not a sustainable crop very easily, needing too much water and Nitrogen. My ethanol system was based on barley by edict, while corn was the new choice in 1980. The food versus fuel controversy was already being debated at that time, and I was against it, unless it was better integrated into more interstices of our ecosystem.

We got corn ethanol from the Congressmen allied with Agribusiness. The new biomass will probably the use of algae for direct production of fuels.

My guess, and suggestion is "no".
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
As an allied question, can we really create millions of gallons of fuel from corn and not destroy the soil that it is growing on?
The biomass can be returned as fertilizer. Stalks are not readily available as fertilizer they require two years of decay in the soil, during which they LOCK IN nutrients and make them unavailable to crops. This is one reason why crops should be rotated
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2014
check out this cutie and imagine it with an integrated generator, running on locally-derived biofuels, powering LEDs and other important small loads in a microgrid. PV in the day, wind and generator or batteries at night.

http://phys.org/n...ype.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
It's insane, if you care at all about carbon emissions.

If carbon emissions were the only (environmental) factor to evaluate when deciding on the merit of a power source then I'd agree. But it is not (at least not for densely populated regions of the planet).
China and India building out coal-fired plants would be a catastrophe. That's my primary concern; they need huge baseload upgrades, and they're going to build power plants to supply them one way or another. Better they go with nukes, unless one of these fusion schemes turns out to work (and it better be pretty quick, which I think is unlikely).

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
Limiting CO2 emissions to a fraction of current levels is very important. Eliminating all CO2 emissions is probably not important. The planet can handle SOME man-made CO2 without going down the drain. So having CO2 producing powerplants as backup isn't catastrophic (and having gas powerplants that can be run on biogas is probably the best alternative)
At this point, I'm looking at a looming worldwide disaster; *anything* is better than making that worse. The methane is already bubbling up from the Arctic Ocean off Siberia and off the East Coast of the US; we have no idea whether it's being released elsewhere because we haven't looked.

I agree that a) some CO₂ emissions aren't catastrophic, and b) using fuel made from sources that got the carbon from the atmosphere limits the impact. But everything we can do, we must do, now that we've frittered away the couple of decades we had before the methane clathrates started melting.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
These deniers have cost us trillions of dollars that we'll have to spend to limit carbon emissions, and quite possibly made the draconian restrictions they've been whining about inevitable.

Good job, idiots. Next time don't try to vote that the tide not come in.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
"These deniers have cost us trillions of dollars that we'll have to spend to limit carbon emissions, and quite possibly made the draconian restrictions they've been whining about inevitable.

Good job, idiots. Next time don't try to vote that the tide not come in."

I get it Schneib if people were not so stupid and uneducated they would agree with you.

You could be the poster child for everything that is wrong with climate "so called" science.
mooster75
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2014
"You are dangerously close to joining that group."
---------------------------------

Let's see you debate my assertions.

You can have your "perverse pleasures" later.

I was trying to help, but never mind. Enjoy yourself, but quit whining about the downvotes.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2014
Sorry to miss the sarcasm. I would have replied: "EEEEK!!"

But now, I ignore the character assassins, and have stopped responding in kind, . . as much as possible.

We are in a wonderful time, one of great and fascinating change. Let's make intelligent decisions together, and stop fighting based on politics.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2014
"Let's make intelligent decisions together, and stop fighting based on politics."

Gkam therein lies the problem! The boundaries between science and politics have been blurred by government grants.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2014
Okay, let's talk about government support for oil and gas. Can alternatives get 10% of that?

Money does not fool science. Funds which produce the results have to stand on their own and work in society. The same government program which funded Solyndra also funded Tesla. And the program was under Bush. It is the way it works. This is not like no-bid contracts. If they do not work, they do not get funded. And things do not always work out the way we may assume.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2014
" The same government program which funded Solyndra also funded Tesla. And the program was under Bush."

WARNING EXTREME BS ALERT!!!!!!!!

The loan to Solyndra was never approved under Bush. Tesla is a pure Obama folly. Yeah, loaning money to a company that produces a $100K toy for the rich is going to save the world.

Climate science is bought and paid for by crony capitalism, the UN and government grants to universities. We all know how "non political" universities are.

Gkam you are too educated to be that ignorant.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2014
gkam
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2014
"WARNING EXTREME BS ALERT!!!!!!!!"
-----------------------------------------------

Could you please be a little more civil?

Thanks.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2014
BTW, Solyndra was a good investment by Bush at the time. What killed the company was the unforeseen act by the Chinese government to mass produce PV cheaper cells and become the world leader. It killed lots of other technologies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2014
Gkam you are too educated to be that ignorant.
Gkam is not educated much at all. He continues to claim to be an engineer even though he freely admitted that he has no degree and no licence.

Anybody can be a hobbyist. Anybody can lie about their education and experience. Some have tried here but they rarely get away with it.
gstark
4.3 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
It is disconcerting to find so much ignorant science bashing on a science news page.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2014
gstark, I think it is all from political prejudice.

The science has been politicized by those who cannot face it straight on.
PS3
not rated yet Nov 22, 2014
I wonder if they're using micro inverters so the whole system isn't affected by shading of clouds.
MR166
not rated yet Nov 22, 2014
Gcam I suggest that you CAREFULLY read the link about Solyndra that you supplied and then you are welcomed to blame the fiasco on Bush if that makes you happy.

http://money.cnn....olyndra/
MR166
not rated yet Nov 22, 2014
"Could you please be a little more civil?

Thanks."

Oh Right calling an outright lie BS is not civil!

How about this Gkam, I hope it makes you happy. Pshaw, I think you might have gotten you facts mixed up son.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2014
"I wonder if they're using micro inverters so the whole system isn't affected by shading of clouds."
----------------------------------
They do not have to. The total AC in Wattage out depends on the total DC wattage into the inverter. They will just pump in less current to the line when skies are cloudy, at the same voltage.
docroc67
5 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
I'm disappointed by the snideness and cynicism of some of the posts here; I expected better from the people who post at phys.org.
PS3
not rated yet Nov 22, 2014
"I wonder if they're using micro inverters so the whole system isn't affected by shading of clouds."
----------------------------------
They do not have to. The total AC in Wattage out depends on the total DC wattage into the inverter. They will just pump in less current to the line when skies are cloudy, at the same voltage.

What about this though?

" If a single panel operates at a different point, a string inverter can only see the overall change, and moves the MPPT point to match. This results in not just losses from the shadowed panel, but the other panels too. Shading of as little as 9% of the surface of an array can, in some circumstances, reduce system-wide power as much as 54%."
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
It is disconcerting to find so much ignorant science bashing on a science news page.
This is a fairly standard tactic by the climate cranks. They watch sites like this for news on their hot topic and try to crowdsource spam it to change lurkers' opinions, scare everyone, and force the site authors to stop writing about it. Rumor has it that some of them get paid to do so. It's not inconsistent with the tactics used to pretend cigarettes don't cause cancer, and also not inconsistent with the tactics used by conservative politicians to pretend that stimulus spending won't help in a recession or depression. Furthermore it's consistent with the tactics anti-evolutionists use; see the Texas schoolbook mess.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2014
I think it is rudeness and bad manners.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2014
I'm disappointed by the snideness and cynicism of some of the posts here; I expected better from the people who post at phys.org.
@docroc67
Unfortunately, many of these arguments as well as posters have been arguing these same points over and over ad nauseum, so it is difficult to be nice at times

especially when they refuse to see logic and accept the empirical evidence in the scientific studies linked for their perusal

What you are really seeing is the continued on-going struggle between a select few who love science trying to stem the tide of pseudoscience here on PO since the moderators have stepped aside (for the most part) and the report function is either ignored or not functioning properly

Here are good sites for spotting most crackpots:
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

the best defense is knowledge, though
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2014
Rumor has it that some of them get paid to do so.
@Da Schneib
there is no rumor about it
there is a highly organized well funded operation out there supported by big oil as well as big money/business which pays people to undermine climate science
this is not conjecture, but proven in a study

Here is a Study that shows the investigations into the way they hide their money to prevent backlash for their anti-science stance (which would negatively affect their green advert's as well as profit margins)
you can see the study here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

there is a good PO article on it here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2014
I'm disappointed by the snideness and cynicism of some of the posts here; I expected better from the people who post at phys.org.


I do as well. All I see are lashes being thrown, where people with reputations do not do the same in return.
verkle
Nov 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2014
Verkle, it is in the controlling software.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.