FWIW I didn't see a single Tesla, Rivian or other vehicle immediately identifiable as an EV on that colapsed parking structure. What I saw is a bunch of SUVs and a couple of vans.
FWIW I didn't see a single Tesla, Rivian or other vehicle immediately identifiable as an EV on that colapsed parking structure. What I saw is a bunch of SUVs and a couple of vans.
Opti said:In reply to frenchyd :
Thats a pretty terrible way to frame your description of wind and solar. Every power source is free except for maintenance, intitial cost and fuel.
Ah, solar, wind and hydro don't have any fuel cost.
Coal not only has fuel costs it has disposal costs. What do you do with the ash from coal fired plants?
Since nobody will share the cost of a rod of Nuclear power and how much electricity it can generate, I'm at a loss for those numbers.
I'm also too lazy to figure out how much natural gas costs per unit of electricity. But I'm reasonably certain fuel cost is significant.
The real issue that everyone cares about is cost.
I can buy solar panels pretty cheaply. With no further fuel cost I can make some electricity for the next 20 years. $10,000 would probably pay for the panels. Another $10,000 would put them on my roof. Those Tesla solar batteries seem affordable. If I'm not crazy about how many I need.
Wind generators are $75,000 by the time you get the tower up and the generator in place. But that will require about 15 years around here to break even and then you get 5 more years before the generator needs an overhaul. By the time you get the crane there and it overhauled you probably are north of $10,000 ( depending on how far the crane has to come).
Hydro is almost too rare for private use.
What does a 10KW coal/ wood diesel*. fired generator cost initially and what are their operating cost? ( how often rebuilt and $ )
* used 15+kw generators used to sell between $3-5000 before overhaul
I know natural gas is around $10,000 but fuel used?
frenchyd said:The real issue everyone cares about is cost.
Man. Over the years you have said some things... and that is certainly up there amongst those things.
In reply to frenchyd :
Yes frenchyd I was illustrating how dumb it is to say something is free except for this this and that. Everything is free when you take out the money you spend.
You know what else has disposal costs? solar and wind
You can make the argument it's cheaper, whatever. A 15 year payback on a 20 year life sounds like a garbage business plan, but trying to frame it as free is pretty dumb, and shows your bias
In reply to Opti :
I guess I have to spell things out for you. Disposal of ash from burning coal is a serious problem. It actually has caused deaths etc.
Disposal of sunshine and wind? Hmmmmm I guess I just don't understand. Could you explain to me how that's a problem?
Wind generators need periodic overhaul. Bearings, bushings etc. plus you can check the blades for damage or cracks. But it doesn't cost the original price to do the overhaul. Think of it like changing the oil in your car.
It depends on how far you are from a crane company that can pick up a generator off the tower what costs will be. If the crane company can line things up with other tasks in the area it's pretty cheap. Most of the ones I heard about were around $5000 every 20 years. So I always told customers to budget $10,000 that's chump change on a multimillion dollar wind generator.
Realize wind generators vary in size with the bigger ones having faster payback and the smaller ( cheaper ) ones taking as much as 15 years. A lot of the real little cheap ones have no payback. Typically used because it's cheaper to use those than run power lines.
Wind is carefully tracked in every area for a lot of reason. Weather, Airport/planes , farmers, fires, construction, etc. so there are careful records kept going way back long before you were born.
You use those to determine the economics of wind generators.
Solar panels actually generate power on cloudy days. But strong sunlight like in the Southwest they are real workhorses. They don't last as long as they do up here in Minnesota but wow do they generate some power!!! 20 years. For a set of panels is average. In San Diego they may only last 18 years but here they could go 25 years.
In general east of the MISSISSIPPI the wind isn't as strong and the sun doesn't shine as much as west of the Mississippi.
The Midwest prairie has some on the strongest regular winds on the planet.
So yes I'm biased. And I look at things long term. Hopefully I have 20 years left. So I'd rather pay my electric bill now than later after flatiron does it's damage.
I remember my dad complaining because the electric bill for the month was almost $5. That was the early 1960's. $2-300 is more typical now days. And in 20 years could easily be over $1000
frenchyd said:And I look at things long term. Hopefully I have 20 years left. So I'd rather pay my electric bill now than later after flatiron does it's damage.
Are you planning on moving then? You're a very vocal proponent of solar and wind usage, but your custom home doesn't currently have either one, and you claim that neither is possible for your current home. So what's the plan?
It's fine to promote green energy sources, and the benefits of EVs but many of your arguments seem to be overly optimistic or based on incomplete information. And they ring a little hollow when you aren't using any green energy or EVs yourself.
I didn't decide not to have the state install no out of pocket cost solar panels. They looked at my house and decided I don't meet their requirements due to trees and potential shade from a new house.
Enough solar panels, wind generators and any states potential power shortage is met.
The simple reason it doesn't happen in every state is greed. Owners of public utilities make money and use that money to influence state senators to keep the things the way they are.
Why? Why would they rather pay fuel costs than get free energy? Because they get a percentage of costs as their income. Lower costs and you reduce the money they get. This has nothing to do with political parties. They both do it!
How will the local utility pay for solar panels and wind generators? Every power plant has a replacement budget. Change the rules to let them use those funds and your electric bill is greatly reduced.
It's not pie in the sky. Simple math problem.
In reply to frenchyd :
You keep using the word free without considering the entire lifecycle cost of "green" energy sources.
Those wind turbine blades are giant composite structures made from.... petroleum products.
Their disposal uses a lot of land and diesel fuel from earth moving equipment.
If you consider the entire cost, nothing is free. Also it is arguable which forms of energy actually cost less and are more environmentally responsible.
Say whatever you like but the "free" talk isn't accurate and doesn't affect reality. It's exactly what I would expect to hear coming out of the TV or some politician or activist.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/amp/Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-piling-landfills.html
Nothing is free.
frenchyd said:I didn't decide not to have the state install no out of pocket cost solar panels. They looked at my house and decided I don't meet their requirements due to trees and potential shade from a new house.
Enough solar panels, wind generators and any states potential power shortage is met.
The simple reason it doesn't happen in every state is greed. Owners of public utilities make money and use that money to influence state senators to keep the things the way they are.
Why? Why would they rather pay fuel costs than get free energy? Because they get a percentage of costs as their income. Lower costs and you reduce the money they get. This has nothing to do with political parties. They both do it!
How will the local utility pay for solar panels and wind generators? Every power plant has a replacement budget. Change the rules to let them use those funds and your electric bill is greatly reduced.
It's not pie in the sky. Simple math problem.
Unfortunately, solar and wind are not great replacements for traditional power generation. Greed doesn't really enter into it. Some renewables just aren't dependable enough as a primary generation source.
Power companies have basically two types of load and several types of generation.
Base load is the load that is pretty much always present. Demand load is the load that hits the grid when everyone is cooking in the mornings and afternoons or everyone fires up their AC on a hot day. The power company has to make sure the grid can handle the load. They do that by spinning up their various generation stations or idling them as the load varies. If they don't keep enough capacity online the various generation stations can actually get out of phase with each other and get kicked offline. Rolling brownouts and blackouts tend to make people upset.
Some generating stations excel at base load. Typically nuclear stations are used to fill base load demands because they can't be turned on and off like a switch. It takes days to bring a reactor online and days to take it offline. They like to run them at a stable load and leave them there. For instance, the Oconee Nuclear plant in upstate SC uses its excess overnight generation capacity to pump water into a huge reservoir that is then drained through hydro generators to meet demand load throughout the day. Basically charging a hydroelectric battery. Unfortunately, the US does not have enough nuclear capacity to carry all of the base load so we have to use dirtier sources for generation.
Coal is frequently used for the base load as well. The USA has lots of coal and the stations are generally inexpensive to operate. Coal stations have the advantage of being able to come online fairly quickly. Hours instead of days.
Next up are gas turbine generators fired by various fuels. Cleaner than coal, but also not great. They do excel at demand load though. They can be brought online quickly and their output is easily variable.
From there we move to renewables.
Let's start with hydro. It's a great energy source. Renewable and clean. It's perfect to fill demand loads as it can be brought online almost instantly. It does have some issues. People don't like dams anymore. People don't like their lakes being drawn below a certain level. The power company has to balance the lake use, the negative aspects of the dams, and the power generation. In some areas, they work well, others not so much. This is why some lakes, like Powell, are so low. The west needs that generation capacity to meet loads but there isn't enough water flowing into the reservoir to keep up with the power demands, the lake use, the Colorado River demands, and general water use.
Solar is great from a renewable standpoint. It's power from the sun and the cost per watt is coming down pretty quickly. The problem is the earth is surrounded by these things called clouds that block the sun. It's not a steady supply of power and can vary minute by minute on a partly cloudy day. Cover 10% of a solar panel and you lose 75% of it's output. Your megawatt solar station might produce max power one minute and almost none the next. That's not a good thing from the power companies' standpoint. The general public gets pretty pissy when their lights or computer shuts off every time a cloud passes over the solar farm. So the power company has to have a standby generation capacity for every watt of solar power generated. Your 20 megawatts of solar is going to have to have 20 megawatts of traditional generation online anytime a cloud passes across the solar panels. It makes balancing the grid load almost impossible and the power companies frequently end up wasting power by dumping the excess load into the grid and burning it off as heat. This is less of an issue in a desert but anywhere it rains it's a problem. Wind power has similar problems.
If battery capacity gets cheap enough that we can safely store the excess energy then this problem is significantly reduced, but at the moment, it's a problem. Power companies are having to install solar because of government regulations while still keeping all of their traditional generation capacity available to pick up the slack when the clouds come out or the wind stops blowing. That cost then gets added to your electric bill.
While I applaud pushing the boundaries of what is possible, you need to keep in mind the realities of the world. Just like solar doesn't work for you, it doesn't work 100% for anyone.
In reply to Toyman! :
There is a 3rd type of load too: reactive load. It's produced by giant electric machines that are not using renewable energy. It is the load that keeps the grid stable. Without it, there is no grid. Large plants have to coordinate reactive load changes with grid operators.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
The parts are not free but the fuel is free.
Fuel is free.
Fuel is free.
I suppose that you could do the math and figure out how much it costs to extract oil from the ground, or coal, or natural gas etc. transport it to the consuming site. Figure out the investment cost of that plant over its lifetime divide by power generated. And disposal cost. Then deal with any waste by product.
Compare that with things like solar and wind. Both of those have valid numbers. I hear all sorts of ridiculous numbers like hundreds of millions of tons. Yet if you drive out in the country you will still see windmills installed 100 years ago still pumping water. Yes the owners took care of them.
Regarding the failure of items like blades? Well made blades last extremely long. There are wind farms that have been up for a couple of decades without a blade failure. Others where a couple of blades a year are the norm. Poorly made blades wind up in land fills or shredded.
There are two troubles with well made blades. First is cost. Second is mass. The higher mass is harder to get going in low wind conditions.
Lighter weight blades sell better because of cost. They also respond to lighter winds but fail when exposed to high wind. Perhaps blades should be rated like tires are? Fair enough. Let's get the the wind generators common enough so consumers have choices. That took a while to happen with tires. I'd expect something similar with blades.
Incidentally, vandalism happens to blades. Some individuals seem to have great fun shooting at wind generators. Some housings lately are now shaped to deflect bullets. Whereas out to sea they don't have those problems.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
True, but those loads are so large that solar doesn't even enter into the equation.
In reply to frenchyd :
Okay now that we've established only the energy source is free, there is cost associated with making electricity from that source, hence nothing is free. A lot of your conjecture about blades and lifespan is likely more variable and expensive than you admit. Also you can't make those blades without petroleum which you fail to acknowledge. Ever see the amount of oil burning in a windmill gearbox fire? There is a lot of petroleum at a wind farm. Ever see all the concrete needed? Ever take into account how much diesel fuel is needed to get all that concrete to the wind farm? Ever consider square miles of land use per kilowatt in your discussion? To replace the generation capacity of the plant I am at right now would take 225 square miles of wind farm. Sounds lovely right?
Your statement of "free" is only partly true. To me that makes it pretty dubious. I'm trying to be nice using dubious by the way.
Thinking about real problems in a vacuum without considering all aspects of an issue isn't a recipe for success. Green energy isn't green, and that's reality. Show me green energy that doesn't rely on petroleum at some point. Even old windmills benefited from steel gears and grease. Try making steel without coal.
In reply to frenchyd :
I swear you make this stuff up as you are typing it.
The lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 years. That's pretty much an industry standard. At that point, replacement is cheaper than repair.
The cost to produce fossil fuels is a known quantity. It ranges from about $20 per barrel for sweet crude out of the middle east to $90 per barrel for deep water drill rigs.
The cost per kwh for every type of fuel is also known. The DOE will gladly supply that to you on their website.
All of this is on Google. It takes seconds to look it up. Use it.
Toyman! said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
True, but those loads are so large that solar doesn't even enter into the equation.
Not yet. There is a tipping point that will impact grid stability. If serious people don't intervene we are gonna find out. And no one's ever restarted the grid from zero.
In reply to Toyman! :
That $20 per barrel in the Middle East is mostly puffery. The real cost depends on a lot of variables but a cost of $20 a barrel for them is on the high side quite often. Clean water is more valuable in the Middie East.
Toyman! said:frenchyd said:I didn't decide not to have the state install no out of pocket cost solar panels. They looked at my house and decided I don't meet their requirements due to trees and potential shade from a new house.
Enough solar panels, wind generators and any states potential power shortage is met.
The simple reason it doesn't happen in every state is greed. Owners of public utilities make money and use that money to influence state senators to keep the things the way they are.
Why? Why would they rather pay fuel costs than get free energy? Because they get a percentage of costs as their income. Lower costs and you reduce the money they get. This has nothing to do with political parties. They both do it!
How will the local utility pay for solar panels and wind generators? Every power plant has a replacement budget. Change the rules to let them use those funds and your electric bill is greatly reduced.
It's not pie in the sky. Simple math problem.
Unfortunately, solar and wind are not great replacements for traditional power generation. Greed doesn't really enter into it. Some renewables just aren't dependable enough as a primary generation source.
Power companies have basically two types of load and several types of generation.
Base load is the load that is pretty much always present. Demand load is the load that hits the grid when everyone is cooking in the mornings and afternoons or everyone fires up their AC on a hot day. The power company has to make sure the grid can handle the load. They do that by spinning up their various generation stations or idling them as the load varies. If they don't keep enough capacity online the various generation stations can actually get out of phase with each other and get kicked offline. Rolling brownouts and blackouts tend to make people upset.
Some generating stations excel at base load. Typically nuclear stations are used to fill base load demands because they can't be turned on and off like a switch. It takes days to bring a reactor online and days to take it offline. They like to run them at a stable load and leave them there. For instance, the Oconee Nuclear plant in upstate SC uses its excess overnight generation capacity to pump water into a huge reservoir that is then drained through hydro generators to meet demand load throughout the day. Basically charging a hydroelectric battery. Unfortunately, the US does not have enough nuclear capacity to carry all of the base load so we have to use dirtier sources for generation.
Coal is frequently used for the base load as well. The USA has lots of coal and the stations are generally inexpensive to operate. Coal stations have the advantage of being able to come online fairly quickly. Hours instead of days.
Next up are gas turbine generators fired by various fuels. Cleaner than coal, but also not great. They do excel at demand load though. They can be brought online quickly and their output is easily variable.
From there we move to renewables.
Let's start with hydro. It's a great energy source. Renewable and clean. It's perfect to fill demand loads as it can be brought online almost instantly. It does have some issues. People don't like dams anymore. People don't like their lakes being drawn below a certain level. The power company has to balance the lake use, the negative aspects of the dams, and the power generation. In some areas, they work well, others not so much. This is why the lakes Powell are so low. The west needs that generation capacity to meet loads but there isn't enough water flowing into the reservoir to keep up with the power demands, the lake use, the Colorado River demands, and general water use.
Solar is great from a renewable standpoint. It's power from the sun and the cost per watt is coming down pretty quickly. The problem is the earth is surrounded by these things called clouds that block the sun. It's not a steady supply of power and can vary minute by minute on a partly cloudy day. Cover 10% of a solar panel and you lose 75% of it's output. Your megawatt solar station might produce max power one minute and almost none the next. That's not a good thing from the power companies' standpoint. The general public gets pretty pissy when their lights or computer shuts off every time a cloud passes over the solar farm. So the power company has to have a standby generation capacity for every watt of solar power generated. Your 20 megawatts of solar is going to have to have 20 megawatts of traditional generation online anytime a cloud passes across the solar panels. It makes balancing the grid load almost impossible and the power companies frequently end up wasting power by dumping the excess load into the grid and burning it off as heat. This is less of an issue in a desert but anywhere it rains it's a problem. Wind power has similar problems.
If battery capacity gets cheap enough that we can safely store the excess energy then this problem is significantly reduced, but at the moment, it's a problem. Power companies are having to install solar because of government regulations while still keeping all of their traditional generation capacity available to pick up the slack when the clouds come out or the wind stops blowing. That cost then gets added to your electric bill.
While I applaud pushing the boundaries of what is possible, you need to keep in mind the realities of the world. Just like solar doesn't work for you, it doesn't work 100% for anyone.
I gave you a thumbs up because I agree with your basic premise.
In a perfect world we will need both renewable and an alternative.
For now.
If every house/ building/ business school etc. in a utilities service area had solar panels, plus a wind farm. We would still need something like a nuclear plant or a gas fired plant. Sorry coal is too expensive and doesn't respond well to on and off operation.
Nuclear is clean and fear turned us against it. Education deals with unfounded fear.
Natural gas is an excellent standby energy source until we come up with something else. It's not going to be batteries.
One minor adjustment to your statement about solar. Clouds don't shut off power generation. They reduce it. And clouds tend to move around.
Again solar panels on every house/building etc would generate enough power to probably meet a percentage of a home/ business/ etc needs with wind? Supplementing it?
I've been in a few Nuclear generating stations. Basically they raise and lower the nuclear rods according to the load. Isn't that what they do at other power generating plants?
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Toyman! said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
True, but those loads are so large that solar doesn't even enter into the equation.
And no one's ever restarted the grid from zero.
I can't even imagine. I'm betting weeks to get everything fired back up and tied back together. Maybe longer without the stabilizing effects of the base load.
frenchyd said:Toyman! said:frenchyd said:
Unfortunately, solar and wind are not great replacements for traditional power generation. Greed doesn't really enter into it. Some renewables just aren't dependable enough as a primary generation source.
Power companies have basically two types of load and several types of generation.
Base load is the load that is pretty much always present. Demand load is the load that hits the grid when everyone is cooking in the mornings and afternoons
I've been in a few Nuclear generating stations. Basically they raise and lower the nuclear rods according to the load. Isn't that what they do at other power generating plants?
No that is not how nuclear power plants are operated. They aren't operated that way anywhere. They reach rated power and stay there as long as possible, hopefully until the next refueling.
Toyman! said:In reply to frenchyd :
I swear you make this stuff up as you are typing it.
The lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 years. That's pretty much an industry standard. At that point, replacement is cheaper than repair.
The cost to produce fossil fuels is a known quantity. It ranges from about $20 per barrel for sweet crude out of the middle east to $90 per barrel for deep water drill rigs.
The cost per kwh for every type of fuel is also known. The DOE will gladly supply that to you on their website.
All of this is on Google. It takes seconds to look it up. Use it.
Wow!! Too bad you haven't done your research.
Big wind generators aren't dug up and thrown away every 20 years. The tons of re-enforced concrete and tower remain.
What happens is a crane goes out and pulls the generator off the towers. It sets it low enough to pull the blades off then it's set on a stand to be overhauled. Bearings bushings etc. . The wires are load tested etc. blades are examined and if passed reused.
Occasionally, additional work is required such as a rewiring and only then does it go in for overhaul. If work is done on a wind farm they have back up generators to put in place since the cranes used are expensive and cannot be used if the wind is too high.
The cheapest wind generators we sold were $85,000 and took 15 years to pay back but the 1 million 100,000 dollar ones paid back in a few years.
The big wind farm ones were even more expensive but we didn't sell those.
It's less than 20 years for wind turbines. They become extremely inefficient quickly.
If wind and solar were THE solution, the amount of work being done on both fission and fusion research would not be available.
Yet both are getting massive investments.
frenchyd said:Toyman! said:In reply to frenchyd :
I swear you make this stuff up as you are typing it.
The lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 years. That's pretty much an industry standard. At that point, replacement is cheaper than repair.
The cost to produce fossil fuels is a known quantity. It ranges from about $20 per barrel for sweet crude out of the middle east to $90 per barrel for deep water drill rigs.
The cost per kwh for every type of fuel is also known. The DOE will gladly supply that to you on their website.
All of this is on Google. It takes seconds to look it up. Use it.
Wow!! Too bad you haven't done your research.
Big wind generators aren't dug up and thrown away every 20 years. The tons of re-enforced concrete and tower remain.
What happens is a crane goes out and pulls the generator off the towers. It sets it low enough to pull the blades off then it's set on a stand to be overhauled. Bearings bushings etc. . The wires are load tested etc. blades are examined and if passed reused.
Occasionally, additional work is required such as a rewiring and only then does it go in for overhaul. If work is done on a wind farm they have back up generators to put in place since the cranes used are expensive and cannot be used if the wind is too high.
The cheapest wind generators we sold were $85,000 and took 15 years to pay back but the 1 million 100,000 dollar ones paid back in a few years.
The big wind farm ones were even more expensive but we didn't sell those.
Here, let me Google that for you.
In reply to racerfink :
Makes sense. I'm not sure I'd be any better in the North Sea after 20 years.
I wonder what the solution will be? Jet engines are subject to far worse impacts. Is there any lesson to be learned there?
Toyman! said:frenchyd said:Toyman! said:In reply to frenchyd :
I swear you make this stuff up as you are typing it.
The lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 years. That's pretty much an industry standard. At that point, replacement is cheaper than repair.
The cost to produce fossil fuels is a known quantity. It ranges from about $20 per barrel for sweet crude out of the middle east to $90 per barrel for deep water drill rigs.
The cost per kwh for every type of fuel is also known. The DOE will gladly supply that to you on their website.
All of this is on Google. It takes seconds to look it up. Use it.
Wow!! Too bad you haven't done your research.
Big wind generators aren't dug up and thrown away every 20 years. The tons of re-enforced concrete and tower remain.
What happens is a crane goes out and pulls the generator off the towers. It sets it low enough to pull the blades off then it's set on a stand to be overhauled. Bearings bushings etc. . The wires are load tested etc. blades are examined and if passed reused.
Occasionally, additional work is required such as a rewiring and only then does it go in for overhaul. If work is done on a wind farm they have back up generators to put in place since the cranes used are expensive and cannot be used if the wind is too high.
The cheapest wind generators we sold were $85,000 and took 15 years to pay back but the 1 million 100,000 dollar ones paid back in a few years.
The big wind farm ones were even more expensive but we didn't sell those.
Here, let me Google that for you.
They said it. The average wind generator is 7 years old. Forecasting the life of the turbine and blades at 20 years that's an awful lot of electricity to generate. 40,000 homes? $200 a month times 12 That's 96 million dollars a year! Times the 20 year life?
$1, 920, 000,000 plus the towers should be still good if they were properly engineered
But Thank you, I've never been inside the big wind farm generators. The ones we sold didn't have dynamic braking. The blades when fully feathered basically stalled and didn't rotate with winds above 65mph. We also didn't have gearboxes. Which would have transmission losses. I've seen power generation below 5 mph
Drive around and you'll see them at hog farms, or any farm that needed to heat livestock. They had a 7 year payback on average. Those started out at around $145,000, and went to over $250,000 if 3 phase 440 was required.
A few "greens" used the cheaper ones for personal use. But because they were smaller, lacked rare earth magnets,and used lattice towers they required 7-9 mph wind to generate. And took 15 years to reach payback.
The really big ones were typically used at big truck stops. Places with massive electrical demand. Wind conditions determined payback but in the right location it could payback in a few years.
Since the biggest expense is the tower even if you have to throw the blades and head away you are still ahead.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
