DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 08, 2010, 08:18:12 PM
-
http://www.ecnmag.com/News/2010/05/Google-invests-in-ND-wind-farms/ (http://www.ecnmag.com/News/2010/05/Google-invests-in-ND-wind-farms/)
-
They are too expensive, loud and break down a lot. About 2 hours away I drive past miles of them on the way to Palm Springs. About 1/3 never work for various reasons. They kill birds and are ugly. They make a lot of noise and take up large amount of space.
A small nuke plant would be much better but of course we have to be PC and be foolish at the same time. What morons liberals are. Everything they touch turns to shit.
-
I am simply shocked at Google buying something tangable.
-
I am simply shocked at Google buying something tangable.
I think it's called a tax write off
-
We have lots of wind farms up here. They make no noise, don't kill birds (unless it's a REALLY SLOW bird), and if maintained properly generate electricity 24/7 for months.
-
Vermont
A Manchester company says it will revive the proposal to build a wind farm centered on Grandpa's Knob.
"We think it's a great site and the fundamental elements exist," Steve Eisenberg, managing director of Reunion Power, said Friday.
Eisenberg said his company, which also has an office in New Jersey, closed a deal with previous developer Noble Environmental Power around Christmastime. He said the terms of the deal were confidential, but the result is that his company plans to take the project forward.
"We are the developer and sole owner," he said. "It's our very definite plan to have a very long-term investment. That's what we do, we develop and we manage. … We have the reins."
Grandpa’s Knob wind farm has new owner; Reunion Power buys out troubled Noble’s stake
[url=http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/01/09/grandpas-knob-wind-farm-has-new-owner-reunion-power-buys-out-troubled-nobles-stake/]http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/01/09/grandpas-knob-wind-farm-has-new-owner-reunion-power-buys-out-troubled-nobles-stake/ (http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100109/NEWS04/1090360/1003/NEWS02)
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100109/NEWS04/1090360/1003/NEWS02 (http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100109/NEWS04/1090360/1003/NEWS02)[/url]
http://www.revermont.org/grandpa_knob.pdf (http://www.revermont.org/grandpa_knob.pdf)
(http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/newengland/grandpas_knob.jpg)http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_history_grandpa.asp (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/ne_history_grandpa.asp)
-
Yes they do kill birds
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm)
Yes they do make noise
Wind Turbine Noise Levels-106dbs-Yes, they do make noise. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6Q59FnkrY8#)
-
"Virtually everything with moving parts will make some sound, and wind turbines are no exception. Well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low. Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 metres away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 metres away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze. This is similar to the sound level inside a typical living room with a gas fire switched on, or the reading room of a library or in an unoccupied, quiet, air-conditioned office."
http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html (http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html)
"The report found that over the study period, 25 bird carcasses were found at the sites. The report states that "the resulting mortality rate of 1.29 birds/tower/year is close to the nationwide estimate of 2.19 birds/tower. The report further states, "While bird collisions do occur (with commercial wind turbines) the impacts on global populations appear to be relatively minor, especially in comparison with other human-related causes of mortality such as communications towers, collisions with buildings, and vehicles collisions. This is especially true for small scale facilities like the MG&E and WPS wind farms in Kewaunee County."
"The report goes on to say, "previous studies suggest that the frequency of avian collisions with wind turbines is low, and the impact of wind power on bird populations today is negligible. Our study provides little evidence to refute this claim."
"So, while wind farms are responsible for the deaths of some birds, when put into the perspective of other causes of avian mortality, the impact is quite low. In other words, bird mortality at wind farms, compared to other human-related causes of bird mortality, is biologically and statistically insignificant. There is no evidence that birds are routinely being battered out of the air by rotating wind turbine blades as postulated by some in the popular press."
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html (http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html)
-
Nuke power is the way to go not wind power. Those wind systems just aren't as good as some people think. They break down a lot and are costly to maintain. They take up a lot of land too. They are ugly too.
http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/neg_impacts.htm (http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/neg_impacts.htm)
-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788)
Wind vs. Nuclear Power: Which Is Safer?
Written by Ed Hiserodt
Monday, 16 February 2009 09:44
Nuclear power is portrayed by the major media and by environmental activists as dangerous and perhaps even sinister. Wind power, on the other hand, is considered benign. But the track records of nuclear power and wind power present a different picture.
Nuclear power has been been used to produce electricity for more than four decades, beginning with the Shippingport nuclear power plant in 1957. Today there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States generating some 60 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. There have been no deaths from radiation in more than 40 years of American nuclear plant operations. Even considering the "catastrophe" at Three Mile Island, there has not been a single case of injury to any member of the public. (There were fatalities at the Russian Chernobyl plant, but that plant was radically different from an American nuclear power plant. It did not even have a containment structured around the nuclear reactor.)
How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry? Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind-turbine-generated problems. Their "Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008" reports 41 worker fatalities. Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.
A summary of accidents includes:
• 139 incidents of blade failure. Failed blades have been known to travel over a quarter mile, and that is from turbines much smaller than those being manufactured today. This type of accident has caused some European countries to require a minimum distance of about one mile (2 km) between occupied housing and wind turbines.
•110 incidents of fire. When a wind turbine fire occurs, the local fire departments (without 30-story ladder trucks) can do little but watch. This isn't a problem unless the wind is blowing sufficiently to scatter the debris into dry fields or woodlands — or maybe onto your roof.
• 60 incidents of structural failure. This includes turbine failure and tower collapse failures. While not now a problem for the public — except having to gaze upon at a bent-over wind turbine — it may well become one as governments, under pressure from environmental activists, encourage marginal- and hastily-sited wind projects in urban areas where such an accident could kill and maim.
• 24 incidents of "ice throw" with human injury. These data may be a small fraction of actual incidences, with 880 icing events reported in a 13-year period for Germany alone.
Why these fatalities for wind compared to none for the American nuclear power industry? Nuclear energy comes from a reactor core about the size of a living room where it can be monitored and contained in-depth. It would take 2,000 30-story tall wind turbines to produce the power of a typical nuclear plant, assuming 90 percent and 30 percent capacity factors. How many accidents would you expect when building 2,000 30-story turbine generators as compared to pouring concrete for a single containment building of a few thousand square feet?
But the deaths and injuries resulting from wind turbine construction and operation will be dwarfed by the carnage certain to occur in California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's "million solar roofs plant" actually comes to fruition? Falls, currently the second largest cause of accidental deaths after auto accidents and five times the rate from fires, will no doubt take a sizable jump as tens of thousands of amateur installers take to the roofs. And remember, solar voltaic cells must be cleaned regularly else they rapidly lose their already poor efficiencies.
Environmental accidents would have more credibility if they presented the full story on "non- renewables" such as wind and solar power. Of course, if they did, and if they at the same time claimed that we must go wind as opposed to nuclear, theyíd be laughed out of town.
March 6, 2009 Addendum: The original intent of this article was to point out the existence of a group, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum,that kept track of accidents and deaths related to construction and operation of wind turbines. I was amazed that such a group existed and was so knowledgeable about the subject. But being unabashedly pro-nuclear, I couldnít resist pointing out the excellent safety record in the nuclear power generation industry.
I had given it the sarcastic working title of "That Safe Renewable Energy." Now that I look at it, however, the article indeed looks like a comparison of the safety records. As pointed out by comments below, however, it is not a fair comparison since the wind data was worldwide and the nuclear power stats were from the United States alone. As noted by one commentator, it does a disservice to the nuclear power industry as it appears to be spinning data in favor of nuclear power when such spinning is unnecessary.
Then too, as mentioned out by another commentator, the accident and death rates should be put in terms of relative amounts of power generated — a good research topic for another day. My apologies for not taking all of this into consideration, especially since my raison d'etre is bringing the truth about energy matters to the readers of The New American.
-
I work with a alt. power attorney and the data he showed me is bird kills is actually a design flaw on the windmill and has been corrected.
on the topic of nukes the real question that should be asked is it cost effective? remember it uses extremely expensive materials for fuel.
honestly on topic of power generally speaking.
I think were all screwed, nobodies is talking cost.
this means electricty is gonna be costly without effort to minimize.
-
So, Kramer, why do you only talk about systems that were designed more than 20 years ago instead of modern wind generators?
Modern wind generators are majestic looking, kill hardly any birds (certainly fewer birds than buildings do), make virtually no noise, and generate a large amount of power with no fuel. And there is no radioactive waste.
Wisconsin Windmills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD_-WmcEqys&feature=related#)
-
If we built windmills a lot they could generate a major part of our energy needs , but what would we do with all of the spent wind fuel?
-
So, Kramer, why do you only talk about systems that were designed more than 20 years ago instead of modern wind generators?
Modern wind generators are majestic looking, kill hardly any birds (certainly fewer birds than buildings do), make virtually no noise, and generate a large amount of power with no fuel. And there is no radioactive waste.
Wisconsin Windmills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD_-WmcEqys&feature=related#)
Then why does GB have a moratorium on Windmills and aren't building more. GB is the pioneer of them (more or less) and they finally see they aren't efficient and the negatives out way the positives to having them over say Nuke Power. Wind Mills are not cost effective, take up large portions of land, and all the other reasons stated. You need to get off your windmill fantasy and wake up to Nuke Power. Nuke Power is cheap, safe, takes up little space, and has less enviro impact then wind generated electricity. Sorry bub but you are pissing up a rope in your naive dream about a wind powered America. It's just a silly notion. Personally I'd rather see a large part of the country with solar panels on their roofs. But overall Nuke Power is the way and has been since about 1957.
-
on this subject I think we`re still thinking singular sources of power.
nuclear,wind, bio-whatever shouldn`t be competing.
it`s this kind of thinking that will get us tri-state black-outs again.
we need many types of power sources .
note -nobody is addressing cost here- energy star is not gonna solve this.
-
on this subject I think we`re still thinking singular sources of power.
nuclear,wind, bio-whatever shouldn`t be competing.
it`s this kind of thinking that will get us tri-state black-outs again.
we need many types of power sources .
note -nobody is addressing cost here- energy star is not gonna solve this.
if you are concerned about cost nuke is the cheapest and cleanest - clean is a cost savings too.
-
Nuclear would be cheapest if they could safely dispose of waste. Perhaps under and around Kramer's house.
It is not a question of either/or. We should be using wind, solar, geothermal and tidal plants as well as nuclear plants after the French model, which are safest. Each has its advantages as well as disadvantages. I agree that wind farms are rather attractive and not a major disturbance to anyone. I have not counted bird carcasses. I like to think that windmills just kill the dumbest of birds, and that over the years, birds will grow smarter as evolution does its thing.
-
Sorry bub but you are pissing up a rope in your naive dream about a wind powered America.
Sorry, bub, but YOU'RE pissing up a rope if you think I have a fantasy about wind power providing all power in this country. I'm also a advocate of geothermal, tidal, nuclear, etc. We need to have multiple sources until we can convert to a primary hydrogen economy.
As far as GB is concerned:
"As of January 2010, the installed capacity of wind power in the United Kingdom was over 4 gigawatts (GW). Wind power is the second largest source of renewable energy in the UK after biomass. Over 1 GW of new wind power capacity was bought online during 2009, 800 MW onshore and 285 MW offshore. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) estimates that installed capacity will pass the 5 and 6 GW marks during 2010. The milestone of 1 gigawatt of installed offshore capacity was reached in April 2010, with the opening of the Gunfleet Sands and Robin Rigg wind farms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom)
You really need to stop getting your information from old sources.
-
Hydrogen does not occur in elemental state: it requires electricity to create it, so wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear and other sources will be required to have a hydrogen economy. Also, better rechargeable batteries are essential, or at least preferable as a way of storing energy.
-
Some 20,000 solar electricity systems yielding an output of about 145 Megawatts (MW) were installed in 2003, almost twice the volume installed in the previous year. With these additions, the total solar electricity capacity in Germany is now estimated at over 400 Megawatts.
Germany saw slow growth in 2006, but still remains by far the largest PV market in the world. 968 Megawatts of PV were installed in Germany in 2006.
The German solar market generated total revenues of over 800 million euros in 2003.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm (http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France)
Nuclear power is the primary source of electricity in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.[1].
France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.
-
the British Government has also committed to cutting CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010, 60% by 2050, and 80% by 2100, compared to 1990 levels.....
............The achievement of the first of these targets should have been made considerably easier due to an inadvertent reduction in CO2 emissions caused by the (cost driven) displacement of coal by natural gas in electricity generation. Compared to coal, gas produces around 30% less CO2 when burnt, since natural gas contains a larger percentage of hydrogen than coal does. Filling the electricity generation gap (see below) while cutting emission levels presents a significant challenge. CO2 emissions from electricity generation have already risen 15%[3] since 1997, though were still 15.9% lower than 1990 levels.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom)
-
Hydrogen does not occur in elemental state: it requires electricity to create it, so wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear and other sources will be required to have a hydrogen economy. Also, better rechargeable batteries are essential, or at least preferable as a way of storing energy.
Duh. We have a carbon economy but do not rely on the elemental state of that element, either. There are other useful hydrogen compounds outside of H2.
-
http://www.mbendi.com/indy/powr/af/sa/p0005.htm (http://www.mbendi.com/indy/powr/af/sa/p0005.htm)
electricity supply industries of Southern Africa are dominated by the State owned utility of South Africa, ESKOM. ESKOM generates around two thirds of the electricity produced in the whole of Africa and is extending its transmission grid north into neighbouring sub-Saharan countries. Eskom provides about 95% of South Africa's electrical power and more than 60% of Africa's. It has been forecasted that by 2008 the country's electricity demand is expected to exceed supply capacity, and South African power exports have already been restricted.
ESKOM, with a generating capacity of 35 200 MW from 20 power stations, is one of the largest utilities in the world, and generates approximately 98% of South Africa's electricity. Generation is primarily coal-fired, but also includes a nuclear power station at Koeberg, two gas turbine facilities, two conventional hydroelectric plants, and two hydroelectric pumped-storage stations. The company also owns and operates the national transmission system.
-
India is world's 6th largest energy consumer, accounting for 3.4% of global energy consumption. Due to India's economic rise, the demand for energy has grown at an average of 3.6% per annum over the past 30 years.[1] In March 2009, the installed power generation capacity of India stood at 147,000 MW[2] while the per capita power consumption stood at 612 kWH.[3] The country's annual power production increased from about 190 billion kWH in 1986 to more than 680 billion kWH in 2006.[4] The Indian government has set an ambitious target to add approximately 78,000 MW of installed generation capacity by 2012.[5] The total demand for electricity in India is expected to cross 950,000 MW by 2030.[6]
About 75% of the electricity consumed in India is generated by thermal power plants, 21% by hydroelectric power plants and 4% by nuclear power plants.[7] More than 50% of India's commercial energy demand is met through the country's vast coal reserves.[1] The country has also invested heavily in recent years on renewable sources of energy such as wind energy.[8] As of 2008, India's installed wind power generation capacity stood at 9,655 MW.[9] Additionally, India has committed massive amount of funds for the construction of various nuclear reactors which would generate at least 30,000 MW.[10] In July 2009, India unveiled a $19 billion plan to produce 20,000 MW of solar power by 2020.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India)
Electricity losses in India during transmission and distribution are extremely high and vary between 30 to 45%.[12] In 2004-05, electricity demand outstripped supply by 7-11%.[13] Due to shortage of electricity, power cuts are common throughout India and this has adversely effected the country's economic growth.[14][15] Theft of electricity, common in most parts of urban India, amounts to 1.5% of India's GDP.[16][17] Despite an ambitious rural electrification program,[18] some 400 million Indians lose electricity access during blackouts.[19] While 80 percent of Indian villages have at least an electricity line, just 44 percent of rural households have access to electricity.[17] According to a sample of 97,882 households in 2002, electricity was the main source of lighting for 53% of rural households compared to 36% in 1993.[20] Multi Commodity Exchange has sought permission to offer electricity future markets.[21]
-
China uses its vast coal resources chiefly to produce cheap electricity, and this production more than tripled between 1990 and 2004; 78% of electricity generated in China in 2004 came from coal-fired power plants, compared with 17% in Canada.(3)
Future Prospects
A recent study published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) shows that annual per capita electricity consumption in China, at around 1,700 kilowatt-hours (kWh), remains relatively low: the rate of consumption in rich industrialized nations is on average five times greater.(4) It is therefore reasonable to expect that electricity consumption will increase in China as the country grows wealthier and its middle class expands.
According to the reference scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA), China’s electricity production will more than double in the next 10 years and coal-fired power plants will continue to dominate the market (Figure 1).(5)
............................
The predominant use of coal in China is easy to explain. First, the abundance of coal supplies guarantees a reliable source of energy: China has the third largest coal reserves in the world, after the United States and Russia, with an estimated 114 billion metric tonnes.(10) By far the planet’s biggest producer and consumer of coal, China was responsible for more than one third of global coal production and consumption in 2005.(11) Chinese coal consumption increased by 62% between 2000 and 2005.(12) According to the IEA reference scenario, China and India will account for 57% of the world’s coal consumption by 2030.(13)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0704-e.htm (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0704-e.htm)
http://www.sp-china.com/powerIndustry/ppac.htm (http://www.sp-china.com/powerIndustry/ppac.htm)
Driven by sustained rapid growth of national economy, both electricity generation and consumption in China had the tendency of parallel rapid increase in 2003, a year with fastest growth rate since open and reform policy. In this year, the national electricity generation amounted to 1905.2 TWh, or 15.17% higher than the previous year; and the electricity consumption of the whole society amounted to 1889.1 TWh, or 15.29% higher than the previous year. The nationwide power shortage situation, however, became more and more severe, twenty-two provinces (autonomous regions, municipalities) suffered from load curtailments, in which, the most severe regions included Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hebei (southern area), Shanxi, Inner Mongolia (western area), etc. Dealing with this rigorous power supply situation, under the unified disposal of the State Council, all related units had made concerted efforts and taken effective measures to alleviate
More... http://www.sp-china.com/ (http://www.sp-china.com/)
Sinopec, CNOOC jointly discovered a new gas field in E. China Sea (2010-05-07)
China coal supply to stay tight this year (2010-05-05)
PetroChina says profit up 71 pct (2010-04-30)
China Coal Energy 2009 net profit up 10 pct (2010-04-28)
China coal profit rises 9.9% as economy grows (2010-04-26)
China oil demand up on double-digit growth (2010-04-23)
China carbon emissions to exceed 10 billion tons by 2020 (2010-04-21)
China March crude runs up 18 pct (2010-04-19)
China National Coal unit produces 10.88 mln tons of coal in March (2010-04-16)
China 2010 coking coal imports seen up 47 pct (2010-04-14)
-
Brazil is the 10th largest energy consumer in the world and the largest in South America. At the same time, it is an important oil and gas producer in the region and the world's second largest ethanol fuel producer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Brazil)
Brazil is the third largest hydroelectricity producer in the world after China and Canada. In 2004 hydropower accounted for 83% of Brazilian power production.[1] The gross theoretical capability exceeds 3,000 TWh per annum, of which 800 TWh per annum is economically exploitable.[7] In 2004, Brazil produced 321TWh of hydropower.[11]
The installed capacity is 59 GW.[11] Brazil co-owns the Itaipu hydroelectric power plant on the Paraná River located on the border between Brazil and Paraguay, which is the world's second largest operational hydroelectric power plant with installed generation capacity of 14 GW by 20 generating units of 700 MW each.[12]
Due the Brazil's reliance on hydroelectric power and lack of investments in transmission, the reserves were being used from several years, which let the dams with low level of water, then after another bad year of rain, in June 2001 the government was forced to ration electricity usage, which was ended in late 2001. Now a days due to the new rules of the sector new power lines were built so as new power plants, today the load is even bigger than in 2001 but the system is much safer than in 2001.
[edit] Nuclear energy
Nuclear energy accounts for about 4% of Brazil's electricity.[13
-
There are TWO huge dams on the huge Paraná River, one is the Itaipú Dam near Iguazú Falls, between Brazil and Paraguay and another, the Yacyretá Dam downstream, between Ituzaingó, Provincia de Corrientes, Argentina and Ayolas, Paraguay. The latter is 880 meters long, with a four-lane highway running along the top. Spectacular. There are seven sets of massive towers running to the west, south and east to other cities in Argentina, and just one on the Paraguayan side.
-
There are TWO huge dams on the huge Paraná River, one is the Itaipú Dam near Iguazú Falls, between Brazil and Paraguay and another, the Yacyretá Dam downstream, between Ituzaingó, Provincia de Corrientes, Argentina and Ayolas, Paraguay. The latter is 880 meters long, with a four-lane highway running along the top. Spectacular. There are seven sets of massive towers running to the west, south and east to other cities in Argentina, and just one on the Paraguayan side.
wow you are really smart XO.
-
I visited Yacyretá a little over a year ago.
-
There are TWO huge dams on the huge Paraná River, one is the Itaipú Dam near Iguazú Falls, between Brazil and Paraguay and another, the Yacyretá Dam downstream, between Ituzaingó, Provincia de Corrientes, Argentina and Ayolas, Paraguay. The latter is 880 meters long, with a four-lane highway running along the top. Spectacular. There are seven sets of massive towers running to the west, south and east to other cities in Argentina, and just one on the Paraguayan side.
Good , good....
I think that the choice of powersorce depends on what is naturally there . A custom fit for each situation.
Brazil has a lot of river , hydropower seems like a really good fit.
I was a bit surprised to learn that Germany has a lot of Solar power , more there than in many sunnier lands.
-
isn`t windmills cheaper to set up than nuclear?
-
Duh. We have a carbon economy but do not rely on the elemental state of that element, either. There are other useful hydrogen compounds outside of H2.
=====================================
I think what we have is called a HYDROCARBON economy. And when one burns coal, coal is mostly elemental carbon, isn't it?
By "Hydrogen economy", I think it is generally understood that this is when h2 is used in fuel cells.
Hydrogen compounds that do not include carbon must be made by using elementary Hydrogen, mustn't they?
I know you are far superior in intellect to God Himself, but please have compassion and stop it with the "Duh" remarks. Thank you, it will be appreciated.
-
isn`t windmills cheaper to set up than nuclear?
what difference does it make? Overall cost is the bottom line. One Nuke power plant on 100 acres verses millions of windmills on miles of square miles, then factor in maintenance cost over say 20 years. It's simple math combined with economics 101. What happens on the days the wind stops blowing?
-
Nuclear costs vastly more than wind because of the plant construction costs. There are also disposal costs of highly toxic nuclear waste. And nuclear plants are regularly shut down for maintenance. And so that's the big difference. To be energy independent, we need both safe nuclear and wind energy. It is not an either/or issue.
-
Nuclear costs vastly more than wind because of the plant construction costs. There are also disposal costs of highly toxic nuclear waste. And nuclear plants are regularly shut down for maintenance. And so that's the big difference. To be energy independent, we need both safe nuclear and wind energy. It is not an either/or issue.
In CA about 5 or so years back I was offered Wind Power to be PC. If I would have chose Green Power my electric bill would have gone up about 30%. Right up the road about 20 miles is San Anofre Nuke plant, it's been there since I was a child. Still works.
-
By "Hydrogen economy", I think it is generally understood that this is when h2 is used in fuel cells.
Only among those who haven't bothered to study it. BTW, fuel cells can be fed by a reformer that takes in hydrocarbon fuels (such as alcohol or gasoline) and strips off the needed H2. A hydrogen economy can also be fusion based - which is really the only sustainable energy source for very long term needs.
Hydrogen compounds that do not include carbon must be made by using elementary Hydrogen, mustn't they?
No. They can be made from any source of hydrogen, not just elemental gas.
I know you are far superior in intellect to God Himself, but please have compassion and stop it with the "Duh" remarks. Thank you, it will be appreciated.
ROFLMAO
THIS from YOU?
-
look to me, all energy leads to higher cost
-
No. They can be made from any source of hydrogen, not just elemental gas.
=======================================================
Okay, what hydrogen compounds are used other than those you can call "hydrocarbons"? And in what processes are they used that produces energy.
I have heard of using H2 as fuel in combustion engines and fuel cells. I have not heard of using any non-hydrocarbon hydrogen compounds in any other process.
-
wouldn`t water be the cheapest and easiest to use?
-
Okay, what hydrogen compounds are used other than those you can call "hydrocarbons"? And in what processes are they used that produces energy.
Well, one is sodium borohydride (NaBH4). It can either be burned as fuel, or used with a direct borohydride fuel cell. Use with a direct fuel cell allows the collection of sodium metaborate (NaBO2) as a waste product, which can be converted into more sodium borohydride.
-
wouldn`t water be the cheapest and easiest to use?
========================================
That would be a steam engine. You need to heat the water to make steam. But that is not what most people would consider a Hydrogen technology.
I have never heard of sodium borohydrate as an energy source. If you replace the H2 with O2, to reverse the process with more H2. Then you would need a process to add the H2. This reaction sounds rather like a perpetual motion process. I think that violates at least some law of Physics. At any rate, it sounds like it would take more energy to cause the reaction and reverse the reaction than is obtained from the reaction.
-
I have never heard of sodium borohydrate as an energy source.
Like I said, you apparently haven't actually studied the subject. And it's sodium borohydride.
If you replace the H2 with O2, to reverse the process with more H2.
The reaction is a bit more complex than that.
Direct borohydride fuel cells decompose and oxidize the borohydride directly, side-stepping hydrogen production and even producing slightly higher energy yields:
Cathode: 2O2 + 4H2O + 8e− → 8OH− (E0 = +0.4V)
Anode: NaBH4 + 8OH− → NaBO2 + 6H2O + 8e− (E0 = 1.24 V)
Total E0 = +1.64V
Then you would need a process to add the H2. This reaction sounds rather like a perpetual motion process. I think that violates at least some law of Physics.
Not at all. Sodium metaborate (commonly called "borax") can be hydrated back into sodium borohydride with a number of different processes and, while hydrogen gas *can* be used, there are a number of other hydrogen donors that can be used including alcohol and water.
At any rate, it sounds like it would take more energy to cause the reaction and reverse the reaction than is obtained from the reaction.
Yes, this is a known law of physics - one of the laws of thermodynamics, specifically. This is true of all energy releasing reactions - more energy went into the reactants than you can possibly get out of it. (I avoided using the "duh" this time.)
-
wouldn`t water be the cheapest and easiest to use?
Unlike XO, I guess you mean extracting H2 from water. Water, however, is a very stable molecule and it takes a lot of energy to extract H2 from it. Water as a source for H2 will become more feasible when fusion becomes practical.
-
fusion becomes practical.
uhm
forget practical
when did we get fusion !!!???
damn I`m behind
-
when did we get fusion !!!???
Currently, only sustained in bombs, not in civilian generators.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production)
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/34726.pdf (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/34726.pdf)
Most of what we think of as fuel is chemical energy .
Chemicals store energy in the forming of bonds or the breaking of bonds , either way potential energy is stored as if you were winding a spring.
Fossil fuels have hydrocarbons whose bonds represent springs wound long ago by sunlight that fell on anchient plants.
Sunlight falling on earth today winds the hydrocarbons of the processes of life , potentially enough to replace fossil fuels totally with currently harvested solar power , if we can make the process efficient enough and devote enough real estate to collection .
I like algae for hydrogen production , also for hydrocarbon production, they are already pretty efficient naturally , and a little tweaking can make them even moreso.
I imagine tubes and glass panels installed on the faces of downtown buildings flowing with nutritious slurry extracted from sewage and turned bright green , red or blue by cultivar algae , produceing H2 and oil suitable for operating deisel or turbine engines.
Not only would the city harvest a lot of fuel right on the site where it would be used , the City would take on a glittering emerald apperance as though Frank Baum had engineered it.
-
Chevron has this ad with this jovial brain of a scientist who chatters on about how he has been working with algae for thirty years or so, and then says that maybe we could use algae for fuel. And every time I see it, I am thinking: thirty years is a Looooong time: why don't you just get ON with it?
-
, I am thinking: thirty years is a Looooong time: why don't you just get ON with it?
He is competeing with fossil fuel on cost.
It mighthave taken eons for the fossil fuel to form and we are burning it a lot faster than it formed.
He is working on means to make current solar power into usable energy , compeditive with fuel that has a lot of time compression.
Getting oil out of algae suitable for running a diesel or turbine engine is already possible , getting algae to produce H2 suitable for fuel cells is old news.
But the cost of produceing this has to be compared with the cost of burning coal, oil and natural gas , which is actually solar power captured by algae over eaons and stored where we can find it like a windfall.
I think that the biggest advantage of useing algae or any other solar power gathering scheme is the much lessor pollution , can the real cost of pollution be computed and added to the apparent cost of burning fossil fuels?