Actually, there are no cost figures in my post at all. I broke down the energy required versus energy delivered.
FTR, I do not work for the coal industry. I work for the utility industry. There is a difference, although it may appear slight. Sometimes, I am actually working against the coal industry - like when I recommend that a coal plant use natural gas reburn over low-NOx burners to reduce NOx. Or recommend that they blend biomass with the coal to reduce greenhouse gases - which does reduce coal consumption. Actually, biomass, renewables, and alternate fuel combustion is sort of a sub-specialty of mine.
Also, you may want to review some of my posts I have made on these subjects over the last year or so. I really do not so much fight against solar’s feasibility, so much as try to explain factually what the engineering issues are.
I think this comes back to what you and sailor typically fight about. Solar is not free by any stretch of the imagination, or else we wouldn’t even be arguing over this issue. The true cost of coal is hidden from most, true. But solar is by no means free.
I didn’t come in here to debate costs in this thread, though. Only to give examples of the energy ratio between production/transportation and delivery.
Back in about 1991 I wrote a paper in college on Wind Energy Electricity Generating Systems (WEEGS). (Doing my best to recall the exact figures) The basic conclusion of all my research was that the break-even price on currently operating WEEGS is about $35/bbl crude (1985 dollars). This means if the price of crude is less than $35/bbl the price of electricity (based on models of crude price’s ripple effect on the price level of a megawatt) will generally be low enough that running/maintaining WEEGS will be unprofitable (running at a loss). The break even for building new WEEGS was around $45-50/bbl crude. So….based on all the research I did unless we see prolonged crude prices above the levels stated above (1985 dollars remember) no one will likely be building any new WEEGS. Mind you this is based on efficient markets and ignores outside forces like government subsidies or externalities like environmental impact.
One other side conclusion was that these things aren’t as pretty and ‘neat’ as everyone would like to think. WEEGS take up lots of room, can be fairly noisy, and as more and more are developed will grow to become eyesores.
On a personal note I think:
We ought to work more on reducing demand and less on meeting demand.
We ought to do more research / development on small scale Solar or WEEGS. By that I mean every house has solar cells and a windmill and tries its best to be electrically self-sufficient - not mass scale solar arrays the size of Arizona or huge windmill farms.
Hi Opal!
The same rabid environmentalist that are complaining about oil and coal and touting solar / WEEGS will be the exact same people complaining about the negative impact of huge solar arrays and windmill farms.
Again – I’m no energy policy expert but the above should provide a little food for thought/discussion.
We can assume technology of wind turbines has improved during the last 10 years so that the break-even point is a per-barrel oil price of $30 or less. Otherwise new wind farms would not be appearing and more wind farms would not be in the planning stages.
No one has mentioned cold fusion yet. I heard some guy claiming to be involved in the research saying cold fusion is (only?!) 30 to 40 years away. We may as well use up all the oil, eh? And why bother building nuclear power plants?
Quote Anthracite
I think this comes back to what you and sailor typically fight about. Solar is not free by
any stretch of the imagination, or else we wouldn’t even be arguing over this issue. The
true cost of coal is hidden from most, true. But solar is by no means free.
Quote me
Solar is free.
We don’t have to explore to find it.
We don’t have to dig to get it.
We don’t have to drill to get it.
We don’t have to maintain rigs out on the ocean or in pristine places to get it.
We don’t have to build and maintain pipelines or railroads to distribute it.
Well aparently sailor and anthracite have a covenent with god to charge for the recieving
of sunlight.
I guess you could dump coal and or oil around your house and burn it but for all practical
purposes Both oil and coal are nearly worthless without a vehicle to burn them in. A
furnace.
Solar is useable without that vehicle. The collector concentrates the energy and allows
you to funnel it where you want.
It has been several years since we last replaced our furnace and I don’t remember the cost
but it was a major expense.There have been at least three furnaces in this house. First
coal,you can see the evidence in the basement wall.Then oil. We replaced that when we
moved here.Now LP.
So I take it that those rigs out in the ocean are free.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to build enough solar arrays to make any sort of difference? Do you realize that, for solar panels to be effective, the energy must be stored in batteries? Do you have any idea how much these batteries cost? Do you have any idea how much it costs to maintain these huge arrays and even huger batteries?
Here’s a hint, bucko… it costs a lot more than “free”.
Solar is pretty versitile.
If you want to charge batteries with it OK.
If you want to heat water or perhaps a refrigerant,OK.
If you want to use it passively as in a greenhouse OK.
No Charge to get it to you.
What you do with it then is up to you.
Solar is free.
I’m a bit confused over why you think solar energy is free.
**
It can also be pretty limited. What if you live in an area without a lot of sunshine?
**
So to convert the rays to useful energy I need a battery. Batteries cost.
**
I might not get enough sun to heat the water to my satisfaction. And the energy requirements to air condition my home may not be practical with a solar unit.
**
Doesn’t a greenhouse cost something in materials and labor to build?
Ok, the rays of light beaming down from heaven are in fact free. Converting the sun’s rays into energy that will run a city will cost something though.
Are batteries free? Are solar panels free? Is the construction and maintenance of these batteries and panels free? Are greenhouses free?
Solar energy, as a means of providing electricity, is NOT free. Repeat after me… It is not free. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something (probably solar panels).
So your statement is that there is no cost to utilize solar energy to heat one’s house and provide electricity for it? Please tell me this isn’t all over some sort of word game?
If not, then I want to see clear, unambiguous sites and specs of your free system of utilizing solar energy for both electricity and heating. Make sure O&M costs are included as well.
I notice in your posts you continually hail the virtues of solar, yet in your latest post you comment on having replaced your furnace, from oil to LP.
Why? With all your solar advocacy, all your claims of free or cheap energy - why are you not converted over to solar? Are you still hooked up to the grid? If so - why? How can you pass up the chance of free energy?
Why are you not using solar yourself, rather than LP?
I think that your source was indulging in the type of speech technically known as “bullshit”.
No type of cold fusion (fusion that does not involve very high temperatures) appears viable. There are basically two types of cold fusion: muon-catalyzed (a hydrogen atom is constructed using a muon instead of a lepton) and piezonuclear (deuterons are confined in the atomic lattice of, say, a palladium crystal). Steven Jones has claimed to have observed both at BYU – but it is to be noted that he’s claiming rates about 10[sup]-10[/sup] of what is needed to reach scientific breakeven (energy into the fusion reaction = energy out of it; commercial breakeven is quite a bit higher, as it has to account for building the reactor, distribution losses, etc.). Both have serious conceptual problems which would seem to preclude their use as a commercial source of power.
Hot fusion (energizing nuclei until they’re moving fast enough to overcome the Coulomb repulsion) is another story. The current pravda is that hot fusion using deuterium and tritium (D-T) might become a viable commercial power source in forty years or so…but that’s what was said forty years ago. Hot fusion as a potential power source does suffer from several problems not usually mentioned in the popular press (how to effectively “sweep” tritium out of your breeder for use in the reaction, how to deal with embrittlement and activation of materials by the residual neutron flux, the size of the reactor needed, etc.) Pure deuterium (D-D) and deuterium and helium (D-[sup]3[/sup]He) are occasionally mentioned as candidate reactions, but both are require much hotter ignition temperatures than D-T; D-[sup]3[/sup]He is further complicated by the fact that the terrestrial supply of [sup]3[/sup]He is negligible. Even more exotic fusion reactions are considered, usually on the grounds that they’re aneutronic, but it’s questioned if they’re even achievable.
It seems likely that the energy options in this century are largely limited to the ones that exist today; other theoretical possibilities (e.g., extracting power from waves) seem so limited in application as to be incapable of supplying significant net amounts of energy. A possible exception to this is ocean thermal (OTS) energy, although it has its own problems.
Maybe we can stop arguing about the one point here if we reworded it to say SUNLIGHT is free. Converting sunlight to usable solar power is NOT free. How much it costs is still open for raging, jolly debate.
I realize I’m pointing out the obvious, but it appears that there’s a slight semnatic debate going on that isn’t really getting at the issues.
My point in this discussion is to level the playing field.
First there are federal subsidies that have not been considered in the exploration,production,and distribution of fossil fuels. You cannot extol,in all fairness, the virtues of fossil fuels with out examining these subsidies.
Especally the cost factor.
Second the medium that converts fossil fuels to something useful,usually heat, is not being discussed. When you make the statement that “solar is not by any stretch of the imagination free” the solar medium is the only thing you are talking about.
Third every post I have read so far is comparing a single solar installation which is compared to a fossil fuel system that has a multi million,or is that billion, dollar distribution system.
If this sounds like a word game to you then maybe it is. You have more experience than I.
Akats, thanks hugely for the SOA report on fusion. I appreciate it. justwanna:
Regardless of the costs associated with any other energy source, the utilization of solar energy can by no stretch of the imagination be deemed “free.” And you know that. Stop dissembling, willya?
You’re welcome, although I’m embarassed to admit that I wrote “a hydrogen atom is constructed using a muon instead of a lepton” when, of course, what I meant to write was “a hydrogen atom is constructed using a muon instead of an electron, both of which are leptons”.
Note to self: learn to proofread before hitting “Submit Reply”
How can you say that.
My daughter was outside sunbathing just yesterday.
Last winter I completely enclosed my front porch. If you call up my post entitled ol sol you can see the results.
The energy is there. It costs nothing to obtain it.Thats free pal.
Now if you want to start a brand new thread entitled converting energy You just may get me to agree with you.
I’ll say it again.My purpose is to level the playing field.
Renewable Energy In China
An inventory of China’s solar energy resources prepared by China’s solar energy high level expert committee includes: Solar greenhouses (0.342 million hectares), a feature of the agricultural landscape that revolutionized the winter diet of much of China’s population; wealthier households in China use solar / water heating for convenience and cost (2.3 million square meters installed); passive solar homes (l. 2 million square meters) house 60 thousand families; 150 thousand solar cookers (with 1.6 square meter parabolic reflectors) replace combustion of 70 thousand tons of biomass (stalks and animal dung) a year; photovoltaic sources power communications systems (710 KW) and remote housing (760 KW); solar powered traffic control devices (130 KW) and pipeline protection devices (45 KW) are part of the transportation infrastructure, solar cells power environmental monitoring and warning systems (forestry, river and marine hydrology, weather; 85 KW) and, solar panels also supply communications (land and microwave) relay stations (710 KW). This report addresses solar electric energy. Future reports will address wind energy and a future report will address biomass.
How about this
… nomads in the Republic of Mongolia and Qinghai and Tibet in China rely on edible fat (yak butter) as fuel for lamps
Note
If it wasn’t for the US transportation system,also heavily subsidized and critical to the delivery of fuel, we could conceivably be in a similar situation.
Just thought I’d share the information.
In leveling the playing field I am only trying to point out that if you take into account the true cost,all subsidies included the fossil fuels might not be as cheap as they would appear.
