|
Post by davidm on Jun 27, 2012 12:26:35 GMT 9.5
Real cost would pull in direct and indirect costs. Take oil. Beyond the direct business costs you would have military, environmental and medical costs etc. You pick up the down stream expense. If not, who should? Why subsidize something that is pushing us towards a 6th extinction event?
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Jun 27, 2012 13:25:00 GMT 9.5
I'm a little confused by the merit order effect. The benefit of having lots of solar/wind is that when they are generating at peak they push the spot/market price of electricity to zero. There is an argument that solar producers should be compensated for the so-called merit order effect, for example, the "Solar Roundtable" and Beyond Zero Emissions: www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/dcd1234d-72cb-4c3e-957b-9f9101192e2d/Submission_-_Solar_feed-in_tariffs_-_Australian_Solar_Round_Table_-_12_September_2011_-_Website_version.pdfbeyondzeroemissions.org/media/newswire/merit-order-how-solar-fits-could-cut-energy-bills-all-120207It's a bit like a new banana producer setting up a stall at a wholesale fruit and vegetable market, and as a consequence of additional supply, the cost drops slightly, say from $5/kg to $4.50. It would be like the new stall holder walking around to everyone at the market who purchased bananas from other regularly producers and demanding compensation because they have "caused" the price to drop from $5 to $4.50, despite the fact that the price is a consequence of the normal operation of total supply and demand. But say that the new stall holder can only sell at certain times of year (eg summer), all that will happen is that the other year-round producers will need to drive prices up at other times in order to remain sufficiently profitable to stay in business. The claim of the "intermittent" banana producer that they "cause" banana prices to fall in the long run is therefore largely a fallacy. In the case of electricity generation, a large proportion of the cost is in large capital and fixed costs. If these generators are forced to act as scavengers due to being displaced by intermittent generators, they will be forced to recover costs at other times or go out of business and jeopardize security of supply.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 27, 2012 19:37:23 GMT 9.5
It's amazing how so called "conservation" organisations are pushing for massive ecofootprint technologies like biomass, while dissing the one technology with the lowest ecosystem impact of them all - nuclear power. It's hard to imagine that nuclear power would have a lower ecosystem impact than this.It's surpringly easy to imagine. Because: 1. There's not enough cow dung to power the world. Blatantly obvious, but apparently people need this to be said: nuclear power and cow dung power are not in competition, and never will be. Cow dung is for cooking for people in remote areas; nuclear power is to power modern industrial societies. 2. Biogas does actually have some impacts, relating to sulphur emissions, and non-combusted and fugitive methane emissions (25x more powerful GhG than CO2). But admittedly, the impact is less than doing nothing with the dung (risk of diseases) or burning the dung (particulate emissions). Worse than all is to not have energy at all, so any energy is better than no energy (even coal, yes). People cooking on their converted cow dung is a great idea for remote locations and developing countries. That's not the same as saying it's a useful comparison with nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 27, 2012 21:32:28 GMT 9.5
Cyril's quote It's hard to imagine that nuclear power would have a lower ecosystem impact than this.[/url] [/quote] It's surpringly easy to imagine. Because:
1. There's not enough cow dung to power the world. [/quote] Who said there was? Your quote is qualitative, not about scale.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 27, 2012 23:19:32 GMT 9.5
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. To get such large production figures from unreliables, the amount of installed capacity vastly exceeds peak demand. So most of the time you'll be dumping excess unreliables energy. Here in the Netherlands we get 10% capacity factor out of solar. Also we need more electricity in winter, not in summer. Failure to quantify such important facts means Ecofys gets no credit for trying. In fact, "trying" is too big a word for the Ecofys document. The Ecofys document is really just a simple back of the envelope, lump in all energy sources, without considering important things like effective load carrying capacity. It's the kind of "study" an 12 year old might produce as an elementary school project.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 27, 2012 23:22:23 GMT 9.5
Cyril's quote It's surpringly easy to imagine. Because:
1. There's not enough cow dung to power the world. Who said there was? Your quote is qualitative, not about scale. [/quote] I was starting out with pointing out that the comparison was apples to oranges in the first place. I could have stopped after that, as further discussion of "nuclear versus cow dung" is obviously blatently pointless, but since there is actually an impact of methane and sulphur that must be mentioned. If cow dung cannot scale to the point of replacing nuclear (or coal) then the "lower impact than nuclear" argument is invalid altogether. But your response does show the lack of perspective we see from "greens". Lawyer science (form), rather than problem solving (content).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 28, 2012 1:26:05 GMT 9.5
Yes, after the fact. Based on your original quote my point stands.
As for methane and sulfur no more is produced than if the dung were left on the ground. The biogas process by any reasonable assessment would have less ghg impact than comparable nuclear production. That should be blatantly obvious. (Inflammatory personal comment deleted.) As for the Ecofys link in the first post I was using it to generate a discussion on renewable energy and I'm happy to see it fulfilled my intent.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 28, 2012 2:29:01 GMT 9.5
(Inflammatory comments deleted)
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 28, 2012 2:43:35 GMT 9.5
(Inflammatory remarks deleted)
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 28, 2012 2:55:21 GMT 9.5
Real cost would pull in direct and indirect costs. Take oil. Beyond the direct business costs you would have military, environmental and medical costs etc. You pick up the down stream expense. If not, who should? Why subsidize something that is pushing us towards a 6th extinction event? I would say that those are indeed costs of oil production and should be included in the price of oil. Now we've just got to figure out how much they are actually amount to. 2. Biogas does actually have some impacts, relating to sulphur emissions, and non-combusted and fugitive methane emissions (25x more powerful GhG than CO2). But admittedly, the impact is less than doing nothing with the dung (risk of diseases) or burning the dung (particulate emissions). Worse than all is to not have energy at all, so any energy is better than no energy (even coal, yes). People cooking on their converted cow dung is a great idea for remote locations and developing countries. That's not the same as saying it's a useful comparison with nuclear power. As for methane and sulfur no more is produced than if the dung were left on the ground. The biogas process by any reasonable assessment would have less ghg impact than comparable nuclear production. That should be blatantly obvious. It is of course only not bad for the environment if the alternative were to just leave the cow dung on the ground (though I do consider capturing the methane emitted from animals and burning it to CO 2 to be a good way to reduce the environmental impact of meat eating).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 28, 2012 9:25:41 GMT 9.5
It is of course only not bad for the environment if the alternative were to just leave the cow dung on the ground (though I do consider capturing the methane emitted from animals and burning it to CO2 to be a good way to reduce the environmental impact of meat eating). Just to get clear here, if the dung came from grazing cattle eating grass etc. from pasture land that was naturally fertilized then for all intents and purposes the effect would be environmentally neutral. Right?
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 29, 2012 9:28:13 GMT 9.5
This piece from Low-tech Magazine takes the position that direct heat from the sun is way under exploited, focusing particularly on industrial uses, and goes into the matter in extensive detail. www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/07/solar-powered-factories.htmlBy the way the online version of Low-tech Magazine is just loaded with low tech history and modern solutions of the low tech variety.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 29, 2012 14:00:58 GMT 9.5
Just to get clear here, if the dung came from grazing cattle eating grass etc. from pasture land that was naturally fertilized then for all intents and purposes the effect would be environmentally neutral. Right? I would say that if those cows would exist anyway then it is environmentally neutral (at worst) without regard for whether they are grazing or in a factory farm or how the grass they are eating was grown. Of course you can get into a whole other discussion about the environmental effects of raising the cattle and how the different methods compare, but regardless of how you raise them capturing the methane and using it to produce heat is better than just letting that methane go into the atmosphere. It still leaves the issue of the heat only being available for a short period of time around each midday which isn't going to be very kind to those who want to run their plants 24/7. Not to mention the need to site your factories where there is sunshine and reduced production on overcast days and in winter. Gen IV nuclear still looks to me to be a more likely process heat technology at least for use on Earth. By the way the online version of Low-tech Magazine is just loaded with low tech history and modern solutions of the low tech variety. Some of the technologies they write about we should be glad we're not using any more, they've also got some decent take downs of some fashionable nonsense (but sadly also have some nonsense themselves).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 29, 2012 16:19:16 GMT 9.5
A lot of manufacturing doesn't need to get stuck on 24/7. Try multi-tasking. Gardening or handicrafts come to mind or just take a break.
And then of course there are some heat storage possibilities to level things out, like large insulated water tanks for lower level heat storage.
I kind of like the idea of solar heat producers providing the energy to build solar heat producers. Exponentially that seems like total conquest for warmer parts of the world lets say in 10 years - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ..........
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jun 30, 2012 2:55:11 GMT 9.5
A lot of manufacturing doesn't need to get stuck on 24/7. Try multi-tasking. Gardening or handicrafts come to mind or just take a break.. David M, you typify many green-type pro-renewables with a profound ignorance of manufacturing. Especially of primary feedstock for raw materials. How much of Solar PV and wind is made using aluminum and steel? Copper and magnesium? These are not 'handicraft' industries but are made on a 24/7 basis. You can bring buaxite ore up to 2500 F. and then just 'turn it off'. Doesn't work like that. You need reliable and massive quantities of energy. In Russia today they won't build a new aluminum plant without building corresponding nuclear plants. this is serious stuff, David. It's not like frolicking in a Saturday morning, feudalism-based Squire from the Hobbit. David W
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jun 30, 2012 3:04:04 GMT 9.5
Sorry...duh...bauxite turns into usable aluminum at 1832 °F or 1000 °C. There are several high energy processes to make it truly marketable as feed stock for everything form engine blocks to framing to whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P. on Jun 30, 2012 4:37:49 GMT 9.5
A lot of manufacturing doesn't need to get stuck on 24/7. Try multi-tasking. Gardening or handicrafts come to mind or just take a break.. It's not like frolicking in a Saturday morning, feudalism-based Squire from the Hobbit. That's the problem I have reading websites like the aforementioned Low Tech Magazine. First I see things like timbrel tile vaults and think ok, that's kind of neat. But then they start talking about having human powered factories and power plants (!!!) and I realize they're completely out of touch with anything resembling reality.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 30, 2012 11:10:36 GMT 9.5
A lot of manufacturing doesn't need to get stuck on 24/7. Try multi-tasking. Gardening or handicrafts come to mind or just take a break. The workers may well take a break (in fact it'd most likely be three 8 hour shifts, not every worker spending 24 hours a day working) but the factory itself can't do gardening or handicrafts when the sun isn't providing enough heat for the industrial process. If we had to we could run a factory on a part time weather dependant basis, but we'd really prefer not to have to do that (and if manufacturing doesn't get done 24/7 then you'll need thrice as many factories to produce the same amount of goods, thus three times the capital cost) and it appears we have the technology to be able to avoid it. And then of course there are some heat storage possibilities to level things out, like large insulated water tanks for lower level heat storage. Of course you'd need to have large tanks and to insulate them for that to work, that's going to add extra cost (and it'll also require the collector to be oversized so that it can heat up the storage and deal with inefficiencies).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 30, 2012 18:01:29 GMT 9.5
Reporting back from Hobbit land where bigger is not necessarily better, ;D I reread the solar heating article and sure enough it says you can attain a whole range of heat levels from solar, including levels that can melt aluminum and steel. Since I am interested in what processes can be localized rather than what maxes to the specifications of mega-corporation Gargantua, this article would seem to open some doors. If Tiny Tim Productions is scheduled to produce 8 Sierra cups a day and the local community is satisfied with that output who am I to sneer at them and insist that Gargantua Corporation is the standard and they are living in the land of make believe. I've got a lot of respect for natural forces - they desalinate and distribute the water I drink, they provide the energy to grow the food I eat and they powered my little sailboat over much of the pacific. I want to stay on good terms with that system and I think Tiny Tim Productions with its smaller community based approach has a better shot at that in the long run than Gargantua Corporation with its mega-state undemocratic muscularity, endless promotion and downstreaming of its costs. When you are not accountable to anybody but the shareholders, who cares about the cost to society and the environment. One can look at people and human history and draw your own conclusions as to what constitutes a viable future. We can adapt to just about anything but I think our natural bias is to balkanize into sustainable communities and the technologies that ultimately will have the highest survivability will be the ones with the best community fit. Check these folks out.But then I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 30, 2012 18:41:53 GMT 9.5
Reporting back from Hobbit land where bigger is not necessarily better, ;D I reread the solar heating article and sure enough it says you can attain a whole range of heat levels from solar, including levels that can melt aluminum and steel. Yes, though only when the sun is shining (and it won't get as hot when the clouds come in). Of course the big question is how such a process compares with other ways of obtaining that heat, in space I'm sure it's the best way to do things but on earth… Since I am interested in what processes can be localized rather than what maxes to the specifications of mega-corporation Gargantua, this article would seem to open some doors. Why does being local matter so much anyway? Why not just work to make transportation better and allow the places which have a comparative advantage to use it? I've got a lot of respect for natural forces - they desalinate and distribute the water I drink, they provide the energy to grow the food I eat and they powered my little sailboat over much of the pacific. They also kill a lot of people. I want to stay on good terms with that system I'd rather reduce my dependence on it as much as possible. One can look at people and human history and draw your own conclusions as to what constitutes a viable future. A viable future is one where we do not stagnate, pretty much ruling out every green fantasy as a viable future (remember that only industrial mega-states will have the ability to divert asteroids).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 30, 2012 18:55:13 GMT 9.5
(remember that only industrial mega-states will have the ability to divert asteroids). The one coming 80 million years from now? Darn, I hadn't thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by Nick P. on Jun 30, 2012 21:24:46 GMT 9.5
(remember that only industrial mega-states will have the ability to divert asteroids). The one coming 80 million years from now? Darn, I hadn't thought of that. Your sarcasm, while cute, highlights a major problem I have with the small-is-beautiful crowd. We can dither back and forth with each other all day about our impacts upon the planet and the effects both good and bad resulting from that, but it ignores that nature has a much gorier rap sheet as historically every species to arise has been snuffed out one way or another. Completely naturally I might add. To limit us to small 'sustainable' (boy do I ever hate that word) communities is to also deliberately strip us of the tools with which one could avoid large scale extinction events, thus effectively signing our own death warrant eventually. An asteroid the size of what killed the dinosaurs and formed the chicxulub crater might not hit the earth for millions of years. It could also happen five years from now, but either way the geologic history of the planet and the solar system are very clear that it WILL happen again. Or perhaps the Yellowstone caldera will finally blow, it *is* geologically overdue for it. Again, not if, WHEN. I could go on, but absent a technological ability to intervene we will be done in eventually. We may be working our ways to another extinction event given our current course, true, but that's not exactly out of place in the scope of history and the universe sure doesn't care what happens. If the choice is: Small communities where we've returned to peasant-nobility dynamic, most of the population is one bad harvest away from starvation and we're back to boom-and-bust population cycles because people have more kids when they're uncertain of the survival of the ones they have (lets be honest, *THIS* is what much of human history looks like), meaning we're living what I at least would consider far more miserable lives while waiting for the inevitable death of our species. -or- We continue the path of high technology and perhaps crash and burn (but it is far, far from a given that that has to happen) or perhaps punch through our current spate of problems, continue to live better lives than mankind has known at any other point in history, hold onto the the tools and abilities to stave off even the rare but extremely severe natural disasters any maybe, just maybe, work our way off this single planet thus securing the lineage of our species effectively forever and spreading the life of earth with us. I don't know about you, but I'll take door number two every time.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 21, 2012 20:06:17 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 21, 2012 20:38:09 GMT 9.5
BZE again, given their track record I wouldn't hold my hopes up for something that's actually possible (I wouldn't be surprised if it'll just be them passing off the same discredited rubbish that's already been pulled apart at BNC). bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/From the second one is a summary: - They assume we will be using less than half the energy by 2020 than we do today without any damage to the economy. This flies in the face of 200 years of history.
- They have seriously underestimated the cost and timescale required to implement the plan.
- For $8 a week extra on your electricity bill, you will give up all domestic plane travel, all your bus trips and you must all take half your journeys by electrified trains.
- They even suggest that all you two car families cut back to just one electric car.
- You better stock up on candles because you can certainly expect more blackouts and brownouts.
- Addressing these drawbacks could add over $50 a week to your power bill not the $8 promised by BZE. That’s over $2,600 per year for the average household.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 22, 2012 1:45:46 GMT 9.5
BZE again, given their track record I wouldn't hold my hopes up for something that's actually possible (I wouldn't be surprised if it'll just be them passing off the same discredited rubbish that's already been pulled apart at BNC).
bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/ Well Ted Trainer, featured in your link, doesn't think it is such rubbish but he has a caveat. Note. ZCA(Zero Carbon Australia) is a project of BZE(Beyond Zero Emissions).
|
|