Renewable Energy

Well im bored at work so I figured might as well make a dedicated topic page for a subject that does tend to creep up in various discussions from time to time.

I'm all for renewable energy, more so if it can be as competitive as fossil fuels (Not just in base cost but also in environmental impact). A decade ago renewable energy had been a very expensive very low performing idea but I'm quite happy to see that is changing, With more efficient solar panels and taller bigger wind turbines we are capturing more energy per the size of the product and at a lower cost.

What tend's to be a negative impact on renewable energy is various government's subsidizing system's not suited to the region, Such as the solar rebates in Victoria where we capture very little sun light, yet have put in restrictions on wind farms when we have some of the strongest wind's in all of Australia along the Victorian coast.

Europe should be less concerned with solar and more on wind and wave power. Wind power European companies are making massive strides with the largest turbines at 8 MW, While having strong designs going into 10 MW and larger (Taller and bigger the wind mill/turbine the stronger wind's it catches as wind's are more powerful higher you go up), While in Australia a company is making break through's in wave power. They have this year installed 3 x 240 KW Ceto 5 buoys that float a few meters under the ocean surface rather then all other concepts that float on the surface.

The Ceto 5's may not be too economical as the require a pipe line from the buoy to a land based turbine/generator though they also have an added benefit of being multi-use in that they can produce desalinated water when attached to a plant (The 3 Ceto 5's in Australia are attached to HMAS Stirling and will provide 5% of the bases electricity and 30% + of the bases fresh water needs.

Ceto 6 is currently in development that will be a 1 MW system that would also be far more cost effective to install, The 20m wide Ceto 6 will have the generating capacity built into it thus only requiring a power cable running to land, Also makes maintenance easier as the Ceto 6 could be unplugged and towed back to port to be fixed rather then doing the job out in rough oceans surrounded by sharks.

About the only thing lacking at the moment for renewable energy is battery storage, If they can solve that then renewable energy built on a large scale will be just as cheap as fossil fuels not just in the construction phase but also in long term maintenance and avoid risks in fossil fuel price fluctuations.

 

A word of caution on wind turbine ratings -- they're always quoted at peak output. In reality, turbines typically have a capacity factor of between 20-30%. That means on average they're only putting out 1/5 to 1/3rd of the peak.

 

Base load...full power at a switch...it will be a long time before renewables will acheive this...augmentation, not replacement.

 

Oh i know that turbines only put out a fraction of their capacity, It all comes down to wind speed's.

The smaller and lower down to land the slower the wind's thus lower percentage of full capacity generated.

In Denmark Horns rev 2 in 2012 achieved a 52% of it's capacity using comparatively small turbines in today's market. Using those numbers an Enercon E-126 7.6 MW turbine in Australia should produce 35,000 MW annually based on similar wind conditions (Though with the E-126's being almost double the hub height they may have a higher capacity), At a unit price of $14 million plus installation costs it does start to become some what economical but I will agree their is room for improvement which is what the industry is doing.

 

Lots of folks tend to forget or ignore this.

 

won't future production techniques, and invention make renewable energy much more efficient?? like jet engines of today vs 1940?

 

That's the plan...but like many things, money is also a factor...there's money to be made selling coal for example. With goverments privatising power supply...the power companies don't want people having free power...why would they unless it's cheaper for the company. These renewables will also come at a cost to the environment...hundreds of solar farms...thousands of turbines...IMO nuclear is the best option....hands down.

 

Renewable won't have that much of an effect on the environment assuming government's are smart about what they build and where.

Clearing good land to put in a solar farm is bad practice, Building a solar farm in the middle of a desert on the other hand is good practice

For land based turbines bigger is better when it comes to the environment. The bigger they are the smaller the Co2 amount created per the amount of energy they create, Also the taller ones have a negligible effect on local bird populations while smaller ones have been known to cause massive amounts of losses to them. So for wind build bigger is better both for environmental concerns but also for economical factors.

I agree nuclear is one of the solutions but I don't believe it is the soul solution. Depending on the area/region and the population size depends on what should be built there. Live in an area with strong winds (North Sea, Roaring forties etc etc) then wind power is a solution in part (Depending on population size, Larger populations may make Nuclear more economical while smaller ones would make wind more economical), Living in the desert well that is solar hand's down, Dubai is currently starting a round of tender's to build an 800 MW solar farm which behind in a nation that has a F load of sun year round is a very sound decision. For small island nations that not only have to import their power generation (usually diesel) but also their fresh water then a mix between Ceto 5's and 6's would be beneficial depending on how well the tech work's out at HMAS Stirling with Ceto 5's providing fresh water and 6's the bulk of the power. Added benefit is fish population have a relatively save area to breed away from human fishing and that tech is out of sight so no one complains about the view being ruined.

All renewable's will have a part to play, Just need to get rid of the do gooders that tend to be very inefficient on the system they put in place.

 

My favorite would be a law requiring geo exchange systems in new homes and businesses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

The reduction in air conditioner and home heating costs make it very cost efficient. It's all existing tech, can be used anywhere, lasts for decades with minimal maintenance and has little to no effect on the environment.

 

I'm all for renewable energy sources, when it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. I don't see that happening for a long time.

Right now, in much of the world, we see governments artificially inflating, quadrupling, the price of fossil fuels to the consumer. So wind and solar looks competitive, but it isn't really. Not even close.

I'm with CAC on nuclear. That would seem a far better alternative than wind or solar. I'd like to see small nuclear plants that handle small amounts of fissile material. They are easier and safer to operate, and if there is an accident or an attack of some kind the results are also easier to contain.

 

Renewable energy has been profitably used in the US, Australia, and Europe for decades.

Hydro-electric power stations have provided our communities with a considerable amount of energy over the past 7 decades. They are significantly more reliable than wind.

More can be done to actually conserve energy use. Better insulation in buildings / homes, for instance.

 

Hydro accounts for about 7% of US power generation.

It is profitable, but there is no free lunch. Take a quick tour through Google and see how many lawsuits you find related to proposed as well as existing hydro plants. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

 

I don't know of any examples, except the old hydro stations which wiped out the salmon in the US' northwest. Wind and solar are all heavily subsidized by taxpayers and only "profitable" to the businesses that get the handouts.

 

Oil is subidised at least to some extent as well. Not sure how the numbers rack up though. Some types of solar can hit breakeven at least compared to consumer pricing of electricity from the numbers I've seen but it takes a few years.

 

I don't know of any solar or wind energy plant anywhere, that wasn't subsidized from the ground up by the taxpayers. Even then, they still manage to run at a loss.

If it doesn't pay for itself, then it's not worth pursuing.

 

Solar seems most efficient when it's local. For instance solar water heaters can be pretty efficient in some areas. Likewise the "swamp coolers" used as an ac substiture in the area you are in now rely on solar power to some extent if I understand the tech right. Even solar cells can pay off if you are building in a location where there aren't any power lines yet. Big oil has it's share of government handouts as well.

 

True renewable energy has been given cash hand outs over the years but so has every other energy producing system in the US and world wide.

Worldwide $550 billion in subsidies went to fossil fuel companies in 2013, That same year renewable energy got $120 billion. Even with those numbers Renewable energy are still pushing ahead in terms of cost and reliability.

 

That says nothing about their efficiency. The fact is that someone is always going to complain about something, but that is hardly an excuse to ignore hydro-electric power in a debate on renewable energies.

 

The examples which you exempted, were exactly what I was talking about, if you would've been so good to quote my entire post, instead of taking just a single sentence. Those examples show how subsidised efficient renewable energy systems can reap huge long term benefits for energy production for a nation.

WRT salmon, it is perfectly possible to create Hydro-electric systems which allow runs for salmon. If that is your greatest complaint about about it, blame the planners, not the technology.

Because the current Oil-based power generation does not present the costs for all it's ill-effects at the petrol station, you cannot talk about oil "paying for itself".

For oil to pay for itself, it would have to include the cost of poisoning the air, and the consequential ill-health effects on humans, to say nothing of the effect on buildings, sculptures, and the flora and fauna.

That said; there is huge amounts of energy to be saved, with smarter buildings, and more energy-efficient cars.

 

Scientists will tell you there are a thousand ways to create energy...we have explored only a few...