Your opinion on electric vehicles

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

In Texas, you can sign up for an electricity provider who will buy an equivalent amount of power that you consume to put onto the grid from wind farms. If enough people do that, some coal-fired power plants might eventually be shut down as wind and solar farms are created to fill the contractual needs for electricity from sustainable sources. I've done that and look forward to eventually buying an electric car to eliminate burning gasoline, too.

You can build all the wind farms you wish, but they do NOT replace coal plants, because it's not always windy. What are you going to do on a windless day? You need coal, gas, or nuclear plants for your "base load" power generation.

[balok]

Originally Posted by columbus

Choose what you want & ask a moderator to make changes

Any suggestions?

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nuclear power does not generate "greenhouse gases".

Correct whilst it is in operation - but what are the greenhouse emissions in the installment of the power station and then again in de-commissioning.

Wind power generation is 'free', but again the infrastructure needed generates pollution upto assembly.

btw, wind-power uses a 'free' resource, therefore at some time the electricity thus generated should become free - until that point is seems that wind-generated electricity is (currently) more expensive than others.
The main reason it is seemingly successful is due almost entirely on govt. subsidy. But even if every square mile is filled with turbines there will remain the need for backup to be maintained for those occasions of insufficient wind.

The abiding issue is to discover the most efficient power, that which generates for the least cost in terms of finance/pollution etc ..... and to date there isn't really one - only theory.

[yvanleterrible]

I could write a book on the subject. Actually several books. I've been wanting an EV since the seventies and driven a few in 2001. Finally they will be offering the one I need... until again they change their minds for the umpteenth time...

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nuclear power does not generate "greenhouse gases".

Agreed they don't.
You know I'll have to seat my "but" here somewhere. Nothing personal Harry. I respect you.

1. "Greenhouse gasses" are not the only pollution sources to fight.
2. All thermal gereration stations are a threat to the immediate surrounding ecology as they warm the rivers. I include coal and natural gas for the same drawback.
3. Tchernobyl is closed and so is the surrounding region.
4. We have decided that our children and their offspring will take care of the poison leftover for 25000 years. That's more than the age of civilization. A human being is notable for slipups and breaches in concentration.
5. Every nuclear installation and containment devices are built of materials with a duration integrity shorter than the duration of toxicity for irradiated matter. Speaking of which, numerous reactors have to be decommisionned in the next future because of building material failure.

The list could continue on and on (250,000 years). The 5 preceding are enough to tell someone with good sense to back off. Our greed and selfishness will be responsible for our downfall.

As an ending note, every energy source exploitation has an intrinsic effect on our surrounding ecology and further on the dynamics of our spaceship Earth. The existence of humanity based on an exploitation of the ecology rather than a simple interaction with it dooms the future of the whole system and so forth mankind itself. We must choose ways that bring us in line with basic concepts that are in the nature of a simple animal or a mimickry of those of plantlife; we must reduce our footprint. Personnally I think we have passed the point of no return. My drop in the bucket will not reverse the damage, but I will smile back and keep on doing the right thing.

Go solar!

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can build all the wind farms you wish, but they do NOT replace coal plants, because it's not always windy. What are you going to do on a windless day? You need coal, gas, or nuclear plants for your "base load" power generation.

Wind farms certainly cannot provide all or even half the power needed but they could significantly reduce the total fraction currently supplied from coal and gas plants.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Wind farms certainly cannot provide all or even half the power needed but they could significantly reduce the total fraction currently supplied from coal and gas plants.

No, they can't. You can't just "switch off" a coal-fired power station - it takes weeks to take off-line, or bring back on-line. A coal station cannot, therefore, act as a "backup" for wind power on windless days, and equally you can't take a coal station off-line on windy days. Wind power can replace certain other types of power generation plant, such as hydro-electric plants, because they can be quickly taken on- and off-line.

I worked for many years in the UK power industry. The calculations about what "mixture" of generating plant you need to satisfy the varying demand at different times of the day and years are very complex, and I'm afraid it's overly simplistic to say "if we build more wind farms we can get rid of coal power stations". Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You need a mixture of "permanently on" power plants to satisfy your "base load" - that's currently basically a choice of coal, gas, and nuclear plants - plus generation capacity which can come on-line when needed to satisfy peaks of demand (and that can include wind power).

[vivaldirules]

Okay, I'm confused, Harry. I think you said in your last sentence that wind farms could supply a portion of the total power needed. If wind farms didn't exist, where would that peaking power have come from if not gas and coal plants? My only point is that if the power from wind farms is not entirely wasted, then it must be providing useful power to the grid which was once provided by gas and coal plants. Therefore, the total fraction of the power provided by gas and coal plants is smaller. No?

[HarryT]

Yes, obviously building wind farms will reduce the percentage of your power generating capacity that is coal-based - on windy days, at least! My point was, however, that building wind-farms does not allow you do take coal stations off-line, or even prevent the need for building new ones, because the two types of power plant serve different needs. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, you can replace your coal stations with nuclear power plants; you cannot replace them with wind farms.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, they can't. You can't just "switch off" a coal-fired power station - it takes weeks to take off-line, or bring back on-line. A coal station cannot, therefore, act as a "backup" for wind power on windless days, and equally you can't take a coal station off-line on windy days. Wind power can replace certain other types of power generation plant, such as hydro-electric plants, because they can be quickly taken on- and off-line.

I worked for many years in the UK power industry. The calculations about what "mixture" of generating plant you need to satisfy the varying demand at different times of the day and years are very complex, and I'm afraid it's overly simplistic to say "if we build more wind farms we can get rid of coal power stations". Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. You need a mixture of "permanently on" power plants to satisfy your "base load" - that's currently basically a choice of coal, gas, and nuclear plants - plus generation capacity which can come on-line when needed to satisfy peaks of demand (and that can include wind power).

I totally agree.

If I can bring a lame analogy in the mix it would be this. I'd compare energy procurement to the specialty workings of a company. To funtion properly an enterprise needs administrators, accountants, workers, sucontractors etc.
The energy web we need to function efficiently has to be built around a different and varied supply mix most of which is built around electricity transport. Although each form of procurement deemed gren has limitations, all can be used.

To my knowledge there is only one form of power, still experimental at this time, that provides the stability and ecofriendlyness that would suit our needs. Tidal and wave power generation. So far there are, believe it or not, hurdles that would slow its progress down. The first is the way to harness the power, the second, technical aspects surrounding the transmission lines underwater, the third, impediments to maritime activities and the fourth, effects on the marine ecology in relation to sound, vibrations and EM waves. Since 90% of the world population resides close to waterways this type of power generation could bring fascinating possibilities.

An other concept that would help us migrate to more ecofriendly forms of energy that are fragilised by natural instabilities such as wind and solar, is that of storage in massive proportions. It is widely accepted than transmission of power to and from a storage form induces a high loss coefficient that is sometimes deemed too expensive, but some are worthy of investigation and investment. We could use power produced over peak from one type of generation to pump water in an artificial dammed lake and release that water to produce power as needed. Other clever solutions such as this exist.

We face the greed of those profiteering of the actual state of power management as the biggest hurdle to "paint ourselves green".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

To my knowledge there is only one form of power, still experimental at this time, that provides the stability and ecofriendlyness that would suit our needs. Tidal and wave power generation.

Yes, wave power can be used for "base load" power, but as you say, at present it's still very much experimental and extremely expensive, and somewhat restricted in terms of the number of suitable locations. There are a number of "wave power" installations around the coast of Britain; being an island, wave power has great potential for the UK in the future.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, wave power can be used for "base load" power, but as you say, at present it's still very much experimental and extremely expensive, and somewhat restricted in terms of the number of suitable locations. There are a number of "wave power" installations around the coast of Britain; being an island, wave power has great potential for the UK in the future.

That would be fantastic for the UK!

[yvanleterrible]

There could be an other benefit as a side effect to wave power. Riparian populations often complain of erosion and damages cause by the sea. Adequately evaluated wave power generation could factor in those concerns and provide partial relief. Of course that would complexify marine life protection efforts.

[HarryT]

"Riparian" is an excellent word - I'd never seen it before, but its meaning is of course obvious if one knows that "ripa" is the Latin word for "river bank" .

Yes, you're right - tidal barrages and other such power generation plants can certainly play their part of protecting coastal areas from wave erosion.

[yvanleterrible]

Thank you Harry. My learning of English is progressing. I wish my grasp of grammar could advance as fast as the additions to my vocabulary.