Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

A few years ago we reduced that to 0 pounds per year simply by switching our electricity provider to one that produces it all from wind turbines only.

Surely not, since it's not always windy. Your electricity presumably doesn't get "cut off" on calm days? As I've said on the "nuclear" thread, you cannot use things like wind and solar power for "base load" power generation, because they are not always there.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely not, since it's not always windy. Your electricity presumably doesn't get "cut off" on calm days? As I've said on the "nuclear" thread, you cannot use things like wind and solar power for "base load" power generation, because they are not always there.

It's a matter of what source you pay to be applied to the electricity grid. The portion I pay for is all wind. If literally everyone did that and there was no other source, then yes, it would be a problem. On an average day during the summer the wind turbines in Texas produce little, for example. But if a much larger fraction of the total electricity applied to the grid came from wind (or solar), then it could be reasonably expected that we could shut down some coal- and natural gas-fired plants here and still have sufficient power available for everyone. And making that substantial difference would require little effort.

[HarryT]

OK, I think I see what you're saying.

To elaborate on what I was saying though, there are basically two types of power generation capability:

"Base load" generation, which is always on-line and which deals with the the power requirements that are there 24/7. Such plants include coal, and nuclear plant - you can't just "switch off" a coal power station if it's not needed, or stop feeding coal into it. It takes days to safely shut it down.

"Transient" generation capacity, which can quickly be brought on-line and taken off-line to satisfy short-term power requirements - eg when everyone sits down to watch TV in the evening. This includes hydroelectric plants, as well as more "esoteric" types such as pump-storage power plants, AND things like wind and solar power.

So, as I was saying, it doesn't matter how many wind farms you build, you really can't use them for your base-load generating capacity. Only something like nuclear stations can replace coal power stations.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely not, since it's not always windy. Your electricity presumably doesn't get "cut off" on calm days? As I've said on the "nuclear" thread, you cannot use things like wind and solar power for "base load" power generation, because they are not always there.

It certainly can be done. Using batteries to store excess energy when things are working. This is very common with most solar homes. During the middle of the day when most of the electricity is generated but not used it is stored in batteries and/or capacitors. Then at night when it is needed it is drawn from the batteries.

This is actually part of the "grand solar plan" which I feel to many important people have been ignoring. I think it is feasible and we should focus our efforts on solar.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

It certainly can be done. Using batteries to store excess energy when things are working. This is very common with most solar homes. During the middle of the day when most of the electricity is generated but not used it is stored in batteries and/or capacitors. Then at night when it is needed it is drawn from the batteries.

Doesn't that somewhat throw the proverbial spanner in the works as far as the idea of being "environmentally friendly" is concerned? Lead/acid batteries, which I presume (?) are used to store the electricity during the day, are an environment "disaster area" as far as manufacturing goes.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, I think I see what you're saying.

To elaborate on what I was saying though, there are basically two types of power generation capability:

"Base load" generation, which is always on-line and which deals with the the power requirements that are there 24/7. Such plants include coal, and nuclear plant - you can't just "switch off" a coal power station if it's not needed, or stop feeding coal into it. It takes days to safely shut it down.

"Transient" generation capacity, which can quickly be brought on-line and taken off-line to satisfy short-term power requirements - eg when everyone sits down to watch TV in the evening. This includes hydroelectric plants, as well as more "esoteric" types such as pump-storage power plants, AND things like wind and solar power.

So, as I was saying, it doesn't matter how many wind farms you build, you really can't use them for your base-load generating capacity. Only something like nuclear stations can replace coal power stations.

Harry presumably knows better than I, as he's actually worked in that industry. That said, my readings suggest three broad categories, rather than two. First is "base load," essentially exactly as described by HarryT.

The other two categories appear to be a refinement (??) of Harry's second category. Books/articles I've read speak separately about "transient" and "peaking" capacity. I've not seen actual definitions, but the context appears to imply that "transient" is used for the plants used for things like "the working day has begun, so we'll fire up the plants that we leave idle overnight." By comparison "peaking" capacity shows up in contexts like "oh my G*d, it's a really hot summer afternoon and everyone has their air conditioner on. Fire up the peaking plants, too!" I've seen transient and peaking capacity used separately in individual articles, which implies that the authors thought they were different things.

HarryT -- does this fit anything in your professional knowledge? Or am I smoking crack? Or???

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Oh yeah. In terms of Cost/energy delivered, they seem pretty clear that baseline << transient << peaking.

Xenophon

[HarryT]

Absolutely right, Xenophon. The point is, you can't just say "cold weather is forecast, so we're going to need to fire up another coal power station". You can do that with something like a hydroelectric station or a wind farm. You need both (or, by your definition, all three) types of generating capacity available - in the appropriate proportions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Oh yeah. In terms of Cost/energy delivered, they seem pretty clear that baseline << transient << peaking.

Xenophon

Yes, but on the other hand (and there always is another hand ) it costs a fortune to keep things like coal stations running whose output is not being used - you've still got to keep shovelling coal into the things, whether or not you're using the electricity. The "difficult bit" is forecasting what your power needs are going to be in 5 or 10 years' time, and making sure that you have the right "mix" of generating capacity available.

[Xenophon]

As for idle coal plants costing lots of money... tell me about it!

Some time in the next few years my electric rates will soon drop by about 25%. You see, our local electric utility Duquesne Flicker & Flash... er... Duquesne Light built a large number of coal plants in the late 70s and early 80s to serve the steel industry. But then the local steel industry evaporated. Leaving the rate-payers holding the bag to pay for (debt service on) 2.5X the baseline capacity needed in the region.

Since the electric utility is a "regulated monopoly" they have a guaranteed rate of return. Customers went away? Sock the remaining customers with the entire bill. Plus profits. The reason our rates will drop is that they'll finally finish paying off the bonds for those plants, and will no longer be permitted to charge us for servicing the debt on the bonds.

In a competitive market, by comparison, Duquesne's profits would have taken a hit and their stock price would have gone done. They might even have gone bankrupt! But the people taking the hit would be the owners of the company (the shareholders), rather than the local residents who have no choice about dealing with the one-and-only power company in the region.

Yes, we've been de-regulated since then and can choose which company generates the power we buy. But part of the deregulation deal attached the debt service for those &^%$&^%$ plants to the part of our electric bill that goes to the company that owns the wires to our premises. That would be -- wait for it -- Duquesne Light!

"Why," you may ask, "don't they sell power from those plants in other markets?" They do, to the extent it has been possible. But the electric market to our West is already over capacity. And between us and the NorthEast Corridor of the US is the entire rural width of Pennsylvania. Several attempts to run new powerlines across the state have been defeated politically by the representatives of the farmers. It seems that high tension lines are bad for the cows. Or something.

But I'm not bitter...

Meanwhile, most of Duquesne's plants are in mothballs. And we pay (and pay, and pay) for the debt service on equipment that is not producing any revenue. And hasn't produced any revenue for over 20 years. Sigh.

So coal plants are expensive even when they are shut down!

Xenophon

[vivaldirules]

I think it's difficult for the average person to understand the amount of carbon that is consumed in a typical coal-fired power plant. Below is a video of a train similar to what we typically see twice a day here making deliveries to one such plant. The train in the video shows 114 rail cars containing roughly a quarter million pounds of coal in each car. Roughly 85+% of that is carbon that ends up in carbon dioxide. I don't recall how many plants there are with that kind of diet but the number is large and growing. Each pound of coal produces less than 1 kilowatt-hour of energy.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doesn't that somewhat throw the proverbial spanner in the works as far as the idea of being "environmentally friendly" is concerned? Lead/acid batteries, which I presume (?) are used to store the electricity during the day, are an environment "disaster area" as far as manufacturing goes.

It would probably be some variant of lithium batteries. Static storage of electricity would be best served by a reliable fuel cell, with some form of watersplitting and hydrogen storage (possibly metal hydrides or carbon nanotubules) as weight would not be an object. But currently that's not an available option either.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speed and battery range are reported to be higher than the specs on the Chevy Volt. And yes, I haven't seena price yet, either... but do you think it will be higher than the projected $30,000 Volt?

I just read a blurb on Engadget that the MiEV is coming to the US by 2012. However, they say the price in Japan is going to be about $30k equivalent. So, not much cheaper than the Volt.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/09/m...ded-to-the-us/

BOb

[Ceili]

Originally Posted by Moe The Cat

Really? I thought jobs were shipped overseas because it's cheaper and allows corporations to increase their profit margins. It's like Steve's incandescent light bulbs: people continue to use them because they're cheaper.

Using the new light bulbs costs more and paying someone locally to do the job costs more, so the cheaper choice wins.

Actually, I was given my first first CFL free, it beamed for more than 9 years (tho' the first 2 years it was in an apartment hallway, so only on for short times). When checking out the pricing of the bulbs now, I found it is much cheaper to replace all possible bulbs with the new ones. I save money on my Electric bill, I pay less over time and, gosh, it's somewhat better for the planet.... how can you go wrong?

ps- besides, if you check out the websites, you'll almost always find coupons for $1. or more off the CFL bulbs... allowing you to save even more

[yvanleterrible]

Remember that although CFs save energy, they contain mercury and should be disposed of responsibly.