Want to Keep the Lights On?

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

Intelligence is the cheapest thing there is nowadays. I'll bet you have dozens of processors in your house, many of whom can control power (like washing machine controllers or UPSes) and many of whom communicate with a local server without you ever knowing it (like your DVR box.)

Controlling it is the cheap part but I am talking about the ability to store power and distribute it when and where it is needed. That cost is astronomical. That is why the largest renewable utility in the world hasn't done it.

There are three reasons utilities are doing anything with solar: Carbon credits, tax credits and public perception of good will. Solar cost us 7 cents a KW more to produce it than the retail cost that we bill it at.

And if you want to talk about land cost of generation vs solar there is no comparison. Again, look at SEGS, the largest solar facility in the world and it takes up 2,000 acres to make only 350MW. You can put a nuclear plant on 200 acres and make 2,400MW and produce that electric at a cost that is 11 times LESS.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Controlling it is the cheap part but I am talking about the ability to store power and distribute it when and where it is needed. That cost is astronomical. That is why the largest renewable utility in the world hasn't done it.

What about this. Seems like a reasonable enough solution (insert rimshot) and I can't imagine that it would be cost prohibitive. It's certainly a step in the right direction. If we can somehow justify $10 billion a month for other "pet projects" then I don't understand how we can't justify spending a fraction of that towards our energy needs.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

What about this. Seems like a reasonable enough solution (insert rimshot) and I can't imagine that it would be cost prohibitive. It's certainly a step in the right direction. If we can somehow justify $10 billion a month for other "pet projects" then I don't understand how we can't justify spending a fraction of that towards our energy needs.

There are several problems with it. It takes an enormous amount of land and infrastructure to make a small amount of power. SEGS runs on residual retained thermal energy till about 10:30 at night which is about the best they can do. It is also very expensive to make solar power. It cost about 11 times more to make power by solar than it does by nuclear.

There is also the issue that solar is weather/sun dependant which greatly limits where you can put them. SEGS is located in the Mojave Desert and has about 340 good solar days a year, Florida has half that many.

Solar has its place where it is great such as remote areas, water heating and small commercial applications but not on a national utility level. I also think it has great potential in the future for vehicles. I have a 75W panel on my golf cart and never have to plug into the grid to charge it.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[Jeffwxyz 0]

There is something wrong with that 100GW number. I believe that it assumes that you are not using deep drilling. That is just taking the "low hanging fruit"
There are studies that show that all of our power needs can be provided from geothermal sources.

Solar won't ever get to be more than 10-15% of generation, not only because of the cost, but also because solar can't generate 24 hours a day. Many are working on trying to store energy from a solar array, but that will only add to the cost.

The problem why solar and wind can't work is not really an engineering problem. Everything that people want to do with solar and wind can be done.

The real problem is of economics and finding a balance between the cost of a power plant and how much people can pay for power. If we went right now and converted all of our generation to solar, power rates would have to go up huge amounts. Something like 20X