[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Alternate Energy Sources; Availability
And to take it to the next level, you COULD design a
collection / capacity system that could be used to
balance the supply and demand flow from alternate
systems, but that would basically mean batteries. It
means taking DC and turning it into AC, and vice versa,
with all the inefficiencies that that would entail.
That then adds a LOT of expense, and battery manufacture
is FAR from an environmentally benign activity.
To level these discussions, one has to look at the entire
energy production process from start to end. This means
environmental impact of oil fields, environmental impact
of oil spills, number of deaths due to coal mining,
number of deaths due to transportation accidents with
LPG, impact of releases of organic solvents to the
groundwater, contamination from metals processing, costs
of unavailability of prime movers (e.g., wind, water),
etc. I haven't even mentioned global warming.
If you make those calculations, nothing looks too good.
But in that "apples to apples" context, nuclear doesn't
look bad at all.
Jim Barnes, CHP
james.g.barnes@att.net
> November 21, 2001
> Davis, CA
>
> Sure, there are theoretically large amounts of wind power out there, and
> solar power, too, but the distribution is erratic and the energy density is
> very dilute. It is not practical to try to harvest these so-called
> renewable energy sources, because the distributed energy cannot be
> efficiently collected. It may be easy to conclude that there is enough wind
> and direct solar power to meet our electrical energy needs, but the truth
> is that it is not in a usable form. So the statement "THERE
> SIMPLY_ARE_NOT_ENOUGH 'RENEWABLES' PERIOD!!!" may be wrong with respect to
> the total energy present but it is correct with respect to its potential
> usefulness.
>
> (1) Wind power stations can only supply a meager amount of electricity
> because the fraction of the wind power that can be captured is tiny. In
> California we have examples of these power "stations". The fraction of the
> wind power that passes them that is harvested is obviously very small.
> Besides being rather ugly, these units are deadly to birds, and they occupy
> considerable open space per unit of recovered energy. There is probably a
> high breakdown rate because of their mechanical features, for I have
> observed that a large fraction are usually out of service. Finally, the
> deaths and injuries to people per MWh of electricity are probably much
> higher than for other technologies. There have been electrocutions to
> maintenance workers trying to repair these windmills. I do not have costs
> of construction and repair, but my guess is that, as with solar, the cost
> of construction and operation of these units leads to much higher energy
> costs than from other technologies.
>
> (2) The sun's rays are too dilute and intermittent for efficient use for
> electrical power. With current technology it would require covering an area
> of about 25 square miles with collectors and support roads to produce a
> 1,000 MWe system, that only works when the sun is shining. Here in
> California we have lots of sun, but there are still only about 5 to 6 hours
> per day in which solar power reaches peak levels. Also, think of the
> environmental consequence of virtually destroying all the plant and animal
> life on 25 square miles of land to equal one 1,000 MWe power plant that
> shuts down every night and in bad weather. That's not an environmentally
> sound approach. California would need to cover 1,000 square miles with
> collectors to meet its electrical energy needs. Maybe we could use the
> Mohave desert, but what about the endangered species and plants? The
> so-called environmentalists complained about use of just a few hundred
> acres for the Ward Valley LLRW disposal facility. More efficient collectors
> would help somewhat, but solar to electrical conversion efficiency probably
> will continue to be severely limited. With current technology, the cost of
> collectors in terms of energy consumed and materials used in manufacture
> probably exceeds the electrical energy value of ten to twenty years of use,
> even assuming no breakdowns or repair costs. Consequently, commercial solar
> electricity per MWh will great exceed the cost of nuclear power. Solar has
> not been not cost effective, even for home roof systems, since costs
> greatly exceed their power generation value. Most that have been built were
> built with government (tax-payer) subsidies. They are still not a good
> investment now.
>
> Otto
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
> Center for Health & the Environment
> (Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
> University of California, Davis, CA 95616
> E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
> Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
> ***********************************************
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.