Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 13 Nov 2020, 17:12:21

Newfie wrote:Mustang,

Living in temperate climates, at our population levels, is a modern luxury, that is not sustainable.

I have to doubt that. Most of or population today is urban or suburban spending most of our time indoors or in a transport vehicle. The energy to provide that controlled climate inside that living space can be had both by fossil fuels but also by renewable sources. As long as the farmland and oceans can be kept productive I see no reason why the mid latitudes would not be viable. It is the arid desert countries without sufficient water to supply the population that will be the first to become nonviable.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11811
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 13 Nov 2020, 21:03:15

Not arguing which becomes non-viable first, you may well be right regarding desert countries and water.

My comment was about heat in temperate climates. It takes a LOT of energy to heat NY City or Chicago or Toronto.

Ine can learn to conserve on many things; drive less, use LED lights, turn light off at night. But heat has limitations, you can only let it get so cold. And cold happens in winter without a lot of sun.

Sure ultra high efficiency houses can be built. We are not going to build new ultra high efficiency houses for 200 million, just in the USA.

The goal is, supposedly, to get to zero emissions. NO fossil fuels. Thats gonna be tough in those 3 cities and elsewhere. Maybe with nuclear.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 13 Nov 2020, 21:32:08

Heat in Toronto, AC in Atlanta, two ends of the spectrum. Both can be provided off the electric grid with whatever energy source you choose. I would think that urban High rise buildings would tend to be efficient just from the ratio of floor space to walls and roof heat losers compared to single family suburban houses.
I'm already seeing very energy efficient houses being constructed with walls ten to twelve inches thick and heat exchangers recapturing heat from vented stale air.
My ancestors survived here in Vermont with fireplaces fed with hand chopped wood. Of course they wore wool inside in the winter.
Other then places like Hawaii with uniform year round temperatures I think the mid latitudes are the most livable with at least six months of comfortable temperatures followed by a few months of discomfort that is easily adapted to. Of course if you can summer in Vermont and winter in Atlanta you can have your cake and eat it to. I need to talk to the Atlanta daughter about getting a house with a mother-in law apartment for us to migrate to in the winter. :)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 11811
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby REAL Green » Sat 14 Nov 2020, 06:52:11

vtsnowedin wrote:Heat in Toronto, AC in Atlanta, two ends of the spectrum. Both can be provided off the electric grid with whatever energy source you choose. I would think that urban High rise buildings would tend to be efficient just from the ratio of floor space to walls and roof heat losers compared to single family suburban houses. I'm already seeing very energy efficient houses being constructed with walls ten to twelve inches thick and heat exchangers recapturing heat from vented stale air.
My ancestors survived here in Vermont with fireplaces fed with hand chopped wood. Of course they wore wool inside in the winter.


You forget overshoot, delocalization, and diminishing returns to tech. You are also pointing to a period long ago when people were mentally acclimated to harsh conditions and manual labor. They were not delocalized in overshoot either. You are fantasizing, mixing the old with the new but missing the key mitigating factor of a decline process. While I preach a hybridization of old and new with green prepping I do not agree this will be a painless process of optimism. In fact this is why there is the prepping component to the green in my REAL Green. The green is not your standard green liberalism either which is a fake green techno optimism. This is the harsh green of lower scale of affluence and mobility. The lower mobility is more than physical it is also less techno reach.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby mustang19 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 00:25:25

Vestas is sued for blade failures

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/articl ... -ohio-site

Manufacturers lied, everything about lifespan and eroi of blades is fake.

There is no way wind energy can work becuase it is 40% efficient. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade. It can never hope to eroi for basic physical reasons.

Only flexible materials can be used, rigid turbines are an impossible task.
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 08:49:54

mustang19 wrote:Vestas is sued for blade failures

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/articl ... -ohio-site

Manufacturers lied, everything about lifespan and eroi of blades is fake.

There is no way wind energy can work becuase it is 40% efficient. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade. It can never hope to eroi for basic physical reasons.

Only flexible materials can be used, rigid turbines are an impossible task.
Read the article. No mention of a lawsuit. No mention of lying manufactures. No mention of fake EROEI. And the blade failed because it was struck by lightning. Is everything you write BS?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby REAL Green » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 11:39:11

This is a great look at EROI of various sources with an excellent explanation of EROI. I got this off the news section. I highly recommend reading the PDF with its well rounded analysis of a deeper EROI viewpoint.

"A summary of Weisbach’s EROI study, which is generally considered to be the most reliable."
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf

"EROI of onshore wind power in northern Germany is ~16. It is worth noting that EROI will be different depending upon turbine design, where it is situated (I.e. wind speed) and its effective lifetime. An EROI of 16 implies an ECoE of 6.25% – which is marginal but still workable. The ability of wind power to support industrial civilisation depends largely on our ability to harness it without wasting exergy. That means minimising energy transitions, energy lost in storage and transmission, etc. That implies in my mind that we should avoid wasteful solutions like the hydrogen economy or battery electric cars and concentrate instead on direct use of the electrical and mechanical energy as it is produced. That means grid connected electric transport like trains and trams and industrial manufacturing powered by grid electric wind power. We need to adapt to intermittent energy, by having some functions that are capable of responding to supply. For example, heating and cooling can be switched off when electricity supply is low, if thermal inertia is built into the system. Transport can run more slowly if energy levels are lower. Manufacturing can postpone some functions when energy levels are low. This is how it will need to work. Labour productivity will be lower. EROI of light water nuclear reactors is estimated to be 75. This is superior to any fossil fuel power generation, with the possible exception of natural gas. But there is institutional inertia to the use of nuclear energy that may prove difficult to overcome. In China, where fewer such limitations exist, nuclear power is expanding rapidly."
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby mustang19 » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 14:48:47

kublikhan wrote:
mustang19 wrote:Vestas is sued for blade failures

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/articl ... -ohio-site

Manufacturers lied, everything about lifespan and eroi of blades is fake.

There is no way wind energy can work becuase it is 40% efficient. 60% of energy goes into deforming the blade. It can never hope to eroi for basic physical reasons.

Only flexible materials can be used, rigid turbines are an impossible task.
Read the article. No mention of a lawsuit. No mention of lying manufactures. No mention of fake EROEI. And the blade failed because it was struck by lightning. Is everything you write BS?


They are in losses becuase of repair costs
mustang19
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 16:06:27

Re: Inverters are complicated.

Yes - some are complicated - others not so much.

FPGAs are not needed - I am sure someone is stupid enough to over engineer the inverter, but it is total overkill. The very simplest of grade of microprocessors (<2$ cost) is plentiful of power to control the power electronics - which again is not very complicated.

Some also has graphics displays - not needed. All you need is a 2$ wifi module or a 2$ USB interface. The ESP-32 for example would be plenty of cpu power and include communications.

There need to be no significant losses (in materials) in solar power over any amount of time when and if the products are matured.
It could easily be done if we gave it the effort. But yes it requires an effort that is not necessarily good in a market economy. Companies dont earn money on selling something that never break or is easily and cheaply repaired/renewed.
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it for real?"
User avatar
Peak_Yeast
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: Wind & Solar Are Wrong Path Pt. 2

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 24 Nov 2020, 19:09:27

REAL Green wrote:This is a great look at EROI of various sources with an excellent explanation of EROI. I got this off the news section. I highly recommend reading the PDF with its well rounded analysis of a deeper EROI viewpoint.

"A summary of Weisbach’s EROI study, which is generally considered to be the most reliable."
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf

"EROI of onshore wind power in northern Germany is ~16. It is worth noting that EROI will be different depending upon turbine design, where it is situated (I.e. wind speed) and its effective lifetime. An EROI of 16 implies an ECoE of 6.25% – which is marginal but still workable. The ability of wind power to support industrial civilisation depends largely on our ability to harness it without wasting exergy. That means minimising energy transitions, energy lost in storage and transmission, etc. That implies in my mind that we should avoid wasteful solutions like the hydrogen economy or battery electric cars and concentrate instead on direct use of the electrical and mechanical energy as it is produced. That means grid connected electric transport like trains and trams and industrial manufacturing powered by grid electric wind power. We need to adapt to intermittent energy, by having some functions that are capable of responding to supply. For example, heating and cooling can be switched off when electricity supply is low, if thermal inertia is built into the system. Transport can run more slowly if energy levels are lower. Manufacturing can postpone some functions when energy levels are low. This is how it will need to work. Labour productivity will be lower. EROI of light water nuclear reactors is estimated to be 75. This is superior to any fossil fuel power generation, with the possible exception of natural gas. But there is institutional inertia to the use of nuclear energy that may prove difficult to overcome. In China, where fewer such limitations exist, nuclear power is expanding rapidly."
Actually that paper is written by nuclear engineers who tweaked every value they could to make renewables look bad and nuclear look good. It is not a very good source for EROI values. Other studies put the EROI of nuclear around 14 or 15, not 75.

Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI or EROEI) is an expression of energy payback – how much energy we get out of the energy we put into a system. Now, a new scientific paper by nuclear researchers in Germany is making the rounds. In general, the authors seem keen on tweaking the calculation in order to make nuclear look better – and renewables worse.
Renewables K.O.-ed by EROI?

Meta-analysis of EROI values for nuclear energy suggests a mean EROI of about 14:1 (n of 33 from 15 publications)
Image
EROI of different fuels and the implications for society
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4646
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests