Scientific Forums


Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> What's The Best Source Of Alternate Power, solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal
 
what is the best form of alternate power
Solar [ 15 ]  [60.00%]
Wind [ 2 ]  [8.00%]
Tidal [ 1 ]  [4.00%]
Geothermal [ 7 ]  [28.00%]
Total Votes: 25
Guests cannot vote 
AussieSwede
Posted on May 30 2011, 12:00 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 29-May 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Solar! We have a direct contact with sun now because we got hole in our ozone layer.. I think it's good idea... tongue.gif
Top
JMC187
Posted on Jun 17 2011, 04:12 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 17-June 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Solar
Wind
Tidal
Geothermal


The amount of energy produce based on area makes both solar and wind rather inefficient. What I mean is that it takes a large area to place enough solar panels or wind turbines to produce what a factory size reactor can put out.

Tidal is limited to locations, not only coastal but also with sufficient tides (like the Bay of Fundy).

Geothermal, I believe, has the best potential. It's really only limited by drilling technology and the power plant is basically the same as those that are currently used (coal, natural gas, nuclear) in both size and method of production.

So long as you can drill deep enough to reach temperatures a few hundred degrees, then it works just like any power plant mentioned above. Instead of burning a substance or using radioactive decay to get the temperatures to produce the steam, the heat in the Earth does it.
Top
Sapo
Posted on Jun 17 2011, 08:41 PM


Unregistered









Why this was posted in Nanotechnology will remain a mystery, I suppose.

There need not be one best source, but nuclear power has significant problems that geothermal, solar and wind do not. They may not be as efficient in the short run, but nuclear is much more poisonous in the long.

If you live on a windy hill, put a turbine up. There are some designs that don't make too much noise and kill birds, but they aren't sponsored or approved by big business.

Photovoltaics are a good idea if you live in North Africa or the Mojave, for instance, but hydroelectric isn't. Do you want salmon for dinner or light to eat by?

There is not a simple, one-size-fits-all solution, but polluting sources like coal and oil need to be minimized or eliminated very soon.

MHO.
Top
Quantum_Conundrum
Posted on Jun 18 2011, 01:29 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1921
Joined: 30-April 07

Positive Feedback: 30.43%
Feedback Score: -123


Based on publicly available data, a 10 megawatt wind turbine averaging 50% optimal conditons will produce enough power to pay for itself 65 times during it's lifetime.

Even by the time you consider other infrastructure costs, such as power lines and grid ties, etc, as well as maintenance, the wind turbines pay for the cost of the entire system dozens of times in their life time.

The total cost of a 10 megawatt wind turbine during it's lifetime is around $2 million for purchase, pluse install, plus maintenance. Remember, with wind, the "Fuel" is free, all you need is a turbine...

Given the current price of Coal and the maximum foreseeable efficiency of a coal power plant, in order for the Coal power plant to make 5 megawatts of power continuously for the 30 years lifetime of the wind turbine would cost around $36 million in the most energy dense Coal available. This does not count the cost of the power plant itself, nor the cost of additional labor, maintenance, repairs, or pollution, etc.


I calculated that if you covered the BEST 1/8th of the United States in Wind Turbines placed at 15 turbine radius spacing, it would produce enough power for the entire world.

If you made around 1 trillion dollars in 10 megawatt wind turbines, and placed them in the best locations in the united states, then even if they only averaged half capacity, that would be 2.5 Terawatts at 50%, or 5 Terawatts at 100%, or which is anywhere from 1/7th to nearly 1/3rd of the entire world energy budget....

The dollar value of the energy this investment would produce in it's 30 year lifetime at current energy prices is anywhere from $65 trillion to $130 trillion or more. Moreover, since there is no fuel cost...ever....the longterm investment in Wind Power is "inflation proof". If the dollar weakens it makes no difference, because the Wind Power becomes proportionately more valuable (unlike some other energy investments, such as Coal, which would become more and more expensive with inflation and taxation)...

When you look at this and THINK about that, the U.S. government should have invested in Wind Farms, instead of the crappy economic stimulus package. If the government owned Wind energy farms,a nd sold the power to people at cost plus 10%, they could skip the profit margin of the power company "middle man" and still have so much income they could even pay off the federal debt and deficit with NO taxes....


Of course, this would be anathema to the Republicans and Tea Partiers, since they believe the Government should not do, well, anything....

Now it's true that Solar Boiler Power is around 15 to 30 times more energy dense, meaning it takes less area, but solar boilers also costs far, far more in initial investment and maintenance, because it's more complicated and operates at so much higher temperatures. However, in the long term, Solar is still far more cost effective investment than Coal, see below...


Photovoltaics are far more expensive per unit energy than solar boilers, and yet even they are 15% cheaper per unit power over a long term investment, even by the time you figure doubling them up to provide the power for night time, than just the cost of the COAL alone in coal powered plants, ignoring the cost the the coal boilers and other systems, etc...


Effectively, solar boilers are identical in principle to Coal boilers, except you don't "waste" money on the purchase price of "fuel" and you don't have pollution or corrosion, so your maintenance and repair costs should be lower, and should have virtually no waste disposal costs...


At any rate, given this list:

Wind
Tidal
Solar Boilers
Solar Photovoltaics
Geothermal

Wind Power is THE most effective per unit cost.

Solar boilers are the second most effective per unit cost, and by far the most energy dense, being up to 15 to 30 times as energy dense as Wind Turbines.

Tidal and other ocean current energies is also of a similar energy density to solar boilers, but is harder to tap into in most cases.

Solar Photovoltaics are up to 5 to 10 times as energy dense as Wind, but cost nearly 30 times more than Wind power per megawatt....


Geothermal can be very energy dense, but of all of these it has the highest degree of risk and the highest degree of maintenance and repair. Initial costs per watt are impossible to calculate for general purposes, because they are unique to the location...




So my proposal is, since Wind Turbines turn out to be the cheapest per megawatt, we should make Wind Turbines anywhere and everywhere possible, particularly in the areas of highest wind density, at the maximum reasonably efficient density of turbines.


500,000 or more wind turbines sounds like a lot, but when you think about the number of sky scrapers and other commercial and industrial buildings we have in this country, that is a relatively small project, and would meet most of the U.S. energy budget even at 50% capacity....and the Government could purchase them for mere $1 Trillion....about the same amount they spent on the useless bailouts....
Top
adoucette
Posted on Jun 22 2011, 08:23 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE
Based on publicly available data, a 10 megawatt wind turbine averaging 50% optimal conditons will produce enough power to pay for itself 65 times during it's lifetime.


But such conditions don't exist in the US.

Our windfarms produce power at around 30% of Capacity, much lower than your estimate (and since we are installing them in our best sites to start with, as we build out the quality of the sites will go down).

QUOTE
The total cost of a 10 megawatt wind turbine during it's lifetime is around $2 million for purchase, pluse install, plus maintenance. Remember, with wind, the "Fuel" is free, all you need is a turbine...


Well 10 MW turbines are not yet available, and when they are, those size turbines are only installed off-shore and they will cost far more than $2 million just to purchase, much less install and operate.

In reality, most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 1.5 to 2 MW in size and cost roughly $2 million per MW of capacity.

To replace the output of a 1,000 MW coal plant you need about 3,000 MW capacity of Wind, but you'd still need massive amounts of back up production because there are long periods when the wind doesn't blow (dog days of summer and the dead of winter, which unfortuately are also our peak demand times).

As to the "enough power to pay for itself 65 times".

Not hardly.

Indeed today, the government offers Wind Farms both an attrative Investment Tax Credit to install the turbines and a very lucrative 0.022 cent Production Tax Credit for each kW produced for the first 10 years of operation just to make it feasible to install them.

Case studies suggest that well managed Turbine sites in good locations (without PTC) become profitable in about the 15th year of operation and are expected to have ~20 year life.

They need 2 to 3 service calls a year per turbine, which takes 2 engineers 2 to 3 days to handle.

The cost, including the other annual operational costs (land lease, electricity to operate the turbines (can't come from the turbines) and someone has to be on call) of this runs about 4% of the Turbine cost or about $80,000 per year, or 1.6 million per 2 MW turbine over 20 years (800k per MW).

They typically need a complete mechanical overhaul after 10 years at about 10% of the turbine cost or about $200,000. (100k per MW)

So the lifetime costs, per MW Capacity is about $3 million.

Compared to output at 90% capacity for thermal plants, it's about $9 million per MW or about 45 times your initial estimate.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Jun 22 2011, 09:14 PM


--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
roomend
Posted on Jul 10 2011, 08:01 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 10-July 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I think solar is the best. So much energy comes from the Sun. We just need to learn how to use it more effectively!!!!


--------------------
ZnO Deposition Master

For all things ZnO related:
www.zincoxidetco.com[URL=http://www.zincoxidetco.com]ZnO Reference Site[/URL]
Top
nutrition
Posted on Nov 17 2011, 10:04 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 17-November 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


according to me, i think solar is best.
ph34r.gif blink.gif tongue.gif wink.gif
Top
soundhertz
Posted on Nov 20 2011, 09:37 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2126
Joined: 21-January 06

Positive Feedback: 91.3%
Feedback Score: 120


Controversial and traditionally dubious, but nevertheless intriguing:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power


--------------------
"Time's grey hand won't catch me while the stars shine down;
Untie and unlatch me while the stars shine"
Top
Guest
Posted on Jun 11 2012, 11:17 AM


Unregistered









Did anyone actually read Quantum_Conundrum's and then adoucette's posts
If not I suggest you take the time.
Top
Whitewolf4869
Posted on Jun 13 2012, 02:11 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 18-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (roomend @ Jul 10 2011, 08:01 PM)
I think solar is the best. So much energy comes from the Sun. We just need to learn how to use it more effectively!!!!

Yes I agree!


--------------------
Flyingbuttressman
A pillar in the house of GOD
White wolf has spoken!
Top
flatulence
Posted on Jun 19 2012, 09:55 PM


Unregistered









Everybody bend over, it's methane.
Top
rethinker
Posted on Jun 20 2012, 12:18 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 795
Joined: 23-November 06

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: -2


QUOTE (flatulence @ Jun 19 2012, 04:55 PM)
Everybody bend over, it's methane.

Isn't that called Me thane?


--------------------
Rethinker
Top
Capracus
Posted on Oct 11 2012, 07:29 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5374
Joined: 5-October 06

Positive Feedback: 75.56%
Feedback Score: 41


More from our stinky little friends.

Microbial fuel cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_fuel_cell
Top
MadScientist17
  Posted on Feb 7 2013, 09:47 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 7-February 13

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Ok only one person other than me has brain. Come on, the answer has been staring at us for years and you people are so stupid and blind you cannot see it. It is nuclear power. It is renewable, effective, ad safe. And don't tell me it isn't liberals. They take most of that waste and reuse it. Its just pellets. And the rest they get rid of in one of there hazardous waste facilitys. So it doesn't hurt anything. Japan runs on it, even though they didn't follow the company guidelines but now they do. Every state needs about 2 plants. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. So there you have it. And you people call yourselves scientists. ha. you only read opinions, theorys, and all you do is talk and never find a solution. You always find a solution when it comes to solving a problem. Don't just run your mouths.
Top
Robittybob1
  Posted on Feb 7 2013, 10:09 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (MadScientist17 @ Feb 7 2013, 09:47 AM)
Ok only one person other than me has brain. ......

And you people call yourselves scientists. ha. you only read opinions, theorys, and all you do is talk and never find a solution. You always find a solution when it comes to solving a problem. Don't just run your mouths.

What do you think you are some God gifted genius?
Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use