I'm actually not too sure what the distribution of sources is for NG used in electricity generation. In any case, I wasn't trying to imply that mining of coal would cease. Even if we stopped using coal completely in the U.S., we would still export massive amounts to other countries that don't have such ample natural gas reserves and are increasing their use of coal. I just don't see a future for coal in the electricity market in the U.S., because by the time gas prices rise due to the exhaustion of the cheap supply, the price reductions of solar, wind, and nuclear (and fusion? lol) will force the market to look elsewhere.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Texas Sets New Wind Power Record
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
This is changing. If you were in the energy business you would know this. But it is much better to be willfully ignorant of a side you don't support to keep your position strong.
Considering the amount of subsidies wind has gotten since wind started growing, it has paid out fairly well. The technology trajectory track is probably 20-30 years ahead of where it would be subsidized. The cost per installed MW is dropping and there is still a good amount to go yet (at least 50%).
Solar is another story though. Really sad to so how far that one missed the mark.
As for storage..that is changing too and very quickly. It is actually pretty exciting. By 2020 we will probably see the first multi giga-Joule site going in. Considering that 5 years ago this wasn't even really on the table...very amazing how far we have come.
------------
As for my position this...it has little to deal with "green energy" but more to do with highly sustainable source energy diversification. But I guess it is better for the worlds population when a single person can annex part of a nation because he is holding their energy hostage.
You end up with some of the same supply problems as with wind.
We already have huge incentives to install panels on homes out here in California, and now the utilities companies are trying to limit solar panel installs in some areas because there are too many homes with panels and it's throwing the grid out of ballance.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
The power grid is stupid if it can't cope with reduced demands because people have solar panels on their homes.
The thing that is funny here is Wind is based off Electric motors and modified propellers (well the opposite of propellers depending on how you want to look at it). Two technologies that are actually old and played out. Motors had a boost a couple of decades ago when permanent magnet technology got a breakthrough. But otherwise its a century old technology. Propellers are almost as old.
If you're waiting for those breakthroughs that are going to change the game for wind, you'll be waiting a long time.
In reality, solar is materials science based. Material science is far more likely to have game changing breakthroughs than mechanical science based technologies will have after the first couple of decades.
Not holding my breath for either.
If you're waiting for those breakthroughs that are going to change the game for wind, you'll be waiting a long time.
In reality, solar is materials science based. Material science is far more likely to have game changing breakthroughs than mechanical science based technologies will have after the first couple of decades.
Not holding my breath for either.
CombatChrisNC
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,140
Heh, there are worse problems to have. I thought the big plus about natural gas was that it was very quick to take up and down.
Where's NC's offshore wind farms? Man, we've sure got the wind for it.
Kryptorchid
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 284
The power grid is stupid if it can't cope with reduced demands because people have solar panels on their homes.
The power grid is responsible for having enough capacity to support all their customers on an entity by entity basis. If every building in an entities area were to add renewables so that they could effectively generate 15% of their load from renewables, then the load serving entity on the grid would still have to have that 15% in firm generation to offset the volatility of renewable energy. Let's say the area has no wind and clouds roll in, you could feasible drop 15% of your areas load in a few minutes, which would then cause rolling brown outs since you cannot kick your firm generation on in a quick enough time to compensate for the loss in renewables.
On top of that, every customer would have to have a loss of source voltage disconnect, so that if there was an outage in a town, the customers wouldn't be back-feeding onto the local distribution system, which would be a nightmare for linemen to work on.
Basically what this all means is that technological advances in batteries are needed to make renewables a reliable generation source.
Kryptorchid
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 284
Can't edit, but meant to say "you could feasibly drop 15% of your generation capacity..."
If it ain't broke...The same could be said for internal combustion engines (which are quite a bit less efficient than electric motors), but we keep on building them.
IC engines are a special case. An inefficient combustion cycle or strategy was selected because it was compact & light which was necessary for cars. All engine efficiency stride seek to offset that choice of combustion cycle to a known theoretical maximum. And strides can be made in the car itself (mass, & drag) that have nothing to do with the engine and is a multiplier to engine improvements.
Yeah, I generally agree with that, but then you're ignoring the possibility of similar strides in turbine materials, transmission capabilities, and storage (which is certainly a materials problem). If I were a betting man, I'd put money on wind and solar becoming cheaper than fossil fuel energy sources within the next 30-40 years. Something else may come along that outdoes them both, but the near continuous decline in cost of both renewable technologies over the past 30 years can't be ignored. Heck, solar PV prices have dropped by a factor of 100 since 1977. That's damn impressive.
Its not about reduced demand, but excessive power for the grid to handle. If one day its raining with thick dark clouds, the home output is low but energy requirement is the same. If the next day its completely clear skies, you end up producing too much power.The power grid is stupid if it can't cope with reduced demands because people have solar panels on their homes.
The thing is you can't just start or stop a huge powerplant instantly, it doesn't work like that.
Plus there is the problem of peak power coming on when people get off of work and the sun is setting.
If we did develop a cheap reliable way to store energy, at least we could somewhat reduce the drawbacks of these intermittent power sources, but geography will still be a problem as away from the equator the seasons will be a big factor.
You mean "trust" the same EPA that saddled us with $16 Billion/year on reducing mercury?
"EPA's health impact estimates focus on the harm done to a theoretical child whose mother consumes 139 pounds of fish that was self-caught from water at the 95th percentile level of methyl mercury contamination. The EPA uses fish consumption for its risk assessment because, unlike most hazardous air pollutants, mercury does not pose a health risk via inhalation, but through being deposited in water."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...epas-irrational-anti-coal-mercury-regulations
The EPA cannot be trusted. They are completely self-serving and devoted to their "religious" anti carbon energy agenda, and NEVER apply any sort of cost-benefit analysis.
Read this if you want a laugh......
http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf
You don't need to trust the EPA to realize that the market is going to naturally move toward cheaper solutions. Natural gas is cheaper than coal right now. That has next to nothing to do with the EPA. The only thing the EPA has done with carbon emission standards in this case is make older coal plants obsolete, forcing the closure of some of the old facilities. The newer coal plants were compliant with the current standards anyway, but the fact remains that they are still not cost-competitive with combined cycle NG.
@ $11 BILLION / Year paid by electric customers !!!!!
That is an EPA estimate - I know that they would NEVER estimate wrong, or slant things their way ... NEVER!
Face it, the EPA is waging war on carbon based energy. I can hardly wait for them to get their hands on fracking - then the US will be sitting on 2 enormous energy sources that the EPA will do their best to make so expensive that the US becomes even more uncompetitive.
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
You realize the US is turning into an energy exporter? Not sure where we're noncompetitive...maybe against Saudi Arabia, I'm sure it would be a good idea to follow other oil exporting countries' example. Hmm, who should we be more like? Nigeria, Qatar, Kazakhstan...
Runningflame570
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 493
If only. Since they're not, I'll just have to hold out hope that solar continues to drop in price and wind goes from being competitive with coal without subsidies to being competitive with natural gas without subsidies.