View Full Version : these US jobs are NOT EVER COMING BACK ...
DB Cooper
11-04-2008, 06:19 AM
After charging HOW MUCH for the electricity ASSUMING you could successfully get it down to Earth and convert it to a usable form ?
$0.22 per kwh, current market price as stated in the quote I posted. All the technology to accomplish this is off the shelf including the transmission of power to Earth where it is reeived as what is known as electricity, useful stuff that.
Are you saying we shoule have solar panels on cars or what ? Or you generate hydrogen someplace else and then what ? How do you get it in the cars ?
we use the electricity generated in space and beamed to Earth to generate hydrogen which is used to make hydrogen fuel cells, Something we already can do but at a net power loss. With virtually unlimited renewable non-polluting power thats not a problem.
I think there are more practical and down to earth approaches than some of this pie in the sky stuff.
Like carpeting the Plains with wind turbines? That only generate power when the wind is blowing? You might want to skim the article you might learn something
threlayer
11-04-2008, 07:52 AM
We must be talking about near-term technologies capable of being produced en masse economically. Economics and efficiency always will be the prime movers in energy.
In a very real sense solar energy is utilized when we capture wind energy, the weather, you know.... and that is near-term economic.
If you are talking longer term, you have to include fusion also, but that may be a fifty years in the future when CO2 is recognized as a huge problem.
Eric Stoner
11-04-2008, 09:05 AM
$0.22 per kwh, current market price as stated in the quote I posted. All the technology to accomplish this is off the shelf including the transmission of power to Earth where it is reeived as what is known as electricity, useful stuff that.
we use the electricity generated in space and beamed to Earth to generate hydrogen which is used to make hydrogen fuel cells, Something we already can do but at a net power loss. With virtually unlimited renewable non-polluting power thats not a problem.
Like carpeting the Plains with wind turbines? That only generate power when the wind is blowing? You might want to skim the article you might learn something
I'm all for clean; cleaner and renewable energy BUT reality intrudes. The cost of erecting enough solar stations would be in the hundreds of billions. We can build them in our deserts and erect wind turbines for a LOT less. Have you ever been to North Texas ? The wind blows ALL the time. We have parts of the country that get sun at least 350 days per year. The Germans are using a lot of solar panels and they have a LOT of cloudy weather. You don't have to "carpet" the plains with turbines; 2,000 turbines stretched out over hundreds of miles is not such a big deal.
As I understand it, hydrogen fuel cells are SUPPOSED to generate their own hydrogen.
Let's look at your proposal step by step. First you have to send the solar panels and transmission equipment into space along with the people to assemble it. We're talking hundreds, probably thousands of space trips. Then you have to convert it to "microwaves" ( ? ) and beam it down back to earth. Then you convert the microwave energy into what ? Electricity ? How ? Then you want to use the electricity to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. That's a LOT of water. Then you're going to burn the hydrogen to run cars. That's a lot of equipment and a lot of steps to do the same thing as earth based solar panels and wind turbines.,
threlayer
11-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Two points... Classically a fuel cell uses hygrogen and oxygen to generate electricity, while exhausting water vapor. Well, oxygen is around, but hydrogen has to be generated from something that releases it A LOT easier than water. If 'fuel cells' also include converters of fossil fuels into hydrogen and then 'burn the hydrogen to generate electricity, then you still have the carbon sulfur and other products to get rid of. Plus its a lot less efficient and more costly.
Second. Anything bringing concentrated energy down from 'space' is itself going to be a hazard. Solar cells are not mzintenance-free and the cost of delivery and maintenance would be completely enormous. If that many of them were up there, there would also be acccidents and re-entry burn-ups to contend with. IMO completely impractical. Sort of like using blimps to transport raw crude, cheaper but very hazardous. Solar will have to be earth-based.
Then what happens when the sun goes down? You'd still have to have enough capacity to generate and deliver to meet the peaks we have now and in future, or at least also include storage units in that cost. Same thing for wind. For both how would you handle tornadoes etc? Lots of questions remain.
Eric Stoner
11-04-2008, 01:41 PM
Two points... Classically a fuel cell uses hygrogen and oxygen to generate electricity, while exhausting water vapor. Well, oxygen is around, but hydrogen has to be generated from something that releases it A LOT easier than water. If 'fuel cells' also include converters of fossil fuels into hydrogen and then 'burn the hydrogen to generate electricity, then you still have the carbon sulfur and other products to get rid of. Plus its a lot less efficient and more costly.
Second. Anything bringing concentrated energy down from 'space' is itself going to be a hazard. Solar cells are not mzintenance-free and the cost of delivery and maintenance would be completely enormous. If that many of them were up there, there would also be acccidents and re-entry burn-ups to contend with. IMO completely impractical. Sort of like using blimps to transport raw crude, cheaper but very hazardous. Solar will have to be earth-based.
Then what happens when the sun goes down? You'd still have to have enough capacity to generate and deliver to meet the peaks we have now and in future, or at least also include storage units in that cost. Same thing for wind. For both how would you handle tornadoes etc? Lots of questions remain.
Tornado damage would be minimal. They cut relatively narrow swaths and whatever is damaged or destroyed can be replaced.
For the most part, there are no totally clean or "green" energy sources that also have wide enough practical application and are cost-effective as vehicle fuels. What we can and should do is convert as much as possible to natural gas and 85 ethanol from sugar cane and sugar beets; NOT CORN !
Deogol
11-04-2008, 03:38 PM
I'm all for clean; cleaner and renewable energy BUT reality intrudes. The cost of erecting enough solar stations would be in the hundreds of billions. We can build them in our deserts and erect wind turbines for a LOT less. Have you ever been to North Texas ? The wind blows ALL the time. We have parts of the country that get sun at least 350 days per year. The Germans are using a lot of solar panels and they have a LOT of cloudy weather. You don't have to "carpet" the plains with turbines; 2,000 turbines stretched out over hundreds of miles is not such a big deal.
As I understand it, hydrogen fuel cells are SUPPOSED to generate their own hydrogen.
Let's look at your proposal step by step. First you have to send the solar panels and transmission equipment into space along with the people to assemble it. We're talking hundreds, probably thousands of space trips. Then you have to convert it to "microwaves" ( ? ) and beam it down back to earth. Then you convert the microwave energy into what ? Electricity ? How ? Then you want to use the electricity to split water into oxygen and hydrogen. That's a LOT of water. Then you're going to burn the hydrogen to run cars. That's a lot of equipment and a lot of steps to do the same thing as earth based solar panels and wind turbines.,
I'm sure people riding horses thought the same thing.
"The roads don't exist or are impassable!"
"You can feed a horse on the side of a road - think of the gas station infrastructure you would need!"
"The horse has been established for centuries!"
"What do these clunker dealers think they are going to do with their immature technology?"
Eric Stoner
11-05-2008, 09:18 AM
I'm sure people riding horses thought the same thing.
"The roads don't exist or are impassable!"
"You can feed a horse on the side of a road - think of the gas station infrastructure you would need!"
"The horse has been established for centuries!"
"What do these clunker dealers think they are going to do with their immature technology?"
It MIGHT be doable but at what cost ???? Compared to keeping it based on the ground ?
I'm all for innovation and thinking "outside the box", but space based solar panels seem to be quite an unecessary reach.
threlayer
11-05-2008, 10:51 AM
Tornado damage would be minimal. They cut relatively narrow swaths and whatever is damaged or destroyed can be replaced. That damage you are talking about would cut down transmission lines as well as wind towers. And it happens frequently enough in those areas that it would become a major repair/maintenance problem. Since the schedule for these damages are very predictable (just not location), it may be possible to built redundancy into the grid system so that extended outages could be minimized. But it would take some advanced studies to determine how much additional cost it would add.
For the most part, there are no totally clean or "green" energy sources that also have wide enough practical application and are cost-effective as vehicle fuels. What we can and should do is convert as much as possible to natural gas and 85 ethanol from sugar cane and sugar beets; NOT CORN !The problem with using ANY farmland at this level is that our food supplies would be greatly affected. Food costs affect very much the poorest of us. whatever biomass we use should come from a non-food source in locations not competitive with productive farmlands. Look at how much the low level of conversions done this past summer have elevated food costs.
This displacemenbt effect also has me concerned over the Pickens Plan first step -- that is increasing use of natural gas for transportation. That certainly will affect heating costs greatly. Same mechanism as corn conversion.
Eric Stoner
11-05-2008, 11:14 AM
That damage you are talking about would cut down transmission lines as well as wind towers. And it happens frequently enough in those areas that it would become a major repair/maintenance problem. Since the schedule for these damages are very predictable (just not location), it may be possible to built redundancy into the grid system so that extended outages could be minimized. But it would take some advanced studies to determine how much additional cost it would add.
The problem with using ANY farmland at this level is that our food supplies would be greatly affected. Food costs affect very much the poorest of us. whatever biomass we use should come from a non-food source in locations not competitive with productive farmlands. Look at how much the low level of conversions done this past summer have elevated food costs.
This displacemenbt effect also has me concerned over the Pickens Plan first step -- that is increasing use of natural gas for transportation. That certainly will affect heating costs greatly. Same mechanism as corn conversion.
Don't they repair and replace transmission lines now, from tornado damage ? Some lines can be run underground.
Corn and other grain prices are down. As has been detailed here, ethanol from corn is a BAD idea on a lot of levels.
Sugar cane can be grown in Puerto Rico and Haiti. We can and should repeal ethanol import restrictions. Can you imagine how much progress Haiti and other poor tropical countries could make growing sugar cane and making ethanol ?
Under the Pickens Plan, ONLY natural gas used for electrical generation would shift to vehicle fuel. Mostly, there would be increased demand and increased use of natural gas of which the U.S. has plenty. We would not be "robbing Peter to pay Paul".
threlayer
11-05-2008, 11:38 AM
Don't they repair and replace transmission lines now, from tornado damage ? Some lines can be run underground. In the wind belt not nearly so much grid infrastructure exists now as would be required then, particularly with the required redundancy. Almost none of it is underground; and nothing underground is usable for long distance transmission, for technical reasons (reactive power compensation) as well as econimoc and reliability (long duration outages).
...Sugar cane can be grown in Puerto Rico and Haiti. We can and should repeal ethanol import restrictions. Can you imagine how much progress Haiti and other poor tropical countries could make growing sugar cane and making ethanol ? Now, that is a good idea, but throw in Cuba. short hop water transport too. But I see drug running in the cargo as an adjunct troublespot.
Under the Pickens Plan, ONLY natural gas used for electrical generation would shift to vehicle fuel. Mostly, there would be increased demand and increased use of natural gas of which the U.S. has plenty. We would not be "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Not that much natural gas is used for electric generation, just mostly in gas producing regions, I believe, like Louisiana, and highly polluted areas (probably not targetable for conversion). A lot more would be needed for conversion of the trucking industry which would be the first Pickens Plan target, something like 40% of our petroleum usage.
threlayer
11-05-2008, 11:47 AM
Some lines can be run underground. More detail here. Likely the lines linking each tower/generator in a wind farm would be placed underground, since they would be higher current, lower voltage lines. But the concentrating switching and transformation stations and EHV transmission lines would certainly be above ground and subject to tornadoes. A tornado could even wipe such a station completely out, necessitating redundancy of these costly facilities. It can be done, but it will be more expensive and land-intensive than the systems we have now.
Still NYS east of the lakes has a lot of wind potential, but land usage for transmission corridors is problemmatic. The ROW they need for the proppsed interconnect out of the Utica area has been in the courts for over two years with no end in sight. And that is a sorely needed line right now for wheeling Hydro-Quebec power from Churchill Falls downstate. And part of that proposed windpower would tie into the Utica area. You can see the problems.
Eric Stoner
11-05-2008, 12:22 PM
In the wind belt not nearly so much grid infrastructure exists now as would be required then, particularly with the required redundancy. Almost none of it is underground; and nothing underground is usable for long distance transmission, for technical reasons (reactive power compensation) as well as econimoc and reliability (long duration outages).
Now, that is a good idea, but throw in Cuba. short hop water transport too. But I see drug running in the cargo as an adjunct troublespot.
Not that much natural gas is used for electric generation, just mostly in gas producing regions, I believe, like Louisiana, and highly polluted areas (probably not targetable for conversion). A lot more would be needed for conversion of the trucking industry which would be the first Pickens Plan target, something like 40% of our petroleum usage.
I'm all for repealing our trade embargo with Cuba. Isn't it funny that some of the strongest opponents of trade with Cuba own huge sugar plantations in Florida ?
According to Pickens; 7% of our electricity is generated using gas and we have additional capacity with back-up plants like in NYC. We also have plenty of EXTRA natural gas that can be used for motor fuel..
Eric Stoner
11-05-2008, 12:23 PM
More detail here. Likely the lines linking each tower/generator in a wind farm would be places underground since they would be higher current, lower voltage lines. But the concentraqting switching and transformation stations and EHV transmission lines would certainly be above gound and subject to tornadoes. A tornado could even wipe such a station completely out, necessitating redundancy of these costly facilities. It can be done, but it will be more expensive and land-intensive than the systems we have now.
Still NYS east of the lakes has a lot of wind potential, but land usage for transmission corridors is problemmatic. The ROW they need for the proppsed interconnect out of the Utica area has been in the courts for over two years with no end in sight. And that is a sorely needed line right now for wheeling Hydro-Quebec power from Churchill Falls downstate. And part of that proposed windpower would tie into the Utica area. You can see the problems.
Nothing insurmountable.