Can Renewable Energy meet baseload power

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
It's not a question of can IMO, but if or perhaps when.

The technology, ability and resources exist to power the entire world without polluting. If only people could discard their prejudice and hatred to work together.

One example:

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/14/sola...ld-but-will-it/


How is that an example? The sun only shines for a portion of every 24hrs. Solar panels create pollution in their manufacture and have a limited life expectancy. There is no pollution-free method of storing the power either and they talk about having to burn natural gas in the article to supplement these massive plants for when the sun isn't shining.

It also, according to the article, wastes a ton of water, something that isn't overly plentiful in the desert
smirk.gif


I think it is novel (and wise) that people want to move away from fossil fuels. But currently Nuclear and hydro electric have far better (and more reliable) power generating capabilities than any of these unreliable "flash-in-the-pan" methods that have massive initial costs and generally poor life expectancy.

A single CANDU reactor can make 1,200MW of power, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for approximately 30 years before it needs a refresh. How many of those do you think you could fit in the space occupied by a few solar panels? Our local 10MW solar farm is 200 acres, is only a few years old and has already had half the bloody panels replaced because they were defective.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
One example:

No matter how good the idea were to work out, and I'm not convinced it would, that part of the world is a disaster. Having no access to electricity is the same as having no access to the oil.

The prejudice and hatred is against nuclear power, and the only way North America's grid (and energy system in total) will be secure is when we don't rely on others to ensure it's working. Getting power from Africa is a step backwards.
 
The only way solar will work towards base load is if people go to the solar-heat-elecricity route. The solar salt towers can continue to produce power after dark. And none of the costly solar panels, just reflectors

Another tech that has finally been put together is the combination stirling engine and reflective solar dish. I had an idea I should have gone after in 9th grade. Anyway I don't see why they are not cheap, and could be roof mounted on everyone's house.

But yes, I have no idea why we don't persue as much Geothermal/hydroelectric/ nuclear.
 
Isn't base load mostly just pointless consumption? Atleast on the homeowner end. At my house after we all go to bed, there still must be a couple dozen things drawing 10-20-50W that don't need too. TV, kitchen stuff, computers, chargers, etc...
I suppose the freezer and fridge must cycle a few times too, and the water softener does its thing, but probably the useless consumption is greater than the useful.
If electronics were designed to shut of properly, that would help a lot in reducing base load.
 
Overkill, a simple look at a map will tell you that there are the deserts of the American Southwest and the Australian Outback. Couple those with the Sahara and you have 24/7 coverage. There are also batteries. Solar panels are still in their (relative) infancy, and the manufacturing processes and durability will only improve.

Garak, I said "one" example. Why run a power cable from Africa to the US when you can run it from Arizona. I'm not against nuclear power, but: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.


Originally Posted By: Shannow
Interested in a show of hands as to who watched it...


Not me.
 
Last edited:
Don't the French have some kind of nuclear power going that greatly reduces the radioactivity of the waste by recycling it through the reactor as add'l fuel? Seems like a good concept.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I think it is novel (and wise) that people want to move away from fossil fuels. But currently Nuclear and hydro electric have far better (and more reliable) power generating capabilities than any of these unreliable "flash-in-the-pan" methods that have massive initial costs and generally poor life expectancy.

A single CANDU reactor can make 1,200MW of power, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for approximately 30 years before it needs a refresh. How many of those do you think you could fit in the space occupied by a few solar panels? Our local 10MW solar farm is 200 acres, is only a few years old and has already had half the bloody panels replaced because they were defective.

My thoughts exactly.

I really think the main reason we don't have widespread endorsement of nuclear power is that we are largely innumerate.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I really think the main reason we don't have widespread endorsement of nuclear power is that we are largely innumerate.


I'll pay that...

And we can't grasp the wonders (or evils) of compound interest, let alone perpetual, exponential growth.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
but: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Interested in a show of hands as to who watched it...


Not me.


What exactly do you KNOW about TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukashima ?

Actual understanding, zero linear threshold, numbers of deaths etc.
 
Quote:
but: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.


What about if we built a plant with 2015 technology?
 
Originally Posted By: hansj3
The only way solar will work towards base load is if people go to the solar-heat-elecricity route. The solar salt towers can continue to produce power after dark. And none of the costly solar panels, just reflectors



I used to be a fan of Rankine-cycle solar, but there is a problem in that the large farms of reflectors attract birds. They fly into the reflected beams aimed at the tower, and catch fire. Workers at the plants call them "streamers". Imagine how much the Audubon Society would scream about scorched birds if there were hundreds of those plants built. Maybe there are other forms of Rankine-cycle solar power generators that don't have that problem, but it works against constructing large-scale power generating stations.
 
The envirowhacko Luddites will have an objection to ANYTHING which can produce comfortable living conditions at a good price. In the end, they hate PEOPLE, other than those in their little cluster bleeps.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
A little bit off topic but here are some thoughts about 'fossil fuel'.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_oil___russia.html


So why do we keep digging up trees and palm fronds in coal ?

And why do the new earthers always talk about "dinosaurs" in our tank ?

"Look over there, a straw bunny ???"


Because ,

A/ It's easier for them to understand than the concept that petroleum may be abiotic in origin.

B/ It suits various organisations/people to maintain the 'fossil fuel' story.

Here's some more on the subject.

http://www.principia-scientific.org/russ...o2-science.html
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Overkill, a simple look at a map will tell you that there are the deserts of the American Southwest and the Australian Outback. Couple those with the Sahara and you have 24/7 coverage.


Which would involve running cables, what, across the Atlantic? Trans-continental power cables? Think about it, that's unrealistic.

Originally Posted By: Kuato
There are also batteries.


Which create fantastic amounts of pollution to manufacture and also have a limited life expectancy.

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Solar panels are still in their (relative) infancy, and the manufacturing processes and durability will only improve.


Which is why we should not be hinging entire power grids on them, and wind turbines, as some sort of silver bullet for our lust for energy.

And while the manufacturing processes may improve, it still creates pollution in and of itself, there is no "free lunch" here.

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Garak, I said "one" example. Why run a power cable from Africa to the US when you can run it from Arizona. I'm not against nuclear power, but: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.


Because you won't have sun in Arizona 24/7, so if your expectation was to milk solar 24/7, you'd have to find some method of transcontinental delivery or rely on dirty storage methods.

And regarding your examples of Nuclear failures, Chernobyl was a Soviet catastrophe and doesn't represent the current state of the Nuclear industry. TMI, while scary, never amounted to anything. Fukushima is a good example however of what happens when you have a combination of issues such as antiquated reactor design, proximity to a source of potential environmental disaster, and actual control failures.

How many CANDU reactors have ever melted down? Zero. We also have the most powerful Nuclear plant in the world up here (Bruce). Ontario is a shining example of a healthy Nuclear power industry with the majority of our power coming from the Bruce and Darlington sites.

There is nothing that currently competes on a MW per acre footprint with Nuclear. Until that changes it will, IMHO, continue to be the "best" source of reliable energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top