Frivolous

David_5

HVACR

I have worked in HVACR my entire life. I burn oil in my Pensoti boiler. I used to burn coal in a second boiler in my home. I stopped burning coal because I have less spare time.
I don't believe coal can be burned cleanly. If we could, then big companies would be doing it already. I think we will have to resort to nuclear but the costs are actually incalcuable. Someone will have to babysit nuclear power plants and spent fuel for 1000 or more years. How do we figure the cost of that so it can be added to your electric bill? I understand that with wind and solar we have to have standby capacity from other sources like nat gas, oil, coal, and nuclear. I accept that cost, as the cost needed to make the enviroment cleaner. Comparing wind power to commercial sail boats is apples and oranges.
I too am sorry to see good jobs leave this country for lower wages or cheaper power. When I started in my trade 99.99% of the parts and equipment were made in this country. Now I see about 50% is made here in the USA. This is amazing when you think that this has happened in only 22 years.
In the end all I can do is effect change in my small corner of the world. I try and use energy wisely. I try and help my customers use energy wisely.
You wouldn't happen to know Ken S.would you?

David

Tony Conner

I Can't...

... stop wondering who butters La Capra's bread?

If you swap out the percentage of gas & oil generation with coal, the fuel costs simply plunge. Fuel is typically far & away the biggest single expense in operating a conventional powerhouse. With coal or nuke, you've essentially disconnected electrical generation costs from the world price of oil. The price of natural gas price will drop significantly.

I think that to ignore coal & nuclear power will beggar our economies within a few years, and we'll run the very real risk of ending up at the point of a sword - economic and/or literal - held by folks who's perspectives & interests are very different from ours. I don't think that most of us will like that very much.

Tony Conner

If...

... you think about it, windmills & sailboats employ the exact the same principle. As soon as people figured out how to harness steam to drive machinery, they noticed that - wow - we can do a LOT more work, and much faster. Imagine two competing shipping companies. One uses sailboats, the other steamboats. Who's going to win that one? Now image two competing economies. One is trying to run it's electrical grid off windmills, the other is using steam turbine driven generators. Who's coming out on top?

Utility boilers burning pulverized coal is where you can justify flyash precipitors, stack scubbers, etc. It's highly automated, and far cleaner than hand firing.

And I've never met Ken S.

Constantin

... haven't you answered your own question then?

If fuel is by far and away the biggest contributor to generation cost, then the extra investment in plant and equipment (in the form of renewables) shouldn't be that high, right? It may even be cost effective because the fuel cost is and will remain ZERO as opposed to coal, nukes, and other forms of energy.

You may not find it efficient to build two generating plants but from an economic point of view it might very well make sense. Consider that most power curves spike in the summer, which means that there ought to be excess capacity at other times of the year and idle generating plants.

Nevermind the improvement in efficiency as power is generated closer to its point of use rather than far away with the attendent transmission losses. Also consider the national security implications of being able to power regions autonomously as opposed to relying on imports from hundreds of miles away, as MA does right now.

I guess I don't see it as black and white as you do. If fuel costs continue to escalate, the case for renewables becomes stronger and stronger. Given the wide range of insolation patterns up here in the NE, using a wind-based renewable may make a lot more sense than a solar one.

Larry Weingarten

Divide and...

conquer! The problems seem nearly overwhelming. Wind power alone can only do so much. Same for solar electric... solar thermal... conservation... heat recovery... resource management... appropriate design, and on and on. Add up the contribution each area has to offer and pretty soon you get to real solutions ;~)

Send Amory Lovins to the paper and tire plants to see what ideas he can bring to the table to help these plants get lean and competitive. Who knows, perhaps they are already doing everything humanly possible and stiffer import tarriffs are needed. We do have some good resources available talent-wise. I only know about my little areas of energy and conservation. Others have their specialties. If there is a common goal, survival, we just might all pull in the same direction to get there.

There is a LOT that we can do to prevent a destructive energy crisis and its effects on us as individuals, but the way things work, we'll probably need to have it breathing down our necks before we get serious about dealing with it. Being an optimist, I hope expensive energy will instill a "don't waste" ethic in people just as it happened in the Great Depression. That ethic had repercussions for generations.

Yours, Larry

Tony Conner_2

Renewables...

... only make sense if they can actually DO the job, though. You can't really idle too many thermal or nuke generating plants - they're not like starting up a residential heating boiler. In the plant where I worked, it was 24 hours from cold start on a unit, until full power. Longer with nukes. You need units on hot standby, spinning reserve, etc. There's always a trade off on economies of scale for power plants vs line losses.

We can play with statistics and numbers indefinately, but at the end of the day, using a lot of green power for an industrial economy is like trying to pull a freight train with a washing machine motor. And that's a fact.

Tony Conner_2

Lean...

... and competitive? They've stripped out everything they can, and are working folks into the ground. A lot of people don't realize how close much of the industrial base is to slipping away, and what it will mean if it happens. Folks seem to imagine we can have an effective economy by selling insurance and hamburgers to each other. I don't see it working out very well. If we continue to screw up the electrical generating system, I'll think a lot of people will get to experience the "don't waste eithic" due to a depression. I'm not sure how many will be grateful for the lesson. Likely not all that many.

S Ebels

T C

I agree with Constantin and with you. There are a multitude of problems that will have to be overcome or adapted to in regards to "green" energy. There will be no "one way" that our future energy needs can be met with renewables. On top of that, there is a tremendous amount of "inertia" out there in the existing systems that we now use to produce power and fuel. I think you have a pretty good understanding of that.........

The bottom line though is that somehow, someway, we have to start producing energy in forms other than oil and gas. We simply don't have any choice in that decision. Coal and nukes will be part of the answer and for the near future, will make up the lion's share of our power. Solar, geothermal, wind, water will have to start picking up a larger portion within the next 10 years though or we will be at the mercy of the unfriendly state run oil companies now taking control of the world's oil production.

David_5

boats & mills

Steam driven ships are able to be built much bigger than sail powered ships. The other advantage for steam or powered ships is they can go faster and have more predictable travel rates. I don't see how any of that has anything to do with windmills. Windmills can be a good way to supplement the regular generation capacity of the grid. Large windmills are quite capable of generating worthwhile amounts of power. I do not know how much of a subsidy is needed to make it viable money wise. I do know that nuclear power would not exist without help from the government. They still require help from the government.
I know there is a coal fired power plant in Mass, (Brayton point) it does not burn coal cleanly. The emmissions from that plant and most if not all that burn coal are very dirty. Coal also puts alot of mercury into the air. Coal, even if burned cleanly, puts way more CO2 into the air than oil or gas. If coal could be burned cleanly in a power plant and be cost effective then why do all power plant operators not want to do it? We really don't know the full cost of coal because it causes health problems for people who live nearby. There is a cost for those health problems that does not show up in the electric bill.

David

Tony Conner_2

It's The...

... Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Good luck to all - I think we're going to need it.