The problem with this plan and others...
After a person learns a certain amount, they tend to think they know enough to have the answers. It is rare and beautiful thing when you come across someone that knows that we really don't know anything and the only thing that is certain is it is more important to ask the right questions than to think you have the answer. Rest assured, if you are sure you know the answer, you are wrong.
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on -
I guess I don't know what you mean by "true cost". Could you explain?
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew Cronheim on -
this blog started that discussion: http://autodidacticdropout.wordpress.com/
-
Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on -
Thank you for this link...lots of useful thoughts there.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric on -
Ok I also will say I dont know everything but i will have to say the biggest problem with whatever alternative energy we use is the distribution. I mean i looked at the list of places to buy NG but none were even close to where i live. Sure it is great for states where they have gas stations that supply it but in the upper mid west we dont have a choice. I personally would love to see us increase wind energy but instead of moving natural gas over to fuel cars we should stop burning fossil fuels unless we need to and use hydrogen/electricity for cars. but then again the problem lies in the distribution. I can go buy a hydrogen car right now from honda but i have no place to fuel it up. Maybe our Government should pass a law requiring gas stations to retrofit or something to be able to sell hydrogen. They basically did that to all us consumers with the let's upgrade our T.V. stations to all digital. So I don't know what you all think of the idea but I basically would like to see the Government step up and pass a law requiring gas stations to start selling hydrogen by a certain date. In californina honda has a hydrogen gas station and they also have them in japan so I do know the technology is out there.
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
The reason these energies are called "alternatives" is because they have tons of problems associated with them. If they didn't they would just be "energy". Distribution of wind is another big problem with wind. Any increased distance of transmission is more wasted energy from a source that is already inherently flawed due to the unpredictable nature of wind. Storage is the problem with hydrogen. You will probably never see any mass distribution of storage. The answer to hydrogen is either on-demand production or a production method that is so cheap that it is economically feasible to "throw away" fuel.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew Andresen on -
If you create a high voltage DC electrical backbone for distribution, you get your transmission loss down to about 3%. Also, if you read the Solar grand plan, you will learn about compressed air storage. Which could handle the majority or all of the electrical storage needed for very low cost.
There isn't going to be one solution to our energy problems, but a combination of solar, wind, and probably geothermal. The good thing is that renewables generate more jobs than fossil fuels, and reduce our trade deficit and dependance on foreign oil.
Finally, all sources of energy have problems associated with them. There is no perfect solution. But we do know that if we want to build a sustainable economy we will need to move from finite, to renewable energy sources. This will pose some challenges, but it must be done.
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
3% over what distance? Is wind capable of generating high voltage DC? What are the conversion losses if you want to convert whatever voltage wind generates to high voltage DC? Is that included in the 3%. What is the transmission loss of high voltage AC?
What about storage losses? I am aware of compressed air storage, which also, like any storage medium, has losses. Wind and solar only work with storage. Losses mean extra cost.
Why doesn't anyone ever mention nuclear as part of the solution? PLEASE don't tell me know dangerous/unsafe etc. it is. PLEASE don't tell me how expensive it is because the political nature of the nuclear industry created by the lack of understanding of the technology is the reason it is so expensive. PLEASE don't tell me it will take too long to get online because the political nature (see previous rant-y sentence). PLEASE don't tell me about problems with the waste unless you are willing to discuss (in technical detail) what those problems are.
People keep dreaming of a day when we will have a technological breakthrough to make wind and solar economically viable. We have a proven, existing techonology with an impeccable safety record. (That's right, I said impeccable safety record.)
In my opinion, plain and simple, people don't understand nuclear power so they neglect it. (I don't want to, but I am not afraid to get soap-boxy about this.)
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew Andresen on
-
The 3% is over long distances. I think 600-1000 miles or so.
I think the extra cost for compressed air storage is around .5cents a KWH.
Wind is already economically viable, and it's expected that large scale solar will probably become the cheaper then coal around 2015-2020.
As for nuclear plenty of people mention it (seems like that and oil is all the republican party talk about).
Nuclear does have some advantages, but it is still more expensive than most of the other fossil fuels, and often more expensive than wind. Part of the expensive is from the massive amount of permitting, but a great deal of it is because it's expensive to build a nuclear reactor.
The problems with the waste is that no ones wants it. It's radioactive, and will remain that way for a long time. Yuka mountain still isn't operating, and even if it does get the green light it looks like we would need a massive expansion of it because we have so much waste.
Also, nuclear plants will remain a tempting terrorist target, knock over a wind turbine, you might flatten some corn, knock out a nuclear plant and you could devastate a large part of the country.
Another problem with nuclear is we need a bunch of new plants just to keep up with all the old ones that are retiring. This will be a challenge in and of itself.
Where as with wind we could open some of the closed car factories as turbine manufactorers and ramp up production very quickly.
Like I said I'm sure nuclear will be part of our energy portfolio for a while to come, but it's not a silver bullet.
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
Wind is already economically viable, and it's expected that large scale solar will probably become the cheaper then coal around 2015-2020.
Wind consistenly loses to fossil fuels in states that have an ISO. That coupled with the fact that the useful capacity is ~20% of installed capacity. I submit that wind techonology will reach a point of diminishing returns considering ~70% of the capacity is useless. (If I want 200 MW I have to buy a 1000 MW turbine. If I want 400 MW, I have to buy 2 1000 MW turbines or 1 2000 MW turbine. Or I could just buy 1 gas turbine at whatever capacity I want that will give me the capacity I paid for and over the life of the unit it will cost me less to run and maintain it, not to mention I can sell my electricity in any market (ISO or otherwise) anytime I want.) I believe natural gas will have to become much more expensive than it is now before wind will displace any natural gas production. Wind might be used to fill new demand (exponential growth) but the market doesn't support it replacing anything that we already use.
Much like fusion, they have been saying solar is 10 years away for much more than 10 years.
As for nuclear plenty of people mention it (seems like that and oil is all the republican party talk about).
Amen.
The problems with the waste is that no ones wants it. It's radioactive, and will remain that way for a long time. Yuka mountain still isn't operating, and even if it does get the green light it looks like we would need a massive expansion of it because we have so much waste.
If we used only nuclear power for electricity, the waste generated (true waste, meaning that necessary to generate the electricity, not that which is required to be controlled simply because people think it is dangerous) would be ~50 grams/person/year. Since the only power generation soure that has a greater power density is fusion (which is still nuclear power) all other forms of electricity generation results in more waste.
The majority of nuclear waste could be recycled safely with zero environmental impact but people don't believe that because they don't have a firm grasp on nuclear physics. Low level radioactive waste is recycled on a daily basis and since people don't know about it (and it isn't harmful at all) no one cares to complain about it.
One major difference between nuclear power and other forms is the waste is segregated. Coal and fossil fuel plants release tons of radioactive material every year into the environment while all of the nuclear waste is contained in the reactor vessel.
Also, nuclear plants will remain a tempting terrorist target, knock over a wind turbine, you might flatten some corn, knock out a nuclear plant and you could devastate a large part of the country.
With all due respect, this is an example of the misinformation that is hurting America. The physics of a US reactor make it physically impossible for a terrorist to "devestate a large part of the country". (I would gladly walk through the physics to back that statement up but I won't subject you to the boring details unless you are seriously interested.)
Three Mile Island was a worst case scenario, the worst possible thing anyone (terrorist or ignorant operator) could do to a US reactor and there was absolutely zero environmental impact. It is actually a worser than worse case scenario since improvements make what happened at Three Mile Island impossible. (Chernobyl was a different story. Please don't bring up Chernobyl because that reactor was designed quite differently from US reactors AND didn't have a containment building (like ALL US reactors). Chernobyl CANNOT happen to a US reactor.)
Another problem with nuclear is we need a bunch of new plants just to keep up with all the old ones that are retiring. This will be a challenge in and of itself.
What plants are retiring? I believe this is an old myth. Before the "energy crisis", nuke plants weren't renewing their licenses because there wasn't a need. That has all changed now. "Old" plants just get a new core and keep going. And with improved cores more power can be generated in the same old package.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew Andresen on
-
I agree that wind reaches a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think we are anywhere near that yet.
The department of energy's study shows that our nation could definitely get 20% of it's energy from wind
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Overview
As for purchasing a gas powered generator, it might be cheaper over the life (excluding externalities) but it might not be either. It all depends on the cost of fuel. Last year oil seemed like it would stay under $100 a barrel forever, now it might never go back below it. And other forms of fossil fuels have risen along with it. And of course if a price is put on carbon (which can not be ruled out) then fossil fuels get MUCH more expensive.
I am aware that some nuclear waste can be recycled, but my understanding is that doesn't get rid of the problem, only minimizes it. Plus, we have years of waste that have already built up to deal with.
And yes agreed burning coal presents a lot of problems to the surrounding environment.
As for the physics of a plant making it hard, if you want to elaborate feel free. I never mind learning new things. My understanding though, was that even though the reactor might shut down preventing a nuclear meltdown, you could still get radioactive waste released into the air/water, if by nothing else than regular explosives.
As for the difference between replacing a whole plant, or just a core I will have to plead ignorance. I'm sure it's easier to just replace the core, but I'm sure that's still expensive and time consuming.
One final thought, nuclear plants need a lot of water too, for cooling. both solar and wind do not. So as parts of our country become further strapped for water, I expect that to be another benefit.
Like I said, I expect nuclear to remain part of the picture, but I don't see it solving our problems. And quite frankly you can tell me that the plants are safe all you want, but I would rather have a solar panel on my roof, or a wind turbine on my farm. Maybe that's a bit illogical, but I know there are many people that feel the same.
Thanks,
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
I am aware that some nuclear waste can be recycled, but my understanding is that doesn't get rid of the problem, only minimizes it. Plus, we have years of waste that have already built up to deal with.
If by minimize you mean reduces it to an insignificant amount, yes. If you mean reduces it an amount that it could still be harmful, no. It reduces it to an amount that is comparable to the radioactivity of a banana. (A real, unaltered, picked from a tree banana.)
As for the difference between replacing a whole plant, or just a core I will have to plead ignorance. I'm sure it's easier to just replace the core, but I'm sure that's still expensive and time consuming.
They do it roughly every 18 months. (Every plant.)
One final thought, nuclear plants need a lot of water too, for cooling. both solar and wind do not. So as parts of our country become further strapped for water, I expect that to be another benefit.
Existing technology, yes. There are designs that use helium instead of water. I am not going to try and sell you on that pipe dream. Just thought that since we get to dream of a world when solar and wind save the day I would throw nuclear in the mix.
For solar to be "economically viable" by 2015, it will more than likely have to be done using steam turbines. (Concentrated solar energy to boil the water.)
And quite frankly you can tell me that the plants are safe all you want, but I would rather have a solar panel on my roof, or a wind turbine on my farm.
This being America (and you have the right to choose), more power to you. I just don't want you to make that decision based on mis-information.
I'll get back to you on the rest of it.
-
Permalink Reply by David Theissen on -
I am in 1,000% agreement with you about Nuclear power. The US Navy has been operating hundreds of nuclear powered vessels for over 30 years without a single problem to the public.
These systems could be installed in a 1 sq-block area in metropolitian areas and produce more than enough energy to meet our demands. The technology and systems are already developed. They could be mass produced "at will" and in operation in less than two years.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel. We don't need singular mega-stations and they would be a stratigic defense problem. Many more smaller installations scattered throught the country would make our energy footprint less vulnerable in the event we have terrorist activities planned against us.
Having said that, the Picken's plan is a good start. Sure, the winds are variable and fickle. But, the potential of quietly reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a good start. It will be much easier to convince people to put up a wind turbine than it will be to "plug" a nuclear plant into their back yard.
If you look at the windmill farms around Palm Springs, CA you will see that they are located on land that isn't useful for anything else. I'm sure we will find the same conditions exist up and down the corriddor of the midwest.
As I see it, and as Pickens has outlined it, it gives us a window to change our way of doing business and thinking about other alternative energy choices.
If I had my way, there would be a Navy nuclear power plant in every city and more as the population demands. The loss of several power plants to terrorist activities would barely be noticeable in the overall scheme of things.
In addition, we wouldn't have to endure the losses of transmitting power over hundreds of miles. And, the Navy will gladly train operators and staff because they have a constant turnover...
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
