OK, then, tell us what we do when all the coal and oil is burned up. And even
uranium is finite. What then? Humanity does intend to stay around for more
than the next 100-200 years.
Carleton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edgar Warf" <edgar.w...@gmail.com>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:53:05 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [USMA:46051] Re: Treatise on renewable energy
Wind and Solar - they’re expensive. They’re unreliable. And most
importantly, their power output is pathetically low.
Solar and Wind are a “fool’s errand” for anything except niche applications .
They’ll never suffice for base-load generation. Here is what a mechanical
engineer (in the wind power industry) had to say about the matter:
I am a mechanical engineer and quite knowledgeable about wind power and the
reliability problems. They are many!
Wind power has a longer history in the EU, but the experience has been similar.
Wind power has been subsidized in the EU for longer than it has here in the
states. The results have been similar. Power from wind turbines is more
expensive that the more traditional sources (coal, gas, hydroelectric, nuclear
and oil). The only way that it becomes viable is with government subsidies .
In the EU, turbines cannot be installed without monitoring system to watch
their health. This is due to the many failures that have occurred. They cannot
operate without insurance and the insurance is unavailable without monitoring.
Here in the states, very few turbines are installed with monitoring.
Why? Simple. Turbines here are normally owned by investor groups that exist
primarily to market the tax credits . The total cost of the turbine can be
recouped in 3-5 years with these credits. The investor groups contract with the
turbine manufacturers to install and operate the turbines for the 5 year
warrantee period. By the time that the warrantee has expired, the turbines are
paid for and any further running time is pure gravy. When they fail, shut them
down and there is no loss . <<…to the investor groups.>>
Except, of course, to the tax payers that support this scam .
The last sentence was the money quote. I would imagine this situation (the
proposed subsidization of Solar) will be very much the same as is it for Wind
when it (Solar) gets into full swing
•
Wind is $0.07/kWh, subsidized
•
Wind is $0.12/kWh, unsubsidized (without the $0.05/kWh Production Tax Credit
)
The numbers for Solar are deplorable – $0.22/kWh (unsubsidized) .
Keep in mind that consumers (in the U.S.) are presently paying between $0.10 to
$0.12 per kWh for residential electricity. Even utilizing the "printing press"
method of fabrication, with a 100% reduction in price, will only get Solar down
to $0.11/kWh - far too high from today's price point.
What's worse is the energy density (or footprint) associated with solar - that
is, kW per square meter . Wind certainly has a higher energy density (per
square meter) than solar at approximately 0.63 kW per square meter (90 m
diameter blade sweep and 4 MW turbine), but it's not getting the job done, and
never will.
Now, imagine what a nightmare solar will be, if we attempt to supplant Nuclear
and Coal for base-load generation.
By the way, I was being generous with those wind turbine numbers, as 4 MW
turbines are fourth generation, and are considered the maximum electrical
output available for land-based turbines .
Marine-based wind turbines aren't much better at 3 MW to 5 MW in size. For
your convenience, I've included a brochure (in PDF format) from Vestas (a
global wind turbine supplier) whose largest offering is a 3 MW turbine, but
like I said, I was being generous giving Wind a whopping 0.63 kW per square
meter rating. Sarcasm can be really tough to convey in text.
So, a little more background information is needed:
The Earth receives energy from the Sun, at the upper atmosphere, of
approximately 1.37 kW per square meter. The actual amount of solar irradiance
reaching Earth's surface (dependent upon weather conditions and latitude) is
approximately 1 kW per square meter - an easy number to remember. That's all
there is - nothing more.
Even if we could convert all photonic energy into electrical energy, we're only
going to get 1 kW per square meter.
So, where do we stand today? That sound you hear is the sound of the other
shoe falling.
We can only convert 30% of this to electricity (or 0.3 kW = 300 W per square
meter ). To reach that 30% mark, it's taken us almost 45 years, and e ven if
we doubled efficiency (an increase of 100%) over today's commercially-available
solar panels, we would only obtain 600 W per square meter to electricity - a
paltry return.
The physics are undeniable. Solar is abysmal compared to Wind, and both are
horrid compared to Nuclear or Coal which have energy densities between 3 kW to
11 kW per square meter depending upon size and configuration of plant.
That's 10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar can provide, and
4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind .
Don't miss that. Nuclear and Coal provide :
• 10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar
• 4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind
Nuclear and coal plants (nominally) have footprints that are 600 m x 600 m
(360,000 square meters) to 700 m x 700 m (490,000 square meters) - inclusive of
material handling AND switchyards (needed for power distribution).
Nuclear and coal have generation capacities ranging from 1 GW to 4 GW per those
areas, and are available 24/7 . Now, that's reliable, efficient, and
inexpensive electrical generation. The numbers speak for themselves.
...and we're throwing it away in favor of wind and solar which are unreliable,
inefficient, and costly.
