Well, there are a few myths being propagated for one reason or another, and there are some corrections and clarifications that are desperately needed.
Despite what the popular press says about impending oil depletion, the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has confirmed that Bakken oil deposit in the Dakotas has 300 to 400 years of *"known"* reserves (at today's present consumption, 2009), and at least 200 years of *"proven"* reserves (oil that is readily obtainable with today's drilling technology). "Proven" reserves are continually increasing as drilling technology advances. Also, let's not forget the Canadian oil sands, which have a price point of $40 per barrel, which become economically viable at $0.793/L ($3.00/U.S. Gallon), and those reserves are equal to what Saudi Arabia presently possesses. Further, coal deposits in the U.S. are proven to be (per the USGS) in excess of 300 years in the Powder River Basin (in Wyoming and parts of Montana) alone. This figure does not include Eastern United States coal reserves in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, and Kentucky. Lastly, the U.S. only possesses a mere 2% of the world's Uranium reserves, while Canada and Australia (combined) possess over half of the world's Uranium reserves. Unfortunately for the U.S., its 2% reserves will only carry us through the next 20,000 years. What's a poor soul to do? On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM, <carlet...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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 even 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. > >
