An idea for clean power

As the thread starter mentioned in his first post.
Iceland is maybe half a century ahead of all other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010)[2] of the nation's energy. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity is generated by hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels.[3]

Consumption of primary geothermal energy in 2004 was 79.7 petajoules (PJ), approximately 53.4% of the total national consumption of primary energy, 149.1 PJ. The corresponding share for hydro power was 17.2%, petroleum was 26.3%, and coal was 3%.[4] Plans are underway to turn Iceland into a 100% fossil-fuel-free nation in the near future


Edit: Some fresh news http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/15/3435376/geothermal-power-revolution/
 
arkmundi said:
The black answer to green energy continues to be that, hey, what with all the promise, renewables still deliver a miniscule 6% of the worlds energy (less biomass).

The energy density of fossil fuels and nuclear is freaking amazing and hard to beat...
 
Punx0r said:
arkmundi said:
The black answer to green energy continues to be that, hey, what with all the promise, renewables still deliver a miniscule 6% of the worlds energy (less biomass).

The energy density of fossil fuels and nuclear is freaking amazing and hard to beat...
Not anymore. That was the point. Peak easy and high-EROEI oil is history. More and more, the big companies are going for extreme reserves - the arctic, deep water (BP and deep horizon), and the Alberta tar sands. Those are 1>low-EROEI, 2> very dirty (lots of water used, then polluted, and released back where no one wants it), and 3> increasingly contrary to public will. Time to give it up.

So the IEA is doing good work these days reporting actuals and charting a way forward. Its electric as the carrier source, highly distributed, and with a plethora of renewable energy sources. It competes now. Large scale off-shore wind and desert solar and proving much better EROEI and the trend will only continue. So WHY, WHY, WHY do the big companies continue on the trajectory they're on? Time to give it up and join the Great Transition. :mrgreen:
 
I was only commenting on the richness of the energy source and thus it's practicality.

Hydroelectric has to be one of the best "renewable" means of generating electricity, yet it too only makes up a small slice of total output. Solar panel and wind turbine technology just doesn't cut it when it comes to supplying an entire country.
 
We're still hard up against the fact that there's only so much energy per square-metre of sunlit area or mass of moving air. They're also unreliable and unpredictable sources of energy.
 
Punx0r said:
We're still hard up against the fact that there's only so much energy per square-metre of sunlit area or mass of moving air. They're also unreliable and unpredictable sources of energy.
Every such criticism has been amply answered by many people working in the industry. Its a combination of not just clean, renewable energy sources, but highly distributed and with energy storage systems to solve any latent intermittency issues, as well as what guru Amory Lovins calls negawatts - lots & lots of energy efficiency initiatives at every level, from home to work place to the grid itself. We have all that going on in Massachusetts, which is why we're the #1 state in the USA when it comes to green. What put us over the top is ample subsidized energy efficiency. Those programs put 60R insulation in the roof of my condo building.

But, if you're going to get all critical, why not criticize the big oil companies, or countries or people not doing their part to lower our collective carbon footprint and divest from the use of or capitalization of oil and coal, or climate change denier politicians who only seem to have excuses? Why not level all that but, but, but, but at yourself or your family and friends to ramp up and do more to reduce their energy consumption or switch their choice of fuels? Or you can be a but-head about it and play no part on the essential revolution of our generation. :lol:
 
I think you're missing my point ;)

I'm arguing about the environmental or economic considerations of different energy sources, nor vested interests or the inertia of industry, simply a technical consideration of energy density. Fossil fuels, especially oil, have been so successful because they are so energy dense. We have been spoilt by the usable energy in a gallon of gasoline. If you want to refuel your car at the roadside, how many windmills or solar panels would you have to errect?

Why are submarines and aircraft carriers fuelled by nuclear reactors*? Why don't they just fold out some solar panels and recharge a bank of lifepo4? :lol:

You're right, a cultural shift to lower energy useage (although IIRC industrial/commerical usage dwarfs domestic, so turning down the thermostat at home by a degree makes FA difference) along with storage is required to address the *technical shortcomings* of current renewable energy sources.

I don't consider myself an eco-activist and I'm skeptical of any kind of revolution but I do value efficiency and dislike waste. Based on last year's records my daily domestic energy useage (all electrical) usage was around 3kwh/day (including ebike) in the summer. Winter was much worse due to poor building insulation :(

*My personal opinion of nuclear is that it's awesome and I'd like to see more of it. Properly managed it's amazingly environmentally friendly. I hope that nuclear fusion will become commerically viable in the future and believe that would solve mankind's energy problems into the forseeable future.
 
Punx0r said:
I think you're missing my point ;)
It'd wouldn't be the first time.
I'm arguing about the environmental or economic considerations of different energy sources, nor vested interests or the inertia of industry, simply a technical consideration of energy density. Fossil fuels, especially oil, have been so successful because they are so energy dense. We have been spoilt by the usable energy in a gallon of gasoline. If you want to refuel your car at the roadside, how many windmills or solar panels would you have to errect?
But I argue that its a new world of energy possibility, so no prior consideration is adequate. Which is why I posted about the new IEA report, because those folks are not just full-time energy analysts, but they really get it, what must happen. So any current moment consideration has to come first from a read of that, or at least the summaries and slide set.
Why are submarines and aircraft carriers fuelled by nuclear reactors*? Why don't they just fold out some solar panels and recharge a bank of lifepo4? :lol:
Point of fact is that the US military also seems to get it and writing more and more about the security crisis of climate change. So the Navy is going 100% biodiesel. And the various air defence contractors are investing heavily in R&D for increased energy efficiency, renewables and so forth. Drones, while I hate their misguided use, could be considered a huge energy efficiency success story.
You're right, a cultural shift to lower energy useage (although IIRC industrial/commerical usage dwarfs domestic, so turning down the thermostat at home by a degree makes FA difference) along with storage is required to address the *technical shortcomings* of current renewable energy sources.
THERE ARE NO "technical shortcoming" I guess that's my main point. There's only a significant shortcoming in our collective imagination. But the various issues of yesteryear have been removed.
I don't consider myself an eco-activist and I'm skeptical of any kind of revolution but I do value efficiency and dislike waste. Based on last year's records my daily domestic energy useage (all electrical) usage was around 3kwh/day (including ebike) in the summer. Winter was much worse due to poor building insulation :(
Everyone will do what they can do and many purely to save money, and that's OK. All except continuing the status quo.
*My personal opinion of nuclear is that it's awesome and I'd like to see more of it. Properly managed it's amazingly environmentally friendly. I hope that nuclear fusion will become commerically viable in the future and believe that would solve mankind's energy problems into the forseeable future.
On this we agree. I am an eco-activist and I"ve taken a lot of flack for my support of nuclear. That's qualified as previously posted, that I support current best design standards, like what China is doing to eliminate their dependence on coal by unleashing a huge transition to pebble bed reactors, small, and highly distributed. One design, like France, so it can be regulated and for redundancy and the cost savings that allows.
 
I'm glad we agree on nuclear, at least :)

I agree that depedence on foreign oil is bad strategy for any millitary and understand the argument for reducing that dependence. However, for submarines, at least, I maintain that the choice of fuel is based purely on technical grounds. They simply could not operate without it and this, I contend, is due to the limitations of other fuel types (including fossil fuels in this case).

We don't have solar-powered cars or commerical aircraft for the same reason. Battery-electric powered by solar, perhaps in the future when battery technology greatly improves. Again, technical limitations of current renewable energy sources.

I accept that in some areas of the world, where there are vast desert areas, there is both the space and sunlight to build large, low energy density solar power plants. Wether these are cost-effective (without government subsidies) or truly eco-friendly is matter for experts to debate. However, it countries with high population density, little available land and low solar intensity problems occur. Same argument for wind turbines.

There are several wind farms within several miles of my house. They were apparently built purely to acquire cash incentives from the government. There are plenty of times they're not running, they annoy local residents and disrupt air-traffic control radar. Call me pessimistic, but now the monetary incentives are gone I imagine they'll be run into the ground and dismantled, as I doubt they're cost-effective to maintain. There just isn't enough energy in the wind around here.

Plenty of coal though :) Plonk down a power-plant occupying the same area as one of the little wind farms here and you've got enough power 24/7 for an entire city. Energy density! :D
 
Punx0r said:
Plenty of coal though :) Plonk down a power-plant occupying the same area as one of the little wind farms here and you've got enough power 24/7 for an entire city. Energy density! :D
Coal and the industry behind it is pure evil. Massachusetts is well along on the path of eliminating its coal dependence. Two large plants shut down and three to go! And Obama recently announced his administration's plans to shut down coal generated electricity in the USA! If there is one thing I'd like to see in my lifetime, its the last coal plant in our country shutting down! It will be possible only by leveraging every energy alternative in our arsenal, including natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar pv, solar focused heat, geothernal and all the rest. Its possible. But the one thing that could significantly accelerate the shut-down of coal is bringing on a whole new generation of best design nuclear plants, just like what China is beginning to do.
 
Indeed. It's interesting to see the Chinese have taken the high-tech route over the easy option of coal. The UK is/was supposed to be getting a new generation of nuclear plants, but knee-jerk reactions over Fukushimi made it a political hot-potato.

I do like those solar thermal plants, especially those using thermal mass to store energy to continue production at night.

I do need to do some reading on geothermal. I recall some proposals involving multi-kilometre deep bore holes for use in non-volcanic regions and possibly some tests done in France. It could have been nonsense and come to nothing :(
 
Americas current gas and oil production is on par with the late 70's, not much below the peak of the early 70's. It has been INCREASING for over a decade, between new finds and discoveries of ways to get more oil from wells thought depleted, etc. Texas is around it's alltime peak. There is the capability to outstrip the early 70's, there just isn't a market for all the natural gas that could be pumping. That's the REAL story.

Meanwhile, they'd love to be digging up more coal, too, the EPA just isn't letting them do it.

It's not about 'We're RUNNING OUT,' it's about 'We can't AFFORD it,' and 'It's too DIRTY.' Don't fabricate stories, just the truth is bad enough.
 
This story in TheGuardian is really scary ...
China warned over 'insane' plans for new nuclear power plants
.... The operator of Japan’s Fukushima plant has admitted that the company failed to take stronger disaster prevention measures ahead of the earthquake and tsunami, for fear of lawsuits and protests.

“Japan has better technology and better management, and yet it couldn’t avoid an accident despite the fact that it tried very hard to learn from the US and USSR,” He said, adding that China’s nuclear monitor has sparser staffing than Japan’s, and offers low salaries that will not attract the best young scientists.

China had considered and then rejected stronger standards, He said, because of the huge pressure for a rapid expansion and companies powerful enough to put corporate profits ahead of national security...
Let's see: start with very inadequate regulations and regulatory authority, then rapidly expand the number of operating plants, using new designs, fail to offer adequate salaries.... yea, pretty scary.
 
arkmundi said:
Because ultimately its the relative cost performance of an energy source that drives commercialization.
This doesn't explain why the IMF has the fossil fuel industry subsidized on a planetary level to 5.3 trillion dollars a year http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
We could build the world renewable with that.

arkmundi said:
The black answer to green energy continues to be that, hey, what with all the promise, renewables still deliver a miniscule 6% of the worlds energy (less biomass).
We shouldn't negate biomass, because it is carbon neutral.
I've been involved in a sugar mill conversion project that takes the scrap from cane and burns it to power the plant and profits from excess power, also there's methane gas collected from garbage dumps, methane has a very high greenhouse rating compared to CO2.

arkmundi said:
On the basis of EROEI and low-carbon demand, I still advocate nuclear, albeit with newer designs (pebble bed, and China's HTR-10 design in particular).
What we need is more research in getting Gen IV reactors to market, that are both nuclear bomb fuel and nuclear waste burners and holistic in their fuel cycle, burning up nearly all the fuel, to create a minimum of short lived waste, instead of increasing the thousands of tons of medium and high level dangerous waste having to be stored around the planet.
 
When I see geothermal I see "killing the earth" Anyone feels the same?
 
Skalabala said:
When I see geothermal I see "killing the earth" Anyone feels the same?
Nope
 
megacycle said:
Skalabala said:
When I see geothermal I see "killing the earth" Anyone feels the same?
Nope
Radio active core regenerating itself good I suppose?
I am a kinda "Green" guy so excuse my ignorance :oops:
 
Skalabala said:
Radio active core regenerating itself good I suppose?
Oh you're talking about hot rock geothermal, not all types.
Enormous amount of radioactive decay going on deep down, in the crust, tapping into those naturally, moderated nuclear reactors, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think brings up much in the way of hazardous by products.
Did hear there's places researchers have found, where theres evidence of nuclear activity occurring in the ground, that were at levels similar to a man made nuclear reactor
 
Philistine said:
Have you heard about Seawater Greenhouse? Those guys are in South Australia and have proof of concept examples of using nothing but seawater and solar power to grow commercially viable fresh fruit and vegetables. Next they are going to try to do chickens. Fascinating stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/24/growing-food-in-the-desert-crisis
I have being thinking about something similar but it's simpler. Just a clear dome in the ocean and by the sunshining the seawater heats and condensate which desalinates it and than it's just drips into the desert 8)
 
Skalabala said:
When I see geothermal I see "killing the earth" Anyone feels the same?


I'm with you. The butterfly effect is largely ignored. Along time ago, I designed wind powered generators that were simply a flywheel hooked to an alternator that used a rope and one way bearing to attach to the tops of trees. As the trees sway in the wind, the flywheel gets turned, then a spring reels the rope back in for the next pull. I know it would work. If the flywheel used water chambers for weight, it would be lightweight and simple, and it would give people more reasons to grow trees. The thing is, I have no idea what dampening the motion of those trees and harvesting the wind energy would do to the trees or other aspects of the ecosystem, so I shelved it and decided to figure out ways to drastically lower my power consumption instead. I've found that if I'm just living, and not trying to produce things for a market so I can eat, I can have nearly all of the comforts of civilization with a small solar panel, car battery, and inverter and humanity has already produced enough of these things that everyone could have one if they just decided to simplify their lives and cooperate instead of compete. People only need big screen tv's to get some kind of escape from the unsustainable system of survival they've voluntarily stuck themselves in. If we're going to keep using energy, getting it from the sun definitely makes the most sense to me.
 
Barndom said:
Philistine said:
Have you heard about Seawater Greenhouse? Those guys are in South Australia and have proof of concept examples of using nothing but seawater and solar power to grow commercially viable fresh fruit and vegetables. Next they are going to try to do chickens. Fascinating stuff
I didn't even realize it's all happening only a few 100's of km's north from me.
I heard it's really going crazy and has Port Augusta accommodation packed at the moment.

Barndom said:
I have being thinking about something similar but it's simpler. Just a clear dome in the ocean and by the sunshining the seawater heats and condensate which desalinates it and than it's just drips into the desert 8)
Hey that's smart, it might be improved by pumping down into the root bowl of the plants.
 
That Saltwater Greenhouse concept is very interesting. I like it as a simple, efficient solution :)

I imagine some people will claim that it would end up over-heating the oceans in addition to geo-thermal cooling the Earth's core...
 
Back
Top