Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14453
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by liveforphysics » Nov 21, 2017 9:29 pm

I'm always for no moving parts when possible.

As humans are only beginning to do microscopy at single atom resolution, we are only beginning to explore the nature of material technology, and so far only with carbon and boron and nitrogen, while we have an entire periodic table to play with.

With atom level precision in mfg, it will enable building devices to scale its own manufacturing of the equipment. Using sufficient temperature plasma, there is no waste, just atom sources for recycling processes approaching the limits of atom perfect.

With atom perfect manufacturing, it should be easily possible to trap superconductivity states in materials at room temperature while being only a few atoms thick, as well as just a few atoms required for the photon to excited electron junction stage to happen, and to stack the added junctions to get bi-tri-quad junction for harvesting to >70-80% efficiency or beyond becomes just a few more atoms thicker, and a few more fractions of a cent per meter to print or GM a virus or fungus to do whatever complex nano-assembly for us.

At this point solar becomes the cost of the raw materials and some miniscule energy input to make it, and you laminate the fractions of a gram material onto whatever normal building material you're useing, like siding or fencing and road signs and whatever gets even 10min of sun a day makes sense.

Originally PV cells were millions of lab RnD to achieve even a single Watt. Now it's <$0.50/Watt, and will continue to fall at exactly the rate people figure out how to use materials and energy at atom perfect levels to create self-scaleing nano-manucturing. Then energy storage is cake and dirt cheap with energy density exceeding gasoline, and solar is cake and dirt cheap because it only uses fractions of a gram of material per square meter and has 70-80% efficiency over a wide range of available light angles (its also going to look black to human vision, yet stays cool when sitting in the sun, because that energy went out the wires.)
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Hanssing
10 mW
10 mW
Posts: 29
Joined: Aug 06, 2016 6:57 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Nov 22, 2017 2:28 am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 20, 2017 5:08 pm

Yes, these projects are not common, especially for high power (back up) systems of 20 + hrs storage capacity.
Unless my maths is screwed, ...isnt that German project actually $0.073 /Wh ..??
Which means there is also some huge variations in costs, probably related to available geology, scale of storage, difficulty of construction etc etc.
Interresting numbers, but from your posts its a bit unclear what we are talking about.
Comparing to other types ligetime, and capacity factors becomes very important!

When talking about storage could you please provide:

Cost Rated capacity as in $/kW nameplate
Cost of rated Power $/kWh nameplate

Expected capacity-factor - lets say 20% to match RE?
Lifetime in year's
MAntenance cost in %CAPEX per year
Delivered power over lifetime at capacity estimate ie. $/kWh assuming input energy is "free" .
Lifetime powercost incl. maintenance.

The last 2 parts are very important because it goes ontop if RE-costs.
Seeing pumped hydro-plants form the 80' and even 70' still running is confidence building - there just arent transparency in costs.

Hanssing

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 22, 2017 6:20 am

Hanssing wrote:
Nov 22, 2017 2:28 am
Interresting numbers, but from your posts its a bit unclear what we are talking about.
Comparing to other types ligetime, and capacity factors becomes very important!
When talking about storage could you please provide:
Cost Rated capacity as in $/kW nameplate
Cost of rated Power $/kWh nameplate
Expected capacity-factor - lets say 20% to match RE?
Lifetime in year's
MAntenance cost in %CAPEX per year
Delivered power over lifetime at capacity estimate ie. $/kWh assuming input energy is "free" .
Lifetime powercost incl. maintenance.
The last 2 parts are very important because it goes ontop if RE-costs.
Seeing pumped hydro-plants form the 80' and even 70' still running is confidence building - there just arent transparency in costs.
Pumped hydro operating costs will be similar to well known hydro dam generation.
"Capital costs for pumped-storage plants are relatively high, although this is somewhat mitigated by their long service life of up to 75 years or more, which is three to five times longer than utility-scale batteries."

Capacity factor of output vs charging can be no more than 50% if there is no natural water source flow. And I wonder if this is even possible since they may only pump at a slower rate than they can discharge.
The idea will be to develop every viable natural hydro oportunity in the world and fit the modern, variable turbines that can also pump. Regardless of the ecological issues of inundation. As China is doing. It is much better to flood the land with water than to flood the skies with exhaust. And variable frequency water turbines are the perfect match for smoothing ouput from intermittents since they are under near instant control.
Too bad it seems difficult to use salt water.
The StEnSea concept is interesting depending on the cost and would be the perfect compliment to offshore wind.
.
https://youtu.be/BZNbyMUaZsY
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 22, 2017 6:29 am

Hanssing wrote:
Nov 22, 2017 2:28 am

Interresting numbers, but from your posts its a bit unclear what we are talking about.
Comparing to other types ligetime, and capacity factors becomes very important!

When talking about storage could you please provide:

Cost Rated capacity as in $/kW nameplate
Cost of rated Power $/kWh nameplate

Expected capacity-factor - lets say 20% to match RE?
Lifetime in year's
MAntenance cost in %CAPEX per year
Delivered power over lifetime at capacity estimate ie. $/kWh assuming input energy is "free" .
Lifetime powercost incl. maintenance.

The last 2 parts are very important because it goes ontop if RE-costs.
Seeing pumped hydro-plants form the 80' and even 70' still running is confidence building - there just arent transparency in costs.

Hanssing
im afraid very little firm data is available !
That is why i initially asked if anyone had reliable data for Pumped Hydro systems.
These just doesnt seem to be the normal cost factors published.and much of it is very dated also.
Most projects at least state their Power (MW ) rating, but few declare their Capacity (MWh), prefering to possibly just list duration, or sometimes only the reseviour capacity.
Its not even certain that the pump power or capacity is the same as the generation ratings
Further, few if any of the existing systems were intended as " Time Shift" facilities for solar, wind etc, but only as peaker plants or supply smoothing resource.
For solar time shift or "supply continuity" storage, you really need a system that can be fully recharged (refilled) in 5-6 hours, and be able to reverse and generate for 18+ hours....
....So , that needs a much higher pump capacity/power , than generating power..probably by a factor of 4 or more.
A very different design criteria to most PHS designs
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 22, 2017 6:42 am

It needs to be understood, that proposing and construction of large hydro projects creates as much public resistance as open cut coal mining ! ...since they inevitably take place iin park /recreational /nature reserve , type areas.
Many of the best geographical locations will likely never be permitted to be developed this way.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 22, 2017 7:12 am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 22, 2017 6:42 am
It needs to be understood, that proposing and construction of large hydro projects creates as much public resistance as open cut coal mining ! ...since they inevitably take place iin park /recreational /nature reserve , type areas.
Many of the best geographical locations will likely never be permitted to be developed this way.
They will in China. The rest of us must also realize the priceless value of hydro electric. It is the perfect compliment for intermittents and very cost and resource effective compared to batteries.

But it takes vast liquid fuel energy and concrete to build these big things. We need to quit screwing around and get busy while we have the fossil energy to accomplish these types of projects before it is too late.
Last edited by sendler2112 on Nov 22, 2017 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 22, 2017 7:13 am

The sea water PHES in Yanbaro, Japan was dismantled in 2016 for financial losses?
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Y ... er_Station
.
It drives home a good point. It is very difficult to make money as a free market business model selling electricity, if you don't make electricity. It was operated for 10 years but very little was written about any problems with the salt water. So it failed on cost versus payback. It reiterates my point that it would be fair for intermittent electrical farms to take required responsibilty for their own storage. Or curtail billing for their output unless only during peaks. Or go national with all electrical systems.
.
It is totally unfair for intermittents to suck up the gravy and force the other facilities to sit around just waiting to pick up the slack when it is dark or the wind doesn't blow.
.
Australia has a new seawater project coming up at Port Augusta.
.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austra ... ape-92608/
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 22, 2017 8:18 pm

Thanks Sendler, i had heard of the Aussie, Cultana Seawater PHS proposal, but didnt pay much attention due to its limited size (225MW, 6 hrs). However i had not seen the Project " Knowledge Sharing" study before as linked from the renew economy article, ..and that has a lot of useful background technical and financial data..
Well worth a read..
https://www.energyaustralia.com.au/site ... 0FINAL.pdf
Interestingly , the prime focus of the study seems to be how to optimise the financial returns, with the minimal investment, by targeting high price demand times in the local power market.
IE, it is seen as a business oportunity, rather than a public utility facility !
Last edited by Hillhater on Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 23, 2017 1:52 am

Teslas," Worlds biggest Battery" ready for testing....
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-2 ... fmredir=sm
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hanssing
10 mW
10 mW
Posts: 29
Joined: Aug 06, 2016 6:57 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Nov 23, 2017 6:39 am

New Pumped Hydro Energy Storage proejct:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/en ... ky-country
When the value of that regulation capacity is accounted for, Gordon Butte’s cost per kilowatt falls to $1,130. By contrast, the cost is anywhere from $1,177 to $1,830 a kilowatt for the same regulation services provided by a reciprocating engine and aeroderivative.

So, even though Gordon Butte may be more difficult to build than a gas-fired plant, its design adds value by delivering a range of services. “This is just cheaper,” Borgquist says.
However the interresting bit (for me) is the pelton/torque/francis coupling configuration:
This means Gordon Butte would stack a synchronous generator, a Pelton turbine, a torque converter, and a pump on a single rotating shaft with all of the equipment—supplied by GE Renewable Energy—turning in the same direction.
Image


So Pelton when generating, with decoupled francis, and free-spinning pelton-wheel, with driven francis-turbine when pumping. Same rotational direction, fast switchover, pretty cool.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 325
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Nov 23, 2017 9:03 am

EWE brine4power:

https://www.ewe-gasspeicher.de/en/home/b4p

This is a cheap(er) redox flow battery based on polymeres (instead of expensive Vanadium) and built underground in old salt cavernes.

"...The cost of a cavern battery per kilowatt corresponds roughly to that of pump storage power plants or conventional batteries. However, the ability to store large amounts of energy/MWh makes b4p storage unbeatably cost efficient. In future, renewable energy will be available at all times in sufficient quantities..."

Pilot project could be 120MW / 700MWh

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 23, 2017 9:41 am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 22, 2017 8:18 pm
Cultana Seawater PHS proposal Project " Knowledge Sharing" study before as linked from the renew economy article, ..and that has a lot of useful background technical and financial data..
Well worth a read..
https://www.energyaustralia.com.au/site ... 0FINAL.pdf
This is a really excellent published study. I hope they get it finished so we can start to see how well it works. Grid storage is a tough case for a money making enterprise but it invaluable to grid stability as we seek to transition to high percentages of intermittents.
.
It's interesting the study indicates that the high percentage of wind generation is not capable of effective frequency control.
.
And it is good to see that there are regulations in place according to the Finkel Review to impose Generator Reliability Obligations (GRO)
on new renewable energy projects, i.e. obligations to firm up a share of their forecast generation output by
developing or entering into contracts with dispatchable generation sources.
.
It is not fair in a private enterprise busniness model for intermittents to steal profits when they can, with no guarantee of a stable output. Gas-fired generators, pumped hydro storage, and battery storage can potentially provide the required firming. PHES has a major advantage over batteries in firming renewable generation, as batteries can only offer very limited hours of storage at
competitive prices. Pumped hydro storage can provide significantly longer hours of storage.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 620
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 23, 2017 11:48 am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 22, 2017 8:18 pm
Interestingly , the prime focus of the study seems to be how to optimise the financial returns, with the minimal investment, by targeting high price demand times in the local power market.
IE, it is seen as a business oportunity, rather than a public utility facility !
Projects that function as both are the best sorts of projects.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 23, 2017 12:18 pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Nov 23, 2017 9:03 am
EWE brine4power:
https://www.ewe-gasspeicher.de/en/home/b4p
This is a cheap(er) redox flow battery based on polymeres (instead of expensive Vanadium) and built underground in old salt cavernes.
This will be interesting to watch also. I have many salt caverns in my area. Let's see how long the membrane will last.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 23, 2017 1:10 pm

Here is a good chart showing Energy production and consumption in the USA by sector and the conversion and use efficiencies. I wonder which category farming fits under?
Fossil fuel for transportation consumes 27% of all energy, mostly liquid fuel which will become very valuable for agriculture, mining, and contruction in the coming decades as depletion rears it's head. And wastes 75% due to internal combustion engine's inefficiency. Adoption of electric vehicles is the first low hanging fruit. Fossil fuels for electrical generation are also very inefficient. Too bad there is no way to phase in a worldwide carbon tax right where it leaves the ground.
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 23, 2017 5:34 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Nov 23, 2017 9:41 am
....And it is good to see that there are regulations in place according to the Finkel Review to impose Generator Reliability Obligations (GRO)
on new renewable energy projects, i.e. obligations to firm up a share of their forecast generation output by
developing or entering into contracts with dispatchable generation sources.....
Co incidentally, we have a high level Gov/power industry meeting today in Hobart to discuss this very point
.
..... PHES has a major advantage over batteries in firming renewable generation, as batteries can only offer very limited hours of storage at
competitive prices. Pumped hydro storage can provide significantly longer hours of storage.....
That is certainly true historically, but we are not far away from financial parity ( $/MWh) and theoretically there is no reason why we cannot have Very Large Battery farms, ..GWh+ ..that are very flexible in discharge rate to cover any time period required....Or better still, multiple distributed battery farms of similar total capacity, with limited additional cost.
Of course, it has never been done yet, but then again nor has 100% RE generation. !
Utility scale PHES build costs seem to be in the range $150-300,000 /MWh, whilst batteries were last reported at $350,000/MWh...but that was 2016 and a small (210kWh ) Pack. I suspect economies of scale (x5000 !), and time/cost reductions could well bring those closer together.
Batteries have the distinct advantage of being able to be easily sited and very quick build times. They do have much shorter life expectations though ,..at least with current technology.
That Sea Water PEHS system could increase its capacity (MWh) simply by enlarging the upper storage reserviour (assuming suitable geography) with no equipment changes to the power house !
I wonder why they didnt consider that , it would dramatically improve the $/MWh cost ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 23, 2017 5:47 pm

The service life of hydro will be at least 3X of batteries if not much more. Saltwater pumped storage will be ideal for many island locations like Hawaii, Puerto rico which are mountains rising out of the sea.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 23, 2017 7:20 pm

Hanssing wrote:
Nov 23, 2017 6:39 am
New Pumped Hydro Energy Storage proejct:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/en ... ky-country
When the value of that regulation capacity is accounted for, Gordon Butte’s cost per kilowatt falls to $1,130. By contrast, the cost is anywhere from $1,177 to $1,830 a kilowatt for the same regulation services provided by a reciprocating engine and aeroderivative.

So, even though Gordon Butte may be more difficult to build than a gas-fired plant, its design adds value by delivering a range of services. “This is just cheaper,” Borgquist says.
Im not sure their assumption that providing "regulation capacity services". is equivalent to doubling the MW capacity rating and hence halfing the $/kW build cost factor. ?
....cost per kilowatt for 400 MW of pumped hydro capacity is around $2,250. By contrast, the cost for gas-fired capacity—provided by technology that ranges from an aeroderivative combustion turbine to a reciprocating engine—was calculated to be anywhere from $1,217 to $1,650 a kilowatt.

But, says Borgquist, Gordon Butte’s service offerings include what’s known as regulation capacity which could benefit the Pacific Northwest grid. That value is created as the hydro facility cycles between pumping water to its upper reservoir and releasing it in order to spin a turbine generator. This feature effectively doubles Gordon Butte’s capacity to 800 MW.
EDIT...
Anyone explain why chose a Pelton wheel for the generator drive rather than the more common choice of Francis design ?
Last edited by Hillhater on Nov 23, 2017 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 23, 2017 8:24 pm

I disagreed with that premise also.

Hanssing
10 mW
10 mW
Posts: 29
Joined: Aug 06, 2016 6:57 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Nov 24, 2017 12:10 am

EDIT...
Anyone explain why chose a Pelton wheel for the generator drive rather than the more common choice of Francis design ?
When generating under big head-pressure, pelton-driven is most effecient. AFAIK its also more effecient under partial loads compared to nameplate rating.
At medium pressure geenration Francis tubines are best.
At low pressure its Kaplan turbines.

Also the system has the possibility to keep the inertia spinning for gridstability, and switch from generating to absorbing (the +/-400MW premis), with out decoupling form the grid, and do this VERY fast with the same spinning direction.. A "normal" phes needs to stop and reverse the direction with big relays and all. Takes a lot longer.
Its better for the grid this way and true 800MW regulation capacity.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8332
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 24, 2017 2:50 am

Hmmm ? I am sure there is a good reason for the choice, but its not because of high head pressure. At 312m its much less than many Francis installations.
I suspect the Pelton designs lower mass and ability to run " dry" may be significant.
.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1636
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Nov 24, 2017 9:28 am

Well, South Australia/Adelaide had their first newsworthy blackout, if it wasn't for the fact it was in the city center etc it probably would have been swept under the rug.
Power restored after blackout hits parts of Adelaide's CBD
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-24/p ... bd/9192042

Melbourne had a above average warm day today so it probably needed all its own power and couldn't send any over the interstate grid, even though SA's gas/diesel generators would have been at full power.

Doesn't look like it was a windy day today either, all the large wind farms are in the just above 0% level.
Attachments
2017-11-25a.jpg
2017-11-25a.jpg (51.29 KiB) Viewed 185 times
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 24, 2017 10:25 am

What was the utilisation of solar during the blackout?

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1636
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Nov 24, 2017 10:28 am

Punx0r wrote:
Nov 24, 2017 10:25 am
What was the utilisation of solar during the blackout?
I am pretty sure it was around 6pm evening..
Cephalotus wrote:
Nov 20, 2017 10:13 am
TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 14, 2017 2:50 am
...As for my point on the greenhouse gases released by solar panel manufacturer, lets go over the numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_ ... nhouse_gas

...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_ ... nhouse_gas
NF3 is a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of CO2
.
4000 tons in 2007 and is projected to increase significantly.[15] World production of NF3 is expected to reach 8000 tons a year by 2010.

Considering this gas more than doubled in 3 years and with green tech demand going through the roof its safe to say its at least 16,000tons a year now.
No it isn't. NF3 was only used for thin film modules and is to expensive to not recycle at todays solar module prices. For todays worldwide solar production NF3 emissions are irrelevant.

This is why you had to use some data from 2007. :-(
Well this seems to be a dubious thing to believe considering the fact in China everything appears to be far cheaper if you just dump it into the environment (just like the easy to see read Geiger counter radioactive 10km2 sludge lakes https://youtu.be/IEAHG4tkZ8s?t=1m15s )

From all the information I could find, all these gases are not only rocketing higher every year but if anything accelerating a bit on top.
Some are hard to find up to date charts than others for GHG emissions from solar panel production but I found a few, its pretty naive to believe that NF3 a gas expected to stay in the atmosphere an incredible 740 years has somehow magically disappeared to nothing in the last few years while all its friends GHG levels are going through the roof.

Sulfur hexafluoride is another greenhouse gas that some solar panels release when they're being made. It's 22,800 times more potent than CO2, according to Deutsche Welle.
https://www.chemservice.com/news/2015/0 ... -possible/

Here is an up to date Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) chart.
hats.MLO.sf6.7.none.monthly.all.png
hats.MLO.sf6.7.none.monthly.all.png (47.41 KiB) Viewed 180 times
So my "10,000SF6 x 23,900 = 239,000,000 million tons of co2 equivalent" was probably an understatement and all these exotic greenhouse gases combined and emitted in alt-energy manufacture out emit a lot of smaller countries entire coal power-station annual co2 emissions and of course they don't help plants photosynthesis as they are just unnatural toxic gases.
https://youtu.be/dm8AR_D3bNM?t=37s
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 325
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Nov 24, 2017 11:03 am

TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 24, 2017 10:28 am
From all the information I could find, all these gases are not only rocketing higher every year but accelerating on top.
Some are hard to find up to date charts than others for GHG emissions from solar panel production but I found a few, its pretty naive to believe that NF3 a gas expected to stay in the atmosphere an incredible 740 years has somehow magically disappeared to nothing in the last few years while all its friends GHG levels are going through the roof.
NF3 is realeased in the atmosphere because it is used for flat screens like TVs and PC and smartphone displays. That's the reason for the sharp increase. I only know data for German thin film solar production and their realease of NF3 and SF6 now is next to zero. NF3 and SF6 is irrelevant for c-Si solarmodul production which have a market share of more than 95% today.
Here is an up to date Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) chart.
SF6 and NF3 was used in German PV industry. Since ca. 2009 all new production equipment uses F2 for the cleaning process instead and it is expected that in 2020 emissions from NF3 and SF6 in German PV industry will be zero.

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/de ... n/4226.pdf (page 56)

You are absolutly right that the "green industry" must not have a free ride on pollution. You have to improve green technolgy production whereever possible and it would have been better if they didn't realese that stuff in early production at all.

On the other SF6 was used for windows, shoe soles and filling car tires(!) before focus shiftet on their global warming potential and such useage was forbidden.

The overall small relevance of solar PV for SF6 emissions in Germany can be seen here:

http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/18/092/1809227.pdf (page 4)

During the peak SF6 emission in solar PV production SF6 emissions from windows have been more than 1000x higher than from PV production (2377t vs 1.6t).

Windows are still the main emission source, because they have an avarage lifetime of 25 years, so old windows still contribute even after SF6 useage was forbidden for that.

I can not speek for the Chinese solar industry, but there is no need to buy "made in China" if such things concern you.

I would approve if your search for critical side aspects would be as detailed for nuclear and fossil fuels as it is for solar...

Sorry for the links in German. I don't know the data for the English speaking world, but I assume they exist, too.

Post Reply