Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[neptronix]

I decided to glance over this thread and read something against windmill recycleability..

But lately there has been some businesses/orgs coming up with a way to recycle the hard part - the fiberglass.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/ar...blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support

“The emergence of a sustainable fiberglass industry will provide a circular economy supply chain for the renewable energy sector and produce hundreds of new jobs focused on domestic materials production to support our energy infrastructure and decrease the United States’ dependence on foreign imports for fiberglass products,” Benson said.

The planned facility is expected to process approximately 200 metric tons, or 5,000–7,000 fiberglass wind turbine blades each year, depending on blade size and generation. The recovered fiberglass can then be directed into new composites production.

Looks like a good solution from here.
The other parts ( steel, aluminum, copper, etc ) all have economically feasible recycling solutions - so.. what recycling problem is left? what am i missing?

 

[Hillhater]

The planned facility is expected to process approximately 200 metric tons, or 5,000–7,000 fiberglass wind turbine blades each year, ….

Hmm ?… since the smaller commercial turbine blades weigh 5+ tons, and most are more than 10 tons,… it is hard to reconcile how they conclude that 200 ton capacity is equivalent to “5,000-7,000” blades ??

so.. what recycling problem is left? what am i missing?….

You glanced over too quickly it seems,..
And missed the point about the 1000+ tons of reinforced concrete/ steel foundation block for each turbine that is not recycled .

Oh, and remember,.. just because it can be done, that doesnt mean it WILL be done !
The reason why most turbine blades are going to landfil rather than being recycled in one of the many proven ways, is simply that it is the cheapest option currently.
Fundamental economics apply !

 

[Hillhater]

"The heads of major oil companies will make a historic appearance before Congress on Thursday to answer accusations that their firms have spent years lying about the climate crisis.
For the first time, the top executives from the US’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, as well as Shell, Chevron and BP will be questioned under oath about the industry’s long campaign to discredit and deny the evidence that burning fossil fuels drove global heating"

Seriously ?
Congress making judgements over an unproven theory of global warming ?
Why bother,.. we all know the outcome is predetermined !

 

[Voltron]

Would you believe Exxon's own scientists?


"In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon, James Black reported to the company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change"

In 1981, Exxon shifted its research focus to climate modelling.[14] In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."


According to a 2007 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the company used many of the same strategies, tactics, organizations, and personnel the tobacco industry used in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking. ExxonMobil denied similarity to the tobacco industry.

 

[Hillhater]

Would you believe Exxon's own scientists?…

In a word…NO !
They are all rusted on to the “official” consensus of AGW and CO2….which remanins unproven and highly disputed.
Anything based on an uncertain basis, cannot be trusted.

 

[Hillhater]

Here is a little detail of the materials comparason for wind generators….
BUT, those 20 , 5 MW turbines are not enough to match the gas turbine..
..it would require at least 3 times that many to compensate for the <30% power factor of wind generation
..and lets not even consider maintenance or life expectancy !

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

..and lets not even consider maintenance or life expectancy !

No, we should. Because making best choices means everything, and that includes the carbon cost of the metals mining all these need, the "Cost" of replacement blades versus moving natural gas to the turbine, how long this takes to make and turn on ect. ect. Last thing we should be doing is building a peaker plant and finding that it's all a wash in a few years.

 

[Hillhater]

..and lets not even consider maintenance or life expectancy !

No, we should. Because making best choices means everything, and that includes the carbon cost of the metals mining all these need, the "Cost" of replacement blades versus moving natural gas to the turbine, how long this takes to make and turn on ect. ect. Last thing we should be doing is building a peaker plant and finding that it's all a wash in a few years.

Ok, give it a go then if you want !
But to cover “ everything” you should also consider the storage/ back up systems needed to ensure continuous supply from the weather dependant , intermittent , wind generation .
( note, currently the only effective backup is to use gas plants to provide supply consistency !)

 

[neptronix]

The planned facility is expected to process approximately 200 metric tons, or 5,000–7,000 fiberglass wind turbine blades each year, ….

Hmm ?… since the smaller commercial turbine blades weigh 5+ tons, and most are more than 10 tons,… it is hard to reconcile how they conclude that 200 ton capacity is equivalent to “5,000-7,000” blades ??

Maybe it's blades per year.

so.. what recycling problem is left? what am i missing?….

You glanced over too quickly it seems,..
And missed the point about the 1000+ tons of reinforced concrete/ steel foundation block for each turbine that is not recycled .

Concrete and steel are both economically recycleable and currently the world is using a recycled supply, so i fail to see the problem. If you own a car, high chance it's made of 100% recycled steel.

Oh, and remember,.. just because it can be done, that doesnt mean it WILL be done !
The reason why most turbine blades are going to landfil rather than being recycled in one of the many proven ways, is simply that it is the cheapest option currently.
Fundamental economics apply !

Yeah, until this plant opens. Then, someone can make money on a waste stream, which is pretty awesome.

Again.. any valid arguments?

 

[Hillhater]

The planned facility is expected to process approximately 200 metric tons, or 5,000–7,000 fiberglass wind turbine blades each year, ….

Hmm ?… since the smaller commercial turbine blades weigh 5+ tons, and most are more than 10 tons,… it is hard to reconcile how they conclude that 200 ton capacity is equivalent to “5,000-7,000” blades ??

Maybe it's blades per year.

Maybe ? .. and maybe it is just 200 tons, because it is only a test plant that has not jet been built !

Concrete and steel are both economically recycleable and currently the world is using a recycled supply, so i fail to see the problem. If you own a car, high chance it's made of 100% recycled steel.

Sure steel is the most recycled material in the waste stream.
BUT, ..not when it is encased in 1-2000 tons of concrete and burried 10-15 meters in the ground.
It is just not practical or economical to remove it for recycling.
However, if you can show where this is being done at scale as part of wind farm site restorations , i would like to see it .

Oh, and remember,.. just because it can be done, that doesnt mean it WILL be done !
The reason why most turbine blades are going to landfil rather than being recycled in one of the many proven ways, is simply that it is the cheapest option currently.
Fundamental economics apply !

..Yeah, until this plant opens. Then, someone can make money on a waste stream, which is pretty awesome.
Again.. any valid arguments?

Sure,..as i said,..”fundamental economics”….. they will not “make money” from this recycled material….
However they may make money from the funding they are given to build the plant and demonstrate it is technically possible !

Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office, the Carbon Rivers project team

 

[Voltron]

Yeah, those recycling economics....


https://www.cleanwateraction.org/features/oyster-creek-nuclear-power-plant
Clean Water Action has been involved in identifying and reporting various safety concerns at the nuclear plant for almost two decades. Of particular concern has been the corrosion and deterioration of the plant from age and the accumulation of nuclear waste that will remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. There is about 1.2 million pounds of highly radioactive waste at Oyster Creek. A permanent solution to nuclear waste storage has never been found and is unlikely to occur in the near future. We are left with choosing a least bad option. We agree with our colleagues at Beyond Nuclear that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) to higher ground away from rising seas and worsening storm surges should be seriously considered for coastal areas until a permanent repository is established. Moving the waste thousands of miles out West to a temporary facility from which it would have to be moved again doubles the risk of a catastrophic accident.


Such good fundamental value...

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/
Thanks to a state law passed in 2007, residents in South Carolina are footing the bill for a massive failed nuclear reactor program that cost a total of $9 billion. Analysts say that corporate mismanagement and poor oversight means residents and their families will be paying for that failed energy program — which never produced a watt of energy — for the next 20 years or more.
Documents released as the project unraveled show that both SCE&G and Santee Cooper were well aware of shortcomings, mismanagement, and lack of oversight that eventually made the reactors impossible to complete, years before Westinghouse declared bankruptcy and both companies pulled out.

 

[Ianhill]

Make them multifunctional, power generation plus long term prisor storage units ? Go to the cooling off pond and think about your actions, while you can.

Its hard to push a nuclear future when its been run in the same careless way as the oil industry with massive leakages time and time again, so on one hand i feel your concern on the other i want to hold them accountable and force new generation and technology steps into a complete new era of managing nuclear and its risks.

 

[ZeroEm]

I hear everyone talk about the hidden cost of clean energy and agree that there are issues. When people then suggest that hydrocarbons are better, I view them as not being truthful, have a agenda or just don't realize the true cost.

The true cost of oil, gas and coal has not been realized yet. Talking about thousands of abandoned wells, oil spills and overall damage to the environment. Most of this has been left up to the state or or federal government here in the US.

This cost has not be passed on to you, not to even mention the subsidies the corporations' get to keep the cost down here (this is a hidden cost).

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

That "Clean Water Action" site gives me NIMBY vibes.

Discussions about long-term storage of nuclear waste are necessary things to have, but the fact is we're facing a climate emergency over the next hundreds of years, which may make things bad enough that we can't even focus on the tens of thousands for waste storage. That doesn't even get to what we can do with the waste like PUREX, which I'm noticing that these links don't mention anywhere despite literally reclaiming +80% of spent fuel from the waste cycle, or fast breeders being able to burn actinide wastes as well.

The true cost of oil, gas and coal has not been realized yet. Talking about thousands of abandoned wells, oil spills and overall damage to the environment. Most of this has been left up to the state or or federal government here in the US.

This cost has not be passed on to you, not to even mention the subsidies the corporations' get to keep the cost down here (this is a hidden cost).

Pretty much. Hell, Coal has produced leagues more harmful radiation than every nuclear detonation known just through fly ash.

 

[Voltron]

Well, do you want a temporary fuel rod storage site in your backyard either?

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Well, do you want a temporary fuel rod storage site in your backyard either?

If I lived somewhere that's great for waste storage, yeah so long as I get a cut.

I have my HAZMAT and because of a 911 job I had, I have full Nuclear/Chemical/Biological training for a old nuke plant that was decommissioned that was in my service area. Nuclear waste is genuinely one of the best forms of waste you could ever work with- it doesn't move anywhere, doesn't offgas, it's a solid that can be picked up, and when it's vitrified (like they all are) could only secrete poison by having the glass broken. Easily detectable too.

Meanwhile, a semi hauling gasoline that spills over may need several tons of dirt to soak it all up, which then needs to be scooped back up and remediated.

 

[ZeroEm]

Keystone pipeline leaks 14,000 barrels of oil into creek in biggest spill yet

Well they won't be passing off or hiding this cost. Even moved the markets.

A US Energy Information Administration spokesperson said the Keystone pipeline moves about 600,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma, where it can connect to another pipeline to the Gulf coast.

When they say Gulf Coast, it's Houston TX USA. 150 miles from my house. You know the place where oil tankers play bumper cars and leak oil into the waters or where all the refinery accidents happen and release toxic chemicals and gases.

Now what is the draw back of concrete pads?

 

[Hillhater]

Now what is the draw back of concrete pads?

Personally ,only that they highlight part of the blatent lie that is sustainable, renewable, energy !
Specifically in this case the claim that wind turbine systems are 85-90% (by weight?) recycleable ..when in reality each wind turbine consumes 1-2000 tons of concrete and steel in the foundations, which is NEVER to be reclaimed…taking with it all that energy (and CO2 ?) used to produce it !….taking the recycled claim down to more like 25-30% !
…and remember, these turbines are proposed to be installed in ever increasing numbers, for the foreseeable future
Now, i do not particularly worry about that because i do not subscribe to the AGW religeon,.. but you Alarmists should be concerned at least about the CO2 emissions/energy wastage if you are truely wedded to the Carbon cause!

And about those oil spills, and messy old wells..
Sure it has been/ is a messy business, more than it needs to be, but that is just greed and failure of regulation/ enforcement to control the industry….Money and Politics are the root cause there.
But , life is messy and undesireable in manyways ( ever been involved in the Sewage (human effluent) systems ?..or even just regular household waste in a city environment ?
You might want to consider where our societies and lifestyle would be without the introduction of oil back in the 1800s,.?
Life without oil would be VERY different !
I can tolerate dealing with some “mess” in order to enjoy a better lifestyle and future.

 

[ZeroEm]

by Hillhater » Dec 10 2022 4:50pm

ZeroEm wrote: ↑Dec 10 2022 4:22pm

Now what is the draw back of concrete pads?

Personally ,only that they highlight part of the blatent lie that is sustainable, renewable, energy !
Specifically in this case the claim that wind turbine systems are 85-90% (by weight?) recycleable ..when in reality each wind turbine consumes 1-2000 tons of concrete and steel in the foundations, which is NEVER to be reclaimed…taking with it all that energy (and CO2 ?) used to produce it !….taking the recycled claim down to more like 25-30% !
…and remember, these turbines are proposed to be installed in ever increasing numbers, for the foreseeable future
Now, i do not particularly worry about that because i do not subscribe to the AGM religeon,.. but you Alarmists should be concerned at least about the CO2 emissions/energy wastage if you are truely wedded to the Carbon cause!

And about those oil spills, and messy old wells..
Sure it has been/ is a messy business, more than it needs to be, but that is just greed and failure of regulation/ enforcement to control the industry….Money and Politics are the root cause there.
But , life is messy and undesireable in manyways ( ever been involved in the Sewage (human effluent) systems ?..or even just regular household waste in a city environment ?
You might want to consider where our societies and lifestyle would be without the introduction of oil back in the 1800s,.?
Life without oil would be VERY different !
I can tolerate dealing with some “mess” in order to enjoy a better lifestyle and future.

Yes, i'm welded to the Carbon issue but methane is catching up so no Flatulence and cut back on the Beef.
The warming of the Artic has me more concerned and believe that oil price will reduce consumption. You should hear them now and the price is not that high yet.
Agreed that we needed oil to get this far, time for something else. They are pushing Hydrogen so they can bottle it and sell it. Can not sell Sun Shine or Wind.

The thing about this pipe line is the source "TAR SANDS". Don't that just make you shiver in your boots.

The US government may talk a little about reducing oil but the facts are just the opposite.

We have very relaxed regulation and it's costing the Tax payer's. The latest push is to stop all the natural gas venting and leaks, figure good luck with that.

I agree with your arguments but we must push forward and find some solutions. The one fact that we can not escape is the easy oil is about gone and the price will only go up at a faster rate. We may never completely move away from oil.

What is AGM? I think batteries but i'm sure that is not what you mean!

Oh! can we change the title to "Hydrogen, Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear" or would it be "Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear, Hydrogen"

While we are talking about Hydrogen:
Air Products, AES to construct $4bn green hydrogen plant in Texas
I'm not sure how I feel about Hydrogen yet, it is the most abundant thing in the solar system.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh ! AGM= Anthropogenic Global Mess ??
Naah! My bad ,..AGW was intended, . Thanks for the HU… corrected now.
Well oil prices are falling again ( its a simple supply/demand , market force thing) controlled by various greedy and or mallicious powers, but for sure ultimately it will become a rare commodity and we should minimise its use where ever possible ( chemicals, pharmacuticals, plastics, lubricants , etc) and find optional fuels for transport etc.
But Hydrogen is a poor option. It may be a common element, but it is rarely available in a useable or natural form.
Current methods of producing hydrogen are worse than just burning gas, both economically and environmentally, and together with some immense logistical problems for storage and transportation, currently limit Hydrogen to a “interesting theoretical option”, suitable for only a few real applications and demonstrations.

 

[Ianhill]

Local mine to me been closed 30 years but its started to vent gas into the land, theres been ventilation shafts operating since i was a wee lad but now something is wrong it has poisoned the forest, first was a small area mile wide but now its spread to 10 miles squared all the trees will be chopped and sold to the local wood chip power generation plants.

Never one to miss an opportunity is our leaders even the trees represent money signs, thing is the mines closing left empty promises of beautification that led to a bike track thats still blocked from last years storm is clear to me there's no batman coming to sort this shit show theres similarities with the film titanic as the ship snapped in half, we have abiut the same level of control as the captian of that did too.

 

[ZeroEm]

The problem with raw gas is you don't know what is in it! If the mines were coal would think it would be a better grade. Another thought, Natural Gas is heavy and don't float up it settles in low areas and would displace the air around it.

by Ianhill » Dec 11 2022 12:01pm

Local mine to me been closed 30 years but its started to vent gas into the land, theres been ventilation shafts operating since i was a wee lad but now something is wrong it has poisoned the forest, first was a small area mile wide but now its spread to 10 miles squared all the trees will be chopped and sold to the local wood chip power generation plants.

Never one to miss an opportunity is our leaders even the trees represent money signs, thing is the mines closing left empty promises of beautification that led to a bike track thats still blocked from last years storm is clear to me there's no batman coming to sort this shit show theres similarities with the film titanic as the ship snapped in half, we have abiut the same level of control as the captian of that did too.

 

[Hillhater]

Anyone vaguely Interested in the GND/Net Zero/clean energy committment, should take a few hours to adsorb the advice from the USA Federal funded NRL report on options to meet the 2035 targets.
This is one of the key recomendation sources that the Biden administration is using to base its energy strategy on..
A few quotes…

Based on assumed growth in demand due to end-use electrification, and electric demand associated with hydrogen production (for direct use or for production of other clean fuels), total electricity generation grows by about 95%–130% from 2020 to 2035. Total generation is shown for all end-use loads (dotted line in Figure ES-1Figure ) plus the additional generation needed for transmission losses and generation used by the electric sector to produce hydrogen for seasonal electricity storage. There are differences between scenarios in absolute amounts of generation based on differences in storage (and associated losses) and hydrogen production. The need for new generation capacity would be even higher without the energy efficiency and demand-side flexibility measures assumed in the ADE trajectory. Results from the LTS sensitivity cases result in a 16%–20% reduction in the need for new installed capacity compared to the ADE cases due, in part, to the higher levels of energy efficiency assumed in LTS.
Wind and solar provide most (60%–80%) of the generation in the least-cost electricity mix in all the main scenarios. Nuclear capacity more than doubles in the Constrained scenario, reaching 27% of generation, while limited growth in the other three core scenarios results in a contribution of 9%–12%, largely from the existing fleet. The overall generation capacity grows to roughly three times the 2020 level by 2035, including a combined 2 TW of wind and solar. This would require growth rates in the range of 43–90 GW/year for solar and 70–145 GW/year for wind by the end of the decade, which would more than quadruple the current annual deployment levels for each technology in many scenarios.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf

 

[Hillhater]

…..Oh! can we change the title to "Hydrogen, Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear" or would it be "Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear, Hydrogen"

Neither !.. the thread is titled to refer to electricity GENERATION options,..
…not storage,.. which is what hydrogen is.

 

[Voltron]

Coal and gasoline are just energy storage systems.
It's just that humans didn't have to do any of the hard work of actually storing it.

And the first world especially has sucked on that cheap easy energy like candy until it's a big fat baby crying when the free candy is taken away, because it's mad at being told it's time to grow up.

On the flip side, some generation news out of the US.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-announce-scientific-breakthrough-fusion-energy-sources-2022-12-12/
"The scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have achieved a net energy gain for the first time, in a fusion experiment using lasers, one of the people said."