25 replies to this topic

[scm]

Padman, on Oct 15 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

We've got the ability to harness enough wind and tidal power to solve most of our energy problems.

Padman, I'd love to believe that, but it just ain't so.  My company is heavily involved with the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (as well as the Oregon Wave Energy Initiative), and is conducting R&D on both wind and tidal.  There isn't a potential for either of them to replace more than 20% of our energy needs, because of the intermittent nature of both -- they might not be on, when you want to flip the switch.  We have plenty of money to conduct the R&D -- there is enough ROI to justify, so gov't grants aren't really an issue in developing the technology.  The capital required once you have to build it is another matter!

Also, our "energy problems" are much more than just about generating electricity, which is the only potential output from wind and wave power.  That is why a multiprong approach, like Boone Pickens' plan, makes much more sense.  We also need to move as much mass transportation as we can to electricity -- light rail, commuter and inter-city, all electrically powered.  But you can't get the KWH required to do that with just wind and tidal -- right back where you started from, with a need for more nuclear.

[Padman]

SCM--glad you are involved in these new developments.  It's an exciting time.

With respect to limits on wind, tide and solar energy, I'm going to agree with you in terms of current potential, but not in the long term.  These technologies are emerging rapidly.  The wave buoy motion capture techniques will become more efficient, and the objections of the fishing industry and other complications (probably the Navy) can be resolved.  Additionally, wind energy is not intermittant at higher altitudes (see Kitegen and other efforts to harness wind energy at about 700 meters or so).  Offshore wind farms will also experience less intermittancy.  I like the Pickens approach, but natural gas production just isn't sustainable indefinitely.  I'm more of an optimist than the energy industry spokesmen are.  After all, they have a vested interest in continuing our current practices.

Edited by Padman, 15 October 2008 - 03:46 PM.

[hoobo]

scm, you want to open an L.A. office?  Do you do any work with Prof. Dave Basco at ODU?

Both you and Padman are missing one thing in your discussion:  batteries (or some kind of energy storage).  Energy storage during peak production periods is key to making solar, wind, tidal, and wave all constant sources.  Dams work because we store the potential energy of the water until its needed (as an aside, I'm not a fan of dams for energy production because of the environmental damage they cause).  We need a better way to store the photo and mechanical energies produced by these renewable resources.

As for T. Boone Pickens' plan, although the best motivation to developing alternative energies is capitalism (with a fair amount of gov't and industry sponsored research at the university and gov't lab levels), his motive goes beyond that.  He bought up plenty of west Texas land for cheap back in the 80's and 90's knowing that the massive Ogallala aquifer lies beneath and Texas has a first to pump water rights law.  He's been pushing Dallas to buy that water, but Dallas has balked.  In order to force Dallas's hand, he needs to build a pipeline which requires an easement.  No one is willing to sell and since Dallas doesn't want the water, he can't use eminent domain.  Therefore, he sees the wind potential of the property as well as the natural gas as his solution.  The speculative energy crisis provided him an out.  If he develops those two energy sources and builds powerlines to Dallas, which it isn't likely to refuse, then T. Boone can build his pipeline and drain the aquifer.  Smart but sinister.

[scm]

hoobo, on Oct 16 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

scm, you want to open an L.A. office? Do you do any work with Prof. Dave Basco at ODU?

I'll ask my buddy who is our point man to ODU.

On the storage issue -- you're right.  Did you know, in the seventies, there was a plan to use pumped storage in the Sierras north of Fresno.   That way, nuclear plants (like Diablo Canyon) would take their night time production to pump water up hill to a high resevoir, then release it at peak demand, generate electricity, retain the water, and repeat the next night.  I don't think the linked lakes ever got built.  I know they do that at Castaic, near LA, right?  Just not as dramatic -- they were talking 1,000 foot drop.

Boone Pickens -- when you have $4B, are you really worried about making more?  I think the guy is sincere.

[cpeakesqr]

scm, on Oct 16 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

I'll ask my buddy who is our point man to ODU.

On the storage issue -- you're right.  Did you know, in the seventies, there was a plan to use pumped storage in the Sierras north of Fresno.   That way, nuclear plants (like Diablo Canyon) would take their night time production to pump water up hill to a high resevoir, then release it at peak demand, generate electricity, retain the water, and repeat the next night.  I don't think the linked lakes ever got built.  I know they do that at Castaic, near LA, right?  Just not as dramatic -- they were talking 1,000 foot drop.

Boone Pickens -- when you have $4B, are you really worried about making more?  I think the guy is sincere.

Didn't he just lose a bunch of money in the current crisis, and now he's suing one of the banks?  I'm a headline reader...

[Telmnstr]

Not only storage options, but transmission losses are also a problem.

There isn't going to be a one solution fits all for energy, but using them all seems good. If we went 100% nuclear generating plants assisted by solar/wind/hydro/tidal/etc ... that seems like it would be the solution.

Sure you'd still have diesel and natural gas gensets as temporary redundancy, but no more coal and natural gas would be nice.