cheaper than coal

Page 2 of 3<123>
November 1st, 2012 at 4:38:48 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: reno
Can you back up this statement with a source? Because Europe already has commercial solar power plants which produce electricity at night after the sun sets.


Simple logic no sun no solar power. All this place is doing is storing power in a way other than batteries.

As to batteries my thought is they are the wrong way to go. We may be better drawing hydrogen from water and burning that Ina more controlled way than solar or wind can deliver. With 100 years of coal left there is plenty of time.
The President is a fink.
November 1st, 2012 at 4:56:38 PM permalink
rdw4potus
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 10
Posts: 147
Quote: AZDuffman
With 100 years of coal left there is plenty of time.


More, if we make better use of alternative energy sources in the coming years:-)
I'm not wearing any pants, film at 11
November 1st, 2012 at 5:01:13 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
Simple logic no sun no solar power.


Except in Spain.

Quote: AZDuffman
All this place is doing is storing power in a way other than batteries.


The point is that it's cheap: they use a molten salt (60% potassium nitrate and 40% sodium nitrate) which is 10 times cheaper than a lithium battery.
November 1st, 2012 at 5:01:28 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
Quote: reno
Can you back up this statement with a source? Because Europe already has commercial solar power plants which produce electricity at night after the sun sets.


Simple logic no sun no solar power. All this place is doing is storing power in a way other than batteries.


Yet it solves the problem of solar power being dependent on the sun... it gives away of spreading out the power over time. I hadn't realized that had gone into production yet. I've seen suggestions before it was worth looking at for the Nevada desert.

Quote:
As to batteries my thought is they are the wrong way to go. We may be better drawing hydrogen from water and burning that Ina more controlled way than solar or wind can deliver. With 100 years of coal left there is plenty of time.


How do you think hydrogen is drawn from water? Electrolysis... which uses electyricity... which is generated by solar/wind/hydro power.

Batteries might well become fuel cells. Fuel cells are still early on the technology curve, from what I've read... but can you imagine filling up your cell phone from a hydrogen nozzle?

Hydrogen as a energy store is not very efficient (if solar gives you about 12%, solar to create hydrogen to store is even less so....) Using coal (or other carbon fuels) to create hydrogen would be even worse... turning one energy dense fuel into another slightly less so would be odd. Solar doesn't even have to be ultra efficient... it just has to be cheap enough per KW to be worth while. And there is time to develop technologies, but doesn't mean it's a waste to try now with liquid salt solar, or some other system.

Now, you may object to alternative fuels getting tax breaks, but that's a different line indeed :)
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 1st, 2012 at 7:11:06 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: reno
Except in Spain.



The point is that it's cheap: they use a molten salt (60% potassium nitrate and 40% sodium nitrate) which is 10 times cheaper than a lithium battery.


That part is cheap but how much is the plant? Looks like it takes up loads of real estate.

On the hydrogen question I know electricity splits it off. My point is using solar or wind to split it off would let a plant run on it so you could have fewer peaks and valleys in production

With fracking looks like we will have no need. Big supply there to supplement coal.
The President is a fink.
November 1st, 2012 at 7:18:08 PM permalink
WongBo
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1
Posts: 14
November 1st, 2012 at 8:08:29 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
That part is cheap but how much is the plant? Looks like it takes up loads of real estate.


Coal mines also use up "loads of real estate." Here's a lovely coal mine in Wyoming:

November 1st, 2012 at 8:11:00 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
That part is cheap but how much is the plant? Looks like it takes up loads of real estate.


My original post at the start of this thread depicted ocean wave energy which uses no real estate.
November 1st, 2012 at 10:00:50 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: reno
Coal mines also use up "loads of real estate." Here's a lovely coal mine in Wyoming:


Strip mines do, conventional mines not nearly as much. Gas wells even less so. But the thing is density. I will wager that coal mine gives far more KWh per surface acre than the solar installation.
The President is a fink.
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:54:22 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: AZDuffman
I will wager that coal mine gives far more KWh per surface acre than the solar installation.


Yes, this is true.

As for ocean wave energy, in favorable locations, wave energy density can average 65 megawatts per mile of coastline. Coal mines are certainly very profitable, but they also have enormous capital costs that ocean wave energy avoids
Page 2 of 3<123>