Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

The lies continue.
‘Turbocharged’ Renewables: The IEA Hawking Its Wares Again
Guest Blogger
The glowing forecasts for renewable energy presented by the IEA seem free of the laws of physics and written to promote an agenda. . . .

 

The reason this work hasn't been done is that it is a government sized job and Republicans have steadfastly refused.

Some effort is now possible because Democrats finally got an infrastructure bill passed over the dedicated opposition of Republicans.

 

Well, I guess I'm not up to speed on this screed and its ownership.

But, his ownership doesn't add any credibility to the piece.

 

On the contrary, he's spot on.

 

• 
  Tesla stock nightmare as Musk sells more shares

 

Nonsense. Government doesn't build infractructure. The private sector does that. The real reason is that a path to profit is not there. That means it shouldn't be done because somebody predicts it might matter.

 

The payoff for infrastructure comes in the business growth it allows, increases in property value in some cases, national defense, etc.

If a private corporation actually decided to build a bridge, it wouldn't get paid by that business growth. And, tolls it might charge wouldn't pay off the bridge.

 

Yes indeed. But infrastructure (military infrastructure notwithstanding) is not an appropriate role for federal government. it belongs in the wheelhouse of those who benefit from it.

For sure. But it should be the state building the bridge, not federal government.

 

That IS what is happening. It's just that no private corporation can create the infrastructure. This is one of the reasons we have government. We come together to solve problems that are not shaped such that private enterprise can do them. Obviously, the best way to get the various parts done is to contract corporations to do the work - including investigation of soils, estimates of usage patterns, design, planning, site prep, etc., etc.

Much of the infrastructure that gets created is created by the states. For example, bridges are state projects.

However, states have financial restrictions related to borrowing, and there are important projects that are outside of the direct ability of states to pay for. The result is that they apply for support from the federal government, which evaluates the projects and supports some of them to some level - rarely what the state wants.

There are also systems that are national level projects requiring solutions that cross state lines. Our public highway system is an example.

 

Oh yes, we have only had man-made fusion reactions for over 62 years now.

And in reality, we are no closer to using this as a power source than we were 62 years ago.

 

No, that is exactly the problem with them.

Take a look at the other sources we typically use. Hydro, natural gas, even coal, etc. We control the production. We determine when we are going to turn on the juice, and turn it off. There is little to no outside force that is going to affect our ability to use them for power.

For wind and solar, we are 100% dependent upon outside forces for producing the power. Forces we have absolutely no control over.

Let me say that once again, very slowly.

Forces we have absolutely no control over.

That is the very problem, and it is something that can never be overcome. At most those can only be, and should only be considered as gap sources, and never primary sources.

 

And yes, I am aware there are some outside forces that can effect production.

I was living in El Paso when we had 3 days of rolling blackouts around 10 years ago. It was caused by sub-zero temperatures, and when they built the brand new gas power plants that provided power to the city they did not install the extreme cold weather equipment so it could operate at those temperatures. But that was an issue by man and their failure to consider that El Paso does occasionally get really cold temperatures. Two of the four generators did have that installed, so we were on rolling blackouts for days until the temperatures warmed up again.

But that is a rare example, and has nothing to do with the outside forces themselves but the initial construction of the project.

 

Fossil fuel sources come in second to wind energy in Iowa.

Yet, YOU want to claim it's worthless.

 

I never said that. In fact, I quite clearly said it is a "gap source".

Once again, you ignore what is actually written, and go off on a tangent that was never said.

Now show me where I ever said they were "worthless". Are you even aware of what a "gap source" is? It is the source of power that fulfills the need beyond typical draw, to help reduce the need to import it from elsewhere. Wind and Solar are great at that, but are not very good at providing mainline energy. Most specifically because they are expensive, take up a lot of area, and are not reliable at providing power at all times. In other words, it fills the "gap" between normal power need and peak need.

 

It's the main source in Iowa.

Do you think they are somehow unique?

Do you think we've reached the limit in the amount of wind energy we can develop?

Have you noticed the central region where wind is proving reasonably compatible with agriculture, offering a second and more dependable income stream for farmers?

I don't understand your constant attempts to ignore clean energy sources.

 

What Paris Agreement? Coal Consumption Hit a Record 8 billion tons in 2022
Eric Worrall
According to the IEA coal use will drop as soon as European renewables start displacing coal. . . . .

 

Just in time for Christmas, a thoughtful and factual presentation to dispel renewable myths.
BOOK REVIEW: The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy
Kip Hansen
“Their new book, The Unpopular Truth about Electricity and the Future of Energy, will give you the information you need to talk about this topic with a sense of authority…

 

You keep saying that. A single state out of 50, that actually has a rather low power demand. And 22 states produce more power than Iowa does. They produce just over 67 MWh. Pretty much what all of the states in the region produce, so that is right there with their local demand.

But very few states can do that, Iowa is in a great location for wind, as it is deep in the interior of the country, so has fairly stable weather. You can't do that on any of the coastal states, especially those along the Gulf or Atlantic coasts.

You bring up a single state in 50, not even realizing that is a single exception, only possible because of location. And they still need the other sources, that is their base power.

And in case you are not aware, there is a large danger with that reliance. It was just 2 years ago that most of that region was without power for a month or more because of hurricane force in excess of 100 mph. All wind turbines were shut down, and all had to be inspected and repaired before they could be put into service again. If not for the "fossil fuel" plants they would have had no power at all until that was finished. I have been through multiple hurricanes, we may lose power due to tree damage to the lines, but the power plants keep operating. You can't operate wind turbines in those kinds of winds.



That is why you can't put those plants in many places outside of Iowa for a main power supply, and you can't even realistically put it in Iowa either. They do not get winds like that as often, but they do still get them.

 

- how much power other states produce is irrelevant.
- yes, when wind can produce cheaper power and can be constructed faster and more cheaply, wind should be used. There are many states like that throughout our central region, for example.
- The Texas disaster showed that fossil fuel is also vulnerable, especially when maintenance is ignored and the state cutes itself off of outside help. In fact, wind generation continued to perform up to specs promised for that weather condition.
- the youtube you pointed to showed the vulnerability of electric transmission. We need infrastructure improvements, as NO kind of power can be delivered when transmission infrastructure is wiped out. Plus, regardless of the source, our growing need for electricity means we need more efficient power transmission.

If you can't use wind where YOU live, that doesn't suggest rejecting wind in other places.

 

Nuclear power won't solve the problem. And it certainly doesn't make batteries any better.

3rd and 4th generation alternative fuels - fuels from algae being the most promising - are the silver bullet.

It has been a long, slow climb that began in the 1970s. But we have learned a great deal and we keep inching closer and closer. I personally started a company to produce algae fuels back around 2006. We could see it was doable but the investment required was astronomical. In principle we could do this anytime but not for a price anyone would like. That is the big challenge - to make it price competitive.


DARPA said they think they can produce fuel from algae for $3 a gallon. I found that to be technically possible but barely; and only on vast scales. $5 a gallon has always been a more practical goal.

What makes algae fuels especially elegant is that they are compatible with the existing energy infrastructure and automotive technology.

 

Oh yes, fuels derived from algae have about the same energy density as petroleum products. In fact biodiesel typically out performs petrodiesel due to its higher lubricity.

 

Very interesting.

 

Bring On The Electricity Cost Crisis!
December 24, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  In a post earlier this week, I celebrated the adoption by New York State of its Scoping Plan that tells us how we are going to accomplish the great transition to 70% “renewable” electricity by 2030 and zero-emissions electricity by 2040.
  
  
• The summary is: “just build a lot of offshore wind turbines and batteries.” Unfortunately, nobody seems to have done the basic arithmetic to see whether the prospective facilities will suffice to supply enough electricity to meet demand at all times. But then, this Scoping Plan is the product of the Important People, and why do the Important People need to trouble themselves with such minutiae? After all, they have a planet to save.
  
  
• What that prior post did not consider was the likely cost to New York consumers of trying to buy electricity in a future at times when the wind is calm, the sun is dark, and fossil fuels have been suppressed.
  
  
• How high might the cost go when everybody has to bid at the same time for the small amounts of hydro or nuclear that may remain?
  

READ MORE

 

I took a different approach than most scientists and engineers who work with algae. I started with the maximum fuel production possible per square foot of algae. From there set a minimum selling price per gallon of fuel and let THAT drive the design. Taking this approach makes it obvious that many approaches used can never produce fuel at a competitive price.

First do some simple math. The best case scenario for fuel production is likely 5000 gallons of fuel per acre-year of algae production. This limit is driven by the energy conversion efficiency of the algae, the growth rate, and the total solar energy absorbed by the algae [not all light frequencies get used]. If you want to sell fuel for $3 a gallon wholesale, this means the most you can hope to make is $15,000 per acre year. The total average yearly cost of the algae farm land, bioreactors, processing equipment, labor, taxes, loans, etc etc etc, cannot exceed $15,000 per acre year, or about 34 cents per square foot, per year!

Look at almost any effort to produce algae and you will usually see one of two things: Either they are trying to grow algae in open raceways, like they do for Spirulina and other algae health foods. Or they are trying to grow algae in some relatively complicated and expensive bioreactor. The first option is doomed to fail due to contamination. High fuel producing algae is highly specialized and easily contaminated with other more invasive strains of algae, bacteria, parasites, and other contamination. The second option cannot succeed simply due to the cost. You cannot build some technical bioreactor for an average yearly cost of 34 cents per square foot! Usually they are more like $50 per square foot. In that event, you will need to sell fuel at $30 per gallon, not $3.

Hell, just the taxes on land could kill an algae farm. I did develop an approach that I think can work. But that cost per square foot of 34 cents is a killer! It takes a lot of hard work to come up with designs that could make this possible. However, it can be done. Maybe not for $3 a gallon but hopefully something close to that.

I would bet good money that most companies start from the theoretical side to maximize growth, and then get slammed when they realize they could never sell fuel at a competitive price.

 

Two other big problems are the financial cost of nitrogen fertilizer, and the energy cost of aerating the algae with CO2.

It turns out that you can solve both of these problems by taking advantage of the inefficiencies of the process. At best, 50% of the algae fuel produced goes back to powering the farm. This means you need very large generators. Since an algae farm can produce biodiesel, it makes sense to power the farm using large diesel-powered generators. And those generators can solve both the CO2 and the nitrogen problems.

It is SUCH a cool solution! I did the math and proved it all out many years ago now. I shared my findings with other scientists but who knows how many realized the significance of my arguments. They don't think in terms of 34 cents per square foot.