Cold Fusion passes another test

[Darwin333]

Let me help yall out, you are both sort of right but not completely.

Decentralized solar absolutely works with the current grid; we do a fair number of these designs a year (or rather we provide stamped drawings for the installers.) The reason it works so well is that grids must be designed for peak loads, typically summer 2 - 5 PM. This is also peak solar efficiency. The power from the solar installations feeds backward (through a separate meter) into the grid and reduces the amount of energy required to be pumped into the grid to meet current demand (pun intended.) The power generated by solar arrays all day long reduces the amount of coal, natural gas, uranium, etc. that must be consumed to meet our power needs. Solar can't replace all forms of generation without some very expensive energy storage, but it works great as a supplemental generation method.

The first part is right but the 2nd half is not. If solar was put on every single house in your city it would currently not reduce the load that the power companies are mandated to keep online. That is because of our antiquated grid, the power companies can not "see" in real time what power is being generated from those tens of thousands of solar installs. If that can't see what is being produced then they can not guarantee that it IS being produced and therefor they have to pretend that it isn't. As it is now they if you still have an analog meter they can't even tell what you produced on a monthly basis when they check the meter. They can make a guess by comparing energy usage but that's about it.

That brings us to the new grid. Yes, a new smart grid would be required for distributed solar (or any other form of power) to work. Here is the rub though, we need a new grid regardless. Our current grid is a dilapidated thrown together system that is in most cases many decades old. It is falling apart and we lose a fuckton of power just in transmission loss due to its age and old technology. Very small problems or failures can lead to huge areas going down. A new smart grid will not only solve those very real problems but it would also reduce our energy usage due to vastly increased efficiency as well as giving power companies real time information about energy usage and production. You could even sign up to give the power company the ability to reduce your power consumption during peak demand in exchange for a discounted rate. You could easily monitor your real time power consumption which would be especially useful in areas that have time of day billing (power is more expensive during peak times). Advanced weather models already exist that the power companies could use to estimate how much solar or wind power will be generated so that is an issue that is already solved but they still require the real time info in order to reduce their base load.

IMO, the entire stimulus bill should have been spent on a new grid. Fuckloads of American jobs, lower our existing energy usage, save consumers money, makes distributed power generation possible, less power outages, power companies have the ability to throttle power usage in emergencies instead of just rolling brownouts, AND it would be a true investment that doesn't just disappear when the stimulus program ended.

If there were enough solar installations to meet peak demand, only night time, surge, and very bad weather power generation sources would be needed. Nuclear plants are best for continuous generation, but they could supply the excess as needed while using the extra capacity to separate hydrogen and oxygen which could then be burned to generate night time power - or the hydrogen could be used to power cars or trucks or buses. Natural gas plants, whose turbines spin up faster than most generation sources, could fill in the gaps. Solar cells from an efficiency standpoint are already at a useful stage; what we need are CHEAP solar cells, not more efficient solar cells, for most of the world. Only highly concentrated industrial areas and very high population density areas really need more efficient solar cells to be practical.

Heck, they could use the extra power to simply pump water uphill and then when they need the power run it through a turbine going back downhill. We will always need some sort of centralized power production, the question is how much and what kind. I am a big fan of nuclear power too but we have a huge NIMBY problem in this country. Thorium especially intrigues me but I bet even that is met with NIMBY.

As far as subsidies go, EVERY form of power in this country is subsidized in one form or another. Make the nuclear industry get their own insurance instead of the Feds and see how that works out, oil is subsidized by our military, health costs of coal fired plants, etc... At least the solar subsidies, for the most part, help put money in individuals pockets as well as partially insulate them from the future increases in energy costs.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Nah, we need a better way to store things.

Combustion of Hydrogen is great (and clean), but it is still combustion. Also, the solids that are needed to carry the hydrogen are not as clean as simply burning the gas. (You can't carry a tank of pressurized hydrogen in a car without asking for a problem down the line...).

Fusion power would be great, but until we find a way to store it effectively, we will never ba able to use it to its full potential.

Metal hydride container. Heaver? Yes. Heavier than a tank of gas that would get you the same distance? I don't know, but I seem to remember hydrogen having a higher amount of stored energy. Only limiting factor is how slowly the hydride containers charge. But a system where you refuel by pulling the container out and replacing it with a new one that is already charged could work. It has limitations too, but it cold be a starting point.

 

[beginner99]

Decentralized solar absolutely works with the current grid; we do a fair number of these designs a year (or rather we provide stamped drawings for the installers.)

It works now because total decentralized solar output is so marginal that the influence on the grid is marginal. However if the "energy production system" actually started to rely on solar (meaning decentralized solar becoming an essential part of energy mix) it won't work anymore. It is not the throughput but the stability of the grid. Solar has very variable output even in seconds resolution. The current grid is not built for that. Centralized solar has a huge advantage because of a possible storage to greatly reduce such effects.

If there were enough solar installations to meet peak demand...

Exactly and what is enough? You would need huge overcapacity (=inefficient) or storage mechanisms (unfeasible with one exception: hydro). But then you don't need solar to pump up water, just use excess of nuclear for that and hydro availability is limited by geography.

Solar cells from an efficiency standpoint are already at a useful stage; what we need are CHEAP solar cells, not more efficient solar cells, for most of the world. Only highly concentrated industrial areas and very high population density areas really need more efficient solar cells to be practical.

It isn't cheap because it isn't efficient. There are several kinds of efficiency. If you need several magnitudes more of resources (material and surface area) for same amount of energy output, it is inefficient by its physical limitations. This also applies to wind power.

Again, to replace a typical nuclear plant with solar you would need the land area greater than the protection zone, meaning more than a circle of 20 Miles all filled up with solar cells. Most People just don't get how big the output of nuclear or coal plants is compared to solar.

But I feel like repeating myself hence just read all the stuff on this site:

http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/

The extreme inefficiency in numbers:

If we aim for society to be nearly completely powered by zero carbon sources by mid century, what is the size of the task? This might require 8 to 10 thousand gigawatts of electrical capacity, worldwide. Let’s say we were to do it all with wind and solar. Even if we ignore the substantial issue of energy storage and backup, this would still require building 1,200 huge wind turbines and/or carpeting 45 square kilometres of desert with mirror fields, every day, for forty years. For wind, this would consume 1.25 million tonnes of concrete and 335,000 tonnes of steel. For solar, it would be 2.2 million tonnes of concrete and 690,000 tonnes of steel. That’s what’s required to be built every single day, for decades and decades. What if we did it with nuclear power? Using the AP1000 design currently being deployed in China, we’d have to build two reactors every three days, using 160,000 tonnes of concrete and 10,000 tonnes of steel per day. Once again, a massive task, but one that is substantially less material- and land-intensive than the wind and solar options. When large-scale energy storage and its required peak-capacity overbuilding is considered, the numbers blow out ever further in favour of nuclear.

Solar and Wind also cause logistical problems...

 

[Ninjahedge]

b99 - The problem is two fold.

Efficiency both on the part of the solar units AND on the consumption of that power.

We have gotten too used to having 5+ TV's in a house, and electric everything as our 30 cu-ft fridge cranks all day and our home server is on (even in sleep mode).

The problem with Nuke and Coal is we still have not gotten the means, or patience, or CASH to do it right. We want CHEAP power. It is easier to build a nuke plant that slips in its safety measures, or is kept running long after many have said it is not safe (Fuji-something-or-other plant?).

No matter HOW well we build these things, one WILL have a problem eventually, and you always have to weight that risk of mass contamination (nuke) against the benefits of efficiency and availability....