Power Supply Options 5

[owg]

Is there a place on Eng-Tips where power supply options for the Earth are discussed? It looks like nuclear will be out of favour for a few decades and it is hard to take wind and solar seriously as major reliable components of a supply mix. Natural gas seems to be in favour in spite of its generation of CO2.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[SnTMan]

mauricestoker, you are obviously well versed in the art

Regards,

Mike

 

[mauricestoker]

Yes, I'm ambidextrous. Bill Cosby is jealous.

 

[rb1957]

is that what they mean when they say "watch out for left handed swordsmen" ?

 

[cvg]

Anybody want to take bets whether this project ever gets completed?

"Alaska senate clears proposed hydroelectric power project"
The Alaska Senate has approved a bill allowing the Alaska Energy Authority to build and operate a hydroelectric project on the Susitna River. The project, estimated to cost from $4 billion to $5 billion, is seen as a way to help meet energy demands in the Railbelt region. The measure goes next to the Alaska House for consideration. AlaskaDispatch.com (4/19)

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-poised-build-largest-us-river-dam-decades-susitna

 

[KENAT]

What about the Salmon?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[owg]

I recommend a recent book called "Carbon Shift". Its a collection of papers, some good and some not so good, edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon. It includes some interesting facts and opinions including the prediction of a bright future for Greenland. Its probably available in your local library. It makes a change from the small screen.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[SnTMan]

If the salmon feel their interests are threatened they can do like everybody else and form a non-profit and hire some lobbyists.

Or did they do that already

Regards,

Mike

 

[owg]

Is there a future for CO2 capture and storage from existing coal generating stations? Can natural gas generating stations be built with an option to add CO2 capture and storage when the going gets really tought? With frac gas, North America seems to have a century or two of fossil fuels left.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[GregLocock]

It's very popular with politicians, since their sponsors can carry on doing as they will, until the bugs are sorted out.

It adds a very significant energy cost to production, so while helping to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels (maybe) it will increase costs somehwat (but less than most alternative energy sources) and speed the depletion of fossil fuel reserves.

As to whether it is feasible, I don't know.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[moltenmetal]

Once you've separated it, you need a place to stuff that CO2 into, which unfortunately the power plants aren't usually co-sited with. CCS is a way to p*ss through our stocks of fossil fuels about 30-50% faster. Better to leave the coal in the ground.

 

[SnTMan]

"..p*ss through our stocks of fossil fuels about 30-50% faster.."

Isn't that the agenda?

Regards,

Mike

 

[owg]

The Pembina Institute has a fact sheet on the subject at

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/ccs-fact-sheet.pdf

There is lots of coal, and suitable storage basins cover most of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and run east from Sarnia to the St. Lawrence. CCS has got to be a candidate interim solution, until we figure out the low cost, high efficiency solutions. I have experience with capture of CO2, and with storage of product in the salt caverns in Sarnia. That just leaves the pipeline bit to figure out.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

The low cost, high efficiency solution is CONSERVATION. We still have people heating their homes with electric resistance heaters, for heaven's sake!

The economics have to make a kWh saved worth every bit as much as a kWh of new generation, or NOTHING will get done, because the smart money will avoid the whole mess. The most the "dumb" money will be able to do is to provide a distraction in the media and some ribbon-cutting opportunities for politicians looking for re-election.

 

[mauricestoker]

I think you nailed that one on the head, Moltenmetal.

 

[cvg]

SÃO PAULO—Brazil's environmental protection agency gave builders the go-ahead to construct the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam in the Amazon rainforest.

The project, called Belo Monte, has been in the planning stages for three decades, and the focus of opposition by environmental and Indian-rights groups for almost as long.

 

[davefitz]

It looks like nat gas plants will rule the roost for the next few decades. Gas from Frac'cing is now being proposed for use in China and eastern europe, following in teh footsteps of the US.

A lot more wind energy could be incorporated into the grid if they (a) upgrade older radar from the 50's to filter out the wind turbine image and thus invalidate the current construction prohibition in many areas plus (b) develop an effective means to store excess power from the wind turbines, perhaps underground CAES compressed air energy storage which would feed gas turbines during peaks of high demand/ low wind availability plus (c) smart grid automatic shutdown of high amp consumer appliances ( hot water heater, drier) during short upsets in available wind energy.

Latest low cost PV solar will be more prevalent- see for example UniSolar flexible paanels that easily attach to steel roofing panels- espescailly if newer local building codes mandate such use.

 

[SnTMan]

Pretty sure "demand management" is in our future.

Regards,

Mike

 

[KENAT]

What a waste of beautiful Natural Gas that could power vehicles though where it's ease of use and energy density (when compressed) is so useful. For stationary power gen solid fossil fuel works nicely enough, but is problematic for all but the largest vehicles and even there fluid fuels are usually more beneficial.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[owg]

Is it really CO2 that is increasing the temperature or is mainly just releasing heat from fossil fuels? I notice recently that climate scientists tend to use terms like "human activity" rather than "CO2 release" to explain "climate change".

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[cvg]

Is it really CO2 that is increasing the temperature or is mainly just releasing heat from fossil fuels? I notice recently that climate scientists tend to use terms like "human activity" rather than "CO2 release" to explain "climate change".

or is it more related to normal ebbs and flows of sunspots and solar flares and eccentricities in the earths orbit around the sun? The known facts are that the earth's temperature has a cyclical fluctuation that has occurred for thousands of years. It is a bit egotistical to think that this is occurring solely because of increase burning of fossil fuels by humans.

Global warming is postulated and has not even reached the level of a theory due to a serious lack of hard evidence to support it. It certainly is not a given fact yet.