Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

2
Clean energy is a lot of hype - none of it is clean. Expanding wind and solar will require energy storage in the form of batteries. Battery pollution is in its infancy and will likely be as bad as fossil fuel pollution. You really want to be "green"? Make do with less, much less.

https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs ... -powerwall
"Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism. Our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction." ~ Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

3
OldScratch wrote:Clean energy is a lot of hype - none of it is clean. Expanding wind and solar will require energy storage in the form of batteries. Battery pollution is in its infancy and will likely be as bad as fossil fuel pollution. You really want to be "green"? Make do with less, much less.

https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs ... -powerwall
Join thousands of others who are making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy#.WoHAmeaIY8o

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

4
OldScratch wrote:Clean energy is a lot of hype - none of it is clean. Expanding wind and solar will require energy storage in the form of batteries. Battery pollution is in its infancy and will likely be as bad as fossil fuel pollution. You really want to be "green"? Make do with less, much less.

https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs ... -powerwall
Dunno man, from your article:
According to Tesla’s Brooklyn, the company will conduct onsite recycling of lithium ion batteries at the Gigafactory, capturing nickel, aluminum and lithium for use in new battery cells. And Panasonic’s Herman says he expects to ultimately see recycling rates at close to 100% for lithium-ion batteries.

“There’s an economic benefit to do it,” Herman says. “It’s not like we’re left with a heap of nothing at the end – the recyclable content of lithium-ion batteries is valuable.”
Use less? Absolutely. But recycling the batteries at the plants that make them to produce more batteries doesn't sound like an unmitigated disaster. While we know carbon pollution is systematically jacking up the planet.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

5
Is "clean coal" and clean energy the same in public health terms? Just looking at production costs is a false number, if there are public health costs that someone is paying for it's an expense. Whether it's how the coal is obtained or recycling batteries the health costs need to be computed.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

6
So there's abundant and free and clean supplies of electrical energy everywhere in the universe except . . . here on Earth. Why? Because Earth is a closed system. Producing electrical energy in a closed system involves trade offs. Even with fusion generated electricity. Is this the end of the story. Not by any means. An intelligent, disinterested risk-benefit study will lead us to where we want to go. Cheap, abundant, and clean electrical energy.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

8
A wee bit more on the environmental and social costs of lithium batteries...

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... -what-cost

"Ultimately, as production ramps up, companies will need to make accountability a throughline of a battery’s lifetime. Though the world’s lithium stores will be enough to fuel a large-scale storage revolution, the current costs are anything but negligible."

Same old, same old.
"Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism. Our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction." ~ Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

10
CDFingers wrote:Each new tech breakthrough is cleaner, faster, better, cheaper.
TPTB used to say that about nuclear back when I was growing up - cleaner, faster, better, cheaper. We all know how that worked out.
"Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism. Our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction." ~ Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

12
It will be interesting to see how discarded lithium batteries get dealt with in the future. Right now, recycling rates are very very low (5 percent?) but that appears to be due to the low profile nature of current applications (personal electronics). Electric car batteries will probably get better treatment. OTOH, if batteries are too cheap, it will not be worth recovering some battery components. Either way, battery recycling has a long way to go, and hardly promises to be all that clean.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... -recycling
"Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism. Our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction." ~ Alexander Solzhenitzyn

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

13
OldScratch wrote:It will be interesting to see how discarded lithium batteries get dealt with in the future. Right now, recycling rates are very very low (5 percent?) but that appears to be due to the low profile nature of current applications (personal electronics). Electric car batteries will probably get better treatment. OTOH, if batteries are too cheap, it will not be worth recovering some battery components. Either way, battery recycling has a long way to go, and hardly promises to be all that clean.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... -recycling
Electric car manufacturers stood up a full recycling process the same time they started manufacturing. EV batteries are at the official 'end of life' when they've lost 20% of capacity. Some (many?) drivers will keep using them until they've lost 50%. The used batteries are being made into stationary power packs for homes and grid storage. Frankly, there's so much demand for EV batteries that they're pretty hard to get on the used market.

Also...the lithium thing... Most EVs and PHEVs on the market use LiMn variants. The lithium, manganese, or other elements are in the form of salts; they're not metallic. There's enough lithium in an underground lake in Wyoming to keep the planet in batteries for a very, very long time. And revenue from storing CO2 underground pays for pumping and processing - free lithium for 700 years. Lithium vehicle batteries are 100% recyclable when they get to end of life - in other words, when they've served in cars and then served in stationary power storage.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

16
TrueTexan wrote:At least the batteries can be recycled unlike coal ash.
True. The issue of recycling is a green issue and good green practice. Just because rates are low now doesn't mean a direction is bad. It just means people have to work harder to get recycling to be the norm and work toward a 100 percent recycling. Ultimately this planet can't afford to throw away resources.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

17
The beauty of wind, solar, thermal and other power sources directly from naturally abundant sources is that it allows for potentially making individuals energy independed. What would the world look like if individuals had autonomy from corporations that produce power and sell it now. There is a reason some of these corporations want to get into producing solar panels and such. It's the future and the greedy bastards want in on it. Lucky for the rest of us you could eventually make your own panels and construct other energy devices as well.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

18
US Energy Information Administration out of touch with reality.

https://rmi.org/news/unmoored-facts-wil ... e-reality/
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) should give anyone watching today’s energy markets a jolt of surprise. Not for projecting that U.S. energy demand will grow by an average of 0.4 percent per year after two decades of evidence to the contrary. Not for presenting major alternative scenarios only in the cases of cost and technology improvements in the oil and gas industries. But for exhibiting erroneous data about the costs of renewables, and for its simple and outdated outlook on how the market is changing and will in time transform.

The danger is that key decision makers will make decisions in accordance with an altogether different future than might otherwise result from current market activity. This risk stems from the agency’s opaque assumptions and modeling methodology, which have recently been the subject of significant criticism. In response, the EIA has sought to create a tenuous distinction between its “projections” and “forecasts” that requires mental acrobatics to accept—as do the annual outputs of its work.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

19
Gravitricity :w00t:

https://www.gravitricity.com/
Essentially, the Gravitricity system is a huge ‘clock weight’. A cylindrical weight of up to 3000 tonnes is suspended in a deep shaft by a number of synthetic ropes each of which is engaged with a winch capable of lifting its share of the weight. Electrical power is then absorbed or generated by raising or lowering the weight. The weight is guided by a system of tensioned guide wires (patents applied for) to prevent it from swinging and damaging the shaft. The winch system can be accurately controlled through the electrical drives to keep the weight stable in the hole.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

20
AndyH wrote:Gravitricity :w00t:

https://www.gravitricity.com/
Essentially, the Gravitricity system is a huge ‘clock weight’. A cylindrical weight of up to 3000 tonnes is suspended in a deep shaft by a number of synthetic ropes each of which is engaged with a winch capable of lifting its share of the weight. Electrical power is then absorbed or generated by raising or lowering the weight. The weight is guided by a system of tensioned guide wires (patents applied for) to prevent it from swinging and damaging the shaft. The winch system can be accurately controlled through the electrical drives to keep the weight stable in the hole.
Cool! You can do similar with reservoirs. Use solar power during the day to pump water up then let it spin a turbine on its way back down at night.

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

21
featureless wrote:
AndyH wrote:Gravitricity :w00t:

https://www.gravitricity.com/
Essentially, the Gravitricity system is a huge ‘clock weight’. A cylindrical weight of up to 3000 tonnes is suspended in a deep shaft by a number of synthetic ropes each of which is engaged with a winch capable of lifting its share of the weight. Electrical power is then absorbed or generated by raising or lowering the weight. The weight is guided by a system of tensioned guide wires (patents applied for) to prevent it from swinging and damaging the shaft. The winch system can be accurately controlled through the electrical drives to keep the weight stable in the hole.
Cool! You can do similar with reservoirs. Use solar power during the day to pump water up then let it spin a turbine on its way back down at night.
That is definitely cool. They do mention on the web page the comparison to reservoirs, the here advantage being no need for a large mass of water. I wonder if you could build small home units based on the concept.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: clean energy now the least expensive way

22
highdesert wrote:Is "clean coal" and clean energy the same in public health terms? Just looking at production costs is a false number, if there are public health costs that someone is paying for it's an expense. Whether it's how the coal is obtained or recycling batteries the health costs need to be computed.
Coal is dying anyway due to market pressure. It's simply less expensive to run thermoelectric plants on natural gas. If the plants are designed from the ground up to run on natural gas, then usually they can take advantage of combined-cycle operation (gas-turbine followed by steam-turbine) and boost their thermal efficiency by about half. Natural gas also doesn't require bag house or ESP maintenance, so the operating costs are less and the fuel can be pipelined directly to the plant - no coal trains and their associated pollution.

Grid storage is coming with or without clean energy. As the price of Li-ion batteries continues to decline, grid storage is being installed onto some grids that don't have significant use of renewables due to the cost savings. It lowers the cost (and pollution) of frequency regulation (the small amounts of short-term power put onto and taken off of the grid to maintain 60 Hz frequency so things don't go boom).

EIA predicts a steady increase in renewables being integrated into the U.S. grid. Most of that is due to economics.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests