Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[SunEagle]

I don't disagree that we have crazy greenies in CA, but you're oversimplifying and disregarding the fact that CA has brought on line quite a few plants in state. Electricity capacity has gone up in the last 10 years. The fact that plants are going up in neighboring states probably has more to do with our crazy CEQA process and the fact that labor is cheaper in AZ than CA.

The one point I'll grant is that as a country, we'll need more capacity as long as we keep growing our population and economy. Hopefully, renewables are a big piece of it, because proven reserves of non renewables do not look good in the long run.

Installing more renewable generation without adding 24/7 non-renewable generation will paint you into a corner. Eventually the lights will go out because the renewable is not 24/7 and there isn't any viable way to store the excess energy from the renewable generation.

As for reserves of non-renewable not looking good!!! Give me a break. With the new EPA rules there will be a whole lot of coal left in the ground that will not be used because it is too dirty to some people. That is until the lights go out and the people scream for power generation no matter how dirty it is.

[JCP]

Installing more renewable generation without adding 24/7 non-renewable generation will paint you into a corner. Eventually the lights will go out because the renewable is not 24/7 and there isn't any viable way to store the excess energy from the renewable generation.

As for reserves of non-renewable not looking good!!! Give me a break. With the new EPA rules there will be a whole lot of coal left in the ground that will not be used because it is too dirty to some people. That is until the lights go out and the people scream for power generation no matter how dirty it is.

Sorry to confuse you with facts, but according to BP, we only got about 100 years of coal reserves. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-reserves.html

Hardly a long run solution.

[russ]

Sorry to confuse you with facts, but according to BP, we only got about 100 years of coal reserves. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-reserves.html

Hardly a long run solution.

That just means nuclear needs to come along faster - PV is not the utility scale solution - if the bugs are worked out of solar thermal and there is a good storage solution then it might help.

[JCP]

That just means nuclear needs to come along faster - PV is not the utility scale solution - if the bugs are worked out of solar thermal and there is a good storage solution then it might help.

Proven reserves of Uranium are about 80 years, and may reach 240 with new finds. And that's only based on today's consumption. We could always try to harness more uranium from the sea but right now the technology is totally cost prohibitive.

I wish that there was an easy answer out there, but it sure seems pretty bleak for my offsprings if we don't try to harness more energy from renewables and start focusing on conservation. The answer is most likely multifold.

[SunEagle]

Sorry to confuse you with facts, but according to BP, we only got about 100 years of coal reserves. http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporat...-reserves.html

Hardly a long run solution.

Sure looked like BP data had North America at about 244 years. Of course that will be extended if we reduce consumption based on the new EPA rules. Maybe by then someone will have developed Fusion as a power source or something not even though about yet.

Look. I am all for developing and using renewable energy. But the fact is we still need energy 24/7 and renewable energy will not provide that. There has to be a "base" generating system of some kind to support the energy needs. Fossil fuels will be a big part. I am hoping for a rebirth of Nuclear to take the lead.

The problem is the "gap" time moving from one energy source to another. If you delay the start then there will be power shortages. Best practice for us all is to reduce the impact of an energy gap by reducing our consumption.

[russ]

Proven reserves of Uranium are about 80 years, and may reach 240 with new finds. And that's only based on today's consumption.

Don't believe that at all - thorium in particular is supposed to be plentiful. There can also be breeder reactors.

I have been hearing the "were running out of " all my life. I am 69 - we have to be more inventive but it happens as long as people with some idea of what is happening are at the lead - the past 6 years has been green feel time and nothing more.

[JCP]

Sure looked like BP data had North America at about 244 years. Of course that will be extended if we reduce consumption based on the new EPA rules. Maybe by then someone will have developed Fusion as a power source or something not even though about yet.

Look. I am all for developing and using renewable energy. But the fact is we still need energy 24/7 and renewable energy will not provide that. There has to be a "base" generating system of some kind to support the energy needs. Fossil fuels will be a big part. I am hoping for a rebirth of Nuclear to take the lead.

The problem is the "gap" time moving from one energy source to another. If you delay the start then there will be power shortages. Best practice for us all is to reduce the impact of an energy gap by reducing our consumption.

No disagreement from me.

I take issue with others on this thread who indicate that CA emphasis is misplaced and that the silver bullet is to build a bunch more non renewable power plants. Numbers just don't add up (see above). We'll most likely need a bunch more plants to accommodate our country growth, but focus has to be on conservation as well. If the rest of the country had followed CA lead where consumption per capita has actually decreased over the last 10 or 20 years, we probably would not need any new plant for a while. Again, there's no silver bullet. Conservation won't solve everything. More gas fired plants won't do it either (in the long run), and neither will a bunch of solar panels. But, if we attacked all angles, our odds would be a whole lot better.

Based on my little googling, base load is about 40 to 50% of peak capacity. That leaves quite a bit of room.

[pleppik]

It works a bit like cellular telephone by putting small passive nuclear plants in a grid like fashion in a city or region that can fit in a typical house basement. If one plant has to shut down for maintenance of low demand, the surrounding plants pick up the slack.

IIRC you mentioned this idea before. I still say this is pretty darn pie-in-the-sky unless you can show me an actual operating power-producing nuke with under 100MW of capacity. Even a protoype.

There are lots and lots of paper reactors out there, but nobody to my knowledge has actually built and tested one (and I have looked). The reasons should be obvious: no sane person is going to take the risk of a design flaw with dozens of reactors deployed throughout a city.

I agree that, in theory, the new generation of designs should be safer than older designs. But while in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.

Would you bet Manhattan on flawless execution of a new design? I wouldn't.

[JCP]

Don't believe that at all - thorium in particular is supposed to be plentiful. There can also be breeder reactors.

I have been hearing the "were running out of " all my life. I am 69 - we have to be more inventive but it happens as long as people with some idea of what is happening are at the lead - the past 6 years has been green feel time and nothing more.

Of course the sky is not falling, but at some point, we do run into a wall. Now, whether the wall is in this century or the next does not really change the issue.

[russ]

Of course the sky is not falling, but at some point, we do run into a wall. Now, whether the wall is in this century or the next does not really change the issue.

Another 100 or 500 or 1000 years - people get tired of the sky is falling stuff.

[Shockah]

Decoupling Fee?

[JCP]

Another 100 or 500 or 1000 years - people get tired of the sky is falling stuff.

LOL. Let me guess, the earth is flat and climate change is a green conspiracy?

[SunEagle]

LOL. Let me guess, the earth is flat and climate change is a green conspiracy?

I agree that there is a global climate change happening.

My question is exactly how much of that change is due to air temperature rise and how much of the temperature rise is due to CO2 emissions.

On top of that, what percentage of CO2 are humans contributing and how much is coming naturally from the Earth?

There have been many global climate changes on this planet for multimillion years. What caused the CO2 to rise in the past before humans and what raised the temperature up and then back down again for the ice ages?

I really don't think there is a good answer to those questions although I believe there is a lot of guessing based on very little data collected over the past century.

[JCP]

I agree that there is a global climate change happening.

My question is exactly how much of that change is due to air temperature rise and how much of the temperature rise is due to CO2 emissions.

On top of that, what percentage of CO2 are humans contributing and how much is coming naturally from the Earth?

There have been many global climate changes on this planet for multimillion years. What caused the CO2 to rise in the past before humans and what raised the temperature up and then back down again for the ice ages?

I really don't think there is a good answer to those questions although I believe there is a lot of guessing based on very little data collected over the past century.

That's just silly. There are plenty of scientists who believe that we have enough data that shows the rise in human activity lead to the current climate change. Then again, we have plenty of people who still believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Science is not for everybody, I guess.

[russ]

I don't question that climate is changing. The effects of the various components of the atmosphere and how they all interact with the general environment is NOT known. Anyone that says it is fully understood - aerosol effect for example - is full of BS.

Any Chem E knows that if they stop to think about it. There are many new concepts thrown into the calculations along with SWAGs and a whole lot of WAGS - then various parties fudge the outcome to suit what they had already decided - if you don't like that then go blow smoke up your own backside.

As anyone can guess, I am not a member of the Holy Church of Climate Change - that is all the current chatter is - religion plus people like Al Bore getting rich.