Author Topic: The Financial Costs of Fighting Global Warming (Read 1299 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2007, 09:23:41 AM »

Sounds promising Curval.

I'm doing okay....probably be able to go back to work tomorrow.

I assume the turbine in that underwater generator will be turning quite slowly, since it is expected to have little negative environmental impact.

Cost projections?

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2007, 09:36:14 AM »

I am anxious to see how the Australian Solar Tower does. I have not seen a cost estimate, but at 155 square acres producing 50MW it seems like it is a lot cheaper than solar.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/01/technology/towerofpower0802.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2006102617

I agree with Lazs, the solution is more efficient solar panels. Tesco is building the world largest rooftop solar array for $13,000,000 and it will only produce 2.6 million kWh per year. As one person noted:

"2.6 million kilowatt hours at say $0.14/kwh (which is high) is only worth about $364,000.00. Divide that into the $13 million cost, and it takes over 35 years to get a positive return on investment, not taking into account and future costs for repairs and maintenance."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/19/tesco_solar_panels/

Curval · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2007, 09:47:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Sounds promising Curval.

Cost projections?

I don't know at this point, but I'll check it out and let you know.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:08:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
is that why they can afford the extra vowel?

Bulk lot deals from Vanna can be had very inexpensive.

Capitalization of an I ....................... free for all.

Try a job as a hall monitor.

Casca · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:23:21 AM »

A hectare is just under 2 and a half acres. 60 hectares = 148.26 acres.

Shuckins · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:34:58 AM »

Oops...Casca's right. I misread the table.

A hectare is equal to 100 ares ....which I read as acres.

So the total square acreage covered by the 4,761 units is off.

The actual square acreage is 704, 654.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:59:11 AM »

Anyone got time to figure out how many nuclear power plants would be required and their costs?

Casca · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2007, 11:15:03 AM »

This looks interesting for a possible alternative energy source. All you need to do is figure out how to drill a really deep hole and tap into the geothermal energy under the earth's crust.

oboe · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2007, 11:49:43 AM »

Here's a cool one, based on the mixing of fresh water with saltwater through a specially constructed membrane:

http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/consulting_services/2004/q2/blue_energy.asp

Also, wind power is one of the fastest growing forms of electrical power generation. Capital costs for installation of a utility-scale wind turbine are around a million dollars per megawatt, but there is no fuel cost and maintenance costs are small. Zero emissions, too. Its not a satisfactory solution everywhere, but there is plenty of wind resource in the Mid and Western U.S., and along the coasts. One of limiting factors to continued growth in the Midwest is powerline transmission capacity -- out of the wind rich regions to areas where the population needs the power.

Another limiting factor is the intermittancy of wind, but there are a few energy storage technologies being experimented with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Cost_and_growth

I guess I don't envision a single technology solving the problem - I think it would be better to have a mix of different technologies.

Curval · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:00:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Casca
This looks interesting for a possible alternative energy source. All you need to do is figure out how to drill a really deep hole and tap into the geothermal energy under the earth's crust.

It has already been done. My grandfather made alot of money in a company called Magma Power back in the 70s or early 80s. It was a technology he believed in and put his money where his mouth was.

Casca · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:02:03 PM »

It's not being done on any meaningful scale (except in special cases like Iceland).

edit: I did some research since I posted the above and was surprised at how much geothermal energy is produced globally. It seems like a promising technology to replace a lot of fossil fuel energy.

Maverick · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:13:47 PM »

Whether you want to deal with solar or wind power you have to factor in a few more things than just how many of each. Since neither one of these sources provide power 24/7 you must have a storage device for the power that is not consumed at the time of production. You obviously will not get solar at night. Nor will you get adequate solar in cloudy days. You won't get wind power in non windy days or days that do not have sufficient wind for full draw days.

Each will require placement of the devices in a position to obtain the source of energy. Solar panels take up quite a bit of space and must be placed in a sunshine rich environment. To get maximum power output they must be set to track the sun so that the rays hit as close to perpendicular as possible.

For wind power you must erect wind turbines. They also take up space and in order to provide as clear a path for wind to them they must be placed where there are no obstructions. That means no trees, buildings or other structures.

At each location there will have to be some kind of electrical storage device, in other words, batteries. That's going to be a LOT of batteries to provide storage for the millions of megawatts consumed. Don't forget that power must also be transported to the point of use ands will need additional boost and transformer stations along the way. Enough power must be stored to provide peak demand needs for people during cloudy rainy and non windy periods at the point of production.

Another consideration is the environmental impact of placing these structures. Wind turbines kill birds. Will they have to be placed in accordance with engangered species and or flyway considersations? Solar panels take up space and deny plants a place to live by blocking the sun. The best solar places are in the desert along with some of the best wind generation points. The impact on plants will also impact other endangered species that live in the desert. The SW desert is a very fragile place and MUST be protected.

Oh nooes! Another issue, population encroachment. It's already happening with farmland and the SW desert areas are one of, if not the fastest growing population area. The NIMBY folks will not want those ugly towers taking up the view of the skyline. Acres of solar panels?!?!?! Absolutely not in the pristine desert!

Curval · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:19:13 PM »

Mav,

That is the beauty of the approach I posted above...tidal currents do not stop when it gets cloudy or less windy.

No birds get killed.

No land use (above ground) is necessary.

Negative vibes...always with the negative vibes.

Maverick · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:24:10 PM »

Curve,

Has there been an epa study to determine the impact on the seal life, coral reefs, current changes, fish migration, predator vs prey in the local area not to mention the potential impact of raising the temperature of the ocean?

Those were some of the same impact concerns for other sea related construction.

They're not negative vibes, they are realistic implication considerations for what are often pie in the sky ideas. Think about them now before they come back and bite you later on.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2007, 12:32:23 PM »

Have we taken into account the effect of bouncing all that light back into the atmosphere? It might make things worse.

I say Cheers! we are all screwed anyways!