Alternative Energy

[raybak]

Looking at what alternatives we have for energy for Motorsport over the next 20 years or so.

A lot of people are looking at bio fuels, others are wanting to go completely electric.

What do people think we should do?

I know an awesome rally car would have 4 individual electric motors with instantaneous torque to each wheel. With a daily travel distance of over 300km. With the way that battery technology is advancing, this is highly possible.

Anyway let's discuss!

Ray

[Daniel]

Well Michelin have recently done this but I really don't see this ever catching on for motorsport

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/active-wheel-affordable-electric-car.php

I personally think petrol is the way forward for motorsport. The smell, the sound, the flames..... motorsport wouldn't be motorsport without petrol. Whatever people say diesel is boring to hear and smell and electric isn't much better tbh.

We'll all drive around in electric cars soon enough but I reckon we'll be watching petrol powered cars long into the future for motorsport. Perhaps there will be ethanol blends and so on but I think petrol will still be the base :)

[anthonyvop]

There is no such thing as "green" racing.

Ethanol is a disaster as are all Bio-Fuels. They need huge amounts of water and takes valuable farmland.

Electric power just transfers energy production to another source. Also when there is a bad accident you will need a HAZ-MAT crew for the clean up.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Any electric car with enough range to be useful in a racing application would be too heavy because the battery technology just isn't there yet.

Furthermore....Daniel hit it on the head. We go for the noise and furor that a petrol engine creates or at least something powered in that fashion. Watching the Audi R10's in ALMS race was interesting because of their quiet exhaust note and performance but for the most part, any diesel race cars are still in the end just a different flavour of the internal combustion engine and will provide the spectacle.

Electric cars will just howl and whine in a rather unnatural manner to a race fan..and as I said, don't go far and the technology just isnt there.

As for Biofuels, I have always thought those a waste of time...and a fuel cell powered car with hydrogen might be workable in time.......but really for the amount of gas motorsport actually uses, I cant see a real valid reason to dump them.

[Daniel]

Any electric car with enough range to be useful in a racing application would be too heavy because the battery technology just isn't there yet.

Furthermore....Daniel hit it on the head. We go for the noise and furor that a petrol engine creates or at least something powered in that fashion. Watching the Audi R10's in ALMS race was interesting because of their quiet exhaust note and performance but for the most part, any diesel race cars are still in the end just a different flavour of the internal combustion engine and will provide the spectacle.

Electric cars will just howl and whine in a rather unnatural manner to a race fan..and as I said, don't go far and the technology just isnt there.

As for Biofuels, I have always thought those a waste of time...and a fuel cell powered car with hydrogen might be workable in time.......but really for the amount of gas motorsport actually uses, I cant see a real valid reason to dump them.

I don't like diesel cars in motorsport BUT I think they have their place in endurance racing due to the fuel efficiency factor but I don't believe they should have the unfair advantage they do now though!!!!!

Diesel is better than electricity of course but I still find diesel boring :mark:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't like diesel cars in motorsport BUT I think they have their place in endurance racing due to the fuel efficiency factor but I don't believe they should have the unfair advantage they do now though!!!!!

Diesel is better than electricity of course but I still find diesel boring :mark:

Spoken as a man who hasn't seen an Audi R10 race in person. The only way you could tell it was a diesel was by the fact it is so quiet and that you were told it was. It accelerates like a scalded cat with all that torque and is very much the decendent of the all conquering R8.....

[Daniel]

Spoken as a man who hasn't seen an Audi R10 race in person. The only way you could tell it was a diesel was by the fact it is so quiet and that you were told it was. It accelerates like a scalded cat with all that torque and is very much the decendent of the all conquering R8.....
I definitely haven't seen one in person but the sound or lack thereof just spoils it for me :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Daniel..when you hear it live you can tell it is an Internal combustion motor and by itself it sounds like a street car. Just with all the howling of the other cars around it..you don't hear it.....

[Daniel]

Daniel..when you hear it live you can tell it is an Internal combustion motor and by itself it sounds like a street car. Just with all the howling of the other cars around it..you don't hear it.....
A racing car shouldn't sound like a street car though :p that's what I'm trying to say :p

[schmenke]

...but I still find diesel boring :mark:

Ain't nothing boring about compression :D :p :

[rah]

There is no such thing as "green" racing.

Ethanol is a disaster as are all Bio-Fuels. They need huge amounts of water and takes valuable farmland.

Electric power just transfers energy production to another source. Also when there is a bad accident you will need a HAZ-MAT crew for the clean up.

There is such a thing as green racing, but it isn't terribly exciting to watch.

Not all bio-fuels are a disaster. There are some great ideas, but they are not a single solution. But anything that uses food crops or land for food crops is a disaster.

Not necessarily, but as I said before, I would not class solar racing as exciting yet.

[chuck34]

Electrics and batteries in motorsort don't seem like a good idea to me, too heavy.

Hydrogen is just plain scary to me. I just keep thinking about all my Led Zep CD covers. I know, they can probably make it safe, just doesn't seem right to me.

Bio-Fuels are the way to go. Not all are bad. Corn based ethanol sure is, but corn isn't the only way to go. Algae is showing quite a bit of promise. Saw grass could be good, if they can figure out the bacteria deal. I even saw a guy making it out of kudzu (and calling it kudzanol or something like that). Am I imagining things or wasn't there a GTP called Kudzu too. That would be awesome, "Here comes the kudzanol powered Kudzu to take the checkered flag!"

[Easy Drifter]

At the moment it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy said gallon produces. Also in North America it is being produced mainly from corn and soy beans, two food crops. It has driven the price of both up so the farmers may be happy but up goes the cost of food.
Corn crops generally take large amounts of fertilizer, especially if the fields are replanted year after year. Fertilizer in run off creates pollution (phophorus for one) in lakes and streams and should be controlled. Only a few jurisdictions have started to do anything about this.
Ontario has started to in the Lake Simcoe watershed. Lake Simcoe is a large lake whose waters flow eventually into the Great Lakes. It has been dying for years and several fish species are either gone or not reproducing. Ontario's famous and large Holland Marsh, an intensely farmed area drains into Lake Simcoe and often floods in the sping. Beautiful dark soil once extremely fertile it is now dead soil in which nothing would grow if it wasn't for fertilizers. It produces huge quantities of food all because of fertilizers. Ontario and the Feds are just starting to try and figure out how to deal with this and Ont. has committed millions.
The production of Ethanol also takes huge quantities of water and the effect on water tables is starting to show up. Indiana is one example. I expect water recovery systems can be developed but that will make the production more expensive.
Ethanol may become more viable but at the moment in NA it is causing more than enough problems for very little overall good.
Of course since a certain percentage of ethanol is now in our fuel by law governments are not going to look stupid by reversing themselves.
Just another example of doing something, anything, without considering all the ramifications.

[Mark]

Well even if petrol were to disappear completely you can still run racing cars on biofuels. Several BTCC cars run on biofuel and they sound identical to their petrol counterparts and are actually slightly more powerful.

But; of course. Biofuel isn't the answer for normal street cars.

[Valve Bounce]

Looking at what alternatives we have for energy for Motorsport over the next 20 years or so.

A lot of people are looking at bio fuels, others are wanting to go completely electric.

What do people think we should do?

I know an awesome rally car would have 4 individual electric motors with instantaneous torque to each wheel. With a daily travel distance of over 300km. With the way that battery technology is advancing, this is highly possible.

Anyway let's discuss!

Ray

Considering the weight of batteries, and the fact that using electricity to charge the batteries only causes more pollution when the electricity generators are coal fired, the only contribution made by electric cars are the lack of noise and pollution in the areas they are operated. Now if the electricity can be derived from wind, then you have a better system, but solar panels do have other issues from what I understand, when they are wrecked. Now this is only for a non racing and relatively low performance vehicle like milk delivery units.

For motor racing, you will need something to come out of Science Fiction, but as somebody has already pointed out, you will have silent vehicles whizzing around, probably not on wheels by the time that is developed.

I can't think of any other bi-fuel product that could be used in motorsport at this stage of development. Not in my lifetime.

[rah]

I had heard of a few universities working on the project. One even had a go-cart running on a fuel cell. The Go-cart produced around 500nm of torque.

[Daniel]

I had heard of a few universities working on the project. One even had a go-cart running on a fuel cell. The Go-cart produced around 500nm of torque.
Scary!

[steve_spackman]

Well Michelin have recently done this but I really don't see this ever catching on for motorsport

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/active-wheel-affordable-electric-car.php

I personally think petrol is the way forward for motorsport. The smell, the sound, the flames..... motorsport wouldn't be motorsport without petrol. Whatever people say diesel is boring to hear and smell and electric isn't much better tbh.

We'll all drive around in electric cars soon enough but I reckon we'll be watching petrol powered cars long into the future for motorsport. Perhaps there will be ethanol blends and so on but I think petrol will still be the base :)

agree

[Mark in Oshawa]

Race Cars will diverge from what the rest of us in the future. I think they will always be internal combustion motors similar to what we see now. Of course....I could be wrong but the fact no one laments the fact the Gas Turbine being taken out of racing in the 60's says volumes about how race cars that don't sound like race cars being quickly forgotten about...

[Ranger]

IMO the biggest problem facing bio-fuel technology is the lack of R&D.

It has taken more than 100 years for the petrol engine to become as advanced as it is now. And yet people are writing off any potential for bio-fuels as their manufacture and production is currently unsustainable compared to its results.

It is absolutely right that a truly eco-friendly fuel is at least 10-20 years away from efficient usage.

But as for its 'lack of potential', its comparison to petroleum is a bit of an unfair comparison considering their respective lifespans, don't you think?

[cosmicpanda]

Just because electric cars get their electricity from a power station doesn't mean that the power station can't be green. There's plenty of green ways to produce power - solar panels, turbines, hydro power, geothermal. I think there's great potential for hydro plants in the ocean.

Hydrogen would also work if it's produced with electricity from a green power plant.

I wouldn't be devastated if I had to watch a quiet rally car. The noise can be fun but I'm more impressed by speed.

[Kneeslider]

One of the great myths which has been perpetrated in the UK over the last couple of years is that wind power is going to be the saviour of us all, and enable the UK to meet it's Kyoto climate change obligations.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

This link shows just how much wind energy is being produced in the UK, it is updated every half hour, and shows the mix of all other types of generation too, and gives them a total quantity of Megawatts, and the % contribution.

The bit of interest here is the generation by fuel type table about 3/4 of the way down the page.

At the time I looked (05:01am) wind is contributing 0.4% of the total UK demand.

The other stuff of interest on the table (for non industry insiders) is PS which refers to Pumped Storage hydro electric, which pumps water to the top of a hill during cheap off peak periods, and then releases it during peak daytime perods, thus making money from price differences during the day. NPSHYD is Non Pumped Storage Hydroelectric, which is mainly in Scotland, and renewable because the motive source is a dam on a river, but can be affected by droughts.

Lots of other interesting stuff on there!

[Mark]

The fact that some don't seem to understand is that we can't close down all the power stations and then replace them with absolutely nothing.

The 'protestors' want the coal fired stations shut down, and yet when there are projects such as the Severn barrage or a large windwarm off the coast of North Wales there are protests again. We need to get our energy from somewhere.

[Dave B]

At the time I looked (05:01am) wind is contributing 0.4% of the total UK demand.
And for the record the last few days have been very windy: I'd imagine the figure is usually a lot lower.

Motorsport will never been truly green, no sport will. Even if you managed to stage a perpetual motion race with no energy used (Lisa! In this house we obey the rules of thermodynamics!), you'd still have thosands of spectators clogging up the roads; and a huge infrastructure using power, from the building of the venue itself right down to the fumes from the catering vans.

That's not to say we shouldn't clean up our acts, but nor should we delude ourselves into thinking that motorsport will ever be the saviour of the planet.

[Daniel]

One of the great myths which has been perpetrated in the UK over the last couple of years is that wind power is going to be the saviour of us all, and enable the UK to meet it's Kyoto climate change obligations.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

This link shows just how much wind energy is being produced in the UK, it is updated every half hour, and shows the mix of all other types of generation too, and gives them a total quantity of Megawatts, and the % contribution.

The bit of interest here is the generation by fuel type table about 3/4 of the way down the page.

At the time I looked (05:01am) wind is contributing 0.4% of the total UK demand.

The other stuff of interest on the table (for non industry insiders) is PS which refers to Pumped Storage hydro electric, which pumps water to the top of a hill during cheap off peak periods, and then releases it during peak daytime perods, thus making money from price differences during the day. NPSHYD is Non Pumped Storage Hydroelectric, which is mainly in Scotland, and renewable because the motive source is a dam on a river, but can be affected by droughts.

Lots of other interesting stuff on there!

For a slightly more balanced view of things if you look at the last 24 hours Windpower contributed 1% of the total power. I should also point out that while it's been windy the last few days it's quite calm here near and the max windspeed has been just over 10.6mph which I believe is far below where the turbines like to operate. I'd be interested to see what the turbines were contributing on Sunday/Monday when it was windier.

Lets also not forget that pumped storage in the end uses more energy than it creates so while it's great for coping with peak demand and making money there's a net loss of energy from pumped storage.

What Mark says is funny. There is a big group of morons in this country who want power generation but just not where they are or not anywhere interesting like the severn estuary where there are large tides which would make tidal power worthwhile. It's backward thinking fools like this who will keep us

Then there are these retired disps who don't want a nice big windfarm off the rather unremarkable North Wales coastline even though it would bring loads of jobs to an struggling area because back in their day we didn't have turbines and that's the way it should stay! http://saveourscenery.com/ They also like to falsify photos to make things looks far different to what they will actually be like.

I've said this time and time again, I fully support nuclear power but thanks to the scaremongering and silly associations with two cities in Japan and a badly run Russian reactor any government who starts popping up nuclear reactors is going to be seriously unpopular. I mean who'd want power generation that doesn't pollute the air? Power generation that doesn't release radiation into the air? Power generation that doesn't release the dreaded CO2 into the air?

I firmly believe that anyone who doesn't support renewables or nuclear power should be cut off the grid and forced to live without electricity till they realise the reality of the situation we find outselves in.

[Daniel]

And for the record the last few days have been very windy: I'd imagine the figure is usually a lot lower.

Motorsport will never been truly green, no sport will. Even if you managed to stage a perpetual motion race with no energy used (Lisa! In this house we obey the rules of thermodynamics!), you'd still have thosands of spectators clogging up the roads; and a huge infrastructure using power, from the building of the venue itself right down to the fumes from the catering vans.

That's not to say we shouldn't clean up our acts, but nor should we delude ourselves into thinking that motorsport will ever be the saviour of the planet.

But we did have the chance for motorsport to be a big driver in super-capacitor technology until supreme overlord Max decreed that the FIA shall not encourage chemical storage of power. Which would got us to a future where you pull into a BP and fill your car up with electrons in a few short minutes rather than the woeful charge times that battery powered cars these days have.

[Kneeslider]

And for the record the last few days have been very windy: I'd imagine the figure is usually a lot lower.

Motorsport will never been truly green, no sport will. Even if you managed to stage a perpetual motion race with no energy used (Lisa! In this house we obey the rules of thermodynamics!),

Well Dave, looking at the NETA (New Electricity Trading Arrangements) page, you will see that the maximum installed capacity for wind generation is presently 1288MW.

Today in the UK, the peak demand just after it got dark was 55,035MW, more normal daytime demand was 48,000MW, and overnight, during off peak time was of the order of 35,00MW.

So today, if wind generation were to have a load factor of 100% we would have 2.3% of peak demand, 2.6% of typical daytime load, and 3.6% of night time load.

As observed by the great sage Homer Simpson, you can't beat the laws of thermodynamics!

The electric car which you have to charge up from the wall socket is not going to be a properly viable technology. Hydrogen fuel cells however are a whole other possibility. The only environmental problem with that is that you need lots of electricity to make Hydrogen!

As a few of you have correctly pointed out, the brave new world of a low carbon economy depends upon the production of low carbon electricity, and the only way to do that is by building nuclear power stations.

Right now in the UK I am expecting to see a 'capacity crunch' over the next 2-5 years in the electricity supply business. This is because all but one of the nuclear power stations are going to be closed, because they have simply become too old, and at best, the lead time on constructing a new one is going to be about 10 years. Coal fired generation too is threatened because of something called the Large Combustion Plant directive, which is targeting emmissions of SOx and NOx. Basically this means that if you are the owner of a coal fired power station, you have to invest in SOx and NOx scrubbing technology, or you will have from the 1st of January 2008 only 20,000 hours left to run before your power station will be banned from running.

The operators of older coal fired power stations, understandably don't want to spend the money, so at the present rate, they will be out of time in about 2-3 years.

This all means that the only sort of power stations it has been possible to build for the last 20 years have been gas fired ones. These are good, because they don't produce as much CO2/MW or other nasty emmissions as coal fired ones, and tend to be more fuel efficient in terms of energy in vs energy out. But, the gas in the north sea is running out, and Vladimir Putin has been sabre rattling again over Ukraine which has jacked the price of gas in terms of p/th up to the point that gas fired power stations don't make that much money.

All of these things are going to mean that we all pay more for our domestic electricity in the UK over the next few years, and at the moment, we don't know if we are going to have enough generation in future to keep all the lights on. No matter how politically unacceptable this state of affairs is, at least the government of the day can't say that they didn't see it coming!

[Daniel]

The electric car which you have to charge up from the wall socket is not going to be a properly viable technology.

Why not? Capacitors are ideal and with some development could be suitable for use in cars

See here for a proof of concept on a far smaller scale of course.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V58OMVUSacE

[Kneeslider]

Why not? Capacitors are ideal and with some development could be suitable for use in cars

See here for a proof of concept on a far smaller scale of course.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V58OMVUSacE

Capacitors are great, and solve the weight of batteries problem nicely. The real problem with the electric car is the down time as it charges back up again, and you can't really get around that with conventional single phase, 240v 13A supplies which people have in their houses.

Remmeber that the number of joules of energy the car uses needs to be supplied by the socket, and the rate of supply is finite.

[BDunnell]

The fact that some don't seem to understand is that we can't close down all the power stations and then replace them with absolutely nothing.

The 'protestors' want the coal fired stations shut down, and yet when there are projects such as the Severn barrage or a large windwarm off the coast of North Wales there are protests again. We need to get our energy from somewhere.

I agree. As another example, many of my friends, whose political views are generally as left-leaning as mine (or more so), have strong objections towards nuclear power. I feel that many base their views on nuclear power on the risk of another Chernobyl, ignoring the fact that the safety of nuclear facilities in the West in the 2000s cannot be compared with the safety of those in the USSR in the 1980s.

[Kneeslider]

This is because all but one of the nuclear power stations are going to be closed, because they have simply become too old, and at best, the lead time on constructing a new one is going to be about 10 years.

Errr, edit, reading back my post, what I meant to say was that all bar one of the neuclear power stations would be closed by 2020, not as I implied in the next 2-3 years!

[Daniel]

Capacitors are great, and solve the weight of batteries problem nicely. The real problem with the electric car is the down time as it charges back up again, and you can't really get around that with conventional single phase, 240v 13A supplies which people have in their houses.

Remmeber that the number of joules of energy the car uses needs to be supplied by the socket, and the rate of supply is finite.

That's why there will have to be infrastructure changes. Currently when you buy a Tesla or at least in the future when you can buy one you can purchase a 70amp quick charge connection for your house so it doesn't take quite so long to charge. I do agree though that batteries are a bit of a silly idea unless they are standardised and you can just drive anywhere and swap them out but I don't see that happening!

Also if you'd looked at the youtube video you would have seen the big advantage of capacitors which is the quick charge times. So you've eliminated the weight problem of conventional batteries and charge times are somewhat closer to refuelling times of petrol cars. It becomes a lot more viable. Yes infrastructure will have to change but hasn't infrastructure in this country had to change a lot in the past? Why not now?

[rah]

I agree. As another example, many of my friends, whose political views are generally as left-leaning as mine (or more so), have strong objections towards nuclear power. I feel that many base their views on nuclear power on the risk of another Chernobyl, ignoring the fact that the safety of nuclear facilities in the West in the 2000s cannot be compared with the safety of those in the USSR in the 1980s.

Yeah there are some different views out there. I persollay am against nuclear reactors because they cost too much, have no viable long term ways of storing dangerouse contaminated waste and take way too long to build.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah there are some different views out there. I persollay am against nuclear reactors because they cost too much, have no viable long term ways of storing dangerouse contaminated waste and take way too long to build.

Here is the issue as I see it. Rah you want clean power. Yet Windpower has its detractors, but most of the detractors of it just don't like the aesthetics. I think it is a lot of effort for not much result but it is clean and don't object to it if it doesn't drive up the cost of electricity.

THAT is the issue. If power costs go up, people will conserve but in a large nation ( I am in the second largest with 33 million people spread across 6 time zones ) you have to have plants. You have to produce electricity. We have dammed up all the rivers the enviromentalists would let us dam up and I am in favour of looking at other options. So Hydro-Electricity is out. Wind is so hard to make meaningful so it is a panacea that only yuppies and landowners wont put up with if they have to look at it. Gas is adding CO2...oh god the climate change fringe will freak. We wont go into what coal and oil do. Dirty stuff....so that leaves the Nukes. (Solar is in the R and D phase...not commericially viable..like Wind it is a pancea).

Back to the nukes. First off other than the Russians, no one has ever had a MAJOR accident that put life at any serious risk. You look at nations like France with all the nuclear power they have and look at their infrastructure and their emissions...and you realize it is the best hope. Waste is an issue...but no form of power production comes without a con. NONE. Maybe Tidal..but trying to produce tidal power in the middle of Nebraska or Saskatchewan isn't an option.

You cant make lemonade without squeezing lemons and you cant conserve your way out of this power crunch. Heck...if all these electric cars you guys keep going on about hit the market that power will add MORE demand on the grid.

In short...quit telling me what we cant do and give me real solutions. I am sick and tired of all the whiners out there who protest any solution offered. It is like finding out what my wife doesn't want for dinner when I am taking her out. (Do you like Chinese? No not tonight, BBQ? nooo..Steaks?nooo, Italian? nooo......honey..how about we just go to the field and graze?).

Face the reality. Nuclear power is our least worst option. I can tell from what Kneeslider is saying is the UK needs a Winston Churchill to sound the alarm for the building of more power plants. (Just like Winston was telling parliament in 1933 that sooner or later Herr Hitler was going to rearrange everyone's furniture). Canada is fighting similar issues and in the case of Ontario where all but one of the Nuclear plants is operating in Canada, we have used nukes for years. Safety isn't an problem with the CANDU system since it uses regular U235 and not enriched uranium. That said..we still have waste but it is likely going to a mine deep within the earth in a geologic dead zone. The safety is there for nukes. It is a matter of just getting on with the job. What irritates me more than anything is the objective of the green movement to any solution that they don't come up with any solution that actually involves SOLVING THE DAMNED PROBLEM OF POWER GENERATION!

[Easy Drifter]

Don't forget Mark we now have some people calling for the abolition of all the high voltage power lines on towers and that all of these lines should be buried.
Good luck north of the Severn River in this area. It is just a wee bit difficult to bury anything in solid granite. Of course the 'shield' runs across all of Ont. and Quebec. Then there is the limestone vein that runs from Georgian Bay to the Bellville/Kingston area often at or near the surface.
These morons even want existing lines buried at what cost.
And as I pointed out earlier there are 2 small Hydro Electric plants proposed in this area and both are being strongly opposed.

[Daniel]

In short...quit telling me what we cant do and give me real solutions. I am sick and tired of all the whiners out there who protest any solution offered. It is like finding out what my wife doesn't want for dinner when I am taking her out. (Do you like Chinese? No not tonight, BBQ? nooo..Steaks?nooo, Italian? nooo......honey..how about we just go to the field and graze?).

Amen to that. As you can tell I'm totally for wind power but even I agree that it's not the complete solution. I just don't get the aesthetics argument. There is plenty of unspoilt landscape in the UK and in the end when the turbines reach the end of their servicable life they can be taken down and other than the road being there there is little visible impact upon the scenery.

Like you say people should stop saying what they don't want and come up with ideas for what they DO want. I'm all for people's right for protest and objection but if it's the only viable solution presented then what can you do? The proposed windfarm (Gwynt y mor) here in North Wales will provide power for 500,000 homes. It's pretty much been given the green light but if the fools had their way we'd have to build another coal or gas station and I'm sure people wouldn't want that next door to them.

[raybak]

Shock Horror, I actually agree with Daniel here. Wind Power is the way to go.

We have 96 new turbines being installed around Lake George north of Canberra plus another 140 down near Cooma about 110km South of Canberra. This is a major step forward for the area. I'm also looking at installing some myself, not a bad money earner at around $11k per year per turbine.

Ray

[Daniel]

Shock Horror, I actually agree with Daniel here. Wind Power is the way to go.

We have 96 new turbines being installed around Lake George north of Canberra plus another 140 down near Cooma about 110km South of Canberra. This is a major step forward for the area. I'm also looking at installing some myself, not a bad money earner at around $11k per year per turbine.

Ray

11k for a turbine on your house? I think someone's been spinning some good stories :)

[Daniel]

One of the great myths which has been perpetrated in the UK over the last couple of years is that wind power is going to be the saviour of us all, and enable the UK to meet it's Kyoto climate change obligations.

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

This link shows just how much wind energy is being produced in the UK, it is updated every half hour, and shows the mix of all other types of generation too, and gives them a total quantity of Megawatts, and the % contribution.

The bit of interest here is the generation by fuel type table about 3/4 of the way down the page.

At the time I looked (05:01am) wind is contributing 0.4% of the total UK demand.

The other stuff of interest on the table (for non industry insiders) is PS which refers to Pumped Storage hydro electric, which pumps water to the top of a hill during cheap off peak periods, and then releases it during peak daytime perods, thus making money from price differences during the day. NPSHYD is Non Pumped Storage Hydroelectric, which is mainly in Scotland, and renewable because the motive source is a dam on a river, but can be affected by droughts.

Lots of other interesting stuff on there!

Just for some balance it should be pointed out that Wind power has provided 2.2% of power today and the winds only really picked up in the afternoon :)

[rah]

Here is the issue as I see it. Rah you want clean power. Yet Windpower has its detractors, but most of the detractors of it just don't like the aesthetics. I think it is a lot of effort for not much result but it is clean and don't object to it if it doesn't drive up the cost of electricity.

THAT is the issue. If power costs go up, people will conserve but in a large nation ( I am in the second largest with 33 million people spread across 6 time zones ) you have to have plants. You have to produce electricity. We have dammed up all the rivers the enviromentalists would let us dam up and I am in favour of looking at other options. So Hydro-Electricity is out. Wind is so hard to make meaningful so it is a panacea that only yuppies and landowners wont put up with if they have to look at it. Gas is adding CO2...oh god the climate change fringe will freak. We wont go into what coal and oil do. Dirty stuff....so that leaves the Nukes. (Solar is in the R and D phase...not commericially viable..like Wind it is a pancea).

Back to the nukes. First off other than the Russians, no one has ever had a MAJOR accident that put life at any serious risk. You look at nations like France with all the nuclear power they have and look at their infrastructure and their emissions...and you realize it is the best hope. Waste is an issue...but no form of power production comes without a con. NONE. Maybe Tidal..but trying to produce tidal power in the middle of Nebraska or Saskatchewan isn't an option.

You cant make lemonade without squeezing lemons and you cant conserve your way out of this power crunch. Heck...if all these electric cars you guys keep going on about hit the market that power will add MORE demand on the grid.

In short...quit telling me what we cant do and give me real solutions. I am sick and tired of all the whiners out there who protest any solution offered. It is like finding out what my wife doesn't want for dinner when I am taking her out. (Do you like Chinese? No not tonight, BBQ? nooo..Steaks?nooo, Italian? nooo......honey..how about we just go to the field and graze?).

Face the reality. Nuclear power is our least worst option. I can tell from what Kneeslider is saying is the UK needs a Winston Churchill to sound the alarm for the building of more power plants. (Just like Winston was telling parliament in 1933 that sooner or later Herr Hitler was going to rearrange everyone's furniture). Canada is fighting similar issues and in the case of Ontario where all but one of the Nuclear plants is operating in Canada, we have used nukes for years. Safety isn't an problem with the CANDU system since it uses regular U235 and not enriched uranium. That said..we still have waste but it is likely going to a mine deep within the earth in a geologic dead zone. The safety is there for nukes. It is a matter of just getting on with the job. What irritates me more than anything is the objective of the green movement to any solution that they don't come up with any solution that actually involves SOLVING THE DAMNED PROBLEM OF POWER GENERATION!

As I have always said, just not in this thread, there is no golden bullet. I don't like nukes, always happy to say it and I will always be biased against nuclear power. However I do realise that nukes should not be put to the side as they too will be part of the solution. And I still support R&D into nuclear power as it could get better in the future. One of the major problems I have with nuclear is that it does not solve the problem as I see it. I understand that others see a different problem.

The solutions as I see it is a mixed bag that can be tailored to each area. Tidal, wind, geothermal, wave, natural hydrogen generation, pv solar and especially thermal solar will all produce power but we will need 2 or 3 for each geological situation. Solar thermal is the biggest one for me as it is very close to producing base load and even better, load following power. Solar thermal is also very close to the cost of nuclear at the moment and we will see it get even cheaper in the future.

I have always been an economic environmentalist. I think that we should have green power, but that is only feasible if it is economically competitive.

[Jag_Warrior]

There is no such thing as "green" racing.


http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/moxiepix/a2103.jpg

Couldn't resist. :D

Someone gave me the DVD set Rome: Power & Glory for Christmas. Plus, I'd much rather go to a "green" Roman chariot race these days than the Indy 500.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nuclear is the best hope in the near future for clean energy. People don't like it but that is just the reality of it. No Greenhouse gases, and it is the one way of getting power that is reliable in the short term and can make an immediate impact. Wind Farms and Solar farms have yet to reach a point where they are a major supplier and reliable. If demand is up and it is the middle of the night AND not windy, you are looking for other sources.

Green is ok...but you are right Rah. It has to make sense economically. Solar isn't there yet on that score...Wind is..but it is a very slow road to travel with a lot of windmills to build....

[rah]

Nuclear is the best hope in the near future for clean energy. People don't like it but that is just the reality of it. No Greenhouse gases, and it is the one way of getting power that is reliable in the short term and can make an immediate impact. Wind Farms and Solar farms have yet to reach a point where they are a major supplier and reliable. If demand is up and it is the middle of the night AND not windy, you are looking for other sources.

Green is ok...but you are right Rah. It has to make sense economically. Solar isn't there yet on that score...Wind is..but it is a very slow road to travel with a lot of windmills to build....

But solar themal can produce power in the middle of the night, that is the beauty of it. The reason I feel that it is far better than nuclear is that the plants are cheaper and far quicker to build.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rah..if that is the case, why are they not building them? Utility companies are motivated by profit. If these Solar thermal units worked so well and are so cheap, then they would be everywhere. They are not....whereas a lot of the western world uses a lot of Nuclear energy...which isn't always cheap when it is time to do the maintenance on the plants.

[rah]

Rah..if that is the case, why are they not building them? Utility companies are motivated by profit. If these Solar thermal units worked so well and are so cheap, then they would be everywhere. They are not....whereas a lot of the western world uses a lot of Nuclear energy...which isn't always cheap when it is time to do the maintenance on the plants.

The problem with solar themal is variety. There are many plants being built around the world including the USA, however they do not attract the kind of attaention that nuclear plants do. Also while the technology is doing well, there are various different ways to go about this and I think many power companies are waiting to see what works out the best. Still many companies are investing in it as it is a known investment. If they for instance invested in a NG power plant there is no gaurantee that gas prices will not rise. Solar does not have that problem.

There are a few plants being built in California by a few different companies. One plant has been running for 20 years from memory, but the newer plants have the later technology.

Its all down to mirror size and shape, and what medium is the best for storage.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rah...I dont' think it is quite as economically viable nor as feasible as you describe. Not that I wouldn't want it to be...but I suspect this technology doesn't work in climates with snow and wintry weather. If It did...they would be talking about it around here because no one wants to build more nukes but we are against a wall here. We are buying power from Ohio and New York during summer peaks because the grid here is maxed out for production and demand is going up. Since it is a Crown Corporation that produces power in Ontario (owned by the government), and we have a very green oriented Premier, if this techonlogy was viable in this northern clime...they would be breaking ground on it....

[rah]

Rah...I dont' think it is quite as economically viable nor as feasible as you describe. Not that I wouldn't want it to be...but I suspect this technology doesn't work in climates with snow and wintry weather. If It did...they would be talking about it around here because no one wants to build more nukes but we are against a wall here. We are buying power from Ohio and New York during summer peaks because the grid here is maxed out for production and demand is going up. Since it is a Crown Corporation that produces power in Ontario (owned by the government), and we have a very green oriented Premier, if this techonlogy was viable in this northern clime...they would be breaking ground on it....

Absolutely right. Doesn't work everywhere, but where it does work the potential is huge. But I am sure there are other solutions for cold regions such as geothermal. PV solar is quite big in Germany too so that could be an option.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Geothermal has some future..but it wont really work in areas with no heat close to the surface. In Iceland it works great. In the Canadian Shield not likely...

[Easy Drifter]

Geothermal will work in areas with a fair depth of soil. Once you hit the Cdn shield, for example, forget it. Although the heat is there once you are deep enough the cost in an area of granite would be prohibitive. Mountains would be the same. When you get into an area of prema frost the possible damage to the ecology could be scary.
That said geothermal is being tried in parts of southern Ont. At least one major subdivision being built that I know of is going that route. It currently increases the cost of a house by about $10,000 over conventional heating. However, initial cost out lay is recovered over time as you do not have to pay for other forms of heat, or cooling.
Lakehead University, which is building a new campus in Orillia is going Geothermal plus solar panels and all windows will be placed to obtain as much light as possible. They are also intending to use green roof technology for insulation and to reduce rain runoff. Consideration is being given to the possible growning of vegatables on the roofs for cafeteria use. They intend to be as green as current technology allows. Recycling of grey water is also proposed. It is expected the campus will reach an enrolement of 5,000.
Small steps but a good start.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Drifter...UOIT here in town is doing the Green roof thing and using the earth heating but it is small scale and building by building in nature.

IF we are to beat the energy crunch without adding to greenhouse gas, either Nukes or some macrotechnological growth in solar or Geothermal will be need to be advanced.

[Easy Drifter]

I concur that nuclear is probably the best way to go for large quantities of reliable sustainable power. As was discussed earlier every other proposal in Ont. (and most countries) brings out the nimbys, often the same ones sceaming for green power. They just do not want it anywhere near them.
McGuinty was talking about new nuclear power last summer but I haven't heard anything since.
Of course our convoluted enviromental studies and red tape delay every project by years and once they do get started you had better hope they do not find an Indian arrowhead.

[raybak]

11k for a turbine on your house? I think someone's been spinning some good stories :)


Not on my house, but on my farm. Proper turbines, not just toy ones.

Getting wind data done at the moment on the property, hope to install about 50 turbines if possible.

Ray

[Daniel]

Not on my house, but on my farm. Proper turbines, not just toy ones.

Getting wind data done at the moment on the property, hope to install about 50 turbines if possible.

Ray

Fair enough. Can you sell power back to the grid for retail prices in Australia? We can here.

[Daniel]

But solar themal can produce power in the middle of the night, that is the beauty of it. The reason I feel that it is far better than nuclear is that the plants are cheaper and far quicker to build.

I think renewable energy technologies really need to look at ways of storing energy. Solar thermal is a good way of doing it as is pumped storage. I think that storing energy is the key to making renewables a good option

[Daniel]

I concur that nuclear is probably the best way to go for large quantities of reliable sustainable power. As was discussed earlier every other proposal in Ont. (and most countries) brings out the nimbys, often the same ones sceaming for green power. They just do not want it anywhere near them.

Amen to that.

[schmenke]

Stored solar technology has a long way to go before it's sufficiently perfected to be applied large scale.
With current technologies, wind and solar have no where near the capacity to provide for the civilised world's current consumption levels.
Unortunately, nukes is the only viable option.

[steve_spackman]

Stored solar technology has a long way to go before it's sufficiently perfected to be applied large scale.
With current technologies, wind and solar have no where near the capacity to provide for the civilised world's current consumption levels.
Unortunately, nukes is the only viable option.

ive seen loads a wind farms on my travels through England..plus im sure that wind farms are also big in places like the scandinavian countries??

[Daniel]

Stored solar technology has a long way to go before it's sufficiently perfected to be applied large scale.
With current technologies, wind and solar have no where near the capacity to provide for the civilised world's current consumption levels.
Unortunately, nukes is the only viable option.

I smell a rat! What industry do you work in Schmenke? :p

Only kidding ;)

Steve :) There are a few windfarms but in terms of capacity they really do lag behind coal, gas and nucular. We're getting a couple of hundred turbines off the coast here in North Wales which will give capacity but the problem with that is when the wind isn't blowing you'll need coal, gas and nucular to generate electricity.

[schmenke]

Steve, there are two inherent problems with wind generation:
1. Thousands of acres of wind farms would be needed to provide reliable energy to a medium-sized city, and;
2. The power generation is not constant; Electricity is generated only when the climatic conditions are favourable, i.e. when the wind blows.

The situation is very similar for solar generation :mark:

Currently, world-wide, wind and solar contribute to less than 5% of global energy production :mark:

[schmenke]

I smell a rat! What industry do you work in Schmenke? :p ...

Burn baby, burn! ;) :p :

[Easy Drifter]

Wind Power not only has to rely on the wind blowing at a reasonable speed to produce power but not blowing too hard. I forget the speed above which wind turbines have to be shut down but I have seen videos where the 'feathering' mechanism failed. Sooner or later a blade will then fail and the result invariably is the collapse of the tower with debris spread over a considerable distance.
Properly located turbines will provide power but one must remember that if they and/or solar are not producing power then a back up must be in place.
You cannot start up any coal, gas or nuclear plant by throwing a switch. Those plants must be operational wether or not the other sources are supplying power or not.
While by no means perfect nuclear seems to be the best way to go for large scale demands at present.

[Daniel]

Wind Power not only has to rely on the wind blowing at a reasonable speed to produce power but not blowing too hard. I forget the speed above which wind turbines have to be shut down but I have seen videos where the 'feathering' mechanism failed. Sooner or later a blade will then fail and the result invariably is the collapse of the tower with debris spread over a considerable distance.
Properly located turbines will provide power but one must remember that if they and/or solar are not producing power then a back up must be in place.
You cannot start up any coal, gas or nuclear plant by throwing a switch. Those plants must be operational wether or not the other sources are supplying power or not.
While by no means perfect nuclear seems to be the best way to go for large scale demands at present.

The braking mechanism will have also failed too. Turbines feather the blades, turn out of the wind and also brake themselves in high wind. I think the maximum windspeed in which wind turbines will operate in is about 50mph which isn't all that common really.

and in other news
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Green+Business+Generator+is+Hungry+for+Your+Tr ash/article13989.htm

[Daniel]

Steve, there are two inherent problems with wind generation:
1. Thousands of acres of wind farms would be needed to provide reliable energy to a medium-sized city, and;
2. The power generation is not constant; Electricity is generated only when the climatic conditions are favourable, i.e. when the wind blows.

The situation is very similar for solar generation :mark:

Currently, world-wide, wind and solar contribute to less than 5% of global energy production :mark:

Well the goal in the UK is only 10%

Was up late last night watching crappy shows on Discovery and National Geographic and saw this ----> http://www.aerotecture.com/products_520H.html which looked very interesting and seemed to work very well in city areas and didn't require huge amounts of wind to generate power as well as being low profile as well. They also had these http://www.aerotecture.com/products_510V.html which also looked as if they'd work very well in areas where there was no prevailing wind direction.

[ShiftingGears]

While nuclear is definitely a good idea for alternative energy, the movement of wastes could cause a bit of difficulty.
Secondly, the best place for storing nuclear waste (ignoring NIMBY arguments), would be, somewhere in the outback (dry, isolated, geologically stable, politically stable).

Only problem with this is, there's no containment facility in the Australian Desert. No state wants to build it.

[rah]

Stored solar technology has a long way to go before it's sufficiently perfected to be applied large scale.
With current technologies, wind and solar have no where near the capacity to provide for the civilised world's current consumption levels.
Unortunately, nukes is the only viable option.

Sorry, cant disagree more. There are plenty of large scale thermal solar power stations being built or in experimental stages. It will only take another 5 years or so to have it perfected. Then we can start bashing them out to replace existing power plants. To some extent more power will be centralised in the regions that can produce the power, but other forms of power generation can supplement in other areas. Nuke's take too long to build and cost too much money.

[schmenke]

Sorry, cant disagree more. There are plenty of large scale thermal solar power stations being built or in experimental stages. It will only take another 5 years or so to have it perfected. Then we can start bashing them out to replace existing power plants. To some extent more power will be centralised in the regions that can produce the power, but other forms of power generation can supplement in other areas. Nuke's take too long to build and cost too much money.

Rah, it's not as simple as that. You simply can't "bash out" solar power generation stations to replace existing plants. Solar plants have very specific practical and logistical problems that make them impractical in most sitations:
- Large open areas are required that make solar generating stations impossible to build in proximity to populated areas (where the power is most required). As such they are constructed where land is not only available, but doesn't compete with the growing demand for food crops. Because they are constructed away from populated areas, long high voltage transmission lines are required to bring the electricity into cities. HV lines are subject to "line loss" where some of the voltage potential is lost to heat.
- The output per hectare figures are extremely poor for solar plants. The solar "field" of one of the largest plants currently under construction in Arizona will consume approximately 5km2, producing 280MW of electricity. That equates to approximately 0.5MW output per hectare of "stored" fuel. Compare this to the land consumed by a heap of coal, let's be generous and assume 0.5 hectares, used by a fossil-fuel plant which can easily prodcue 1,000MW; this equates to 2,000MW per hectare :mark: Because a fossil-fuel plant can be constructed closer to a populated area, there is minimal line loss with the transmission lines.
- Electricity is generated only when the sun shines. I would not want to rely on a solar plant to heat my Canadian home in the darkness of winter when the ambient temperature is -20C :s Stored solar technology is still a long way from being perfected.

[Jag_Warrior]

I looked at a few solar options when I built this house a couple of years ago. But every (full) system I looked at seemed cost prohibitive. I wish now that I'd looked a bit harder. I might have gone for the solar hot water heater. $5000 up front, but I believe there are still tax breaks. If Obama offers a high enough tax credit for existing homes, I might make the switch. I'm in an ideal location for solar and wind.

Seeing this thread made me search around a bit. It seems that Hawaii is requiring solar hot water systems on new construction beginning next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24468002/

[Daniel]

I looked at a few solar options when I built this house a couple of years ago. But every (full) system I looked at seemed cost prohibitive. I wish now that I'd looked a bit harder. I might have gone for the solar hot water heater. $5000 up front, but I believe there are still tax breaks. If Obama offers a high enough tax credit for existing homes, I might make the switch. I'm in an ideal location for solar and wind.

Seeing this thread made me search around a bit. It seems that Hawaii is requiring solar hot water systems on new construction beginning next year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24468002/
We've been doing solar hot water well in Australia for aaaaaaaages.

If you get lots of sun then solar hot water is just such a good idea. I wouldn't put one on our house here in the UK but my parents have one on their house and when their old one died in 2002 (was probably 20 or so years old) or so they got it replaced on a hot day and later that day we had scalding hot water coming out of the tap. Even on a cloudy day it still heats the water up a little bit and an hour or so on the elctric booster brings it up to temperature :)

www.solahart.com.au (http://www.solahart.com.au) and they seem to be available in the US. I'd hazard a guess that a few Aussie forumers have a Solahart system on their roof :)

[schmenke]

Installed on my roof it would make a dandy ice-maker ;)

[Daniel]

Installed on my roof it would make a dandy ice-maker ;)

:p

No such problems back in Perth :p Lowest it's ever been is something like -.5

I always laugh when I see people in the UK with any sort of solar hot water heater on their roof :laugh:

[Dave B]

I always laugh when I see people in the UK with any sort of solar hot water heater on their roof :laugh:
Usually pensioners who fell for a door-to-door salesman's claims that they would recoup the cost in a few years (can also seen on the roof of Conservative leaders who like to jump on any passing bandwagon if it saves them for actually having to formulate a coherent policy).

[Jag_Warrior]

We've been doing solar hot water well in Australia for aaaaaaaages.

If you get lots of sun then solar hot water is just such a good idea. I wouldn't put one on our house here in the UK but my parents have one on their house and when their old one died in 2002 (was probably 20 or so years old) or so they got it replaced on a hot day and later that day we had scalding hot water coming out of the tap. Even on a cloudy day it still heats the water up a little bit and an hour or so on the elctric booster brings it up to temperature :)

www.solahart.com.au (http://www.solahart.com.au) and they seem to be available in the US. I'd hazard a guess that a few Aussie forumers have a Solahart system on their roof :)

I'm perched on a ridge ahead of a mountain. Other than cloudy days of course, I get lots of sun and wind all through the year. I've read that as much as 30% of an electric bill can be for heating the hot water, so this probably would be a good, cost effective idea. It would take several years to recover the initial cost, but with a large enough tax credit, I think it would be worth it.

[Daniel]

Usually pensioners who fell for a door-to-door salesman's claims that they would recoup the cost in a few years (can also seen on the roof of Conservative leaders who like to jump on any passing bandwagon if it saves them for actually having to formulate a coherent policy).

Or daft people who just think they're being green. We went to the centre for alternative technology (www.cat.org.uk/ (http://www.cat.org.uk/)) and they had an old radiator on a roof as a display and it was on a not too cloudy day dispensing water that wouldn't even pass for being lukewarm :mark: I think when PV cells get cheaper they might be a viable option for people here in the UK but I think generally solar anything is not going to be a great option unless we start having summers like we had in 2006 every single year and that doesn't seem to be happening now does it? :p

[schmenke]

I'm perched on a ridge ahead of a mountain. Other than cloudy days of course, I get lots of sun and wind all through the year. I've read that as much as 30% of an electric bill can be for heating the hot water, so this probably would be a good, cost effective idea. It would take several years to recover the initial cost, but with a large enough tax credit, I think it would be worth it.

Jag, what's the coldest the ambient temps get in your neck of the woods?

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, what's the coldest the ambient temps get in your neck of the woods?

It got down to single digits (F) for several nights this week. From late January-February, we can expect to see several nights that will be 15-25 degrees F.

[Daniel]

I'm perched on a ridge ahead of a mountain. Other than cloudy days of course, I get lots of sun and wind all through the year. I've read that as much as 30% of an electric bill can be for heating the hot water, so this probably would be a good, cost effective idea. It would take several years to recover the initial cost, but with a large enough tax credit, I think it would be worth it.

Well it's certainly proven technology :) They used to basically run the water through the panels and up into the water tank but these days Solaharts or at least the one on my parents house use a sort of coolant like solution through the panels as it's more efficient at absorbing heat from the sun which then flows up into the tank you can see which is insulated. Inside this tank is the actual water tank. It has a backup electric system to boost the water when there is no sunshine of course :)

What sort of average temps do you get there and what are the usual minimum temps do you get? When you start getting temps over 25-30 degrees or so and a lot of sunshine you can pretty much forget having to boost the water unless you have a big family. It has a big storage tank so a few cloudy days won't necessarily mean you'll have to boost the water either. With a family of 5 and our old less efficient Solahart my parents pretty much didn't need to heat any water all summer.

[Hondo]

A short, enjoyable interview with James Lovelock. It's worth the 5 minutes it takes to read it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

[Daniel]

A short, enjoyable interview with James Lovelock. It's worth the 5 minutes it takes to read it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

Personally I think he sounds a bit alarmist. Interesting nonetheless :)

[Hondo]

Personally I think he sounds a bit alarmist. Interesting nonetheless :)


I admit he sounds alarmist, but proposes a solution that does not require a huge expansion of government and even huger amounts of taxpayer cash.

No wonder he's not popular with the government.