Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

[Samsung4321]

You cannot mount enough solar panels on an airplane.

Actually done: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/arti...solar-impulse-climate-scn-spc-intl/index.html

Synthetic liquid fuel made using atmospheric carbon dioxide, water and PV electricity would be more energetically efficient than growing canola but not as financially efficient. Canola wastes ~99% of sunlight; PV wastes 80%.

 

[NW-Bound]

Actually done: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/arti...solar-impulse-climate-scn-spc-intl/index.html

I meant airplanes that can carry hundreds of passengers. Like the ones we now have that let anyone with a few hundred bucks to travel to Europe.

 

[Samsung4321]

I meant airplanes that can carry hundreds of passengers. Like the ones we now have that let anyone with a few hundred bucks to travel to Europe.

I presumed so.

Part aeroplane, part dirigible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_airship

Surface fabricated from thin film PV?

With drag proportional to velocity^2, likely could fly at ~ 115 km / h?

5,500 km NY to Lisbon = 2 days.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airlander-10-air-nostrum/index.html

 

[NW-Bound]

Airships don't go too fast, but I guess it beats taking a ship across the Atlantic. And it most likely will cost more than a few hundred bucks to travel.

When you have to feed passengers for a few nights and give them a berth to sleep in, it has to cost more.

 

[Samsung4321]

When you have to feed passengers for a few nights and give them a berth to sleep in, it has to cost more.

Nothing special, just light weight high energy sandwiches and some additional restraining straps in the "wellness zones" for the flightier fliers:

. "Qantas' test flight from New York to Sydney in 2019 was completed in 19 hours and 16 minutes:
. "Cabins will be fitted with "wellness zones" for exercise"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05...ights-from-sydney-to-london-and-nyc/101029912

139 hours / 6 days by non-stop dirigible.

 

[NW-Bound]

139 hours / 6 days by non-stop dirigible.

No more 1-week long vacation.

Oh, there will be a new method of travel: riding a rocket from one spaceport to another one on earth in one hour or something like that.

What cuckoo thought of something like that? Where to get the fuel for rockets when people don't have enough heat for their homes?

 

[Koolau]

It's the holy grail for sun and wind energy.

I wonder how effective it is to harvest the sun energy by growing crop, then get vegetable oil to use in diesel engines.

There is an effort to make biofuel for jet airplanes, but I have not seen anything about the economics of that approach.

IIRC HI set a number of FF reductions by such and such date. Also IIRC they tried importing palm oil (IIRC to burn for e-power.) Again, IIRC, we found out that those growing palm oil simply slashed and burned land to make available more land for growing or too less productive land and grew palm oil.

Here is what I could find on the subject.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/u...-company-halts-palm-oil-use-in-power-stations

The point being is that you can't fool mother nature. The Earth simply will not supply enough crops to replace FFs. Wind and solar seem better options but we already know about their limitations. One more time - it's complicated but YMMV.

 

[Texas Proud]

Let's just go straight to fusion... by 2030... we can mandate it!!!


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/science/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough.html

 

[Samsung4321]

importing palm oil (IIRC to burn for e-power.) Again, IIRC, we found out that those growing palm oil simply slashed and burned land to make available more land for growing or too less productive land and grew palm oil.

Here is what I could find on the subject.

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/u...-company-halts-palm-oil-use-in-power-stations

Bagasse: recycling crop residue:
https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About/Pages/Accountability%20and%20reporting/Administrative%20Reports/The%20Renewable%20Energy%20Target%202015%20Administrative%20Report/Feature---Bagasse-recycling-crop-residue.aspx

https://afribary.com/works/palm-oil-and-palm-waste-potential-in-nigeria

Better to burn crop waste for power production but that requires investment and does not produce power where consumers can pay for it. Does not produce much power relative to cropping area.

 

[Alan]

The UK produces a lot of its renewable electricity from biomass but that still doesn’t necessarily cut down much on CO2 emissions.

The 'green' row over the UK's largest renewable power plant https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59546281

The scale of operations at this converted coal plant is gargantuan. It's the UK's largest renewable power station. Wood pellets are imported from the US on enormous ships that take up to 21 days in transit. They are then transported overland via rail, and Drax receives about 17 deliveries of wood pellets a day, operating 24 hours a day, six days a week.

Once inside, the pellets are pulverised into a powder, blown into boilers and then burnt. The steam from this process powers turbines that produce electricity.

In 2020, Drax generated 11% of the UK's renewable power - enough for four million homes. While the UK is by far the largest consumer of wood pellets, globally, biomass is a massive industry that is growing in value and reach.

Yet, Drax's green credentials have been comprehensively challenged by environmentalists and others recently. The climate think tank, Ember, calculates that the power station is now the UK's single largest source of carbon dioxide. The firm's share price weakened on this news breaking although it has subsequently regained ground. The stock was removed from the S&P Global Clean Energy Index in October after the index changed its methodology.

 

[Koolau]

^^^^^^^^

Reading the two articles on "why" the burring of wood biomass "isn't" carbon neutral seems totally bogus and typical of hard core environmentalists. The argument that has some merit is that the biomass has to be shipped from the source of harvest to the place of burning. That obviously adds some CO2 to the environment. BUT (at least in the articles) the extent of additional CO2 is never documented. That should be easy to figure.

Having said that, coal/oil/gas are also "shipped" from point of production to point of burning. So, realistically, it's a matter of how much additional CO2 is produced in shipping. Apple to apples. No one has done that calculation.

The worst flaw is found in the attached article https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59546278

Quote - "A growing number of scientists and policymakers understand that biomass is not an instantaneously carbon-neutral source of renewable energy. Mr Carter says it is a "simplistic notion" that trees are a renewable resource. Trees cut for biomass can take 30-100 years to fully grow back. Even if they store some carbon as they grow - the maximum amount of carbon dioxide is only absorbed by fully mature trees." - end Quote.

I wonder where these "scientists" think the CO2 that formed the trees over the PAST 30 - 100 years came from? True, it might take 30 to 100 years to take the CO2 from the atmosphere but the CO2 released was laid down over the previous 30 to 100 years. Typical accounting for folks that don't like for anything to be burned - Period.

 

[Samsung4321]

The UK produces a lot of its renewable electricity from biomass but that still doesn’t necessarily cut down much on CO2 emissions.

"estimated annual total of 7.5 million tonnes in 2017. This is equivalent to two-thirds of Europe's entire energy biomass consumption in 2010, and requires 1,200,000 ha (4,600 sq mi; 12,000 km2) of forest to supply on a continuous basis"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station

7,500,000 t / y
1,000 kg / t
7,500,000,000 kg / y

12,000 km^2
1,000,000 m^2 / km^2
12,000,000,000 m^2

0.6 kg / m^2 / y

15 MJ / kg
9 MJ / m^2 / y

3.6 MJ / kWh
2.5 kWh / m^2 / y

Inefficient obsolete technology. Better to cut and burn trees then replace with PV - to produce ~50 times as much power - except that biomass can be stored and burnt on demand.

 

[NW-Bound]

... except that biomass can be stored and burnt on demand.

Again, lack of storage is the bane of solar and wind energy.

 

[Chuckanut]

The worst flaw is found in the attached article https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59546278

Quote - "A growing number of scientists and policymakers understand that biomass is not an instantaneously carbon-neutral source of renewable energy. Mr Carter says it is a "simplistic notion" that trees are a renewable resource. Trees cut for biomass can take 30-100 years to fully grow back. Even if they store some carbon as they grow - the maximum amount of carbon dioxide is only absorbed by fully mature trees." - end Quote.

I recall reading that newly planted trees remove far more carbon from the atmosphere since they are increasing their mass far more quickly than a mature tree. A mature tree may hold more carbon in it, but a newly planted growing tree removes more carbon from the atmosphere today.

The above sounds reasonable to me, but I am ignorant in regards to tree growth, so perhaps others can add a more knowledgeable comment. A lot of things that make sense to the ignorant are often not correct.

 

[explanade]

Yeah how are wood pellets different than burning lumber as far as CO2 emissions.

As far as shipping, I saw a stat cited that 35-40% of all shipping volume is for oil.

 

[NW-Bound]

As I often say, when it comes down to freezing to death or burn something, people choose the latter.

I am fortunate to be in a place where it's easier to use solar power to run AC to avoid being roasted to death in the summer, than trying to use solar+wind power to avoid freezing in the winter.

Hence, I don't judge people who don't have the option I do.

 

[Gumby]

Seems to me that the strongest advocates of the "freeze to death in the dark" strategy are rarely the ones who face any realistic possibility of actually doing so. But that's just human nature, I suppose.

 

[Koolau]

I recall reading that newly planted trees remove far more carbon from the atmosphere since they are increasing their mass far more quickly than a mature tree. A mature tree may hold more carbon in it, but a newly planted growing tree removes more carbon from the atmosphere today.

The above sounds reasonable to me, but I am ignorant in regards to tree growth, so perhaps others can add a more knowledgeable comment. A lot of things that make sense to the ignorant are often not correct.

I was gonna mention that as well but do not have a source so YMMV.

 

[Koolau]

Seems to me that the strongest advocates of the "freeze to death in the dark" strategy are rarely the ones who face any realistic possibility of actually doing so. But that's just human nature, I suppose.

Yeah, I just get a bit frustrated when folks poo-poo virtually any potential solution - wood for instance - because it's still "burning" something. There is always a constituency that doesn't want ANY energy replacements - but they still want to stop oil, coal, nukes, etc. NIMBY is only one issue for such folks it would seem. The "solution" to some folks is "use less." That's great. I do that already. My electric and gasoline bills over the years prove that (not that I'm PAYING less - I'm just USING less units.) I'm not certain how much "less" I can realistically use.

Returning you now...

 

[explanade]

Who are these people advocating for "freezing in the dark?"

When the storms around Christmas knocked out power for a million people, which sources of electricity were most impacted?

 

[Koolau]

Who are these people advocating for "freezing in the dark?"

When the storms around Christmas knocked out power for a million people, which sources of electricity were most impacted?

Heh, heh, not goin' there.

 

[ERD50]

Who are these people advocating for "freezing in the dark?"

When the storms around Christmas knocked out power for a million people, which sources of electricity were most impacted?

Let me guess, the ones that produce the most electricity?

Got any links for what your are referring to?

-ERD50

 

[Samsung4321]

I recall reading that newly planted trees remove far more carbon from the atmosphere since they are increasing their mass far more quickly than a mature tree. A mature tree may hold more carbon in it, but a newly planted growing tree removes more carbon from the atmosphere today.

The above sounds reasonable to me, but I am ignorant in regards to tree growth, so perhaps others can add a more knowledgeable comment. A lot of things that make sense to the ignorant are often not correct.

Blue gum, Eucalyptus Globulus, is a fast growing hardwood extensively grown for wood chipping.

Typically harvested at 10 years, when the rate of change of wood volume per hectare per year is maximal:

"The nominal 700, 500, and 400 stems per hectare (sph) plots were thinned to waste 3.2 years after establishment while the nominal 1000 sph (UTH) plots were left unthinned."

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/11/415/htm

20 m^3 / ha / y
1 t / m^3
20 t / ha / y
1,000 kg / t
20,000 kg / ha / y
10,000 m^2 / ha
2 kg / m^2 / y

15 MJ / kg
30 MJ / m^2 / y

3.6 MJ / kWh
8.3 kWh / m^2 / y

 

[NW-Bound]

The weather in CA has been terrible. Out of curiosity I looked at the PG&E electric outage map, and saw several areas without power for more than a week.

Then, I looked at their weather info, and saw that they did not have much sunshine either. It means that even if they had an off-grid solar system with battery storage like mine for a backup, if it did not get blown away by strong winds, it would produce such puny power that may be barely enough to keep a fridge working.

It's not easy to keep a small generator running for several days. It will take 4-5 gallons per day. You cannot store enough gasoline to keep it running for a week. And with flooded roads, it's not easy to go get fuel every day either.

Oh man, we all take a lot of things for granted.

 

[Samsung4321]

an off-grid solar system with battery storage like mine for a backup, if it did not get blown away by strong winds, it would produce such puny power that may be barely enough to keep a fridge working.

It's not easy to keep a small generator running for several days. It will take 4-5 gallons per day. You cannot store enough gasoline to keep it running for a week. And with flooded roads, it's not easy to go get fuel every day either.

Pre electrical grid: ammonia / water absorption cycle kerosene powered 'fridge plus 'free light' wind turbine & lead acid batteries. While listening, turn off the lights and read by the light of the valve radio.

Or just keep an extra small efficient electrically powered freezer, or in cold weather, keep the food frozen outside, hang the washed clothes outside to freeze dry.