Solar and Wind Power Fees for Oklahomans

[sauerkraut]

They had stories back  in the 1950's when nuclear power was coming of age, they said things like: "with nuclear power electric would be so cheap you would not even need a meter to measure your useage" or something  to that effect. The oppiset turned out to be true. I can tell ya this anything green will not be cheap- even recycling makes things more costly.

[Townsend]

They had stories back  in the 1950's when nuclear power was coming of age, they said things like: "with nuclear power electric would be so cheap you would not even need a meter to measure your useage" or something  to that effect. The oppiset turned out to be true. I can tell ya this anything green will not be cheap- even recycling makes things more costly.

holy smile balls...seriously

[Hoss]

holy smile balls...seriously

Don't encourage him.  It's like talking to cardboard.  Seriously.

[RecycleMichael]

... even recycling makes things more costly.

No. It doesn't when you add in the savings from avoiding trash costs.

I am not sure you are a good spokesperson for each of the topics you feel compelled to write about.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The first part of that sentence is almost true - nuclear was sold as "it's gonna be so cheap..."


I suspect the only thing that has the potential to be that will be fusion.  And that is "20 years away"....  as it has been for 60 years.



The economic disruptions of that type of cheap energy would be catastrophic if allowed to play out in a free market.  But it never will be so we got nuttin' to worry about.

[sgrizzle]

Nuclear generation is cheap. It's all the environmental, regulation and safety that makes it expensive.

[Conan71]

Nuclear generation is cheap. It's all the environmental, regulation and safety that makes it expensive.

Oh come on, cut the crap.  We all know government regulation and environmental compliance don't affect the cost of goods or services.

[sgrizzle]

Oh come on, cut the crap.  We all know government regulation and environmental compliance don't affect the cost of goods or services.

On the internet, it looks like you said that with a straight face.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nuclear generation is cheap. It's all the environmental, regulation and safety that makes it expensive.

No.  It is not.  And getting more expensive all the time, since the uranium mines are all getting played out or filling with water - but that may be a lesson the industry learned from big oil - cry shortage to keep the price up.  (About $30 a lb this week for uranium).  And Russia had a limited number of warheads we could buy to convert to nuke fuel, that source is approaching "end of life" - but they mine a lot, so maybe it will stay cheap....??


And somehow, even with all that "unwarranted government intrusion" (safety, environmental, and the RWRE favorite - regulation, etc) they just can't seem to get around that whole "low-bid" mentality that gives us the "best" nuke design of the time (Mississauga Station, Ontario Hydro), that can't even get through startup without a near meltdown back in the 80's.  Turns out, when they opened up the reactor to compare over 14,000 x-rays of welds made in the part that melted and slumped - breaking and leaking - they could only find just under 5,000 actual welds.... I bet the WeldEaterUnion came in during the night and spirited them all away.....

[nathanm]

As to the transmission losses you mention - yes.  Huge!  If another set of wires the same size was added to every transmission line in the country we would not need any more new power plants for a long time (15% losses).  If double again, then 7% losses, and so on.  The problem is the cost of that wiring - even using aluminum, it is more cost effective to just build another power plant.  Amazing isn't it?

I dislike your solution because building new power plants can indeed reduce transmission losses by a lot, if they are sited properly. You can't really do that with coal, but it's perfectly reasonable to put natural gas and renewables close to cities where possible. Point is, it's cheaper to put solar panels on people's roof than it is to double the amount of wire in each HV transmission line, especially when you consider that skin effect means that you actually have to double the surface area, meaning you are more than doubling the volume of the wire. Unless they've started making tubular conductors?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I dislike your solution because building new power plants can indeed reduce transmission losses by a lot, if they are sited properly. You can't really do that with coal, but it's perfectly reasonable to put natural gas and renewables close to cities where possible. Point is, it's cheaper to put solar panels on people's roof than it is to double the amount of wire in each HV transmission line, especially when you consider that skin effect means that you actually have to double the surface area, meaning you are more than doubling the volume of the wire. Unless they've started making tubular conductors?

Last first - yes there are tubular conductors - aluminum tubes filled with steel wire to support, but I don't remember ever seeing one one a long distance transmission line.

I'm with you on solar - I am gonna build a house and plan to be able to go off-grid as much as possible with solar and at least one small (1 kw) windmill that I am going to build myself.  (www.otherpower.com).

And building plants closer will still give 30% losses, just over a shorter distance - which is still a 30% loss.  There are power plants on the river, Coweta, Oologah....all fairly close to the city.  They still loose power through the wires.  It is cheaper to throw away 30% of the power than to put the size wire that would reduce the losses - MBA present/future value of money analysis'.

In like fashion, all the drilling in North Dakota has led to the situation where gas is being flared at a mind numbing rate - over $1 Billion worth in 2012.  Yes, that is a B.  You know the royalty owners gotta love not getting paid for that....   in fact, they have filed suit to get paid for it, which they should.  It is gas coming out of the ground, so what the company does with it is their business - either flare or ship, but it is still being produced.

Think of all that gas going just to heat the outdoors of the state.  Wonderful.  Can anyone spell "greenhouse gases"...??

https://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/new-report-north-dakota-natural-gas-flaring-more-than-doubles-in-two-years

[heironymouspasparagus]

There is something for The Artist at the Otherpower site....  Art Deco!!   Kinda....


http://www.otherpower.com/solar-what-is-MPPT

[patric]

The first part of that sentence is almost true - nuclear was sold as "it's gonna be so cheap..."

[nathanm]

And building plants closer will still give 30% losses, just over a shorter distance - which is still a 30% loss.  There are power plants on the river, Coweta, Oologah....all fairly close to the city.  They still loose power through the wires.  It is cheaper to throw away 30% of the power than to put the size wire that would reduce the losses - MBA present/future value of money analysis'.

The resistance loss is not a flat amount. Resistance in a particular conductor (and thus the amount of energy dissipated as heat) is related to the amperage carried and the length of the wire. A foot of wire has a thousandth the resistance of a thousand feet of the same wire at the same voltage and amperage, thus a thousandth of the loss. (ignoring the effects of capacitance, anyway) Reducing the average transmission distance is the easiest way to reduce resistive losses, but higher voltage transmission helps by reducing the amperage carried by the wire, as does switching to HVDC, since DC isn't subject to the skin effect.

There is also the loss in converting heat into rotational energy and then into electricity, which is fixed in any given plant barring swapping out the boiler or heat exchanger.

[sgrizzle]

Point is, it's cheaper to put solar panels on people's roof than it is to double the amount of wire in each HV transmission line...

Solar/Wind is unreliable (to quote an OKC paper) power. Just because it's cloudy or calm, it doesn't make us use 30% less power. All the solar and wind plants do is let some traditional burners idle. The conventional producers still have to be capable of providing 24/7 capacity to every home and business.