How Do We Solve Our Energy Problems?

[sparky]

Opining as a tradesman

solving our energy problems requires >


1)a lifestyle change.

People need to be more aware of their consumption, aware of waste, and frivolus abuse. This is a mindset you'll find in other countries (because of sheer economics) , or with the off grid contingent.

2)individual harvesting.

The proliferation of individual grid tie true sine wave inverters /batteryless net metering are proving themselves to be the best bang for the $$$. Trust me, both the original Net meter law (circa '77) , as well as the true sine wave inverters were fought tooth and nail for years (the TSI via the NRTL's here)

Anything big energy lobbies against is worth a look folks, because they LIE TO YOU on a regular basis. I've done enough installs, I've seen how it works for people, I've read up on it all & followed the horsesh*t politics involved


In fact, you'll find most states have a rebate system for alt energy, some rather generous, but you don't see this front page news, do you? That's because if even every 4th home in the USA invested $5 in net metering, Big energy would be limping

The Big Fukushima Lie Flies High | Common Dreams

 

[RGR]

We could help a bit by using geothermal heat exchange systems to START out with air that is 55 degrees.

If I was convinced that I was going to stay in my house, I think I might seriously look into adding such a heat exchange system to the homestead.

Here's a place to start looking into this as one small part of the overall solution

http://www.mcquay.com/mcquaybiz/literature/lit_systems/AppGuide/AG_31-008_Geothermal_021607b.pdf

iirc, most Geo requires a well @ 30gpm and up....

and $200 month in electricity from the grid to run all the pumps, year round. Versus just summers to run direct A/C and even if you throw in the cost of natural gas heat in the winter. I don't understand why the system doesn't work better, i.e. cheaper, than a more traditional setup.

 

[mmelena]

Forget Geothermal -- It's a very dirty and actually NOT renewable mining operation with worse enviromental aspects than extracting nat gas or coal.. The wells DO cool out and corrode everything man put into them. And there's a circle of death around any of these operations with chances of blow-outs and toxic fumes and waste water. But it's GREEN!!!!! So it's Okee-DOkee...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geothermal energy is indeed renewable and can be done just about anywhere. Additionally, they do not create any pollution. The most harmful environmental effect is gasses being released from the earth in the process, but they are not that harmful and can be contained easily. They also require less land than extracting natural gas or coal and are significantly more environmentally friendly and the operations are less expensive.

 

[editec]

I'm all for all forms of energy. As for controversial forms such as nuclear energy, it's up to the insurance companies to sort out "dangerous" sources. If it's too dangerous, then it will be too expensive to ensure.

If subsidies were removed, then the market will naturally correct itself.

One of the "subsidies" that cannot be removed if one wants NUCLEAR power is the legal subsidy given to providers of nuclear power.

That is the legal limit on how much nuclear power companies will be responsible for in the event of a nuclear disaster.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.

 

[flacaltenn]

Forget Geothermal -- It's a very dirty and actually NOT renewable mining operation with worse enviromental aspects than extracting nat gas or coal.. The wells DO cool out and corrode everything man put into them. And there's a circle of death around any of these operations with chances of blow-outs and toxic fumes and waste water. But it's GREEN!!!!! So it's Okee-DOkee...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MMelena::

Geothermal energy is indeed renewable and can be done just about anywhere. Additionally, they do not create any pollution. The most harmful environmental effect is gasses being released from the earth in the process, but they are not that harmful and can be contained easily. They also require less land than extracting natural gas or coal and are significantly more environmentally friendly and the operations are less expensive.

Got to ask what H.S. textbook you got that impression from? Are we talking about steam extraction turbines working a geothermal hotspot? Here's what it really looks like...

http://www.interpac.net/~plntpuna/geothermal/geothermal risks.htm

The following letter is from the EPA commenting on a draft report concerning
the Emergency Response Plan that is Pacific Geothermal Ventures is required to have in place and approved in order to have a permit to operate their (nominal) 35 Megawatt geothermal powerplant. Its primary point is that HYDROGEN SULFIDE, especially, as well as RADON 222 and other toxins are a major danger to the people near the plant.

In the case of a major blowout, where there is massive release of geothermal
gases to the open air, the LETHAL Radius around the PGV plant has been estimated at between 4 1/2 and 8 1/2 Miles

Don't take my word for it. How about the Sierra Club? (who is somewhat schizoid about this because they really WANT to defend the environment, but don't want to piss off their leftist loony sponsors)

Sierra Club Conservation Policies - Geothermal Energy

The Sierra Club recognizes that geothermal energy is a
potentially plentiful and favorable energy source. The heat
energy stored beneath the surface of the Earth is vast, and
could itself, if available, supply all of the energy needs of
humankind. Its availability for direct use and for conversion
to other forms of energy is, however, presently restricted to
the utilization of naturally occurring underground reservoirs
of hot water or steam. These are limited in number and
capacity, generally depletable, and in many cases
geographically situated far from sites of energy demand. Also, the exploitation of these reservoirs is frequently
accompanied by detrimental impacts on the environment.
Among these are the emission of toxic gases and chemical
substances which result in the degradation of air quality,
the threat of water pollution, damage to living organisms,
and hazards to public health. Additional problems arise from
the heavily industrial character of geothermal operations for
electrical generation; the frequent occurrence of exceptional
natural, scenic, and archaeological values in geothermal
resource areas; and the adverse effects that geothermal
fluid removal may have on nearby hot springs and other
natural thermal features.

You still there mmelena? Didya catch the part about "generally depletable".. That means you have to drill new wells to keep capturing the heat. THat is if the toxic crap doesn't melt your mining operation first.

One more -- just to put this puppy to bed...

http://www.ew.govt.nz/ourenvironment/geothermal/energy.htm

Although only a fraction of geothermal energy is currently used, the environmental effects have been dramatic.

Since the 1950s, the number of geysers in the Region has dwindled because of heat and fluid extraction and the effects of overlying land uses. When water extraction prevents pressure from reaching the level necessary to fuel the geysers, they disappear. Likewise, many chloride springs and their associated ecosystems have been lost with the development of the Wairakei Geothermal Power Station.

Use our map to find out more about the state of geothermal features in the Waikato Region. The extraction of heat and fluid also causes land subsidence. For example, a local marae near Ohaaki Geothermal Power Station is sinking and runs the risk of being inundated by the Waikato River, as the ground around and under it subsides.

Effects on other parts of the natural environment are summarised in the table below.

Sorry MMelena -- we gotta scratch that BAD idea off the CLEAN AND GREEN list.. If you still want to push it -- good luck with the environmental impact report...

There are NO alternatives left on the greenie list... Just auxillary power sources of limited use and application..

 

[Skull Pilot]

We could help a bit by using geothermal heat exchange systems to START out with air that is 55 degrees.

If I was convinced that I was going to stay in my house, I think I might seriously look into adding such a heat exchange system to the homestead.

Here's a place to start looking into this as one small part of the overall solution

http://www.mcquay.com/mcquaybiz/literature/lit_systems/AppGuide/AG_31-008_Geothermal_021607b.pdf

My wife and I are planning to build a house in the next 2 yrs and a ground source heat pump is the first thing on my list.

Even with the slightly high electric prices in CT, it's a better deal than oil or gas for heating and cooling

I've opted for 2 by 6 construction so as to get 5.5 inches of spray foam insulation in the walls for an R value of 33 compared to the average home with 2 by 4 construction and fiberglass batting with an R value of 11 (nominal) and 9 (actual).

For the roof I've chosen Structural Insulated Panels with an R value of 40.

 

[flacaltenn]

mmelena:

OMG -- where's my manners? That was your 1st post and I dumped 3 quotes on you???

Welcome to the board.

Don't get discouraged. I'm new here myself.. And this may be quoted against me in the future but sometimes

------ I'm such a jerk..

 

[editec]

The cheapest and cleanest source of energy is the energy you don't use.

Conservation of energy is something that I do not yet think this nation takes seriously enough.

Its expensive in the short tern but in the longer term it is the most economical source of energy this nation (or any nation, I suppose) will ever develop.

CONSERVE, BABY CONSERVE!

 

[flacaltenn]

The cheapest and cleanest source of energy is the energy you don't use.

Conservation of energy is something that I do not yet think this nation takes seriously enough.

Its expensive in the short tern but in the longer term it is the most economical source of energy this nation (or any nation, I suppose) will ever develop.

CONSERVE, BABY CONSERVE!

Just to help you out here editec, there's a term for your conservation contribution.. It's called NEGAWATTS. Doesn't add anything to the grid - it just subtracts conserved gains.

Instead of proposing ways to make energy plentiful and cheap, you propose to generate negawatts to make energy rare and expensive. That's the undeniable effect of negawatts. And it's not just short term expensive. It defers development to the point of CRISIS before action is taken. (I lived with constant brown-outs in California where the state woke up every morning wondering where it was gonna it's energy from today). So that this NEGAWATT fixation not only affects the price of energy, but also planning for jobs, development and trade.

Bet you're a BIG fan of electric cars huh....

 

[iggy pop]

I'm all for all forms of energy. As for controversial forms such as nuclear energy, it's up to the insurance companies to sort out "dangerous" sources. If it's too dangerous, then it will be too expensive to ensure.

If subsidies were removed, then the market will naturally correct itself.

Let's start maximizing the use of solar. That shit is awesome.

 

[mmelena]

@flacaltenn...

According to the EPA geothermal energy is renewable: "Geothermal energy is continuously created beneath the Earth's surface from the extreme heat contained in liquid rock (called magma) within the Earth's core."

Also from the EPA (who is a much more reliable source than the Sierra Club):
Renewable energy sources:
These sources are constantly renewed or restored and include wind (wind power), water (hydropower), sun (solar), vegetation (biomass), and internal heat of the earth (geothermal). About 9.0 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from renewable sources.

Nonrenewable energy sources:
These are natural resources that cannot be replenished (fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal). About 71.5 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from nonrenewable sources.

Additionally, the EPA states that "Emissions associated with generating electricity from geothermal technologies are negligible because no fuels are combusted" meaning that the air pollution is not of significance and certainly lower than the impact of coal or natural gas which you suggest we continue rely on too heavily.

You also suggest that what we extract has a large impact on the pressure beneath the earth and geysers, however the water that is used is re-injected into the ground.

To use part of your quote: "geothermal energy is a potentially plentiful and favorable energy source. The heat energy stored beneath the surface of the Earth is vast, and could itself, if available, supply all of the energy needs of humankind."

Does this not at the very least intrigue you about the potential of geothermal energy? I agree that it may not be the answer for everywhere, but scientists are able to locate areas where it will be most successful. By using these areas we could vastly cut our reliance on energy sources that are not renewable by using geothermal energy which IS RENEWABLE despite your thoughts.

You only provide a few isolated examples to prove your point, but have failed to examine the bigger picture and rely on facts rather than opinions. I was not able to post any links because apparently I must have 15 posts first, but it is all on the EPA website and the Geothermal Education Office website.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm all for all forms of energy. As for controversial forms such as nuclear energy, it's up to the insurance companies to sort out "dangerous" sources. If it's too dangerous, then it will be too expensive to ensure.

If subsidies were removed, then the market will naturally correct itself.

One of the "subsidies" that cannot be removed if one wants NUCLEAR power is the legal subsidy given to providers of nuclear power.

That is the legal limit on how much nuclear power companies will be responsible for in the event of a nuclear disaster.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.

There it is. In black and white. From Katrina to a melt-down to Medicare, 'We, The People' are indeed the insurance of last resort in this country. The only thing successfully insured by the private sector alone is cars. Probably because driving truly is a choice... well, that and the nationwide competition among auto insurers absolutely ROCKS!.

Seems strange that a public option in health care is such a hard sell.
God has truly blessed the Energy Industry Lobbyists, but the Medical Industry Lobbyists are actually worth what they're paid.... that game continues to be driven exclusively by the billing department - follow the money

The Road to Riches Is Called K Street - washingtonpost.com

 

[flacaltenn]

Glad you're back.. It was a bad move on my part to be so reactive to your very first post.

@flacaltenn...

According to the EPA geothermal energy is renewable: "Geothermal energy is continuously created beneath the Earth's surface from the extreme heat contained in liquid rock (called magma) within the Earth's core."

Depends on the definition of renewable. A typical geothermal mining operation will have multiple wellheads. Each wellhead may have to be uncapped and REDRILLED multiple times because the holes do "cool-out" over time. It's a fact.
I do not know how long it might take for OLD drill holes to recharge. But nobody cares because once the hole peters out -- they move on. Also the wellheads themselves literally rott from the toxic mix of chemicals and spew in the steam and waste water. So I don't consider that renewable in the sense that you drill one hole and get eternal power from that drilling. BTW: We are finding that old OIL wells also seem to recharge over time (after they've been abandoned) Is THAT renewable?


Also from the EPA (who is a much more reliable source than the Sierra Club):
Renewable energy sources:
These sources are constantly renewed or restored and include wind (wind power), water (hydropower), sun (solar), vegetation (biomass), and internal heat of the earth (geothermal). About 9.0 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from renewable sources.
More than 4% of that number is hydropower. I doubt if geothermal even approaches 1% and it's availability is limited geographically and by conflict with other land use. Since geothermal is USUALLY found in lands set aside for parks and recreation. And BTW: as far as true enviro info -- I'll take Sierra Club over the EPA. The EPA is like any other political org or politician -- you can hear anything you want to hear from them.

Nonrenewable energy sources:
These are natural resources that cannot be replenished (fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal). About 71.5 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from nonrenewable sources.

Additionally, the EPA states that "Emissions associated with generating electricity from geothermal technologies are negligible because no fuels are combusted" meaning that the air pollution is not of significance and certainly lower than the impact of coal or natural gas which you suggest we continue rely on too heavily.

That is simply not true. There are heavy discharges of toxic gases and a HUGE wastewater stream in these operations that have to be mitigated and controlled. THe air emissions are NOT the major problem, but can contain Sulphur gases, and CO2. I don't care if you use geothermal, but i do DEMAND that it is evaluated for enviromental impact the SAME WAY any other energy source is treated. I stand by my original statement that it is a "dirty mining operation". If you can pass the Environmental Impact Report and the permit process --- then go for it. But remember if the well blows out during operation, you're gonna kill stuff in the direct vicinity, just like BP Oil did in the gulf. ((See the 4 mile "radius of lethality" in my original response.))

You also suggest that what we extract has a large impact on the pressure beneath the earth and geysers, however the water that is used is re-injected into the ground.

There are plenty of documented occurance of land subsidence (sinking), mini-quakes and other mining related problems with structure. If we're worried about natural gas extraction mucking with the water table,, then we should similiarly worry about geothermal mining.

To use part of your quote: "geothermal energy is a potentially plentiful and favorable energy source. The heat energy stored beneath the surface of the Earth is vast, and could itself, if available, supply all of the energy needs of humankind."

Does this not at the very least intrigue you about the potential of geothermal energy? I agree that it may not be the answer for everywhere, but scientists are able to locate areas where it will be most successful. By using these areas we could vastly cut our reliance on energy sources that are not renewable by using geothermal energy which IS RENEWABLE despite your thoughts.

Not gonna come close to "supply all the energy needs of mankind". Mainly because we're not gonna be allowed to do this in YellowStone park. And most of mankind lives nowhere near sources of geothermal heating. I am intrigued. I encourage it's PROPER and CONTROLLED use. But I DEMAND that it be taken off the GREEN List of alternatives because it's impact on the environment potentially EXCEEDS many of our existing energy sources. And that geothermal mines live by the same rules as other mining and extraction techniques.

You only provide a few isolated examples to prove your point, but have failed to examine the bigger picture and rely on facts rather than opinions. I was not able to post any links because apparently I must have 15 posts first, but it is all on the EPA website and the Geothermal Education Office website.

Yeah.. Not being able to post links is like having a learners permit. You can fudge that somewhat by including a partial URL (like without the WWW.)
I'm not AGAINST geothermal. In fact -- it's advantage over wind and solar is that it DOESN'T require a back-up power plant for when the sun don't shine or the wind doesn't blow. I LOVE that part. I'm just very angry that so many eco-nauts seem WAAAAY to willing to over-rate ALL of the so-called alternatives. We can't plan our economic future on intermittent sources of power or overlook the real problems and risks just because the eco-left endorses it..