Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

All emmisions are lifecycle greenhouse-gas emissions

Solar PV
Carbon greenhouse-gas emissions : 46 g/ CoČ kWh
Environmental damage : Significant. Rare earths used in construction have ravaged entire areas of China.
Death/Twh ratio:  0.44
Pollutant emission: Non existant during operation. Significant during production

Capital cost: 3000-5500$ per KW
Capacity factor: 15-20%
Levelized costs: 280$ / Mwh (590-150)  ((Always the median))

Windpower (onshore)
Carbon greenhouse-gas emissions : 12 g/ CoČ kWh
Environmental damage : Can disturb biotopes. Some rare Earth required.
Death/Twh ratio:  0.15
Pollutant emission: Non existant during operation.

Capital cost: 1750-2750$ per KW
Capacity factor: 20-40%
Levelized costs: 60$ / Mwh (120-20)

Nuclear (Second generation)
Carbon greenhouse-gas emissions : 16 g/ CoČ kWh
Environmental damage : High power density lessens impact. Chance of accident neglible. Results of accidents can have long lasting damage, but are often overstated.
Death/Twh ratio:  0.04
Pollutant emission: Non existant during normal operation. Some nuclear waste

Capital cost: 5800-7800$ per KW (Note: This is for Third Generation High tech European reactors. Second generation Russian is about 1200 per KW. )
Capacity factor: 60-100% (Average for US and most other nations: 95%)
Levelized costs: 60$ / Mwh  (120-40)

Hydro(reservoir)*
Carbon greenhouse-gas emissions : 4 g/ CoČ kWh
Environmental damage : Entire biospheres flooded
Death/Twh ratio:-  0.1 (European average)
                       -  1.4 (Including Banqiao Dam)
Pollutant emission: Non existant.

Capital cost: 1000-4000$ per KW
Capacity factor: 25-60%
Levelized costs: 20$ / Mwh (120-20)

*Assumes a decently constructed dam with a 100 year + lifetime, and not one that becomes useless after 15 years, as unfortunately is happening a lot in many ill engineered projects in Africa.

[mainiac]

What discount rate are you using for your levelized costs?

Both solutions are ridicously expensive, and not going to be realized in the next 50 years. On a side note, such a microwave capturing installation would be more than 10 km* in size. Not something you can build in a few hours.

The numbers I've heard around 50 meters in size.  You don't need perfect capture rate.

[10ebbor10]

What discount rate are you using for your levelized costs?

As a note, I'm replacing the levilized costs by numbers drawn from wikipedia. Based on historical averages from the OpenEI Database. The numbers before that where a bit unreliable.

Both solutions are ridicously expensive, and not going to be realized in the next 50 years. On a side note, such a microwave capturing installation would be more than 10 km* in size. Not something you can build in a few hours.

The numbers I've heard around 50 meters in size.  You don't need perfect capture rate.

You do need some capture rate however. Then again, the 10 km number is probably outdated, as it dates back to the Apollo project. A 50 meter generator would however require either a significant change in wavelength (likely clashing with either the athmosphere, or an important part of the communication spectrum) and waste losts of energy.

[mainiac]

Microwaves are a meter or shorter, the size of the capture station doesn't have to do with the wavelength, it has to do with the aiming ability.  Seeing as anystuff outside the target will harmlessly go into the earth without hurting anything you don't need perfect capture for safety.  You just want a big enough target to hit for efficiencies sake and IIRC a 50 meter target should be plenty.

[mainiac]

I'm not getting those numbers to reconcile.  When I do nuclear with optimistic assumptions for "median" (4 year construction, middle costs equally distributed over 4 years) I still get a present value cost per Mwh of 70.  And when I do solar with pessimistic assumptions (1 year construction before output, maximum price) I get a present value cost per Mwh of 235.  If I do solar with optimistic assumptions (minimum price, 3 month construction) I get 122.

[werty892]

I'm all about geothermal and nuclear. They seem to be the best, most reliable, and least dangerous ways.

[werty892]

I'm all about geothermal and nuclear. They seem to be the best, most reliable, and least dangerous ways.

Although geothermal can't be done everywhere.

It can be done everywhere. Just depends on how much you're willing to pay.

[mainiac]

I'm all about geothermal and nuclear. They seem to be the best, most reliable, and least dangerous ways.

Although geothermal can't be done everywhere.

Geothermal is great where it's possible.  For nuclear I'd warn that the good numbers hide the fact that it's blending baseline and peak usage.  Nuclear makes nearly as much energy at 3 A.M. as it does at 3 P.M. so it's needs to be part of a portfolio of different sources to live up to it's potential.

[sneakey pete]

All you need for geothermal is a temperature of about 180C minimum, though obviously the more you have the cheaper it gets.

[Zrk2]

I'm studying Nuclear Engineering, so I'm pretty biased in favour of using nuclear for base load generation (~75%) with the rest made up of sources that are easier to activate on the go and renewables to cover the last little bit. In order to account for those fluctuations in energy consumption pumped storage might be the best bet, and then you can use clean nuclear power generated over night to pump the water up, then allow it to run down during the day, generate the needed power then, and actually turn a profit doing it.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I believe we should use wind turbines to spin up enormous flywheels buried underground for power storage. I like the symbolism of a spinning thing and a spinning thing working together. I also think it would be great to see the occasional failure of a flywheel vacuum causing an enormous explosion. I only worry about the FPS considerations because if you have wind turbines Toady might feel the need to model single-tile-scale air flows. It's bad enough when an underground river is flowing and causing FPS drops, but the whole map's surface all the time? Then again it would totally be worth it to see arrows and bolts flying off in the wind's direction and missing, or a random wild meerkat just losing its grip and bouncing along past another one clinging to a shrub.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Well, define Clean and also Energy.

For clean, do you mean low carbon emission, low environmental damage, low death/MW ratio, low pollutant emission, something that looks beautifull in the environement.

For Energy, do you want something that produce electricity, something that produces energy, or something that produces energy reliably.

Well I want the community to decide that, this thread is just for that reason. What do you think clean energy really is?

[werty892]

I believe we should use wind turbines to spin up enormous flywheels buried underground for power storage. I like the symbolism of a spinning thing and a spinning thing working together. I also think it would be great to see the occasional failure of a flywheel vacuum causing an enormous explosion. I only worry about the FPS considerations because if you have wind turbines Toady might feel the need to model single-tile-scale air flows. It's bad enough when an underground river is flowing and causing FPS drops, but the whole map's surface all the time? Then again it would totally be worth it to see arrows and bolts flying off in the wind's direction and missing, or a random wild meerkat just losing its grip and bouncing along past another one clinging to a shrub.

Wrong board, but still great. 10/10 would make giant flywheels again.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Clean energy = cleaner than the most-polluting energy source (which I believe right now is coal or perhaps burning trash?). I think if we do whatever we need to do to get rid of coal and oil power plants we'll be in a much better position. It doesn't need to be Captain Planet (bring pollution down to zero always seemed unrealistic even to a young Leo).

As for environmental devastation from mining rare earth minerals for solar, I think that's more an issue with shitty Chinese pollution controls and mining practices than an inherent danger in using those minerals. Of course, without such cheap sources we end up with very expensive solar power.

I guess it comes down to this: we could shift all of our energy sources to clean energy, but it would cost a lot. Is it worth it? I think someone living next door to a toxic waste site or Superfund site, or an active coal power plant, would agree. Someone living in a forest on a mountain in Washington might not. All because of how bad your personal experience has been.

There's a question of how much of your civilization's resources should go to each thing. I don't mean just money, I mean people's labor and actual objects and the will to inspire to action. There's only so much to go around, and right now the choice is being made to continue using dirty industry, energy, and agriculture because it's cheaper and it frees up more resources to be used elsewhere. The question of whether the savings is going to the proper places (environmental cleanup, or treatment of diseases caused by the pollution, or even some other positive goal of civilization) or improper places (lining an executive or politician's pockets) is debatable and investigable.

[mainiac]

I'm studying Nuclear Engineering, so I'm pretty biased in favour of using nuclear for base load generation (~75%) with the rest made up of sources that are easier to activate on the go and renewables to cover the last little bit. In order to account for those fluctuations in energy consumption pumped storage might be the best bet, and then you can use clean nuclear power generated over night to pump the water up, then allow it to run down during the day, generate the needed power then, and actually turn a profit doing it.

That seems a bit high for baseload, nighttime usage falls quite a bit below 70% of peak demand.

The water storage seems feasable: going off this google result the costs are about $100/MW-hour but as low as half that under ideal conditions (even demand for eight hours).  But a reasonably economic solar project would be cheaper then nuclear+storage combined when it comes to meeting peak demand.  On the other hand, every time it rains you get free energy!