Representatives push for DOD investment in renewable energy

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:52 pm

ladajo wrote:Joeseph,
Check this site out...I think it can help you understand further about field deployable renewable systems.

http://www.tacticalsheltersystems.com/

Thanks, very interesting.

Maui · Post by **Maui** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:16 am

ladajo wrote:Joeseph,
Check this site out...I think it can help you understand further about field deployable renewable systems.
http://www.tacticalsheltersystems.com/

I love the little Bin Laden hiding in the background...

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:44 pm

I was wondering who would notice that...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:42 am

Joseph Chikva wrote: Yes, you do not spend any fuel but you have very high cost of installed power and not stable energy source.

Seems you didn't catch the special character of the roaring 50s. At that latitude, the winds at low altitudes are REMARKABLEY stable and quite significant. With high, steady winds, per Watt installed cost goes down but more important, the duty cycle goes WAY up. If you MUST do wind, that is the location to do it.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:30 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote: Yes, you do not spend any fuel but you have very high cost of installed power and not stable energy source.
Seems you didn't catch the special character of the roaring 50s. At that latitude, the winds at low altitudes are REMARKABLEY stable and quite significant. With high, steady winds, per Watt installed cost goes down but more important, the duty cycle goes WAY up. If you MUST do wind, that is the location to do it.

Production cost of kW*h from wind farms about 3 times high than kW*h produced by nuclear power plant. And you talk about electricity intensive process (hydrogen production via electrolyze) for which the price of kW*h is critical.
For note: for production of 1nm3 of hydrogen from water 4.6-5kW*h is required.
2kg H2 equivalent to 22.4nm3

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:10 am

Skipjack wrote:
Why now is because, well, Greenies are watermelons. Green on the outside, and red on the inside...
Yeah, that is what I say. Kinda confusing in the US though, where red for some reason is associated with the republicans.

That was switched in 2000 election by the MSM cause the dems were tired of being tied to socialists with the red color in the elections.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:38 am

IntLibber wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
Why now is because, well, Greenies are watermelons. Green on the outside, and red on the inside...
Yeah, that is what I say. Kinda confusing in the US though, where red for some reason is associated with the republicans.
That was switched in 2000 election by the MSM cause the dems were tired of being tied to socialists with the red color in the elections.

Actually renewables also make significant impact on environment as they consume energy naturally involved in other processes. Also, due to low power density they are roomy and need big area for placing.
And we promptly go not only to the energy deficit world, but also deficiency of food is very actual. Millions people in Africa die of hunger. And very big areas under crops are necessary to support them. We have not enough area for placing both - wind farms, solar panels and on the same area to produce food.
Now it is not accepted to speak but renewables are not the best solution of humanity energy problems. Unlike fusion.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:50 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: If you MUST do wind, that is the location to do it.
Production cost of kW*h from wind farms about 3 times high than kW*h produced by nuclear power plant. And you talk about electricity intensive process (hydrogen production via electrolyze) for which the price of kW*h is critical.

Yup, but the price for wind power per kWhr is mainly driven by two things, the low duty cycle, and the need to have TWO sources for the power, wind and backup BECAUSE of that low duty cycle. Neither applies in the proposed case.

So, I state again, if you MUST do wind, that is the place to do it.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:37 pm

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: If you MUST do wind, that is the location to do it.
Production cost of kW*h from wind farms about 3 times high than kW*h produced by nuclear power plant. And you talk about electricity intensive process (hydrogen production via electrolyze) for which the price of kW*h is critical.
Yup, but the price for wind power per kWhr is mainly driven by two things, the low duty cycle, and the need to have TWO sources for the power, wind and backup BECAUSE of that low duty cycle. Neither applies in the proposed case.

So, I state again, if you MUST do wind, that is the place to do it.

One time I worked as a technical consultant for one company who was excited for example in one wind farm project for Georgia. Projected price they attempted to insert in the project was 8cents per kW*h. Because it is impossible to justify investments in wind energy at a smaller price. For note: Georgia has regions with high average wind speed. So, duty factor would not be low.
But hydropower plants sell 1kw*h at 5 cents and nuke plant in neighboring country at 2.5-3 cents depending on season. Project was canceled. May by during about last 5 years something changed but I doubt.