Quality of lifestyle and cost of energy: can we return to wealth of energy?

[SageBrush]

I'm originally from Iowa (don't live there anymore) where there's also a lot of wind available, particularly in the northwest (though it doesn't quite match the potential of North Dakota). I'd love to see the midwest become the "energy basket" of the country and the potential is there. And that's just wind. But they need a way to get all that electricity they could generate to market, as you said. The good news is Clean Line Energy is working on building HVDC lines from the midwest to the east for just that reason (Projects Overview). The bad news is they just recently walked away from their Rock Island project because of resistance from the farmers upon whose land the line would have run. I don't think the farmers are anti-renewable; they see it as a property rights issue and didn't want to be forced into accepting towers. I *think* the mistake that CL made was trying to get the land for the towers for the line via eminent domain rather than striking deals/contracts with each property owner. I can understand the appeal for CL of being able to get the necessary plots of land in one fell swoop--doing each one individually would be slower and more expensive. OTOH, cell phone companies (I used to work for one) negotiated tower deals one by one and managed to make it work financially. Clear Line needs to offer the landowners a deal they can't refuse. But to do so probably comes down to issues of access to capital (access to capital, BTW, is one of the biggest subsidies that fossil fuel companies enjoy that renewables don't).

I recently saw mention of a study that showed that wind mills and solar farms tended to follow HVDC implementations (build it and they will come). I think ND, SD, IA, NE, KS, and OK are all leaving a ton of money on the table by not figuring out a way get their abundant potential energy to the market. And that's money that's not a Faustian bargain like the Bakken oil fields are for North Dakota.

1+++

It has been true since forever that government has a role to play in infrastructure development, basic science R&D, and not much else. Cue the trumpians who want to enrich the billionaires with wholesale subsidy and gut science.

 

[daniel]

I'm originally from Iowa (don't live there anymore) where there's also a lot of wind available, particularly in the northwest (though it doesn't quite match the potential of North Dakota). I'd love to see the midwest become the "energy basket" of the country and the potential is there. And that's just wind. But they need a way to get all that electricity they could generate to market, as you said. The good news is Clean Line Energy is working on building HVDC lines from the midwest to the east for just that reason (Projects Overview). The bad news is they just recently walked away from their Rock Island project because of resistance from the farmers upon whose land the line would have run. I don't think the farmers are anti-renewable; they see it as a property rights issue and didn't want to be forced into accepting towers. I *think* the mistake that CL made was trying to get the land for the towers for the line via eminent domain rather than striking deals/contracts with each property owner. I can understand the appeal for CL of being able to get the necessary plots of land in one fell swoop--doing each one individually would be slower and more expensive. OTOH, cell phone companies (I used to work for one) negotiated tower deals one by one and managed to make it work financially. Clear Line needs to offer the landowners a deal they can't refuse. But to do so probably comes down to issues of access to capital (access to capital, BTW, is one of the biggest subsidies that fossil fuel companies enjoy that renewables don't).

I recently saw mention of a study that showed that wind mills and solar farms tended to follow HVDC implementations (build it and they will come). I think ND, SD, IA, NE, KS, and OK are all leaving a ton of money on the table by not figuring out a way get their abundant potential energy to the market. And that's money that's not a Faustian bargain like the Bakken oil fields are for North Dakota.

One big problem farmers have with anything built on their farm land (power lines, wind generators, missile silos, etc.) is the nuisance of having to farm around the obstructions. I worked on a farm. Normally you drive a straight line through the field, turn, and repeat. Any obstruction that makes you deviate is a big hassle. And more so with row crops than small grains or hay. And once that obstruction is there, it's a pain in the butt for the rest of your life. It would be best if the power line follows the edges of fields, but even then, it makes crop dusting harder because you either fly under the power line, which is dangerous and will increase the number of accidents, or else you have to make several extra passes to spray the crops close to the line.

So ideally, you would use the existing power lines, but if those are owned by coal companies they will resist because they will see you as a competitor.

 

[cpa]

How do you get electricity for 5 cents a kW from PG&E?

Read what I wrote again more carefully, Merrill. I said the cost of the electricity was less than a nickel. It was all the other bundled charges like distribution, generation, etc. that jacked the rate up. I never said the rate paid to PG&E was a nickel.

 

[Topher]

But many animals fight over food,

They fight over food they will eat, that isn't greed, that is survival. Greed is fighting over food that you won't eat.

Thank you kindly.

 

[daniel]

They fight over food they will eat, that isn't greed, that is survival. Greed is fighting over food that you won't eat.

Thank you kindly.

You're very welcome.

They often fight over territory, driving away other individuals whether there's enough food for both or not.

There was an experiment some decades ago among a troupe of chimpanzees or gorillas, I forget which. The apes never fought with other members of their troupe over food. But when the experimenters put out a big pile of bananas, the dominant male stationed himself on it and refused to let any of the others have any, even though there was more than he could eat.

There are bird species where the strongest chick will push its sibling out of the nest even if there's enough food for both.

Still, the real issue here isn't animals. The issue is humans. You insisted that greed was a recent invention, and it's clear that people have been greedy at least as far back as the earliest civilizations, and further back than that we have no information one way or the other.

 

[Merrill]

Read what I wrote again more carefully, Merrill. I said the cost of the electricity was less than a nickel. It was all the other bundled charges like distribution, generation, etc. that jacked the rate up. I never said the rate paid to PG&E was a nickel.

Sorry, I now understand.

 

[Ulmo]

One big problem farmers have with anything built on their farm land (power lines, wind generators, missile silos, etc.) is the nuisance of having to farm around the obstructions. I worked on a farm. Normally you drive a straight line through the field, turn, and repeat. Any obstruction that makes you deviate is a big hassle. And more so with row crops than small grains or hay. And once that obstruction is there, it's a pain in the butt for the rest of your life. It would be best if the power line follows the edges of fields, but even then, it makes crop dusting harder because you either fly under the power line, which is dangerous and will increase the number of accidents, or else you have to make several extra passes to spray the crops close to the line.

So ideally, you would use the existing power lines, but if those are owned by coal companies they will resist because they will see you as a competitor.

Today we have some new possibilities:

• Underground digging robots (using sonar data for navigation); can build underground nationwide conduit system able to carry hvdc, superconductors, hv ac. Oil companies have the best tech, but it's not impossible to buy or reimplement.
• Drone spraying (and bioengineered resistant plants)

You're right, though: lots of cost and resistance.

 

[nwdiver]

Today we have some new possibilities:

• Underground digging robots (using sonar data for navigation); can build underground nationwide conduit system able to carry hvdc, superconductors, hv ac. Oil companies have the best tech, but it's not impossible to buy or reimplement.
• Drone spraying (and bioengineered resistant plants)

You're right, though: lots of cost and resistance.

Don't forget superconducting metallic Hydrogen ..... maybe.....

 

[daniel]

Don't forget superconducting metallic Hydrogen ..... maybe.....

Oh, goody. Now I get to go way off topic.

Why do they think that metallic hydrogen might be either stable or meta-stable? All known metals melt at some temperature, specific to the particular metal, and all evaporate at some other temperature, specific to the particular metal. It seems reasonable that metallic hydrogen would do the same and revert to its normal state. They draw an analogy to diamonds, which are formed under high pressure and remain stable at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. But diamonds are not metallic. They are a three-dimensional crystal lattice held together by covalent bonds. A solid metal is an amorphous solid in which the electrons are free to flow freely throughout the material.

I am not a chemist, a physicist, or a materials scientist, but unless they can give a better reason than "diamonds do it" for metallic hydrogen to be stable or meta-stable, I call bunkum on the speculation that it might be the case for hydrogen.

Not to mention that you need a diamond anvil and very near zero Kelvins to make a wee tiny speck of the stuff and they're speculating about what they could do if they had tons and tons of it.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

This is an energy article from a guy who doesn't seem to follow energy very closely. The idea that we'll have energy shortages could not be further from the truth, in reality we're destined for a decade of massive over-supply. We're creating the new decentralized energy world while also blindly adding fossil infrastructure in a desperate effort to squeeze out a few more years of profit before the bottom falls out.

Solar and wind are unbelievably cheap. Cheap to the point that they could almost be called "free". Tesla/SolarCity will be rolling out micro-grid products in no time that are 100% renewable and cheaper than current grid costs. What happens then?

As for bringing back the "good times".....workers were needed in the 50's and 60's, now they're simply not required. The "investor class" can now create wealth and never have to leave the board room or compromise on anything of consequence. That's been churning since Reagan took office and now here we are.

The idea that these two groups in the US won't come together and form any consensus is also the commentary of someone not paying close enough attention. The Bernie crowd is yelling for the same thing as the Trump "supporters", they just don't know it yet. Give them through the summer and all these folks will all realize they're opposed to the "corporatization" of American government and the absurd income inequality it's creating.

If they don't figure it out and come together, the next step will make a Trump presidency feel like a walk in the park.

 

[Ulmo]

Not to mention that you need a diamond anvil and very near zero Kelvins to make a wee tiny speck of the stuff and they're speculating about what they could do if they had tons and tons of it.

Oh so it's real?

Anyway, diamond anvils could be grown in self replicating programmed materials, and whatever process necessary could scale up, but now we're discussing things that are well into multi-year research, not real right now construction possibilities.

 

[daniel]

Oh so it's real?

We don't know yet. We have one report from one team of one data point, unconfirmed by any other teams or even by the original team. It might be real, and I hope it is. It would be a cool discovery. But we don't know yet. Rest assured that plenty of people will be eager to try to replicate it.

But if it is real, it's never going to be commercially viable . It would be an advance in theoretical physics.

 

[Topher]

but unless they can give a better reason than "diamonds do it" for metallic hydrogen to be stable or meta-stable, I call bunkum on the speculation that it might be the case for hydrogen.

They do have a better reason. "diamonds do it" is more of an analogy than a reason. Someone has done the math. I can't find anyone who has to explained it to laymen.

Thank you kindly.

 

[lklundin]

in North Dakota the coal companies own the transmission lines, and they don't like the competition.

Well, since no one wants to buy the expensive and obsolete coal, a real possibility is that the coal companies put up wind turbines and make lemonade from their lemons...

 

[daniel]

Well, since no one wants to buy the expensive and obsolete coal, a real possibility is that the coal companies put up wind turbines and make lemonade from their lemons...

As far as I know, they're not selling any coal. They operate coal-fired electric power plants at the mine. They sell the electricity, and in North Dakota's winter, they sell plenty of electricity. But I could be mistaken about them selling coal. There's a big kerfuffle here in WA because coal companies want to ship coal by rail through here on its way to Japan or China (not sure which) where there's apparently a big demand for it. Maybe some of that is N.D. coal. China is building a new coal-fired plant every 23 minutes, or something. I probably have that number wrong. But it's a lot. So, yes, plenty of folks want to buy the coal. Which of course is all the more reason for them to put up wind turbines so they can sell wind electricity locally and ship that much more coal to Asia. But the coal and electric companies in N.D. are run by stogy old men who hate anything new or different.

 

[Merrill]

As far as I know, they're not selling any coal. They operate coal-fired electric power plants at the mine. They sell the electricity, and in North Dakota's winter, they sell plenty of electricity. But I could be mistaken about them selling coal. There's a big kerfuffle here in WA because coal companies want to ship coal by rail through here on its way to Japan or China (not sure which) where there's apparently a big demand for it. Maybe some of that is N.D. coal. China is building a new coal-fired plant every 23 minutes, or something. I probably have that number wrong. But it's a lot. So, yes, plenty of folks want to buy the coal. Which of course is all the more reason for them to put up wind turbines so they can sell wind electricity locally and ship that much more coal to Asia. But the coal and electric companies in N.D. are run by stogy old men who hate anything new or different.

Just so you know China has stopped over 100 coal fired plants that they are either building or were going to build.

 

[glenhurst]

As far as I know, they're not selling any coal. They operate coal-fired electric power plants at the mine. They sell the electricity, and in North Dakota's winter, they sell plenty of electricity. But I could be mistaken about them selling coal. There's a big kerfuffle here in WA because coal companies want to ship coal by rail through here on its way to Japan or China (not sure which) where there's apparently a big demand for it. Maybe some of that is N.D. coal. China is building a new coal-fired plant every 23 minutes, or something. I probably have that number wrong. But it's a lot. So, yes, plenty of folks want to buy the coal. Which of course is all the more reason for them to put up wind turbines so they can sell wind electricity locally and ship that much more coal to Asia. But the coal and electric companies in N.D. are run by stogy old men who hate anything new or different.

North Dakota has a lot of Norwegians (some of my ancestors came from there). You'd think they could learn a thing or two from the old country, Norway, which has made a lot of money in the past 50 years from oil in the north sea, and yet gasoline is no cheaper there than in Sweden, and Norway is now one of the leading countries in getting rid of using fossil fuels for powering its infrastructure. (Sorry for the run-on sentence,)

 

[Ulmo]

Counter to this thread, but a sort of history of where we came from, I want to display a picture that I took during a recent camping trip that is one of my screensavers; it is of a major portion of San Francisco's electricity generation, and shows how we used to have wealth of clean energy, and how much clean energy we still have from generations past:

 

[cpa]

Sorry, Ulmo. I find Hetch Hetchy repellent and a disgrace on the National Park System. O'Shaugnessy and his cronies pulled a fast one to get the Tuolumne dammed up for the swells in San Francisco in the early teens. I believe that it initially was just for drinking water, as San Francisco was growing and running out of water. It has been said by others who visited that area before it was dammed that Hetch Hetchy Valley was as beautiful as Yosemite Valley.

I do not disagree with you when it comes to clean generation of electricity. That is a worthwhile and noble goal. But it should not come at a price of defiling our national treasures.

(Apologies for the rant. )

 

[McRat]

Yes, people think of hydro power as "green", but it's a double edged sword. It destroys rivers and habitat.

Residential electricity usage has fallen 7% since 2010. Peak combined (industrial+residential) use started to fall in 2005.

It is likely to continue to fall as older, less efficient buildings and electrical devices are replaced with newer technology.

Plus, new housing tends to have less power needs, and more residential solar power is being installed.