Thermal power plants use 4x more water than all US residents, solar PV doesn't need a drop

[Scuba]

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/thermal-power-plants-use-4x-more-water-us-residents-solar-doesnt-need-drop.html

So now is a good time to remind ourselves of just how much water is used by thermal power plants, which boil water to create steam. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report on this a few years ago, and what it says is striking.

Thermal power plants in the U.S. used as much water as farms did in 2005, and more than four times as much as all U.S. residents. Every single day in 2008, these power plants withdrew 60 to 170 billion gallons of freshwater from rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers, and consumed 2.8 to 5.9 billion gallons of that water. This is particularly bad in the southwest because a lot of the water used by power plants came from underground aquifers that don't always replenish quickly.

Withdrawal is the total amount of water a power plant takes in from a source such as a river, lake, or aquifer, some of which is returned. Consumption is the amount lost to evaporation during the cooling process. Withdrawal is important for several reasons. Water intake systems can trap fish and other aquatic wildlife. Water withdrawn for cooling but not consumed returns to the environment at a higher temperature, potentially harming fish and other wildlife. And when power plants tap groundwater for cooling, they can deplete aquifers critical for meeting many different needs. Consumption is important because it too reduces the amount of water available for other uses, including sustaining ecosystems. (source)

But solar? It doesn't stress our water resources and exacerbate droughts. In fact, it produces more power during very hot and sunny periods. SolarCity estimates that through the California Solar Initiative, SolarCity and other companies have deployed enough solar to conserve 684 million gallons a year for the state. Not bad!

[NYC_SKP]

1. I had a lengthy phone call with a major educator today while driving from San Jose to Fairfield.

She teaches fourth grade science.

To me that's as major as it gets.

The topic of which of the next generation science standards and common core are most important to teach.

My answer included sources and forms of energy, naturally, but also the concept of "fuels".

Solar and Wind and Geothermal energy involve no fuels, little or no refinement, no transportation (except by transmission), and I think, as did Tesla, that it's an important theme.

The water thing is associated only with fuel-dependent sources.

A greater point, I though, is that fuels involve ownership; they are commodities.

Wind and Sun are free.

Small wonder that they see little support in the energy industry and less in Congress.

K/R

[WillyT]

2. Excellent Points All !!!

[rhett o rick]

5. Why do you hate capitalism?

Thanks for the post.

[mountain grammy]

13. And there you go! Right on and the same could be said of marijuana.

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. K&R. From the perspective of the energy industry parasites, this is the worst thing that

could ever happen. It represents the dissolution of their whole industry.

Nobody's going to make money except the manufacturers of the components, and even they only make money after the boom by producing enough to cover increases in demand and replacement components.

[badtoworse]

6. Is that why companies like Shell and BP own substantial portfolios of wind generation?

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. One reason, sure. The biggest drawback of wind as it's utilized today, is that the technology still

lends itself to the centralized generation and distribution model that energy companies use.

Everybody's familiar with the gigantic mega-windmills that are becoming common all over the world, and supporting this is a sensible backup from their perspective. Of course, what they are not invested at all in is the rapidly growing field of small-scale wind-powered generation, e.g. the vertical windmill you can put in your back yard to power your own home.

[badtoworse]

22. I like solar, but I'm not a big fan of wind

The turbines are noisy, they kill 1000's of birds and they look like shit. Besides that, they're a bitch to maintain. I'm not sure rooftop wind would be much better. Solar is solid state. so it doesn't have those problems.

Without affordable, reliable battery storage systems, distributed generation, either wind or solar, is not going to replace central station generation. It may happen, but we're a long way away from that - at least a decade or two in my opinion

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. I don't disagree at all. I think the answer, here in the west anyway, is a combination of

both. Solar works great here of course and, here in Las Vegas anyway, wind is also abundant and not restricted by earth's rotation.

Since we're in the process of building our own future, we have been looking very closely at all options and alternatives. I have come to the conclusion that the storage problem is largely a bugaboo unless it is shoehorned into the large scale central generation and distribution model. With current technology (and not going for any of the more exotic/expensive alternatives being developed) I can have a constant, full capacity 24 hour household supply stored and ready for about $300 - $400 with no ongoing expenses at all, and believe me, we are not the shivering in the dark to save the earth types at all.

Now, it is remotely possible that somehow we would not have any sun or wind for a day (OK, I admit that I have not been able to imagine any scenario where this could actually happen, but plan for the worst...), and in such an unlikely event we would have to cut back until after the apocalypse, power storage would be pretty far down the list of priorities.

We've found a few small-scale wind power generators that are not only not ugly or an aviary hazard, but are actually very attractive moving features in addition to generating impressive quantities of electricity. Art that runs your heat pump.

[badtoworse]

24. The southwest has great renewable resources and it makes sense to take advantage of them

Not so much in northern NJ where I live. I don't think the rooftop turbines would work well here because a lot of neighborhoods (mine included) have lots of tall mature trees that reduce the wind near the ground. Solar works here, but the economics would obviously not be as good as in Las Vegas. To be honest, I haven't evaluated the economics of solar for my own house. In any case, I have no desire to go completely off grid (but I have no objection to saving money).

I'm curious about your situation. How much power can your system supply on an average and a peak basis? If it can't match what your electric service provides, you might find yourself doing load management on a daily or hourly basis - e.g. having to choose between running the air conditioner or the washing machine. That could become a hassle - I know it would for me.

[solarhydrocan]

26. A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen

Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever
Jun 19, 2008 |By David Biello
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-house/

A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen

?0

EAST AMWELL, N.J.—Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.

Although the device cost $500,000 to construct, and it is unlikely it will ever pay off financially (even with today's skyrocketing oil and gas prices), the civil engineer says it is priceless in terms of what it does buy: freedom from ever paying another heating or electric bill, not to mention keeping a lid on pollution, because water is its only by-product.

Slide Show: Photos show what makes this house work
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=hydrogen-house

"The ability to make your own fuel is priceless," says the man known as "Mr. Gadget" to his friends. He boasts a collection of hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles, including a hydrogen-run lawn mower and car (the Sable, which he redesigned and named the "Genesis&quot as well as an electric racing boat, and even an electric motorcycle. "All the technology is off-the-shelf. All I'm doing is putting them together."

"I'm a self-sufficiency guy," he adds. Strizki, a civil engineer, has been interested in alternative energy sources since 1997 when he began working on vehicles fueled by alternative means during his tenure with the New Jersey Department of Transportation...

MORE: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-house/

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. Yes, that would be a big issue, and I haven't been clear, We don't have anything yet,

we are still in the looking for where we will spend the rest of our lives stage, so my information is all based on an amalgam of claims, detractors. and sales information.

All of the various combinations were put together to generate a minimum of 60KWH P/day as that's the average power consumption we use during the peak month of July in a large traditional stick-built house. We've designed and planned a slightly smaller, but far more efficient home so we're expecting that to be more than sufficient for the new place.

These guys make some very attractive models and is where we first saw this type of wind generator.

[badtoworse]

4. A lot of thermal power plants use air cooled condensers, especially the newer ones.

New power plants haven't been permitted with once-through cooling in decades. Existing ones will be forced to modify their intake structure to protect marine life under the EPA's Rule 316b.

Solar has a lot going for it and I like it as a technology. Unless and until we develop reasonably priced storage systems, solar will be use limited and we will have to rely on thermal generation for the bulk of our electric power needs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. The most efficient solar panels are arond 23% efficient.

A solar panel coverage of around 28.5 square feet is required for one kilowatt of energy, at that level of efficiency. The current generating capacity of the US grid is around 1.2 terawatts. Replacing the entire generating capacity of the US grid with solar would require an area equivalent to the state of Louisiana.

Source for solar panel efficiency forming the basis of the above calculations [link:http://|here].


That's assuming optimal sunlight conditions; in areas with more cloud cover and variable weather, you'd need more solar panels because the total output would be reduced. And solar doesn't generate energy at night, which brings up the problem of storage. The only method for doing this with solar is in solar-powered steam turbine plants, where the heat produced by solar energy can be stored. Which has the same problems as coal or nuclear turbine plants, in terms of water use.

Solar energy storage info from here.

[alfredo]

9. What do you know about molten salt storage for solar?

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. Shhh,

none of the Big Energy employees advocates want to talk about things like that.

[jeff47]

31. Those would be the solar-powered steam turbine plants he mentioned. (nt)

[cprise]

10. Check out the E/E group postings on storage

Its still quite early but battery storage may already be on a similar downward price slope as PV panels. There is also at least one independent study showing the amount of storage actually required would be much smaller than is commonly assumed, for various reasons.

Lots of other interesting storage strategies are emerging in Germany already: Syngas storage, underwater pressure vessels, flow batteries, a new UHVDC transmission line to Norway (which can absorb most excess solar/wind for half the year b/c their heating is mostly electric, and the rest of the time they have vast hydro storage potential) ...etc.

OTOH, in Texas they are trialling a new program that pays EV owners to use their cars' battery capacity.

I don't think there is any technical reason why most areas of the US can't go to 40% penetration of solar and wind even in the short term.

[alfredo]

27. I'm glad the naysayers have not killed progress.

[solarhydrocan]

21. Germany at ~51 N latitude leads the world in PV installations

The US could have been the leader





Solarpark Neuhardenberg



Solarpark Finsterwald



Solarpark Kothen



Solarpark Lieberose



Solarpark Senftenberg

Solar power in Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 35.082 gigawatts (GW) at the end of September 2013. The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity. Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050. Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

Germany set a world record for solar power production with 24.0 GW produced at midday on July 21, 2013. Approximately 1.3–1.4 million solar power systems helped to set this record

The US could also have lead in Molten Salt Storage

Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium instead of oil or water as with Solar One. This helped in energy storage during brief interruptions in sunlight due to clouds.[1] The molten salt also allowed the energy to be stored in large tanks for future use such as night time—Solar Two had sufficient capacity to continue running for up to three hours after the sun had set.

"We're proud of Solar Two's success as it marks a significant milestone in the development of large-scale solar energy projects," said then U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
"This technology has been successfully demonstrated and is ready for commercialization. From 1994 to 1999, the Solar Two project demonstrated the ability of solar molten salt technology to provide long-term, cost effective thermal energy storage for electricity generation.", Boeing

On November 25, 2009, after 10 years of not producing any energy, the Solar Two tower was demolished.[1] The mothballed site was levelled and returned to vacant land by Southern California Edison. All heliostats and other hardware were removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project

All this solar screws up the 100 year plans of utilities.

The US could lead the way in the next big thing- Solar Hydrogen- if it wanted

Solar Electrolysis = free hydrogen



But the US doesn't want to be energy independent

[jeff47]

32. Hydrogen isn't the next big thing.

At least, in my opinion.

Hydrogen is so small it leaks out of any container. That makes it rather hard to use as a fuel - it keeps evaporating through the tank. When NASA launches spacecraft that use hydrogen for fuel, one of the "booms" that swing away at launch is constantly topping off the hydrogen tank to deal with evaporation.

Now, it is possible to just go ahead and use the hydrogen anyway, but a significant percentage isn't going to be used as fuel.

The other option is to store the hydrogen chemically - attach it to other atoms so it won't leak. The problem is the only good way to do that in a car is to use hydrocarbons. But those are made from oil (for now), so you're also releasing CO2 when you use chemical reactions to get the hydrogen back. This would be less of an issue if they came from biofuels, but that isn't happening yet - probably due to the tiny quantity used today. But if you've got the biofuel infrastructure, why not just feed that biofuel into an ICE?

As a result, I really don't expect hydrogen to be the next big thing to replace gasoline. We're probably going to end up with electric or biofuels for cars.

Which one "wins" will depend on how soon the oil companies pull their heads out of their asses - they'd keep making a fortune on biofuels, which would pretty much fit directly into their existing infrastructure.

If they don't pull their heads out of their asses soon enough, battery and fuel cell technology will continue to advance, and we'll end up electric.

[alfredo]

35. Hemp oil?

[jeff47]

36. One of many possible biofuels. (nt)

[alfredo]

37. I remember reading that it is a very good machine oil.

[adieu]

8. But...

the water used in boiling and then having it go through a turbine are recycled in the loop. It's not thrown away. The loop is completely enclosed. There is a secondary loop which uses external water source to cool down the water that has gone through the turbines. That water comes in at ambient temperature and goes out raised by 5 to 10 degrees F. But ecologically, that water is fine for eventual consumption or other uses.

So the claim of actual "consumption" is not quite accurate.

[cprise]

12. No "But". Sorry...

From the referenced study:

We examine both the withdrawal and consumption of freshwater. Withdrawal is the total amount of water a power plant takes in from a source such as a river, lake, or aquifer, some of which is returned. Consumption is the amount lost to evaporation during the cooling process.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/ew3/ew3-freshwater-use-by-us-power-plants-exec-sum.pdf

[adieu]

14. That's a pretty ignorant way of accounting for water.

There's no loss of water if it's evaporated. That just turns into steam/vapor, goes into the air, turns into clouds, condenses and returns as rain. Any scientist worth his or her salt would never claim that the water is "lost".

Water is one of the least scarce resource on the planet. The only problem is sending to places where they're needed (like California right now). The allocation of water is the main problem, and it's primarily an economic and political issue and not an engineering or scientific issue.

The amount of water on this planet is essentially infinite. It is impossible to use up all the water on this planet for the remainder of the planet's existence.

[diane in sf]

15. that rain may not fall where it is recoverable as fresh water

[adieu]

29. I'm sure we all understand that

which is why is a resource ALLOCATION issue and not a resource QUANTITY issue.

I know it's pure pedantry, but resources such as oil and gas and water are renewable resources and therefore have infinite supply. Resources like solar, however, are NOT renewable.

Water, is, well, water. You drink it, you make coffee with it, you poor toxic waste into it, you crap into it, whatever, it's still water. The two H's and a single O prefer to belong with each other than to break up and join other things. Even then, if one were to put that other thing into a high-temperature furnace and burn it into its elemental parts, the H's and O's will recombine to form water. Heck, you can strip the electrons off the H's and O's, do things like fuse the nuclei (i.e., nuclear fusion in the sun), and somewhere along that reaction chain will come out with H's and a few (fewer) O's, and when things cool down, it turns into water.

You drink water, you piss it out, it goes into a mix, evaporated and voila, it's water all over again. Plain old H2O.

As for oil and stuff, they're just common ol' hydrocarbon chains. Now, to recreate these chains will take quite a bit more work than to recreate water. It would take significantly more energy to put those chains back, and in the right order. Energy = money and time, and at the moment, that amount of money and time is more expensive than to just dig for oil out of the ground. But, countries have experimented with synthetic oil and fuels. The Germans in the 30s and 40s did that because they didn't have access to oil fields (primarily those in the middle east and Azerbaijan).

Solar -- and I am a solar power fan and wish the government should invest far more money into solar power development -- however, is NOT renewable (which is also another reason we should use it now). Unless you have a way to recreate a giant nuclear fusion device 93 million miles away, I'd say that the energy we get from the sun ought to be used now before it's gone. Of course, the expected time frame for the sun to be gone is at least another 7 to 9 billion years.

And by the way, you know what oil and gas really is? Captured solar power! It's solar power stored in a chemical potential energy "battery" called oil (or gas). Same with wind power, tidal power, and hydro electric power. They're all "batteries" for solar power.

[cprise]

40. Fossil fuels are much more than "captured solar power"

They are a product of geologic forces and reside in the ground, e.g. it is unnatural to pull them all up out of the ground in an extremely brief period of time. There is a natural cycle of carbon going in an out of the Earth's crust that can't compensate for the rate we are taking them out of the ground.

And by the way, you know what oil and gas really is? Captured solar power! It's solar power stored in a chemical potential energy "battery" called oil (or gas). Same with wind power, tidal power, and hydro electric power. They're all "batteries" for solar power.

No, sir. Don't try to f**k with our heads. We don't swallow that 90s conservative BS anymore.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. The allocation of water is definitely an engineering issue.

Most of California is semiarid. Cities like LA and San Diego and agriculture in the Central, Imperial, and San Joaquin Valleys wouldn't exist without large-scale engineering works, impoundment of river flows by dams, aqueducts, and pumping of aquifers. Most of the schemes for long-term increase of water flows to the Southwest involve major engineering works to transfer water from the Mississippi, Missouri, Canada, Great Lakes, or elsewhere (see here for instance).

[cprise]

39. Elevated temps kill aquatic life and increase evaporation

I lived next to a river that had just such a problem due to power plant heat output. Part of their answer to the problem was evaporation towers.

You show me the scientific rebuttal to the referenced paper. Otherwise, your armchair assessment looks pretty ridiculous.

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. This reply seems to indicate that either you are profoundly lacking in a variety

of cognitive skills, in which case let me encourage you to ask for explanations, or you work for the energy industry.

Adieu.

[adieu]

28. Ignorant strawman argument here

you can leave my post anytime.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. That reply was not at all helpful in determining the cause of the disconnect.

It demonstrates that you don't want to address the issue raised in the OP, but doesn't give us any indication of which area it is that you need help with understanding.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. ,

,

[Recursion]

19. How many tons of rare earths do thermal plants use? (nt)

[waddirum]

38. Plenty of platinum group metals...

.... are used in Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems in both coal- and gas- fired power plants.

[Vashta Nerada]

20. We need to quit using thermal energy and quit fracking.

We're losing freshwater at an alarming rate. Much of the country is in a drought. We need to start saving every drop that we can.

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!