Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Willem Post Subscribe

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Robert,

When I cut and past an excerpt or a URL into a comment, these numbers appear AFTER I press the SAVE button, but they do not appear when I revert back.

TEC is the only site on which this happens.

I do not know why this happens.

If you or anyone else has a remedy, please let me know.

April 24, 2014    View Comment    

On Mitigation Talk Vs. Mitigation Cost

Edward,

I agree with the sewers, but not with the CO2. Its "harm" is overrated. It is made the fossil fuel scapecoat.

Much more harmful are the particulates of coal burning.

Clean up coal burning flue gases with fabric filter systems and most submicron particles will not enter the atmosphere.

April 24, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Bob,

I am surprised, because it is all in this article. Note the INCREASE in biomass energy from 1999 to 2013

Normal 0 0 1 14 85 1 1 104 11.0 0 0 0

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy 

Excerpt:

Normal 0 0 1 251 1432 11 2 1758 11.0 0 0 0

RE Capacity, Production, Capital Cost Summary, 2000 - 2014 period

Below is a summary of RE systems capacity, production and capital cost for the 2000 - 2014 period. The values for end 1999 are used as a starting point and shown below. The values of each year thereafter were obtained from published sources, and summed. The summed values at end 2013 are shown below. The values for 2014 are estimated and shown below.

End 1999.........Wind, onshore...Wind, offshore...Biomass...Solar....Total

Capacity, MW....4,435....................0......................250..............70

RE, GWh............5,528....................0...................1,200..............42.....6,770

Cap. Cost, b eur...8.87.....................0....................0.75............0.6......10.22

End 2013

Capacity, MW.....34,250...............520.................7,150........35,692

Energy, GWh......53,400...............722................42,600.......30,000...126,722

Cap. Cost, b euro..68.50..............2.13.................21.29.......107.37....199.30

During 2014

Capacity, MW......2,500................100..................100..........2,750

Energy, GWh.......4,161.................394.................613..........2,409.......7,643

Cap. Cost, b euro..5.0...................0.42................0.25...........5.5.........11.17

ADDITIONAL capital cost = (199.30 - 10.22) + 11.17 in 2014 = 200.2 b euro

ADDITIONAL RE = (126,722 - 6,770) + 7,643 in 2014 = 127,595 GWh, or  20.14% of total generation.

Total RE end 2014  = 151700, end 2013 + 7,643 in 2014 = 159,343 GWh, or  25.15% of total generation.

April 24, 2014    View Comment    

On Biomass: The World's Biggest Provider Of Renewable Energy

Robert,

A very nice summary that showed biomass has been, and still is, the RE king, despite all the direct and indirect subsidies, cost shifting, favorable regulations, etc., for wind and solar. 

It would be interesting to compare the subsidies expended to achieve the INCREASES in biomass, wind and solar energy contributions for the past 25 years.

In case of Germany's ENERGIEWENDE and Vermont's RE programs, here are some data:

Normal 0 0 1 44 254 2 1 311 11.0 0 0 0

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/332911/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-vermonts-economy

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy

Going from vacuum tubes to transisters is an example of a technical plateau, another is heterocyclic organic compounds for cancer drugs.

Regarding corn-to-ethanol CO2 reduction, at best it is a wash on an A to Z basis, and the energy density is miserable to say the least. Only politics has kept the heavily-subsidized program alive.

Because of reduced US gasohol consumption, US corn ethanol production capacity far exceeds US need for blending to produce gasohol, 90% gasoline/10% ethanol.

The industry's next gig is more subsidies for cellulose alcohol and mandatory blending targets. The industry/government mantra is "cellulosic eliminates all the drawbacks of corn and is much less costly per gallon"; the moon is blue, or made of cheese is also true.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/287061/us-corn-ethanol-program

Normal 0 0 1 10 62 1 1 76 11.0 0 0 0

 

 


 

April 24, 2014    View Comment    

On Mitigation Talk Vs. Mitigation Cost

Edward,

Below are some calculations of interest.

The volumes of CO2/yr produced are mindboggling. Generating 1 MWh using 10,000 Btu coal (about 0.5 kg)/kWh emits about 1 metric ton of CO2. The world burns 9 billion metric ton of coal!!!

Think about the piping and pumping systems required to get the CO2 from the generating plants to the CO2 sequestering reservoirs.

Would about 5 - 10 times the existing piping system capacity be required in the US? How much piping and pumping system capacity would it be in China?

Volume calculation of one ton CO2

One ton = 1000 kg
One cubic meter = 1000 liters
One mole CO2 = 44.0 g     (CO2 = 12.0 g + 32.0 g = 44.0 g)
One ton contains 22730 moles of CO2    (1,000,000 g / 44.0 g/mole)
One mole is 24.47 L     (Boyle's law at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure)
Volume of one ton CO2 = 22730 moles × 24.47 L/mole = 556200 L = 556.2 m³

One ton of CO2 occupies 556.2m³ of volume.

Volume CO2 from one gallon of conventional gasoline

Gasoline density = 2791 grams/gallon
Percent carbon by mass = 85.5%
Mass of CO2 from 1 gal of gas = 2.791 kg/gal × 85.5% × (44.0 g CO2 / 12.0 g C) = 8.750 kg
Volume of CO2 from one gallon of gas = 0.008750 ton × 556.2 m³/ton = 4.867 m³

The combustion of each gallon of conventional gasoline produces 4.867m³ of CO2.

Instead of CCS, it would be much less expensive to built out modular nuclear plants. The US has 50 years of experience building modular nuclear plants for the US Navy.

 

Factory-built modular nuclear plants, about 150 MW each, is the way to go, not those big 1,300 MW units, that take 10 years to build. The reactor system and the steam-generator system would each be shipped by rail of barge to the site. Several modules could be arranged side by side for large plants.

Production could be at a rate of 40-50 modules/month, just as Boeing is producing planes at 40-50 per month.

April 23, 2014    View Comment    

On Why a Climate Treaty or Carbon Tax Is Unlikely

All,

The volumes of CO2/yr produced are mindboggling. Generating 1 MWh using 10,000 Btu coal (about 0.5 kg)/kWh emits about 1 metric ton of CO2. The world burns 9 billion metric ton of coal!!!

Think about the piping and pumping systems required to get the CO2 from the generating plants to the CO2 sequestering reservoirs.

About 5 - 10 times the existing piping system capacity in the US? China piping and pumping system capacity?

Stop dreaming about CCS. 

Volume calculation of one ton CO2

One ton = 1000 kg
One cubic meter = 1000 liters
One mole CO2 = 44.0 g     (CO2 = 12.0 g + 32.0 g = 44.0 g)
One ton contains 22730 moles of CO2    (1,000,000 g / 44.0 g/mole)
One mole is 24.47 L     (Boyle's law at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure)
Volume of one ton CO2 = 22730 moles × 24.47 L/mole = 556200 L = 556.2 m³

One ton of CO2 occupies 556.2m³ of volume.

Volume CO2 from one gallon of conventional gasoline

Gasoline density = 2791 grams/gallon
Percent carbon by mass = 85.5%
Mass of CO2 from 1 gal of gas = 2.791 kg/gal × 85.5% × (44.0 g CO2 / 12.0 g C) = 8.750 kg
Volume of CO2 from one gallon of gas = 0.008750 ton × 556.2 m³/ton = 4.867 m³

The combustion of each gallon of conventional gasoline produces 4.867m³ of CO2.

April 23, 2014    View Comment    

On Mitigation Talk Vs. Mitigation Cost

Roger,

Assume CCS is proven, would the CO2 stay forever in the ground? When would it be OK to seep out?

The world does not have enough places to sequester the CO2.

For coal about 1,000 g of CO2/kWh. About 9 billion metric tons of coal was burned in the world in 2013.

I am sure you can calculate the volumes of CO2 and piping systems, with pumps (RE powered?), required to get the CO2 from the generator stations to the sequestering areas, with more pumps (RE powered?) to get the CO2 INTO the seqestering reservoirs.

CCS is an unfeasible nightmare.

April 22, 2014    View Comment    

On IPCC Working Group III Recommends Nearly Quadrupling Nuclear Energy

Rod,

Yes, I read it, but think it will lead to nothing, if it is up to "policy makers", because they, for the past 20 years, have committed themselves to RE, and unjustifiably vilified nuclear (and fossil fuels) at every opportunity, to get more money for RE that would have gone to nuclear in a more sane/rational environment.

I would not get my hopes up, based on the IPCC report.

April 22, 2014    View Comment    

On IPCC Working Group III Recommends Nearly Quadrupling Nuclear Energy

John,

If all the obvious costs, such as balancing, standby capacity, grid expansion, etc.,  were actually charged to wind energy, it would be a no brainer to go nuclear, as I have mentioned in several of my articles.

The US expanding its gas production so we can export it as LNG to inhibit "Russian land grabbing" is even more stupid than putting 459-ft tall wind turbines on 2,500-ft high ridge lines with CFs of about 0.25, the average for all of the Northeast.

Subsidies make people do crazy things.

Here is my latest article. It has been greatly expanded due to comments, etc.

Normal 0 0 1 15 86 1 1 105 11.0 0 0 0

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/368081/russian-gas-exports-and-western-encroachments-russia

 

April 22, 2014    View Comment    

On IPCC Working Group III Recommends Nearly Quadrupling Nuclear Energy

John,

The IPCC directs its reports primarily to the choir, to help it scare others into heavily-subsidized, ineffective, expensive, but politically-attractive RE scenarios that have been a flop since 1990 (Kyoto), based on the world's increased CO2 emissions since then.

Stating the obvious, i.e., greatly expanding nuclear to reduce CO2, is a choir no-no, akin to selling out, etc.

April 22, 2014    View Comment    

On Russian Gas Exports and Western Encroachments on Russia

Paul,

Not long ago, as stated in my article, 80% of Russian gas to Europe went via Ukraine. It is not surprising, Russia wants Ukraine to be a friendly neighbor not dominated by/beholden to the US, EU, NATO, etc.

The US State Department and CIA have helped foment unrest/"color revolutions" in Ukraine (and Georgia, Lituania, etc.) for more than 25 years.

A few days ago, the head of the CIA was "visiting" Kiev to organize responses. Russia has many spies in Ukraine's intelligence services.

The EU and NATO have similarly been trying to pull Ukraine into Europe's orbit. This is after Russia was promised in 1991 only East Germany would be added to NATO. Read Putin's speech again.

In the US, some states have Spanish as a second official language, even though Hispanics are only 12% of the US population and many of them are here illegally.

Russia, led by Katherina the Great, conducted a war to gain the Crimea in 1783. Khrushchev illegally "gave" it to Ukraine in 1954. Akin to Nixon giving San Diego, a US naval base, to Mexico!

People in Russia are economically much better off than in the Ukraine, because Russia's GDP has seen 7%/yr growth for about 15 years. That growth rate will become less, because of events and slow growth in Europe.

Whereas being part of the EU may have had more appeal 20 years ago, when Russia was on its knees, the EU lack of economic growth for about a decade, "the lost decade", makes Russia more attractive, especially for Crimeans and east Ukraine Russians who will see their economic prospects, and incomes and pensions significantly increased to Russian levels, if again being part of Russia.

 

April 22, 2014    View Comment    

On Russian Gas Exports and Western Encroachments on Russia

Hops,

That is true as long as EU bureaucrats in Brussels are not telling them how to run their economies and what environmental and energy policies to implement. 

Not all countries want to follow rich Germany's expensive energy and environmental programs, nor are they able to, as they lack the resources.

Spain tried expensive RE and it contributed to a failed economy, which will take decades to recover, with Europe in near-zero growth mode. Spain has 25% unemployment, 50% among people 25 or younger.

 

April 21, 2014    View Comment