GRA
Well-known member
Via GCR: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104358_chile-is-giving-away-solar-energy-for-free-because-it-has-so-much
Chile is giving away solar energy, for free, because it has so much
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
The title is a little misleading, when the article states:
Sounds like the solution would be to improve inter-regional transmission lines. This is not new, either. Certain areas of north america have long had surplus hydroelectric power. They simply beef up the transmission lines and sell it to their neighbors. Washington state and Quebec come to mind.
Sounds like the solution would be to improve inter-regional transmission lines. This is not new, either. Certain areas of north america have long had surplus hydroelectric power. They simply beef up the transmission lines and sell it to their neighbors. Washington state and Quebec come to mind.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
So, how much of Chile's electricity is generated from solar? 1%:
As you can see, Chile IS a world leader in electricity generation from renewable sources, at 35%. But solar is only 3% of their renewable portfolio in terms of generation. (Peak power generation from solar is much higher than this average value, however.)
Overall energy consumption in Chile is 17% from renewables:
Chile can certainly benefit from increasing their renewables fraction further, as detailed by Mondaq:
As you can see, Chile IS a world leader in electricity generation from renewable sources, at 35%. But solar is only 3% of their renewable portfolio in terms of generation. (Peak power generation from solar is much higher than this average value, however.)
Overall energy consumption in Chile is 17% from renewables:
Chile can certainly benefit from increasing their renewables fraction further, as detailed by Mondaq:
Mondaq said:
Mondaq said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Roger Andrews just did an excellent analysis of energy in Chile at Energy Matters.
My takeaways:
- Chile is an excellent environment to ramp up renewable energy due to high energy costs and excellent access to hydro resources.
- Chile's policies are driving PV without addressing the storage issues. PV definitely makes sense there, but they need to figure out how best to use it!
My takeaways:
- Chile is an excellent environment to ramp up renewable energy due to high energy costs and excellent access to hydro resources.
- Chile's policies are driving PV without addressing the storage issues. PV definitely makes sense there, but they need to figure out how best to use it!
GRA
Well-known member
Thanks for that. They seem to be facing many of the same issues that China did re wind a couple of years back, i.e. concentrating on production capacity without providing the necessary connections to the demand. China acted quickly to correct the balance, and let's hope Chile does as well. But expanding conventional hydro will be fought tooth and nail by environmentalists, rightly so. We're removing dams along the west coast.RegGuheert said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Hydrolectric electricity generation certainly has environmental impacts. OTOH, it likely has the LOWEST environmental impact of ANY form of electricity generation on a per-kWh basis. As such, replacing hydroelectric electricity generation facilities with systems which do MORE damage to our environment makes absolutely no sense at all. (Ivanpah springs to mind.)GRA said:
JeremyW
Well-known member
Got a source for that removing dams thing? We built them for storing drinking/irrigation water as much (if not more than) electricity generation.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Here's a link: This Will Be the Biggest Dam-Removal Project in HistoryJeremyW said:
GRA
Well-known member
Cement (and rebar) production both involve large amounts of fossil fuels, and then there are the other environmental and societal disruptions due to dams. A case in point:RegGuheert said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-threegorges-idUSBRE87L0ZW20120822
China has the best undeveloped hydro resources in the world, and they've had big plans which have caused big problems. I spec'd a few micro-hydro systems and I'm not particularly worried about those (still, I always preferred PV/wind when available), but grid-scale hydro is another matter.
Then there's the low energy/power density of hydro, which doesn't just include the area of the turbines/dam itself, but also the entire area of the reservoir. I did see a comparison of the amount of energy, steel/cement etc. used in building and the power densities/area of various types of generating plants some time ago, and IIRR among all of the zero-emission variety, nukes came out ahead. I'll try and remember where I read it and post it.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Stating that there are impacts tells no one anything. My point stands uncontested: hydro is the LOWEST impact per kWh.
So? Please name something that doesn't. With an EROEI approaching 150, hydroelectric far exceeds other alternatives in terms of return on impact. Three Gorges Dam pays back the energy consumed in construction approximately every six months!GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
My point was that that AFAIR wasn't the case, but as i said I can't remember just where I read it.RegGuheert said:
Reg, I've never argued that hydro isn't a good deal energy-wise, only that the societal and environmental impacts are huge, and given the choice other non-emitting options have lower impacts.RegGuheert said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
They're huge because the amount of electricity produced is huge. EVERY other source of electricity has much larger impacts on a per-killowatt basis.GRA said:
Fighting to eliminate the cleanest source of electricity we have is a ridiculously bad idea since it leads to MORE destruction of the environment.
GRA
Well-known member
No, nukes don't have a much larger impact on a per-kW basis, Reg, that's where the amount of cement/steel/land area needed come into the equation. People may choose to reject nukes from nukes for other, valid reasons (cost uncertainties, worries about accidents* and long-term storage, proliferation, non-renewable fuel [sort-of - see breeders]), but higher environmental, societal and energy impacts than dams aren't among them.RegGuheert said:
*Although dam failures have killed far more people than all the nuclear plant accidents combined, and coal has killed far more than that, both in accidents and due to emissions.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Really? Where does the uranium come from? Didn't you just post that there was about to be a world-wide shortage?GRA said:
What's happening is that you are fighting against hydroelectric plants and promoting hydrogen for transportation. In parallel, others are fighting against nuclear power. So CA has just agreed to shut down its last nuclear power plant and five hydroelectric dams.
So, how do you keep the lights on without a viable energy storage option? It's about to get much more difficult and much more expensive. And CA's environment is going to suffer massive amounts of destruction, just as is happening in Germany.
It makes no sense.
Chile has massive resources to support hydroelectric electricty production. By far, it's their best option from every perspective.
It's too bad people like you will fight against using the best option.
GRA
Well-known member
No, I did not. I posted an article that said because new nukes are coming on line and uranium was getting a bit scarce, the price of uranium is projected to rise, which will in turn lead to more uranium prospecting/extraction etc., which will cause prices to come down again, just as it does with every other resource.RegGuheert said:
Reg, I recognize that all sources of energy have advantages and disadvantages, and we should use the ones that best fit the situation. As for keeping the lights on, although we've come a long way, conservation remains the single most cost-effective choice. We agree that it's going to get a lot more difficult as variable intermittent renewables make up an increasing proportion of electricity generation, absent low cost storage for them. I also recognize that a lot of power dams already exist and removing them all at once isn't feasible or desirable during the transition, if they're still economic. But that's very different from advocating new ones and ignoring their costs. That may well be necessary to keep the lights on in some areas,; it almost certainly will be the lowest-priced choice in some.RegGuheert said:
Having looked at the advantages and disadvantages of both techs as well as all the others, I reluctantly come down on the side of nukes as having the lowest environmental and social costs to complement renewables (other than hydro*), if we can't find a low-cost means of storage for PV/wind. Others disagree. BTW, Diablo Canyon's planned to be in operation for another 8-9 years until its current licenses expire, so we've got some time to compensate. The sad thing is that California's last out-of-state contract for coal-fired electricity doesn't run out until 2026, unless we can sell it to someone else or the plant's converted to NG (the hope is by 2025).
As for China, they're essentially going full speed ahead on all fronts, PV/wind/hydro/nukes/coal/NG.
*Note that I'm fine with pumped storage in appropriate situations, and maybe H2 or compressed air will be the eventual low cost/low impact bulk storage option if batteries don't get there.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
More mining.GRA said:
Sorry, conservation is a non-sequitur argument unless you are promoting eliminating ALL electricity consumption from all of society. Otherwise, you need to keep the most environmentally-friendly production methods in place and eliminate the truly damaging approaches like Ivanpah first.GRA said:
Ignoring their costs? Please quote words, any words, to that effect. No, you won't find them in this thread.GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
Sure.RegGuheert said:
Uh, no, Reg, energy conservation is hardly a non-sequitur, any more than energy efficiency is. California's been at the forefront of both in the U.S., although we still have quite a ways to go to reach European levels.RegGuheert said:
Fair enough. How about 'evaluating their overall costs more favorably than I do in relation to other options?' Wordier, but more accurate.RegGuheert said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
More counting costs without counting benefits. Hydroelectric dams provide flood control functions during the decades of their operation. Likely many times as many lives have been SAVED (human and some other species) by the operation of hydroelectric dams than were ever lost due to the failure of these structures.GRA said:
For Three Gorges Dam:
GRA
Well-known member
Could be the case, although hard to quantify. Similar arguments can be made for all sources of electricity and most forms of power, in regards to increases in lifespan/quality of life. BTW, here's UCS' environmental assessment:RegGuheert said:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.V2nqsdUrKlQ
RegGuheert
Well-known member
According to the videos at this link, 300,000 people lost their lives in the century prior to the construction of the Three Gorges Dam due to the floods that occurred. The Three Gorges Dam's PRIMARY function is to eliminate many of these floods and to reduce the impact of those that it cannot fully prevent. As such, it is possible that this single dam may have already saved more lives than all hydroelectric dam failures have ever claimed. And many of those other dams also save people's lives in a similar manner. Put another way, hydroelectric dams likely provide a net BENEFIT to society in terms of human lives, even before the power is switched on.GRA said:
You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote. I'm not talking about the benefits of the electricity here. I'm talking about DIRECTLY saving lives through the operation of the dam for flood control. In the case of the Three Gorges Dam, that is the primary function. No, there is no other electricity generator out there that that saves more lives than it takes even in the absense of generating electricity.GRA said:
So called "environmentalism" that only looks at costs and not benefits gets things wrong more often than it gets them right. This is a perfect example and your link to the UCS article demonstrates that myoptic approach in spades.
Similar threads
