Jump to content

      













Photo

Alternative Energy Sources


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#41 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 08:24 PM

How about Underwater Kites?

The system could generate 18 terawatthours of energy annually, enough to provide nearly 4 million British households with reliably green electricity every year. UK households now use about a third of what average US households use in energy.



#42 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 10:09 PM

^ Well, you'd need 4000 of them to get the power they are discussing, or one for every 1000 households. 2 GW of tidal energy is a lot. I'm somewhat skeptical this is really feasible except on a small scale.

#43 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:00 PM

I'm realizing that there is no golden bullet solution here. But I bet a culmination of such alternative resourses will take a significant bite.

#44 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,152 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:17 PM

When a clean energy source becomes just as economically feasible as traditional sources - as this technology promises - we should all perk up our ears and listen. Because the only real motivator for change, unfortunately, is economics.
I am just as skeptical. But I'm hopeful.

Besides, I think a technology that will be commercially available in 12-15 months is beyond the "almost there" stage.


gumgum

It is here, and it is economically feasible. Look up ground source geothermal heat pump. $25,000 investment, $500 per year hydro cost to heat a 4000 square foot house. I am in the installation stage this week. If anyone would like pics of the "slinky coils" installed 10 feet below grade PM me with your email address. This technology is going to change the way we do business.

#45 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 2,989 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 05 December 2009 - 04:40 AM

gumgum

It is here, and it is economically feasible. Look up ground source geothermal heat pump. $25,000 investment, $500 per year hydro cost to heat a 4000 square foot house. I am in the installation stage this week. If anyone would like pics of the "slinky coils" installed 10 feet below grade PM me with your email address. This technology is going to change the way we do business.


Do you think that is economical? For that kind of money, you could have installed a 2GW grid-intertie solar system, offsetting a good chunk of your energy costs and selling your excess energy during times of peak sunlight/low usage.

#46 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,152 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 07:55 AM

Do you think that is economical? For that kind of money, you could have installed a 2GW grid-intertie solar system, offsetting a good chunk of your energy costs and selling your excess energy during times of peak sunlight/low usage.


Good point Bob. I have just found in the past that heating has been our highest energy sponge. I currently heat with oil, and I want to get away from that. I also wanted something that was low maintenance.

Although I have had extensive electrical experience, I am not very familiar with the grid-intertie technology. I think it requires a lot of solar panels and batteries. The pics that I see have houses with their roofs covered with PV cells. Can you heat a 4000 foot house with these in weather like we had for the past month, or do you still need an alternate source of heat for those periods? Interesting topic. I need to learn more.

I do know that with geothermal, there will be a break even point (cost divided by savings), and after that the energy savings will be similar to selling watts to the grid. It is also low maintenance, quiet, and out of sight.

#47 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 07:57 AM

I'm realizing that there is no golden bullet solution here. But I bet a culmination of such alternative resourses will take a significant bite.


Possibly, but tidal and wave power are really long shots. Human consumption is 15 TW, whereas there is only 4TW of energy in tides worldwide. Capturing even 1/100th of that tidal energy would be quite a feat in engineering and environmentally devastating.

Wind and solar are much more possible but they need good ways to store the energy they create. In terms of emissions, nuclear really seems to be the best bet.

#48 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,417 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 08:06 AM

^Really Humans are already using almost four times the energy of the tides in the ocean? I find that hard to believe.

#49 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 09:56 AM

Look it up.

Global energy consumption: 15 TW

Tidal dissipation 3.7 TW

As wikipedia correctly points out, only about 20% of the tidal power is really "available" even if the engineering existed to extract it.

Of course, the dissipation rate isn't to be confused with how much energy is contained in the tides, which is perhaps where your incredulousness comes from. Dissipation is the rate at which the earth-moon system supplies energy to move the tides around which is balanced by friction of the tides on the sea floor. I'm not certain, but I'm sure if we could magically extract all the energy stored in the tides we could power the man made needs for quite a while. But that is practically impossible, and from a celestial mechanics point of view ill advised.

#50 AnonAnnie2

AnonAnnie2
  • Member
  • 151 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 10:28 AM

I'm realizing that there is no golden bullet solution here. But I bet a culmination of such alternative resourses will take a significant bite.


quick 'fix' one-off magic solution would be wonderful - sadly not the case - great to see folks moving forward.

#51 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,583 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 08:16 PM

Blue Wave Energy has an IPO coming out soon I believe, they wanted to put there technology to work in Vancouver Harbour. It was a minimum 100k to invest.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#52 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,583 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 08:20 PM


It is here, and it is economically feasible. Look up ground source geothermal heat pump. $25,000 investment, $500 per year hydro cost to heat a 4000 square foot house. I am in the installation stage this week. If anyone would like pics of the "slinky coils" installed 10 feet below grade PM me with your email address. This technology is going to change the way we do business.


I haven't seen the slinky coil method used but I am on solid rock so don't know how practical that would be for me.

I have seen the ground loop ones in use but you need quite a large piece of property for that, I guess that is where the slinky coils would help.

I did help a friend put in a water loop system that is very effective and quite easy to do, the only caveat of course is you need to be on a body of water.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#53 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,417 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 09:42 PM

Look it up.

Global energy consumption: 15 TW

Tidal dissipation 3.7 TW

As wikipedia correctly points out, only about 20% of the tidal power is really "available" even if the engineering existed to extract it.

Of course, the dissipation rate isn't to be confused with how much energy is contained in the tides, which is perhaps where your incredulousness comes from. Dissipation is the rate at which the earth-moon system supplies energy to move the tides around which is balanced by friction of the tides on the sea floor. I'm not certain, but I'm sure if we could magically extract all the energy stored in the tides we could power the man made needs for quite a while. But that is practically impossible, and from a celestial mechanics point of view ill advised.


Thanks that makes Much more sense. So it would have been better to use recoverable energy from tidal.

#54 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,152 posts

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:19 AM

I haven't seen the slinky coil method used but I am on solid rock so don't know how practical that would be for me.

I have seen the ground loop ones in use but you need quite a large piece of property for that, I guess that is where the slinky coils would help.

I did help a friend put in a water loop system that is very effective and quite easy to do, the only caveat of course is you need to be on a body of water.


You have summed this topic up perfectly. Closed loop geothermal heating requires substantial real estate with depth, or a body of water that the loop can exploit a warm temperature.

Don’t discount however, your rocky terrain where two wells can be drilled into an aquifer where an “open loop” exchange of fluid can produce similar results.

The key to embracing this technology is to separate the terms “economical” and “economically feasible”

Bob Fugger posed the valid question regarding whether this technology is “economical”?

It is not economical to install, but the ultimate goal is that it will be “economically feasible” with a break even point with payback at a particular point in time , and better still…..provide clean and environmentally responsible results.



#55 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 06 December 2009 - 06:57 AM

It will always be a question of how long it will take to pay itself back.

#56 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 12,417 posts

Posted 06 December 2009 - 07:25 AM

You have summed this topic up perfectly. Closed loop geothermal heating requires substantial real estate with depth, or a body of water that the loop can exploit a warm temperature.

Don’t discount however, your rocky terrain where two wells can be drilled into an aquifer where an “open loop” exchange of fluid can produce similar results.

The key to embracing this technology is to separate the terms “economical” and “economically feasible”

Bob Fugger posed the valid question regarding whether this technology is “economical”?

It is not economical to install, but the ultimate goal is that it will be “economically feasible” with a break even point with payback at a particular point in time , and better still…..provide clean and environmentally responsible results.


Is it really that much better than air source heat pumps which cost less than half?

#57 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,152 posts

Posted 06 December 2009 - 09:48 AM

Is it really that much better than air source heat pumps which cost less than half?


In a word "yes"

Two reasons. Ground source still provides heat when the air temperature is below freezing (much like it is this morning) and secondly the machinery is located inside a mechanical room instead of whining away at all hours, keeping neighbors awake outdoors. OK thirdly there is no need for electric back up duct heaters.

#58 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 06 December 2009 - 12:21 PM

There are new technology air-source heat pumps being developed that work efficiently over a broader range. They use supercritical carbon dioxide as the refrigerant.

I don't know when they'll be available, but I've decided to not get a heat pump for the time being.

#59 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,152 posts

Posted 13 December 2009 - 06:02 PM

I haven't seen the slinky coil method used but I am on solid rock so don't know how practical that would be for me.

I have seen the ground loop ones in use but you need quite a large piece of property for that, I guess that is where the slinky coils would help.

I did help a friend put in a water loop system that is very effective and quite easy to do, the only caveat of course is you need to be on a body of water.


LJ if you could teach me how to post a picture, I will post a pic for everyone to see. The technology is quite cool, but unfortunately my computer skills leave a bit to be desired.

#60 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,583 posts

Posted 14 December 2009 - 09:04 PM

LJ if you could teach me how to post a picture, I will post a pic for everyone to see. The technology is quite cool, but unfortunately my computer skills leave a bit to be desired.


Hey, I had to ask to. It has been quite some time since I posted a pic but first you have to put it on one of those pic sharing sites, Flickr, Shaw etc.
then take the url code that the pic is given on the site and insert it into the "insert image" box (that is the box on top of the post reply box that looks like a mountain peak and a postage stamp) and then you're basically done. Somebody is sure to correct me if that is wrong.
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.