|
Tom, Rick and all,
I changed the Subject line to reflect the content.
Thanks for sending that very interesting comparison of cost of electricity from renewable resources, with biomass being more expensive than solar and wind.
HOWEVER, with the great need of THERMAL ENERGY, it makes more sense (and cents) to use biomass for process and space heating and let the other technologies make the electricity.
Is there a comparison of the costs of heating when by solar PV or Wind in comparison with biomass? And the biomass should be PYROLYZED, not burned to ash, so that the biochar benefits can be added into the calculations.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:
www.drtlud.com
Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to:
www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See
www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at
www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Tom Miles via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:55 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
Rick,
USDOE Energy Information Administration is a good source for cost comparison and projecttions. See
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
“Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020” February 2020
Wind and solar are pretty similar. In both cases the “fuel” is free. Bioenergy with biochar would be similar in cost to projections for biomass energy. It’s about 3x wind and solar.
Tom
Thanks Kim, Just wondering if PV or solar had the lower installed cost. Rick
Rick,
I believe that both PV solar and wind energy are both very cost competitive with fossil fuels now. Whether one or the other is lower cost will likely depend on the particular
location—average wind speed, number of sunny days per year.
|
|
|
Hi Paul, I have not seen exactly that study done, but the real comparison should be with the cost of Batteries, as it will be almost impossible to compete with Wind and Solar, particularly Wind as the cost of the machinery is dropping 10%/year. And both wind and Solar require no feedstock, so it is only when neither Wind nor Solar nor Hydro are available that the Biomass option could be considered, and it’s main competitor would be batteries. Biomass would then have to operate intermittently - as needed, with batteries only needed for the time needed to fire up the generators/boilers, whatever. Cheap generators may be available from all the coal plants dead around the place, it is interesting that much generation of electricity by coal is sold in exactly that application but that is very expensive with coal.
Using the gas, rather than burning all the feedstock is certainly my favourite, and storing the gas makes for a much quicker response time.
Thermal is great, too, but all I have seen in Europe is to nearby areas, and requires storage also, mostly domestic.
Preheating for steel and aluminium smelting would also be interesting to explore, as there are now steel plants running on the cheap wind powered electricity, - of course they still need carbon, but the biochar made from waste should do fine there whereas it may not be suitable for farming.
So the concept may be more of setting up a bit of an ecosystem, producing and using the various possibilities, - just as in a simpler way a Solar Thermal plant can use the same generators as a geothermal plant so running the geothermal plant at lower capacity, - ie when no sun, increases the life of the Geothermal resource as it allows more re-charging by the heat welling up from deeper, so reducing the need for more drilling into un-cooled- down rock. - Particlarly in Hot Rock Geothermal, which is the safer.
Cheers, Geoff Thomas.
On 16 Sep 2020, at 11:28 am, Paul S Anderson < psanders@...> wrote:
Tom, Rick and all, I changed the Subject line to reflect the content. Thanks for sending that very interesting comparison of cost of electricity from renewable resources, with biomass being more expensive than solar and wind. HOWEVER, with the great need of THERMAL ENERGY, it makes more sense (and cents) to use biomass for process and space heating and let the other technologies make the electricity. Is there a comparison of the costs of heating when by solar PV or Wind in comparison with biomass? And the biomass should be PYROLYZED, not burned to ash, so that the biochar benefits can be added into the calculations. Paul Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434 with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves. Rick, “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020” February 2020 Wind and solar are pretty similar. In both cases the “fuel” is free. Bioenergy with biochar would be similar in cost to projections for biomass energy. It’s about 3x wind and solar. Tom Thanks Kim, Just wondering if PV or solar had the lower installed cost. Rick Rick, I believe that both PV solar and wind energy are both very cost competitive with fossil fuels now. Whether one or the other is lower cost will likely depend on the particular location—average wind speed, number of sunny days per year.
|
|
|
We have been supporting a thermal application with switchgrass at a hospital complex for several years and are in the process of converting it to a pyrolysis application if and when approvals come through. I think both comments are right on. Pyrolysis of biomass should be very competitive with battery storage. The USBI Finance Committee just had a discussion of this very topic yesterday, and we decided to propose a white paper to address the issue.
I also agree that thermal applications for industrial or commercial sites should be very competitive at current expected power rates going forward. We have found pyrolysis to be competitive against propane and fuel oil now and there are a surprising number of legacy boilers still using those fuels. Heating an industrial facility using renewable energy is a surprisingly difficult challenge unless one considers pyrolysis of biomass.
Jeff
|
|
|
Hello Jeff Waldon,
I just visited your website and found mentioning of your “ SuRGE Reactor”.
Do you have available info / photos / video of your technology?
Keen to learn
Frank
www.terrapretadevelopments.com.au
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of jeff waldon
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 2:45 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: Cost of electricity; message came with INACCURATE SUBJECT OF RE: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth We have been supporting a thermal application with switchgrass at a hospital complex for several years and are in the process of converting it to a pyrolysis application if and when approvals come through. I think both comments are right on. Pyrolysis of biomass should be very competitive with battery storage. The USBI Finance Committee just had a discussion of this very topic yesterday, and we decided to propose a white paper to address the issue.
I also agree that thermal applications for industrial or commercial sites should be very competitive at current expected power rates going forward. We have found pyrolysis to be competitive against propane and fuel oil now and there are a surprising number of legacy boilers still using those fuels. Heating an industrial facility using renewable energy is a surprisingly difficult challenge unless one considers pyrolysis of biomass.
Jeff
|
|
|
a bit of a tangent, just wanting to mention that i did a little analysis last year comparing PVs with old-fashioned hot-water solar collectors with piping under glass or maybe plexiglass, and concluded that on a square-foot basis you get a lot more hot water out of the older kind of technology than you can get from a PV.
Muriel Strand, P.E.
Advertising is a private tax.
- Andre Schiffrin
www.bio-paradigm.blogspot.com/
www.work4sustenance.blogspot.com
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sep 15, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Geoff Thomas <wind@iig.com.au> wrote:
Hi Paul, I have not seen exactly that study done, but the real comparison should be with the cost of Batteries, as it will be almost impossible to compete with Wind and Solar, particularly Wind as the cost of the machinery is dropping 10%/year.
And both wind and Solar require no feedstock, so it is only when neither Wind nor Solar nor Hydro are available that the Biomass option could be considered, and it’s main competitor would be batteries.
Biomass would then have to operate intermittently - as needed, with batteries only needed for the time needed to fire up the generators/boilers, whatever.
Cheap generators may be available from all the coal plants dead around the place, it is interesting that much generation of electricity by coal is sold in exactly that application but that is very expensive with coal.
Using the gas, rather than burning all the feedstock is certainly my favourite, and storing the gas makes for a much quicker response time.
Thermal is great, too, but all I have seen in Europe is to nearby areas, and requires storage also, mostly domestic.
Preheating for steel and aluminium smelting would also be interesting to explore, as there are now steel plants running on the cheap wind powered electricity, - of course they still need carbon, but the biochar made from waste should do fine there whereas it may not be suitable for farming.
So the concept may be more of setting up a bit of an ecosystem, producing and using the various possibilities, - just as in a simpler way a Solar Thermal plant can use the same generators as a geothermal plant so running the geothermal plant at lower capacity, - ie when no sun, increases the life of the Geothermal resource as it allows more re-charging by the heat welling up from deeper, so reducing the need for more drilling into un-cooled- down rock. - Particlarly in Hot Rock Geothermal, which is the safer.
Cheers, Geoff Thomas.
On 16 Sep 2020, at 11:28 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu> wrote:
Tom, Rick and all,
I changed the Subject line to reflect the content.
Thanks for sending that very interesting comparison of cost of electricity from renewable resources, with biomass being more expensive than solar and wind.
HOWEVER, with the great need of THERMAL ENERGY, it makes more sense (and cents) to use biomass for process and space heating and let the other technologies make the electricity.
Is there a comparison of the costs of heating when by solar PV or Wind in comparison with biomass? And the biomass should be PYROLYZED, not burned to ash, so that the biochar benefits can be added into the calculations.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:55 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
Rick,
USDOE Energy Information Administration is a good source for cost comparison and projecttions. Seehttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
“Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020” February 2020
Wind and solar are pretty similar. In both cases the “fuel” is free. Bioenergy with biochar would be similar in cost to projections for biomass energy. It’s about 3x wind and solar.
Tom
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:45 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
Thanks Kim, Just wondering if PV or solar had the lower installed cost. Rick
On Sep 12, 2020, at 11:46 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@gmail.com> wrote:
Rick,
I believe that both PV solar and wind energy are both very cost competitive with fossil fuels now. Whether one or the other is lower cost will likely depend on the particular location—average wind speed, number of sunny days per year.
Kim
|
|
|
Yes Muriel, the efficiency of Solar Thermal is getting up to 98% whereas Solar Electric is only recently exceeding 20%, Solar hot water systems have always been more efficient.
However the modern Solar hot water systems using evacuated glass tubes are what give it that higher efficiency figure I just mentioned.
Making electricity out of that hot water though, tends to make it more equal, due to the heat exchangers, electricity generators. pumps, coolers, etc. reqired so to do and the lower price of modern Solar panels make them more cost effective.
You can, moreover, buy hybrid Solar electric and hot water panels, the infra-red is not much help to the PV section, but the coolnees of the water is very helpful to the PV.
Again, not so cost effective as separating the two, but uses area more effectively.
For large areas, and nearby big users of heat, however, dedicated Solar Thermal would be cheaper, particularly if it was combined with Solar Cascaded Air conditioning, - which can be retrofitted to existing air conditioning units, thus saving much electricity.
Cheers,
Geoff.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 28 Sep 2020, at 6:47 am, Muriel Strand <auntym@earthlink.net> wrote:
a bit of a tangent, just wanting to mention that i did a little analysis last year comparing PVs with old-fashioned hot-water solar collectors with piping under glass or maybe plexiglass, and concluded that on a square-foot basis you get a lot more hot water out of the older kind of technology than you can get from a PV.
Muriel Strand, P.E.
Advertising is a private tax.
- Andre Schiffrin
www.bio-paradigm.blogspot.com/
www.work4sustenance.blogspot.com
On Sep 15, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Geoff Thomas <wind@iig.com.au> wrote:
Hi Paul, I have not seen exactly that study done, but the real comparison should be with the cost of Batteries, as it will be almost impossible to compete with Wind and Solar, particularly Wind as the cost of the machinery is dropping 10%/year.
And both wind and Solar require no feedstock, so it is only when neither Wind nor Solar nor Hydro are available that the Biomass option could be considered, and it’s main competitor would be batteries.
Biomass would then have to operate intermittently - as needed, with batteries only needed for the time needed to fire up the generators/boilers, whatever.
Cheap generators may be available from all the coal plants dead around the place, it is interesting that much generation of electricity by coal is sold in exactly that application but that is very expensive with coal.
Using the gas, rather than burning all the feedstock is certainly my favourite, and storing the gas makes for a much quicker response time.
Thermal is great, too, but all I have seen in Europe is to nearby areas, and requires storage also, mostly domestic.
Preheating for steel and aluminium smelting would also be interesting to explore, as there are now steel plants running on the cheap wind powered electricity, - of course they still need carbon, but the biochar made from waste should do fine there whereas it may not be suitable for farming.
So the concept may be more of setting up a bit of an ecosystem, producing and using the various possibilities, - just as in a simpler way a Solar Thermal plant can use the same generators as a geothermal plant so running the geothermal plant at lower capacity, - ie when no sun, increases the life of the Geothermal resource as it allows more re-charging by the heat welling up from deeper, so reducing the need for more drilling into un-cooled- down rock. - Particlarly in Hot Rock Geothermal, which is the safer.
Cheers, Geoff Thomas.
On 16 Sep 2020, at 11:28 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@ilstu.edu> wrote:
Tom, Rick and all,
I changed the Subject line to reflect the content.
Thanks for sending that very interesting comparison of cost of electricity from renewable resources, with biomass being more expensive than solar and wind.
HOWEVER, with the great need of THERMAL ENERGY, it makes more sense (and cents) to use biomass for process and space heating and let the other technologies make the electricity.
Is there a comparison of the costs of heating when by solar PV or Wind in comparison with biomass? And the biomass should be PYROLYZED, not burned to ash, so that the biochar benefits can be added into the calculations.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:55 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
Rick,
USDOE Energy Information Administration is a good source for cost comparison and projecttions. Seehttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
“Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020” February 2020
Wind and solar are pretty similar. In both cases the “fuel” is free. Bioenergy with biochar would be similar in cost to projections for biomass energy. It’s about 3x wind and solar.
Tom
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:45 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
Thanks Kim, Just wondering if PV or solar had the lower installed cost. Rick
On Sep 12, 2020, at 11:46 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@gmail.com> wrote:
Rick,
I believe that both PV solar and wind energy are both very cost competitive with fossil fuels now. Whether one or the other is lower cost will likely depend on the particular location—average wind speed, number of sunny days per year.
Kim
|
|
|
My Food Forever concept will charge CEC negative soils ( depleted farmlands) to full charge and keep it there for as long as the operation is continued while producing 100% organic vegetables and poultry. No well or water dept. water is used for irrigation and all power is derived from solar. Almost anyone most anywhere can grow food for subsistence or profit using the regenag idea. Biochar is a main component of soil preparation prior to planting as is worm windrows.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 1:47 PM Muriel Strand < auntym@...> wrote: a bit of a tangent, just wanting to mention that i did a little analysis last year comparing PVs with old-fashioned hot-water solar collectors with piping under glass or maybe plexiglass, and concluded that on a square-foot basis you get a lot more hot water out of the older kind of technology than you can get from a PV.
Muriel Strand, P.E.
Advertising is a private tax.
- Andre Schiffrin
www.bio-paradigm.blogspot.com/
www.work4sustenance.blogspot.com
> On Sep 15, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul, I have not seen exactly that study done, but the real comparison should be with the cost of Batteries, as it will be almost impossible to compete with Wind and Solar, particularly Wind as the cost of the machinery is dropping 10%/year.
> And both wind and Solar require no feedstock, so it is only when neither Wind nor Solar nor Hydro are available that the Biomass option could be considered, and it’s main competitor would be batteries.
> Biomass would then have to operate intermittently - as needed, with batteries only needed for the time needed to fire up the generators/boilers, whatever.
> Cheap generators may be available from all the coal plants dead around the place, it is interesting that much generation of electricity by coal is sold in exactly that application but that is very expensive with coal.
>
> Using the gas, rather than burning all the feedstock is certainly my favourite, and storing the gas makes for a much quicker response time.
>
> Thermal is great, too, but all I have seen in Europe is to nearby areas, and requires storage also, mostly domestic.
>
> Preheating for steel and aluminium smelting would also be interesting to explore, as there are now steel plants running on the cheap wind powered electricity, - of course they still need carbon, but the biochar made from waste should do fine there whereas it may not be suitable for farming.
>
> So the concept may be more of setting up a bit of an ecosystem, producing and using the various possibilities, - just as in a simpler way a Solar Thermal plant can use the same generators as a geothermal plant so running the geothermal plant at lower capacity, - ie when no sun, increases the life of the Geothermal resource as it allows more re-charging by the heat welling up from deeper, so reducing the need for more drilling into un-cooled- down rock. - Particlarly in Hot Rock Geothermal, which is the safer.
>
> Cheers, Geoff Thomas.
>
>> On 16 Sep 2020, at 11:28 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:
>>
>> Tom, Rick and all,
>>
>> I changed the Subject line to reflect the content.
>>
>> Thanks for sending that very interesting comparison of cost of electricity from renewable resources, with biomass being more expensive than solar and wind.
>>
>> HOWEVER, with the great need of THERMAL ENERGY, it makes more sense (and cents) to use biomass for process and space heating and let the other technologies make the electricity.
>>
>> Is there a comparison of the costs of heating when by solar PV or Wind in comparison with biomass? And the biomass should be PYROLYZED, not burned to ash, so that the biochar benefits can be added into the calculations.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
>> Email: psanders@... Skype: paultlud
>> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
>> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
>> Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See www.woodgas.com
>> Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
>> with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
>>
>> From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Miles via groups.io
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:55 PM
>> To: main@Biochar.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> USDOE Energy Information Administration is a good source for cost comparison and projecttions. Seehttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
>> “Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020” February 2020
>>
>> Wind and solar are pretty similar. In both cases the “fuel” is free. Bioenergy with biochar would be similar in cost to projections for biomass energy. It’s about 3x wind and solar.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via groups.io
>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:45 PM
>> To: main@Biochar.groups.io
>> Subject: Re: [Biochar] Restoring Abandoned Farmland to Mitigate Climate Change on a Full Earth: One Earth
>>
>> Thanks Kim, Just wondering if PV or solar had the lower installed cost. Rick
>>
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2020, at 11:46 PM, Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...> wrote:
>>
>> Rick,
>> I believe that both PV solar and wind energy are both very cost competitive with fossil fuels now. Whether one or the other is lower cost will likely depend on the particular location—average wind speed, number of sunny days per year.
>> Kim
>>
>
>
|
|
|
