the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Dan »

Lee, I believe Sandman also commented about rooftop solar some time ago. Yes, it's expensive, and it doesn't pay for itself for a long, long time. But I think it's a worthwhile pursuit for those who can afford it. But, perhaps not for the reasons some may think. Some time ago, my father had a solar system to heat his swimming pool and spa, and it performed pretty well. It just required frequent maintenance. I know, I did much of it myself.

When you're working with hot water, there are issues of mineral deposits, leaks, pump failures, age, corrosion, and UV damage. When working with photovoltaic structures, there is also attrition, and most arrays are designed such that the entire array must be replaced in order to correct a single damaged cell.

Unless the system is designed for peak demand, the only way to efficiently operate is with storage capacity, which is also expensive and must be replaced periodically. I have friends with two homes in Baja California where there are duplicate electrical systems. One runs on a diesel generator at 110 volts 60 Hz, and the other runs on a huge bank of 12 volt batteries. They have considered using a solar array to keep the batteries charged, but it was too expensive and made roof maintenance very difficult (they must repair and roll on a coating of white polymer material every few years).

You are both correct in that the power companies have no vested interest in helping to pay for consumers to leave the grid. They already spend nearly all their revenues keeping that system up and running. It would cost billions for them to subsidize solar arrays for their consumers to generate their own power, with absolutely no return on investment to the utility. It would become another publicly-funded project. Somehow, people often get the idea that if it's a public utility, that the money somehow grows on trees, and maintenance is free to the consumer. But, when power generation is no longer publicly funded, the consumer bears the entire cost of the whole enchilada. Nothing is hidden any longer in government no-bid contracts and emergency maintenance funding districts, passed off to other accounting ledgers for other boondoggles, and the government can no longer borrow any money to pay for things they don't want to justify in the current budget. Yes, there are benefits to that, and there are also penalties to the consumer when they choose to go off-grid. He is on his own.

If the consumer is going off-grid in order to feel good about becoming self-sufficient, that's great. Ditto with those who seek less government waste and intrusion into their lives and decisions. If they are doing it to save money, they may end up a bit disappointed.
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Sal »

Rooftop solar can feed into the existing grid with no need for backup batteries. This is altready a reality in many communities.

You never need to replace the entire array to fix a faulty cell. Photovoltaic panels are guaranteed for upwards of 20 years and most last much longer. Panels can be affixed to rooftop mounts with no need to affect roofing matieral.

To find a way there must be a will!
LeeVW
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:16 am

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by LeeVW »

Thank you both for your insights. As long as we can keep staying away from the personal attacks, this will continue to be a very interesting conversation.

I was talking to my boss about solar power a while back. The one thing that became very clear is that those who have never seen a mirror array in the desert have no idea just how destructive it is. I have seen the bladed earth. I have seen the wide graded roads with the huge berms created along the transmission corridors. I had to explain loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, and all sort of other things. The general population automatically thinks solar and wind = good, clean energy with no consequences. This is what the media has spoon fed them, and this is what they will believe.

One of the things researched was to determine how much land was needed for solar power compared to nuclear. The results are a real eye-opener.

All THREE of the Solar Energy Generating Stations (SEGS) in the Mojave Desert encompass a total 1,600 acres of land. Together, the three stations generate up to 354 MW of power, DURING THE PEAK OF THE DAY, WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING, IN THE SUMMER.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) encompasses 84 acres in total and generates up to 2,350 MW of power, TWENTY FOUR HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, ALL YEAR LONG. And that's with only two of the three reactors online!

You can wave the spent fuel rods in my face if you wish, but I'm sure we can develop the technology to store nuclear waste in a safe manner, maybe even eventually come up with a way to render it inert. Like Sal said, to find a way, there must be a will!
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Dan »

Sal, the only thing that creates widespread "will" is economic viability. People would naturally gravitate toward enviros' solutions if they made economic sense.

For some unbiased perspective on this, Sal, go here: http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-impr ... ion418.htm

For the average house, it would cost about $32,000 to install a solar system to operate at a level of about 600 watts average consumption. Likely more, if you add the cost of an electric meter that allows power back onto the grid. At my average power cost of around $70 per month, I'd pay myself back in about 38 years, assuming no maintenance cost, AND assuming the $32,000 wouldn't be better invested in something that could be earning money (opportunity cost). Assuming that opportunity earns at the rate of about 3% per year, the break even point ends up at between 55 and 60 years.

While I might feel better about myself, and be very proud of my enviro advocacy, it doesn't make a whole lot of common sense. It's called a cost/benefit analysis, and it would behoove enviro groups to understand these sort of things and how it should affect their own advocacy.
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Dan »

Great, Lee! Nuclear power is clean, inexpensive relative to the size of the output, reliable, and you are correct in that it takes up far less land and promotes far less intrusion into everyone's world.

What France does is to reprocess the spent fuel so much of it can be re-used. They've got it to the point that the entire spent fuel waste attributed to a family of four for one year fits in a typical teacup. They also don't have accidents like Chernobyl or TMI. The disadvantage is that you must have very close security over fuel supplies, and they must be moved to reprocessing centers unless this is included with nuclear generating plants on-site. Spent or reprocessed fuel in the wrong hands could be dangerous.


If you want to learn everthing you wanted to know about nuclear power, you can pick up this book by Gwyneth Cravens. She was an environmentalist who began her quest in a mood to discredit and permanently bury nuclear power under the scrapheap of history. What she found out was directly contradictory to some of the myths circulated about nuclear power by many environmental groups and their adherents. She is now among the most strident supporters of nuclear power and its ability to provide almost unlimited clean, quiet, safe electrical supplies.

We don't have to live in mud huts or walk everywhere we go, and electric powered cars don't have to pollute as much as gasoline-powered cars any more.

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World- ... 0307266567
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Sal »

I'm sure I can get you a better deal than $32,000.00 Dan. When you say you need 600 W do you mean 600w x 24 hours? how much power do you use in 24 hours?
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Sal »

I guess I should mention that 600 watts used for one hour is 600 watt-hours. Your answer should be in watt-hours to my question of how much power you use in 24 hours.
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Dan »

Can you get me down to a 1, 2, or 3 year payback, Sal? Typically, today's CEO is looking for less than a year. Pretty far-sighted of my, don't you think? 1/2 the capacity is still a 19 year payback by proportion, Sal. That still doesn't make any economic sense.

Why do you want to know how much power I use in a day? Even if the average is 300 watts, the peak could well be in the 600 watt realm. If you install a 300 watt system under those circumstances, you either have to include storage capability that can be replenished in off-peak hours, or you need to use the grid. If you're using the grid, what's the purpose of this?
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Sal »

well Dan the idea is you put elec into the grid at low increments and take it out in what ever increments you need. If you use just a few lights and a low energy refrig, you could have a low energy requirement. If you needed to run AC for a few hours, you would have made up for the energy cost by feeding your excess watts into the grid when you didn't need the juice. this averages out over a year. but I asked what your average daily wattage use was so I could give you a better idea of what you could do with a minimal amount of panels. I know it has to be less than $30,000 unless you're running a lot of AC or charging your elec vehicle every night LOL
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: the environmental cost of mining in the desert

Post by Dan »

PSST, Sal: don't tell anyone, but the bill is actually in the high $70's, and in California that means around 19-20 kwh per day average use. ;)
Post Reply