SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Climate Central reports
The ravages of climate change could severely hurt the ability of utilities in the 11 Western states to generate power unless they "climate proof" their power grid using renewables and energy efficiency, something they are not prepared for, according to a new study[1] [by researchers at Arizona State University, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change].
[...]Higher temperatures and low stream flow reduce coal-fired power plants' ability to use water for cooling, preventing them from operating at full capacity. The most vulnerable power plants could see a reduction in power generation capacity by up to 8.8 percent, the study says.
Renewables take a hit too, but are much less vulnerable to climate change.
[...]The Arizona State study recommends Western states invest in wind, solar, and other "resilient" renewable energy sources while upgrading the power grid and encouraging conservation as ways to overcome some of the challenges climate change poses to the region's power supply.
[1] Link in TFA redirects to the URL that I included.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @04:19AM
With all due respect, I know of no other commercially viable heat to electricity process used in utilities other than steam.
With all due respect, argument from ignorance is a shitty argument. But let's help here. I know of five alternatives: air, ammonia, liquid sodium, various high temperature organic thermal fluids, and liquid salts.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 22 2015, @04:54AM
In your rush to sling insults, did you take the time to find any commercially viable examples of any of those in use at a power utility?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 22 2015, @05:19AM
Oh, and in your search, be sure to check if steam is involved anywhere in the process.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @06:25AM
Oh, and in your search, be sure to check if steam is involved anywhere in the process.
Because use of steam or water-cooled technology nearby completely invalidates any use of other fluids to transfer or absorb heat?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 22 2015, @07:49AM
Because use of steam or water-cooled technology nearby completely invalidates any use of other fluids to transfer or absorb heat?
Yup, ESPECIALLY in this thread, and this story. The whole topic is about water use becoming more of an impediment to any heat based conversion of any other energy source to electricity. Oil, Gas, Coal, Nuclear, Thermal Solar, it all has to go through steam to be electricity at utility scale.
The point isn't to absorb heat. The point is to make electricity.
Nothing else but water has the expansion capability to drive turbines, (without dissolving them). We've just not found a good substitutes for water, because we've found no good substitute for steam turbines for converting any heat source to electricity. Not at scale.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @08:15AM
The point isn't to absorb heat. The point is to make electricity.
I see your point, but there still is a place for more efficient use of water than just the case of not using it at all. For example, using water/steam in a closed loop with most of the heat transfer occurring via other fluids.
Nothing else but water has the expansion capability to drive turbines
There is also ammonia and propane which have similar expansion capabilities due to liquid/gas phase change. Plus, most relatively inert gases will work well with a high enough temperature gradient.
We've just not found a good substitutes for water, because we've found no good substitute for steam turbines for converting any heat source to electricity.
There are other ways to turn heat into electricity such as MHD generators and thermoelectric couples.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 22 2015, @06:17AM