What trends of Electrical Engineering Market that will make good money in 5 years.

[Jimmerman]

(Greetings)
Good Afternoon,

First time writing something in Electrical Forum ever,
And really excited for sure of sharing peoples interest from our majors.

(TOPIC)

The Expiration dates of Nuclear Plants worldwide are now coming to the end,
This might be causing another wave of renewal energy market.

What do you all think it will be the major item in Renewal Energy that might be trendy in 5 years?

 

[Bluejets]

Whatever is the trend, just don't shut down existing systems until it's proven the new arrangement works.

Take a look at the South Australian system if you want an example of definitely what NOT to do.

 

[Tha fios agaibh]

Solar will likely be a contender.
Technology is still improving and costs are continuing to fall.
Elon Musks solar roofs are pretty cool but where the money will go 5 years out is anybody's guess.

 

[kellys_eye]

Solar and hydro are the only potential future 'renewables' - wind is toast.

Even solar is only useful for limited locations (to realise its full potential) and NO renewables should have to rely on subsidies. It either succeeds or it fails on its own merits.

 

[Jimmerman]

Solar will likely be a contender.
Technology is still improving and costs are continuing to fall.
Elon Musks solar roofs are pretty cool but where the money will go 5 years out is anybody's guess.

Hi fios agaibh,
Thanks for your comments

Althought my thoughts of steady market of solar system is not nearly supportive,

Consideration of solar panel in technology nearly grows 1 percent in its efficiency and now it has reached 29% percent as its maximum concerned by the expert. Which there is a limit of process of how silicon atom makes energy when photon hits their structure to generate its energy,

So current condition of solar market seems steady but considering of growth in micro grid system, which improving the transportation technology of electricity might grow so then people rather face the limit of efficiency in solar pannel they might dig another pond for future,

What is your concern about them?

Thanks for the reply

 

[Jimmerman]

Whatever is the trend, just don't shut down existing systems until it's proven the new arrangement works.

Take a look at the South Australian system if you want an example of definitely what NOT to do.

Hi Bluejets,

The shut down of existing system of Nuclear Plants are only concerned because of facing its expiration date, which is 30 years. also they were built in orderly so by worldwide they are desolving them orderly, so my point is NOT changing the entire electrical system but there will be a slight wave in market because desolving nuclear plant can effect eco-generating system slightly that we can ride some of that wave for profit,

What happend in Australia?

 

[Bluejets]

South Australia...... the land of almost double the cost of power compared to other states.

Check here just for starters. (there are many others and on-going)

http://www.news.com.au/technology/e...r/news-story/885602b3ff99c3500dbde27fbe54b5ab

 

[kellys_eye]

Nuclear power generation delivers HUGE quantities of power that simply cannot be matched by any reasonable amount of solar, wind or hydro power. There will be no option other than to build NEW nuclear (unless fusion comes to fruition) as there is no escaping the fact that the worlds energy requirements are growing year-on-year.

Failing a nuclear rebuilding scheme then gas turbine power stations fed from fracked gas seems the only logical alternative - more so given the huge quantities already discovered and more still to be.

Renewables are a crock of sh1t - we need dispatchable power 24/7, not unreliable and unaffordable politically-motivated schemes that have a habit of failing (see above).

 

[Jimmerman]

Nuclear power generation delivers HUGE quantities of power that simply cannot be matched by any reasonable amount of solar, wind or hydro power. There will be no option other than to build NEW nuclear (unless fusion comes to fruition) as there is no escaping the fact that the worlds energy requirements are growing year-on-year.

Failing a nuclear rebuilding scheme then gas turbine power stations fed from fracked gas seems the only logical alternative - more so given the huge quantities already discovered and more still to be.

Renewables are a crock of sh1t - we need dispatchable power 24/7, not unreliable and unaffordable politically-motivated schemes that have a habit of failing (see above).

Hahaha

Renewables are a crock of shit that is recognizeable even though your kindergardeber but only care about them.

but the point is people are pleased of using their schemes

Like gas oil price crisis that usually happens when they want to start their scheme.

There always was a patern out of this,
So showing the danger of nuclear plant recently will grow market the market "crock of shit"

So I would be more than pleased to know your expert opinion about what might be the boom for this scheme

So we can join their table,

Your critique and points are very sharpend and summerized.

Im having a good time
Wish to hear more from you guys

 

[Bluejets]

One of the major problems with gas is, even though we have masses of it over here, the gov let overseas mobs develop everything and now find there is not enough left for us. Or if there is any, it is at a rather hefty cost.

Now the drongos are talking batteries and who knows what else.
Look out...here come the overseas mobs to make even more dosh.

 

[kellys_eye]

I laughed out loud at the battery suggestion - jeez.... does anyone in a position of authority have any sense whatsoever? Don't answer that, I already know.

 

[(*steve*)]

Renewables are a crock of shit that is recognizeable even though your kindergardeber but only care about them.

Renewables are not a crock of anything.

The problem is intermittency.

All electrical systems (at present) require a source of base load power. New Zealand provides much of their base load power from a renewable resource (hydro). In NZ's case they have increased the capacity to reduce the probability of the intermittent nature of rainfall to affect supply of power (to a large extent).

The problem with other renewable sources is that the energy is produced as something that must be used immediately (electrical energy) rather than in a form that can be stockpiled for future use (coal, gas, etc.)

The market seems to be moving toward battery storage. However this is currently a really expensive form of storage. Will it get cheaper, will it be replaced by some other method of storage, or will it be abandoned? I have no idea.

Some mention has been made of South Australia's problems. One contributing cause is the lack of certainty which is essentially preventing the building of any base load electrical generation. As base load capacity reduces, especially where existing base load generation is remote and dependent on long runs of overhead cabling, the risk of problems just continues to grow. Having a lack of control to the extent that rapidly available resources remain off-line during a loss of capacity event doesn't help.

Also not mentioned is that Australia's distribution networks essentially have a deal that allows them to become more profitable by spending more on distribution infrastructure. This has caused a huge increase in "wires and poles" costs, which now makes up a huge proportion of the cost of power.

What do I think will happen in the future? I think we're going to have a system where peak capacity may be less than peak demand. To "sell" this and to avoid blackouts, people (individuals and companies) will be offered deals to automatically reduce demand during peak demand. Consumers with battery systems may be asked to switch to stored power, or even to supply the grid. Large appliances (e.g. air conditioning) may be automatically be switched to a lower power mode.

Managing the electrical grid is likely to get more complex, and I would think that this will be an interesting area to get in to in the coming decades.

There is some talk that excess renewable energy could be converted to Hydrogen and injected into the domestic gas system. I remain to be convinced of the efficiency of doing this. One proposal I have seen involve the integration of an ammonia plant (to store energy in the form of NH₃).

Flow batteries are another interesting development, and are in use at some wind farms to even out supply.

 

[kellys_eye]

You are inferring 'demand side management' and that's a system (issue) being imposed here in the UK - against many concerns for the implications.

So-called 'Smart Meters' are being rolled out across the country and there is no doubt that these can be used to control peoples power consumption, set variable tariffs, cut people off (non-payment) or, most insidiously, allow modification to cover such expenses as local taxation, TV licence fees, parking fines etc etc.

The lumping of hydro power into renewables is also a distraction and makes renewable energy seem more efficient than it actually is if you take solar/wind as the primary drivers of the so-called 'renewable industry'. Both solar and wind fail miserably in terms of despatchability and cost and wouldn't exist without subsidies which, to be frank, could allow people to burn $50 bills to keep warm if you took it to its logical conclusion.

But the major issue revolves around the yet-to-be-proven claims that the CO2 by-product of energy production is detrimental to the planet and the population.

As already stated this is a POLITICAL dispute based on unfounded allegations that are seriously undermining efforts to 'keep the lights on' and beggaring an ever increasing number of people (generally the poor, elderly and disabled) given that there is no shortage of fossil fuels and, if we had to, could build as many nuclear stations as we needed to provide effectively limitless energy at low cost and zero emissions..... but we all know the knee jerk reaction to that particular proposal.

Energy storage, other than by hydro, will never be implemented in time to stop the lights going out (precluding common sense prevailing in the interim) as there is still and order (or two) magnitude difference between the best batteries and fossil fuels in terms of storage density. Equally little is made of the social, economic and environmental impact of mining the rare earth materials for the renewable and storage industries.

But over riding all this is the human cost. CO2 (too much) isn't going to kill anyone despite all the claims and scaremongering - none of which have come true. Lack of energy does kill.... now and in the future. People around the world are suffering because of this ludicrous attitude towards fossil fuel use and the vested interest of the renewable industries are one of the main contributors to this suffering.

 

[(*steve*)]

Lumping hydro with other renewables if not a distraction, it emphasises the issues with renewable power.

Hydro can store energy in the form of potential energy. If hydro only worked while it was raining you wouldn't make the distinction.

As I said, the problem is not that it's renewable, it's that it is intermittent.

Where I am, solar take-up is huge (20% of residential homes, and uptake is increasing at 30% per year). The two major problems being:

1. It doesn't work when there's a power failure
2. The grid is forced to accept generated power.

The former means it's useless when you most need it, and the later means it's both a grid management headache and has very low returns for the householder.

There is a slow take-up of battery storage systems here now. If it increases at the rate that solar did, then battery storage will be commonplace in a decade.

We currently have about 500MW of solar generation capacity on roofs. If all of these had batteries capable of supplying an equivalent power (which is not extravagant), and it could be called on by the grid when required, some of the problems caused by rooftop solar could be significantly mitigated.

If battery storage increases at the same rate solar did, then we're at least a decade from 500MW being available for some short period on demand, but there are no plans here for another base load generation plant, and the lead time for these is probably about 10 years too.

There are a few people going off-grid already. If that takes off we risk a death spiral which will affect heavy consumers and the poor disproportionately.

It makes sense for the existing energy retailers to prevent people going completely off grid. Several of them are currently running trials of household battery storage -- which might sound like they're cutting their own throats, but their stated aims are more in line with stabilizing the grid and providing distributed storage and on-demand "generation".

 

[Externet]

Industrial robotics.
Farming robotics.

 

[kellys_eye]

Where hydro exists it is usually fully implemented and therefore of limited expansion. Micro hydro systems are becoming popular - again only on the basis of subsidy - but it is, at least, a more reliable system than solar/wind.

Right now we don't need expensive renewable systems. We need cheap, reliable energy and there are enough fossil fuels to supply demand for at least 400 years. We should be using them.

Renewables like solar and wind have their place - remote locations off grid etc but as a reliable source of energy for modern, densely packed societies it sucks big time.

And batteries are not the answer. If we progress, as some say we are going to, towards electric vehicles then we need even MORE energy than solar/wind will EVER be capable of delivering.

 

[BobK]

Right now we don't need expensive renewable systems. We need cheap, reliable energy and there are enough fossil fuels to supply demand for at least 400 years. We should be using them.

Only a climate change denier could say this. There is no doubt among scientists that are not paid by the fossil fuel industry that we are changing the climate, and that if not stopped it will cause massive problems with the land mass occupied by millions of people going under water. I'm sorry, but cheap energy is not worth the consequences, neither economically nor morally. You and I do not have the right to take away millions of peoples land for our cheap energy.

Bob

 

[kellys_eye]

Bob,

when someone comes along and spouts the 'denier' word, hoping to associate my position with those of Nazi atrocities, all I can think of is that they've immediately lost the argument.

They compound their position by making claims that scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry yet casually disregard the greater number paid to produce results that suit the agenda - with clear incidents of established scholars being forced out of respectable positions due to their 'temerity' of telling the truth.

I despair at reading comments from people that otherwise command respect for their knowledge yet seem to accept dogma, falsified data, deliberate attempts at deceit and the plain basic fact that there is STILL no empirical evidence to support this long discredited THEORY (for that is all it is).

I have no doubt this thread could rumble on for page after page as we each make our respective thoughts known so I have to bow out now before it gets out of hand - out of the sheer frustration with the 'religious' attitude you make to support your position. And we all know you can't argue against anyone who holds such dogma as 'science'......

 

[BobK]

They compound their position by making claims that scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry yet casually disregard the greater number paid to produce results that suit the agenda - with clear incidents of established scholars being forced out of respectable positions due to their 'temerity' of telling the truth.

The fossil fuel industry has a clear interest here, and money involved beyond belief. Who is this unnamed party that is paying people to promote a myth of climate change and winning the fight? It makes absolutely no sense.

Bob

 

[davenn]

OK
we will close the thread now

it has strayed from the original topic into one which has very polar beliefs and can only result in very heated arguments