Superb analysis & a reality check on Renewable Energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-27-2008
A week ago, though I just happened across it yesterday, TIME published an opinion & analysis piece that was so extremely well done, I’ve included most of it below.
(The original was at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1834265,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci .)
I added some paragraphing to make some of the writer’s points stand out & will add my comments and the reality check I found after the quote I include here.:
Putting US Energy in the Wrong Place Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008
By BRYAN WALSH
“….The reality is that whether the U.S. drills or not, it really doesn't make a difference — not against the sheer scale of the energy and climate crisis facing America and the rest of the world.
(Indeed, the other 6.3 billion people factor into this equation too.)
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050. That increase represents five times as much oil as Saudi Arabia produces annually. You could drill America with exploratory wells until it looked like Swiss cheese and still not make much of a dent in that figure.
That's not to say offshore drilling should be off limits. The world will be on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and we will need more oil. If individual U.S. states want to take the risk of opening up their coastlines to drilling, let them — it's not a battle environmentalists should insist on winning.
The larger problem is that the Presidential campaign has been captured by a mostly meaningless debate over offshore drilling, which is obscuring a far more relevant question regarding the energy crisis: how can America develop workable alternative fuels — right here and right now?
Instead of squabbling over the nickels and dimes of offshore oil, we need to create a national plan to capture the future of energy: wind, solar, electric cars, next-generation biofuels. And this should be America's priority even among those who don't believe a word Al Gore has ever said about global warming.
If we have any chance of avoiding a future where we feel nostalgic for $4-a-gallon gas, or where countries with lots of oil (Russia, for example) can make a mockery of our foreign policy, we'll need scaled-up alternatives now.
Drilling advocates argue that we need to start exploring now so we'll reap the benefits in a decade, but the same goes for development of renewables — we have no time to waste.
It's too bad we seem to be treating alternative energy policy as somewhat less important than, say, passing resolutions to establish National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week (May 5-9).
Eight times this year, the Senate has failed to pass legislation that would extend tax credits that encourage the development of the wind and solar industry, legislation that will expire at the end of December.
(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)
Without those tax credits, the renewable energy industry "is grinding to a halt," says Peter Duprey, CEO of the North American arm of the Spanish renewable company Acciona Energy, which has a 64-megawatt solar thermal plant operating outside Las Vegas, and recently launched a 180-megawatt wind farm on the border between North Dakota and South Dakota. "Everyone says America is the land of opportunity for renewables," says Duprey. "We have to get serious about it."
Duprey points out that the arguments used by proponents of offshore drilling can also be used to support aggressive investment in alternatives. "We have this vast untapped renewable energy reserves, just like oil and gas," he says, referring to the rich wind resources of the Midwest and the solar potential of the Southwest. "We just need to build the transmission lines to move that energy out."
Think of it that way, and suddenly alternatives don't seem like a far-off solution based on science fiction, but a resource that exists today, if it can be tapped — just like offshore oil.
That's a job for government, whether it means building the lines directly or using tax credits to support private industry.
This is the debate we should be having this election season — not an empty argument over offshore drilling or properly inflated tires.”
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
Bryan Walsh makes some superb points in this essay. He makes them so well that I decided not to paraphrase his comments but include them directly as a quote.
Here are my comments on this; “The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that under a business-as-usual scenario — which the U.S. seems intent on abiding — global oil demand would rise 70% by 2050.”
As I’ve posted before, that is totally scary if we are on the edge of creating irreversible global warming that will bankrupt the economies of the nations of the world and devastate our ability to grow food and flood our coastal cities. If that is the case, as the evidence suggests, burning that much more oil will create catastrophic consequences.
The good news is that many people in the United States do NOT support business as usual. They know that it has unacceptable consequences and that the technology is now in place to generate that much renewable energy and more. So, it is the policy of the United States government he is actually speaking about here.
So, endorsing the people in government or who might be -- who intend to continue business as usual looks like a horrible idea to me.
George Bush & his administration have continued business as usual.
And, John McCain has done several things, from his emphasis on more drilling for oil, to declining to support renewable energy at key times even before he became a candidate for President that very much suggest he will do exactly the same thing.
That point Bryan Walsh did notice.: “(McCain, it should be noted, missed all eight of those votes — a record that doesn't jibe well with his campaign promises to pursue an aggressive alternative energy program along with offshore drilling.)”
These votes to continue the renewable energy tax credits this year that did NOT pass may well set back the launching of many well planned solar & wind projects if a bill continuing them fails to pass before the end of the year.
In my opinion, if John McCain was knowledgeable enough on these issues to be qualified to be and trusted to be President of the United States in these times, he would have been at all eight of the votes and worked to create a compromise that included some drilling provisions but continued the renewable energy tax credits AND then showed up to vote for them each time.
To me, the fact he failed to do this doesn’t just mean we should all vote for his opponent, they mean we should also pray that he never becomes our President too.
I think our country deserves a better fate than the one continuing the Bush Administration’s business as usual policies will produce.
The only point that Bryan Walsh missed is that there is ample evidence now to show that renewable energy is a larger resource that we can bring onstream faster than we can add that much oil production.
He also leaves out the fact that it may not be possible to increase oil production that much.
The reality check is that despite the far greater amount of energy available from solar, so far most of our increase of renewable energy has been from wind power.
And, the amount of that, though modestly impressive, is not yet any where near enough.
I saw recently that Texas now generates 3568 megawatts of electricity from renewable source and that Iowa generates 1267 megawatts. (And the vast majority in both of those states is from wind power.)
Despite each having the potential to generate more than those two states combined many times over from solar energy, the states that have the most solar potential, California, Colorado, Nevada, & New Mexico only generated 2058 Megawatts between them. And some of that was from wind power.
(John McCain’s home state of Arizona despite its huge solar potential generated less than the 90 megawatts that New Mexico did.)
This means that even though the need is there and the technology is there and the demand for energy is making the more limited fossil fuels rise in price enough to make renewable energy economically competitive, we have a very long way yet to go.
Will we have a President who gets it & will help us get a fast start in getting there?
Or, will we have a long delay while the situation worsens with more business as it has been before?
Like everyone else, I have my preferences on other issues. But they are irrelevant compared to this one.
Energy, more to the point, massive increases in renewable energy as soon as we can possibly deliver it, are THE issue.
Whether or not it’s even possible for the other issues to continue to be addressed, let alone addressed well, depends totally on this one issue.
Please vote accordingly.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Solar thermal electricity makes a huge positive difference....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
More renewable energy IS the solution....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-13-2008
As we have been posting about, the most important thing we can do to allow us to drive where we want to go and get everything we need shipped to stores, including food, at prices we will be able to afford is to dramatically increase our production of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.
(It looks like we should also increase our generation of electricity from nuclear power for the same reasons. But some people have reservations about doing so. And, renewables will work. Our position is that it will work faster and create a more reliable availability of electricity to do both. But whether we use more nuclear or not, we absolutely must use massive amounts of renewable sources and put them in place soon.)
Since a massive increase in our use of renewables has the potential to cut our demand for oil by well over 50 percent, this will also begin to drop the price of gasoline. And, it will begin to offer alternatives that cost LESS than gasoline. This will strengthen our economy in ways that a bit more domestic oil cannot even dream of doing.
It will also protect our economy for when oil simply begins to run out, which it will do at some point.
This process will take some amount of time to get into place. But it will work.
Unfortunately most Americans do not yet know this.
Meanwhile, doing more drilling for oil offshore and other places in the United States will both only provide enough oil to keep the price of gas from going up quite as fast. It will take a good bit of time to get online as well. And, the increased burning of oil that it will cause will worsen global warming.
So, it both has a negative effect on global warming AND has less than ten percent of the upside that adding massive renewable energy will have.
Apparently, most Americans do not yet know this either.:
Just a few days ago I found this polling result on the Rasmussen news item in the online news:
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) support going ahead with offshore oil drilling, an issue that John McCain seized on in early June as a way to help lower gas” (prices.)
And, it also said this:
“Forty-two percent (42%) said that offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing the price of oil -- a far higher percentage than believe that for several other options now being floated by the two major presidential candidates.”
& “Only 20% of Americans now oppose offshore drilling….”
This polling report also said this:
“By substantial margins, voters believe that the Republican candidate's top priority is finding new sources of energy while his Democratic opponent is more focused on reducing the amount of energy we consume.
Yet a separate survey found that for nearly two-thirds (65%), finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now use.”
This should be 100 percent in my view. Using less energy means a weaker economy and less buying power, personal freedom, and less economic security for everyone.
But by using massive amounts of new energy from renewables and retrofitting our economy to get more effective work done for less energy we will have a stronger economy with all the benefits that go with it. We will have MORE energy we get constructive use out of.
If we continue to rely on oil, the prices for the fuels made from it will continue to rise and our economy will remain at serious risk of collapse.
Of the two candidates, from what I’ve seen only Obama seems to know this & understand its implications.
Other than his proposal to increase nuclear power, John McCain is looking to simply continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration to ignore all this.
In my view, if we have 4 to 8 more years of this, we are headed for economic disaster.
So, in reality, Obama has by far the better take on what we need to protect our economy.
And, given the problems recently with our economy, that’s the issue that will decide the election.
But here’s the relevant results from the recent Rasmussen poll:
“… in terms of voter trust, other survey data shows that more voters now trust McCain over Obama on the energy issue.
Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.”
This means that unless the Obama campaign can begin to show the American people that our economy is at even more risk than most people realize and that Obama truly wants to improve the economy – not just have everyone make do with less, and that there is massively MORE upside in his approach, he will very likely lose.
And, it looks to me that if the election were held now before this is done, he would lose.
The Obama campaign needs to get T Boone Pickens and his comment that this is a situation “we simply cannot drill ourselves out of” & the real proven, upside of his wind program wide publicity.
And, they can publicize information like this from the CEO of Nanosolar that shows the huge upside of powering electric cars with solar electricity.
“http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/
Going All-Electric
August 7, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
The following is one of my favorite charts: A comparison of the distance a car can drive based on either of the following forms of energy, each produced on 100m x 100m of land (2.5 acres):
How come that biofuel does not really cut it? Electric cars are about four times more energy efficient than fuel based cars, no matter whether they are based on biofuel or other fuel. This is because any fuel engine mostly creates heat and thus wastes the majority of the available energy units. Combine this with plants not being very efficient solar energy harvesters relative to semiconductor based solar electricity, and the result is this huge difference.
In other words, it is clear that if the goal is to maximize energy efficiency, the end point to go after is all-electric cars everywhere. Moving all of transportation to all-electric would essentially cut in half our overall energy consumption while delivering the same distance.
I for one have vowed that the Prius I bought six years ago will have been the last fuel powered car I'd buy in my life. (Given that I may very well own the highest-mileage Prius on the planet, this probably reflects my confidence in the quality of this vehicle and the near-term readiness of electric car technology…) Presently, it is baking in the sun all day while I'm at work. My future all-electric car would charge up while idling under a solar carport.”
If the average American doesn’t know the upside of renewables and that it’s real and larger than the upside of drilling for more oil, Obama will lose.
And so will everyone in this country and in the world if our analysis is correct
The good news is that the politicians who believe we should drill for more oil are right about two things. It will give the public the feeling that everything possible is being done to reduce gas prices. And, it will eventually increase our country’s energy independence slightly.
But of far more importance, these politicians will be willing to trade support for more drilling for oil for allowing the go ahead for the support of renewables we so desperately need.
That Barack Obama understands this & was willing recently to say so publicly is one of the most encouraging pieces of news I’ve heard for a long time.
It’s NOT a statement by a weak man bowing to the popular view. It’s the statement of a skilled politician who shows me he has a shot at getting the changes we need done in place.
People ARE tired all over the country of divisive do nothing squabbles in Washington DC.
If his campaign can show that he wants MORE for Americans instead of less; that renewables will deliver more; & that Obama CAN put them in place if elected because of just this political skill, people will trust him MORE than they do McCain to help the economy.
And, that will get him elected.
But he’s not yet done this. And, if he fails to do it and do it well enough, I’m gravely concerned he will not be elected with frightening results and consequences for our economy & for us all.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-13-2008
As we have been posting about, the most important thing we can do to allow us to drive where we want to go and get everything we need shipped to stores, including food, at prices we will be able to afford is to dramatically increase our production of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.
(It looks like we should also increase our generation of electricity from nuclear power for the same reasons. But some people have reservations about doing so. And, renewables will work. Our position is that it will work faster and create a more reliable availability of electricity to do both. But whether we use more nuclear or not, we absolutely must use massive amounts of renewable sources and put them in place soon.)
Since a massive increase in our use of renewables has the potential to cut our demand for oil by well over 50 percent, this will also begin to drop the price of gasoline. And, it will begin to offer alternatives that cost LESS than gasoline. This will strengthen our economy in ways that a bit more domestic oil cannot even dream of doing.
It will also protect our economy for when oil simply begins to run out, which it will do at some point.
This process will take some amount of time to get into place. But it will work.
Unfortunately most Americans do not yet know this.
Meanwhile, doing more drilling for oil offshore and other places in the United States will both only provide enough oil to keep the price of gas from going up quite as fast. It will take a good bit of time to get online as well. And, the increased burning of oil that it will cause will worsen global warming.
So, it both has a negative effect on global warming AND has less than ten percent of the upside that adding massive renewable energy will have.
Apparently, most Americans do not yet know this either.:
Just a few days ago I found this polling result on the Rasmussen news item in the online news:
“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) support going ahead with offshore oil drilling, an issue that John McCain seized on in early June as a way to help lower gas” (prices.)
And, it also said this:
“Forty-two percent (42%) said that offshore oil drilling would have the biggest impact in terms of reducing the price of oil -- a far higher percentage than believe that for several other options now being floated by the two major presidential candidates.”
& “Only 20% of Americans now oppose offshore drilling….”
This polling report also said this:
“By substantial margins, voters believe that the Republican candidate's top priority is finding new sources of energy while his Democratic opponent is more focused on reducing the amount of energy we consume.
Yet a separate survey found that for nearly two-thirds (65%), finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now use.”
This should be 100 percent in my view. Using less energy means a weaker economy and less buying power, personal freedom, and less economic security for everyone.
But by using massive amounts of new energy from renewables and retrofitting our economy to get more effective work done for less energy we will have a stronger economy with all the benefits that go with it. We will have MORE energy we get constructive use out of.
If we continue to rely on oil, the prices for the fuels made from it will continue to rise and our economy will remain at serious risk of collapse.
Of the two candidates, from what I’ve seen only Obama seems to know this & understand its implications.
Other than his proposal to increase nuclear power, John McCain is looking to simply continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration to ignore all this.
In my view, if we have 4 to 8 more years of this, we are headed for economic disaster.
So, in reality, Obama has by far the better take on what we need to protect our economy.
And, given the problems recently with our economy, that’s the issue that will decide the election.
But here’s the relevant results from the recent Rasmussen poll:
“… in terms of voter trust, other survey data shows that more voters now trust McCain over Obama on the energy issue.
Nationally the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll continues to show a very close race for the White House.”
This means that unless the Obama campaign can begin to show the American people that our economy is at even more risk than most people realize and that Obama truly wants to improve the economy – not just have everyone make do with less, and that there is massively MORE upside in his approach, he will very likely lose.
And, it looks to me that if the election were held now before this is done, he would lose.
The Obama campaign needs to get T Boone Pickens and his comment that this is a situation “we simply cannot drill ourselves out of” & the real proven, upside of his wind program wide publicity.
And, they can publicize information like this from the CEO of Nanosolar that shows the huge upside of powering electric cars with solar electricity.
“http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/
Going All-Electric
August 7, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
The following is one of my favorite charts: A comparison of the distance a car can drive based on either of the following forms of energy, each produced on 100m x 100m of land (2.5 acres):
How come that biofuel does not really cut it? Electric cars are about four times more energy efficient than fuel based cars, no matter whether they are based on biofuel or other fuel. This is because any fuel engine mostly creates heat and thus wastes the majority of the available energy units. Combine this with plants not being very efficient solar energy harvesters relative to semiconductor based solar electricity, and the result is this huge difference.
In other words, it is clear that if the goal is to maximize energy efficiency, the end point to go after is all-electric cars everywhere. Moving all of transportation to all-electric would essentially cut in half our overall energy consumption while delivering the same distance.
I for one have vowed that the Prius I bought six years ago will have been the last fuel powered car I'd buy in my life. (Given that I may very well own the highest-mileage Prius on the planet, this probably reflects my confidence in the quality of this vehicle and the near-term readiness of electric car technology…) Presently, it is baking in the sun all day while I'm at work. My future all-electric car would charge up while idling under a solar carport.”
If the average American doesn’t know the upside of renewables and that it’s real and larger than the upside of drilling for more oil, Obama will lose.
And so will everyone in this country and in the world if our analysis is correct
The good news is that the politicians who believe we should drill for more oil are right about two things. It will give the public the feeling that everything possible is being done to reduce gas prices. And, it will eventually increase our country’s energy independence slightly.
But of far more importance, these politicians will be willing to trade support for more drilling for oil for allowing the go ahead for the support of renewables we so desperately need.
That Barack Obama understands this & was willing recently to say so publicly is one of the most encouraging pieces of news I’ve heard for a long time.
It’s NOT a statement by a weak man bowing to the popular view. It’s the statement of a skilled politician who shows me he has a shot at getting the changes we need done in place.
People ARE tired all over the country of divisive do nothing squabbles in Washington DC.
If his campaign can show that he wants MORE for Americans instead of less; that renewables will deliver more; & that Obama CAN put them in place if elected because of just this political skill, people will trust him MORE than they do McCain to help the economy.
And, that will get him elected.
But he’s not yet done this. And, if he fails to do it and do it well enough, I’m gravely concerned he will not be elected with frightening results and consequences for our economy & for us all.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
New way to save solar electricity....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-6-2008
In an article in the journal Science, published on Thursday, 7-31, 2008 & which was reported in several places in the online news yesterday, Daniel Nocera, an MIT professor of energy, said that he has worked out a less expensive & more manageable way to break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with electricity generated by solar that can be turned back into electricity later using a fuel cell.
He explained that this research project was important because this method can be used to allow solar generated electricity which is collected during the day, to be used at night. And, having a cost-effective way to do that will make solar a much more useful & competitive way to generate electricity.
1. The article I saw suggested using this technology for homes.
This may well be possible and even cost competitive someday. But, for homes, I suspect using electricity from the grid as is done now, &/or storing electricity in super capacitors for some applications & in lithium ion batteries will be more doable and far safer.
It may change at some point if new & reliable ways are also developed to save the hydrogen generated; but hydrogen is tricky to handle and can be unsafe, even explosive, if mishandled.
It’s likely possible to use the air to store the oxygen since you can get oxygen from air for the fuel cells when you want to use the hydrogen to generate electricity. But oxygen is also dangerous enough due to the extreme fire danger it can create that releasing it safely might be challenging to do in home use.
Further, most fuel cells now sold are made for larger, commercial applications.
That said, the potential economics for home use apparently look good to Daniel Nocera. And, more smaller scale fuel cells and a safe way to save the hydrogen and release the oxygen may be found that make this process work for home use.
2. To me, the more likely potential use for this technology would be in large photovoltaic locations such as those set up by utilities, governments, & large companies.
The photovoltaic power generation using vacant lots near cities using their thin film solar cells that Nanosolar makes would be one such application.
In such applications, the fuel cells already made for commercial use would work. And, the expertise, money, people, and management systems needed to safely manage hydrogen and release oxygen would be available and likely to be reliable. In home use that would be a good bit more challenging to arrange.
(That having been said, it may someday be usable in home applications if the needed systems to allow safe home use and smaller fuel cells are made & become commercially available.)
3. The third area where this might be viable is in providing fuel for plug in hybrid vehicles that use fuel cells instead of diesel or gasoline or biofuels to generate electricity above the amount stored in the vehicle’s batteries etc.
This depends on that market developing more than now looks likely to me.
But, the second half of Arthur C Clarke’s 10 year rule is that where technology that otherwise could happen but now looks quite unlikely is concerned, experts and scientists who say it won’t happen at all or do so within 10 years are often proved wrong by technology breakthroughs that come online within the 10 years that are unknown by these forecasters or which simply haven’t yet occurred.
That’s my take on the three potential uses of this new technology at this time. But it definitely looks interesting. And, it adds another way to run our economy 24/7 using mostly solar generated electricity which is not available at night.
Other potential solutions to that problem that do not burn fossil fuels include solar thermal electricity generation, nuclear, geothermal, and wind. (If it stands up to the climate changes from global warming, hydroelectric power would also work.)
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-6-2008
In an article in the journal Science, published on Thursday, 7-31, 2008 & which was reported in several places in the online news yesterday, Daniel Nocera, an MIT professor of energy, said that he has worked out a less expensive & more manageable way to break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with electricity generated by solar that can be turned back into electricity later using a fuel cell.
He explained that this research project was important because this method can be used to allow solar generated electricity which is collected during the day, to be used at night. And, having a cost-effective way to do that will make solar a much more useful & competitive way to generate electricity.
1. The article I saw suggested using this technology for homes.
This may well be possible and even cost competitive someday. But, for homes, I suspect using electricity from the grid as is done now, &/or storing electricity in super capacitors for some applications & in lithium ion batteries will be more doable and far safer.
It may change at some point if new & reliable ways are also developed to save the hydrogen generated; but hydrogen is tricky to handle and can be unsafe, even explosive, if mishandled.
It’s likely possible to use the air to store the oxygen since you can get oxygen from air for the fuel cells when you want to use the hydrogen to generate electricity. But oxygen is also dangerous enough due to the extreme fire danger it can create that releasing it safely might be challenging to do in home use.
Further, most fuel cells now sold are made for larger, commercial applications.
That said, the potential economics for home use apparently look good to Daniel Nocera. And, more smaller scale fuel cells and a safe way to save the hydrogen and release the oxygen may be found that make this process work for home use.
2. To me, the more likely potential use for this technology would be in large photovoltaic locations such as those set up by utilities, governments, & large companies.
The photovoltaic power generation using vacant lots near cities using their thin film solar cells that Nanosolar makes would be one such application.
In such applications, the fuel cells already made for commercial use would work. And, the expertise, money, people, and management systems needed to safely manage hydrogen and release oxygen would be available and likely to be reliable. In home use that would be a good bit more challenging to arrange.
(That having been said, it may someday be usable in home applications if the needed systems to allow safe home use and smaller fuel cells are made & become commercially available.)
3. The third area where this might be viable is in providing fuel for plug in hybrid vehicles that use fuel cells instead of diesel or gasoline or biofuels to generate electricity above the amount stored in the vehicle’s batteries etc.
This depends on that market developing more than now looks likely to me.
But, the second half of Arthur C Clarke’s 10 year rule is that where technology that otherwise could happen but now looks quite unlikely is concerned, experts and scientists who say it won’t happen at all or do so within 10 years are often proved wrong by technology breakthroughs that come online within the 10 years that are unknown by these forecasters or which simply haven’t yet occurred.
That’s my take on the three potential uses of this new technology at this time. But it definitely looks interesting. And, it adds another way to run our economy 24/7 using mostly solar generated electricity which is not available at night.
Other potential solutions to that problem that do not burn fossil fuels include solar thermal electricity generation, nuclear, geothermal, and wind. (If it stands up to the climate changes from global warming, hydroelectric power would also work.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)