Energy demand will likely force more nuclear power....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-27-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Let’s hope the controls on banks & credit that will gradually get put into place or back into place will eventually lead to a more stable economy that is growing. It certainly seems likely to me that this will happen & has begun to happen.
And, with this happening in the United States plus the arrival of new useful new technology everywhere, primarily new energy technologies, we will gradually restart global economic growth. Also, barring some kind of disaster, population growth will continue. THAT combination in the short term, 5 to 20 years out, will gradually begin to cause energy demand to rise faster than new supply is brought online.
As I consistently have said, that is possibly an even more important reason to bring massive new amounts of every kind of renewable energy online within 20 to 30 years than fighting global warming. Certainly if we don’t want a permanent world-wide depression due to horrible fossil fuel price run ups and shortages it is.
Worse, with increasing use of fossil fuels that this might cause, global warming will get worse; & we risk economic collapse if we still are dependent on oil and it becomes too expensive to use.
So, as this begins to happen, it will bring enormous economic and political pressure to bear on adding new energy and rolling out every kind of energy efficient products possible.
Last week NPR’s Christian Hill interviewed Bob Irish, Managing Editor of Investor's Daily Edge.
Bob Irish stated that the International Energy Agency predicted that energy demand will be up 40% by 2030! (See my comments above.)
He then goes on to say that in his opinion this will be very forceful in increasing the use of electricity generated by nuclear power.
He also said that a major driver for this is that “a kilogram of uranium produces 50,000 kilowatt-hours of power.” This is 10,000 to 50,000 times what a kilogram of fossil fuel can produce.
Christian Hill then notes that people are afraid of nuclear power.
Bob Irish replied to that by saying: “There's an emotional component, certainly. But the smart money isn't invested emotionally.”
He also notes that China is now building 10 nuclear power plants every year& their goal is to have 25% of their power generated by nuclear power. (In the next 20 years, that would be 200 new nuclear reactors.)
He also believes that in a way similar to the space race with the Russians, Americans will begin to compete so we don’t fall behind in the world and will soon add more nuclear also.
He also points out that no matter where the reactors are located, they all need uranium.
(He doesn’t say so; but this sharp increase in nuclear will put a massive premium on using, as France has been doing, breeder reactors where far less, I’ve heard 50 times less, uranium is needed to operate the reactors.)
Since that also means that the uranium wastes are NOT transported elsewhere and less uranium need be brought in, that makes reactors that recycle the uranium onsite where it never leaves much more defensible against terrorist attack and partially solves the question of where to store the waste.
In my own view, that will cause very heavy use and building of that kind of reactor -- even in the United States where we have been building the other kind that takes more uranium and creates radioactive waste to be moved elsewhere and stored there.
Bob Irish then notes that their customers who have bought stocks in the better uranium mining companies have already done well with those stocks.
(Stocks in companies that make breeder nuclear reactors or their components should also increasingly do well, I think. Another investment advisory service thinks that companies that supply lithium or build lithium ion batteries or make superior technology to use in them also look like good bets. Nuclear, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, and wind all will be used to generate electricity for the huge number of all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks that will soon replace most gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. And, at this time, it looks as if they will all have lithium ion batteries.)
The good news is that all nuclear reactors do NOT use up fossil fuels or release CO2 -- or other kinds of air pollution such as oxides of Nitrogen or create acid rain.
And, by using breeder reactors, we will literally have hundreds of years to build more renewable energy to replace nuclear power before we run out of uranium.
So, since using breeder reactors are both far more efficient and safe to build and operate, I think such reactors will increasingly be built and used.
People who have strong reservations or concerns about building any more nuclear power, as to some degree I do myself, should realize that these economic and other environmental concerns mean more nuclear will be built, regardless. As Bob Irish noted, even if the people in the United States drag their feet, more new nuclear reactors will be built all over the rest of world. He gave the large program already happening in China as an example. India and even some countries in the Middle East have already said they plan to do so as well.
So, I think for such people, the most productive strategy is to ask that the countries and companies involved to both use extremely reliable and safe operating methods and very competent and sane people to run them AND to make comparably fail resistant military security to ensure no terrorists can get in or do any kind of damage.
This WILL make nuclear power more expensive and slower to build when it already takes huge upfront capital costs; but I personally think it is reasonable to ask and extremely important to do.
Plus it will make building the reactors we look very likely to need desperately more doable and salable politically.
(By the way, one renewable energy executive pointed out to me that the plutonium that the breeder reactors make can be made into atomic bombs, etc. He said he disliked nuclear using breeder reactors for that reason.
But, one of my more technically savvy friends pointed out, that all the plutonium is INSIDE the reactor. It’s not transported to be easily gotten at by terrorists since it never leaves the reactor. This means the security for the plutonium can be focused at the known location of the reactor itself which makes it much more doable and reliable. In addition, in order to take the plutonium to transport elsewhere the terrorists would have to know and bring the technology with them to get at it without dying before they could and to transport it afterwards.
It might be possible to do. But, if the security that should be there is present and competent it should virtually never happen.
So, let’s ask for breeder reactors instead of the kind that generate dangerous waste and for every one of them to have such security and be thankful we’ll use less fossil fuels and be less harmed by excessive price run ups while we still rely on petroleum for transport and petrochemicals.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Geothermal energy may help soon....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-20-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Using solar thermal that can save solar energy efficiently for hours after it arrives & wind from locations where it blows more reliably and tying them all together with good transmission lines and a smart grid to do its best to distribute them well and continued advances in energy efficiency – all of which we need & are beginning to happen -- is not enough for a reliable supply of electricity for our homes and businesses. We also need sources that can deliver power on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing to pair with that.
Burning coal in a way that releases less net CO2 & far less of the pollution that is involved now in its exhaust and mining methods will work. To protect jobs in the areas that now mine coal or depend on coal fired plants it likely will be used or at least tried.
More use of natural gas, despite it adding to CO2 releases will work. And, it does release less CO2 than coal & is cheaper to transport. In the short run some increased use is likely. T. Boone Pickens and Exxon are likely right about that. And, by feeding the CO2 produced to algae to make biofuels, we can net out some help for total CO2 levels as will likely be done with coal also.
But what we badly need ASAP are less polluting, cleaner sources of energy that do NOT release CO2 but which also provide electricity or heat on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing.
Breeder reactors that recycle the uranium so that far less is used up per unit of electric power and where no radioactive waste must be transported -- as has been used in Europe for some time -- will do the job. And, over time, more will likely be built in the United States. However, the costs of truly adequate security and totally reliable extremely long term management and maintenance will make this development slow – as I think they should.
So, we have two sources that can be upgraded and will be used despite problems with their CO2 release. And, we have a CO2 release free source that will develop only slowly and has other dangers.
So what we badly need ASAP are less polluting, cleaner sources of energy that do NOT release CO2 but which also provide electricity or heat on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing other than relying on nuclear power alone.
It seems we have one – or we very well might.
Last week, on Thurs, 1-14-2010 the Wall Street Journal had a story with this title:
“Boiling Point: High Hopes for Geothermal Energy” by Paul Glader
It seems that 144 new geothermal power plants in being built in 14 states, says Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. That’s more than were being built as recently two years ago.
The industry is still small -- producing only about 3,000 megawatts now.
But the news is that new technology is now multiplying the amount of geothermal power that can be tapped. These include new technologies that allow lower-temperature water to be turned into geothermal energy and used to make electricity. This will make much more geothermal production possible in Texas, Mississippi, & Louisiana –in addition to in traditional geothermal states such as California.
The new geothermal technologies may do much more. The U.S. Geological Survey says we have 6,000 megawatts of already known geothermal potential using current technology with another, 8,000 to 73,000 megawatts estimated to still exist but not yet found. But new technology may make as much as 800,000 megawatts or 800 gigawatts of power available according to this article. THAT much electricity added to huge amounts of new electricity from wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic installations plus more transmission interconnections and smart controls and energy efficiency advances could indeed make fossil fuels unnecessary within 30 or 40 years and nuclear far less needed.
Geothermal is a renewable energy that WILL work to provide continuous, power to pair with wind & solar power that is not quite continuous enough to do the job alone.
The U.S. is currently the world leader. But the geothermal industry now is where the wind-power industry was 30 years ago it seems.
However, GE, despite its recent setbacks in its financial divisions, has been taking an interest in geothermal lately; & GE Energy Financial Services finances has already made some geothermal investments.
So, not only is it possible that geothermal power may be able to make a prosperous economy based on an all- renewable or 95 % renewable energy supply happen, it may already be on its way to happening.
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-20-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
Using solar thermal that can save solar energy efficiently for hours after it arrives & wind from locations where it blows more reliably and tying them all together with good transmission lines and a smart grid to do its best to distribute them well and continued advances in energy efficiency – all of which we need & are beginning to happen -- is not enough for a reliable supply of electricity for our homes and businesses. We also need sources that can deliver power on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing to pair with that.
Burning coal in a way that releases less net CO2 & far less of the pollution that is involved now in its exhaust and mining methods will work. To protect jobs in the areas that now mine coal or depend on coal fired plants it likely will be used or at least tried.
More use of natural gas, despite it adding to CO2 releases will work. And, it does release less CO2 than coal & is cheaper to transport. In the short run some increased use is likely. T. Boone Pickens and Exxon are likely right about that. And, by feeding the CO2 produced to algae to make biofuels, we can net out some help for total CO2 levels as will likely be done with coal also.
But what we badly need ASAP are less polluting, cleaner sources of energy that do NOT release CO2 but which also provide electricity or heat on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing.
Breeder reactors that recycle the uranium so that far less is used up per unit of electric power and where no radioactive waste must be transported -- as has been used in Europe for some time -- will do the job. And, over time, more will likely be built in the United States. However, the costs of truly adequate security and totally reliable extremely long term management and maintenance will make this development slow – as I think they should.
So, we have two sources that can be upgraded and will be used despite problems with their CO2 release. And, we have a CO2 release free source that will develop only slowly and has other dangers.
So what we badly need ASAP are less polluting, cleaner sources of energy that do NOT release CO2 but which also provide electricity or heat on cold winter nights that have little wind blowing other than relying on nuclear power alone.
It seems we have one – or we very well might.
Last week, on Thurs, 1-14-2010 the Wall Street Journal had a story with this title:
“Boiling Point: High Hopes for Geothermal Energy” by Paul Glader
It seems that 144 new geothermal power plants in being built in 14 states, says Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. That’s more than were being built as recently two years ago.
The industry is still small -- producing only about 3,000 megawatts now.
But the news is that new technology is now multiplying the amount of geothermal power that can be tapped. These include new technologies that allow lower-temperature water to be turned into geothermal energy and used to make electricity. This will make much more geothermal production possible in Texas, Mississippi, & Louisiana –in addition to in traditional geothermal states such as California.
The new geothermal technologies may do much more. The U.S. Geological Survey says we have 6,000 megawatts of already known geothermal potential using current technology with another, 8,000 to 73,000 megawatts estimated to still exist but not yet found. But new technology may make as much as 800,000 megawatts or 800 gigawatts of power available according to this article. THAT much electricity added to huge amounts of new electricity from wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic installations plus more transmission interconnections and smart controls and energy efficiency advances could indeed make fossil fuels unnecessary within 30 or 40 years and nuclear far less needed.
Geothermal is a renewable energy that WILL work to provide continuous, power to pair with wind & solar power that is not quite continuous enough to do the job alone.
The U.S. is currently the world leader. But the geothermal industry now is where the wind-power industry was 30 years ago it seems.
However, GE, despite its recent setbacks in its financial divisions, has been taking an interest in geothermal lately; & GE Energy Financial Services finances has already made some geothermal investments.
So, not only is it possible that geothermal power may be able to make a prosperous economy based on an all- renewable or 95 % renewable energy supply happen, it may already be on its way to happening.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Letting the fossil fuel companies off the hook is a BAD idea....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-13-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
On January 20th the Senate will vote on an amendment from Senator Murkowski of Alaska to block the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and President Obama to protect the public's health and safety by enforcing limits on global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act--limits reaffirmed by the Supreme Court almost three years ago.
Senator Murkowski's amendment would disregard decades of research, scientific debate, court cases, public hearings and comments that state that global warming is happening and that it will be dangerous to human health and welfare. Last month more than 400,000 Americans submitted comments in favor of EPA's proposal to limit pollution from the biggest global warming polluters. We cannot afford to ignore that global warming pollution will endanger public health in the U.S. and around the world. Furthermore, action to fight global warming will build a clean energy economy that will not only mean less pollution, but more jobs and greater security as well. If successful, Senator Murkowski's amendment would bail out big polluters and stop progress towards clean energy future dead in its tracks.
Please join me in opposing this amendment that ignores the serious threat of global warming to health and welfare.
We may already have burned too much CO2 it seems.
But of equal or greater importance, our economy is being heavily braked by rising health care costs. So any reduction in our power to get fossil fuel companies to protect the public health in their operations is irresponsible in my opinion. Amendments to do so should be vigorously opposed for that reason alone.
Similarly, we recently saw how sharp increases in energy costs due to more rapidly rising energy costs sharply braked the economy. That will recur unless we rapidly develop renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power. That will increase the useful supply of energy enough to prevent those kinds of rapid and continuing energy increases.
BUT, those things won't happen or won't happen enough to protect the economy if the fossil fuel companies can continue to evade paying the true costs of safely producing and using their products. Fossil fuel companies do not need and should NOT have a free pass that enables them to continue to evade their responsibilities and give them a cost advantage they do NOT now deserve. If they continue to have this legally maintained and undeserved cost advantage, it will stunt the growth of the new capacity we need so badly to build.
So, between the dangers of further excess CO2 release which look quite real, the preventable health care costs at risk, and the very real economic threat if we don't bring online enough renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power -- to keep energy supplies up and costs down, we are in grave trouble.
I think it unusually important to for our Senators to not only vote against this amendment but to do their best to influence others to do the same.
We are now in several races that our future prosperity and economy and maybe our survival depends upon.
Should the companies that would slow us down get off the hook by passing this amendment?
No.
They did provide us with energy to grow our economy and we should remember that with respect. But they must not be allowed to ignore our current realities and slow us down in this critical set of races.
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-13-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
On January 20th the Senate will vote on an amendment from Senator Murkowski of Alaska to block the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and President Obama to protect the public's health and safety by enforcing limits on global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act--limits reaffirmed by the Supreme Court almost three years ago.
Senator Murkowski's amendment would disregard decades of research, scientific debate, court cases, public hearings and comments that state that global warming is happening and that it will be dangerous to human health and welfare. Last month more than 400,000 Americans submitted comments in favor of EPA's proposal to limit pollution from the biggest global warming polluters. We cannot afford to ignore that global warming pollution will endanger public health in the U.S. and around the world. Furthermore, action to fight global warming will build a clean energy economy that will not only mean less pollution, but more jobs and greater security as well. If successful, Senator Murkowski's amendment would bail out big polluters and stop progress towards clean energy future dead in its tracks.
Please join me in opposing this amendment that ignores the serious threat of global warming to health and welfare.
We may already have burned too much CO2 it seems.
But of equal or greater importance, our economy is being heavily braked by rising health care costs. So any reduction in our power to get fossil fuel companies to protect the public health in their operations is irresponsible in my opinion. Amendments to do so should be vigorously opposed for that reason alone.
Similarly, we recently saw how sharp increases in energy costs due to more rapidly rising energy costs sharply braked the economy. That will recur unless we rapidly develop renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power. That will increase the useful supply of energy enough to prevent those kinds of rapid and continuing energy increases.
BUT, those things won't happen or won't happen enough to protect the economy if the fossil fuel companies can continue to evade paying the true costs of safely producing and using their products. Fossil fuel companies do not need and should NOT have a free pass that enables them to continue to evade their responsibilities and give them a cost advantage they do NOT now deserve. If they continue to have this legally maintained and undeserved cost advantage, it will stunt the growth of the new capacity we need so badly to build.
So, between the dangers of further excess CO2 release which look quite real, the preventable health care costs at risk, and the very real economic threat if we don't bring online enough renewable energy, energy efficiency throughout the economy, and possibly more nuclear power -- to keep energy supplies up and costs down, we are in grave trouble.
I think it unusually important to for our Senators to not only vote against this amendment but to do their best to influence others to do the same.
We are now in several races that our future prosperity and economy and maybe our survival depends upon.
Should the companies that would slow us down get off the hook by passing this amendment?
No.
They did provide us with energy to grow our economy and we should remember that with respect. But they must not be allowed to ignore our current realities and slow us down in this critical set of races.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
In Solar, the best answer is all of the above....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-6-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
This past Monday, 1-4-2010, I found an article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled:
“Solar Power Debate: Is bigger better?”
David Baker, their staff writer who does most of their energy stories wrote it after hearing from advocates of lots of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used and from advocates of large solar farms, particularly solar thermal ones.
1. This is a nonissue in my opinion. It’s about like asking someone if they’d rather have air to breathe or water to drink. To be sure you’ll die sooner if you have no air. But you’ll die just the same if you have no water to drink. It just takes longer.
2. When we need to build about 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we are surely in trouble if we fail to do BOTH things.
Building LOTS of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used IS extremely desirable.
You need virtually no new power lines built if this is done. There’s no need to wait for new ones to be built. Many of the buildings will then provide much of the electricity they need and there will be close to zero transmission loses. And in hot weather when the plentiful sunlight both increases the need for air conditioning to cool things off AND provides the sunlight to make a lot of electricity to power the AC, it will dramatically lower the need for new fossil fuel powered peak load generators to be built. And if there are problems on long distance transmission lines, there will still be a lot of locally generated electricity available. And, it’s also important today that you need no large bank to give you the loan to build huge facilities. Lots of methods on a much smaller scale can and will be used to finance each tiny to small piece. That combination will make this kind of solar MUCH faster to build.
If you do as California finally has done & pay homeowners and small and large businesses for any solar electricity they generate in excess of their own use requirements; & you pass a FIT, Feed-In Tariff, as Germany has that uses small initial increases in utility bills to offer solar electricity providers long term contracts paying enough to make the building of the solar collectors for sure profitable – and therefore financeable, and you make sure the costs of permitting are small & the permits are issued virtually the same day they are applied for, & you have virtually every community offer to finance solar and add the payments to the property tax on the building or property where they are installed as Berkeley, California has done, the following will happen.:
Home-owners will install solar, many apartment owners will install solar; most commercial business with flat roofs will install solar; and canopies will spring up over virtually every parking lot and will have solar collectors on them. In addition, companies like Nanosolar and GreenVolts will install small medium sized solar mini-farms near cities and/or existing power lines.
Should we do all that? We certainly should! It’s too bad every single piece of that isn’t already in place and happening in every state in the United States.
Is that better than large solar farms? When we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years that question is extremely irrelevant.
That set of things IS likely to be faster, so it’s critical that we come as close to doing them all as we can. But that has virtually nothing to do with large scale solar farms!
3. In North America alone there is enough potential for large photovoltaic solar farms to generate most of the total electricity we now use. The cooler but sunnier parts of Canada and the Northern states in the United States will work well for this.
In the Southwest part of the United States and a bit in the Southeast and in almost ALL of Mexico combined, there is enough potential for large solar thermal electricity generation to provide more than double ALL of the total electricity now used in all of North America.
When we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, should we ignore all that just because it will take longer and we’ll need to build new power lines to get it from where it’s generated to where it will be used?
Should we ignore all that because we are already moving ahead on building LOTS of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used?
Heavens no! Not when we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years.
There was a time there were no railroads or safe highways or intercity freeways too. But we DID manage to build them. We can and will build the long distance new transmission lines we need as well. I think we should try to do as much of that in the next 15 years as we possibly can. In addition to enabling us to make use of large photovoltaic and thermal solar electricity, it will dramatically increase the amount of wind generated electricity we can use.
4. In addition, the two sizes of solar electricity generation, solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used that power air conditioners locally when it’s sunniest at those locations, and solar farms that can provide electricity to communities far away that are in the dark or heavily overcast &/or cold are complementary. The combination can much more successfully, completely, and reliably replace coal and natural gas burning generators of electricity.
In fact, a man from the solar thermal company Ausra, that I think has the best technology, explained --to a group he was speaking to that I was lucky enough to be in -- that the heated water or other media the solar heats can be stored in insulated containers for several hours and then used later with something like 95% efficiency to generate electricity.
That means that solar heat collected at 4 PM California time in Southern California and 6 PM Chicago time can provide electricity to people in Chicago from 6 PM to perhaps 11 PM even when it’s raining and dark in Chicago. That can, & I hope will, replace most of the electricity the people in Chicago now get from plants that burn coal.
Will this take 20 or 30 years to put in place? Probably. But since we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we’d better start now to do it!
And, since the actions that will help put solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used will take 5 to 15 years to work, and we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we’d better start now to do that also!
We definitely should be doing both & doing each one soon.
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-6-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Today’s post:
This past Monday, 1-4-2010, I found an article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled:
“Solar Power Debate: Is bigger better?”
David Baker, their staff writer who does most of their energy stories wrote it after hearing from advocates of lots of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used and from advocates of large solar farms, particularly solar thermal ones.
1. This is a nonissue in my opinion. It’s about like asking someone if they’d rather have air to breathe or water to drink. To be sure you’ll die sooner if you have no air. But you’ll die just the same if you have no water to drink. It just takes longer.
2. When we need to build about 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we are surely in trouble if we fail to do BOTH things.
Building LOTS of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used IS extremely desirable.
You need virtually no new power lines built if this is done. There’s no need to wait for new ones to be built. Many of the buildings will then provide much of the electricity they need and there will be close to zero transmission loses. And in hot weather when the plentiful sunlight both increases the need for air conditioning to cool things off AND provides the sunlight to make a lot of electricity to power the AC, it will dramatically lower the need for new fossil fuel powered peak load generators to be built. And if there are problems on long distance transmission lines, there will still be a lot of locally generated electricity available. And, it’s also important today that you need no large bank to give you the loan to build huge facilities. Lots of methods on a much smaller scale can and will be used to finance each tiny to small piece. That combination will make this kind of solar MUCH faster to build.
If you do as California finally has done & pay homeowners and small and large businesses for any solar electricity they generate in excess of their own use requirements; & you pass a FIT, Feed-In Tariff, as Germany has that uses small initial increases in utility bills to offer solar electricity providers long term contracts paying enough to make the building of the solar collectors for sure profitable – and therefore financeable, and you make sure the costs of permitting are small & the permits are issued virtually the same day they are applied for, & you have virtually every community offer to finance solar and add the payments to the property tax on the building or property where they are installed as Berkeley, California has done, the following will happen.:
Home-owners will install solar, many apartment owners will install solar; most commercial business with flat roofs will install solar; and canopies will spring up over virtually every parking lot and will have solar collectors on them. In addition, companies like Nanosolar and GreenVolts will install small medium sized solar mini-farms near cities and/or existing power lines.
Should we do all that? We certainly should! It’s too bad every single piece of that isn’t already in place and happening in every state in the United States.
Is that better than large solar farms? When we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years that question is extremely irrelevant.
That set of things IS likely to be faster, so it’s critical that we come as close to doing them all as we can. But that has virtually nothing to do with large scale solar farms!
3. In North America alone there is enough potential for large photovoltaic solar farms to generate most of the total electricity we now use. The cooler but sunnier parts of Canada and the Northern states in the United States will work well for this.
In the Southwest part of the United States and a bit in the Southeast and in almost ALL of Mexico combined, there is enough potential for large solar thermal electricity generation to provide more than double ALL of the total electricity now used in all of North America.
When we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, should we ignore all that just because it will take longer and we’ll need to build new power lines to get it from where it’s generated to where it will be used?
Should we ignore all that because we are already moving ahead on building LOTS of solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used?
Heavens no! Not when we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years.
There was a time there were no railroads or safe highways or intercity freeways too. But we DID manage to build them. We can and will build the long distance new transmission lines we need as well. I think we should try to do as much of that in the next 15 years as we possibly can. In addition to enabling us to make use of large photovoltaic and thermal solar electricity, it will dramatically increase the amount of wind generated electricity we can use.
4. In addition, the two sizes of solar electricity generation, solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used that power air conditioners locally when it’s sunniest at those locations, and solar farms that can provide electricity to communities far away that are in the dark or heavily overcast &/or cold are complementary. The combination can much more successfully, completely, and reliably replace coal and natural gas burning generators of electricity.
In fact, a man from the solar thermal company Ausra, that I think has the best technology, explained --to a group he was speaking to that I was lucky enough to be in -- that the heated water or other media the solar heats can be stored in insulated containers for several hours and then used later with something like 95% efficiency to generate electricity.
That means that solar heat collected at 4 PM California time in Southern California and 6 PM Chicago time can provide electricity to people in Chicago from 6 PM to perhaps 11 PM even when it’s raining and dark in Chicago. That can, & I hope will, replace most of the electricity the people in Chicago now get from plants that burn coal.
Will this take 20 or 30 years to put in place? Probably. But since we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we’d better start now to do it!
And, since the actions that will help put solar on roofs on or very near where the electricity will be used will take 5 to 15 years to work, and we need to build 100 to 200 times more solar electricity generation within about 20 years, we’d better start now to do that also!
We definitely should be doing both & doing each one soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)