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.
Showing posts with label Ausra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ausra. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Big companies getting into renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
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.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Today's post: Wednesday, 7-15-2009
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.
Two ways to achieve this are:
1. … to use very large solar thermal plants in very sunny desert locations to generate electricity. Once set up, they generate close to zero carbon emissions while generating very large amounts of electricity. And, since they can store the heat efficiently for several hours, they can deliver some of their electricity at night!
2. … to bring large amounts of biofuels online to replace fossil fuels and do so in ways that do NOT conflict with food production or cause forests to be cut down to “grow” the biofuels. While such biofuels do release CO2 they also remove most of the CO2 first so they are close to carbon neutral. And, they can be blended with existing liquid fossil fuels &/or to replace such fuels as a way to make much of our current transportation economy more carbon neutral and lower CO2 levels.
Just this week I learned that some of the world’s largest companies are beginning to bet serious money on these two efforts exactly.
Of the two, the first may have the most potential for reducing CO2, particularly as we get more plug-in hybrids and all electric vehicles. But the need is so great and the transport part of our economy using liquid fuels is so huge, the second one is clearly much needed also.
1. I had heard of the idea of installing solar thermal plants across the deserts of Northern Africa and using undersea cables to deliver the electricity generated to Europe.
The recent news is that the two huge engineering firms, ABB and Siemens, Deutsche Bank, & 9 other companies have formed a consortium to do just that with a target of providing 15% of the electricity used in Europe by no later than 2050. And, their plans include seeing to it that the host countries also get large amounts of this electricity for their own use allowing them to get economic growth without fossil fuel use!
I’d prefer to have seen the announcement say 30% by 2035 since that might be doable. But the fact that such huge and well managed companies are doing the deal suggests strongly it will happen. That’s extremely good news indeed.
I particularly like that this project has the potential to benefit the economies of Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt which do not have huge oil deposits. It also will provide Saudi Arabia a lifeline when they run out of commercially extractable oil and improve its economy before then. And, it will increase the co-operation and dialogue between these countries and Europe.
(So, far that has not happened in the United States for sending solar thermal from our desert Southwest and Southern Rocky Mountain states to our population centers. Nor has such an idea been proposed to send solar thermal electricity from Mexico to the United States while giving Mexico carbon free electricity, economic growth and jobs. And, since that sector of the United States can almost provide 100% of current nationwide demand while the potential in Mexico is at least three times larger, that these two projects don’t yet have such development consortiums in place is extremely unfortunate.
Hopefully the North Africa – Europe project will cause some copycat efforts here.)
2. It was just announced yesterday that Exxon Mobil will invest $600 million in a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc, a biotech company from La Jolla, California to develop biofuel transportation fuels from algae.
If this preliminary work appears viable as a way to mass produce biofuels from algae Exxon Mobil will likely make additional, multibillion-dollar investments to put this into mass production.
Algae can be grown using land and water unsuitable for crop and food production. And the biofuels can be mixed with or replace the fossil fuels Exxon already provides. It also means Exxon will be able to use its current refineries, existing pipelines, and tanker trucks to get these biofuels to consumers.
$300 million will go to Exxon's internal costs and $300 million or more to Synthetic Genomics, if research & development milestones are met successfully.
The other good news is that there are other entries into competing biofuels from startups such as Solazyme in South San Francisco, California that is also working with algae as a feedstock.
Other large companies are also in the race.
Royal Dutch Shell is working with Iogen Corp in Canada to produce ethanol from wheat straw and with Choren Industries of Germany to develop a biofuel from wood residue. (Their other decision to stop backing solar and wind energy looks as if it may be a serious mistake.)
And, BP expects to work with Verenium Corp to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida.
Neither these massive solar thermal installations nor cost effective biofuels that do not compete with food or forests on a very large scale will work at all soon.
But since large companies are backing them -- and the two projects have such large scale promise, they each are very good news and may well happen.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Keys to solving global warming....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-4-2009
NPR had a story in its online news saying that we almost need every developed and developing country to manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 % over the next 40 years or so, to halt global warming at a level short of global disaster.
And they quote a man who is working on the problem who makes the point, with which I agree, that overdoing taxes or other coercive devices to boost costs for fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide release are potentially undoable politically and economically dangerous as well.
His points are 3: We need to get the reductions anyway but we’ll need a different way to do it; innovation by dozens of new organizations that each do a little bit to solve the problem each working on their part of it at the same time may be needed; & the most critical part is using new technology to reduce the cost of renewable energy to the point it is cheaper than using fossil fuels.
The man they quote is Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who runs the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes based at Arizona State University. He is now trying to identify what institutions we need to drive that transformation in the coming decades.
His other goal is to make renewable energy as cheap as fossil fuels.
He believes there's little hope that the nations of the world will agree to tackle climate change unless that can be done. And, he says, “There's no time to lose.”
I agree with much of what they quote Dan Sarewitz as saying.
But I think there are some ways to get there that go beyond his views.
A. In an earlier post, I talk about how feed-in tariffs have proven to work in dramatically increasing the amount of renewable energy in a relatively short time. The evidence is dramatic. With a world location and area similar to just the Canadian province of British Columbia, Germany has used feed-in tariffs to install HALF of the worlds solar power. Note that they did this without severe harm to their economy AND at a time when the renewable energy produced electricity cost MORE than the electricity produced in other ways.
The feed-in tariff contracts with the solar or wind power provider to pay enough over the cost of electricity produced in other ways that the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit and that this rate lasts long enough the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit over the term of the contract.
But here’s why that works to avoid political fall out and economic disruption.
Let’s say these contracts cost double the price of energy produced by fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.
At the beginning when this only amounted to 1 % of Germany’s electricity, the increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 1%. (.99 + .02 = 1.01)
Then gradually it’s gone up to 16% where I’ve read it is now. Even if the costs did not come down, which I think they actually did do, the net increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 16% (.84 + .32 = 1.16)
So, even if we went to 100 % renewable, the total cost would only double. And the increases would be gradual.
But, when volume sales happen and new technologies come online, costs of virtually everything do gradually come down. So the increases will likely be less than that.
I think that if every nation and utility began using feed-in tariffs for renewable energy production of electricity and we used some of it for transport, an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years may well be doable.
B. But what about the idea of making fossil fuel use cost more? Clearly that make sense as well because the sooner that cost is MORE than the cost of renewable energy, the more likely we are to get an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years.
But if we cause fossil fuel costs to double or more in 12 months as happened recently to gasoline prices and other fuels as oil prices shot up, we’ll cause great harm to the economy and cause many individuals and businesses to suffer.
So, while causing fossil fuel use to go up in cost is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL, it’s also critical that the change be more gradual than that.
I think there are two ways to do the job but do it an economically safe pace.
1. Look first to charging the real costs of using fossil fuels to the providers.
a) As we’ve seen recently, coal ash dumped into rivers from coal mining and burning has ruinous effects. If the executives of the companies involved could go to jail for doing this; and/or the complete costs of cleaning up or preventing this damage were charged to the companies; and companies had to avoid this kind of thing as a cost of doing business, they’d have to charge more for their coal.
b) As we’ve seen recently, massive health care costs are created by health care and diseases caused or made worse by air pollution from burning coal and petroleum based fuels with in adequate pollution controls.
The producing companies have NOT been charged the costs of paying these bills or of installing enough thoroughly effective pollution controls to prevent it.
If over the next 15 years we gradually insisted that all the companies that burn coal or provide petroleum based fuels prevent these costs completely, by the end of that 15 years renewable energy may well cost less.
2. The key idea I think is to enact feed-in tariffs and extra financing for renewable energy production and build the new transmission grid first.
That way as the increased cost of fossil fuels begins to take hold, the renewable energy is already coming online at reasonable cost to cover our energy needs.
So, while we do need to make carbon based fuels cost more at least by adding their real and now unpaid costs to them, it will pay us to do it gradually. That is also the way it would make sense to add carbon taxes or delete existing tax breaks for those industries.
Lastly, by increasingly having coal and petroleum used for things other than burning directly such as making coal based but clean burning fuels to complement biofuels and by turning both coal and petroleum into sources of petrochemicals (as J. Paul Getty foresaw many years ago) the industries will have a safe place to land also as their income dries up from directly burning their fossil fuels.
C. We need to make an effort as great as the United States did to win World War II but on a planet wide basis to add all the renewable energy and energy efficiency we have the potential to use, or as close to it as possible and to do it for the next 40 years.
We need cost effective biofuels that can be produced in places that cause no environmental damage or compete with food production.
We need many more all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.
We need more wind power installations near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger wind power farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. (This part of T. Boone Pickens’ plan is absolutely correct and should be implemented immediately.)
Both kinds of wind power should be built right away since it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels.
We need more installations of simple and reliable solar hot water or water pre-warming systems by both individuals for their homes and by businesses.
We need more solar photovoltaic installations by homeowners and by business for their buildings AND parking lot spaces.
And we need to build smaller solar photovoltaic power farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar photovoltaic farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby.
Similarly, we need to build smaller solar thermal farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar thermal farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. Given the solar thermal potential of the whole South Western United States; almost all of Mexico; of central Australia; & and of North Africa, this is a truly huge part of the solution we need to also make sure to use. In the long run it may provide at least half the renewable energy we need. And, unlike solar photovoltaic power, solar thermal can provide electricity well after dark as well as after the sun is no longer near maximum brightness.
Ausra, the company that I’ve seen that has the best and most reliable solar thermal technology has temporarily, I read recently, stopped its efforts to build such large solar thermal farms.
It is my hope that they will plan to resume their efforts in this area once we have feed-in tariffs; a more normal banking climate or special renewable energy financing; and we’ve begun building transmission lines to these areas.
I think it’s essential we do that in the United States. Because if we do, the rest of the world will follow.
We also need to invest in LED lights; dramatically increase insulation and heat proofing of existing buildings; and insist on them in new buildings; and do everything else we can to make our use of energy more efficient without cutting our economy. In this category of things, some of them can be done within the first 5 years or even by a year from now.
They usually have a lifetime cost low enough to actually save money. And they often save money so well the payback is less than five years or even ONE year in some cases.
Since EACH of these things is doable, if we simply insist on doing them all, I think we CAN increase our renewable energy and energy efficiency AND replace enough fossil fuels by doing so to cut CO2 emissions 80 % while providing for economic and population GROWTH too.
And, if we show in the United States that it can be done & WE start doing it, we then can both bring the rest of the world along by example and providing the technologies and products (where we don’t import them ourselves.)
Plus, once that is moving well, we can consider adding import fees from countries based on how much carbon dioxide was used in creating their products.
One man said he thinks only such import fees will engage the full effort of China in fighting global warming. Based on my own reading of the Chinese, I think he badly underestimates their ingenuity, efforts already underway, and their ability to capitalize on things they see others doing well.
That said, they produce enough of the world’s CO2 each year now, once we begin actually doing ourselves what we want them to do, he may be right at that time. If he is correct then, I think that’s the time to use his solution.
My own belief is that by then it will not be necessary. But I agree with him that if it is, it would be effective.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-4-2009
NPR had a story in its online news saying that we almost need every developed and developing country to manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 % over the next 40 years or so, to halt global warming at a level short of global disaster.
And they quote a man who is working on the problem who makes the point, with which I agree, that overdoing taxes or other coercive devices to boost costs for fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide release are potentially undoable politically and economically dangerous as well.
His points are 3: We need to get the reductions anyway but we’ll need a different way to do it; innovation by dozens of new organizations that each do a little bit to solve the problem each working on their part of it at the same time may be needed; & the most critical part is using new technology to reduce the cost of renewable energy to the point it is cheaper than using fossil fuels.
The man they quote is Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who runs the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes based at Arizona State University. He is now trying to identify what institutions we need to drive that transformation in the coming decades.
His other goal is to make renewable energy as cheap as fossil fuels.
He believes there's little hope that the nations of the world will agree to tackle climate change unless that can be done. And, he says, “There's no time to lose.”
I agree with much of what they quote Dan Sarewitz as saying.
But I think there are some ways to get there that go beyond his views.
A. In an earlier post, I talk about how feed-in tariffs have proven to work in dramatically increasing the amount of renewable energy in a relatively short time. The evidence is dramatic. With a world location and area similar to just the Canadian province of British Columbia, Germany has used feed-in tariffs to install HALF of the worlds solar power. Note that they did this without severe harm to their economy AND at a time when the renewable energy produced electricity cost MORE than the electricity produced in other ways.
The feed-in tariff contracts with the solar or wind power provider to pay enough over the cost of electricity produced in other ways that the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit and that this rate lasts long enough the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit over the term of the contract.
But here’s why that works to avoid political fall out and economic disruption.
Let’s say these contracts cost double the price of energy produced by fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.
At the beginning when this only amounted to 1 % of Germany’s electricity, the increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 1%. (.99 + .02 = 1.01)
Then gradually it’s gone up to 16% where I’ve read it is now. Even if the costs did not come down, which I think they actually did do, the net increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 16% (.84 + .32 = 1.16)
So, even if we went to 100 % renewable, the total cost would only double. And the increases would be gradual.
But, when volume sales happen and new technologies come online, costs of virtually everything do gradually come down. So the increases will likely be less than that.
I think that if every nation and utility began using feed-in tariffs for renewable energy production of electricity and we used some of it for transport, an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years may well be doable.
B. But what about the idea of making fossil fuel use cost more? Clearly that make sense as well because the sooner that cost is MORE than the cost of renewable energy, the more likely we are to get an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years.
But if we cause fossil fuel costs to double or more in 12 months as happened recently to gasoline prices and other fuels as oil prices shot up, we’ll cause great harm to the economy and cause many individuals and businesses to suffer.
So, while causing fossil fuel use to go up in cost is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL, it’s also critical that the change be more gradual than that.
I think there are two ways to do the job but do it an economically safe pace.
1. Look first to charging the real costs of using fossil fuels to the providers.
a) As we’ve seen recently, coal ash dumped into rivers from coal mining and burning has ruinous effects. If the executives of the companies involved could go to jail for doing this; and/or the complete costs of cleaning up or preventing this damage were charged to the companies; and companies had to avoid this kind of thing as a cost of doing business, they’d have to charge more for their coal.
b) As we’ve seen recently, massive health care costs are created by health care and diseases caused or made worse by air pollution from burning coal and petroleum based fuels with in adequate pollution controls.
The producing companies have NOT been charged the costs of paying these bills or of installing enough thoroughly effective pollution controls to prevent it.
If over the next 15 years we gradually insisted that all the companies that burn coal or provide petroleum based fuels prevent these costs completely, by the end of that 15 years renewable energy may well cost less.
2. The key idea I think is to enact feed-in tariffs and extra financing for renewable energy production and build the new transmission grid first.
That way as the increased cost of fossil fuels begins to take hold, the renewable energy is already coming online at reasonable cost to cover our energy needs.
So, while we do need to make carbon based fuels cost more at least by adding their real and now unpaid costs to them, it will pay us to do it gradually. That is also the way it would make sense to add carbon taxes or delete existing tax breaks for those industries.
Lastly, by increasingly having coal and petroleum used for things other than burning directly such as making coal based but clean burning fuels to complement biofuels and by turning both coal and petroleum into sources of petrochemicals (as J. Paul Getty foresaw many years ago) the industries will have a safe place to land also as their income dries up from directly burning their fossil fuels.
C. We need to make an effort as great as the United States did to win World War II but on a planet wide basis to add all the renewable energy and energy efficiency we have the potential to use, or as close to it as possible and to do it for the next 40 years.
We need cost effective biofuels that can be produced in places that cause no environmental damage or compete with food production.
We need many more all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.
We need more wind power installations near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger wind power farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. (This part of T. Boone Pickens’ plan is absolutely correct and should be implemented immediately.)
Both kinds of wind power should be built right away since it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels.
We need more installations of simple and reliable solar hot water or water pre-warming systems by both individuals for their homes and by businesses.
We need more solar photovoltaic installations by homeowners and by business for their buildings AND parking lot spaces.
And we need to build smaller solar photovoltaic power farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar photovoltaic farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby.
Similarly, we need to build smaller solar thermal farms near existing populations and power grids.
We also need to build larger solar thermal farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. Given the solar thermal potential of the whole South Western United States; almost all of Mexico; of central Australia; & and of North Africa, this is a truly huge part of the solution we need to also make sure to use. In the long run it may provide at least half the renewable energy we need. And, unlike solar photovoltaic power, solar thermal can provide electricity well after dark as well as after the sun is no longer near maximum brightness.
Ausra, the company that I’ve seen that has the best and most reliable solar thermal technology has temporarily, I read recently, stopped its efforts to build such large solar thermal farms.
It is my hope that they will plan to resume their efforts in this area once we have feed-in tariffs; a more normal banking climate or special renewable energy financing; and we’ve begun building transmission lines to these areas.
I think it’s essential we do that in the United States. Because if we do, the rest of the world will follow.
We also need to invest in LED lights; dramatically increase insulation and heat proofing of existing buildings; and insist on them in new buildings; and do everything else we can to make our use of energy more efficient without cutting our economy. In this category of things, some of them can be done within the first 5 years or even by a year from now.
They usually have a lifetime cost low enough to actually save money. And they often save money so well the payback is less than five years or even ONE year in some cases.
Since EACH of these things is doable, if we simply insist on doing them all, I think we CAN increase our renewable energy and energy efficiency AND replace enough fossil fuels by doing so to cut CO2 emissions 80 % while providing for economic and population GROWTH too.
And, if we show in the United States that it can be done & WE start doing it, we then can both bring the rest of the world along by example and providing the technologies and products (where we don’t import them ourselves.)
Plus, once that is moving well, we can consider adding import fees from countries based on how much carbon dioxide was used in creating their products.
One man said he thinks only such import fees will engage the full effort of China in fighting global warming. Based on my own reading of the Chinese, I think he badly underestimates their ingenuity, efforts already underway, and their ability to capitalize on things they see others doing well.
That said, they produce enough of the world’s CO2 each year now, once we begin actually doing ourselves what we want them to do, he may be right at that time. If he is correct then, I think that’s the time to use his solution.
My own belief is that by then it will not be necessary. But I agree with him that if it is, it would be effective.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Solar Thermal arrives from Ausra....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-29-2008
As I’ve already posted about in this blog before, I was lucky enough to see a presentation made by one of the founding executives of Ausra, a California company that builds solar thermal “farms’ to make electricity from solar heat in hot sunny places.
Ausra’s recent opening of a 5 megawatt solar farm built by Ausra in Bakersfield in Southern California made our local newspapers.
But both stories left out the three most critical facts that explain why this event was so incredibly important. It was so important that California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger was there. But the news stories did NOT say WHY this event was so important.
That’s the subject of today’s post. We list the 3 key reasons this event was so important.
(The quotes below are from Ausra’s Press releases on its website www.ausra.com .)
Here are those 3 points.
1. Solar thermal farms make a 100 % renewable economy a real possibility.
“PALO ALTO, Calif.—March 6, 2008—Ausra Inc., the developer of utility-scale solar thermal power technology, has published a peer-reviewed study showing that over 90 percent of the U.S. electric grid and auto fleet's energy needs could be met by solar thermal power.”
I’ll add that this means that very nearly all the electricity needed to run plug-in hybrids and electric cars can come from this one renewable source.
And, when you add increasing the energy efficiency of our lights and devices that use electricity and the very nearly as large or larger potential of solar photovoltaics in all of the United States, Canada, & Mexico plus any geothermal and hydropower that proves cost effective, this means that 100 % of our electricity use now PLUS robust economic growth throughout North America AND supplying our cars can all be generated from renewable energy.
And, as you can see, solar thermal companies such as Ausra move this possibility from maybe to for sure doable.
The next point clinches that one.
2. The Ausra founding executive I heard speak explained that unlike solar photovoltaic produced electricity that is only most available at certain times of day, because the recapture of energy from the solar heated media is or approaches 96 %, solar thermal power can provide electric power about 16 hours a day.
I’ll also add that since the band of appropriate parts of North America in the Southwest United States and Northern Mexico goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, that means by installing solar thermal farms in each part of this region that spans three time zones and adding the appropriate transmission lines, solar thermal farms can approach supplying electricity 18 to 19 hours a day.
3. We already are using about twice our planet’s capacity to remove CO2 by our current burning of fossil fuels. And the scientists who have studied this extensively say that unless we completely turn to sources of electricity and energy that do NOT burn fossil fuels in the next 10 to perhaps 25 years, the human race and its economy may become very burned toast. Worse, the scientists say the process likely will then be irreversible.
It’s totally definite that it borders on the irresponsible to do things that increase our use of oil and coal for energy. Yet that process is still continuing in both the United States and China.
The thing that’s exciting about solar thermal power is that its potential is so huge and so realizable, adding solar thermal to the mix provides us with a viable alternative. We CAN power robust economic growth AND wean our economy away from petroleum and coal.
Even better, despite the Ausra solar thermal farm that just opened in Bakersfield being over twice as large as the Applied Materials installation that we posted about as showing the very large potential of solar parking lots, the 5 megawatt Bakersfield solar farm is only about a 35th of the 177 megawatt solar farm that Ausra will launch soon.
When you realize that it’s completely possible to open 1000 solar farms THAT size, you begin to see the real potential of solar thermal.
“In November 2007, Ausra and California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced a power purchase agreement for the 177-megawatt power plant in central California. When completed, Ausra's Carrizo facility will generate enough electricity to power more than 120,000 homes.”
X* X* X* X* X*
Here are the press releases of interest on Ausra’s website.:
“10.23.2008 Solar Power Company Ausra Launches First Solar Thermal Plant in California in Nearly 20 Years
10.01.2008 Ausra Secures $60.6 Million in Funding
06.30.2008 Ausra Opens First U.S. Solar Thermal Power Factory
03.06.2008 Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet”
There are several other press releases listed that you might find of interest.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 10-29-2008
As I’ve already posted about in this blog before, I was lucky enough to see a presentation made by one of the founding executives of Ausra, a California company that builds solar thermal “farms’ to make electricity from solar heat in hot sunny places.
Ausra’s recent opening of a 5 megawatt solar farm built by Ausra in Bakersfield in Southern California made our local newspapers.
But both stories left out the three most critical facts that explain why this event was so incredibly important. It was so important that California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger was there. But the news stories did NOT say WHY this event was so important.
That’s the subject of today’s post. We list the 3 key reasons this event was so important.
(The quotes below are from Ausra’s Press releases on its website www.ausra.com .)
Here are those 3 points.
1. Solar thermal farms make a 100 % renewable economy a real possibility.
“PALO ALTO, Calif.—March 6, 2008—Ausra Inc., the developer of utility-scale solar thermal power technology, has published a peer-reviewed study showing that over 90 percent of the U.S. electric grid and auto fleet's energy needs could be met by solar thermal power.”
I’ll add that this means that very nearly all the electricity needed to run plug-in hybrids and electric cars can come from this one renewable source.
And, when you add increasing the energy efficiency of our lights and devices that use electricity and the very nearly as large or larger potential of solar photovoltaics in all of the United States, Canada, & Mexico plus any geothermal and hydropower that proves cost effective, this means that 100 % of our electricity use now PLUS robust economic growth throughout North America AND supplying our cars can all be generated from renewable energy.
And, as you can see, solar thermal companies such as Ausra move this possibility from maybe to for sure doable.
The next point clinches that one.
2. The Ausra founding executive I heard speak explained that unlike solar photovoltaic produced electricity that is only most available at certain times of day, because the recapture of energy from the solar heated media is or approaches 96 %, solar thermal power can provide electric power about 16 hours a day.
I’ll also add that since the band of appropriate parts of North America in the Southwest United States and Northern Mexico goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, that means by installing solar thermal farms in each part of this region that spans three time zones and adding the appropriate transmission lines, solar thermal farms can approach supplying electricity 18 to 19 hours a day.
3. We already are using about twice our planet’s capacity to remove CO2 by our current burning of fossil fuels. And the scientists who have studied this extensively say that unless we completely turn to sources of electricity and energy that do NOT burn fossil fuels in the next 10 to perhaps 25 years, the human race and its economy may become very burned toast. Worse, the scientists say the process likely will then be irreversible.
It’s totally definite that it borders on the irresponsible to do things that increase our use of oil and coal for energy. Yet that process is still continuing in both the United States and China.
The thing that’s exciting about solar thermal power is that its potential is so huge and so realizable, adding solar thermal to the mix provides us with a viable alternative. We CAN power robust economic growth AND wean our economy away from petroleum and coal.
Even better, despite the Ausra solar thermal farm that just opened in Bakersfield being over twice as large as the Applied Materials installation that we posted about as showing the very large potential of solar parking lots, the 5 megawatt Bakersfield solar farm is only about a 35th of the 177 megawatt solar farm that Ausra will launch soon.
When you realize that it’s completely possible to open 1000 solar farms THAT size, you begin to see the real potential of solar thermal.
“In November 2007, Ausra and California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced a power purchase agreement for the 177-megawatt power plant in central California. When completed, Ausra's Carrizo facility will generate enough electricity to power more than 120,000 homes.”
X* X* X* X* X*
Here are the press releases of interest on Ausra’s website.:
“10.23.2008 Solar Power Company Ausra Launches First Solar Thermal Plant in California in Nearly 20 Years
10.01.2008 Ausra Secures $60.6 Million in Funding
06.30.2008 Ausra Opens First U.S. Solar Thermal Power Factory
03.06.2008 Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet”
There are several other press releases listed that you might find of interest.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
New Energy & Industrial Region ….
Today’s post: Weds, 2-27-2008
Today, solar generated electricity is still more costly than generating electricity by burning natural gas, oil, or coal.
However, that is rapidly changing on both ends of the equation.
Thin film solar promises to soon cost less than fossil fuels at today’s prices. Other new technologies are being developed all over the world to bring down the cost of solar electricity. And we are already seeing the increase in volume of solar deployment that will allow for economies of scale & drive developments in cost-effective manufacturing.
Increased worldwide economic & population growth have increased demand enough that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $100 in the last six years or so. Unlike the spike in the late 1970’s & early 1980’s, the upward trend in prices caused by increased demand for energy is likely to continue -- though perhaps at a lower annual growth rate -- over the next 50 years.
And, increasingly, because of the problem of already having too much CO2 in the world’s air, use of fossil fuels will increasingly be taxed. Soon all uses in most developed countries of fossil fuels will be taxed directly by carbon taxes on natural gas, oil, & coal. And, increasingly, to use such sources, you will need to get licensed & will also need to pay enough to offset 100 % of the carbon dioxide generated.
Given these things, I believe solar generated electricity will soon cost less than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. I think we’ll be best served if it happens in five years for new capacity. But it may take more like 10 or more.
However, it’s quite clear to me that sooner is better and that there will be huge amounts of money to be made as this happens whether it takes 5 years or 20. And, it’s equally clear that is certain to happen barring world wide disasters or somehow developing safe & cost effective controlled fusion power.
You may be aware that the thermal solar company Ausra and PG & E are already beginning to build large scale thermal solar electricity generation facilities in the desert of Southeast California.
(If not, see http://www.ausra.com .
Here’s a quote from their website:
“Amid growing public demand for clean energy, Ausra offers solar thermal electric power stations that provide large-scale low-cost, reliable, renewable energy. Unlike competing approaches, Ausra's technology is proven, easily manufactured and installed, and scalable to high volume.“)
And, here is the key quote from their website.:
“Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Ausra's business will benefit local economies by bringing “green collar” manufacturing and operating jobs to rural communities.”
Ausra’s is not the only thermal solar approach. From what I’ve seen it may well be one of the most cost effective. However, there are other companies already moving into this space. Some may eventually be more cost effective than Ausra.
And, it may be that in some locations, it may be most cost effective to combine thin film solar with thermal solar. Thermal solar has the advantage of being able to store the collected heat for use in nighttime electricity generation. However, for optimum cost effectiveness, it may make sense to have the increased daytime demand be covered by thin film solar “farms.” (So, far it looks to me as if thin film generated solar electricity will cost less per megawatt to install & operate.)
So why does this mean there is a “New Energy & Industrial Region “?
In North America, the locations that work best for large scale electricity generation need to be unusually sunny year round and have land that is not very arable & is currently not very populated.
Where is that found in North America?
1. In the United States,
It’s in California in Southeastern California, far Southern California, &, given less water access in the future, in the South end of the Central Valley at least in part.
It’s also in much of Nevada & a good bit of Arizona & New Mexico. To a lesser degree it’s also in parts of Utah, Colorado, & West Texas.
2. In Mexico,
It’s most of Baja California.
And, it’s in a huge area of Northern Mexico that lies South of California, Arizona, New Mexico, & West Texas.
Since this area taken as whole totals thousands of square miles & has abundant sunshine year round, once it is fully developed as a solar electricity generation zone, much of the electricity needed to power the economies of the United States & Mexico may well come from this area.
Some electricity will come from locally generated renewable sources such as local rooftop solar & wind. And, some will likely come from sequestered coal burning & nuclear -- at least during the transition phase.
I believe that as this area becomes a major energy generation zone, it will make increasing sense to locate server farms, manufacturing, & industrial plants that need large amounts of electricity, such as aluminum smelting, in this area.
In addition, the current populations of this area will need desalted sea water let alone increased populations. This will clearly be powered by solar thermal & solar electricity.
To me, this makes the area of California along the Pacific coast from San Diego to the Mexican Border, the coast of all of Baja California, & the part of Northern Mexico on the other side of the Gulf of California the site of real estate that will be quite valuable in the future for such businesses.
One of the interesting implications is that there may well be enough jobs in this overall area of Northern Mexico to mostly solve the problem of excess & illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.
If this forecast is correct, there will soon be enough jobs in this part of Mexico, people in Mexico will no longer need to move to the United States to get good jobs. They will be abundantly available in Northern Mexico.
A policy implication of this is that the governments of Mexico, California, & the United States would do well to foster the development of such solar farms & new jobs in Northern Mexico as fast as it can be made to happen.
And, it will pay companies in the United States to plan on expanding into this area as well. In the Silicon Valley where I live, there are three companies that I think for various reason might look at this.: Google, Intel, & Hewlett Packard. These & similar companies thrived by adding facilities in Ireland. And the economy of Ireland has thrived because of it.
I predict this will now happen in Northern Mexico because of solar power available there already -- & the solar electricity that will be available there soon.
The good news is that the current governments of California & Mexico seem likely to like the idea. The President of Mexico just said recently that while he wants people from Mexico who do come to the United States to be treated humanely, he would much rather they could find the good jobs they want in Mexico.
The development of this Solar Energy Area in Northern Mexico has the promise of doing exactly that.
Today’s post: Weds, 2-27-2008
Today, solar generated electricity is still more costly than generating electricity by burning natural gas, oil, or coal.
However, that is rapidly changing on both ends of the equation.
Thin film solar promises to soon cost less than fossil fuels at today’s prices. Other new technologies are being developed all over the world to bring down the cost of solar electricity. And we are already seeing the increase in volume of solar deployment that will allow for economies of scale & drive developments in cost-effective manufacturing.
Increased worldwide economic & population growth have increased demand enough that oil has gone from $30 a barrel to $100 in the last six years or so. Unlike the spike in the late 1970’s & early 1980’s, the upward trend in prices caused by increased demand for energy is likely to continue -- though perhaps at a lower annual growth rate -- over the next 50 years.
And, increasingly, because of the problem of already having too much CO2 in the world’s air, use of fossil fuels will increasingly be taxed. Soon all uses in most developed countries of fossil fuels will be taxed directly by carbon taxes on natural gas, oil, & coal. And, increasingly, to use such sources, you will need to get licensed & will also need to pay enough to offset 100 % of the carbon dioxide generated.
Given these things, I believe solar generated electricity will soon cost less than generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. I think we’ll be best served if it happens in five years for new capacity. But it may take more like 10 or more.
However, it’s quite clear to me that sooner is better and that there will be huge amounts of money to be made as this happens whether it takes 5 years or 20. And, it’s equally clear that is certain to happen barring world wide disasters or somehow developing safe & cost effective controlled fusion power.
You may be aware that the thermal solar company Ausra and PG & E are already beginning to build large scale thermal solar electricity generation facilities in the desert of Southeast California.
(If not, see http://www.ausra.com .
Here’s a quote from their website:
“Amid growing public demand for clean energy, Ausra offers solar thermal electric power stations that provide large-scale low-cost, reliable, renewable energy. Unlike competing approaches, Ausra's technology is proven, easily manufactured and installed, and scalable to high volume.“)
And, here is the key quote from their website.:
“Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Ausra's business will benefit local economies by bringing “green collar” manufacturing and operating jobs to rural communities.”
Ausra’s is not the only thermal solar approach. From what I’ve seen it may well be one of the most cost effective. However, there are other companies already moving into this space. Some may eventually be more cost effective than Ausra.
And, it may be that in some locations, it may be most cost effective to combine thin film solar with thermal solar. Thermal solar has the advantage of being able to store the collected heat for use in nighttime electricity generation. However, for optimum cost effectiveness, it may make sense to have the increased daytime demand be covered by thin film solar “farms.” (So, far it looks to me as if thin film generated solar electricity will cost less per megawatt to install & operate.)
So why does this mean there is a “New Energy & Industrial Region “?
In North America, the locations that work best for large scale electricity generation need to be unusually sunny year round and have land that is not very arable & is currently not very populated.
Where is that found in North America?
1. In the United States,
It’s in California in Southeastern California, far Southern California, &, given less water access in the future, in the South end of the Central Valley at least in part.
It’s also in much of Nevada & a good bit of Arizona & New Mexico. To a lesser degree it’s also in parts of Utah, Colorado, & West Texas.
2. In Mexico,
It’s most of Baja California.
And, it’s in a huge area of Northern Mexico that lies South of California, Arizona, New Mexico, & West Texas.
Since this area taken as whole totals thousands of square miles & has abundant sunshine year round, once it is fully developed as a solar electricity generation zone, much of the electricity needed to power the economies of the United States & Mexico may well come from this area.
Some electricity will come from locally generated renewable sources such as local rooftop solar & wind. And, some will likely come from sequestered coal burning & nuclear -- at least during the transition phase.
I believe that as this area becomes a major energy generation zone, it will make increasing sense to locate server farms, manufacturing, & industrial plants that need large amounts of electricity, such as aluminum smelting, in this area.
In addition, the current populations of this area will need desalted sea water let alone increased populations. This will clearly be powered by solar thermal & solar electricity.
To me, this makes the area of California along the Pacific coast from San Diego to the Mexican Border, the coast of all of Baja California, & the part of Northern Mexico on the other side of the Gulf of California the site of real estate that will be quite valuable in the future for such businesses.
One of the interesting implications is that there may well be enough jobs in this overall area of Northern Mexico to mostly solve the problem of excess & illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.
If this forecast is correct, there will soon be enough jobs in this part of Mexico, people in Mexico will no longer need to move to the United States to get good jobs. They will be abundantly available in Northern Mexico.
A policy implication of this is that the governments of Mexico, California, & the United States would do well to foster the development of such solar farms & new jobs in Northern Mexico as fast as it can be made to happen.
And, it will pay companies in the United States to plan on expanding into this area as well. In the Silicon Valley where I live, there are three companies that I think for various reason might look at this.: Google, Intel, & Hewlett Packard. These & similar companies thrived by adding facilities in Ireland. And the economy of Ireland has thrived because of it.
I predict this will now happen in Northern Mexico because of solar power available there already -- & the solar electricity that will be available there soon.
The good news is that the current governments of California & Mexico seem likely to like the idea. The President of Mexico just said recently that while he wants people from Mexico who do come to the United States to be treated humanely, he would much rather they could find the good jobs they want in Mexico.
The development of this Solar Energy Area in Northern Mexico has the promise of doing exactly that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)