New solar plants to increase California’s electricity from solar....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-12-2011
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
New solar plants to increase California’s electricity from solar....
This week Southern California Edison signed contracts with SunPower Corp for 3 solar plants producing 711 megawatts of electricity scheduled to go online by 2016 and with Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Inc for 4 solar plants producing 120 megawatts of electricity scheduled to go online by 2013 for a total of 831 megawatts.
The Los Angeles Times said that in 2009, Southern California Edison had renewable electricity which was generated by 3,296 megawatts of wind, geothermal, solar, biomass and small hydropower facilities combined, with solar contributing 382 megawatts of that capacity – “according to the utility’s website.”
So, adding this 831 megawatts of solar will increase Southern California Edison’s renewable electricity by about 25% and more than triple the amount it gets from solar based on those 2009 numbers.
Since these parts of the desert in Southern California also would work well for solar thermal plants, it’s worth noting that solar photovoltaic plants are now cost competitive even in such areas and not just in those where there’s too little sun and heat to make solar thermal work well.
SunPower’s press release had this on why it’s installation is cost effective.:
“At the sites, SunPower will deploy the SunPower Oasis™ power plant, the energy industry’s first modular solar power block that provides a cost-effective way to rapidly deploy utility-scale solar. Engineered to optimize use of available land, each SunPower Oasis power block uses high-efficiency, 425-watt SunPower solar panels with the SunPower T0 Tracker, which positions the panels to track the sun during the day, resulting in up to 25 percent more energy capture over fixed-tilt solar power systems. Additional SunPower Oasis features include pre-manufactured cabling to minimize on-site wiring, the Oasis smart inverter control system to enhance grid interoperability, and SunPower’s Tracker Monitoring and Control System for wireless control of the power plant.“
An article I saw also noted that photovoltaic plants do NOT need water as solar thermal plants do.
The 3 SunPower site contracts include:
110 MW in Los Banos, Calif., scheduled to be operational by year-end 2014.
325 MW in Rosamond, Calif., scheduled to be operational by October 2016.
276 MW in Rosamond, Calif., scheduled to be operational by October 2016.
The 4 Fotowatio Renewable Ventures Inc solar plants will produce 120 megawatts of electricity. But they are scheduled to go online by 2013.
These will be in Lamont, Arvin, Mojave, and Lancaster.
Similarly, in Sacramento, in November 2009, Aerojet, SMUD and Solar Power Inc. of Roseville inaugurated a 3.6-megawatt solar farm at Aerojet's Folsom campus. In June, 2010 the three completed a 2.4-megawatt expansion.
And, In October, solar thermal company BrightSource Energy started construction on a 392 megawatt solar thermal plant at Ivanpah, in southeastern California’s San Bernardino County, approximately 50 miles northwest of Needles, California, and about five miles from the California-Nevada border.
In such areas a very strong advantage of solar thermal, is that it can store the solar heat it collects and deliver into generated electricity on demand for several hours after sunset.
So, it is ideal that California is beginning to get both solar thermal plants and solar photovoltaic plants of decent size.
And, more is coming relatively soon.
“Ivanpah is just the first of BrightSource’s efforts. The company wants to build 14 solar power plants in the southwest by 2016, which will deliver projects meant to fulfill 2,610 megawatts in contracts with California utilities Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison.”
Nor is this all. Within 8 years, I think we will see much more solar at homes and businesses throughout the state. In addition, we may see thin-film solar from Nanosolar in many community locations as they are now building in Germany.
Showing posts with label Solar thermal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solar thermal. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Why start now on a national smart grid....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 3-25-2009
It’s imperative that we begin work on a well run and extensive national electrical transmission grid now.
Doing a good job of this is as important to our future prosperity as the Interstate highway system was in its day.
A national electricity transmission grid is now being considered in part to help us best develop & use large and multiple locations and sources for renewable energy.
There are actually five reasons for this.:
1. Some of the best locations with the most renewable energy potential are NOT now served with electrical transmission lines.
2. Many of the best locations with the most renewable energy potential are located far from the residences and businesses that will most need their output and the transmission lines between them are not yet built.
3. With the very large numbers of small sources of renewably generated electricity we expect to develop, we need to have some way of distributing the electricity to the locations that most need them at any particular point in time. This is related to the previous point; but will also be important for smaller sources in areas that already have transmission to help balance the supply and demand between parts of the existing transmission grid that are not now connected.
4. Particularly for solar generated electricity it will be important to be able to send electricity from areas still getting plenty of sunshine to areas far away where the sun has already set and lighting is needed. Large scale solar thermal sources in the Southwestern United States and in Mexico CAN efficiently save the heat for many hours after the sun goes down to aid in this process; but we will need to add the transmission lines to those areas and be able to send electricity East across all the time zones of the United States to enhance this capacity and extend the hours of the day we can use this renewable energy in our East coast cities.
5. Some areas of the United States have more people and businesses than good locations for renewable energy.
In short, to be able to have renewable energy come as close as possible to providing all our electricity it’s imperative we have this national transmission grid.
I’ve read that some people are saying that instead of building this grid system, we should develop multiple sources of renewable energy that are already near the populations they will serve and quite close to existing transmission lines to get usable renewable energy in place soon.
What they are in favor of doing is totally and absolutely correct and desirable. To provide energy independence and cut the use of fossil fuels that emit CO2 the air can’t safely handle any more, we need exactly that very fast start and we need it immediately.
Further, if all 50 states had good feed-in tariffs in place (see last week’s post) we would already be doing just that all over the US.
But that leaves as much as 60 % of the available renewable energy undeveloped and unused if that’s ALL we do.
If we start now on the national transmission grid, in 10 to 20 years we will have this other renewable energy available. And, we cannot afford to wait longer for it if we are to stop the worsening of global warming and continue to wind down the use of fossil fuels without starving our economy for energy or running up its cost enough to cause economic slowdowns.
Last but far from least, since this is an investment that will produce positive returns, the jobs that building the national transmission grid will produce have an extra justification; but in addition to that, what makes doing this now so valuable now is that having those jobs begin to come online in the next one to three years will help reverse our current recession.
So, in my view, on practically every point, the national transmission grid is something we should begin to build immediately.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 3-25-2009
It’s imperative that we begin work on a well run and extensive national electrical transmission grid now.
Doing a good job of this is as important to our future prosperity as the Interstate highway system was in its day.
A national electricity transmission grid is now being considered in part to help us best develop & use large and multiple locations and sources for renewable energy.
There are actually five reasons for this.:
1. Some of the best locations with the most renewable energy potential are NOT now served with electrical transmission lines.
2. Many of the best locations with the most renewable energy potential are located far from the residences and businesses that will most need their output and the transmission lines between them are not yet built.
3. With the very large numbers of small sources of renewably generated electricity we expect to develop, we need to have some way of distributing the electricity to the locations that most need them at any particular point in time. This is related to the previous point; but will also be important for smaller sources in areas that already have transmission to help balance the supply and demand between parts of the existing transmission grid that are not now connected.
4. Particularly for solar generated electricity it will be important to be able to send electricity from areas still getting plenty of sunshine to areas far away where the sun has already set and lighting is needed. Large scale solar thermal sources in the Southwestern United States and in Mexico CAN efficiently save the heat for many hours after the sun goes down to aid in this process; but we will need to add the transmission lines to those areas and be able to send electricity East across all the time zones of the United States to enhance this capacity and extend the hours of the day we can use this renewable energy in our East coast cities.
5. Some areas of the United States have more people and businesses than good locations for renewable energy.
In short, to be able to have renewable energy come as close as possible to providing all our electricity it’s imperative we have this national transmission grid.
I’ve read that some people are saying that instead of building this grid system, we should develop multiple sources of renewable energy that are already near the populations they will serve and quite close to existing transmission lines to get usable renewable energy in place soon.
What they are in favor of doing is totally and absolutely correct and desirable. To provide energy independence and cut the use of fossil fuels that emit CO2 the air can’t safely handle any more, we need exactly that very fast start and we need it immediately.
Further, if all 50 states had good feed-in tariffs in place (see last week’s post) we would already be doing just that all over the US.
But that leaves as much as 60 % of the available renewable energy undeveloped and unused if that’s ALL we do.
If we start now on the national transmission grid, in 10 to 20 years we will have this other renewable energy available. And, we cannot afford to wait longer for it if we are to stop the worsening of global warming and continue to wind down the use of fossil fuels without starving our economy for energy or running up its cost enough to cause economic slowdowns.
Last but far from least, since this is an investment that will produce positive returns, the jobs that building the national transmission grid will produce have an extra justification; but in addition to that, what makes doing this now so valuable now is that having those jobs begin to come online in the next one to three years will help reverse our current recession.
So, in my view, on practically every point, the national transmission grid is something we should begin to build immediately.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Extra Effort on getting to Renewable Energy soon......
Today’s post: Wednesday, 12-10-2008
Just a few weeks ago, Al Gore said we should move to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years or by 2018.
In a report called “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”, various experts & analysts in the US Intelligence organizations and from other places state that renewable energy will NOT be commercially viable by 2025.
And, this report was supplied to President-elect, Obama recently a current news article said.
If we don’t take action, massive coordinated action on several fronts to come much closer to Al Gore’s goal than this new report suggests is likely, we are in very serious trouble. Costs from global warming will begin to destroy our economy while our economy starves for energy at reasonable costs. For example gasoline prices of more than $5 a gallon in today’s dollars will return as the world’s economy tries to recover from the current recession.
Given that we may already have more CO2 in our air than is safe, the status quo of simply drilling for more oil and building more coal fired plants world wide is extremely dangerous.
Yet, a prosperous economy needs more usable, effective, energy to achieve that prosperity and keep it – not less.
That’s why we need not just an effort comparable to the Manhattan Project; but an effort comparable to the entire United States effort to win World War II to start immediately to begin to tax coal and oil use commensurate with their real economic costs; & to regulate their use; AND to use the funds generated plus further investments to increase energy-efficiency and add renewable energy on a huge scale as quickly as we ramped up war production in World War II—or faster.
1. Wind power is already competitive in costs with fossil fuels.
That’s why T Boone Pickens’ plan, or at least the part that adds lots of wind powered electricity generation and new transmission lines to transport it needs to be immediately expanded and implemented in every place that has enough wind.
2. Large solar thermal farms are very close to being competitive with fossil fuels. And there are huge areas in the United States and even more in Mexico (and in other parts of the world) that work well to build them. Plus we also need to add the new transmission lines to these solar thermal farms to deliver their electricity.
We need to have the United States government act in some way to make immediate financing on favorable terms available to build these plants and the transmission lines.
And, we need to have every utility reachable by those lines be required to get perhaps as high as 60 % of their electricity from that source alone by 2030.
This is because the energy is there NOW on that large a scale to be harvested; and the heated media can be efficiently stored to deliver power for several hours after the sun heats it and sets.
3. We also need to increase the incentives enough and drive down the costs enough over the next few years to build both solar photovoltaic farms in favorable locations AND to add roof top solar to virtually every usable rooftop of every building standing AND to build roofs over most of our parking lots that also have solar photovoltaic cells on them.
4. We need to begin to scale up the successful experiments that produce usable biodiesel, ethanol, and jet fuel and chemical feedstocks from algae or other methods that do NOT compete with growing food so that most liquid fuels can be made from processes that remove CO2 in addition to adding it back to our air.
5. We need to stop burning coal for fuel and to convert the coal we have into cleaner burning liquid fuels and gas that can be added to biofuels or used to replace petroleum.
In the near term this will prevent the coal businesses in the United States from a collapse immediate enough to dislocate the economies of the communities where they now are. And, it will provide these fuels while biofuels are just beginning to ramp up.
6. We need to start planning to replace all the coal burning plants we have now with renewable sources such as wind or solar or with plants that burn biofuels and cleaner burning fuels made from coal.
(It may be possible to sequester the CO2 and other pollutants 100 % that burning coal releases. We should certainly research that.) But meanwhile we should be winding down our use of the kinds of coal burning plants we have now towards zero.
And, both here and in the rest of the world, we should act NOW to prevent new coal burning plants from being built and used.
It’s clear in China and everywhere immediately downwind from China that the air pollution alone from burning coal on a very large scale costs almost more in added medical costs than the value of the electricity it generates. And, adding lots more CO2 to our air instead of less makes ZERO sense. So absolutely NO new coal burning plants should be built anywhere.
7. One of the backers of the CleanTech for Obama group has pointed out that many already cost effective steps to energy efficiency can be taken throughout the United States to lower our energy use without harming our economy such as adding insulation, heat proofing buildings with peaked roofs, and weather stripping windows all of which can be done by people in the United States needing jobs.
This would provide a huge number of jobs if it were to be done in every community in the United States to every building that now needs it.
We should definitely come as close to making that happen as possible in the next 4 to 8 years.
We need the jobs now. And, it will save more in energy costs than the money to do it will cost our economy.
This can also be accomplished by raising the money to replace and properly dispose of energy-inefficient refrigerators; and to give all our homes and businesses an energy management system that will safely power down TV’s, video game players, and other devices that now use energy while they are NOT in use.
8. We need to set up national prizes and funds for the kind of venture capital that rolls out new technology that works; and we should do this to incentivize the development and rapid deployment of new energy technology generally.
This will create jobs here. And these companies can bring money here by selling these products to the rest of the world.
In particular, we need to do this for LED light bulbs that are available at the cost today of fluorescent light bulbs or less and which will fit all the sockets that have been used for incandescent bulbs. Such bulbs use even less electricity than fluorescent light bulbs, perhaps a full third as much in fact. And, they won’t poison our homes, businesses, and planet with mercury as using fluorescent light bulbs looks likely to do and very likely IS doing now.
GE is developing a kind of wallpaper that lights up walls and ceilings with an ideally dispersed light source that uses LED’s. That’s a superb idea. But for now, the glaring need is for cost effective and readily available LED light bulbs to replace incandescent light bulbs and fluorescent light bulbs in the light bulb sockets people have now. (Pardon the pun.)
Again, this is an energy efficiency method that will save huge amounts of energy that both creates jobs and continues to give us the light we need.
It does NOT sacrifice our prosperity or quality of life like purposely living in dimly lit rooms to save energy would do.
I believe each of these goals is doable by 2030. But they will only happen and make the intelligence community report look timid and incorrect if we take massive action to achieve them all.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 12-10-2008
Just a few weeks ago, Al Gore said we should move to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years or by 2018.
In a report called “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”, various experts & analysts in the US Intelligence organizations and from other places state that renewable energy will NOT be commercially viable by 2025.
And, this report was supplied to President-elect, Obama recently a current news article said.
If we don’t take action, massive coordinated action on several fronts to come much closer to Al Gore’s goal than this new report suggests is likely, we are in very serious trouble. Costs from global warming will begin to destroy our economy while our economy starves for energy at reasonable costs. For example gasoline prices of more than $5 a gallon in today’s dollars will return as the world’s economy tries to recover from the current recession.
Given that we may already have more CO2 in our air than is safe, the status quo of simply drilling for more oil and building more coal fired plants world wide is extremely dangerous.
Yet, a prosperous economy needs more usable, effective, energy to achieve that prosperity and keep it – not less.
That’s why we need not just an effort comparable to the Manhattan Project; but an effort comparable to the entire United States effort to win World War II to start immediately to begin to tax coal and oil use commensurate with their real economic costs; & to regulate their use; AND to use the funds generated plus further investments to increase energy-efficiency and add renewable energy on a huge scale as quickly as we ramped up war production in World War II—or faster.
1. Wind power is already competitive in costs with fossil fuels.
That’s why T Boone Pickens’ plan, or at least the part that adds lots of wind powered electricity generation and new transmission lines to transport it needs to be immediately expanded and implemented in every place that has enough wind.
2. Large solar thermal farms are very close to being competitive with fossil fuels. And there are huge areas in the United States and even more in Mexico (and in other parts of the world) that work well to build them. Plus we also need to add the new transmission lines to these solar thermal farms to deliver their electricity.
We need to have the United States government act in some way to make immediate financing on favorable terms available to build these plants and the transmission lines.
And, we need to have every utility reachable by those lines be required to get perhaps as high as 60 % of their electricity from that source alone by 2030.
This is because the energy is there NOW on that large a scale to be harvested; and the heated media can be efficiently stored to deliver power for several hours after the sun heats it and sets.
3. We also need to increase the incentives enough and drive down the costs enough over the next few years to build both solar photovoltaic farms in favorable locations AND to add roof top solar to virtually every usable rooftop of every building standing AND to build roofs over most of our parking lots that also have solar photovoltaic cells on them.
4. We need to begin to scale up the successful experiments that produce usable biodiesel, ethanol, and jet fuel and chemical feedstocks from algae or other methods that do NOT compete with growing food so that most liquid fuels can be made from processes that remove CO2 in addition to adding it back to our air.
5. We need to stop burning coal for fuel and to convert the coal we have into cleaner burning liquid fuels and gas that can be added to biofuels or used to replace petroleum.
In the near term this will prevent the coal businesses in the United States from a collapse immediate enough to dislocate the economies of the communities where they now are. And, it will provide these fuels while biofuels are just beginning to ramp up.
6. We need to start planning to replace all the coal burning plants we have now with renewable sources such as wind or solar or with plants that burn biofuels and cleaner burning fuels made from coal.
(It may be possible to sequester the CO2 and other pollutants 100 % that burning coal releases. We should certainly research that.) But meanwhile we should be winding down our use of the kinds of coal burning plants we have now towards zero.
And, both here and in the rest of the world, we should act NOW to prevent new coal burning plants from being built and used.
It’s clear in China and everywhere immediately downwind from China that the air pollution alone from burning coal on a very large scale costs almost more in added medical costs than the value of the electricity it generates. And, adding lots more CO2 to our air instead of less makes ZERO sense. So absolutely NO new coal burning plants should be built anywhere.
7. One of the backers of the CleanTech for Obama group has pointed out that many already cost effective steps to energy efficiency can be taken throughout the United States to lower our energy use without harming our economy such as adding insulation, heat proofing buildings with peaked roofs, and weather stripping windows all of which can be done by people in the United States needing jobs.
This would provide a huge number of jobs if it were to be done in every community in the United States to every building that now needs it.
We should definitely come as close to making that happen as possible in the next 4 to 8 years.
We need the jobs now. And, it will save more in energy costs than the money to do it will cost our economy.
This can also be accomplished by raising the money to replace and properly dispose of energy-inefficient refrigerators; and to give all our homes and businesses an energy management system that will safely power down TV’s, video game players, and other devices that now use energy while they are NOT in use.
8. We need to set up national prizes and funds for the kind of venture capital that rolls out new technology that works; and we should do this to incentivize the development and rapid deployment of new energy technology generally.
This will create jobs here. And these companies can bring money here by selling these products to the rest of the world.
In particular, we need to do this for LED light bulbs that are available at the cost today of fluorescent light bulbs or less and which will fit all the sockets that have been used for incandescent bulbs. Such bulbs use even less electricity than fluorescent light bulbs, perhaps a full third as much in fact. And, they won’t poison our homes, businesses, and planet with mercury as using fluorescent light bulbs looks likely to do and very likely IS doing now.
GE is developing a kind of wallpaper that lights up walls and ceilings with an ideally dispersed light source that uses LED’s. That’s a superb idea. But for now, the glaring need is for cost effective and readily available LED light bulbs to replace incandescent light bulbs and fluorescent light bulbs in the light bulb sockets people have now. (Pardon the pun.)
Again, this is an energy efficiency method that will save huge amounts of energy that both creates jobs and continues to give us the light we need.
It does NOT sacrifice our prosperity or quality of life like purposely living in dimly lit rooms to save energy would do.
I believe each of these goals is doable by 2030. But they will only happen and make the intelligence community report look timid and incorrect if we take massive action to achieve them all.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Solar thermal electricity makes a huge positive difference....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 8-20-2008
Last Thursday, I went to a presentation by John O’Donnell, Executive Vice President of Ausra Inc which manufactures and builds solar thermal farms and electricity generation.
(See www.ausra.com .)
The number & value of the useful facts I learned was impressive. And, these were in addition to the positive things I already knew about renewable energy and the importance of switching our economy to it.
Many people believe that only tiny amounts of renewable energy can be developed or that it is not cost effective or both which results in their belief that it won’t do as much for our economy or lowering our cost of transport and driving as drilling for more domestic oil.
The facts do NOT back this view.
Wind power can provide a surprisingly large amount of our electricity. Depending on how you calculate it, it can provide 10 to 20% of our electricity use, perhaps more. And, somewhere in the United States the wind is blowing 24 hours a day.
And, solar photovoltaic panels can provide up to 100 % of our current electricity use.
But both wind power and solar photovoltaic power are variable power sources. Solar photovoltaic power is not available at night. And, unless inexpensive and energy efficient batteries or other forms of electricity storage are developed, we would need something more reliable on a 24, 7 basis in addition to those sources.
In addition, solar photovoltaic is not quite to the cost level needed to be less expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. And, it will need to be installed in literally thousand of locations across the country.
But when you add solar thermal to the equation the picture changes dramatically for the better in every respect.
1. Electricity generated by solar thermal farms of the kind already being built by Ausra and its many competitors world-wide, is ALREADY cost competitive with electricity produced by fossil fuels.
2. In addition, just this one source alone can provide over 90 % of our current energy use in the United States or more and do it 16 to 17 hours a day.
a) This is achievable from solar farms that it’s doable to build in the Western and South Western United States alone. If you add those that could be build in Baja California and Northwest Mexico, you can just about double that output.
b) It seems that storing the heated fluid from solar thermal at night is over 90 % efficient and far more efficient and inexpensive than saving that much electricity in batteries would be. So by building solar thermal farms and generation facilities in this entire area may be able to achieve electricity very close to the 24 7 availability we need with 16 hours a day being quite doable.
3. It’s not generally known but we already added about 25 % of our current electricity generation from natural gas over the last 15 years or so without any subsidies from government.
So, if we add some government incentives to build renewable energy & some disincentives to using fossil fuels, moving to 100 % renewable energy in 10 years WOULD be extremely challenging. But doing it in 15 years is doable. And doing it in 20 years would be easy.
In addition, if we start now and push we can add so much new cost-competitive renewable electricity within 5 to 10 years that electric cars and plug-in hybrids will begin to lower the demand for gasoline a good bit MORE than drilling for more oil will do in twice that time. And, the auto makers have already announced plans to produce those cars.
Also, John McCain spoke about nuclear power as an alternative solution. It seems that the industry has been mothballed to such an extent due to opposition to it that if we are to build any significant amount of it, we are talking about rebuilding this highly technical industry and this is so much the case, we would have trouble adding more than a few nuclear reactors in the next few years. John O’Donnell made it sound like adding just 5 in the next 10 years would be a considerable challenge.
Adding the 45 proposed by John McCain is extremely unlikely. So much so, John O’Donnell thinks Senator McCain is seriously misinformed.
And, although it’s true that recycling inside a nuclear reactor instead or removing the uranium will turn it into plutonium and produce more energy over dramatically longer time periods and eliminate the need to move and store radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years, if a terrorist gets the plutonium out, it takes relatively little expertise or cost to make a nuclear device. So such reactors will be virtually too costly to operate safely due to the extremely high cost of adequate security.
And, if we go the route of NOT doing this kind or recycling or breeder reactor, we only have about 35 years of uranium left and WOULD have to worry about moving and storing radioactive waste for tens of thousand of years.
We may decide that using breeder reactors and providing the security needed even though it has this very large downside risk may be a lesser evil than having all the coastal cities of the world be under 50 feet or more of seawater and having our weather change for the worst so much it keeps us from growing food to eat.
But, the good news is that we CAN do it all with renewable energy. And, this is in part the case because of what large scale solar thermal farms and generators can provide.
And, what little we cannot do directly with renewable energy now, we may well be able to do at less cost than nuclear reactors with adequate security by using the new battery technologies now being developed.
To do this will require that government at least work intelligently with the renewable energy industry even if there are NO incentives from government.
Now, the Bureau of Land Management is apparently only processing applications in a timely manner for oil companies and is dragging its feet to the point of incompetence or deliberate obstruction, possibly at the direction of the Bush administration, when processing renewable energy applications.
John McCain has voted against or abstained from votes where his supporting vote would have allowed more solar thermal projects to be built soon, and this is true even when some of the solar thermal projects were in his own home state of Arizona.
And, he spoke of his belief that nuclear power is the best solution literally as he was being photographed at a large wind power project.
Here is my take on it.:
John McCain seems like a good guy personally. And, he has said he thinks global warming should be addressed.
But his actions predict that if elected he will continue the policies of the outgoing Bush administration: The deliberate lack of action on renewable energy and giving front burner support ONLY to the oil industry that have gotten us into this mess and are in part responsible for the lack of action to hold down gasoline prices is not desirable or even safe to continue.
Since the health of our economy and our way of life in the climate we have adapted ourselves to depend on action to install massive amounts of renewable energy, which is DOABLE NOW, I think John McCain is a risk we cannot afford to take.
Barack Obama is far from perfect and I don’t support some of his policies. But those considerations are secondary.
If our economy crashes or the effects of global warming cause both our economy and our ability to grow food to collapse, none of those considerations are at all important in comparison.
The energy economy and the policies of the next President and his administration will ruin us or save us. This is the single most important issue.
Obama will at least get us started on the right path. He even is willing to make some compromises with the backers of the oil industry to do so.
McCain’s actions suggest he is badly informed and will do little or worse, will prevent us from beginning.
And, at the moment, because Obama and the Democratic party have not yet communicated this information at all well, they are now running behind in the polls.
This is unnecessary since the facts are on their side and have been all along.
Will they show the voters in the United States this information and explain how it will impact these voters if they don’t know this information and act on it and support politicians who do?
They haven’t done it at all well yet. And, the clock is ticking.
Wednesday, 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)