 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
Danish offshore wind farm; beautiful but how practical? Do the energy, capital and environmental costs of this and other forms of energy justify investing in them as viable solutions for a clean, secure future? Photo credit:Earth-visions.biz
|
Cultural economist and author poses serious questions about our future energy options
Open Access Article Originally Published: March 19, 2006
Introduction
Are we running out of oil? No. Are we running out of affordable oil? Probably. We are certainly running out of the cheap oil that has powered the world economy since the 1950s. Those of us who are willing to face reality have begun to search in earnest for alternative energy solutions.
There appears to be an unlimited number of technologies that could come to our rescue. But are they all viable? No. The search for alternative energy resources is a road full of technology potholes and politically motivated wrong turns. We have to make informed choices. Can we do it?
Maybe.
However, before we start to make comparisons – one energy technology versus another – we need a frame of reference that will give us critical perspective. Let's start with the basics.
First of all, we need to remember there are two basic energy applications. We need high energy content mobile fuels for our vehicles, ships and airplanes. And we need bulk quantities of stationary fuels to generate heat and electricity. Our existing consumption has largely relied on oil for mobile applications; and coal, natural gas, nuclear or water power for stationary applications.
A second point we need to remember is that any energy resource –oil, coal, wind, biomass or whatever, is an element of a complex supply chain. Think of energy as a system from production through consumption. All of the elements of the system are interrelated and interdependent. For example, the oil supply chain begins with the negotiation of exploration or drilling rights with the property owner (these days – usually a national government), then comes the actual exploration, oil production, transportation of crude oil to a refinery, refining operations, oil refinery product distribution, and finally- consumption by user application. Break this chain at any point – and consumption stops. In 2005, two hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico interrupted exploration, decimated production, destroyed parts of the transportation infrastructure, shut down several refineries, restricted distribution, and almost caused consumption shortages. There is plenty of oil in Iraq, but the exploration, production, and transportation links of the supply chain keep breaking. There is a lot more oil in Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet Union, but geopolitical impediments restrict exploration, production, transportation, and refining. The point is: every link in the supply chain is important. Even the act of consumption must be carefully evaluated in proposing an energy solution. This is one reason why, for example, the proposed use of hydrogen as a mobile fuel is so difficult to implement. We currently do not have an economical vehicle fuel cell that can be used to consume hydrogen.
A third point to consider is that all energy solutions include some level of risk. Production plant construction cost overruns, a miscalculation of operating and maintenance costs, technology snafus, changes in market demand, unanticipated regulatory actions, environmental impacts, and the availability of capital must all be considered when proposing an energy solution – particularly when implementing an untested alternative energy technology.
And lastly. No proposed energy solution is useful unless it will be economically and structurally viable without government support. No subsidies. No special regulations to encourage production or consumption. Yes, I know. If government preferences, subsidies, military action, and so on were added to the real cost of oil, we would pay at least twice as much as we do for gasoline, diesel, and heating oil fuels. But in the long run, such preferences and subsidies are economically unsustainable. Energy technologies are viable only if they are able to provide us with a solution that can stand on its own under the political, economic, or environmental constraints that lie in our future.
Evaluating Our Energy Options
Unfortunately, not all alternative energy technologies are equal. All of the proposed alternative energy solutions have risks and drawbacks. So how do we evaluate them? By accessing their performance against known evaluation criteria. Here, in no particular order and without making any judgment as to outcome, are some of the items that must be considered.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 14288 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
29 comments so far...
25-Mar-2006
16031
| |
At the risk of having this thing blow up on me I have to say that I am not all that impressed with the article. If you take it to its logical conclusion (and there are some hints in the article itself) you will find that concentrated forms of energy like coal and nuclear will have the highest cost/performance ratios and will win the numbers race. I agree that all price factors should be included including pollution, safety, military supports and decommission costs for nukes etc. but the political reality is that this will never happen. Big money will go for big solutions that they can afford AND control. Big money does not care about any of these other costs because the bill will always go to the public. That is the reality. Now I am very intrigued by the notion of having a simple solar powered house when the perfect storm hits the gulf at the same time Saudi Oil fields are attacked and Asia decides the US is no longer a good investment and stops buying our debt. Moving toward basic renewable solutions will be inevitable regardless of cost/benefit analysis.
Posted by: Erik Sweet
|
|
26-Mar-2006
16110
| |
There are now three good options available for utility scale renewable power generation: CPV (concentraced photovoltaic), 3 MW plus wind turbines, and wave power. These options are all driven by the sun (solar makes wind, which in turn makes waves) and all require some kind of power storage. Ideally that power storage would have close to 100% efficiency converting from and to the electricity.
It seems likely that the comments about CPV not being ready for prime time are more an expression of what can be purchased retail this week, rather than what would be practical to proceed with on an industrial scale. The fact that CPV requires quantities of silicon cells (the magic part) in a factor hundreds of times less than for flat panels is the main issue. Stamping out mirrors by the millions and servo mechanisms to point them is a very low tech manufacturing process. With the kinds of volumes needed it would be totally automated and therefore very economical. And these moving parts would need some maintenance, which would be a manageable operating cost (jobs).
Posted by: Kevin Hill
|
|
27-Mar-2006
16115
| |
Mr. Erik Sweet, I totally agree with your comments, being succint and sweet and hit the problem at its heart. Mr. Kevin Hill, your comment on CPV is also exactly what I have in mind, every aspect of it. I would hasten to add that heat at about 90-100 degrees Centigrade can also be obtained from CPV and this heat can be stored in large water tanks (cheap and low tech) for use after sundown for hot water heating, adsorptive chiller (AC utilizing low-grade heat source with COP of about 0.7), and for winter home heating. Combination of heat and electricity from low-cost CVP panels will much shorten the payoff duration of these technology to a few years, and the rest of the life of the equipment, you will get free and dependable energy minus the maintenance fee, of course, but that means JOBS for local Americans, the jobs that recently have been shipped overseas. In the winter, you will use an IC engine to produce electricity locally as backup for your solar CVP AND the waste heat from the IC engine can be used to heat your house and your hot water. Even when burning natural gas as backup to your solar rig, your combined gas and electric bill will be cut by half, and you can smile comfortably when your neighbors are shivering due to a widespread electrical blackout from a snow storm that may take days to restore, or summer rolling black out like in California or the Northeast many summers ago causing many people to get heat stroke. Of course in a beautiful sunshine day, you will smile even more, because you are receiving almost free energy from heaven, a gift from God back from the days that heaven and earth were created even before Adam and Eve spoiled everything for later generations. (Come to thing of it, in this modern-day Garden of Eden, we are doing the same thing as Adam and Eve did, letting vanity, greed, laziness and ignorance destroy the gift of God for subsequent generations, listening to the snakes (Unscrupulous Capitalist, big business, big oil, GOP, Globalism, Corrupted goverments, etc.)
Posted by: Roger Pham
|
|
22-Mar-2006
15530
| |
CSP - Down in Australia, there is a company which is claiming to have broken thru with a viable CSP solution for generating electricity at 5c/kWh. Dont know how credible their data is, but I am really curious to verify their claims. If they are believable, then we could be looking at an energy revolution... (dont want to give them a free plug, unless people are interested!)
Posted by: B.R. Deshpande
|
|
22-Mar-2006
15546
| |
I finally recovered from hysterical laughter over Jeff A's comments that if there was election fraud the press would be all over it. There's enough evidence just in Ohio to fill a boxcar.It never gets any coverage.The press has been the lap dog of the neo cons and all of their ilk for some time now. To investigate and report just one weeks worth of the latest corruption and felonies of the BUSH CRIME FAMILY would require the employment of several hundred full time independent journalists.Jeff's comments, in full, reveal clearly our desperate need to reduce and contain so called conservatives political influence and to make a daily effort to insure the election of rational and logical people,who care more for their country than some corrupt,and brain dead political party and its flunkies.
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
22-Mar-2006
15561
| |
Hey JEff A, good point on the polyurethane foam being on the OUTSIDE. That's how they do it with the Monolithic Domes. They proved that that significantly improves the R-Value.
Many thanks for the response Larry. There really isn't any parade here to begin with for me personally! Just trying to be a part of the solution like everyone else. I'll continue streamlining my appliances in order to win the "Netzero" battle with my utility. Got a Grid-tie system set up almost a year ago and it's worked quite nicely since. Took part in the NESEA's open house last October. Looking to improve my home's efficiency for the next open house. Never stop learning, never stop Evolving, set an example and pass it on. THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES IN NATURAL LAW! Once again, Cheers Everyone!!
Posted by: Brett Boye
|
|
27-Mar-2006
16152
| |
Ah Zanny Larry. You have been hanging around moveon.org to much. Or do you write for them.
If you want to read about fraud check this out. And this is from a librial paper.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933
I also find it disturbing that you want to silence other peoples views. This is most disturbing. Are you taking any medications. Do you need professional help. My, my, suck anger.
Changing back to a more interesting subject.
I do believe that building codes for homes are to lacks when when it comes to heating, and cooling. It would be wise that state governments to re-avalute thier building codes.
Also builders should make available more energy efficiant options for new home construction. Such SIP construction, air to air heat exchangers, geothermal heat pump, Tankless hot water heaters, and Solar hot water systems. Right now almost home builders don't even offer one of these energy saving options. When a home is built the additional cost can be rolled in to homes morgage. The savings will help pay for the increase in the morgage payment. I have 2.7 Kw solar PV system on my house. This produces more electricy than what I use. So I know how much this stuff cost. It also seems to be wise that the goventment should not over burden the people. By inflickting excessive rules and regulations. As consumer buying decissions have to make sence. So for Joe average consumer you have to have proff that by spending the extra money will save him money. Because like most work hard for thier money, and they want something in return for it. So for the public to reduce thier need for energy will be driven by energy cost. Tax breaks just makes the choice more easy. What is needed is a more informed consumer. Unfortunatly most people think in the terms of now, and not what they will be paying for energy 10 years from now.
Posted by: Jeff A
|
|
28-Mar-2006
16212
| |
Most people don't act on what energy will cost 10 years from now because it's too much of a guess to base decision on. You can't blame someone for trying to just get by. It's how we survive. It is important for the government not to inflict an unnecessary burden on the public. Conversely, it is important for the government to inflict a necessary burden on the public, as is done in any number of ways. That way everyone is in the same boat, and the pain can be kept to a minimum with economies of scale.
Take for example the requirement that all vehicles on the road be insured? Do we consider that a burden? Most people can see that the alternative is worse, having innocent people be the victim of an uninsured driver, and not being able to be compensated. Similarly, it is important for the government to analyze the overal situation and set some standards (eg. increasing fuel economy and building energy efficiency, or generate electricity without using foreign fossil fuels and with minimum emissions) for the good of society. That is fair to everyone and to everyone's benefit.
The idea that "energy is different" or "the government setting rules for energy use" is anti-free-market or some such thing is simply a self-serving argument made by those who stand to benefit by not imposing those rules. Can the rules be done wrong so they are counterproductive? Yes, and example being the way CAFE standards encouraged the use of trucks instead of cars, so we should put effort into doing the rules well.
Posted by: Kevin Hill
|
|
28-Mar-2006
16261
| |
I agree with Erik. I don't know why people see this article as such a big deal.
I think the EROEI argument is fairly weak. First of all, it's difficult to determine the 'ground rules' for this assessment, and all media need to be assessed with a common framework. Second, and this is probably more crucial, it doesn't account for the quality of the energy product produced. Liquid fuels are very convenient, so a negative EROEI (starting with, for example, coal) might make sense. We pay more for laptops than desktops because they are more convenient. I don't see why that is not the case for energy.
I think a more fundamental issue that Cooke never addresses is the lack of control that can be asserted on users of renewable energy. This has far more consequences than which energy system to choose. As energy gets more expensive, poor choices will drop away with the chaff. People will insulate more, they will conserve electricity, they will probably even buy smaller cars. We don't need academics to tell us that we have to make good choices. We need academics to tell us what the good choices are.
Cooke doesn't even do that for us.
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
28-Mar-2006
16264
| |
I agree with Mr. Beyer's assessment. Cost is not everything in making an energy decision. Long-term viability and safety is another very important criteria. Take, for example, coal and nuclear energy. May appear to be less expensive than solar, but in the long run will run into many dangerous problems. Solar may be expensive for now, but in time will be less and les expensive, and will forever be available. Solar and wind energy can only get cheaper. "Cooke doesn't even do that for us." I know, that's why I took the liberty to demonstrate the case for solar energy for him.
Posted by: Roger Pham
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15252
| |
Mr. Cooke, (Cultural Economist) Please consider the following: Mr. Swift, please consider the following: Let's consider solar energy. At 15% efficiency, PV panels covering about 1000 sq.ft (100 meter sq.)(which is 1/2 the surface area of an average house's roof) can generate on average 4x.15x100=60 kwh daily (annual daily average,averaging throughout the USA). This amount is more than enough to cover daily electricity consumption. A concentrated PV (CPV) at 30-40% efficiency will require only 500 ft2 (1/4th of an average house's roof area) to generate this much energy DAILY. A lot more than 60kwh will be generated on a summer day with strong and prolonged sun coverage to power AirCond. systems which consumes ~66% of summer electricity usage, and less in winter due to less sun and more cloud coverage, but also a lot less electricity usage. In cold climates, distributed gas-fired power and heat cogeneration can bring about ~85% of energy efficiency, in comparison to large power plants at 40-55%efficiency. Biomass gasification can provide backup power for the intermittency of sun and wind generation. It is estimated that the total biomass generated yearly in the USA is sufficient for ~1/3 of all energy consumption. Perfect! because Solar and Wind can more than sufficient to make up for the rest. Cost of PV panels? The price will go down the same way your flat panel LCD monitor has gone, from~2000 dollars to ~250 dollars in less than a decade. Afterall, both PV's and LCD's are made from silicon. Concentrated PV utilizes 1/10 to 1/20th the amount of silicon of regular PV panels uses, thus has the highest promise of bringing the cost of solar electricity to even below that of fossil fuel today in the near future. Let's not forget solar thermal energy, either, for direct home heating, hot water heating and adsorptive chiller utilization, that can be obtained low-tech and cheap. See www.NREL.gov/csp/ for more details.
Mr Cooke, we will replace fossil fuel usage one roof at a time, until all the roofs of ALL houses and businesses and offices, parking covers etc... are covered with solar energy collectors of any kind of sorts, and then all easily-accessible areas with adequate wind will be covered with wind turbines...THEN, WE WILL HAVE ELECTRICITY TOO CHEAP TO METER, and forever, without ever a concern of running out of energy!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15288
| |
Mr Cooke has outlined a logical means to determine our energy future, in a rational and constructive and meaningful way. We should all be taking heed and making changes. Then comes Mr Pham. I have seen many of his postings in the past that are quite well thought out and informative. Unfortunately this is not one of them. I don't think there is a person on this or any other planet who is more pro solar and wind than I am. I was making a living from both as early as 1974 and I still do. Yet the type of blind optimism Mr Pham is showing is exactly why we will never solve our energy problems and the associated societal and environmental ills that it fosters, before we actually run out of conventional fuels. Yes we can do all that he is saying,yet solar and wind and bio mass are only part of a total system. A system as Mr Cooke describes that is tangled and intermingled and simply a giant spider web and we will not replace that as easily as Roger describes. We live this completely artificial life here in the west simply due to one thing. Millions of years of stored sunlight in the form of fossil fuels. Our entire lifestyle is completetely unsustainable, solar panels and wind turbines or not. Each and every thing we do is connected in some way to what someone else does or will do and most if not all of these things leads ultimately to an oil tap somewhere. Let's all just put up panels and turbines.All wild be well. Can you all say unanticipated consequences? Now let's get real,re-read this article and begin to put some serious effort into moving ourselves from fantasy land to a land of reality. I once heard someone state that there really is no such thing as money or wealth,only energy. If you had a billion dollars stacked up in your basement and there was no energy of any kind to be had at any price and you were freezing,what would you do? I'll let you use your imagination on that one. By the way Roger, come and spend a week with me on project management and design and engineering as I go about designing and installing and serviceing and troubleshooting and most of all dealing with the end user of solar PV,solar thermal and wind power and see if you still think we can just put panels and turbines on every roof with no fundamental changes to anything else and you too will SEE THE LIGHT. Let's all walk the walk (or at a very minimum crawl the crawl) before we talk the talk. Of course I suppose I could also invite Mr Cooke. I wonder how many solar and wind miles he has walked? You guys better bring a comfortable pair of shoes.
Posted by: larry elliottl
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15306
| |
Great comments, Larry... thanks! I think this is probably Ron's best article to date. Be sure to see my Insider comments.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15319
| |
Yet for all this the easier way is military to cease the remaining oil. 2300 dead in a war costing 400 $ billion so far is GOOD for the militaro-industrial complex and the jobs it generates. As the US slides into a chilean type fascism (circa 1973-1990 i.e Pinochet) it will make sense to use 20,000 nuclear warheads and a 10 million man (drafted) army to black mail the rest of the world, so that 5% of the world's population will be the happy few still enjoying mcmansions and SUVs while the rest can perish. Man is a wolf to man and no BS about "freedom" or "free society" will change that. 300 million americans raised to be selfish and each with a gun, and hardly any compassion for fellow earthlings, means a no brainer political evolution towards the simplest common denominator of energy policy and wealth distribution...
Posted by: Ian R
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15327
| |
Ian just proved that some people just don't get it. The prof is by likening the US to some militaristic fascism monster. Well if i rember right we have judicial system and laws that protect our rights. We also have election to elec our politicains. Oh yes the U.S. has an all volantary military. And only time that nuclear
weapons would be used, would be if chemical or nuclear weapons are used on us or a close alie. The US has never use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. As for selfishness the U.S. government, buisness, and private citizens dowed out billions of dollars in humanitary aid. As for wealth in third world countries every continet except for africa saw a increase in earnings. Ian I cann't believe how dum you are. You should open your own eye's for a change instead of being spoon fed your information.
Posted by: Jeff A
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15329
| |
Well done, Mr. Cooke!
Most reasoning people can see that the price of energy is rising; enough to allow wind and solar to compete. In 1992 I completed a 3600 sq ft passive solar home, trombe wall style, 60 ft X 12 ft south glass wall. The backup heating is baseboard electric that is used 20 hours a year.
Fourteen months ago I added 2400 watts PV panels
with a grid tie invertor. The average electric bill is now US$ 20. per month. When plug-in hybrids are available, with diesel, I will install a wind generator and batteries to help charge the car. Just do the right thing!
Posted by: Orville Lynner
|
|
20-Mar-2006
15346
| |
Thanks for your feedback,Mr.Elliot. I am sorry that my posting came across as "blind optimism." I neglected to mention that there remains a lot to be done, technology to master, to bring renewable energy to reality, including the trillions of dollars of investment in the next decade before complete transformation will take place. However, by putting up the simple math regarding the amount of solar energy available per unit area and the means of extracting solar energy, and continual ramping up production of PV's as Honda and BP and Shell are doing, and of power inverter lasting longer and cheaper, and as more and more states are supporting net metering with powerful micro-electronics micro-processors that we have now that enabling this technology that not too long ago was a pie in the sky, and the movement toward distributed generation allowing co-generation of electricity and heat hence means for backing up PV panels with local electrical generator, and continual improvement in battery technology, and continual improvement in material science toward insulation and energy efficiency, now with flourescent light bulbs and soon LED light bulbs to become popular... one can't help but become very optimistic indeed regarding our energy future...With one major caveat: WE MUST MAKE A BOLD AND CONCERTED EFFORT AS A WHOLE SOCIETY FOR THIS TRANSFORMATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE...No time to indulge in all the abstract as Mr. Cooke is pondering...Optimism is extremely important to get people motivated. Without faith and optimism, there cannot be action. Let's move. Mr. Elliot, success is in the detail. Please kindly give us the details as to your pessimism, factual details instead of just abstraction. Mr. Jim Stack is very optimistic regarding his renewable energy lifestyle, and so is Mr. Orville Lynner in the posting preceding mine. If EVeryone is taking up the cause as does Mr. Jim Stack, Mr. Lynner, Mr. Bill Moore, Mr. Jon Allen etc...then by golly, we will get there before you'll know it!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15350
| |
The cost-benefit calculations of energy consumption/production outlined in this article are exactly what we need to apply before we let our government throw away more money on fool sells and oil-industry subsidies. Every time I inform a new group that zero-emission EVs are coming, I get the "dirty power generation" objection from people who don't stop to think what must happen to produce gasoline. My EVWorld guest blogs (as EVolution) on fuel-production emissions coincided (and agree) with this fine article.
Posted by: Hugh Webber
|
|
27-May-2006
22640
| |
The aount of energy that can be extracted form a kilogram of uranium is precisely known. The amount of energy that can be extracted from a square meter of sunlight in various parts of the world is well-known. The two are poles apart in their potential to provide electricity in the quantities needed by countries.
The reality is that no amount if incremental improvement to solar units will overcome the energy density barrier. New materials will have an effect only at the margins. There is no pressing need to do further research into solar because realists know it will fill a few niche markets in remote places at high cost, while nuclear powers on as the cheapest large-scale form.
Are you pro-solar types immune from economic rational analysis and from the lessons of history? Why do you continue to drivel on as if you had a winner? Solar suks.
Posted by: Geoff Sherrington
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15391
| |
Roger it is obvious you still missed my point. I am neither pessimisstic nor overly optimistic. You are simply basing your entire argument on pure technology and I am basing mine on both the technology, as well as what I see on a daily basis as I go about actually putting all this fine technology into everday use. Just one case in point that may shed some light on where I am coming from. A so called home (more like a two person Hilton or perhaps shopping mall) of well over 10,000 ft2 is being finished as I write this. It has a 30kw solar array with five inverters feeding the grid in sunny California. Now that may seem like a good bit of power but that's only half the story. This array will barely keep up with half the structures electrical usage. It still uses propane to heat in spite of having over 180 high tech evacuatated tube solar collectors on the roof. The amount of embedded energy just in the concrete that's used ,the heavy duty popsicle sticks that it's framed from ( If I were a King I'd decree that stud built homes are illegal and banned),the diesel fuel consumed by the D8 to move over 9000 yards of dirt just to level off a spot that overlooked Folsom Lake,the expanse of south and west facing windows that waste heat in the winter and would roast the occupants in the summer except for the 12 tons of airconditioning. Or how about the 4500 watt heating elements that generate the steam for the his and her's sauna bath. Suppose I did not mention the exotic hardwood floors imported from the Amazon Basin. Now you may think this is just one isolated case of an owner and mortage banker slipping off into insanity.. Well your wrong. This is going on all over California and the maddness is spreading across America.Oh! And what do these two people do for a living? He's an auto mechanic and she works for the county in zoning and plannig.Can you all say SOON TO BE IN BANCKRUPTCY COURT. I can think of only a few cases in which renewable enery was implemented and there was a net increase of power to the grid and less overall energy used when all was said and done. Now you may say that it's the owners right to build as he wishes. Well I suppose but that does not change the fact that the country as a whole is quickly sliding into financial ruin because of excesses just like this and we don't connect the dots. Clearly the folks who make these choices are part of the problem and not part of a solution. Of course that is another issue but it is directly related to why I see the glass as only 1/4 full and you see it as overflowing. By the way Ian made some good points in spite of himself. Yes America is a facist empire (just look up the definition of the word and compare it to what you actually see coming from our government),yes we have used nukes pre emptively (remember Japan? Oh I see we were at war so that makes it all okay. And I suppose I missed the point of why US forces invading Iraq are somehow different than Nazi SS troops invading Poland. Broke the same international laws. didn't they?) ,we give financial aid as a percentage of our GDP far less than the top four European countries,(Oh I forgot. Our extreme etho-centrism blinds us to that fact. God bless America and all that rot) and to naively think that laws and rules and elections (just had a run of those HONEST elections didn't we) a peaceful culture make when famine and disease and anarchy rule because of our coming energy fiasco is really the epitome of being dumb. Spelled with a b by the way. Oh well,guess I better get back to work so that I can save the world by installing solar power;)
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15397
| |
Well said, Larry. Keep writing. Yes, either we get the whole picture or part of it will get us.
Posted by: Jim O
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15412
| |
This is a fantastic article followed by even more fascinating discussion by Larry Elliot. Thanks! Larry - is the market responding to the higher efficiencies of CSP (vs. Flat plate PV) based on your experience? If not, could you speculate why? arent there enough reliable suppliers?
Posted by: BR Deshpande
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15436
| |
Larry Elliot... Your comments about wastefulness are great reading. I’ve griped about
our wastefulness so often that many people are tired of hearing it from me, so I’m glad
I’m not the only one sawing that log ( forgive the evil logging metaphor ). Fortunately,
not everyone is engaged in the blind excess of your mansion builders. We may be in the
minority, but we’re here. The best thing we can do is live by example, and show the
energy guzzlers that efficiency is not equivalent to poverty, but it requires more ‘attitude’
than ‘technology’ to achieve. ----- To Roger Pham... Your positive attitude is welcome.
Without idealism there would be no dreams for the pragmatists to make real. ------ Perhaps Ronald Cooke can find the gumption to take a swipe at our energy
wastefulness in his next article....
Posted by: Steve Ward
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15451
| |
Very good comments from EVERYONE! Let us all get along! Please!
Yes, WHOLE SYSTEM THINKING is very very important. If the initial structure is designed with this in mind, then obviously you don't need as much energy to heat, cool, maintain, etc. For instance, The Monolithic Dome (www.monolithicdome.com). Eventually, I plan to live in one of these and want to make it as self-sufficient as possible. They can withstand tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, termites, rodents, etc and are super duper efficiently thermal. They also cost approximately the same to build as a conventional "stick" home. I attended a conference and also a 5-day workshop. Extremely rewarding. Just passing it on.
Good article by Mr. Cooke, especially the EROEI portion. Speaking of which, does anyone know of any thorough experiments involving artificial light supplying energy to PV panels? I'm pretty sure someone has tried this but figured I'd throw it out there. I realize that whatever light is shining on the panels would need to be bright enough (perhaps enhanced with some type of low-priced fresnel lense or something) to create energy and the amount of energy used to shine these lights in the first place would have to be smaller, hence EROEI. Solar power at night? Is it possible (probably not- but what the heck)? ANyone? ANyone? Links, perhaps? Cheers everyone!
Posted by: Brett Boye
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15470
| |
To BR Deshpande. Concentrator PV panels are still not really ready for prime time, nor available in commercial quantities or that meet national standards. They could have several advantages over one sun mono or poly panels when they are though. First they require somewhat less real estate for a given power output. In addition they use far less silicon than standard modules. The down side is that all concentrators need to be tracked,either actively by moving them in both azimuth and altitude, or by use of reflectors or a lens that can do somewhat the same. Depending on the number of suns that they concentrate high temps can be generated that can be used to heat water so that can be an advantage. I would not expect that cost per watt to be that much lower than non concentrator modules especially after the industry digs itself out of the silicon shortage that has really driven prices skyward. I might add here that to Roger Pham,I can only pray that demand for PV does not in the near future get to the level that would be needed to achieve his dreams at least in the time scale he would want. Germany and Japan's ravenous appetite fgr PV is already bad enough.For Brett Boyer I hate to rain on your parade but you are seeking perpetual motion. Sorry.
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15471
| |
Larry I too hate waste, but live in country were we can make choices. Some choices in the short term may make sence. But in the long term most likely have unanticipated results. For ever dollar spent on making a building more energy efficiant will result in about $4 dollars savings in solar equipment. It seems to be human nature to always strive to get more, and do more. Most people think of in terms of now, instead of years. With proper planning one can save alot greaf later on. People think of thier homes as investments. Most homes go up in value. So buying a home is a good investment in most cases, or status. So the more they invest the bigger the pay out. But what good is a home if you are in constant fear of being able to make the payments.
As for stud construction in homes. What is needed is a alteration in construction in order to improve the R value of the structure. This can be done be using foam as the exterior sheathing that is 1 to 2 inches thick. Next thing is to use polyurithane foam insulation instead of fiberglass insulation in the walls. The exterior foam sheathing provides the thermial break for the studs. Because wood has a lower R value than foam. The polyurithain foam will bind to studs and sheathing. The result is stiff air tight wall. SIP panels are a better choice for construction.
As for fascism is defined as system of government charaterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism, miltarism. As for the first item dictatorship; the U.S. has three branches of government that has checks and balances to prevent one branch from gaining to much politacal power. As for nationalism the level a nationalism has been at very low level country wide. As for racism im unaware on any consiontration camps in the U.S., or any genecide going on. As for miltarism wouldn't that require re-instating the draft. Instead of having an all volenter army. So you should try reading the dictionary next time.
As for the nukes. Two bombs ended the war in a matter of weeks instead of another couple of years. As it being pre-emptive the Japan started the war. As for the loss of life the invation would costed over a million lives. War in it's self is never plesant.
As for Iraq the plan is establish government of the peoples choice. Not stay!! The military is acting as police force, not as genecidal exterminators. Whey build schools,roads pipelines, if your plans are not to improve people lives.
The difference is in the intentions.
As for charity the US does lead in total money donated to charity. In order to exceed that number you would have to group all the european countries together.
As for your criticism of the elections results. If thier was any trueth to it the main stream press would be all over it. It's because thier is no substance to it. You should come to Wisconsin you don't even need a photo I.D. to vote here.
As for energy policies congress makes the rules.
The President have been more energy pro active.
Check out his vist to Johnson Controls.
Unfortunatly congress seems to only react after the fact. Not in a pre-emptive fassion. They would rather call the fire truck, then prevent the fire from starting.
Keep on installing those solar panels.
Your customers thinking about the future, stead of just now.
Posted by: Jeff A
|
|
21-Mar-2006
15475
| |
Mr. Elliott, great piece of writing. Sadly, I share your sentiment regarding 5% of the world population consuming 25% of the world resources and is poising its military for more. Also, the auto mechanic guy in your story is most likely a very sweet, handsome and persuasive guy that will likely change the whole engine of my car and charging thousands of dollars for it when I brought it in for a check-engine light due to a stuck-open thermostat causing poor emission that would have cost only $75 to replace. His wife is probably working for a Tom-Delay-style of re-electing-Republican-committee-type of zoning commission trying to bring in more votes for the GOP, and is flooded with defense contractors cash, he he he!!! This life, as in Star Wars, is the struggle of the good vs. evil,.... may the Power of the Force be with all of you, dear comrades!
Posted by: Roger Pham
|
|
20-Sep-2007
58368
| |
An update for those who are interested about our future inventions...Here it goes---
Future technologies for green, environmentally friendly vehicles and a sustainable transport infrastructure will be discussed this Friday (21 September 2007) at a one-day conference at Imperial College London.
The event, part of the European 'Mobidays' - Sustainable Mobility Days - project, will see leading experts from across Europe meet to outline current research aimed at reducing the environmental impact of road transport.
The morning session of the conference will focus on the quest for viable alternatives to petrol and diesel as motor fuel, and the importance of creating an infrastructure that supports and encourages the use of
hydrogen and innovative biofuels.
Speakers will highlight recent developments by scientists working to perfect alternative fuels, including bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas, which is a methane-rich gas produced from waste biomass. There will also be discussion of proposed transport systems and traffic management tools which could help to cut carbon emissions on the roads.
The afternoon session of the conference will focus on how cars and other vehicles can themselves be designed to reduce carbon emissions. The emphasis will be on recent advances towards creating cars and other vehicles with zero or near-zero emissions. Vehicle technologies to be
discussed include hybrid-electric cars combined with fuel cells, or with internal combustion engines that have innovative low emissions or multi-fuel capabilities.
Marcello Contestabile from Imperial's Centre for Environmental Policy, organiser of the conference, explains: "Significant advances are being made by scientists and engineers to develop alternative fuels and new vehicles that make road transport cleaner and greener. Lots of exciting work in this field is being carried out by European researchers and this conference gives us a chance to come together and discuss recent developments and future plans to revolutionise the way we all get around
on the roads."
Both the morning and afternoon sessions of the conference will conclude with a panel discussion where audience members will get the chance to ask speakers questions.
The Mobidays project has been established to analyse strengths and weaknesses of the main research projects on sustainable mobility in Europe and worldwide. It is funded by the European 6th Framework Programme.
Posted by: miaka Vonj
|
|
20-Sep-2007
58369
| |
It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with mazda headlight covers with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
They recommend governments steer away from biofuel and focus on reforestation and maximising the efficiency of fossil fuels instead.
The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France
Posted by: Bunny Simpson
|
|
|
|
|
