Image: Schott AG/Commercial Handout/EPA/Corbis
In Brief
- A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
- A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
- Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
- A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
- But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
—The Editors
More In This Article
-
Infographic
Photovoltaics
-
Infographic
Underground Storage
-
Infographic
Concentrated Solar
-
Infographic
Plentiful Resource
-
Sidebar
US Plan for 2050
-
Infographic
Chart: U.S. Annual Fuel Consumption
High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China, India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.
Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.
This article was originally published with the title A Solar Grand Plan.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
720 Comments
Add CommentThank goodness someone is thinking about how to solve this problem. I am worried for my kids but as an individual have close to zero opportunity to have an impact. The price mentioned seems very reasonable, especially set aside the trillions spent on GWB's Iraq war. Have the editors met with the candidates to get their response. HC for one seems to mention an interest in returning to a reality based national discussion of energy options
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel this Plan is well worth further investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am, however, less sanguine about the numbers. Granted they seem conservative and reasonable. Unfortunately every initial estimate such as this that I am aware of has significantly overestimated the benefits and underestimated the costs. I see no reason what would set this apart from the rest in this regard.
For example, three things occurred to me immediately.
I'll bet the coverage area has been significantly underestimated. I doubt it takes into account space to allow access to the hardware for service/repair/replacement/cleaning/whatever.
I'll bet the environment where the collectors will be sited is not what the authors imagine. An urban rooftop environment is far more benign than a desert. Both initial and ongoing costs will be greater than imagined.
Few areas are completely devoid of life. Enviromentalists will want to have input. Whatever compromise is reached will undoubtedly add to the costs.
Nevertheless as I said in the beginning: this Plan seems WELL worth further investigation!
America now has an oppurtunity to not only come on board with the rest of the world to tackle global warming but steal the initiative, lead the way and secure its own energy independance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur idea was to provide a proof of concept that solar could meet our needs in a practical, economical fashion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the past, there have been doubts about economics, land area, and overcoming intermittency. We address all these problems. The central one is the path to solar cost-effectiveness, for both photovoltaics and concentrating solar thermal. The track record of these technologies and the opportunities for their continued progress suggest that they can become cost-effective with a transitional period of national incentives. Any such program can and should be designed to only support progress to cost-effectiveness, i.e., the incentive per unit output (kWh) should be reduced every year in a predictable manner (such as is being done in Germany today).
But solar needs some help. We need a high voltage DC distribution grid from the Southwest; we need compressed air storage to make it dispatchable; we need plug-in electric hybrid vehicles that shift our demand from fossil fuels to renewable electricity. Progress is being made in all these areas.
There is also room for great progress and value in smaller renewables like wind, geothermal heat pumps, and biomass for liquid fuels. All are important for our future.
In the end, the most important thing the article may contribute to is lifting the veil on alternatives to conventional energy. Are we really constrained to existing options? Is there really so little choice?
We think not.
Ken
Such a dedicated endeavor is reminiscent of the Apollo Program. Apollo not only raised our awareness to the importance of science and technology, it also spawned exciting and unanticipated innovation across myriad disciplines, enhancing the morale and consciousness of society in the process. Given the plethora of innovation, as highlighted in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, coupled with current energy and environmental challenges, the world is ripe for such an endeavor, not to mention the exciting to-be-discovered offshoots surely to come. The estimated cost is, indeed, imposing. However, the expended cost of the Iraq conflict thus far over 15 years (ref., Google: cost, Iraq, war) is on the same order as the proposed investment (over 40 years) to subsidize an effort for energy independence, the latter with essentially zero sacrifice to human and other life forms. Surely, the international community would embrace and support such a commitment by the United States.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The land area estimate is based on the area of the modules (PV) and collectors (CSP) plus the land between the rows, which is spaced to prevent cross-shading when the sun is low in the sky, which is a factor of 2.5 for PV and a factor of 3.0 for CSP. The land area for service roads, buildings, etc. are not included, but will be a very small percentage of the total land area (less than 1%).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) The desert is not benign, but neither are rooftops. However, we do have twenty years of experience with desert solar systems. The article contains photographs of the Kramer Junction concentrating solar power (CSP) plant and the Springerville photovoltaic (PV). The Kramer Junction CSP plant is located in the Mojave Desert and has been in continuous operation since the late 1980s. The Springerville PV plant is in Springerville, Arizona and has been in operation since 2001. While the desert environment is harsh, the low humidity is beneficial to the long-term operation of solar plants. For example, the mounting frames and wiring conduits for PV plants will easily last for sixty years or more based on the actual experience of power operators in Arizona. This means that post-amorization costs of PV will decline significantly. And the operating life of PV modules, which is not known with certainty at present, may well prove to be sixty years in the low humidity environment of the Southwest.
There will be concerns about wildlife, I'm sure. In our land calculations, we have consulted NREL's (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) maps which designation environmentally sensitive areas and these have been excluded as well as populated areas and areas with a land slope greater than 3%.
In conclusion, we do not see any major obstacles to the use of 200,000 square miles of land in the Southwest. But there undoubtly be issues raised along the way, but again these costs will be minor.
I would like to see hydrogen electrolysis plants built in conjunction with PV plants. Now this will require a lot of water and I'm talking about locating these plants in the most arid regions of the country. Where do we get the water?
Never should we be tapping the underground aquifers or rivers and lakes. With the Solar Grand Plan, we are calling for innovative ideas such as rain-runoff collection systems built into the solar plant design. Rain only comes a few times a year in the desert areas we are considering. The rain is a monsoon type rain, i.e., very heavy amounts in a short period of time, typically 1-3 inches in a couple of hours. The rain runs off into the desert and evaporates. The rain does not feed rivers or aquifers, it simply evaporates. Why not collect this large amount of water (which is many times the water needed to produce hydrogen or to cool the steam at the CSP power plant) by building a series of underground drains and piping network to store the water in underground tanks. The State of Arizona is supporting efforts to establish rain runoff collection and storage systems. As a society we need to be creative and begin working with our environment rather than against it. And I fully support the participation of critics in making this plan work.
3) Under-estimating the costs and over-estimating the benefits. The only way I can answer this is with another question - What are the options? - coal, oil, natural gas, uranium mining and extraction and refineries etc. And not to mention the new energy sources of oil sands and shale oil, which will be even more environmentally invasive. The solar path is not in the same league as these other energy paths in terms of environmental degradation and global political intrusion. But this does not mean that we should turn a deaf ear towards the issues. Yes there are issues but the issues are much more manageable than the issues involved with fossil and nuclear energy forms.
For example, the emerging thin-film firms mentioned in the article are building recycling into their product lines at the point of sale (with an agreement to repurchase the retired modules at their end-of-life). I am not aware of any other industry taking this pro-active stance toward recycling their product line.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/17/2007 1:41 PM
Great plan. Lets get it done! The last paragraph indicates that it is the lack of public awareness that provides the greatest obstacle. Perhaps the lack of political support and oil company lobbyists will provide another great obstacle. How do you get everyone to embrace the plan?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S.A. should lead and this should be a worldwide approach. Two issues the authors seem to have overlooked, though minor in nature:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Energy requirements for possible projected space-tourism and travel in the USA.
2. The possibility of using railway tracks that get heated up during day at least for local traction, particularly in areas which receive good sun shine and have lot of km of tracks e.g. India.
Ramesam Vemuri, Ph. D.
I am excited to hear that such a plan has been closely analyzed. We need, without a doubt, ambitious proposals such as this to lead the way to a sustainable future and combat global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of my main concerns regarding this technology is the ability to promote localization. While briefly mentioned, the infrastructure to develop a national 'backbone' is disconcerting. The amount of resources needed to develop this infrastructure is daunting in an age where environmental concerns (particularly of resource extraction) should be a priority. Consider the amount of land needed to maintain the HVDC lines as well. This centralized networked system also appears to create a national security issue.
This is not to discourage the inspirational project, but I believe we should concentrate on energy decentralization. There is potential everywhere you look, it's just how you distribute it.
Thank you James Mason for your detailed review. I do question the amount of metals needed to develop the solar (panel) technology. A common argument I've heard is that the supply would never fulfill demand. Can anyone elaborate on this?
With all this said and done, "A Solar Grand Plan" is a million times better than blowing up and burning mountains that threaten global stability and health. If we are to make any progress with any such essential proposals, we must embark on a massive educational campaign for the nation.
Just to mention it, January 31, 2008 is Focus the Nation day. All across the nation educational institutions are addressing the topic of global warming through a teach-in. Check out http://focusthenation.org for more information.
Bryce Carter
Virginia Tech Undergraduate
Just a quick hit for now:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>In the past few years the cost to produce photovoltaic cells and modules
>has dropped significantly, opening the way for large-scale deployment.
Hmmm, a year or so ago, I found a site that gave monthly prices.(1) It has tracked solar prices for the last 6 years, and on a monthly basis for the last 3.5 years. During the last 4 years, prices have risen. Over the last 7, they’ve gone down, but not rapidly. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog on the cost of solar power that gives my cost estimates.
I have not seen another site that tracks the monthly cost of solar power. They are clearly a pro-solar site, so an oil industry conspiracy that’s behind their numbers. :–)
(1) http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm
Has the price of PV gone up? No, but it takes some digging to realize it because we are highlighting a new technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas prices for some modules and systems have risen in the last few years (due to a temporary silicon shortage), the costs and prices of the non-silicon thin film technology highlighted in the article have dropped and are substantially better than any others ([url http://www.juwi.de/international/information/press/PR_Solar_Power_Plant_Brandis_2007_02_eng.pdf]as low as $4/Wp installed for large systems[/url]). This price action is not seen by most consumers because the availability of the new lower cost modules is small in comparison to the more mature PV module options. But production of these new modules is growing exponentially, so availability should improve rapidly.
But even that understates the good news. The structural cost of PV, without considering the temporary silicon shortage, is dropping almost universally because of improved technology, driven by the re-investment of profits generated by market growth.
This is fun, it's my first experience blogging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecurity of centralized solar systems. With PV there is no security concerns. Look at the aerial view of the Springerville PV plant in the article. Imagine someone bombing it. The bomb would knock out a couple of kilowatts of power, which would not significantly impair the electricity production of the total system and could be repaired rapidly. Whereas, if a refinery or conventional power plant is bombed, gigawatts of power production could be permanently knocked off line. The same goes for the power lines. Power lines are already ubiquitous in our society and the HVDC lines will be just one more line. Therefore, I do not believe that the centralization/decentralization distinction is important in terms of security issues.
However, the distinction is important. We did not emphasize decentralized power systems in the article. But it is built into our plan with the notion of distributed, rooftop PV systems. But before we get there, we need to lower the cost of PV.
PV at present is manufactured at sub-optimum scale. The most important aspect of our plan is the ten-year price support program designed to bring multiple PV and CSP firms to optimum scale manufacturing. At the end of the ten year subsidy program, there will be winner and loser companies. The winning companies will be at optimized scale, and with multiiple firms there will be a competitive manufacturing industry. In this manner, PV can attain its "real" competitive price (review the development of the computer industry over the past thirty years).
When thin film PV attains optimized scale in a competitive industry setting, I believe things will get interesting in terms of de-centralized, distributed power applications.
I look around me now and I see small solar strips powering my calculators and all types of small gadgets. When the price of PV gets into the $1 per watt range, I can begin to invision PV roofing materials, backyard hydrogen electrolysis systems producing hydrogen from tapwater, etc.
But before we can consider these possibilities we have to get to optimized scale manufacturing and that means gigawatts of new solar plants installed now and for ten years under a subsidized national solar energy plan with the price support program that we mention in the article.
People are always stating that they don't know how they can have an impact. Individuals do have an impact (if there are enough individuals with the same vision).
First you have to believe in the solar vision, educate yourself about the issues to address critics, be involved politically by getting the message to your public representatives in whatever manner is best for you (at the least write letters to key officials on issues), and bring up the need for a comprehensive National Solar Energy Plan, which includes a ten-year price support program, in forums such as the upcoming one on global warming that you provide the link to.
Is there another plan out there that will actually solve the problems in a timely fashion. And it is important to note that our ambitious plan is going to take ten years of initial development to be up and running at the scale that will actually make a difference. The U.S. energy sytem is huge, and the longer we delay truly addressing the scale of the problem, the higher the price we will pay both in terms of climate change, national energy security, and ever rising energy prices.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/18/2007 5:31 AM
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/18/2007 5:34 AM
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/18/2007 5:35 AM
Glad to see the conversation growing. Already several folks have said the key right now to potentially realizing the solar grand plan is to broaden public awareness that it's possible. I agree wholeheartedly. So far there's one specific suggestion here, from Bryce, to try to use Focus the Nation Day on Jan. 31. Any other ideas?! Public events, political rallies, television, radio, popular blogs or podcasts that would take up the idea, appropriate threads across MySpace or Facebook...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat other countries would this plan work for? Surely it is worth china considering such a plan given their vast deserts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with such grand plans is that they cost tons of government money, take forever to get approved, and you end up with a company that's going to charge me for electricity. Basically, you want to spend 10 billion of public funds a year for 40 years to create a new utility company. No thanks! Since solar power is FREE energy, I'd rather collect it myself and not pay for electricity at all! I'd rather the government gave $5,000 to 2,000,000 people each year for the purpose of converting their houses to run on solar and having those houses sell back surplus energy to the grid. At the end of 40 years you would have 80,000,000 individual energy plants creating electricity and 80,000,000 less houses drawing current from the grid! No new infrastructure needed! And since they don't have to pay for electricity those 2 million homes will have an additional 1.5 Billion dollars to spend each year!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally speaking, solar PV is less sensitive to cloud cover than concentrating solar thermal. In that sense, the plan could work almost anywhere, with an adjustment in price. For example, a price of 10 cents/kWh based on a resource like Arizona's (2400 kWh/m2-yr) would be 1.4 times higher (14 c/kWh) if based on a resource like Kansas City (1700 kWh/m2-yr; about average in the US).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US is blessed with the sunlight and the geographic diversity to do this alone. We could do even better if we included northern Mexico. Europe has southern Europe, but could use help from North Africa. Maybe the expansion of the EU into Turkey would help. There are already discussions about moving solar power from North Africa to Europe. China has good solar resources, as do many others.
The use of solar resources would be a fine way to balance the current move towards energy-driven polarization, where those rich in oil are almost forced to exploit their resources at everyone else's expense.
Motor Generator sets have high efficiencies. Why not convert to AC, and use existing transmission lines?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue of centralized versus distributed solar power is an important one. Similarly, the issues of many small systems versus big ones. Without being presumptuous, I'd say no one really knows the answer. One thing we do know - the solar resource is huge, and economical ways of using it are multiplying. Your idea sounds terrific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, I believe that the challenge of supplying terawatts of dispatchable power requires larger surfaces than residential and commercial roofs; and some sort of storage or back up (which adds cost that cannot be neglected, especially at high levels of solar use).
In our plan, we expect that rooftop PV will be fully utilized. That's already in the numbers. But this contributes only about a tenth of the necessary power in comparison to that from the Southwest. We also chose to leave the fertile Midwest out of the mix, since we need a lot of biofuels to power hybrid vehicles. Remember, we are trying to do it all, and for the whole 21st century. It's a lot of energy.
This is our position, but we respect and seek others' opinions. For example, if there are or will be better electric storage methods, that'd be great, too. But at least we have found one that works economically (which is a big challenge).
Ken
How about we just start putting solar panels on every new building we construct. Oh wait, then nobody would be getting paid for the electricity, well I guess we'll just build over thousands of untouched acres of land. Who's making money?? There was a proposal to start putting solar panels on every new house but it got shot down. I know because I am a structural engineer in southern california. Quite interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been researching somewhat, the potential of Ocean Energy conversion, particularly wave energy converters, as against thermal or tidal systems. I'm particularly interested in various Oscilating Water Column concepts that are under development, especially in the U.K., but also in the U.S. FLOAT INC has several concepts proposed to construct offshore airports and wave barriers, while also providing floating OWCs that could generate electric power for coastal region's consumption. They would also create protected estuaries that can be used in many ways for fisheries and recreational purposes, not to mention coastwise shipping. (One can imagine the value of an artificial "Puget Sound", "Chesapeake Bay", or "Long Island Sound" to the economy of the nation.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut thinking only in terms of power generation, I beleive it is roughly estimated that an average of .65 MW per mile of appropriately sited coastline would be available. Are we not remiss in not seriously considering this?
We included only those renewable energy technologies that have been applied at commercial scale. With these technologies we know where we stand now and have an "educated" plan about how to make further improvements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrough concentrating solar power (CSP) plants and photovoltaic (PV) power plants have a history of commercial applications but both have a ways to go before they attain optimized manufacturing scale. We are stating the case that due to the commercial success of these technologies to date that we should commit to bringing both of these technologies to optimized manufacturing scale, and thereby fully evaluate their economic capabilities. Once these two solar technologies have been brought to optimized manufacturing scale, the investment community will have full knowledge as to merits of expanding or contracting further investments.
There are other "potential" technologies such as tidal and tower concentrating solar power that we do not include because they have not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale (granted some commercial tidal systems do exist, but the particular types of commercial tidal plants are not at this time applicable to the scale we are addressing in the article).
We are simply advocating the notion that we currently have commercial solar technologies on the shelf with a proven operating and performance history that satisfy insurance and financial market standards (but PV and CSP will require price support subsidies to insure the required payback to financial markets). We believe that the subsidies are a small price to pay for society to fully evaluate the optimized scale application of both CSP and PV technologies. We demonstrate their energy production potential in this article. These are not "new, experimental" technologies but have a proven, twenty-plus-year commercial performance and operating life track record.
We fully agree that agressive research programs should continue on many energy fronts such as tidal. And that over time, if better new technologies are developed, then they can compliment or replace the technologies advocated in this article.
We believe that the global issues of cllimate change and fossil energy supply are demanding our immediate attention and that we need a national energy plan now (based on existing technologies) to begin to seriously address these issues. We need not wait until something better comes along. The solar technologies in this article have the potential to get the job done.
It is important to understand that It is a slow process to bring new technologies to commercial maturity because of the twenty to thirty year lead time required to evaluate a technology's performance and operating life to satisfy insurance and financial market standards for multi-billion dollar capital investment projects.
thanks for this great article people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere is indeed a european/north african solar energy plan;
[url http://www.desertec.org/concept.html][/url]
i just hope politicians on both sides of the pond take this seriously.
we need to use ALL technologies at our disposal; wind, wave (we have two new centres for development in the u.k., one in cornwall, one in scotland) tidal stream turbines, biomasss digesters, and, of course, solar.
we need a 'Hansen plan' (if i may be so bold as to nick the name of my favourite scientist - one of yours) to match the 'Marshall plan' that coordinated redevelopment after ww2.
I like the name "Hansen Plan," but not because of the wonderful climate scientist, but one of my favorite solar people, Tom Hansen at Tucson Electric. It is not only his Springerville PV system we show in the article, but stimulating discussion with him about compressed air energy storage (CAES), that led us to do the arithmetic in support of CAES. In fact, Tom tells me Springerville has not only 500 square miles of available high-plateau solar site (with winds to cool the modules), but caverns suitable for CAES nearby. His would be a great place to demonstrate PV-CAES for firm peak power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is important to be aware of the context of the Grand Plan: we are trying to solve [b]climate change[/b] at the same time as energy supply. Climate change is a critical piece - and why we have to dig into such big numbers. To-date, public imagination has been circumscribed by the idea of building hundreds of nuclear power plants or sequestering carbon dioxide from coal plants. We want people to know they need not be constrained. Solar can do the many 1000s of MWs needed, and CAES and thermal storage can make solar dispatchable.
Decision makers need the information to even begin thinking a new way; then they need people to be telling them it is real and practical, not an example of uneconomic wishful thinking. Right now, they believe it is, because few have really run the numbers.
Ken
This just in...from Reuters News Service, which I'm quoting:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest photovoltaic solar panel array in the United States opened this week at a U.S. Air force base in Nevada and the biggest array that sells power to an electric utility began operation in Colorado.
A 14-megawatt solar farm covering 140 acres opened at Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas, Nevada on Monday. It will generate 30,000 megawatt hours a year and will supply about a quarter of the electricity used at the air base. About 12,000 people live and work on the base. .. The project also provides a future test bed for the Department of Defense to assess the benefits of similar arrangements on installations across the United States.
Also opening on Monday was an 8.22-megawatt photovoltaic array covering 80 acres in Alamoso, Colorado. Its developer and operator, SunEdison LLC, signed a 20-year deal to sell the power to Colorado's largest utility. ... The Alamoso solar project in the southern part of central Colorado, near the border with New Mexico, will generate about 17,000 megawatt hours each year, enough no-emissions power to serve about 1,500 homes.
The Nellis project that also opened on Monday is a joint project of the U.S. Air Force, SunPower Corp, Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC subsidiary MMA Renewable Ventures and Nevada Power Co.
SunEdison is also developing a rooftop solar energy system for 63 of Kohl's 80 California department stores, which will total about 25 megawatts of photovoltaic power.
The technology is there to produce the power when the sun is shining but the knock on solar (and renewables in general) has always been storage. I know that you are proposing compressed air but the scale required seems to dwarf the ability of this technology (or its cousin, pumping water uphill). Who is going to pay for this and how are they going to get their money back? It seems to me that we're going to need a better storage solution than this if solar is to handle the full load 24/7.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne idea that I find interesting is employing a future fleet of plug-in electric hybrids. They juice up during the day when parked in parking lots (PV panels on sunshades or garage roofs) and then discharge to meet the much lower demand at night. If folks get paid for this, it might go a long way to offsetting the putative increased cost of a hybrid. And given our obsession with cars, the scale is there.
Compressed air energy storage is a proven technology (see the AEC McIntosh, Alabama plant photo in the article).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the cost of developing air storage reservoirs in salt formations, depleted gas wells, and saline aquifers is economical (accounting for less than one cent per kilowatt-hour for the electricity that you will purchase from your electric company). This is by far the lowest cost energy storage technology and it is applicable to wind electricity as well as photovoltaic electricity.
The U.S. natural gas industry has been employing underground natural gas storage (in the same type of geological formations that we will be using for compressed air storage) for over eighty years with no problems. Appropriate geology for underground air storage reservoirs exist in most parts of the U.S. In those areas that do not have the appropriate geology, they can import the electricity via the national HVDC power line system.
A new CAES plant will be going online in Iowa in 2011, and TXU and Shell have announced plans to develop CAES plants in Texas to import gigawatts of wind electricity from west Texas into the Dallas metropolitan area via high voltage DC (HVDC) power lines. The HVDC power lines are being built by the Southwest Power Pool, which is referenced in the article.
In conclusion, we are already on the road to developing CAES (and keep in mind that gas turbine power plants are the most advanced type of power plant and the low heat rate of CAES gas turbine power plants will immediately reduce CO2 emissions by 60-80% when coupled to wind and PV power plants. The low heat rate (fuel consumption) of CAES power plants also make them an attractive candidate for the use of syngas produced from cellulosic biomas. It is important to note that the authors of the proposed study do not support the use of food-crops such as corn for fuel production. We advocate the use of only cellulosic biomass (prairie grass, switchgrass, wood residuals, etc.) for biofuel production.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/19/2007 6:34 PM
more good news on the supply front; the first $1 per watt panels go on sale (good old google)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/technology/18solar.html?ex=1355634000&en=091b06819623f9d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss][/url]
as for storage, there are other possibilities but none so tried and tested; vanadium flow batteries look promising and are scaleable.
i love the electric car idea, so obvious.
[url http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn13000-electric-cars-could-act-as-batteries-for-the-energy-grid-.html][/url]
spreading the baseload and lopping the peaks in demand is also going to help;
here in u.k. there are already many deals between the suppliers and industry to take power off peak at a reduced cost, for non time-dependant processes. we used to have a domestic setup, economy 7, i dont know why its fallen out of favour. i'd be happy to run my washing machine, chill down my freezer etc. at night for less money.
--
Edited by u.k.gerda at 12/20/2007 8:53 AM
As I understand it, Germany encouraged it's renewable energies industries with legislation, the 'Feed-In Tariff' [FIT]: requiring utilities to buy any energy produced from renewable sources by any non utility producer, residential roof top to offshore wind farms. It also established a national board to set the price the utility must pay for the various energies and the price is fixed for roughly 15 years allowing investment decisions to be made. I understand this law is credited with creating more than 200,000 jobs in Germany in the past decade and has been used as a model in several other countries. In the US, first a bunch of states, and i believe recently the feds, have required utilities to get a certain minimum % of the energy they sell from renewables, whether owned by the utility or bought at auction in the open market. The minimum % increases each year until in approx 2020 15% of what a utility co sells must come from renewable sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm wondering... AC transmission lines were selected many years ago, supposedly because it is so much simpler to inductively pump voltages back up as they decrease due to resistance losses from line length. How are the resistive losses handled using DC transmission lines?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good information, thanks. Germany has shown the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is wonderful for a region to "domesticate" energy supply, because it brings local jobs and removes the need for importing - a win win. It also helps national security, in the same sense. win win win. and reduces pollution - well, you get the trend.
So we are saying, "we can do it." We invite the scrutiny needed to establish this to the widest and most influential audience.
Ken
As I see it, the technology (PV and various storage methods) is already here-- especially with Nanosolar's <$1 per watt PV panels. Now it is all a matter of implementing it and convincing legislation nationwide to pursue this 'grand plan' solar system or a similar PV / renewable system now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question remains, how? We need to outline the process to get the rest of America seriously on track towards these solutions (I specify America because we seem to be behind the times, as the Bali conference has shown http://youtube.com/watch?v=bqbV0myiibQ). I mentioned Focus the Nation Day earlier, but that is only a small aspect of progress this enormous situation. How can we get serious with our legislation to demand progress in the renewable energy sector when, to me at least, most Americans seem disinterested?
Thanks for your creative support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust FYI - I wouldn't hang my hat on the Nanosolar result quite yet - I think they implied that with further development they could reach those price levels. That's also true of First Solar (FSLR) and others - their plans point in that direction. But it will still take time. However, we include that development period in our Plan. Similarly, other PV can come down in price, even the crystalline silicon technology, once the silicon shortage abates. CSP is also important. There are several paths to using all those terawatts of solar.
I also think that people have to get used to the idea of electrifying transportation. When people think about the energy pinch (it isn't a crisis yet), they think of $3 gas. We see electrifying transportation as the way forward, with liquid fuels as only a range-extender. But decision-makers aren't ready for that. They haven't made the leap beyond corn ethanol. Biomass, like wind, is a limited resource - we should plan to use it carefully, and as a range-extender for electric hybrids it's a major value.
There's room in this plan for all renewables, probably on a scale that most have never considered. It's just that "solar is the only big number out there," i.e., it is an order of magnitude larger resource than the others - which is why we have a Grand Plan to use it.
It will also be interesting to see how we evolve in re climate change. That will also continue to rise as a driver, which will push us towards something like the Grand Plan.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/20/2007 12:41 PM
As noted in the question about AC and DC power line losses, the advantage of AC over DC is the ease (and lower cost) in transforming voltage in AC systems versus DC systems. However, in long distance transmission direct current (DC) achieves lower resistance losses and lower material costs, which can result in lower overall costs for a long distance transmission system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh voltage is used for transmission to reduce the energy lost in the resistance of the wires. For a given quantity of power transmitted, higher voltage reduces the transmission power loss. High voltage DC (HVDC) can carry more power per conductor (copper cable) because for a given power rating [b]the constant voltage[/b] in a DC line is lower than the peak voltage in an AC line.
Power in a circuit is proportional to the current, but the power lost as heat in the wires is proportional to the square of the current. Also, power is proportional to voltage, so for a given power level, higher voltage can offset lower current. This means that the higher the voltage, the lower the power loss. Power loss can also be reduced by reducing resistance, which can be achieved by increasing the diameter of the conductor (copper cable). But increasing the size and/or number of conductors (copper cables) increases the cost. Therefore, the line costs of HVDC systems are lower than the line costs of HVAC systems because of the combined effect of resistance losses and material costs.
Depending on voltage level and construction design, HVDC power line losses are about 3% per 1000 km. In contrast, the power losses for AC transmission system will exceed 10% per 1000 km.
A DC system is only cost effective over long transmission distance where the higher costs of voltage management (DC to AC terminals at local electricity distribution points) are offset by saving in lines losses and costs. Studies have found that the breakeven transmission distances are somewhere in the 100-200 mile range.
These authors are on the right track. I do wish they'd switch from quoting power capacities in watts to quoting capacities in watt-hours per day. The US now consumes 58.5 terawatt-hours/day of energy, counting everything. As demand inherently has to be quoted in watt-hours/day, it would be most helpful to have supply estimates quoted the same way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the compliment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's challenging to find the right units, partially because people use a mix of fuel and electricity, and primary energy is usually quoted (since we have to buy the fuel). In solar PV, the output energy is already in electricity; in solar thermal, you have some intermediary heat energy and output in electricity again.
For example, we noted that energy [i]demand[/i] goes down, because we are replacing primary energy (fuel) used at 33% efficiency to make electricity with electricity that does not come from fuel. It's an odd situation to get one's fuel-energy "free."
Anyway, we take all this into account and by 2100 replace almost everything - almost every BTU and kWh.
I am not sure if this is exactly what you were wondering about.
Thank you very much for proposing a Solar Grand Plan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love it!
I also know that cost has always been the primary question in regard to solar. Can you provide additional detail on where you get your 2007 cost figures from (for PV as well as CSP)?
$4/W installed for PV seems rather lower than what I see when I look at module prices. Is that only the panel price or is this because you assume massive economies of scale? Also given the higher efficiency of converting sunlight to heat (vs. converting it to electricity), why is CSP power more expensive than PV? To my knowledge everyday solar thermal panels capture/convert 2-3 times as everyday PV panels (i.e. what is available today not the "hero" experiments reported in the lab).
Finally I noticed that in the article you did not provide much detail on "appropriate subsidy levels" or timing only calling for ~$10 billion/yr.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
COMPRESSED AIR STORAGE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I read the proposal concerning the use of compressed air for energy storage, I spent a bit of time double checking my understanding. The reason for this was that I remembered that underground storage of compressed air typically needed relatively large spaces to work quickly and efficiently. I looked up a couple of sources (1)(2), and found information that was consistent with what I recalled.
The first think I wish to point out is the high temperature of the compressed air calculated in the first reference. In a salt cavern, this is acceptable, because the volume of the gas is large, the thermal contact is only at the walls of the cavern, and salt, IIRC, is a decent insulator.
Now, contrast that to storage in a porous formation. Most porosity that I’ve observed is fairly small grain porosity. One way to think of it is to think of sandstone as sand that has been subjected to significant pressure so that it is pressed together to form a rock. Think of the size of the grains of the sand and you get a feel for the size of the pore spaces in a typical sandstone
Given this, what happens when hot air is put in contact with the sand. Even at 70 bar (the storage density mentioned in the first reference), the density of the air is still in the 0.01 g/cc range. Contrast that to the sandstone matrix density of 2.65 g/cc, or the limestone matrix density of 2.71 g/cc. It is true that, gram per gram, the heat capacity of the air is higher, but it’s only about 25% higher than limestone, so the relative masses of the air and the matrix rock (e.g. limestone, sandstone, & dolomite) is about 1 to 800 or so. Given this, the heat capacity of the rock per cm of rock/stored air is about 500x that of the air. Thus, the compressed air will lose a significant amount of its energy heating the rock…particularly with typical grain sizes.
If you look at my first two references, you will see specific mention of the limited availability of suitable locations for downhole compressed air storage. The quick calculation I gave indicates one of the reasons for this.
The second problem with typical formations is the speed at which the gas can be withdrawn. If you look at the DOE’s discussion of natural gas storage(3), you’ll see a reference to the advantage of caverns for quick retrieval. The permeability of the formation has a tremendous influence on the speed at which the natural gas can be withdrawn. Obviously, the permeability of a cavern is near infinite. Other formations have lower permeability. If it is low enough, the oil and gas in the rock cannot be accessed. Even when it is suitably high, the process takes a matter of years in most cases of oil and gas wells.
Obviously, storage of natural gas for the winter season uses formations with better permeability than this. Still, it would be quite acceptable to have a natural gas reservoir that would take 60 days to draw down. That would not be acceptable for compressed air. It is true that the air will flow faster, but there would still be energy lost as the hot air travels through the narrow pore spaces.
So, if one is to propose compressed air for the storage of massive amounts of energy (say in the range of 100-200 billion kWh), one needs to determine energy loss for the technique in available formations, as well as the total of available formations. Nothing I’ve seen about this technique indicates that the US has sufficient available suitable formations to handle this.
(1) http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~matti/ise2grp/energystorage_report/node7.html
(2) http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/aest/pubs/aest-review.pdf
(3) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/natgas/storagebasics.pdf
The 2007 PV prices are based on the 40-MW PV plant in Germany built by JUWI Group using First Solar CdTe modules. The press release is here http://www.juwi.de/international/information/press/PR_Solar_Power_Plant_Brandis_2007_02_eng.pdf . At the time, the Euro was $1.2/euro, so the system was $4.22/W. In our plan, we do not use an inverter, so we subtracted this from the price, assuming 30 cents/W. If you also look at the response to comment #11 (i.e., comment 12) you will get added insight on this question. The PV prices are real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCSP cost estimates are primarily based on a study commissioned by the Western Governors Association, which led to the recent completion of the 50-MW trough CSP plant outside Las Vegas.
CSP versus PV prices: We believe that the trajectory of CSP with thermal storage and PV with compressed air (CAES) storage will be similar and reach on the order of $0.10/kWh. But both technologies have advancements to make before the 2020 cost projections can be realized.
This is why we suggest a national price support program for ten years, based on the German feed-in-tariff (FIT) model. In first five-year phase, the price support is $0.11/kWh; in the second five-year phase, the price support is reduced to $0.03/kWh. Many details along these lines will be in upcoming journal articles, and we expect that refinements will be necessary to make the price support program precise.
This is in response to the Compressed Air Storage issues raised by Dan M. above. The three reference links you provide below are excellent but are only an introduction to CAES issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou raise two specific issues 1) temperature of compressed air upon injection into reservoirs; and 2) the problem of identifying enough reservoirs with suitable geology (porosity and permeability) to enable adequate air withdrawal rates.
Regarding the first issue. Upon compression air is heated. But to increase the efficiency of compressors, heat is removed from compressed air by inter-coolers between compression stages and by an after-cooler before the compressed air is injected into the reservoir. The temperature of the compressed air injected into reservoirs is approximately 95 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not "heated' air.
Therefore, the issues relating to the effects of "hot" compressed air in reservoirs are not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that we are wasting all of the compressed heat energy (non-adiabatic process). The question for future developments is how to capture, store, and reuse that lost heat (energy). As we state in the article we are using systems based on current technology, not future technologies (so if the lost compression heat can be used, then the CAES system we propose will only get better).
2) Finding resevoirs with the permeability to enable adequate air withdrawal rates will require "search." The use of salt domes along the Gulf coast, New York, and other regions with salt beds eliminate the permeability problem since the storage space is simply an open space created by solution mining the salt formation to create a "tight" cavity of desired size. The economics of solution mining salt formations is well known, and we have high confidence in our cost projections for this type of compressed air storage media.
The permeability problem is relevant for porous media such as saline aquifers and depleted gas wells, and we do not have as high confidence in our cost projections for these types of air storage media. But the effect of air storage cost on resulting electricity prices is relatively small, less than one cent per kWh of electricity produced by the CAES plant.
Air storage development costs for porous (sandstone, etc) storage reservoirs will vary based on actual geologic conditions. This conclusion is based on data from the reported natural gas storage sites, which are presented in the third link in Dan M. message.
Anyone interested should look at the EIA map of underground gas storage sites in the U.S. The location of these natural gas storage sites are in conjunction to the natural gas delivery system in the U.S. And I personally believe that the PV-CAES network should be similar. But let's get back to the issues.
A vast majority of natural gas storage is in depleted gas wells. We have drilled well over a million gas wells in the U.S. and only about 300 of these have been used for natural gas storage. We have analyzed the characteristics of all natural gas storage sites using depleted gas wells in the U.S. Our results indicate that most of these do not have the volume or hourly withdrawal rates sufficient to meet the needs of our CAES plants. But on the other hand, we also identify the existence of those that do have sufficient volume and gas withdrawal rates. The same can be said of saline aquifers.
This demonstrates that there most definitely "exist" reservoirs of sufficient volume and permeability to meet the air withdrawal requirements of our CAES system.
This fact alone does not mean that there is a sufficient number of air storage reservoirs to meet the requirements of our plan. But on the other hand, it does not mean that they do not exist either. The fact is we have not looked or in other words we have not committed to a search for appropriate air storage sites. This is because until now there has not been a motivation to spend to the money to search for air storage sites. This is what we are proposing, to begin the search in order to design a national CAES electricity production system around the air storage sites (multiple CAES plants with gigawatts of capacity can be clustered at one large air storage reservoir).
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted a series of studies evaluating and identifying CAES sites across the U.S. We (Zwiebel, Mason, Fthenakis) have only been able to get our hands on one of these studies, the New York CAES study. The problem is that these studies are in the "private" domain and we have not been given access. But the EPRI does conclude in publications that there is sufficient geology in most areas of the U.S. to support CAES air storage capacity. This is basis for our enthusiam for CAES. If anyone has access to any of these EPRI sponsored CAES air storage studies please send them to us.
Or better yet, our U.S. energy committees should access "all" the EPRI reports and have a national air storage assessment study released in the "public" domain.
We need to reinvent the old "CAN DO" attitude.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/21/2007 7:38 AM
It is clear from the need to address Global Warming that the switch from fossil fuel is inevitable. Financed over the long term both distributed solar and utility scale solar make economic sense if the full cost of fossil fuel generation is included in the cost of electricity (carbon, other pollutants, health costs, military costs to protect oil supply, etc.) Financed over a 15 or 20 year term the fixed cost of solar electricity will become less expensive than the escalating cost from continued use of fossil fuels. The only barrier is the existing fossil fuel linked electric industry players, their lobbyists and the legislators who put their re-election interests above the interests of the entire country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDennis Wilson, President
The Solar Center
Your article assumes that solar must be cheaper than 6 cents, but coal plants can no longer be built for less than ten cents. The convergence is coming fast. Storage doesn't matter as long as peak is driven by air conditioning and solar is producing less than 40%, so we have time to work on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy Efficiency is far cheaper than solar, so a comprehensive solution to our energy needs starts with efficiency, and pushes it hard while the manufacturing capacity for solar comes to speed.
Pushing the lowest cost solutions hardest is most sensible because technology changes so fast we may not want any of these solar technologies in ten years, because something better has emerged. I'd bet on some form of solar thermal, but not on generating all the nation's power in the Southwest. We will have a mix of distributed technologies that save power and produce power everywhere. New buildings will use less than ten percent as much energy as today's standards allow.
Great work on "A Solar Grand Plan". I hope that this coherent picture, solidly based on proven or very predictable technology, jump-starts a national conversation. We NEED to do this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have three questions:
1. You didn't mention the reflective-dish concentrating systems that Stirling Energy Systems has developed. Supposedly they are building a pilot installation for Southern California Edison (somewhere in the Mojave?). That deal was announced in 2005, but I can't find any newer info at all. Did it fall through?
2. As to energy storage, M/G sets with flywheels have been proposed (even prototyped for transportation, I think) in the past. If they work at all, a static installation should be practical. They would be very modular, a nice feature. Did you consider this option?
3. If a solar energy system has efficiencies in the 10-20% range, and a footprint of perhaps 30-50%, wouldn't it have a really significant effect on net surface heating, and thus on local climate?
I think it's plain that we should do efficiency simultaneously. We need to think sustainably, which means including all our material and energy inputs and outputs. For example, we now see materials as the new "depletable" resources - we need to mimic the "cradle to cradle" approach throughout to keep them re-usable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur goal is to show how new energy can be made, so that we remove the issue of "freezing in the dark" - the idea that we have to suffer to do this. Instead, we gain a new world of opportunity for self-sufficiency and jobs.
Yes, conventional energy is going up in price so fast it is dizzying. Things we calculated at the beginning of the process that weren't cost competitive without major changes now are there, with no changes.
But as to new energy options - my own experience is otherwise. Energy technologies are so basic that they may individually take 30 years to develop. But having said that, if the age is about to add exponentially to the resources for making progress in these usually moribund fields, then everything changes.
You make a lot of sense.
Ken
1. I haven't heard much about the Stirling Engine project since its inception. Stirling engines have a rap about reliability. Anyone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Flywheels are decent but not spectacular storage options. I will await one of my colleague's more educated responses.
3. Local Climate. Two effects: the conversion of some light to electricity and its movement to a point of use; and a reduced albedo because modules don't reflect as much as the Earth's average albedo. Locally (in the desert), the two would partially offset (more sunlight stays on Earth, less heat produced from that sunlight); then the rest would be energy moved to another location. I think all in all, there would be some local heating.
Sounds like a person more expert in these things should chime in.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/21/2007 1:00 PM
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/21/2007 2:12 PM
What about warming. We are all in a tizzy about CO2 with an effective absorption impact of thousanths of a percent even under worst case increases in concentration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCdTe is absorbs about 63% of the solar energy spectrum converting 14% to electric power; dumping 49% but compared to differential CO2 pretty huge.
What is the environmental impact of this?
Jon W
Dr Jon, Yours is a good question - as is the previous one about local climate. I am going to go do some arithmetic before answering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the answer is going to come out that it is something like what we are doing now, making heat from burning stored fuel.
This could have some local climate affects, too.
More later.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/21/2007 1:57 PM
The DC backbone you discuss is critical and the role of transmission in time-shifting renewable energy is not well understood. There is an entirely new "world wide web" in the process of evolving around the planet. It is a global energy grid and it will change everything. For more info, see http://www.terrawatts.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second the question on the local climate/environmental impact of moving energy that would hit the ground to our power systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a related sense, a previous post indicated collecting water run-off that would otherwise evaporate. Wouldn't this also affect the local climate and change weather patterns now that the moisture in the air is now in a pipe used for energy production?
This is a great article. I have one major "complaint." The principal author's heads a photovoltaic activity at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that Concentrating Solar Power - Thermal may be a faster path to drive cost down; and with its ability to store energy (can be done for long periods if necessary - contrary to the article claim) and its ability to integrate with fossil for many cloudy days, it may prove better.
Since the primary concern is for starting the process, these differences of opinion will be determined by the "market" if we start both of these.
As to the dc transmission, just to add info, the Germans looked at solar in North Africa being brought about 2000 miles under the Mediterranean and came up with an estimated cost of transmission of about one cent per kwh.
Sol - I think we are among the few authors who applaud both "solars" - PV and CSP. CSP is great. It's good to have options and a more robust Plan because of those options.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPs- I am not at NREL anymore, but I am still in PV - at [url http://www.primestarsolar.com/]PrimeStar Solar[/url].
Ken
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current resurrection of CSP-Thermal with three basic technologies competing will, probably over the next 5-10 years show us whether the promise of CSP at about 5 cents per kwh - with storage will be achievable. I'm glad to see that you are looking at pv as central station and my only question which only time and build out can answer is where cost will go. And I believe CAES is probably about the best storage system for both pv and wind (albeit as I understand requiring about 1/4 the gas compared with gas only systems).
Why do you look at CAES as distributed? Wouldn't it be more economical to do it at the generation site and save the need for peak power transmission to remote stations?
There is a front-load for solar energy "savings", and we don't see anyone dealing with this responsibly. How much fossil energy does it cost to manufacture solar panels, and how long does it take to amortize this effect on the environment before the panels start paying off either economically or environmentally? I don't have the numbers, but if I were in the business of publishing this type of article, I would consider this issue essential to an honest appraisal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFthenakis and Mason have published carbon dioxide life-cycle studies of PV manufacturing and PV power plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral PV life-cycle studies can be found at the Center for Life Cycle Analysis at Columbia University, of which Vasilis Fthenakis is the founding director.
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/publications.html
The carbon dioxide (CO2) impact in the PV life-cycle (including all upstream material mining operations and material transportation as well as all downstream end-of-product disposal processes) is 25 g CO2/kWh of PV electricity production. This is very similar to the CO2 life-cycle impacts of wind and nuclear power plants.
Over time the carbon dioxide life-cycle impact of PV will decline as more and more renewables are used in the mining, transportation, manufacturing, and disposal phases of the life-cycle. Hence, PV is considered a near-zero carbon dioxide emissions technology, now and in the future.
No fossil fuel energy path, including those with CO2 capture capture and storage schemes, are as low. Fossil fuel energy consumption in the PV power plant life-cycle is proportionally low.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/21/2007 11:01 PM
Zweibel, et. al. are convincing until their last paragraph. It ignores the biggest obstacle to implementing alternative energy solutions, which is not lack of a societal ability to think boldly. Rather, as presidential candidate John Edwards would no doubt point out, powerful fossil fuel interests who contribute large amounts to political campaigns, will fight tooth and nail to avoid change, our country be damned. We need to elect political leaders willing to stand up to them and lead the public in another direction!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there studies that show a limited potential for big wind? It seems wind has two of the big three barriers that solar has: 1) intermittent nature requiring storage, 2) geographic location thus requiring huge transmission investments). But, wind has already overcome the technology/price barrier as it already is economically in the plains states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll try to answer three questions this morning: distributed CAES, wind, and energy/CO2 payback.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind is usually calculated to be about a two orders of magnitude smaller resource than solar. It's conveniently magnified in some local climates, which makes it economical to harvest in those locations.
The location of the CAES plants is probably open. James?
Fthenakis is a world leader in the question of energy and CO2 payback, and it turns out to be in about the one and a half year range. You can see the effect in the CO2 reductions in the article - they definitely INCLUDE the initial energy and CO2 cost of making the panels.
Ken
The article mentioned first solar as one of the company. They totally ignored the materials Ca Te
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat first solar uses is carcinogenic.
it is clearly biased article written by people that run solar company not impartial journalists.
it looks like one of the informatial that we see on late night TV.
shame of you Scentifff
CdTe PV is actually a step forward in handling Cd issues from where we are today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCdTe is a successful, low-cost thin film semiconductor in PV. It actually reduces the amount of Cd (the material of concern) in the environment by making it into a compound (CdTe) that melts at 1100 C and is sequestered from the environment by two sheets of glass. The product is also recycled, completing a closed loop. Almost all scenarios from manufacture, use, to disposal/recycling have been [url http://www.primestarsolar.com/documents/cadPV2VMF_000.pdf]carefully examined and found benign[/url].
Cadmium enters the environment in a dangerous form from coal burning plants - CdTe PV reduces that volume. Cd is extracted with zinc as a byproduct, and if it is not used, it remains accessible to dispersal from tailings. If it is in short-lived consumer items (like batteries) it can also enter the environment if it is not recycled. But as a long-lived (30-60 years), recycled product, CdTe PV modules are actually a solution rather than a problem for Cd concerns.
Ken
James Mason wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Regarding the first issue. Upon compression air is heated. But to increase the efficiency
>of compressors, heat is removed from compressed air by inter-coolers between compression
>stages and by an after-cooler before the compressed air is injected into the reservoir. The
>temperature of the compressed air injected into reservoirs is approximately 95 >degrees Fahrenheit. This is not "heated' air
I, and I think the author of my first reference, was assuming adiabatic compression. Indeed, one of the websites I’ve seen specifically references this technique.(1)
Instead it looks as though we are considering something close to isothermal compression. The problem I see with this is trying to get quick isothermal expansion. I checked a number of websites on the process and obtained the understanding that the compressed air can be seen as a way of improving the efficiency of burning natural gas. I finally found a website So, according to you, But, you seem to be stating that that, to first order, we have isothermal compression.
OK, I can understand that makes more sense, but we still have the problem of quick expansion not being isothermal, so losses exist. An analysis of existing plants indicate that the loss is enough to require 1.3 kWh input for every kWh output. Further, this efficiency is achieved by using the compressed air in conjunction with the burning natural gas in order to enhance the efficiency of that process.
Now, I’m not arguing for the impossibility of compressed air storage, but the inherent inefficiencies in the system have to be figured in. From the cost numbers you are giving, it appears that the inefficiencies are figured into the cost. But, one also has to figure them into the size of the needed array.
Second, I’ve looked at at a number of websites on the subject, including British and Australian government sites, that conclude that underground compressed air storage is too problematic to be used on an enormous scale (i.e. several days supply of electricity for the US…since there are times when hurricane remnants cause several days of cloudiness over significant portions of the US Southwest.
Again, you state:
>This fact alone does not mean that there is a sufficient number of air storage
>reservoirs to meet the requirements of our plan. But on the other hand, it does
>not mean that they do not exist either. The fact is we have not looked or in
>other words we have not committed to a search for appropriate air storage
>sites. This is because until now there has not been a motivation to spend
>to the money to search for air storage sites. This is what we are proposing,
>to begin the search in order to design a national CAES electricity production
>system around the air storage sites (multiple CAES plants with gigawatts of
>capacity can be clustered at one large air storage reservoir).
That’s not an unreasonable position…but it does mean that this type of storage might or might not work. Your grand scheme, for which the WAG of the cost is 400 billion, includes this technique. This is one of the examples of the approach that I find troublesome in the article....and the general proposal.
My position is not that we should do nothing to counter global warming, but that we should what has the greatest likelihood of success. Before y’all wrote your article, I started a series of blogs that was intended to address the issue systematically. I think that the foundation of our disagreement is that I don’t think that we now know the best path, or the true cost of various paths.
I am sure that you have done the best job you could determining costs and the size of the effort that will be required. But, if we look at the history of estimations of the cost and timeframe for large, government sponsored dedicated programs, we find a less than thrilling record.
The space shuttle was supposed to drop lift price by a factor of 100; it didn’t even cut them in half. The space station was supposed to cost 10% of what it cost, and do more. Supersonic travel was to be the wave of the future, and the US was going to fall far behind by not funding it. The Japanese were going to leave us in the dust, partially because their government funded the fifth generation computer development and ours stayed, for the most part, out of the market. Commercial fusion was just 30 years away, (and still is. :-) ).
In addition, the government has had a tendency to sponsor programs that were the most politically expedient, not the ones that have the highest probability of success. We are seeing that in spades now with ethanol. We know that, even by dedicating all of our corn crop to ethanol, we can only supply a small fraction of our auto fuel needs.(3) Yet, billions go towards it…since the farm state vote is critical. So, I am very leery of directed government subsidy.
But, this doesn’t mean there is no place for government aiding the transition to energy sources that do not contribute greenhouse gasses. I see a three part government action that could be very beneficial.
1) Institute a carbon tax within the US. This would give economic disincentive to using fossil fuels
2) Pay an across the board subsidy for purchase of energy that does not contribute to greenhouse gasses. A model for this might be the subsidy paid to wind farms (3 cents/kWh IIRC).
3) Invest in long term fundamental research that could/would aid the process of decreasing the cost of green energy sources. I don’t advocate investing in the engineering, the track record of the government is not good on this. But, the track record of government sponsored science is excellent; only monopolies like Bell Phone or quasi-monopolies (like Schlumberger) ever spent tremendous amounts of money on basic research. Mesoscopic physics/material science and synthetic biology are two areas that immediately come to mind.
If you look at the history of predictions of future technology, you will see many more misses than hits. Most new ideas are wrong; most new technology is too expensive, has limited application, or Nature’s siding with the hidden flaw is just too much to overcome.
We succeed because the few hits that exist more than pay for themselves. Even though the 5th generation computers were dinosaurs before they went on line, the success of the PC and workstations more than made up for this failure.
I’ve worked in the area of research, development, and engineering for the past 25 years. I have had the good fortune of seeing several of my inventions being adopted worldwide. In addition, I’ve also been able to watch both successful and unsuccessful programs first hand. I’ve seen very convincing presentations (at least convincing upper management) on boondoggles that had next to no chance of working and I’ve seen engineers who created overwhelming amounts of wealth by cutting billions of dollars out of costs on a fraction of the budgets that went to vaporware development by the same company. So, while you think it might be egotistical of me, I honestly believe I have a better than average feel for what it takes to successfully translate ideas to practical applications.
Finally, the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the reduction of the cost of the alternatives to fossil fuels to no more than the cost of fossil fuels. I don’t think anyone would argue that GWB has a strong pro-green bias. Yet, during the first 5 years of his presidency, the fraction of greenhouse gasses emitted by the US dropped about 3.5%, from 24.5 to 21.1%. During the same time, China’s rose 6.6%, from 12.3% to 18.9%. And, we know that in 2006, China took the US’s lead. We don’t have the world numbers yet, but we do know that the US greenhouse gas emissions went down 0.75% during that time. So, the US was around 20% in 2006, and China around 20.2%. At this rate, China will exceed the combined emissions of the US and Europe by 2015.
One can argue about negative domestic political influences all one wants. But, unless developing countries like China find it economically beneficial to halt their rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the US and Europe could cut their emissions to zero by 2025, and the total emissions will still be higher than today. That’s why I think the fundamental question is whether we can cut costs. And, I’d argue that, as in virtually every case, we don’t know how we will cut costs, so we have to have a broad, not a focused plan of attack.
(1) http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=14736
(2) http://www.energymanagertraining.com/power_plants/Energy_typs.htm
(3) http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005052&#msg300014376
(4) http://www.eia.doe.gov/
Dan - you've got some good insights, and great knowledge, no doubt. Part of [i]our[/i] goal (like yours) is also to separate the wheat from the chaff. You will note we adventure into the usually taboo area of declaiming certain renewables as too small (wind, biomass, waves, geothermal) to do the whole job. We see them as having wonderful, favorable [i]niches[/i], even in the TW range. But your response about the current wind-related incentive is an example of the problem - unless we see clearly that only a big enough resource - sunlight - can meet a big problem, we will still be adrift in the vaporware. A wind-based incentive won't be enough for solar [b]yet.[/b]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur contribution to clarity might simply be:
1. Solar is a necessity, and we'd better find a way to incentivize its progress to cost-effectiveness (CSP and/or PV).
2. Storage is a necessity and CAES is a proof of concept it can be done, along with thermal storage for CSP.
3. Electrification of transportation is the best bet short of hydrogen because biomass won't do it.
4. The US is blessed with a great, dependable solar resource in the SW, which needs HVDC transmission.
The government's role? Sure, hit or miss, but in this case, with "global commons" issues as the drivers (global warming and energy supply/tensions) it has a key role, like it or not. Even the current excitement in the private sector to fund solar is based on the incentives provided by governments leading to the purchase of the non-cost competitive products. In fact, energy is probably the most regulated of all industries, so the move of government into renewables is just maintaining a level playing field with existing energy alternatives.
Thanks for your posts.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/22/2007 1:17 PM
This is in response to Michael who asked about the Stirling Energy Systems (SES) parabolic dish technology, and Ken who asked for input, since neither of them had heard anything for a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was lucky enough to hear an excellent presentation at the San Diego Renewable Energy Society monthly meeting in Nov. by the VP for Technology for SES. The company signed two agreements with Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric a couple of years ago that total something like 1700 MW if expansion options are included.
What have they been up to since? A lot. The presentation included significant technical detail of improving production of the system, and how to maintain it. Sure, the dish and Stirling engine concept has been around for quite a while, but when one is producing thousands of them, little details matter. They have made strides in streamlining manufacturing techniques for the dish, and involving a major Detroit engine maker (a company used to huge volume) for the engine.
I have followed solar technology for many years, and was involved in Central Receiver concepts back in the 1980s, and nearly everything in this presentation and in a long, tehcnical Q/A session following seemed credible. The company appears to be doing their homework, at least on the engineering side.
To me, the biggest unknown is the price structure they, and other solar developers, will face. We cite the Luz parabolic trough plants built in the 1980s in the CA desert as having a great track record, proving CSP technology for over 20 years. Unlike the Central Receiver at Barstow, they still operate. But if they are so great, why haven't any been built in the last 20 years? Surely CA needs the electricity, and the price is higher now.
The answer appears to lie in the way CA prices energy from these plants. I am not an economist, but the switch from Standard Offer #4 in the 1980s to Standard Offer #1 now has killed solar plants here. Maybe someone can elaborate on that. The Grand Solar Plan will need to account for policies like that.
My take-away point is that Dish Stirling has a lot going on below the public radar screen (field tests, permitting, etc. I didn't mention above), so don't rule it out yet.
For those in the area, San Diego Renewable Energy Society (a non-profit ASES chapter) is sponsoring a series of technical talks on concentrating solar. We have covered trough and dish; central receiver and concentrating PV are coming in 2008.
Fletcher
This is a response to the questions regarding the unintended consequences on climate caused by the proposed scale of solar installations in the U.S. Southwest. Possible consequences are increased local temperatures, increases in global temperatures, and a decrease in atmospheric moisture from the collection of rain runoff as a source of water for power plant cooling and electrolytic hydrogen production. These are good questions, and little research exists to date. But we can make some estimate as to the possible effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Increased Local Temperature. The albedo effect (amount of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back into space, hence no global warming impact) is 40% for desert sands and 5% for dark, light absorbent materials such as PV modules. Therefore, covering desert area with PV module means that more sunlight (heat) is being retained at ground level and thereby raising the local temperature. However, of the total 160,000 square miles of solar installations that we use in the article only 40% of this area or 64,000 square miles is covered by solar materials. Overall, the area of the great Southwest desert that is covered by solar modules is on the order of 10% of total desert area. The actual rise in temperature will be small, and due to the high temperatures that occur naturally without solar modules, the small increase should have minimal impact.
In the article, there is a U.S. map with the land area for solar installation presented in circles and scaled to size. Now, consider the fact that only 40% of the land area in the circles is actually covered by solar modules (the other 60% of land is the area between the rows of modules). This is the 10% of the total Southwest land area that will be covered with solar modules. Also, take into consideration that the location of the circles in the map was designed for exposition – not reality – actual solar plant locations can be more widely distributed and in other locations (for example west Texas is not included in any of the circles.
2) Increased Global Temperature. A recent Ph.D. dissertation completed at the Energy and Resources Center at the University of California, Berkeley by Nemet analyzed the net solar radiative forcing (global warming potential) of large-scale adoption of PV to meet 50% of global energy demand in 2100. Nement evaluates the net balance between greenhouse gas emissions reduction (which decreases global warming) and a decrease in desert albedo caused by PV module covering. Nemet concludes that when the PV albedo effect is taken into account that 95-97% of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions reduction remain in effect. In conclusion, the PV albedo effect has little impact on global warming and does not reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions reduction significantly.
3) Water Collection Decreases Atmospheric Moisture and Changes Local Climate. The line of reasoning established in (1) above should follow here as well. Rain runoff collection systems will be at no more than 75% of the total number of solar power plants. Hence the total land area affected is less than 10% of total desert land area. The Southwest is already very arid, and the small decrease in water evaporation, which will only occur only a few times a year when the rain runoff is collected, will quite likely have a negligible impact on mean humidity levels for Southwest locations.
These are important questions and rigorous research is needed to improve the detailed understanding beyond the above estimates. In any development activity following our plan, we will have many years of much smaller impacts to allow time for evaluation. Indeed, this is part of a general issue about 21st century energy supply – however we do it, it will be on a rather daunting scale, for which we should be prepared.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/22/2007 12:40 PM
This is a super article. Can I dnload it and send to friends and congressmen who are not readers of SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjrplourde,greenfield,nh
Question for Dr. Mason about the land area covered by the PV arrays compared to the land area covered by the solar plant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou write that only 40% of the area of the plant is covered by the PV, and then state that most of the light will still be reflected by the sand back into space. Are you using an integrated (over each day of the year) projected area to arrive at this number, and are you accounting for light reflected from the desert sand that then strikes the modulesi? It seems to me you are not, but I'm not sure. The projected area is important for determining how much of the light from the sun will be reflected back into space, and some of the diffuse reflection from the sand will hit the module and be absorbed as well.
If you are not accounting for that you may be underestimating the local heating effect.
Fletcher
>>>--->
To all. The last paragraph is the most important. Get it distributed, as a motivated public can send congress in any direction they want.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Solar Grand Plan
Attention Chelan County, Washington State, U.S.A.
On occasion, a grand stroke of genius (energy) occurs. Among a host of U.S. energy proposals, Scientific American has, I think, produced a bellwether model for America' energy future.
Please review A Solar Grand Plan and respond with your comments. If you agree with my assessment, let's be the first U.S. county to launch a website in support of Scientific American's plan.
Now that energy/environment/economics are intertwined and inseparable, an ENERGETICS revolution should be initiated in every community and county in the U.S. Focusing first on A Solar Grand Plan, we can build a Chelan County alternative energy network specific to our local requirements.
And perhaps persuade the whole country to join us.
Let's begin a Community Square, video taped, judged debate on both sides of the issue, and may the informed side prevail.
Bob Strasser
bstrasser@mac.com
I am part of the choir when it comes to the potential of solar energy. However, when I see the claim "solar power plants could supply 69% of the US's electricty ...by 2050", no matter what content follows, it makes me cringe, and wonder whether the authors have ever heard of the concept of "significant figures" ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a number to think about - $500B.
That's about how much we would be transferring off-shore per year to buy oil at $100 per barrel.
Sometime sooner than we think, we have to stop doing this.
If we domesticate energy supply, that money stays here and most of it gets invested in our own resources and labor.
These practical facts may mean more than anything else. We just can't afford to do this much longer.
Ken
I agree with you. We should republish the whole ?*%$#! thing with everything rounded off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry,
Ken
Dan M. writes,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think that the foundation of our disagreement is that I don’t think that we now know the best path, or the true cost of various paths."
Bingo. I'm not an historian of science and technology, but I had to brush up on that literature for a class I was teaching this semester, and this article strikes me as one of those arguments for massive infrastructure development based on fragile assumptions. Invest in renewables, absolutely! Commit billions on a specific strategy, no way!
This is an interesting question. To wait or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it comes down to knowledge. What new information do we need to bolster our case? We need to solidify the CAES case in terms of storage volume availability. We need to know more about the evolution of hybrid cars - can they switch to 80% electricity, 20% fuel? The economics of solar? Instead of 15 c/kWh, like today, we would like 10 cents/kWh or lower; but these systems exist.
Maybe we also need to quantify what our current costs are - what we pay, and what we don't directly pay for in lost jobs, global tensions, increased CO2, and unsustainable balance of payments. Then we might find out what to compare with the price of our Solar Grand Plan.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/22/2007 7:33 PM
LOCAL CLIMATE EFFECT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomment 70 - very good point about the consideration of projected area (panels/collectors will be tilted toward sun, generally - if land use is to be maximized for energy, ideal is for shadow cast to cover whole area, but movement of the sun daily and/or seasonally will not allow that as a constant situation; there is give and take - minimal shading of neighboring collectors vs maximal shading of space in between collectors, with the former given greater weight, I would expect).
Generally, the efficiency of conversion to electricity must be added to the actual albedo to get a local climate effective albedo. Electricity from any other source would heat the Earth in it's end use just the same.
Given that, heating changes from changes in effective albedo should be on the same order of magnitude as the electrical energy produced.
CSP using mirrors should reflect any diffuse radiation back up, and much of that may escape to space.
Depending on proportion of diffuse and direct solar radiation for CSP, and in general, efficiency of conversion of absorbed radiation, and the background land albedo, it is conceivable that some solar farms could increase the effective albedo. I wonder if strategic local climate alteration could be used to decrease local cloud cover, then, as the cooled air mass would tend to sink and dry out. Maybe the effects would only penetrate through the boundary layer though, thus not affecting higher level clouds - except for very large solar farms??
Solar farms on less arid lands might be combined with biofuel growth or other farming, as shade grown crops might be planted between tilted collectors. Rainfall might be concentrated onto the smaller space between collectors (or in neighboring fields), allowing crops to experience a wetter climate?
TOXICITY
So housefires wouldn't typically get hot enough to release the Cd ? (of course we would like to prevent such fires just the same).
'TECHNODIVERSITY'
I like the idea that the article mentioned about having multiple types of PV or other technology so as to avoid too much dependence on one set of materials which may be scarce. Just wanted to mention other materials might be oxides/sufides/etc of mixes of Ti,V,Cr,Ni,Fe,Cu,Zn,etc.
CSP + PV
Why not focus light on PV cells? I know the advantage of PV is that it can typically use diffuse light (so I would expect they'd hold their own pretty well under cirrus clouds and after distant volcanic eruptions), but putting PV in place of the heated fluid in CSP could justify more high-end high efficiency cells, perhaps multijunction, etc... Is the issue the need for cooling? A lower temperature working fluid might cool off the cells and store the lower grade heat in the ground, where, in winter (or the cold desert nights), some energy might be recovered with a heat engine. (Which reminds me - In some locations CSP might be combined with biofuels and geothermal energy, using the geothermal resource as a storage.
PS - and I realize your article focussed more on the more developed technologies, but Luminescent concentrators can concentrate diffuse light. Multilayer Luminescent concentrators could boost efficiency analogously to multijunction cells. And I'm getting a bit more into energy efficiency now, but it would be great if building windows could be made with such devices, which might let visible light through but capture UV and solar IR to generate electricity. Perhaps that's a longer way out into the future but something to dream about at least.
I wanted to add a couple of points to the points Ken made on the toxicity of CdTe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not have any financial interest on First Solar or any other PV company. My group at Brookhaven National Lab, has been investigating, for the US-DOE, EH&S issues related to PV technologies since 1980. Each PV technology has its own EH&S issues, as some hazardous materials are used in manufacturing, but the industry is proactive and does what is needed to maintain safe and environmentally friendly facilities and products. The CdTe PV production in the US has set an even higher standard for the US industry by committing to voluntarily recycle end-of-life modules and by setting an independent insurance program to finance such recycling. A CdTe PV module is 99% glass and ~0.1% CdTe; our recycling research at BNL shows that practically all the Cd can be recovered in recycling operations. With this said, CdTe PV does not present any environmental issues, and by replacing fossil-fuel based energy production it greatly reduce air pollution and the effects of greenhouse gases. We have published and presented extensively on this topic. Our publications have been reviewed by independent peer-review panels organized by the DOE, the German Ministry of the Environment, and PV industry associations; they have all praised the quality and relevance of our research and concluded that there are not real issues related to CdTe. For details you can see our bibliography at www.pv.bnl.gov and www.clca.columbia.edu.
You are absolutely right. Every country may have its own combination of renewables; for the US the availability of sun and desert land on the SW is a special blessing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we have cheap electricity from the sun, we can even use sea water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been wondering about how the cost ($ and energy, CO2) of either PV or CSP breaks down by compoenent and manufacturing step. How much do the parabolic trough mirrors cost, for instance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---
Also, it may be helpful to explain the relationship between capacity and actual power supplied. I went over the numbers at comment 25 - the ratio of averaged power produced to power capacity is 0.244 for the Las Vegas solar farm and 0.236 for the Alamoso array. This did'nt surprise me because, as I understand it, solar power capacity would be given in terms of peak Watts, which is based on a standardized nominal full sun, 1000 W/m2, which might be what you get at noon in the Sahara in summer - while average solar power over the year, day and night, is above 200 W/m2 over a significant fraction of the US and does get above 250 in the SW. Of course, that's for horizontally-laid collectors, which makes little sense - the panels/collectors would be tilted to maximize W/m2 on their area, and that value over 1000 W/m2 would give the ratios I mentioned before (ideally - some variation as solar power conversion efficiency varies a bit with the solar power flux density).
Also, averaged over leap years, for those of you who like number crunching (I know one person wanted to see everything in kWh; I actually feel more comfortable with W, and km for that matter (since solar power resource is often given per square meter)):
1 W = 31.5576 MJ/yr = 8.766 kWh/yr
(exact with a leap year every fourth year)
100 quadrillion Btu/yr = 29.3 trillion kWh/yr = 3.34 TW (rounded to 3 sig figs in part because I forgot whether a Btu is closer to 1054 or 1055 J)
PS
Energy sources for the nation are often given in terms of a primary energy equivalent, so the hydroelectric contribution to total energy may be given in terms of the fuel energy in conventional power plant that would be necessary to produce the hydroelectric electricity. Since, in this article, the total energy decreases while energy demand increases, I conclude that the solar energy contribution to total energy is not being counted in it's primary energy equivalent but just as it's electrical supply.
PS
I greatly appreciate that the authors have given some of their time to participating in this discussion.
PS again
In addition to storage and transmission, some solar energy at peak power could be used for water desalination or maybe even CCS, or processing of biofuels.
I will invite you to discuss what assumptions you consider fragile . They are other strategies like clean coal and nuclear but they also cary a cost and higher risks than solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour plan is dependent on the grid providing the storage but the current grid is moslty using fossil-fuel electricity generation. We propose to get rid of fosssil-fuel burning and you can not do it with only roof-rop installations. We need large areas in very sunny and inexpensive land and we need storage in order to create a solar grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure how this web site appears to everyone else, but in my browser I have a streaming ad to the right of the posts. Lately, it has been advertising clean coal as the solution to our energy woes. I clicked on it, and it took me to a substantial web site promoting clean coal. It informed me that even Santa Claus is pro clean coal! (Santa probably doesn't like roof-top PV - nowhere to land) How ironic for SA to have that ad run opposite a solar discussion group!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding post 78, good thought. The idea of concentrating light onto PV cells has been, and is currently being, tried. The strategy, for those not familiar with it, is that mirrors are much cheaper than PV cells, and with the cost savings you can use triple junction, high efficiency cells at the focal points (or lines, I suppose).
We have some parabolic dishes on the roof of our physics building at SDSU that concentrate light onto PV cells. Unfortunatley, the PV cells burned out, but are being replaced. Cooling is paramount, as you suggested.
In a couple of months we have a talk scheduled on concentrating PV, so I'll know more then.
Fletcher
>>>--->
Integrating solar collection with mobility (www.jpods.com) enables solar to be used where it is collected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Re: Storage What is the expected efficiency of compressed air storage? Pumped hydro-electric achieves about 80%, lead acid batteries with inverter losses about 70%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that a good equivalent storage scheme would be to shut down existing hydro plants like Boulder dam, during peak sun hours. Or fitting existing hydro plants with pumping ability might be considered. I am thinking of Hydro Quebec in particular.
Wind power may not be available to the extent that sunlight is, but should not be left out of the mix. It can be installed in many areas where sun power would not be viable. It also runs more hours of the day.
I am skeptical that the numbers have been fully crunched in this plan. One area of concern that immediately occurs to me: efficiency of compressed air storage. As I understand it, our solar panels would (during the daytime) run the ENTIRE grid of the United States PLUS power compressors that would compress air to 1100 psi. At night, the compressed air generated that day would be sufficient to power the grid all night. Wow! Really?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sounds implausible to me. What is the efficiency of air compressors? What is the efficiency of generators? (energy is lost at each step). I find it very, very disturbing that the authors made no attempt to address this obvious objection.... are they trying to blow some green smoke up our backsides?
Darren -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe numbers have been crunched and are in preparation for journal articles. You have put your finger on the problem, tho - size. We have done the work to make the sizes right - enough solar to do what you describe, day and night power, all year, and despite the worst possible weather in the US SW, and after 100 more years of decent demand growth! This is something to ponder - what a wealth of domestic energy we are ignoring (and perhaps ignorant of). Perhaps people should get excited about such an opportunity?
May I ask what's unbelievable? The sunlight's there; that's proven. The CAES plants have caverns, but are otherwise like today's power plants with natural gas. Solar today is at about 15 c/kWh in the desert, and all we need is something like 10; but we think we can get to 6, with time and money - so 10 c/kWh fully dispatchable (or 15 c/kWh, worst case).
Ken
The CAES approach is interesting. Basically, in addition to the compressed air returning from the cavern, you burn some natural gas or similar clear fuel. When air decompresses, it gets cold, and ice can form, which would hurt the turbines. That's what burning gas is for, to avoid ice. There are some ideas to remove the need for burning fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe turnaround efficiency on the electricity into the facility and electricity out, minus the input of the natural gas, is in the 80% range, based on existing data.
All these nasty "in and out" losses have been included in the underlying number crunching.
Ken
3,000 gigawatts (GW) and 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays equates to 4% efficiency. Why so low, especially for ca. 2050? Did I miss a decimal point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorthernPiker
Think simple. Build vast solar arrays in cities. Germany generates 12% of its electricity with distributed solar generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are referring to the information in the Table on page 67 of the article. You need to take into account the fact that the PV arrays are only 40% of the total land area (the land area balance is the spacing between the PV arrays).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis increases the efficiency.
Note that we include all PV system losses and long-distance transmission losses into the energy balances.
A couple of previous posts seem to believe that we are modeling solar only. On page 72 of the article we list the capacities for wind, geothermal, and biomass that are included in our model. We want to max out all available renewable energy resources. For example, we model 1-TW of wind capacity, if the wind resource in the U.S. should prove capable of supporting greater wind turbine capacity then all the better. We are advocating a multiple technology solution, it just so happens that solar is the really big number that we need to focus on tapping.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/23/2007 12:40 PM
We do include a large amount of distributed PV in our model - 1.3 TW. But we need storage for a vast majority of solar and wind electricity to compensate for their intermittency characteristics. The total capacity of distributed PV without storage is limited. And in many instances wind is already up against that maximum and as mentioned in the article CAES plants are already on the drawing board for wind in Iowa and Texas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is IMPORTANT to repeat. We max out everything in renewables to get to these levels. It's just that solar is the biggest input by far, and solar is the least understood of the inputs, at least in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen
Congratulations to Scientific American and to these authors for making and publishing the logical and practical case for clean energy and energy independence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if the public and the politicians "get it", we can begin the energy revolution.
I'd be interested to see a source for the 80% CAES efficiency figure... a casual perusal of the internet didn't turn anything up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy engineering courses are long ago, but my economics and cost/benefit analysis courses are quite recent... I'm curious if this 10 cents/kwh figure includes the $420bn subsidy? It's a rather meaningless number otherwise... anything can be set to any price we like if we take the government subsidies off the balance sheet.
The first question I'm interested in is 'can this be done?' This is a question of physics. The second question is: "should it be done?", and this is a question of economics. I've recently read Cohen's "The Nuclear Option", which argues that the problems of waste disposal (the usual deal killer for Nuclear) are grossly overrated. (of course, the observation about 'hidden government subsidies' apply here as well). The fact is that the fuel for nuclear is so abundant that it may as well be free too, so we've got an interesting discussion on the future of energy here.
This was a very fine article and I agree with almost all the author's points, however no mention was made of Space Solar Power Satellites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have done a lot of research on SSPSs and find that they should be included in this plan. They may be much more efficient than solar arrays if Diamond Thermionic Electric Converters are used.
Dave Handwerk
The 10 c/kWh is [i]without[/i] subsidy. Sorry to allow that to be confusing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's generally a puzzle, how does one calculate cents/kWh from installed price in $/W? There are a lot of ways to skin this cat, but here's an example.
To first order, PV system prices are linear in dollars per watt if everything else is unchanged. In other words, in one location, two solar systems with a ratio of installed $/W prices of two to one will have the same 2:1 c/kWh ratio. What this means is that if you can come up with a c/kWh number for one system (starting with dollars per watt), you can come up with the c/kWh for any system with a different dollars per watt. (Always in the same location, with the same tracking type - or no tracking.)
So I tend to look at: How many cents per kWh is associated with an installed system price of $1/W? Then I know how much is associated with $4 or $10/W - just 4 or 10 times more.
First Solar has done some analysis available at their last few "analyst presentations" that associate 4 cents/kWh with $1/W in the US SW. Thus if a system is installed at $4/W - like the one they've already done with [url http://www.juwi.de/international/information/press/PR_Solar_Power_Plant_Brandis_2007_02_eng.pdf]JUWI Group[/url] - then the equivalent price is 16 c/kWh. First Solar also projects and has a technical roadmap to $2/W installed, which would be 8 c/kWh. Our long term goal is just a little better than that - 6 c/kWh (without the inverter, which we don't use, itself costing about 1 c/kWh). There is almost no O&M since these are nontracking flat plate arrays.
BTW, these are for 30 year life prices. But since system degradation rates are now about 0.5% per year, and no one would throw away a system producing 85% of its rated power, these PV systems may last 60 years, and real levelized costs of electricity could be 40% lower than we indicate. [i]We do not say a word about that in the article[/i], but it may turn out to be very important.
Another way to get c/kWh is the following formula:
$/kWh = (cost recovery factor of about .1) x (total system price/annual system output in kWh) + O&M
So for a 100 W module in the US SW producing 240 kWh/year and cost installed with all the rest of the necessary structure and land, $200, it would be:
$/kWh = .095 x ($200/240 kWh) = $0.079/kWh + O&M (about 0.1 c/kWh) = $0.08/kWh .
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/23/2007 7:25 PM
Thanks, John - always good to hear from you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen
Thank you for committing a plan to paper. It is a measure against which other plans can be judged and progress measured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy general comment on the plan is that it is too conservative and underplays the potential of, perhaps the need for, distributed PV. Conservatism is good in that removes much of the technical risk but the plan is conservative in that it assumes:
(Repeat of 103; it was truncated)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for committing a plan to paper. It is a measure against which other plans can be judged and progress measured.
My general comment on the plan is that it is too conservative and underplays the potential of, perhaps the need for, distributed PV. Conservatism is good in that removes much of the technical risk but the plan is too conservative in that it assumes:
- No significant increase in the efficiency of PV modules over the next 44 years,
- No significant advances in energy storage technology, e.g., battery technology, and,
- A slow down in the growth rate of PV from the current 30% rate, which projects to an increase in the current global deployment of PV from 6GW in 2006 to 45 TW in 2040. (US deployment should run at 10% or more of these numbers since it currently represents 30% of the global energy consumption.)
A low ratio of distributed PV to centralized PV that is not warranted given the NIMBY resistance to additional power transmission and distribution lines which a centralized solution requires. This resistance is a threat to the reliability of the existing power grid now and it will not go away.
The other problem with this "sustainable" energy infrastructure is that the CAES system appears to require - indefinitely - inputs of natural gas, in order to cool the gas down and make the turbines work more efficiently on the output stage. The sheer *scale* of the potential input of natgas needed is worrying... we're supposed to be getting *away* from fossil fuel use, not making a $420bn investment in perpetuating the use of vast quantities of it... that can only end in tears. The authors say "there are ideas" to get around this.... but if the purpose of the article was to assert that there is workable technology on the table right now that can make solar the backbone of our energy system indefinitely, they have not succeeded (if I have understood everything correctly).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPiker, in a way, you are right. We are way too conservative. No progress in conversion efficiency post-2020? It's really silly. But even with that, we do better than fossil fuels business as usual. So we stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNIMBY is also a very familiar problem. I think it extends way further than we acknowledge. We consider being free of all kinds of economic aspects to be part of our lifestyles. If we domesticate energy supply (and reap all the economic rewards), we will have to change and accept a lot in our backyards. Whether it's 10,000 nuclear power plants (10 TW) or using a major part of the US deserts for solar, we will have to adjust.
Distributed PV? Maybe not enough roof space and then you face Midwest agriculture or clearing trees in the East. Right now, I am guessing it's better to stick with the SW. But, really, we don't know how all this will go. Same with new batteries or better superconductors for transmission or storage - bring them on! We tried to give a proof-of-concept based on existing technologies, not a strait jacket. We can do this in stages and still be flexible to change.
Good post, Piker.
Ken
Darren - we have included all the natural gas inputs in our calculations - they are not a major factor. Some of the approaches to get away from natural gas would be biomass sources of methane (much easier than cellulosic ethanol), gasified coal, or solar hydrogen. The good news: [u]We have included the CO2 from these sources with CAES, and the total US CO2 is still way below where it is [b]today[/b], and this in 2100, when we are using triple the energy.[/u]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone mentioned that this would be useless without China. But of course, we are showing the way for China and India by doing this. They have plenty of sunlight and land area.
BTW, the purpose of the combustion in CAES is to heat the expanding air before it reaches the turbines, to protect the turbine blades from ice.
Ken
This is a response to Post 99 - Darren X regarding the 80% efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEfficiency defined as the ratio energy in electricity output to the amount of energy going into the electricity production (Energy Out/Energy In).
A kilowatt-hour of electricity has 3,412 Btu.
From actual operating information from the AEC McIntosh, Alabama CAES plant, which has been operating since 1991, the heat rate (fuel consumption) is 4,100 Btu/kWh of electricity produced.
Therefore, the efficiency is 3412/4100 = 83%. However, we must adjust this to take into account the energy that goes into compressing the air (this is commonly referred to as the energy ratio (energy going into air compression to the energy in the electricity produced). Again from actual operating data from the McIntosh CAES plant, which is storing compressed air at 1,100 psi, the compression energy ration is 0.8 kWh/kWh of electricity produced.
Now in our situation the energy being used for air compression is PV or wind electricity, not the electricity from a fossil fuel power plant.
The life cycle primary energy (fossil fuel) consumption of a PV power plant is 340 Btu/kWh of electricity. We assume that we will lose 10% of the electricity by transporting it 1,500 from the PV power plant in the SW to a CAES plant located somewhere in the U.S. at an average distance of 1,500 miles. Therefore, the total primary energy in a kWh of PV electricity is 340/0.9 = 380 Btu/kWh. From above, only 80% of this energy is used for air compression per kWh of electricity production by the CAES plant. This is 300 Btu of PV fossil fuel energy / kWh of CAES electricity production.
Adding this 300 Btu/kWh to the CAES power plant fuel consumption of 4,100 Btu/kWh gives us total fossil fuel consumption of 4,400 Btu/kWh.
The end result is fossil fuel efficiency of 3,412 Btu out / 4,400 Btu in, which is a 78% efficiency.
And if we had the time I could demonstrate how we can do even better once we start recycling the heat from the compressors in some type of combined cycle or adiabatic gas turbine configuration, which will be occurring once this technology is adopted on a large scale. You may be asking "Why haven't I heard about this before?" Lee Davis, manager of the AEC McIntosh Alabama plant asks the same question.
In response to the question just above this - about us being overly conservative. Yes we are. The point we are trying to make is that we should be getting started in earnest addressing energy security and climate change with the technology on the shelf today since it is capable of getting the job done without any improvements.
Over time things will get better.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/23/2007 7:13 PM
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/23/2007 7:15 PM
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/23/2007 7:23 PM
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your post 101 computing the energy cost, if I've looked at what you've written correction, the cost comes to about 79 cents per kwh. I know that the levelized cost of energy for $2000 per kw is not that much - probably about 15 cents per kwh (working with input from Xcel Energy that $4500 per kw subsidy results in a levelized cost of energy of about 32 cents per kwh). And note that this cost does not include the capital cost of CAES and losses and gas cost for this part of the energy generation.
So I ask that we be careful on defining what the conversion factor is for cost per kw to resulting levelized cost of energy.
One other point. I note that from reading all the discussion on this paper, most emphasis is on pv with only passing comment on CSP. I, personally believe, that CSP - Thermal represents the more direct path to the goal of the Grand Solar Plan. And I want to be sure that as subsidies are put in place that there is a level playing field between pv and CSP. This isn't the case in the state RPS's which are providing subsidies to rooftop pv and do not aglomorate this money to provide equivalent subsidies to CSP.
Sol - the $4/W is 16 cents; $2/W is 8. The calculation in my post comes out to that, too. Please take a look at it again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just for the PV alone. With the rest of the costs, [u]dispatchable[/u] electricity would come out closer to 11-12 c/kWh.
Thanks for adding your insights about CSP. There's no doubt that CSP has great attractions. The presence of heat storage and the possible use of natural gas for back up are good flexibilities.
Ken
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not important; and I'm no exper on levelized cost of energy, but the arithmetic in your post 101 is copied here:
"$/kWh = .095 x ($200/240 kWh) = $0.079/kWh" This was my comment on 79 cents/kwh.
My primary input is to totally support getting the necessary subsidies for solar in the Southwest and to get serious study for how we will grow a high voltage dc superhighway to truly move to solar as the backbone of our energy base.
I'm happly to leave the battle between PV and CSP to the market place - WITH A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
Congratulations on getting a Great Idea moving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy being so conservative about forthcoming
technologies you demonstrate that manufacturing
economies of scale with existing technology alone can
allow us to reach a high level of energy independence.
Those same economies of scale also make it economically
feasible to convert some of the millions of acres of existing
brownfields into mini solar farms in other areas of
the country.
When you add CIGS, thin film amorphous silicon, building
integrated photovoltaics, concentrating PV, and technologies
just entering pilot plant stage to the mix and combine that
with nanostructured hydrogen storage, next generation fuel
cells and a breathrough in battery technology then energy
independence closer to 2030 starts looking like a possible
goal.
A word of thanks also to those posting comments for being
thoughtful, articulate, and free of the mean spiritedness
that all to often poison these discussions.
Jack Star, editor of solarsavannah.com and solarcitiesusa.com
Thanks for your kind words. I personally want to acknowledge that these ideas are current among many people who live and breathe solar like yourself, and we have merely acted on that energy to do some arithmetic, add a few ideas, and place it before the public in a respected venue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRespectfully,
Ken
This is in response to the question about our method of estimating electricity prices. We use the "net present value cash flow" method to generate CSP, PV, and CAES electricity price estimates. This method is quite a bit different from the back-of-the-napkin method Ken and Sol were discussing (which by the way is pretty close since these guys have been in the business forever and really know what they are talking about ... but).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe used the standard Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) financial assumptions: a 30-year capital recovery period, a 55/45 debt/equity ratio, a nominal 6.5% return on debt, a nominal 10% return on equity, a 2% annual insurance and property tax rate, a 38.2% federal/state income tax rate, MACRS depreciation, a 1.9 annual inflation rate, 3-year construction period with three equal payments for construction costs and materials, a 5% replacement cost every ten years, a 30-year book life and a 20-year tax life, and a 5% discount rate (after tax, weighted average, real discount rate).
All levelized price estimates are sensitive to the underlying financial assumptions. Therefore, it should always be kept in mind when comparing electricity price estimates for different electricity producers that the comparison is valid only if the estimates are generated with the same set of financial assumptions.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/23/2007 11:38 PM
James,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Computing the levelized cost of energy; I think the bottom line is that PV and CSP are both at least a factor of 2 away from where they need to be to become competititve and that to get there, one critical element is to build enough facilities - requirng some form of subsidy (RPS type, e.g.) - to let learning curves bring the price down as well as to continue R&D as applicable - requirng funding, probably much from the government as well as from industry -seeking improvements and breakthroughs.
I have a few questions about the High Voltage Direct Current Transmission scheme. Why are DC transmission losses lower? Less induction loss? How would you increase and then lower the voltage of a DC current? AC's original advantage over DC, of course, was the ability to readily transform voltage levels...Jim Mills
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSol you are so right. We need a 10-year national deployment plan for CSP and PV with subsidy schedules specifically designed to bring each of the technologies to a non-subsidized competitive position at the end of ten years (this is the $420 billion subsidy stated in the article).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you state, a critical part of the National Solar (Hansen) Plan is the design of a national high voltage DC transmission system out of the Southwest. Maybe the first stage should be a HVDC transmission system to the Southeast through Texas and another link to California and on up the west coast to Portland and Seattle. Then the second stage would be to extend the lines into the central and northern sections of the country.
This leads to the importance of the messages posted earlier by Plourde and Strasser about the need for people on a local level across the country to get the message to our political leaders. Strasser's idea of organizing focus groups at the county level is excellent.
In reponse to why line losses for DC are less than AC, it is because of induction and skin effect losses in AC circuits. The flow of electrons in a DC circuit is uniform, whereas it is not in an AC circuit. The savings in electricity losses in DC transmission systems (plus the lower construction costs due to less land area required by DC transmission lines to compensate for electromagnetic field effects) will offset the high cost for DC to AC conversion terminals at junction points in the system.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/24/2007 9:17 AM
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/24/2007 9:27 AM
In post 92, Ken says: "The turnaround efficiency on the electricity into the facility and electricity out, minus the input of the natural gas, is in the 80% range, based on existing data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is incorrect, according to the very numbers you are using! The correct calculation is 75%. And I wish you had included this in the article! It is a useful basis for comparison to, say, lead-acid batteries or pumped water storage.
I got the numbers from post 108 by James Mason, based on the McIntosh plant: 0.8 kWh electricity input into storage per kWh output; 4100 Btu of gas used per kWh output; gas is used at a rate of 40% of a gas-only system. I see that you have assumed a 33.3% efficient gas-only system (4100 Btu is 40% of 10250 Btu, which would be used by a 33.3% system to make 1 kWh).
The compressed air plus gas system generates an extra 0.6 kWh compared to a 33.3% efficient gas-only system using the same 4100 Btu of gas, that would have generated 0.4 kWh. So, the turnaround efficiency is 0.6 kWh (the gain from using compressed air) divided by 0.8 kWh (the input electricity to create the compressed air) = 75% return on input electricity.
Marc Ringuette
Jim,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me address the issue of organization you mentioned in post 117. If we are serious, we need to create groups across the country (to include the Southwest and as you suggest the Southeast - though I wonder whether supplying Chicago at the shorter distance to start might be an alternate). And so, here, I've raised one question. I'd be happy to participate in such a group from Colorado. I'm not a member of any groups, but have very good contacts at e/v groups and the CSP industry. I was on the Solar Task Force of the Western Governors Association.
So will someone step up to lead (I don't want that role - retired and like the freedom) and provide your email address or a website for this organization?
Sol - we are talking about it offline. Some seasonal interruptions right at this moment. Thanks for the suggestion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note, has anyone seen any traditional media pick this up? Can we get some help with that?
Thanks,
Ken
re. mainstream press; sorry cant find anything over here, but the Guardian is on board for the north africa plan;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/02/renewableenergy.solarpower][/url]
and report a german plan for concentrated solar power in deserts also;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/nov/27/renewableenergy.environment
re. the ecological effect, it seems counterintuitive that the panels would cause a net heating effect, i long assumed plant like this would cool the ground by using or reflecting more directly the sunlight, and also possibly catch nighttime moisture.
i just wrote an email to mr. Brown about the proposed new coal fired power station in england (!) and mentioned solar, the politicians are obviously the 'critical control points' now, industry is raring to go and a majority of the people are up for it.
we in europe are in a good position to mix wind, wave and solar for a more constant supply, given a new d.c. 'international grid', and there are plenty of possibilities for using surplus energy for desalination and hydrogen generation.
i love the idea (a few pages back) of collecting flash flood runoff for hydrogen production, in desert areas, but yes, surely that would add to the heating effect.
--
Edited by u.k.gerda at 12/24/2007 1:03 PM
--
Edited by u.k.gerda at 12/24/2007 1:12 PM
--
Edited by u.k.gerda at 12/24/2007 1:13 PM
There isn't much awareness in the US among the traditional media of solar energy. I'd estimate the US knowledge/interest is about 5-8 years behind Europe in these matters. Like many others, we are planting the seed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen
On the issue of waiting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've spent about 30 years in PV and most of it in things people had to wait for. On the minimal amount of resources we had, innovative and motivated people made a lot of surprising progress. Now there are options that didn't exist before, actually able to contribute to our Grand Plan.
Over the next period of time, new and better options will also emerge, no doubt about it. And any plan needs to be flexible and responsive, and invest in them.
At the same time, when you are trying to go from New York to Los Angeles, you don't have to wait for a geodesic road to be built - we now have roads. That's what we are trying to show. Once people know there are roads to successfully produce all our energy and avoid most of our CO2, they can start driving - not waiting for the perfect road.
Ken
The use of solar power has got to be the best. I am concerned about three aspects of the plot. Firstly the idea of long distance transmission. Good for fossil fuel plants perhaps, but very very inefficient because of the significant line losses. I believe the efficiency of the current AC power system is less than 10% from source to consumer. DC wont be much if any better. The best solution is local generation with no long transmission lines. Secondly is the matter of storage for night time and less sunny days. Ontario Hydro (now Hydro One) has been doing this for years. During off peak load hours they use some of the generators as motors to pump water up a hill into a storage pond. During peak demand they let that water run down through the generators again. With solar it would be possible to use the excess solar heat, and there is plenty of it, to pump water up a hell. We plan to do this at my own home. Finally, to be considered is efficiency. Efficiency is very important with fossil fuel generation but solar efficiency is less important. It may be wise to attempt some efficiency in collector design but if that efficiency is at the expense of production efficiency then it would be better to make larger more economical and less efficient collectors and more of them than to make a few very expensive highly efficient collectors. My own experience is that even the most inefficient solar collectors get very hot. In fact too hot sometimes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn advantage of localised solar power is that there is no need to convert that power to electricity when the end use is to be for heating. Small solar parabolic collectors can reach temperatures that will melt steel. Definitely capable of heating or cooling a house or for heating hot water or cooking or clothes drying or refrigeration. Thing is we dont need to do this by 2050. We need to get it done before 1950 or reap the consequences. We need to do it now.
Better go solar-thermal to electric in 5 years, not 50. Solar thermal conversion is at least 30% efficient. Store excess thermal energy underground for nighttime steam generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving installed the largest residential PV solar system in San Diego, I've tracked the solar industry closely. Your vision is right on target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne key is to avoid left/right politicization of this issue. There are interests met on the part of conservatives (energy independence) as well as progressives (reduced risk of man-made global warming). Resist the temptation to align with a party view that takes this issue on for partisan interests.
At a macro level, renewable solar energy is moving at the pace of prior technology breakthroughs, so have confidence and push as hard as you can!
How much was/is being spent on the IRAK war - in comparison to the $420 billion for this program ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe North could make its contribution too, by harnessing very strong currents and high tides off the coast of Canada and Alaska.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat, we need it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is late for today , but it is not for tomorrow .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisonly a person does nothing , this grand plan may not be successful .
Act now , all of us , do anything you could .
Hello Everyone
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have enjoyed the discussion and the article , but have a few comments .
What prevents the efficiencies from being greater then stated ? Can't the pressurized systems just use water and generate steam directly with a small turbine/generator on each collector ? This would reduce the system failure if the main collector broke . We use the same redundancy at work so we can always produce some product instead of loosing everything at once . Can the parabolic dish be designed to produce higher energy transfer per square foot then currently designed ? Would internal fins inside the collection tube be more productive to the transfer of energy ?
ben126
what are the immediate damages to the earth? how long will it take for the future benefits to surpass the immediate damages? i found this article very interesting, though i found the article to be lacking information about the pollution done to the environment from building the solar panels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be far cheaper to convert all power stations to geothermal energy by digging a ten kilometre lined and capped water well, a Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator. This would cut CO2 emissions by 30%, and 50% if all vehicles use electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVasilis Fthenakis is a world-class expert on the environmental impacts of manufacturing, installing, operating, and disposing of PV. PV life-cycle studies can be found at the Center for Life Cycle Analysis at Columbia University, of which Vasilis Fthenakis is the founding director.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.clca.columbia.edu/publications.html
PV power plants (Southwest installations) are a near-zero CO2 emissions electricity production technology with a CO2 emissions rate of 25 g CO2/kWh of electricity production and with a primary (total life-cycle fossil fuel) energy consumption rate of only 320 Btu/kWh of electricity production.
I am not aware of life-cycle studies for concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, but the results should be somewhat similar to PV. Hence, CSP is ripe for a rigorous life-cycle study.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/26/2007 12:40 AM
A bold and exciting plan. These are the kinds of things our government should be moving on instead of wasting money on other things. While it costs billions that's spread over many years and the payoff is so dramatic I believe it's well worth the effort. I say we start adopting the plan immediately. I'd vote for it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshel
sheldba@bellsouth.net
I also hope that we can act on the Plan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we do not, we face spending half a trillion dollars abroad every year, and worse, to import oil. We face continued polarization of countries into the "haves" and "have nots" and all that implies. We face economic issues at home that will add to our employment and lifestyle pain. We face increasing and probably accelerating CO2 emissions if we use more coal, and we lead the world down the path of increasing emissions.
It is physically possible and fiscally plausible to start right now incorporating GWs of solar power, bringing down the price through seeding technological and "learning by doing" advances. Similarly, we can alert our moribund auto industry to see the opportunity of shifting to electrified transportation. Maybe this would be a way to wake them up. Then as the need for electric storage developed, we'd be implementing CSP with thermal storage and distributed CAES plants, fed by the initial HVDC lines.
Each year we wait is a year we dig deeper into our energy/environment/national security mess.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/26/2007 8:02 AM
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/26/2007 8:19 AM
Thanks for covering the impact of production of PV cells on the environment. I am willing to accept the eventual benefit. One issue that still remains that has not been addressed that I have seen is the need to clean PV surfaces of dust so that production does not fall off as dust accumulates. Has that been factored in to your plan as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor PV, we included a reduction in output from dust, and a continuous degradation of output by 1% per year, despite existing levels apparently closer to half a percent per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe initially submitted an article over 10 times longer than the one published, with all these numbers explicitly called out. However, Scientific American is not the right venue for such detail - instead, we are submitting articles to technical journals to fill out the complete picture.
Thanks,
Ken
This is an unrealistic plan:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- its time horizon is far to far away. Creating a plan for the coming 40 years, with todays technology, is like solving the first oilcrisis (1970) with second world war technology.
- The the word "subsidy" sounds strange in a US plan even for a European like me.
But it is a very good idea to put a price on carbon emmission.
Just make the cost of greenhouse gas emmision that high, that you create a market for emmision free energy.
And the market will solve the problem, more or less. If the market is not corrupted by fossile power.
And as is stated in other comments, the total price of the transition to a fossile free energy is not costly, given the amount of money that was and stil is burned in the Irak war.
Just as an illustration: If al the 1000 billion was spent on windturbines that were built on US mainland, the US would now have the capacity to deliver electricity for free to both North and South America, for free. Just do the math.
You make some good points that should be well thought through.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if we can find a least-cost approach to TWs of renewables through a different set of steps? Suppose we started with the most cost-effective technologies today and then moved into the newer ones as we needed them. Could we do this?
I suspect we could to a degree. We could build wind turbines as fast as possible, as they are the most cost-effective now. However, we would soon run up against issues of intermittency, as we aready see in Europe; and issues with using up the most attractive wind regimes. Wind is sensitive to the cube of the wind spead (solar prices are linear). Half the wind speed implies 8 times higher prices (2 cubed). That's another way of saying we are harvesting the high-end of the wind resource.
Corn ethanol is also "easy," but it is limited in value. It is a great transitional fuel, tho. We need sensible biomass based fuels, and need to work on them.
Meanwhile, we could be building PV and CSP for daytime, peak power needs. This may be acceptable, as the wind and solar outputs tend to be complementary (solar during the day, wind at night). Thus storage needs would come on reasonably slowly. At the same time, we could learn how to do CSP with thermal storage; and PV and wind with CAES, while starting to move electrons by HVDC from distant places - the SW and from high wind locations.
Simultaneously, "Detroit" could be stimulated to move to 80/20 electric/fuel hybrids, which will take time, but is essential.
Homeowners also need to move to solar and to geothermal heat pumps, the best way to move away from fossil fuels for heating.
R&D could be intensified for newer technologies, and as they come on line, we can incorporate them.
And as we intensified our demand on renewables, we'd find ourselves looking for the most and most economical terawatts, and that would almost certainly be coming from solar in the US SW.
Ours is a proof of concept, not a strait jacket. It is an invitation to the imagination.
Thanks for helping us clarify this,
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/26/2007 10:10 AM
I appreciate your willingness to enter the dialog concerning your proposal with the general public. I also appreciate your willingness to take counter proposals and perceived difficulties as good faith arguments by those who also want to see a solution to the problem of greenhouse gasses as well as the geopolitical difficulties inherent in the transfer of large amounts of money to unstable and unelected governments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’ve read y’alls (you and your co-authors) responses to the various posts, and have taken the responses as a team position, if you were. Usually, in internet discussions, I assume that each person speaks for themselves, but a joint presentation in a paper tends to indicate that, unless otherwise indicated, that the authors have achieved consensus and that each one is presenting the consensus position.
OK, so let me go on to discussing my position/y’alls responses. It appears to me that you have come to the conclusions that the only way to significantly reduce and eventually eliminate the reliance on oil and coal is to convert to solar power. I see that there are a number of possible solutions that are not simply niche players. They include:
1) Wind
2) Sequestering
3) Solar
4) Nuclear Fusion
5) Nuclear Fission
As a poster in another thread on this subject pointed out, the last issue is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, so let’s discuss that first. I am fairly familiar with radiation, I’ve been working with it for 30 years or so, and have been a RSO. I am in a somewhat unique position in that my expertise includes nuclear issues, but my paycheck comes from fossil fuels….so I don’t have an economic bias that is blinding me on this issue.
In the latest issue in my blog, I discussed radioactivity in some detail. In a later response in this thread, I specifically addressed the risked inherent in nuclear accidents.
Chernobyl is a reasonable worst case accident. It was in the Soviet Union, which had a long and storied history of placing a low value on human life, the reactor was built without containment, the engineers (who by some reports were drunk) were playing games with the reactor….and disaster struck. 100 million curies were released into the air as a result of this. And, the known death toll from this was 40-60 people.
Now, I’m certainly not arguing that this is inconsequential. Rather, I’m arguing that the death of a person is equally bad no matter what the preventable cause is. A million people per year dying of malaria in Africa is far worse than 40-60 dying from an accident. Indeed, the death toll from cell phones per month is far greater than this toll, felt over years.
Now, the numbers quoted for the death toll from Chernobyl is usually far higher than this. The reason for this is the assumption of linear scaling for low level radiation exposure. This is the most conservative possible assumption, and is clearly false for other sources of death (e.g. carbon monoxide). In addition, data obtained over the past 50 years, with a few outliers, tend to show that there is a threshold exposure level below which there is no effect.
As mentioned in the thread referenced below, the variation in exposure to natural radiation as a function of locality gives a good reference point for this. The average person in Denver receives about 1040 millirem of radiation from radon, compared to about 200 for the average American. Radon, by the nature of the exposure, should primarily be responsible for lung cancer. If the linear hypothesis were true, then there should be a significant excess of lung cancers in Denver over the national average, especially for non-smokers. Yet, we do not see this obvious smoking gun.
So, if one compares apples to apples, one would argue that nuclear power is far safer than bicycles, cell phones, ladders, tricycles, etc. We do not ban these items because people might die as a result of their use. If global warming is a real, significant problem, then I can’t see how one could argue that we should eschew nuclear power because it is possible that someone might die due to an accident, while we accept children dying at far far higher rates from other accidents.
I realize that the argument has always been “what if we have a catastrophe?†My answer is that we had one, and less than 100 people died. Far fewer than die every month from more mundane accidents.
Nuclear power, in Europe and Japan, has been a cost competitive form of providing electricity. These countries have not had the massive investment in nuclear weapons and research that the US has (particularly Japan). In China it cannot compete easily with dirty coal, but it is far cheaper than other green forms of energy.
Wind power is now marginally competitive, with only a 50% subsidy (3 cents/ kWh vs. a sales price of 6 cents/kWh). Many companies are investing massive amounts of money into large scale wind projects. So, wind is now far ahead of solar on the economic feasibility curve.
I know the problem with wind…there are not enough high wind sites to produce enough electricity with our present understanding. But, I think that an investment in mesoscopic physics research could produce advancements in material science that could allow us to build larger turbines that would allow more energy to be harvested for every sq. mi. of wind farm (I realize that it scales linearly with height, because there is no net gain in area….but a turbine with 500 foot blades should be able to produce close to 5x as much power as one with 100 foot blades.
Carbon sequestering is an unknown; we haven’t done enough to know how easy/expensive it might be. But, it would seem reasonable to invest in understanding the problems that are involved and what would be needed to bring costs down to, say, $50/ton CO2.
Fusion is still 30 years off, as it was in the ‘50s. But, if we could develop the technology, it is a compact form of power that, in principal, would have modest capital costs.
Finally, with solar, you’ve made the argument for it.
My view is that we should have a carbon tax which would pay for incentives to produce green power/sequester CO2. I’ve written a bit here, and will not try to do an extensive calculation on the amounts needed, but let’s say $100/ton of CO2 tax/ a $100/ton payment for CO2 sequestering, and a 3 cent kWh subsidy for electricity that does not depend on fossil fuel subsidy. At that point, we let people risk their own money on their own ideas and see what happens.
>The government's role? Sure, hit or miss, but in this case, with "global commons"
>issues as the drivers (global warming and energy supply/tensions) it has a key role,
>like it or not.
I agree it has a key role, my argument is that we should determine the roll by considering what governments are good at and what they are bad at. Governments are terrible at predicting cost effective and innovative technology. They are good at setting the ground rules…as long is it is done in the most general sense possible. They are good at funding research. IMHO, my proposal plays to that strength. I think focusing on solar power picks our path forward long before we know what it is.
>In fact, energy is probably the most regulated of all industries, so the move of
>government into renewables is just maintaining a level playing field with existing
>energy alternatives.
I realize that’s a popular myth, but if we look at the taxes paid by oil companies, we see that their tax rate is far higher than the nominal corporate tax rate (42% vs. 33%). The depletion allowance for coal is higher than it should nominally be. But as my blog on this subject points out, this subsidy is not more than 3% of sales. This is dwarfed by the 50% subsidy that wind gets.
As for nuclear power, the anti-nuclear movement has succeeded in adding tremendous costs to nuclear power in the US. The fact that other countries are planning/building nuclear power plants without the massive (in terms of the total cost/price) subsidies that are given to wind power and solar power throughout the world indicates that nuclear power is more than cost competitive with wind and solar on a level playing field.
So, in conclusion, I think that there are a number of things we can do to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The most cost effective immediate thing we can do is choose nuclear power as a replacement for proposed coal plants. Subsidized wind comes next in cost effectiveness. Solar power is one of a number of definate maybes for a long term solution. I think we should explore all of these, without choosing one prematurely.
Thanks for your cogent, well-argued plan. It is certainly food for thought for all of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will only lightly touch on your points, as I think our fellow readers will have a lot to say about them, too.
I was at a talk where the issue of purposeful attack on nuclear reactors came up. The prospect seemed quite awful. Our plan goes through 2100 and is equivalent to about 10,000 nuclear reactors. I don't want to get too graphic on this subject, but it is a major concern.
BTW, I am moved by your arguments in favor of a measured assessment of risks.
We also need more of an emergency reaction to importing oil, if we are not to bankrupt ourselves. That means an adjustment in transportation.
It's interesting to put all the "grand plans" on the table and have a dialogue. Thanks for adding yours. Others are also most welcome.
Ken
I haven't read all the postings due to time constraints but has anyone thought about security costs? Seems like this project would be a terrorist target. People in the Mideast are not going to be happy about our becoming independent of their oil even if it is down the road a bit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe enormous scale of this project, I believe, opens it up to sabotage and terrorist activity. We can't just hire your neighborhood security firm to watch over this.
Otherwise I like the idea itself and the thought that has gone into it. It gives me a warm fuzzy. But I also agree with the others that have expressed concern about Government getting involved and the political ramifications. I would much rather the Government give me a tax credit to help pay for a personal Solar System.
Thanks for your time.
Fantastic! I have been waiting for somone to do this. Energy independence should be though of as a priority one national security issue. America curently spends over 300 Billion dollars a year on foreign oil, most of that going to people who hate us. The Iraq war is projected to cost nearly 2 Trillion dollars and like it or not is fundimentally about control of oil supplies. Energy independence would pay for itself many times over in increased security and increased foriegn policy options. In add ition it would employ tens of thousands of Americans doing what we do best: technology. We will never compete with developing nations for cheap labor but we COULD lead the way in high tec, renewable energy production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGermany is building a very large wind and PV infrastructure. It is however mainly based on a smart feed-in tarrif. When someone invests in decentral or home based wind or PV generation, the feed-in tarrif is known and fixed for about 20 years. And the Feed-in tarrif is profitable from day 1 on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo investors know the financial future of their project.
The german feed-in tarrif is higher than german market prices for electricity, but by law, distributors are obliged to buy the sustainable electricity. The distributor is allowed to include the higher feed-in tarrif in its sales price.
It is this arrangement, fixed feed-in tarrif, and every electricity consumer paying for the higher feed-in tarrif, that makes the system very effective.
The PV and windbusiness does the rest of the German sustainable growth.
Local wind projects in germany have a large share of local ownership, which accounts for the social acceptability for large windturbines in crowded areas. See also Windpark Wiki
ebel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations to you and your fellow authors. I am especially pleased to read the final paragraph of A Solar Grand Plan. I am hoping you will further influence key decision-makers toward developing and implementing more genuinely sustainable energy supply patterns for the US and other countries. I am also very delighted to see you representing the authors in this forum.
I am mindful of the seminal article, Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken? by Amory Lovins, originally published 31 years ago, in "Foreign Affairs" October 1976.
That article described energy strategies in terms of soft and hard energy, rather than in terms of sustainablilty. Below is a point summary, within brief, contextualizing quotes, which explains what is meant by soft:
" ... social structure is significantly shaped by the rapid deployment of soft technologies. These are defined by five characteristics:
"
r_lenzo, lots of good points in your post. Really, we have to make some adjustments to our new energy world, soon. It may be a big challenge, but it's also a big opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHenk - yes, the German's have a LOT to be proud of, really setting an example for the rest of us. In fact, we use the feed in tariff as a model for our approach, too.
Knuttsen-Boltzmann - your post got chopped up. Please try again.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/26/2007 2:39 PM
The issue of energy security needs to be of paramount importance. There are several characteristics of a Southwest centered solar system that help mitigate security concerns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Solar plants are modular. A bomb or missile strike to the solar field will cripple only a very small fraction of the total electricity output of the solar power plant. Solar modules are aligned in arrays (series of interconnected modules), which comprise rows that are separated by vacant land area between the rows. An attack would cripple one or two arrays, and these could be disconnected rapidly from the unaffected arrays and power production continued albeit at a lower rate. The decommissioned arrays can be replaced relatively quickly, and the plant brought back to full power capacity. This is in contrast to a conventional power plant, where conceivably a single bomb could permanently cripple the total plant.
Also, Dan M. tries to downplay the severity of the Chernobyl accident but federal hearings held about what if the 9/11 terrorists had decided to attack the Indian Point reactors just north of NYC. Evidence suggests that the planes would have penetrated the reactor containment shells and possibly have triggered a meltdown. I live on Long Island and we cannot be evacuated in a timely manner. And what about long-term displacement of people caused by the Chernobyl accident. What would have been the long-term impact on NYC in terms of displaced people if the Indian Point nuclear plant had been attacked and a meltdown triggered (it is unimaginable). There is zero chance of anything like this occurring with the Grand Solar Plan.
2) The large, highly exposed land area of individual solar plants will be monitored by camera and motion detection systems, which will make it very difficult for terrorists to penetrate solar plant perimeters undetected.
3) Many transmission lines will be distributing solar electricity out of the Southwest. The pylons (metal towers) that hold-up electricity transmission lines are designed for total line capacity of 1-3 gigawatts (GW) of power transmission capacity. Therefore, if we are transmitting terawatts (TW) of power out of the Southwest, there will be at least a thousand or more individual power line systems. Once, again a "successful" terrorist attack would disable only a very small percentage of electricity distribution. And, damaged pylons can be repaired relatively quickly.
4) The electricity system in the U.S. is designed to have spare or reserve capacity to insure uninterrupted electricity supply in the event of plant or transmission disruptions. The reserve capacity requirements are approximately 15-20% of total system capacity. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that an attack on solar plants or transmission lines will be able to disrupt electricity production or distribution at a scale to greater than the built-in system reserve capacity.
5) The huge land area of the Great Southwest. The distribution of solar plants will be less concentrated than the high concentration of oil and natural gas facilities along the intercoastal waterway from Houston to New Orleans.
[b]Government Policies[/b]:
I do not understand how the Grand Solar Plan is asking for any more government assistance than has been given to the development of other energy sectors over the course of their development. And I see the potential for much less government involvement over the long-term, 50-year horizon.
The national development of the U.S. electrical system in the early part of the 20th century required major government involvement from transmission line right-of-ways (use of eminent domain), investment tax credits, huge public power projects such as New York Power Authority, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Hoover Dam, the Coolidge Dam, etc. Also, consider the case of the nuclear pwer industry. Add up the total 65-year federal R&D budget for nuclear power, insurance guarantees, loan guarantees, end-of-plant federal obligations, federal waste disposal obligations, investment tax credits, the allowance of charging electricity rates while nuclear plants are under construction and before they actually produce electricity because of their very long construction periods. These prior electricity production rates are allowed under CWIP (Construction Work In Progress) statutes.
Government involvement with the development of the oil and natural gas industry. I would have to write a book, but I make my point by simply focusing on one type of government assistance to these industries - security. Annual military expenditures to protect our oil and natural gas interests in just the areas of Columbia, Nigeria, and the Mideast is conservatively running at over $100 billion per year. And this does not account for the tremendous impact of the balance of trade imbalances, which is requiring government involvement to mitigate impacts on the U.S. economy through monetary policies enacted by the Federal Reserve.
We are asking for a set time period of price support subsidies that in total dollar amounts are less that the annual expenditures for the National Farm Price Support Program (which is justified in national security terms) and the Iraq war (which also is justified in national security terms). Are not national energy independence and climate change mitigation major national security concerns?
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/26/2007 3:26 PM
A second, shorter post, for all interested:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo essential links are:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E77-01_TheRoadNotTaken.pdf and
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/wvevaluationposted.pdf
Implicit in the points made by Amory Lovins, but more fundamental , is the analytical basis for determining sustainability. While many other systems of energy flow analysis have been cited in recent literature, the EPA study, linked above, titled:
Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia
provides a system which adequately accounts for both the natural and built environment systems affected by development in an industrialized economy.
It seems to me that West Virginia exemplifies an area that has much to gain from an environmentally friendly National Energy Policy.
The public debate on Grand Plans and Energy Strategies is long overdue. I hope the debate will be much better informed as a result of your work.
Great news, but no one seems to be following up on Sergent's infrared solar tech. If we could improve in both fields, we could produce renewable energy 24/7. There has to be a way to get more info to the masses!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat points and counter points...Seems to be a great waste of monies for a project that will probably "collect dust." By the time they get around to building it, technology (hopefully) will have become more efficient; Kudos anyway. Let's fund more research into a cure and not a band-aid. Did it really take 30+ years to get where we are in solar technology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read your article with great interest. However, as with most promising new technologies the benefits are idealized, but the deployment of it is always a much more difficult task then is generally recognized. Another article which analyzes the political and commercial pressures that would to be need to be managed should also be investigated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, I recently heard a short news segment that reported that the Middle East oil groups would not tolerate any kind of governmental advancement of alternate power sources and they would use their price controls as needed to prevent any such large governmental development of alternative energies. On the other hand, a similar type of organizational development effort as detailed in an article in the October 2007 edition of the Atlantic magazine titled, "This Is Not Charity" might be usefully employeed. The article centers on Bill Clinton and Ira Magaziner helped to create a foundation which was able to collectively bargain with drug manufactuers to provide HIV/AIDS drugs for poorer Carribean nations. Such an organizational effort, perhaps on a state level, might be more useful. Since Arizona and other south-western states would benefit from such development, perhaps it would be in their, and indirectly in our interest, to begin an effort with the relevant industries to promote and redirect funds to such a cause. It might provide an alternative development path which does not provoke the wrath of the oil producing companies until we have weened ourselves off oil.
Another option may be for those who are in the solar array industry to promote small business companies which install and manage the entire power system for residentiial and commercial properties. The article doesn't address this more local level of development which a larger organization could help to advance.
One final thought is that one potential resource that has not be considered is our interstates which offer state or federal owned land which would benefit from being covered by solar panels. The reductions are multiple. For example, reduced need for snow removal and salt usage, reduced road weathering, distributed power generation, potential reductions in noise to near-by residential areas, etc.
The response to this article indicates significant interest in the Solar Grand Plan. Does this mean that people are willing to form local focus groups around the country as part of a national campaign to get the message to our U.S. Congressional representatives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am willing to help organize ideas for the formation of a national campaign. My co-authors will play supportive roles.
One idea is to compose a national petition to our U.S. Congress-people calling for the immediate adoption of an aggressive price support program to enable CSP and PV to reach cost-competitive levels by 2020.
Also, a website will need to be built and maintained.
All those interested in becoming involved, please contact me via e-mail:
solar.plan@verizon.net
James Mason
This is in response to the "are we really only here in solar energy after 30 years of effort?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first oil crisis was the stimulus for much work in solar and renewables. But as soon as the price of oil began to drop in the early 80s, interest waned. Some interest revived as climate change arrived as a concern, but this was small compared to the oil crisis period.
I call it the "rain on the roof" syndrome. When it's raining and the roof leaks, everyone wants to fix it, but it's too slippery up there. When it stops raining, people forget the roof leaks.
It's raining pretty hard again.
Ken
That same investment in distributed rooftop solar PV (with smart grid for real-time buy/sell) and solar thermal makes more sense: less transmission loss; stronger middle class in US and all countries, and thus stronger democracies; stronger communities (energy dollars recycle locally); and more secure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout 75% of the energy I use in my home goes to space heating. Over the course of a year, the south-facing roof and walls intercept at least ten times as much. There is a project in Alberta, Drake's Landing Solar Community(www.dlsc.ca) that uses a low-tech system to collect and store solar heat for distribution during the winter. It will be interesting to see how effective it is and whether it could be a model for local solutions elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompliments on a generally well considered article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA key element of your plan appears to be "the subsidy". Frankly, in the scope of things, this is "small potatoes". Amortized across the US population for 10 years, this equates to less than 50 cents per person per day. Hardly onerous. Even so, this will be one of the key difficulties...a new tax.
In that regard, it would seem that your propsal to add a "charge" to the electic utility bill of 1 cent per kWh may be somewhat counterproductive. Simultaneously with the "switch to solar (renewables)", you are suggesting a massive switch to plug in electric vehicles. To the extent that these vehicles are hybrids, the use of electricity, even renewable, will have a surcharge while the fluid fuel will not. To provide economic encouragement and support for switching to hybrid/electric vehicles, it would seem that the charge should be on the fluid fuels, not on electricity consumption.
Further to my prior post, note also that any switch to technologies that either improve efficiency of cars & trucks or switch to electricity will reduce the amount of fluid fuel consumed. This will, in turn, reduce the taxes collected. The impacts can be quite significant. Consider, for example, just the impact on road construction & maintenance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA "Grand Plan" such as yours may also increase the risk of unintended consequences. Therefore, it also requires substantially detailed analysis of societal impacts, not merely the technical feasibility and financial plausibility.
I would also note that, the plug-in hybrids envisioned in this proposal can also be used for energy storage (vehicle-to-grid or V2G). In fact, this is being actively studied. This could have a dramatic affect on the cost of your proposal.
A couple of people have mentioned vehicle batteries as possible storage methods, and I understand the idea that they can be used to store electricity and then have it for transportation or discharge it for other uses. But I have a hard time seeing how the timing would work. Most use of vehicles is during the day, so you are using the stored energy then, not storing more. Could someone help me understand how this will help with a solar plan?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks,
Ken
As a alternative to substantial subsidies for solar pv electricity, particularly during the initial phase of your plan, consider changing electrical tariffs so that renewably generated electricity is "purchased" by electric utilities at their avoided cost. In many cases, peak avoided costs coincide with periods of peak potential for solar pv. For example, power from peaking generators (which can be among the least energy efficient) can cost greater than an order of magnitude more than base load. The requirement for such high cost electricity can, for example, occur during "the hot portion" of the day, which is largely coincident with peak insolation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, distributed solar pv, located at commercial loads for example, would likely maximize efficiency (e.g. no transmission losses).
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are multiple ways V2G coud apply to "the Grand Plan". Here are a few:
1. Using a thermally based CSP system, electrical generation can continue "for hours" with diminished/no solar irradiation. While the thermal system could act as the storage, use of the car batteries would "expand" this storage while minimizing incremental capital for the gen station. Further, such a system would allow the CSP plant to operate at a relatively constant temperature and output...reducing deleterious thermal cycling. Also, it would allow better load following and reduced transmission and distribution loading at system peak loads.
2. Your plan describes the use of "all" renewables. Therefore, V2G would also act as the storage for other episodic energy sources such as wind, wave, etc.
3. "Distributed" solar can allow vehicles to recharge while parked (for example while at work) and discharge in the early evening at home (frequently a peak load period in the southern portion of the US) and then recharge again late in the night (using thermal solar, etc.). Alternatively, consider low cost thin film based PV mounted on the roof of the trailer portion of 18 wheelers, particularly when the tractor is a plug-in hybrid.
4. And more...
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would tend to agree, however, that if the great majority of the electrical energy generation is based on pv centralized in the southwest, V2G will likely have much lower potential. Hence, I believe an important aspect of your plan is the use of multiple generation sources. A somewhat more balanced use of energy sources could allow greater flexibiity.
In that regard, and on a somewhat more speculative basis, I suspect that geothermal can/will play a larger role than you estimate within the timeframe of your plan. Consider the study by Tester et al. at MIT
Thanks - one is pouring solar electrons into transportation during the day, as much as possible. Plugging in at work is of course quite positive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe non-solar renewables certainly would be a good source at night, which adds to their value and potential for deployment.
Essentially we are talking about a modeling and optimization problem.
I think the keys are renewable electricity cost reduction (especially solar), economical storage methods, practical 80%-electric/20%-fuel hybrids, HVDC from US SW. I think if a careful cost assessment were done (including our $400B annual foreign fossil fuel bill in comparison to bringing those jobs home), we'd do this right now and it would be economical from day 1 (even if the simplest projection of cost, our electric bill, might go up a penny). Today (Bhutto assassination) is a particularly stark day to realize what we are in for if we don't.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/27/2007 11:48 AM
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me gat back into this discussion. You continue to assume that there will be success in battery development to allow for a major shift of transportation to the electrical grid. And I hope this does happen. And while I know that the purpose of this article is what to do on the electrical grid, the overlap to transportation fuel makes me write this.
And so, I put forward the need for a back-up approach should battery development take longer than we mght hope; and that is to use coal-to-liquid based on the 80+ year old Fischer-Tropsch process for our transportation fuel as a bridge.
I know from bitter experience that the environmental community hates coal-to-liquid; but if energy independence is critical (and so that my grandkids don't have to fight another war in the mideast), I think it's critical) we need to bite this bullet. Note that even without sequestration, one million barrels per day is about 1/2% of the world's CO2 emissions.
--
Edited by Sol Shapiro at 12/27/2007 2:35 PM
Sol -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make good points, and we need to be prepared.
If we do not make the effort to electrify transportation, we have few choices. Yours is one; hydrogen is another, and hydrogen can me made by renewable electricity. I am less hopeful that a hydrogen-based transportation system will evolve, but that is not the position of some others. We published a paper that 6 c/kWh solar electric would make cost-competitive hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline. But I don't know if the vehicle iself will be ready.
Ditto for the electric/liquid fuel hybrid.
Comments from transportation experts?
Ken
The Solar Grand Plan involves high costs that will likely cause rather serious economic repercussions. Soft spots include:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this• Transmission Costs – major Eastern load centers are thousands of miles from Southwest energy collection points, thus causing massive increases in capital expenditures (and debt) for transmission lines. Energy production centers should be closer to the loads they service.
• Plant capital cost - Most energy is used during the day, essentially causing solar plants that store energy (e.g. via compressed air) to be much larger and more capital intensive than otherwise needed. Storage methods should operate at night when energy demands are much reduced.
The net effect is an investment that would likely be too expensive and, given more conventional alternatives, ultimately not well accepted by the free-market financial community, which is generally a much more economically efficient source of funds than government subsidies.
A more practical solution more likely involves hybrid combinations of energy sources to synergistically capitalize on the individual strengths of the underlying technologies. Such an approach is similar to that of hybrid automobiles, just on a grander sale. For those interested, I can forward a summary of one specific breakthrough technology that employs nuclear, fossil and renewable energy sources and produces high levels of energy output for reasonable energy costs and minimal environmental impact. I can be reached at m.keller@hybridpwr.com.
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I said, I think we need to provide significant funds for batteries to support plug-in hybrids, but to also provide a back-up approach. And if I read it correctly, I share your pessimism for hydrogen (primarily because of infrastructure and on-vehicle storage issues),
But let me get back to the core of the article; gaining support for solar in the SW xmitted on hi-voltage dc.
I ran into NY State solar Consortium and am trying to make contact on this issue. But perhaps, you, as the auther could do better. For Ifeel pretty sure that they're going to look at local deployment only.
And perhaps there are other such entities.
We include all the costs (including about a penny a kWh for HVDC transmission from the Southwest), and the price of electricity becomes equivalent to reasonable expectations about fossil fuel costs, without subsidies. In fact, I suspect solar will be cheaper than fossil fuels, given the way things are going.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what's your plan, since you seem to have one. We have been vetting them here alongside the Solar Plan.
Thanks,
Ken
Sol - I think we can expect that without serious new thinking, almost all groups, including solar groups, will simply favor local, distributed solar, not utility-scale solar in the deserts. The "thought space" isn't cultivated to get out of that box, yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's why we had to write this article.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/27/2007 6:34 PM
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article--the kind of massive grand plan needed. Two questions: 1) Energy to make all the photovoltaics? (Could be self-sustaining after a critical number were made?), 2) What about ecological effects of covereng such a large area with panels, and related to that, would there be a decrease in BTUs sufficient to disturb climate and ecological environments?
Paul - it takes about a year and a half out of the expected 30-60 year life of the PV system to pay the energy back needed for making it. So there's about 20-40 to one ratio of energy out to energy in; and yes, in time, the CO2 payback would go to zero, or nearly so, as you adopted more and more solar as the resource to make solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe had some earlier discussion of global and local effects of using so much solar. The upshot is that the CO2 avoided is about 2 orders of magnitude larger than any other nonlocal effect. But locally, we'd have to take some time to see if we were making any microclimates in the US SW. This could be alleviated by spreading the arrays out a little.
Ken
Some technical ideas:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCSP + PV - high end PV cells used in CSP need not be multijunction cells - rather, they could be single junction cells of different band-gap energies arranged with the concentrated radiation spread into a spectrum (as with a prism or diffraction grating, etc.) - (similar to how PV cells would be arranged in a multilayer luminescent concentrators (which may be purely hypothetical as of yet, though I'm not sure))
OR cells could be stacked but connected in parallel (within each layer some set of n cells would connected in series, so that each layer would have the same total voltage. layers connected in series, as in multijunction cells, must have the same current but can have different voltages).
A possible advantage to the above: there would not be a need for tunnel junctions - generally when different materials are combined such as at a p-n heterojunction, there is a need for lattice matching, which puts constraints on the useful combinations of materials, and if that applies to tunnel junctions, then multijunction cells might have more severe constraints.
Another possilbe advantage, at least to the unstacked version, is that light-trapping techniques could be isolated to individual junction cells absorbing only their assigned band of wavelengths (but maybe that wouldn't be an issue for thin-film technologies).
Stacked cells in parallel might have the added difficulty of requiring more transparent conducting electrode material or the placement of embedded electrode grids.
.. Of course, there is also the idea of placing 'organelles' (nanostructures) in the cells to split the energy from high energy photons to create two (or more?) electron/hole pairs closer to the band-gap energy. (until reading of that idea, I had hopes for the reverse - organelles that would store electrons or holes of intermediate energy so that multiple lower energy photons could go into single electron-hole pairs. But the other direction is probably easier to do.) (Off on a tangent now, but I have been hopeful about using nanostructures as photosensitizers. If the p and n-type semiconductors don't have to absorb, there may be greater flexibility in material choices. If a sensizing layer is placed in a heterojunction (which need not be a flat surface - it can be the interface between two nanoscale interlocking networks of n and p type material), is the need for lattice matching relaxed?)
----
A technical question: When cells and modules are combined, there are issues about series and parallel connections. I would guess that the smallest units tend to be connected in series to boost voltage and reduce current to cut resistance losses in wiring in whatever larger-scale connections occur. Current matching could be thrown off if a leaf or bird (or something from a bird) or whatever lands on one of the units (or some other problem occurs). Voltage matching for parallel connections would be affected to, although voltage doesn't vary so much (but will dip in dimmer radiation). These are probably not so important for desert installations but I'm curious if these problems have been dealt with effectively - or if they (the momentary shading of cells in particular) are not really much of a problem.
Also, how efficient is DC to AC conversion (and how important is the scale of the power being converted)?
Patrick - in some ways, you've conceptually replicated most of the more advanced work being done in PV. But it's very tough sledding, due to the complexity of the structures you are talking about. Still, some of it may someday work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing you need to know is that most PV separates into "expensive and efficient" versus "cheap but inefficient." Thin films are cheap and inefficient - and always trying to get more efficient. Crystalline silicon is more efficient and more expensive.
But the multijunction compound semiconductors take the cake for being ultra-expensive and ultra-efficient. (There are some thin film silicon multi-junction technologies that are not single-crystal, but that's another story.)
People try to get around the cost of high efficiency cells by using lenses or mirrors to focus light on the cells and avoid expensive cell area with inexpensive glass and metal. Such concentrating PV (CPV) is an emerging technology that someday could be important.
One of my favorite anecdotes is that even a 100%-efficient solar cell can be too expensive to use; whereas a 10% one can be just fine. Why? Because most really efficient cells are single-crystal in structure, often grown on single crystal material like GaAs wafers. GaAs wafers can cost $1/cm2 - and there are 10,000 cm2 in one square meter. Meanwhile, there's 1000 W of sunlight incident on one square meter - so at 100% conversion of sunlight into electricity, such a device would produce a 1000 Watts and cost $10,000 per 1000 W, or [i]$10/W[/i]. Today, First Solar is making thin film CdTe modules at 10% efficiency at about $119/m2 - so $119/100 W = $1.19/W . [i]Amazingly, the 10% module is cheaper than the 100% hypothetical module[/i]. So one always has to remember that economics in PV is both cost and efficiency, not just efficiency.
This oversimplifies things quite a bit, however. There is more to a system than the module - the support structure, the installation labor, the wires and inverter (which can be 95% or more efficient DC to AC) also cost money, and they can be offset by higher output per unit area ("efficiency"). So efficiency is a critical parameter, just not the only one.
So watch out for those super-complicated high-efficiency cells that cost a fortune to make, if they can be made at all.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/27/2007 8:30 PM
Ken Z,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment 172 about "serious new thinking" leaves me puzzled. It is true that you are improving the electricity generation system and distribution grid, and potentially freeing the US from a crushing burden of global conflict.
But if you are interested in "new thinking", I strongly recommend Gregory Bateson's "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unityâ€. There is some serious new thinking, published in 1979. Read the appendix, titled "Time is Out of Joint": it discusses the problem of how we choose what to keep and what to discard, as a society. http://www.oikos.org/mind&nature.htm
The Amory Lovins article in Foreign Affairs of October of 1976 gives new thinking which IMHO is yet to reach its use-by date. His descriptive point summary of soft technology attributes bears keeping in mind when you put your case.
In your article, you say:
"To meet the 2050 projection, 46,000 square miles of land would be needed for photovoltaic and concentrated solar power installations. That area is large, and yet it covers just 19 percent of the suitable Southwest land. Most of that land is barren; there is no competing use value."
Most of the land is barren? Your ideas about barren land may merit wider discussion. Do you have a map of the land you have in mind?
Thanks for that reminder, Knuttsen-Boltzmann. I didn't mean any serious new thinking of the sort you are talking about. No, I just meant people will have to think newly about their world, as in buy new hybrids instead of new SUVs - not new bicycles or backpacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's one of our contentions that we developed a plan that would allow a continuation of US lifestyles while removing climate change as an issue. Sure, at this point we might wonder if allowing continued exponential growth even makes sense. But those are the boundary conditions we used.
But anything that matches a tripling of world energy from 10 to 30 TW in this century is going to strain the fabric of ecology, not just credulity. It is actually astonishing to me that we can do it, and in such a way that one of the worst criticisms is yours - How can we think of that desert ecosystem as sacrificial? (Well, in fact, we don't put down concrete, just a bunch of posts and some shade on a fraction of the exposed land (and our local albedo heating effect); but point taken.)
What do you think?
Ken
I hope I'm posting this correctly...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is a great Idea. I'm not gonna lie, I honestly haven't read through all the comments yet, but having had many long detailed conversations with all the different problems that I feel would occur with this proposal with James Mason, I feel that most all angles have been covered.
The only problem which I can personally see becoming a problem is that of our capitalistic society. If there isn't money to be made... people aren't going to bother investing any time or money into it.
Right along with this... people fear things that ore not out to make a lot of money. If there are any computer people out there, just look at all the free alternative operating systems out there, such as Linux, or Freebsd... People feel that if no one is making billions off of something then it is untrustworthy, and is going to crash at any moment.
Building the full trust of the masses is going to be a challenge in its own.
A basic question -- I hope not a very dumb one: Are there any reasonable precedents for a huge government subsidy program that successfully lowered the cost of the thing that was being subsidized?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power enjoyed enormous "let's pretend it's cheap and then it will be" subsidies in the first decades, and it looks like a worse investment now, in need of bigger subsidies, than it was back then.
Wind got a bunch of subsidies a few decades ago, and I know I've read opinions from some providers who expressed relief when the big initial subsidies stopped, so the "dead wood" in the industry -- companies that were better at collecting the subsidies than at producing energy from wind -- would drop out.
I don't think Tang and Velcro from the space program qualify, and I'm not sure I can attribute the success of the computer industry to NASA or any other intentional subsidy program. We have this Internet thing largely because of DARPA and other early government networks, but they were produced as useful tools that justified their own investments, not as bootstrap programs that produced short term pain for long term gain.
As it is, I see a number of indications that PV generation and maybe also Concentrating Solar Power are starting to make enormous breakthroughs without big subsidies -- and even in the US (& Canada), with no help from fiscal policies to discourage CO2 emissions. Take this month's announcement from NanoSolar, for example. . .
I have trouble imagining a new federal program to spend $420 billion of taxpayer money that wouldn't just as likely extinguish that precious entrepreneurial spark, as fan it into a fire. But maybe somebody wil change my mind by reminding me of a few successful precedents. Left to my own devices, I'm not finding any.
I can think of a precedent for the proposed gi-normous HVDC transmission line between the US SouthWest and the population/load centers, e.g., in the NorthEast. That's rural electrification, which probably did more to eradicate windmills and small hydro dams and other forms of renewable energy than any other single collection of policies and subsidies. The various government and monopoly abuses that destroyed America's urban trolley systems in favor of urban expressways also comes to mind.
How many billions of dollars will we have spent cleaning up after those infrastructure boondoggles, by the time we've undone the harm they did? And do we have anything other than the warm and fuzzy word "solar" to ensure that the HVDC expressway won't turn into something else that we've got to undo?
From another angle: We've already established that electricity and heat and transportation fuels are worth money. And many of us are also convinced that abating pollution, including GHGs, is also worth money. If the sum of those two pots of money isn't enough to convince investors to switch from "bad" energy investments to "good" ones, could it be because the labels are mis-applied? And conversely, if investments are already starting to shift massively to endeavors like NanoSolar and its competitors, could it be that this Solar New Deal is already blessedly too late (and also maybe too centralized)?
One of the many vital feedback loops that the investors in nuclear power missed was this: They built expensive generators to satisfy a demand that had been growing exponentially (~7%/yr) while prices were dropping. When prices stopped dropping and started rising to pay for the new nuclear plants, the exponential demand growth essentially vanished (~1%/yr!), and new alternative supply came in, too, leaving virtually all of the reactors as "stranded assets", to be sold for a dime on the dollar, or otherwise "restructured".
If electricity users knew for a certainty NOW that their rates would have to finance an extra $420 billion in expenses, that would be a huge boost for electricity efficiency and alternative supply, and that HVDC line would likely remain "dark".
--
Edited by normrubin at 12/27/2007 11:45 PM
Thank you very much for a very thorough article, and dedicated responses from the authors. In Australia, we are struggling with the same issues, albeit on a reduced scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be helpful to factor in some nuclear reactors into your plan, on the coasts, simply to desalinate seawater and pump it inland. There will be complications of course, due to projected sea level rises, NIMBY and no immediate access to breeder reactors, but this would be a logical and useful use for nuclear power.
I also see a potential conflict with the fossil fuel interests. They are lobbying to use the same underground resources you are, to store their CO2. And at this time, both here and in the US, they are getting the lion's share of both the funding and the politician's attention...
Examples of government subsidies that work:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wind subsidies catalyzed the progress of wind to its current state. Without those subsidies, no wind. Wind is the poster child of government subsidies.
PV today, especially thin films like the ones you mentioned - technical progress is based on 30 years of DOE R&D support; but none of this, including the present silicon valley frenzy to fund thin films, would have happened [i]commercially[/i] without the Japanese and then European market subsidies. All that private equity funding - is happening to meet [i]subsidized[/i] demand now equivalent to about $20B sales, growing at nearly 50% per year since 2002. All non-cost-competitive, subsidized markets for societal good.
The response time of our non-government investment to societal challenges requires more crisis than many of us are willing to endure when we are talking about global commons issues (defined as in no one's self interest to be first) like global warming and energy security.
On the other hand, you have successfully pointed out the pitfalls of government programs - shall we add foreign policy and monetary policy to that list? Governments, like people, make mistakes, and government mistakes are magnified by their power. But like it or not, that is what we need - a powerful solution.
The issue is, can we face and solve these problems - energy self-sufficiency, global warming, domestic jobs - without falling on our face? We don't believe we can wait for business as usual to solve it - it won't, until a crisis too deep to stand. Instead, we propose a plan, one among many, to consider - I'd prefer to ask, will it work?
Ken
Thanks, Ken, and understood. And I agree that if we need a huge and rapid reduction in GHG emissions, "business as usual" won't deliver it. But it wouldn't have delivered large and prompt reductions in Acid Gas emissions, either, without the Tradeable Emissions Permits that were introduced by the Clean Air Act.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an extreme alternative, the federal government could have appropriated all the coal-fired generators under emergency legislation and just reduced their emissions. On paper, the emission reduction could have been identical. But the more flexible and decentralized and market-based approach was chosen over the more centralized and bureaucratic one, partly to increase public acceptance and partly to increase the efficiency of the abatement investments.
Internalizing the costs of GHG emissions, toxic emissions, and maybe even foreign-fuel dependency would presumably change "business as usual" significantly -- but it would still be "business". It might or might not lead to increased investments in HVDC lines connecting the Southwest to the Northeast. But if the numbers are right (as right as your justification of the $420 billion), and the HVDC line doesn't attract investors, it will presumably be because competing investments were more attractive in that new matrix of values.
Why can't the marketplace that provided me with this innovative and reliable computer that meets my complex needs, provide us all with an innovative energy system that meets our complex needs? Granted, it won't do that if large and important costs are left out (as they are now), but isn't the solution to include them, rather than to send in the Army Corps of Engineers to start building HVDC transmission lines? (I doubt that I'd be doing as well on an ACE computer!)
BTW, one of the most useful "side-effects" of this discussion, IMHO, is that so many participants are looking at current US agricultural subsidies as a big bag of mis-spent cash to be taken back! And while we're at it, has anybody calculated the impact those humongous subsidies have on US GHG emissions?
If we just stopped subsidizing farmers to emit more CO2 and methane, we might not even need the Solar Grand Plan!! Then there are the subsidies to transportation, and energy/fuels, and forestry, and manufacturing. . . virtually all of which have greatly increased GHG emissions compared to simple "business"!
Thanks for the clarification. In fact, I think it leads us forward in a very important direction - how to include government successfully in major actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery challenging, and people should spend time thinking about it, instead of taking one of the polarized positions - none or all. Thanks.
Here's a way to internalize the energy price risk. What would it cost the US to buy an option that would cover all price risks between now and 2100? Or pick your own timeframe and then plan to roll it forward.
Then we could reduce that by buying fixed price "permanent" no-fuel, nil-O&M energy sources like solar as a partial hedge. What would the best mix of pure financial vehicle and solar hedge?
Next we can extend this to GHG reduction.
Thanks for the intriguing response.
Ken
Solar can and should certainly be a part of or energy rich future. But as long as we continue to fear and ignore the abundant resource that nuclear power can provide we will continue to fumble along thinking we need to fight wars to protect oil wells, etc. With plentiful energy supplied by small nuclear power plants close to the points of use, and utilizing excess capability to produce hydrogen fuel. we can create a secure future for all people. Nuclear waste is nothing more than a misnomer. It is actually potential energy waiting to be reprocessed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrichoweng-12/28/2007
RISK ANALYSIS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Mason wrote:
>Also, Dan M. tries to downplay the severity of the Chernobyl accident
Hmm…I tried to give the best analysis of the data that I could. I would be open to additional data and/or other analysis. Having been a Radiation Safety Officer, I’m rather familiar with the data on low level exposure. Heck, it is in my self interest to do so, since my job exposes me to low level radiation.
Dr. Mason, I try hard to understand and respond to critiques of my analysis. Unfortunately, a one sentence dismissal of my analysis gives me next to nothing to work with. For example, do you think that radiation levels that exist in Denver are dangerous? Are they so dangerous that we need to plan to abandon Denver? If not, wouldn’t it be reasonable for me to use Denver as a baseline, since we cannot find any radiation based increase in illnesses from living there (even though the linear model indicates that there should be a > 6 sigma signal?
I tried to find the best sources I could for analyzing the damage to due Chernobyl. The official study group seems to be the best to me? Do you think other groups provide better analysis? If so, why?
>but federal hearings held about what if the 9/11 terrorists had decided to attack the Indian Point >reactors just north of NYC.
OK, hearings were held. Where are the proceedings? Who testified?
>Evidence suggests that the planes would have penetrated the reactor containment
>shells and possibly have triggered a meltdown.
I looked for analysis on the web
>I live on Long Island and we cannot be evacuated in a timely manner.
OK, you are probably 50+ miles from the plant. If you are, a Chernobyl type event would involve sheltering in place for a couple of days, and then very low levels of exposure….well as long as you don’t have a severe iodine deficiency. If you do, you would need to take iodine fairly quickly.
>And what about long-term displacement of people caused by the Chernobyl accident.
According to the WHO, most of health problems found in the general public was due to over-reaction by individuals and governments(2). Thyroid cancer was a problem for children, but less than 20 deaths were caused by it. Still, the WHO considers the evacuation of 120k people a reasonable precaution.
This isn’t a good thing, but it’s certainly not without precedent in the US. The permanent relocation from New Orleans is far higher than this….and this is just a low risk, not a near certainty, like the devastation of New York City from a CAT-4 hurricane (even without global warming, it is probable).
Indeed, I’d argue that the terrorists chose the right targets to cause damage. The risk to life and property from the WTC attack was higher than from a nuclear plant attack. We were _lucky_ that the terrorists attacked as early as they did. If the first hit on the WTC was 2 hours later, it would have been full. The normal occupation is 50k, and it took 8 hours to empty the building after the first WTC terrorist attack. A 30k death toll from a 10AM coordinated attack would be a reasonable guess.
Hitting a reactor containment building at high speed would be extremely difficult. It is a small target and one cannot just fly on a level to hit it. It is very unlikely that the wings would penetrate the concrete containment vessel, given the fact that a 30 ton fighter plane crashing into a wall similar to the first containment vessel didn’t penetrate. If you are interested, we can discuss this in detail, but I fear that you are not interested in probabilistic assessments.
>What would have been the long-term impact on NYC in terms of displaced
>people if the Indian Point nuclear plant had been attacked and a meltdown
>triggered (it is unimaginable).
It depends on whether people respond to real or imagined risk. Let us use Chernobyl as an extreme model. There was no containment, the reactor vented to the open air. Even a breached containment would restrict dispersion better than a massive burn into the open air. If this happened at Indian Point, using Chernobyl as a model, no one would be evacuated.
I’m basing my analysis on the Chernobyl Study Group 20 year publication on this issue.(3), as well as my earlier analysis of low exposure danger.
As an aside, if you look at the danger from a dirty radioactive bomb, it is almost all terror, and very little direct danger. People who happily move to Denver and get exposed to 1300 millirem a year would still be afraid of walking into an area where the exposure rate is elevated by 30 millrem/year.
>There is zero chance of anything like this occurring with the Grand Solar Plan.
This argument works if and only if the Grand Solar Plan is as proven an energy program as nuclear power is. I’ve seen scores of plans that are not nearly as ambitious, and they always take longer and cost more when they work. Most of these plans don’t work at all, they are just very well sold. As I said elsewhere, I’ll place your plan in the good category, but I think it extremely imprudent to believe that you can be the singular exception to the general rule of projects.
Finally, it appears to me that you eschew numerical analysis. Looking through your arguments, they seem to be predominantly non-quantitative arguments. For example, you discuss a possible meltdown without giving the probability. If I am wrong, I’d be happy to give my analysis in detail, with proper references.
Dr. Mason,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question about your understanding of economics. I look at the leading role that fossil fuels have played in supplying energy since coal replaced water power as the primary industrial energy source in the late 18th and early 19th century. The reason for this seems clear to me; fossil fuels have provided a cheap, compact, portable energy source. Oil, in particular, had tremendous advantages, because it can be harnessed by directly tapping the energy of quick explosive burning pushing pistons instead of requiring steam to push the pistons.
These underlying economics provide a basis for governmental decisions. They cannot be overturned by governmental decisions. For example, when FDR cut off oil exports to Japan in 1941, they were forced into a decision to either pull back or attack…and they chose the latter. They needed the oil, and the government was not powerful enough to stop this.
Second, the price of oil is only marginally controllable by producers and consumers of the product. The drastic drop of oil prices to levels (in inflation adjusted dollars) unseen since the early years of the Great Depression was a boon to the consumer and devastating to the oil industry. It resulted in the 3rd 50% layoff I had seen in the oil patch. Even though the impact around the world was otherwise minimal, the burst of the Asian bubble in the last half of the 1990s pulled the rug from under oil prices.
The price rises were also unstoppable by the consumers, no matter how much they wanted prices to fall. Windfall profit taxes can be instituted against western companies that profited from the price rise, but short of invading oil producing countries, there is no way to actually force the price down as long as the market forces are pushing it up. Even with a >5x increase in prices, world oil consumption has continued to rise. This will continue until other alternatives are cheaper.
And, of course, if consumption does decrease (as it did in the mid 80s) prices will fall nearly as fast as they rise. Both the supply and demand for oil have been demonstrated to be rather inelastic.
Given this situation, the economic security of the world is dependent on an uninterrupted supply of oil. And, as the lone superpower with the ability to project significant force, the US is in the position where it has to ensure this supply. If the US doesn’t, no-one will.
This is part of the cost of oil being critical to the world economy. But, it isn’t a subsidy in the way that ethanol, solar and wind are subsidized. The US government pays a third of the cost of wind power in order to promote its use. If the US didn’t do this, wind farms would not be expanding as they are. If the US didn’t subsidize ethanol, a third of the corn crop would not go to ethanol. If the US decided that it would no longer assure world trade, oil would not simply fade away. The US’s defense spending is a reaction to the importance of oil, not a means of encouraging the use of oil. Even if it were the latter, it would only represent 3% of the total cost of oil; which is on the order of the week to week market volatility.
Government projects, prudently done, can nudge the economy and provide a backbone for it. The sponsorship of infrastructure, from the Erie canal, to transcontinental railroads, to the National Defense Highway System are good examples of this. Fiscal policy is needed to counter depressions; that is clear to me.
But it is also clear that planned economies have, with no exceptions that I can think of devastating failures. The Soviet Union is a classic example. The difference between the planned and market economies in China and India are other large scale examples. Smaller examples also exist, from the British Coal Board, to the Concord, to the Japanese 5th generation computer project in the ‘80s, to the French layoff prohibitions, to the ethanol subsidy abound.
By training, I’m a research scientist. I do data analysis for a living, my bias is always to look at the data first to make empirical predictions from patterns I’ve seen in the past. Looking at these data, I conclude that governmental planning is not a good way to determine how the economy will unfold over the next 50 years.
In addition, it should be self evident that even if the US were to choose to go to solar power, no matter what the cost, this will not change the use of coal by China. China has now surpassed the US in greenhouse gas production (as of 2006). If current trends (from 2000 to 2006) continue, China should produce more greenhouse gasses than the US and Western Europe combined by 2011. It will produce more than twice that produced by the US and Europe combined by 2017. And, according to statements from China, they are willing to pay lip service to environmental concerns, but still plan to massively increase their coal production.(1) They will be more than happy to achieve a dominant role in the production of solar panels, but will not be interested in more than PR boutique use of solar energy until it makes economic sense for them.
Finally, I’ve been around proposed grand projects for >25 years now. The best ones take longer and cost more. The worst ones are all smoke and mirrors. I am placing the plan y’all are proposing in the first category, not the second. Still, there are significant warning signs that need to be heeded.
The first is that a 50% subsidy is considered simply not enough. Wind power is expanding like nobody’s business with this magnitude of a subsidy. I see windmill blades on the freeway on a regular basis.
Yet, you seem to argue that solar prices will only fall if the US government spends 400 billion as seed money. This is a far greater investment than wind needs. This indicates to me that y’all think the price drop will not be a natural market function that results from improved efficiencies.
Further, this 400 billion is not the total cost. It is simply seed money. If total prices are only $1.00 per watt of installed power (which would be significantly less than $1.00 per watt for the solar installations themselves) , the plan calls for about a 14 trillion investment. If total prices are higher, say $2.00, the plan would call for a 28 trillion dollar investment. While I can understand how a 14 trillion investment over 90 or so years is feasible with the government paying far less than a tithe of this money, a 28 trillion investment would be a very different situation. The government would have to pay the excess cost, which a back of the envelope
Let’s just say the US government cowboys up and pays this money, somehow. This would slow the increase in the amount of greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere every year, but more would still be put in every year. Only if fossil fuels are not the clear cheap alternative will this trend stop.
Predicting market prices and the cost of technology 20 years hence has proven near impossible for just about everyone who as tried over the past 50 years (with the exception that with enough predictions, someone has to be right by random chance). Given this, it seems foolish to me to believe that, in this case, we have the one exception to this rule. In this one case, for the first time ever, the government can pick the future of technology.
If global warming is a significant problem, as I believe, counting on unprecedented good fortune to counter it is not prudent, IMHO.
Now, this is not saying that solar power will not be worthwhile. I don’t think _I_ can make this type of prediction any more than I think the authors can. What I can do is look at what has succeeded in the past, and how government has helped in this.
The first and most important is funding basic research. I don’t know what will come of it, but I do know that the more we have known about the fundamentals, the more innovations we have had.
The second is changing the ground rules to better reflect the total cost of utilizing fossil fuels into the price. Thus, a carbon tax makes sense.
The third is a long term (but temporary one hopes) price support for energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses. This is the most problematic, because it edges towards planned economies. But, if one offers the same support for sequestering, the distortions towards inefficient practices and technology should be minimized…as long as the nation is diligent in keeping it from being diverted into focused pork barrel projects, like ethanol.
(1)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071226/ap_on_re_as/china_energy_plans;_ylt=AgVyM_vZZKQUZGBw_BuHwFas0NUE
Energy Autonomy and Personal Autonomy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe $420 billion should go to owners of solar roofs, not to energy corporations preserving their outmoded business model of providing energy and collecting "energy rents". The benefits are overwhelming:
-- Little need for new transmission and distribution infrastructure. Just use software and the Internet to build the old grid into a "smart grid" supporting real-time, peer-to-peer buying and selling of electricity.
-- Putting low cost energy collection, storage and conversion assets in the hands of homeowners, municipalities, and small businesses builds middle class wealth, upon which democracy depends. It creates local jobs, and keeps energy dollars circulating in communities.
-- Building the world market for these products builds the middle class, and democracy, and good trading partners worldwide. "Terrorism" is mainly a result of the growing competition for energy resources. If the centralized energy model persists, this will worsen. Companies who both build tax-supported centralized systems (especially nukes) and provide tax-supported security have a stake in maintaining a condition of energy haves/have nots.)
-- You can't blow up a distributed energy system, and no storm can cause a cascading blackout in a distributed system.
-- The "energy awareness effect": Homeowners who make their own electricity conserve energy, particularly if shutting off lights makes the meter run backwards.
-- It will happen anyway, following the precedent of information technology: Mass ownership of sophisticated, low-cost, networked devices increases personal autonomy.
Dan - it's not that you are wrong or I believe you are wrong. It is the nuances and dark spots we all carry with us. In the end, you are perhaps close to exact in saying, the problem won't change unless we find a cheaper way to make energy than fossil fuels. [b]Perhaps if we can internalize CO2 and energy supply insecurity in that equation[/b]. True, if we use other resources in the US, some of those costs will come down, and then China can keep burning them. (This is what we mean by global commons!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let's look at it a little bit.
It is my contention and I think many others, that we will bring the cost of solar below conventional alternatives. I would say this would be a certainty if one included those key partially quantifiable costs like energy supply and CO2. But we are essentially saying we see 6 c/kWh "feedstock" intermittent solar as a high probability. FSLR, a public company with a lot to lose, has already published a plan down to 8 c/kWh ($2/W installed), and in our scenario we do not use an on-site inverter (we transmit DC), so we are close to 7 c/kWh - close enough, I'd say, especially because I can imagine some cost reductions FSLR left out.
CSP experts would claim similar potential costs.
We are then proposing a storage method by which we can take 6 c/kWh feedstock electricity and make it 10 c/kWh dispatchable electricity. That's our "hand." Can you call us with fossil fuels, including CO2 and supply risks?
Is it a "bad" result that if we do this, the price of fossil fuels will stabilize?
As far as China obviating all this - they will, unless we can prove solar is competitive; and we can assert various methods to force them to change. "I leave that as a homework assignment." (OK, international trade pressure.)
You make excellent points about where government action worked; and excellent ones where it didn't. Ok - that's true. Now what do we do to help ourselves, under these circumstances?
Finally, you are way over reacting to the $420B over 50 years - 8 billion a year? This is a pittance and a red herring. If we can do this, no one will even remember the price. It's absurd.
Where does the "trillions of dollars" number come from? Paying for energy?? We do that all the time - so what? We have simply turned fuel costs into capital costs - actually, a big improvement.
Thanks for taking part.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/28/2007 1:32 PM
The compressed air "batteries" sounds interesting. I would be concerned about release of radium. Has that been studied?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRadon: Good question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe someone here might speculate? These things are being done, so...
Ken
Great article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo make this concept even more perfect, visualize a combined electric generation/transportation system in which the utility creates "Park and Gen" stations where Plug-ins can be available as dispatchable generators at the call of the utility's supercomputer. Car owners plug in to receptacles and program how many kWhs to sell, and at what price. These Park and Gen stations would be initially sited near heavily loaded susbtations or feeders.
The utility simply scans the thousands of bids and selects those that are lowest in bid price and/or nearest needy transformers.
Car owners make extra money, the utility buys the cheapest power and closes down peaking plants, and the objections against renewables (that they're intermittent and not matched to the load shape), are overcome.
Skip Fralick
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your reply (post 178). It seems to me that Vasilis Fthenakis is doing most of the “new thinking†underlying your joint proposal. Life cycle analysis is a means of connecting economic pursuits to ecological systems; a connection of patterns, in a literal sense of what Gregory Bateson writes about.
I found a pair of maps, t without any precise locations, on pages 18 and 19 of the VF presentation given in Sacremento, in June of this year:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/
2007_energypolicy/documents/
2007-06-25+28_workshop/presentations/panel_4/
Vasilis_Fthenakis_Nuclear_Power-Greenhouse_Gas_Emission_Life_Cycle_Analysis.pdf
Your Co-Author makes two concluding points that bear repeating here, for the convenience of other readers:
“• A Life Cycle Framework is necessary for a complete description of the sustainability of energy technologiesâ€
“• It enables a holistic approach encompassing resource availability and costs, potential risks and benefits to the US economy and the environment for current and future generations.â€
If VF is following the dialogue, he may wish to comment on any influence on his work by the methods and principles covered in “Environmental Accountingâ€, by HT Odum, (John Wiley & Sons,1996). The work by Odum and others is fundamental to the citation I gave in my earlier post, (152) concerning an energy and materials flow analysis of the state of West Virginia.
The VF presentation gives output figures in terms of carbon dioxide produced per unit energy produced, but there are no net energy estimates, as I would hope to find in an embodied energy (emergy) analysis. Nor is there evidence, in his slides, of energy feedbacks, except as implied in the reprocessing stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. shown on the 2 nd page of his June 28 th, 2007 presentation.
A broader public understanding of energy and materials flows in natural and built systems would be valuable in seeking pertinent dialogue on energy strategies and specific plans, such as your Grand Solar Plan. It is impossible to put succinctly how impressed I am, that you are so committed to public discussion of your proposal.
May I suggest that you seek further feedback? There is The Center for Environmental Policy, at the University of Florida, Gainesville, as well as the Rocky Mountain Institute. I think they are valuable resources No doubt there are other current hot spots, but I am working pretty much in a vacuum, in Tasmania, so others will have to add the promising names and links.
One last item worth considering by those who are are interested in the underpinnings of energy and materials flow analysis is the article available at this link:
http://www.energybulletin.net/docs/RealisingTheEnlightenment.pdf
The article, by Sholto Maud, discusses HT Odum’s energy systems language and its wider significance.
The VT link above mentions your co-authored article, in press, on a Solar Grand Plan. I look forward to a link being posted as soon as possible.
The best way to achieve the shift we need is by implementing a FeeBate policy, as described at www.feebate.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisK-B: I tried to read Odum once and couldn't penetrate it - and his analysis of solar put me off as outdated. Neither is a real negative - what he was trying to do seemed quite admirable. I just didn't get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you tell us what we should know about "emergy" that would help us with our discussion.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/28/2007 9:28 PM
I'll see what I can do, KZ, regarding a helpful explanation of Odum's core ideas, as suggested (post 197).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile, a sense of the man can be gained, in addition to his ideas. An obit can be found at:
http://www.esa.org/history/obits/Odum_HT.pdf
And Wikipedia's as good a place as any to seek an explanation of "emergy" and The maximum power principle", if you don't want to wait a week for me to offer my summary.
Happy New Year, all
I think Solar is great but has anyone considered how that many solar panels would affect the earth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissolar panels affecting the Earth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Local warming due to lower albedo, partially or fully offset by conversion of light to electricity
2. Avoided burning of primary fuel, avoids local heating from fossil fuel
3. Reduced CO2 from lack of burning
4. Reduced other burning and refining pollutants
5. Increased mining and processing of solar feedstocks
6. Increased glass making from sand
7. Distributed energy to most geographies
8. Develop "cradle-to-cradle" culture of re-use (metals are not used up but continue to be needed)
9. Use of land for solar
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/29/2007 8:34 AM
I just want to point out that there are now two lively discussions in progress on the Solar Grand Plan. The other discussion is the Grand Plan for Solar Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors want to thank everyone for the HIGH level of understanding and critique. You guys (no ya'lls, I'm a Long Islander now) are blowing us away - fantastic.
Thanks for the most fascinating article I've read in years! I'm left wondering whether there are other important Grand Plans that this one should be compared to. Would Scientific American perhaps consider republishing this as the lead article in a volume summarizing the full gamut of U.S. Energy Grand Plans? I suspect that this one would stand head and shoulders above any others, but I'd like to see what the best-informed critics would propose in its place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few specific comments and questions:
Here in the land of $0.17+/kWh electricity (price delivered, in SW Connecticut), your costs per kWh seem quaint and nostalgic.
Why is Compressed-Air Energy Storage measured in GW, not in GW-hours? How many batteries of the type projected for the Chevy Volt (16 kWh apiece) would it take to provide the equivalent amount of storage, and at what price apiece would they offer a cheaper solution than the $2176B that you seem require ($3.90/W times 558GW).
In post #101 you mention certain costs based on a 30-year life for the CV panels. That's just over 10,000 days, so the 30,000
square miles of panels would need to have almost 3 square miles replaced every day! Not that it's a problem, given the income from all that electricity, but still I find it mind-boggling.
Thanks again for such an interesting paper.
I would love to see all the "grand plans" put together in one place. One of them is here in the background - nuclear. Another has hardly been mentioned (interestingly) - carbon dioxide sequestration. I guess there might be some "flight of fancy" plans like beaming energy from space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGround rules: Must solve energy self-reliance and climate change; must be economically feasible; must be technically defensible.
This could be our own "free enterprise" contribution to a government program.
Ken
Why not transmit electrical power to people's houses and use it to store potential energy by pumping water up to an enlarged tank in the loft, and letting it out when needed to drive a little turbine generator in the user's home. We all have cold water tanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Grand plan underestimates the huge success of the distributed solar energy model developing in Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe various Feed-in Tariff programs create investment opportunities for home owners, farmers and commercial businesses, and also raises awareness of energy use and increases demand side conservation.
The article says that they are proposing a bold plan towards energy independence and environmental susteinability. Actually this solar plan should be even bolder. We should not be talking about getting 90 % of our energy needs from the Sun way out in the year 2100 as the article says. We should be at that point by 2050 at the latest. Ken Zweibel (one of the authors of this excellent Scientific American article) was the technical monitor of a 2004 paper from the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) titled
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudy of Potential Cost Reductions Resulting from Super-Large-Scale Manufacturing of PV Modules
which can be found here
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/keshner.pdf
This paper makes a cost analysis that says that simply by mass producing solar cells the unit cost per watt (including the installation cost) of an amorphous silicon solar cell with a measly 7 % efficiency would drop to $1 per watt. Amorphous silicon solar cells have had a conversion efficiency HIGHER than 7 % since the early 1990s (the current record for amorphous silicon solar cells is 12 % last time I checked) yet the otherwise excellent SciAm article claims that more research is needed (i.e., that we need a 14 % efficient solar cell for the price to get to $1.20 per watt). We do indeed need a better means to store energy (batteries are not a good solution) and excellent progress is being done with ultracapacitors as an energy storage medium but the solar cells themselves don't need any additional research. Higher efficiencies would be very welcome of course but according to the 2004 NREL paper we already have more efficiency than we need to lower the cost not to the $1.20 per watt desired in the SciAm article but to the even better $1 per watt. Some advanced solar cells have achieved laboratory efficiencies above 40 % but many of them require rare elements such as indium and no solar cells that require rare elements can ever become a significant source of energy because there simply is not enough of that element in our planet to produce immense numbers of solar cells that would be required for a real impact on our energy needs. Unless hyper efficient cells can be made with commonly available elements they are no more than expensive toys. Any comments about these issues from Ken Zweibel would be greatly appreciated. I admire his proposal but it should be even bolder than he envisions.
Regarding the folly of biofuels we (the USA) are making a terrible mistake by jumping into the biofuels bandwagon with very little thought involved. In 2007 we have used more than a quarter of our corn crop (27 %) for fuel instead of as food.This is extremely unwise to say the least. For one thing even if the entire (100 %) US corn crop plus the entire US soybean crop were used for fuel production it would only replace 18 % of the US's annual gasoline consumption (it would also drastically reduce the fertility of the soil due to massive nutrient loss). For another thing this is raising food prices drastically and not just in corn since it has a cascade effect on milk, cheese and meat and poultry (cattle and chickens are corn fed). There was already a significant hunger problem in the US before this corn ethanol folly was pursued and the rise in food prices will increase hunger in the US and lead to deathby famines in Third World countries. Cellulosic ethanol using switchgrass grown in soils unsuitable for growing crops is a much better alternative although I would still consider it a distraction from solar energy which must really be our main focus. See the paper found here
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-embargoed.pdf
for a discussion of the terrible folly of grain based ethanol (here's a quote "The potential of ethanol to displace gasoline is limited—there is just not enough land or water to produce ethanol in quantities that would significantly displace gasoline at projected demand levels without tremendous impacts on the environment and on food production. Even cellulosic ethanol, a better alternative than corn based ethanol, is limited by the environmental impacts of its large-scale production.").
And here
http://www.indium.com/_dynamo/download.php?docid=609
for Ken Zweibel's Terawatt Challenge paper were he analyzes all the different sources of energy and concludes that other than massive use ofnuclear energy (fraught with intractable problems plus terrorismconcerns plus the fact that uraniumis not a renewable resource and some projections calculate we could run out in just 40 years) the only source of energy capable of providing power on a terawatt scale is the Sun.
Kind regards
Hopeforthefuture
Ken, James & Vasilis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy business is CO2 capture and storage which has some interesting synergies with underground storage of compressed air.
Do you have a list of engineering groups who are international and domestic experts in the specialist area of compressed air energy systems, both underground (large scale) and above ground (small/medium scale) that you could post on this site?
Regards,
Johnsciam
hopeforthefuture -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask some good questions.
You are essentially asking, what should we really expect from thin film PV? You quote two studies that are both more optimistic than the Scientific American article, one of which I monitored ("Keshner") and one of which I wrote (KZ).
To oversimplify, the differences in the studies were that the first "Keshner" study assumed that economies of scale would drive down the capital costs; and in my study, I used technological factors (efficiency, layer thickness, material utilization, deposition rate) to drive improvements, with overhead absorption and some economies of scale from volume purchases and make/buy decisions.
Fundamentally, I am not a fan of the idea that volume solves everything through better purchasiing. My own experience is that hidden beneath "greater voiume" the [i]real driver is the resources needed to improve technology, and overcome the risk of trying new things.[/i] And this is where those subsidy programs at the start of a technology's shift to commercialization are so important - they are the resources that make innovation and risk-taking possible.
In actuality, it's both technology and better purchasing, of course. I find that when we talk to suppliers about buying 1000 widgets or a million widgets, they also get creative. One will never un-tangle that ball of yarn, but it does matter what short-hand we use to talk about it ("economies of scale" or "technological advances"). I favor the latter.
PV is a good, young technology in terms of progress because it is driven by efficiency, a lever that not only reduces the cost of the module that makes the electricity, but reduces the cost of the rest of the PV system, because you get more output per unit area. We often talk of theoretical efficiencies (best possible), practical efficiencies, module efficiencies now, and cell records and typical cells or modules.
Raising the efficiency of cells, modules, and production modules towards theoretical limits is the name of the game. In CdTe, best cells are 16.5%; best modules, 11%; commercial modules 10%. Theoretical efficiency of a simple, single junction CdTe cell is 30%, so we are not much more than half of the potential. When the resources of society are intensified in this area, say one or two orders of magnitude beyond the team of 50 scientists in the whole world we lived with for 25 years, then we'll see that efficiency move again towards the theoretical maximum.
What we say is 5 c/kWh in this article for 14% modules is 3.3 c/kWh at 21%; and lasting 60 years instead of 30, is 2 c/kWh. This is why I often say, solar energy will be coming down in cost throughout the century, while other sources will be going up.
So given these uncertainties of resources (how do we plan society's probable future investment?), what should we use as a prediction?
We have erred on the side of being overly conservative to show that given today's technology, already "in the bank" we can do this. We did not want to sound like we were asking for blue sky research to do this when that's simply not needed; but we have sacrificed the true level of optimism we have about the great future for these energy options, just to conform to that guideline. Peoiple should know, we are doing this with one hand tied behind our back. There is much more to "hope for the future."
Thanks for asking,
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/30/2007 10:29 AM
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/30/2007 10:39 AM
Ken, James, and Vasilis -- thank you for a thoughtful and timely article. I've been working in the renewable energy field for about 10 years, most recently in solar thermal. Your article serves as a perfect springboard for a national discussion. The advantages of the Solar Grand Plan, i.e., national energy security, job and wealth creation, deficit reduction and most importantly a solution to global climate change, are well enumerated in your article. Furthermore, it is heartening to see that the investment required, even if you estimates are off by a factor of two, is entirely manageable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne area I believe you give short shrift to is that compressed air energy storage (CAES) is a rather inefficient, and therefore more costly, means of storing solar energy. As you point out, solutions also exist for solar energy storage by storing it the form of heat in molten salt, hot water storage tanks, or other media. This approach is of course only possible with solar thermal technologies such as parabolic trough, central receiver, and linear Fresnel. These thermal energy storage solutions do not require the use of burning natural gas, unlike CAES, and therefore do not further contribute to climate change and this is a clear advantage you fail to mention. Furthermore, the round trip efficiency of the energy storage for solar thermal technologies can be as high as 90%, compared to about 55% for CAES. In my view, PV provides an excellent solution for peaking energy, but solar thermal is far better suited to energy storage than PV from a cost perspective.
CSP is a very important technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe calculated CAES turnaround efficiency of 75%-80% earlier in this discussion.
As you can see from my prior post, PV has some wonderful opportunities for further cost reductions below our assumed levels - this will be important at a time when commodity prices are going to be rising, an issue for CSP.
PV also uses no water in the desert and has minimal O&M.
I am comfortable with having two arrows in our solar quiver until we find out more.
Ken
It would seem that the ground underneath 30,000 sq mi of PV would cool and extract heat from the surrounding area, thereby cooling it . In effect the solar energy intercepted by the PV to make electricty is prevented from being absorbed by the earth surface. Has any consideration been given to the magnitude of this effect and it's possible impact on the ecco-system?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your response to my previous post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---
Two more points about PV in CSP - if the efficiency of the PV cells can go up enough, with the cost justified by use of concentrated light, then the total energy per unit area could go over that of a flat panel even given that the flat panel can use diffuse as well as direct light, as opposed to CSP (not including luminescent concentrators). If the efficiency became high enough, it might then allow PV in CSP to be a good contributing choice even in some cloudier climates.
Also, my overall point about using sets of different band-gap energy cells connected in parallel rather than series (for use in CSP) was that, depending on available materials, etc, there could be greater flexibility in optimizing conversion efficiency.
---
PV flat panels on rooftops could be combined with solar water heaters, not side by side but stacked, to make use of the waste heat from PV flat panels. As PV panel efficiency may slowly decrease in time, I imagine that some older (by decades) PV panels might be resold from warmer to colder climates where the otherwise wasteheat is more valuable or used more.
---
If CdTe could theoretically get up to 30% efficiency, I wonder what might help get it there. Light trapping (use of total internal reflection with diffuse reflection off the back of the cell, allowing a thinner layer to absorb the same radiation) should reduce internal resistance and electron hole recombination - and/or allow a poorer quality of material to be used while getting the same performance. Obviously it also has the added benifit of requiring less material for the light-absorbing layer. I recall hearing that this might bring the cost of crystalline Si cells down from $4/peak W to maybe $1/peak W (that was several years ago - don't know about any progress made in that - and I also wondered how such a significant cost break (am I remembering incorrectly?) could happen given Si was maybe ~ $25/kg and at around 1 kg/m2, if at 15 % efficiency, it would only account for ~ $0.2 / peak W - are my figures way off? - or else, maybe much of the reduced cost per peak W comes from resulting increased efficiency?). But I wonder how that would work with thin films - for example, what happens if the thickness is pushed to be less than the wavelength of light - would it still work - would total internal reflection or diffuse back reflection still work? -- Absent the reduced material usage, having a p-n junction folded so that it extends through the light-absorbing layer should have similar benifits, right? (Well, it wouldn't by itself reduce internal resistance after recombination, but my thinking is that it would reduce recombination by reducing the crossing of paths of electrons and holes. Internal resistance could be reduced by extending electrodes through the layer, of course)
It would be nice if a combination of materials could be found that could be made to self organize via habits of crystallization (or amorphous phase changes), either from solution, melt, (electro)chemical reaction, with control of temperature, drying rate, electric field, etc, so as to spontaneously form a folded photosensited junction between semiconductors either intrinsically p and n type or doped p and n type by the limited solid solution of themselves and the photosensitizer within each other's phases.
I also wonder if externally-imposed nano-patterning could be done using the interference pattern of diffracted X-rays passing through a pattern of holes.
-----
As long as carbon taxes etc. have been brought up, I'd be curious what people think of my ideas (I think the last 3 of the first, and so far only, 5 comments) here:
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005426
The "Solar Grand Plan" could easily be incorporated into that.
this artical is amazing, Americans are stubborn and hard to change. I see all this stuff about using corn to make alcohol to power everything but what happens when/if another dustbowl happens like in the 30's?? Solar could help avoid over stressing our farmlands and produce power far cheaper and reduce our need for internal combustion engines! I hope that everyone who reads this writes their congress man/woman and links them this artical.... Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis a look at a grand plan. It needs some additions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. It does not address the winter heat load and the summer cooling load. Insulation is installed based on cost benefit. Higher energy cost will increase the use.
2. The total waste stream to energy can be enhanced by use and bio inoculation with active waste water sludges to increase rate.
3. Transmission by RF as suggested by Tesla years ago.
4. House hold Water heating where the temperature does not need to be greater than 125 F.
Ken,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite Vsilis' research and the product stewardship model at FSLR, the presence of Cadmium in the CdTe modules has raised some concern in the
industry as Vasilis can attest to witnessing at the EUPV conference in Milan.
One of the limiting factors I see with CdTe is the additional overhead associated with end of life care. Whereas, the same level of stewardship is not required with a-Sci potentially making it more cost effective.
Re: Cost reduction of PV
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been an advocate for CSP-thermal and remain one
because it is relatively-lo tech with storage capability..
But from what I've seen recently on pv cost reduction, I have to say that this technology gains my support to stay in play; - looking at the economics of its use both for peaking power and with CAES for baseload.
I do feel that it's too early to accept the $1000 per watt for pv yet; but it's certainly becoming interesting to watch.
Thanks for a useful and informative article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that you will be able to publish the full backing to it in a website accessible to the general public.
As my contribution to the debate I would like to question the need for subsidy.
A stand-alone case can be made for taxing toxic emissions from coal, and perhaps from CO2, but if they are viable at all I cannot understand why your proposals need the subsidy.
This chiefly arises from the nature of the solar resource available in the States.
Within the South-West it tracks use very well, and to the extent that it doesn't you have excellent opportunities to gradually expand storage capacity, acquiring expertise as you go.
So you don't even need initially to compete with base load, just peak use..
There is a very large market for this is the first place, and if this cannot become viable without subsidies it is certainly not viable to store the energy for base-load use or transmit it huge distances.
Subsidies also have the effect of encouraging the widespread adoption of inappropriate technologies, for instance perhaps the CAES you suggest would not be best, but hot-water storage might be, so that going firm on the first might lead to missallocation of capital.
It all depends, of course, on how great a delay would be incurred by not subsidising as you suggest.
If we were talking about 50 years, then perhaps a subsidy would be a good idea.
So, if you run the same assumptions on cost reduction as were in your model, how mush do you delay the same reduction in CO2?
Bear in mind that the alternative, perhaps with a charge for emissions, at least of the toxic variety would not involve 'picking winners', and hence would certainly be more optimised.
It is also possible that the total emissions as well as costs over, say 50 years would be less.
To give an example, your assumptions about wind power assume do not take into account proposals for harvesting high-altitude wind, which if it works at all are likely to have much lower costs than anything current, have a much bigger resource base and is better geographically distributed.
Suppose that Google's efforts bear fruit, by. say, 2025 you might have subsidised a lot of unnecessary transmission lines and solar arrays.
Now I don't know if high altitude wind-power will pan out, but since we are going to get a very substantial roll-put of solar in the South-West anyway, throwing another $420billion or so at it does not seem like a good idea.
So how much do you calculate that the $420bn you propose would speed things up?
--
Edited by DaveMart at 12/31/2007 9:26 AM
I agree with Mr. Zweibel about the vast potential of solar energy. it's time has come. But we don't need to wait for the transmission line infrastructure. We can build intermediate scale plants on commercial rooftops and parking lots as Google (1.6 MW in Silicon Valley), the U.S. Navy (750 kW, San Diego) and others have done. The area of commercial rooftops and parking lots in the United States is large enough to supply most of the electricity requirements of the United States. Parking lots are the answer!! A photo of the U.S. Navy installation see my slide show at http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/slides.ppt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to the issue regarding the adequacy of just distributed (rooftop) PV systems. We are not against rooftop PV and distributed wind, in fact rooftop PV, as others point out, is very good at reducing "peak" electricity demand. But it has to be kept in mind that solar and wind resources are intermittent (cloud cover and nighttime) and has limited value without solving this intermittency problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy storage by CSP, PV-CAES, and wind-CAES solves the intermittency problem and enables solar and wind to provide firm electricity (continuous supply) 24-hours per day, year round. This is why we highlight the need for large centralized solar and wind power plants that are coupled to large energy storage systems. Energy storage systems for homes and businesses at 100% scale (24-hour coverage for 100% of electricity demand) are prohibitively expensive with any small-scale energy storage technology (advanced batteries, flywheels, pumped-hydro, etc.) within our current vision.
Now turning attention to the responses on the need for a solar price support program. There are many instances where national subsidy programs have worked, especially in the realm of public goods. For example, the U.S. transportation, energy, telecommunications, and health industries have all been built on the back of public policies that included subsidies (review the histories of these industries).
The problem of bringing renewable energy technologies into the nation’s energy mix is aggravated by the fact that we already have mature energy markets. The question becomes how to bring renewable energy technologies to the market at a scale that will enable lowest cost production. Just as the introduction of trains, national power lines and pipelines, streets/highways, and hospitals needed public policies and subsidies, the emerging renewable energy technologies need firm public policies and subsidies. This is nothing new, but public awareness is lacking because of poor leadership by public officials and opposition from established vested energy interests.
National energy security and climate change mitigation are national issues affecting everyone in the U.S. It is time for a national debate on the menu of energy technologies capable large market penetration. In this article, we demonstrate that CSP and PV-CAES are “serious†candidates.
The subsidies provide revenues at a scale to advance both technological developments and scale economies in material flows to bring the technologies to lowest cost. A national price support program distributes the cost among all U.S. families and minimizes rate increases for customers of electric companies that are early adopters. And the price supports provide incentives to electric companies to enter power purchase agreements from CSP and PV-CAES producers, which is crucial in attracting investors.
Without a rational price support program CSP and PV-CAES technologies will not achieve large market penetration (at a scale to timely address energy security and climate change) for decades in the future. What will be the cost to U.S. society if we do not adopt a national price support program? Already gasoline and diesel prices are higher than hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water using solar electricity at the 2020 solar electricity cost, so by delaying we are already incurring a societal cost that palls the proposed $400 billion subsidy. This is an instance of “market failure†that can only be corrected by public policy. In addition, we need to include the societal costs of foreign oil and natural gas payments, as well as foreign energy defense costs.
In terms of cost-benefit and risk analysis, the proposed $400 billion price support program to bring solar technologies to optimized scale is a bargain that will pay tremendous long-term returns to society.
--
Edited by James Mason at 12/31/2007 12:53 PM
I participated in the DARPA Grand Challenge, the robot race across the desert that was achieved in 2005 and the Urban Challenge robotic city was achieved this year (2007).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople in the robotics community knew that the technology had matured to make this doable, and someone in Government was smart enough to make a funded contest out of it at the right time.
In a similar way, your article shows that the technology for solar is in place so I suspect that if the government guaranteed a market, the efficiencies and storage would quickly exceed your conservative estimates and we'd be there. Whomever is the next president should therefor be encouraged to immortalize themselves by leading this effort.
I suspect most of the candidates are clueless about this. The real challenge is how to communicate this to the politicians. One key point is that this plan would be a key way to actually win the war on terror -- by defunding our enemies and allowing us to withdraw from their territory.
Two other questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) What about staying with DC? How much does this save? Electric cars, computers, etc all run on it. Why not stay with DC (other than the existing infrastructure).
2) Nuclear -- you don't mention it at all, but it is advancing too. "Small" nuclear batteries, safer fuels etc. It's hard to see nuclear just going away.
Re: Gov subsidies that work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAhem, aren't we now blogging through the ARPANET ... I mean government invented and government deployed Internet. And are we not typing this through government funded microchips?? I just drove on the government highway system... and the bathroom here, connected to the government sewage system works pretty well. In fact, all long term research makes no economic sense to the researcher and almost all such research is done by by Government.
Reverse the question. What was achieved without government? Many notable things, but not nearly as many as a libertarian would hope.
I think government needs "decay" terms on it to keep it small and that most things should be designed with competition built in to keep things efficient, but we need to lose the nonsense that Government can't do anything. Government can and regularly does achieve big, useful and enriching things. It is good at starting big things and the market is good at bringing them up to speed.
Agreed. People like to ignore these facts because, for the moment, it doesn't fit their picture of how things (should) work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen
re Dan: What China will do with stabilized energy ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you should give China a little bit more credit. They are a fairly rational actor, a rising power and mostly situated on the coast... and they too are "blessed" with large desert areas. I don't think they want to awaken to a pollution and carbon choked world.
I suspect you will see extremely rapid adoption of proven solar energy plans by the Chinese -- even more reason to start the solar plan sooner!
There is overhead to collecting and recycling CdTe PV. Right now, FSLR prefunds with $3/module, which is about 5 c/W. There is some front end work, too, being careful with Cd in manufacture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, all PV has front end costs, and CdTe may be less because many CdTe approaches use no toxic gases. Most other PV, especially thin film Si, do have gases.
European laws lean towards recycling all products, and most societies are moving in that direction. So this added cost may be everyone's cost as we evolve towards a 'cradle-to-cradle' world. Things are too precious to throw away.
One might make the case that silicon modules without heavy metal solder would be fine to dump. That's a possibility for the future, especially for a-Si. Of course, all PV has some sort of metal contacts.
As one can see from the product, right now CdTe has a significant cost lead, even including prefunded recycling.
CIS has the potential to be in the same league as CdTe. CIS has been harder to manufacture, and costs haven't yet been impressive, but someday they probably will be. But CIS has selenium, and eventually that will require recycling.
Ken
--
Edited by Zweibel at 12/31/2007 1:37 PM
Ken wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>It is the nuances and dark spots we all carry with us.
I hope I understand what you are getting at. “Dark spots†is not the nomenclature I’m use to. I’m use to discussing blind spots, and I’m going to guess that this is what you mean. I agree that we all have blind spots. An argument over whether it’s a matter of you not agreeing with me because of your blind spots or my not agreeing with me because of your blind spots is inherently fruitless. I think we both recognize this, as well as the need to go outside of this type of loop.
I’m fairly familiar with this problem, from the range of experiences/education that I’ve had. In my experience, the best thing we can rely on is rigorous empirical verification. In our discussions, that’s not available: since we are discussing future costs. In that case, I tend to rely on what I’ve seen as the next best thing: technique. I’ll refer back to that later in this post.
In the end, you are perhaps close to exact in saying, the problem won't change unless we find a cheaper way to make energy than fossil fuels. Perhaps if we can internalize CO2 and energy supply insecurity in that equation. True, if we use other resources in the US, some of those costs will come down, and then China can keep burning them. (This is what we mean by global commons!)
So let's look at it a little bit.
>It is my contention and I think many others, that we will bring the cost of
>solar below conventional alternatives. I would say this would be a certainty
>if one included those key partially quantifiable costs like energy supply and CO2.
Market prices do include energy uncertainty, that’s one of the reasons prices jump when there is trouble in the mid-East. Now, markets are often wrong…they are the worst possible forecast mechanism….except of course for all the others. The market futures price represents the best consensus estimate of future costs….including insecurities.
>But we are essentially saying we see 6 c/kWh "feedstock" intermittent solar
>as a high probability.
I understand that. My point is that there are significant error bars on that number. One needs to estimate these error bars by the best means at one’s disposal.
>FSLR, a public company with a lot to lose, has already published a plan
>down to 8 c/kWh ($2/W installed), and in our scenario we do not use an
>on-site inverter (we transmit DC), so we are close to 7 c/kWh - close enough,
>I'd say, especially because I can imagine some cost reductions FSLR left out.
I realize that private, publicly traded companies do have a lot to lose. But, they also have a lot to gain. In a field that, for a number of reasons, is as much of a political arena as a market, good PR can be wonderful. For example, if they can convince governments to sign long term contracts, and cost overruns occur, history suggests that profits are still quite possible….as the cost overruns are passed on.
>CSP experts would claim similar potential costs.
My problem with this is that I’ve heard it over and over again, for many different proposals in many different areas. I’m not the only one, there are standard techniques for evaluating the range of likely outcomes and assigning probability to them. One thing we do know, even the best experts have a hard time estimating the state of the market for new technology 10 years hence. When specific, focused predictions are made, the best are wrong most of the time. In something as straightforward as the oil industry, top executives cannot predict the state of the market 2 years in the future.
Indeed, smaller projects are typically assigned much higher uncertainties than you claim for solar. I been involved with project management for almost 20 years. There are standard techniques that allow a good project manager to determine the uncertainties in his/her project. Short development projects are assigned the smallest uncertainties, while larger projects that include research and development…and not just engineering, have larger uncertainties.
I’ve applied these standard techniques to your proposal. This fits with my earlier comment: when uncertain, fall back on technique. I’ve tried to use standard techniques in doing my analysis. As far as I can see it, if this approach is rejected, then one should be able to show either why I misapplied the techniques, or why these techniques are not applicable in this situation.
>We are then proposing a storage method by which we can take 6 c/kWh feedstock >electricity and make it 10 c/kWh dispatchable electricity. That's our "hand." Can you >call us with fossil fuels, including CO2 and supply risks?
But, you don’t have that hand…you have the expectation of that hand. What if the experts are as right as the oil industry experts were in 81, or 84, or 92, or 96, or 2003? Look at the glowing expert predictions for the internet bubble companies of the late ‘90s. If someone were really that good at predicting future markets, they’d own the world by now, or at least Berkshire Hathaway. :-)
>Is it a "bad" result that if we do this, the price of fossil fuels will stabilize?
First, coal prices are still very cheap. That’s why China continues to rapidly expand the use of coal. Second, if the oil demand were to stabilize or drop a couple of percent, history suggests that oil prices will stabilize at a far lower price. Indeed, the greatest market uncertainty facing oil companies is the prospect that prices will fall through the floor again (as they did in the early and mid ‘80s and in the late ‘90s.
>As far as China obviating all this - they will, unless we can prove solar is competitive; >and we can assert various methods to force them to change. "I leave that as a homework >assignment." (OK, international trade pressure.)
Well, given the fact that American consumers rely on cheap labor from China, given the fact that China will probably own the majority of the solar industry in 10 years (their labor/land/materials price structure is far superior to the West’s), and given the fact that Asian countries will probably have most of the factories that Western companies run, I cannot see how the West will have much leverage.
Further, China considers resisting outside pressure almost as a matter of honor. It is a principal of theirs that governments (like Sudan) have an inherent right to do what they want within their own country. So, I don’t think a trade war would force China into doing what we want them to. And, anything short of a trade war would be inconsequential. Indeed, we’d have to have a UN embargo….which wouldn’t be possible because China is a veto power…and those don’t work that well anyways (e.g. Iraq).
>Now what do we do to help ourselves, under these circumstances?
Pick a technique that plays to the strengths of governments. I proposed a mechanism for this: a combination of carbon tax and subsidy for energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses and a payment for sequestering. In addition, I proposed a significant investment in basic research, which would significantly enhance the possibility that new knowledge would allow for solutions we don’t see now.
>Finally, you are way over reacting to the $420B over 50 years - 8 billion a year?
>This is a pittance and a red herring. If we can do this, no one will even
>remember the price. It's absurd.
>Where does the "trillions of dollars" number come from? Paying for energy??
>We do that all the time - so what? We have simply turned fuel costs into
>capital costs - actually, a big improvement.
I figured the total cost from your numbers. Given your estimates, the cost over market prices is only 420 billion, I understand that. I also understand that the rest of the cost (which does measure in the multiple trillions) would be paid for through normal marketplace mechanisms.
If the error bars on your estimations are zero, I’d have no ground to stand on. 420 billion is a reasonable amount of governmental seed money for a self sufficient green energy source valued in the multiple trillions. If we could be sure of that, then it would be only a few percent of the total worth of the project, and thus a great investment.
But, I don’t believe in 0 error bars. I believe that standard techniques for estimating uncertainties should be used. Thus, I’d assign much larger error bars.
The trillions come into play as the basis for the error bars. A 20% error in cost would be 20% of the total cost, not 20% of the seed money. I see it quite possible that, after the 420 billion is spent, we still will be in a position where solar is not competitive with other energy sources.
In that case, I’d like to hedge my bets. Mixing metaphors, if I absolutely needed to find a winner, I wouldn’t just back one horse. Rather, I’d get a stable together, race the horses, and then pick the best to keep on backing in races. I see your plan as picking one two year old to back to the hilt.
Dan M -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't given away everything in advance to China. In fact, CdTe and CIS are dominated by the US, Japan, and europe. Chinese cheap labor is not only evanescent (remember Japan?), it is almost irrelevant, since it is a small fraction of total cost in a highly automated technology. But if the US wants to give up, even when it has the lead, "you win." :-)
The funding method - I am not sure what funding method we should use - feed in tariff, investment tax credit, renewable portfolio standard, carbon tax, ... but whatever it is, it has to have some sense of the value of the big resource, solar, and take its problems (intermittency, HVDC transmission needs, current cost) into account. We should simply put the cards on the table, nuclear, tar sands, coal, oil shale, nat gas, solar PV, CSP, wind, geothermal heat pumps (which is really stored solar in the ground), biomass fuels, and see what hand as a society we need to play - it is no longer ok to accept a hands off policy, because we are in the corner on energy supply and carbon dioxide.
And we haven't even mentioned peak oil yet.
Ken
A great article that needs to be sent to all our congressmen and women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'D BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN YOUR EFFORTS TO GET THIS PLAN OFF THE GROUND.
wHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP THE PANELS CLEAN OF DUST, ETC?
Why aren't secondary effects discussed? What would be the impact on localized warming if dramatically less solar energy is absorbed into the ground of those 30,000 square miles? Would it reduce the "Utah High" so prevalent during summers? Would it change the climate along the west coast? Wouldn't moisture retention increase in the localized area thus increasing cloud cover and reducing solar effectiveness? Would the reduced heat and light under the panels increase moisture retention and allow farming underneath the panels? Could the panels serve secondary purposes as roofing structures for industry and housing, thus defraying some of the cost? What is the environmental impact of 30,000 square miles of toxic cadmium incorporated materials that someday may have to be disposed of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUse excess solar power to generate the heat for in-situ themal extraction of the 800 billion barrels of high-quality, extractable shale oil in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Thus the US could use both technologies together to more quickly become energy self sufficient while improving the environment. This would be similar in idea to wind turbines being located near natural gas deposits, where the gas is burned when the wind is low.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissolar maximus:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The use of solar heat for oil shale is a good idea, but be aware that we are also trying to reduce global warming.
2, Recycling of the solar modules is prefunded.
3. We are more concerned with local heating than cooling, since more sunlight is absorbed than reflected and the amount changed to electricity doesn't quite offset it. Spreading the arrays out will reduce the issue, perhaps to nil.
Ken
Krakatowa ???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrakatoa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Low-cost PV should probably be deployed in decentralized generation, at point of energy use, with local energy storage, rather than in centralized plants in the deserts requiring costly, large-scale, long-distance transmission and energy storage. We need this comparative analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Any electric transmission system, or fraction thereof, dedicated to PV generation, will suffer the same low capacity factor (CF) as the PV -- typically less than 25%. This unused 75% of average transmission capacity is a large, costly, stranded capital asset. Has this been fully costed?
3. Compressed hydrogen gas, gathered and transmitted and delivered via underground pipelines, with annual-scale firming storage in deep solution-mined salt caverns at ~2,000 psi, may prove more technically and economically attractive than electricity transmission with CAES storage. Germany is studying this, now, for wind energy. We need this comparative analysis.
Thanks for such a superb article. Like Haute Couture and concept cars, this Grand Plan is wearable and drivable. But of course it won't be until it is watered down by competing interests into something less grand. The pity is that the plan is already very conservative; parts of it are already beginning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are over 2Gigwatts (nameplate) of committed utility-scale solar power projects currently in various phases of design & deployment in the SouthWest deserts. These CSP projects, together with:
a. over 10% efficient production modules of CdTe and CIGS PV now ramping up production, and
b. solar-grade silicon feedstock fabs coming on-line over the next 2 years that will eliminate the current silicon shortage that has driven up the cost of PV over the last 2 years,
represent the beginning of the tipping point for cost-competitive utility-scale solar power generation.
Siting of the power lines is already a major issue even for relatively local AC lines; witness the Sunrise Line in San Diego County. Government policy to build on recent legislation that makes power lines easier to site and lowers their economic risk is critical.
Energy storage, while critical, is likely to be less of a problem. PHEV's will initially be plugged in at night, but as solar energy production begins to reduce the cost of daytime energy, employers such as myself will subsidize our employees transportation costs by providing charging while their cars are parked at work during the day. I suspect that a government policy which provides some small incentive for employers to do similarly would reap very large benefits.
Instead of fighting powerful domestic coal interests for baseline power, join forces with the utilities and the GM envisioned by Bob Lutz, champion of the 16KWH Volt, and begin by weaning transportation from its oil addiction.
Thanks for the reply, james.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever I still do not see how you have made the case for a subsidy
I argued:
'A stand-alone case can be made for taxing toxic emissions from coal, and perhaps from CO2, but if they are viable at all I cannot understand why your proposals need the subsidy.
This chiefly arises from the nature of the solar resource available in the States.
Within the South-West it tracks use very well, and to the extent that it doesn't you have excellent opportunities to gradually expand storage capacity, acquiring expertise as you go.
So you don't even need initially to compete with base load, just peak use..
There is a very large market for this is the first place, and if this cannot become viable without subsidies it is certainly not viable to store the energy for base-load use or transmit it huge distances.'
So the question remains' by how many years are you going to expedite the introduction of renewables?'
I would guess that you would move things on by at most 5 years, and possibly end up wasting lots of money.
DaveMart:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt about it – solar is growing rapidly in terms of % growth, but at the current scale (well below 1% of U.S. electricity production) it will take decades to achieve optimized scale manufacturing. Oh, we can wait for other countries to get the job done sooner, but then we lose the national advantage of having a home based energy technology and many of the gains by domesticating our energy dollar will be lost.
To attain the scale we propose (annual installation of 5-GW of CSP and 5-GW of PV each year from 2016-2020) to bring solar technologies to optimized scale will most definitely require some type of subsidy plan. It has been demonstrated in previous posts that the subsidy plan we propose in peanuts. What we are staying is for the U.S. to stand up and become a world leader in an advanced, sustainable and non-polluting, energy technology world. We can either lead the competition or follow – this is the decision we face.
I for one want a strong American and that means AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE (I’m not speaking for the other authors here, this is the primary issue of the Solar Energy Campaign, which does not receive any funding from the solar industry or the U.S. government).
Thanks for the Grand Plan article -- before reading it I had assumed that energy storage and long-distance transmission losses would make solar impractical for base load electricity, and I'm glad to learn that is not the case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question about the reliability of a system that uses solar power from one part of the country. Is there any chance that a spell of cloudy weather over the Southwest could cause blackouts when the stored compressed air runs out? How vulnerable would large solar installations be to big storms?
Thanks!
Contrasting this article with the commentary on the inefficiency of centrally planned economies yields an interesting conclusion. Good as this plan may appear, it can't compete with the market solutions. Instead of a grand centralized plan, we need to be removing gov't subsidies on non-green, non-renewable energy, and eliminating the externalities that make non-renewable sources artificially more competitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not go all the way: An Electric Economy as presented [url http://deadlyfreedom.com/2007/09/electric-economy-facts-within-fiction_15.html]here[/url] would be architected along the lines discussed in the article, but would be comprised primarily of solar thermal generation using technology like that of [url http://www.ausra.com/]Ausra[/url], where heat is captured and stored in 300 degree C water which is ultimately used to turn standard steam turbines. Why go through a heat exchanger when we can use less expensive water directly. We would phase in 10 GW “chunks†of power each requiring about 50 square miles of desert in what I call our “solar furnace†in the southwest. ABB has the right [url http://www.abb.com/hvdc]HVDC technology[/url] to distribute these “chunks†to our eight existing regional grid centers coordinated by [url http://www.nerc.com/]NERC[/url].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunding: The key to establishing an Electric Economy and breaking our addiction to oil is the electric vehicle to ultimately replace our 200M fleet of Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) which are primarily cars and light trucks. EVs would be introduced at a reasonable but aggressive rate. Transportation accounts for 65% of our oil utilization and LDVs account for 65% of that or 42% of the total. As with other disruptive technologies, the Electric Economy is waiting for it’s [url http://deadlyfreedom.com/2007/10/10252007-next-internet.html]“Killer App,â€[/url] just as the disruption caused by the Internet waited for the browser. By analogy, the KillerApp for the Electric Economy is the electric vehicle which has now become practical given the advancements in Lithium Ion batteries (see [url http://www.teslamotors.com/]Tesla Motors[/url] and [url http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/?seo=goo_electric_car]Chevy Volt[/url]) which will spawn more breakthroughs in that technology and others (e.g., Lithium Polymer). At $3 a gallon, the average driver of a car that gets 20 miles per gallon will save $1650 per year driving an EV that gets five miles per KWH. We are fortunate to have enough excess grid capacity in the evening to charge the first ten percent of our LDV fleet. This is enough to fund the first “chunk†of solar thermal generation and kick-start the economics that [url http://deadlyfreedom.com/2007/11/business-proposition-for-america.html]I describe here[/url]. In effect, the Electric Economy can be self-funded by the savings generated when we shift to EVs.
PV-CAES: I had considered this alternative. But why use fossil fuels at all. As mentioned in the article, PV-CAES still uses 40% of the natural gas that a pure gas turbine uses. Solar thermal with water as both the carrier and storage medium is a closed system that would eliminate fossil fuels altogether.
Use of buildings: We should use PV on rooftops and other exposed areas to generate additional electricity that can be fed into the grid. But we need a national solution, one that will be a clean source of electricity for everyone regardless of their direct solar dosage. The solution needs to be utility-grade and support base-load generation. PV can help provide peak-load generation. If we wait for all of us to put solar panels on the roof, we will be waiting a long time. In addition, we need to be generating clean electricity 24/7 and this requires storage. Storing energy in heated water is very cost effective and can be used to drive steam turbines directly.
Post 258 - Jim Mattews
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me comment on the cloudy day issue. I too have worried about it. For CSP, integration with fossil - probably gas in the short term could solve the problem; and if one wanted to look at a long term, total renewables world, hydrogen could be created and stored to meet cloudy day situations.
Now, we can always create disaster situations to outrun such storage; but for an interim of many decades - including the current transition period, the natural gas backup does it; and if used infrequently, cost is not an issue.
In response to the message arguing against
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscentral planning and in favor of anti-government,
what is needed is Keynesian economics.
This is something the Americans need to learn about:
a kind of economics not pigeonholed into extremes.
Regarding central planning, the U.S. is already
centrally planned. For example, the head of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said "I already
know what President Bush is thinking before he does."
Regarding the idea of markets, Lesourne, Orlean and
Walliser write in their book titled Evolutionary Micro-Economics (Springer, 2006), p. 5:
"The market is a peculiar social construct which
needs for coming to maturity a whole set of social
conditions." Keynes writes about this in his General
Theory, that economic equilibriums are not self-correcting
and can fall anywhere in range.
Adam B. Ulam writes in The Unfinished Revolution
(Random House, 1960), p. 70: "A moment's reflection
will show how much the laissez-faire state had to
legislate in order to establish laissez-faire..."
Pretending that planning is not needed simply creates
the vacuum that is filled with the wrong kind of planning.
What we need to do is openly discuss planning.
If planning is avoided, it happens anyway with
more costly outcomes.
Once again the profits of the grand solar future fail to comprehend the problems of scale. All through this discussion not one person pointed it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is this.Tellurium is one of the rarest elements on earth. Its rarer than Platinum. World wide production was less that 200 tons. If CdTe cells use more 250Kg of Te per square mile, your plan is dead
As for problems in scaling up... there are many. But providing a guaranteed market for awhile gives people the cash to solve those problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who has seen any aspect of microchip production knows that producing chips economically at scale is simply unimaginable ... if it weren't already "routine". There are material costs and shortages and precisions etc ... all solved by clever people who first knew they could sell to the military and now sell to your iPod.
If you know anyone working in the oil industry, ask them about details of production and you'll end up astounded that oil can be produced at (now) only $100/barrel.
Give solar a good guaranteed market boost now that much of the nascent technology is within in reach and you'll see it scale all the way up, replacing rare materials for more common ones even as it blows through conversion efficiency levels you thought were unattainable.
--
Edited by grbradsk at 01/01/2008 7:22 PM
This sounds like one of several good plans for retooling the country's pathetic energy infrastructure. Why can't we study all the plans, select the best one, and begin implementing it within 5 years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would make a great legacy for the next president, whoever he/she might be? Teddy Roosevelt will always be remembered for the Panama Canal and FDR for the Tennessee Valley Administration. Our 44th President should be remembered for ending both global warming and dependence on foreign energy. There is nothing this country could do right now that would be a better investment for the future.
Re 179:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> [i]The only problem which I can personally see becoming a problem is that of our capitalistic society. If there isn't money to be made... people aren't going to bother investing any time or money into it.
[/i]
I regard capitalism aka markets as a great local optimization algorithm. But, like any local algorithm, it suffers from local optimums. A few market incentives can sometimes change the landscape and off it goes to better optimums or sometimes just different optimums. Who profits from building a universal packet based communication network? Well, no local entity can, but once it's there, markets really made it something.
> [i]Right along with this... people fear things that ore not out to make a lot of money. If there are any computer people out there, just look at all the free alternative operating systems out there, such as Linux,[/i]
Linux has taken over embedded and server based applications, so I don't understand the point -- it's a huge success ... and a lot of people make money off of it directly or indirectly.
> The problem is this.Tellurium is one of the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> the rarest elements on earth. Its rarer than
You can also do solar thermal.
Regarding storage and cloudy days, even not producing in adverse weather and not storing would reduce energy importing and money exporting from the country.
I commend Scientific American for running this article. I would like to see articles on transferring large amounts of energy terrestrially. I have read that transmission line losses are down to 15 percent, a big improvement. My understanding is that loss is proportional to distances and voltage drop. I would be interested in learning how progress has been made, including possible role of materials.
The proposal presented in this article seems especially well suited for the United States. The amount of solar energy that can be harvested in Arizona is astronomical, and supply and demand would be in the same country. Providing coverage of this topic is an important service.
Carlos Portela
This bold plan for the US has much in common with the DESERTEC concept developed for Europe, the Middle East and North Africa by the 'TREC' international network of scientists and engineers. Further information may be found at http://www.desertec.org/ and at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/ .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDistributed Solar:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the total area of south facing roofs in the USA? Perhaps domectic and industrial roofing should be figured separately. If these areas could be economically covered with solar electric shingles, what would the resulting power be? It seems to me that this is a very substantial area that could be used with minimal cost to the environment.
The tchnology for connecting such small sources to the network is already available commercially. The primary issues are capital for installing the systems and political; getting local power companies to accept and pay for the resulting power.
I recognise that these solar installations would have lower efficiencies than the proposed SW installations. But the area is there, and could possibly be used with very low real estate cost. The widwe distribution of such areas would broaden the "availability time" of the power, particularly reducing the effects of clouds.
A possible way to support such installations would be to reduce real estate taxes on "productive surfaces".
This is a brilliant plan. It would enable the USA to mend its reputation as the world's most profligate user of energy and instead set an example that other nations would cheerfully follow. A PR triumph for America and the start of a cure for global warming and climate change. If I were an American, I would start lobbying presidential candidates NOW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some other things that will tend to strengthen the case for adopting this excellent plan but seem not to have been mentioned or not given much emphasis either in the article or in the many comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* Waste heat from the generation of electricity in CSP plants may be used for the desalination of sea water. This can be a useful source of fresh water, which would be especially valuable in arid regions where CSP plants work best. This and related topics has been examined in some depth in the new 'AQUA-CSP' report from the German Aerospace Center (which can be downloaded via links from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm).
* The shaded areas under the mirrors of CSP plants or PV panels have a potential economic value:
- If the CSP mirrors (or PV panels) are integrated into the roofs of buildings, they can help to keep the buildings cool. At least three companies have developed this type of CSP system (see http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/links/commercial.htm).
- Normally, there would be enough light coming past the CSP mirrors or PV panels for plants to grow but they would be protected from the harshness of direct tropical sunlight. If fresh water is provided via the desalination of sea water or by trapping flash floods in underground reservoirs, there is potential for a substantial horticultural industry in association with the generation of solar electricity in desert regions.
* Solar electricity (from PV or CSP) may seem expensive but that is only in comparison with electricity generated from fossil fuels and using the world's atmosphere as a free dumping ground for CO2. When there are proper charges for CO2 emissions, or an outright ban on such emissions, then electricity from fossil fuels will not be nearly as cheap as it appears to be now. In a similar way, nuclear power is often presented as being cheap but this is only because substantial hidden subsidies are not accounted for (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/no_nukes.htm).
* The costs of PV and CSP electricity are both falling fast and both may be much closer to being competitive than commonly supposed. Some figures for CSP costs may be found here: http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/costs.htm .
* Quite apart from the distribution of solar electricity, there are several other good reasons for building an HVDC Supergrid in the US (and many other parts of the world). Some of these reasons are described here: http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/elec_eng/grid.htm .
* The worldwide potential of this concept for generating electricity and cutting CO2 emissions is absolutely massive (see http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/worldwide.html).
We also are trying to make solar power economical and reduce energy dependence. If excess heat and electricity can be used to extract shale oil, its a win-win because it [u]reduces the overall cost of both[/u]. You wouldn't need to add in the cost of $0.04/kw for electrical storage, and it could reduce need for power plant construction. Solar power proponents should look at collaborative efforts, not in precluding technologies they may not like. All economists know that the world will continue to use oil for several decades to come. We have $48+ trillion worth of shale oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]Distributed Solar:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the total area of south facing roofs in the USA? Perhaps domectic and industrial roofing should be figured separately.[/i]
It's already factored into their plan. Roof tops are not enough by themselves and many roofs are in non-optimal solar areas. You still need a grid for backup, supplementation and to make a market in power.
By funding such a plan for desert grids, you'd bring the costs of PV way down and so make roof top systems much more likely. You can of course also subsidize them at the same time.
The sun is always shining at more than one suitable sunny spot of the planet, and thus the whole issue of energy storage may be eliminated via international political will and a big transmission cable around the world. The oil trade is global, why not the solar energy trade ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKZ, regarding Odum and his ideas about solar energy, there is ample evidence that his ideas are not outdated. I recommend you visit
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.emergysystems.org/pdfpubs.php
For a fairly comprehensive bibliography of work toward further understanding of the theory and experimental evidence related to emergy and the maximum power principle.
Solar energy is converted to embodied energy (emergy)through organic and physical processes. This general process may be considered analogous to the conversion of radiant energy into binding energy during nuclear fusion, and the related changes in masses of atomic nuclei involved in fusion reactions.
The purpose of the fusion analogy is to clarify the qualitative distinction between solar energy and embodied solar energy. There is energy from the sun (or other direct natural supply) and that energy is transformed into other kinds of qualitatively different energy, such as the free electrons of PV electricity or the bound molecular energy of the food we eat.
As we ascend a food chain from sunshine to algae to frogs (vegetarian ones, for the sake of simplicity), energy is converted from radiation to plant matter to animal matter. Because energy is lost at each step, the amount of energy it takes to make a serving of frog's legs is much greater than the amount of energy it takes to make a serving of algae (if you eat that sort of thing).
The energy in the algae and the frog's legs is chemical energy, but the two are plainly distinguishable in nature by everyone, even hospital dieticians who may dole out servings by the calorie. More significantly, the energy embodied in the algae was transformed into the food energy embodied in the frog's legs by the frog's natural biochemistry, and energy was lost in the process. It takes more solar energy to mak a frog's leg that to make an equivalent mass of algae. Odum would have said the frog's legs contain more solar emjoules.
That's because both of these transformations involve energy losses, just as conversion of light to PV free electrons involves energy losses. Anyone who stops for a moment to appreciate the vast numbers of algae cells and frogs can appreciate your choice of cheap, thin-film PV materials over the highest efficiency materials available. Efficiency of energy conversion by a particular system component is only one criterion among others, when it comes to implementing a viable energy conversion and distribution system, whether it be built or natural.
My understanding of Odum's work suggests that the viability of a complex system is significantly affected by its rates of internal energy transfer, among its parts. Arguably, natural systems evolve toward heirarchical internal form which maximize (though I would prefer the word optimize) energy transfer rates. It seems to me that the optimization process is refined through organic evolution in the natural world, as well as through other, non-Darwinian processes in the built world.
I hope that the above provides a valuable insight into the idea of embodied energy. The payoff comes when you realize that, if you import your frog's legs in cans, from France, you are also embodying energy in the cans and the transport, because both take energy. If the cans come over on your friend's ocean-going yacht, less energy will be expended on the voyage than if they are shipped in a much larger, oil-fuelled ship. In the grand analysis, even the energy embodied in the building of the ship and the yacht must be evaluated. This clearly goes beyond "life cycle analysis" as I understand it.
A more prosaic example would involve the carrots you might grow in your garden, compared to the carrots you buy at the supermarket and transport home in your SUV. The transport energy becomes part of the embodied energy of the carrot, because it is a part of the built system you live in.
Where is is this explanation (that you asked for) leading?
IMHO, you and your colleagues are much wiser to integrate your PV technology into existing built systems. There are vast areas of barren rooftops all over the USA. My understanding is that German companies are already seeking available rooftop space for PV electricity generation in Germany, and that generous subsidies are available to individual consumers which are projected to provide better investment returns than equivalent funds put toward large-scale power generating facilities.
IMHO, it's best to take a path that improves the built environment and go with the flow of market influences, rather than modifying vast areas of natural environment in the Southwest US, and raising the hackles of potent environmental lobbies and other influential stakeholders.
Nuts-and-Bolts-man
BSc (biology) 1971
I too would like to see better maps showing what land the authors have in mind for the solar plants. Don't see how we consume 46,000 sq miles (think Pennsylvania) for solar without (A) destroying nat'l parks etc; (B) confiscating lots of private and/or Indian res land and displacing the people; and/or (C) spreading out the plants all over the West, much more than shown in the map. A and B, and I suspect C, would mean enormous cost and delay, at best. The article says the area needed is no more than used now for coal power including the mining; that sounds off to me and I'd like to see the maps/data on that too. (Also, coal stripmining, for all its problems - and there are many especially in Appalachia - generally isn't a permanent use of the land.) Also, while we're talking on this grand a scale, I'd love to see comp data on how many sq mi of ocean we'd need for wind and wave turbines to get the same amount of power, along with the $ costs and environmental/societal impacts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHallelujah!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDESERTEC (the European version of this) welcomes some sanity on this subject at long last.
Every congressman and senator should be made to read this article once a week while in office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAustralia is an obvious example of another country with similar land mass and available public land suitable for a similar if smaller scale project. I say smaller scale not in terms of possible land mass dedicated to solar power generation but in terms of required power output ie
Oz's poulation is "only" 20 million.
i am a worker in remote place of india intrested to know more about its uses efor our people where there is no light let me know details
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischarles ak
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the interesting article and intrepid plan. I admit that I am extremely skeptical of this plan, but would greatly desire to be mistaken given the potential benefits.
I have a couple of concerns:
1) I would prefer to see everything in SI units and your assumptions for average watts/square meter. This would greatly ease the task of checking the numbers.
2) There were 2 figures given in the article:
200 000 square miles
49 000 square miles
The area required appears to be extremely unrealistic.
[b]The first figure is greater than the area of each state in the union except for Texas and Alaska.[/b] This figure represents over 5.5% of the Land Area of the United States. (1)
The entire area of Texas is only 261 000 square miles. (2)
The second figure while smaller, is still greater than even Mississippi or Pennsylvania.
Thank you,
Tom
(1) [url https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html][/url]
(2) [url http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html][/url]
dear all, greetings !!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislike plants harness solar, we humans do too using a different but similar protocol using vitamin d. simply sitting in the sun to absorb it would do a lot to recharge our own batteries. instead of begging for more fuel from nature why dont we become the resource & use our own bioenergy & stop being lazy, stop depending on electricity in the first place, stop depending on automation. we be the automatons. but in perfect synch with the light / dark = day / night natural daily cycle. would be a lot more healthy too. wot say ? thnx.
The Grand Plan for Solar is limited, which is good but could be better. The good is that the core of the current plan – PV solar with storage - is sound and that, even with its limited scope and conservative future cost reduction assumptions, it would provide a viable solution. As for the better, the plan would be improved if it were expanded beyond its current solution of centralized PV in the US southwest using compressed air for energy storage. Expansions would include: concentrated solar power (CSP), solar thermal, distributed solar, other storage options and other areas of the US and North America – think NAFTA (Mexico). Additional options would improve its viability in the form of lower costs, less regional dependence, more efficient grid usage and more inherent security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese options could include: CSP, solar thermal (with inherent energy storage), BIPV, geographical dispersion of power sources throughout North America and use of other energy storage technologies – pumped storage, hot water and batteries, similar to those needed by the developing EV market. The Grand Plan for Solar should be part of a ‘Grand Plan for Sustainable Energy’, which should also include wind, hydro-electric, biomass and bio-fuels (for planes and ships). It would not include wave power, corn ethanol and hydrogen until their economics are demonstrated.
As for costs, the Grand Plan for Solar has addressed these costs but omitted the benefits that will accrue when solar power becomes, and continues to become, less expensive while other sources of power are continually increasing in cost. These benefits will far exceed any costs. In fact, the estimated $420 billion cost could be treated as an investment. The other benefits – clean air, security of energy supply, etc. – are icing on the cake.
$420 billion in subsidies over the next 40 years seems a small price to pay for energy independence, considering we've already wasted $1-2 trillion in the last 5 years on Iraq! I wish we had politicians that would see this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Distributed Solar:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> What is the total area of south facing roofs in the
Yes, decentralized energy is part of the answer. The energy solution is multidimensional. I work in decentralized energy, for example I wrote the Visual Sun Chart program (http://www.VisualSunChart.com/VisualSunChart), and people like me need to acknowledge there are other components and solutions necessary in combination with decentralized energy.
> The tchnology for connecting such small sources to
> the network is already available commercially.
Not yet. Connecting small numbers of decentralized electric production as now done is feasible, but integrating a more meaningful fraction of grid nodes would require more research and development. Researchers have published proposals in this area to use convex hull analysis and fuzzy logic. Much more can be done, and R&D in that area should be promoted.
More generally, decentralized energy has many dimensions itself. Perhaps most important is the maintenance issue that spans those dimensions. I will try to briefly cover that here.
Two important dimensions of decentralized energy are conservation and passive solar design. They minimize maintenance, at least in their standard form which is to not require user intervention. For example, you do not want moving parts; you do not want to require the users (dwelling habitants) to do anything. They must not be required to open and close shutters, etc. The systems are highly reliable and do not require a repair syndrome.
More toward the middle of the maintenance spectrum, other technologies can also be implemented decentralized, like electricity generation. This part of the maintenance spectrum has overlap with large scale systems like presented in this Scientific American article. The large scale systems can also cover higher maintenance parts of that spectrum, which is an important benefit.
Furthermore, a widening of electricity generating technology is occuring in the middle of the maintenance spectrum. Some less effective systems will be developed that are easier to maintain and thus usable decentralized, allowing production to be increased for systems that require some maintenance and therefore are better used in large scale. This is what you want. You want both, decentralized and large scale.
For example, compound concentrators are very usable in all residential construction. They have no moving parts, and are ideal for incorporation into architectural design. You can fit them in tight corners, under trees etc. They only accept sunlight in a cone of acceptance, but do not require head-on sunlight only, as the tracking collectors with moving parts do. The latter collect more, but require maintenance and oversight, and so are for large scale installations. That is an example of what is needed. Both decentralized and large scale are needed.
The purpose of the Scientific American article was to highlight the large scale operations. That does not preclude the use of decentralized technologies. Both are needed.
Carlos Portela
very well indeed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-all that's needed now is the vision and the boldness to act in the interest of posterity
- this comes natural to the extend we feel connected with our children
- re tackling to greatest obstacle (investments):
http://www.gezen.nl/www.gezen.nl/indexb329.html?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=68
Emil Möller, Maastricht, Netherlands
Corporate solar is not people's solar. Let people do it in their homes, show them how to do it, how much it costs. HomePower Magazine has been doing it for over 20 years. Where were you when I installed solar panels & CF's twenty years ago and cut off the grid ? Where ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs MChiacos pointed out, $ 420 billion over 40 years is very small, less than half of what we've spent on the Iraq war. This is a very do-able plan, that covers the manufacturing, finance, storage, and distribution using CURRENT technology and nothing 'pie in the sky'. It's in our National Security interests to become independent of Foreign oil, and this is the best most well thought out roadmap to get us there , than I've ever seen. Kudos to the auhors !.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the mechanical mathematician. Part of the solution!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very heartening. I had always heard that it would be nearly impossible to match the energy output of fossil fuels. One issue is about the reliance on a centralized grid versus distributed power. THis scenario keep us on a central grid with issues of power loss and potential disruptions from natural or human causes. Does the plan invision investment in distributed solar at the residential and commercial level. Rooftops seen an un tapped source of solar collectoin surface and would reduce the ultimate power we would need to transmit. Also it could help constuct the transmission system form the roots back up the network. It would help to give communities some local energy security. Perhaps most important it could engage the citizenry in the project a la the victory gardens of the Second World War that provided 40% of the nations vegetables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProblems with largescale instalation on individual sites could be competition for subsidies and productoin materials.
THanks
Jim
TP MD
Apologies if this point has already been covered (I haven't yet searched the whole thread), but...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne point which I have never seen analysed is that any form of solar plant means altering the aldebo of the land covered by the solar collectors. I have trouble believing that net solar heating over this large an area will be unchanged -- that the energy pumped away will exactly balance the additional energy locally re-radiated, with the only difference being a reduction in how much is reflected into space. And I find myself wondering whether the difference would be enough to affect weather patterns.
Admittedly, part of the point of the exercise *IS* to affect weather patterns, specifically to reduce production of greenhouse gasses. But this time around, I'd really like to see all the secondary effects considered before we pull the trigger.
Whups. Albedo. Apologies for the tangled fingers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGentlemen- Thank you for your extraordinary article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you identify political will as the major missing piece of the puzzle, my question is: Who specifically are the key policymakers? Is it the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, or DOE? And what has been done so far to get this plan in front of them? Is there anyone at a national policy level that you feel is carrying the ball on this?
Thank you.
10.8 Billion per year, let's say 20 billion for a better RE system...105 million households paying less than $200 per year... 16.66 per month. Wow, almost noth'n, (big business should pay a little too). So, if it came down to just one person per household, that person would only have to pay about a pack of CIGS per week. That stands for copper indium galinide selinium? (Search ? About 13.8 % efficient at conver sunlight to elect from my little such 4.5 volt cells). Why cigs, cause that money per average smoker would create a comparable RE future! Including noth'n but all electric cars, ect! And that CIGS is enviro-better than cadmium telluride. Both use only 1% of conventional material... Less in the way of supply demands (Search again...) Vast Re is the only option for future of Humanity since Post Oil Depletion would otherwise cause death and decay... (From lack of affordable energy to Billions) Ya, more than just a DEFINITE possibility!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfireofenergy
I love the fact that many believe that "we" should instead impliment this large amount of effort to solar roofs. However, would'nt all the (necessary) shade trees become a hinderance, requiring 2 - 5 times the solar material (hopefully NOT cadium telleride, GIGS instead, less toxic and less material demand). Also, at utility scale... less per Twh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish we (at the personal level) could get a grab at "solarfoil" but they at Nanosolar will probably not go but a penny less than DAMM market values. So the only way is to create our own Corp, create millions of turbines and solarfoils! (But I don't know how). A unification with naive hope, or is it somehow a real possibility?
fireofenergy
I believe that ultimately, batteries, and even more so, supercapacitors (which, unfortunately, are nowhere near the energy density medium per price at this time) should be valued as the "speed of light" solution, to be spent millions of research $$$ on. Large caverns are hard to finance, and air is almost, if not more so, diffuse, than the RE we all need to capture in the first place. Already exsisting cavernes are not enough/enviro un doable. As for water, at least resivoirs for pumped water energy storage can attract "fun", and provide additional needed sources of emergency water. Hydrogen seems to be the least efficient (unless used for largescale mid ocean bouancy based wind of future for transmission and storage). And batteries are about 2 - 2.5 times more effic overall (over hydrogen cars). Also, I don't think anybody wants to rely on SCES, that requires constant -400 temps
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's awsome that so many people care!!!
I had a chance to read earlier messages in this thread. There is a lot there. People can look for answers there. My question about transmission lines was covered in a message explaining DC has less loss and requires less buffer spacing. Also, more in-depth articles are not likely in Scientific American, but will be in other journals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterest in how to proceed is expressed, including addressing doubters. I think that structural economics is part of the problem, for example in my field something I have to work on is to get construction to shift from spending more on building and maintenance to investing more in architectural engineering design, producing net savings (as Ernst Frankel points out, maintenance costs of U.S. homes can be 65 percent lower). This is very common. For example, Amory Lovins talks about using heat recovery ventilators to replace heating ventilation and air conditioning units, and having to explain that it pays more than its way.
Besides addressing structural economics, from reading your message thread it seems there may be an additional need, for you to work on how people perceive scale. In introductory physics and chemistry there are analogies about how to imagine the sizes of atomic particles. You may need to work on helping people understand scale. Your task is doubly hard, to explain not just economics but also scaling. I hope you make progress. May many coal power plants close as a result.
solar power is the future of mankind
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is excellent and extremely valuable work. Is the model you used to make your calculations available? It might be interested to "open source" the model and allow other people to modify and tweak it, in order to facilitate discussion. It might also be valuable (and an interesting continuing attraction) to put an interactive version of the model on your web site. (We've done this for other models, so we might be able to help, pro bono of course.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, thank you very much for your outstanding contribution to the dialog on energy planning. I hope it gets the attention you deserve!
Ken, James,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo reiterate, I think you’ve written an excellent article. And I look forward to working with you to help implement your Solar Grand Plan or something like it.
This week, on Jan 10, the CSP industry will be convening in Phoenix to discuss technology, policy, and utility scale projects in Arizona. One of the things that will be discussed is how to bring Kyl and McCain (US AZ Senators) over to the “light side†as far as renewable energy policy. They both voted against the recent tax title to the Energy Bill, which failed by one heartbreaking vote last month to cut debate off in the Senate (59 – 40). The bill, as you know, would have cut $13B in subsidies for the oil, coal, and gas industry, and made them available to renewable energy technologies (wind, solar, geothermal). It would have created a durable five to eight year platform for renewable energy developers and manufacturers to plan on.
How Arizona’s two senators, who do not hail from an oil, gas, or coal state, voted against legislation that will certainly position Arizona, over time, to become a major exporter of renewable energy to the rest of the nation, not to mention a hub of low cost solar electricity, is beyond me. I think it’s largely a matter of education, as they are probably not aware of the tremendous strides being made in thin film solar and CSP. At the CSP conference, we plan to discuss how large, established balance sheet companies, such as FPL, Abengoa, First Solar, Acciona, PPM, enXco, and others, like Brightsource, Ausra, e-Solar, Primestar, and Solar Millenium can collaborate on an effort to present the size and scale of the economic opportunity available to Arizona, to the Arizona senators. This effort can be duplicated for other US Southwest states.
Erik
--
Edited by Erik Ellis at 01/06/2008 11:14 AM
--
Edited by Erik Ellis at 01/06/2008 11:18 AM
--
Edited by Erik Ellis at 01/06/2008 11:59 AM
Ken, James,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn multiple places throughout this thread, you have made the contention that CAES is somewhere around 80% round trip efficient (response 101, 200, and others). After having researched the matter, I believe this is an inaccurate characterization of the round trip efficiency (RTE) of CAES, and I suggest that the more accurate figure of 55% be used going forward. Please advise if agree or disagree, and why:
1) First, to start, most mechanical engineers familiar with air compression have questioned the 80% figure. How, we ask, is it possible to compress air, and expand it in a turbine later for only a 20% loss total round trip efficiency loss? Electric motor losses should be 2% on compression and on expansion. So that’s a 4% total. Then, both the compression and expansion losses to entropy should be in the 10 – 15% range each way. So that’s 20 – 30% more. Then, there are the losses because the air storage is not abiabatic in the salt cavern; i.e., the air is heated due to the compression and loses energy to the cavern, which is irreversible. Thus, the expectation is that the total energy recovered from storage should be on the 50% - 60% of what was originally put into the system. Many in this form have been confused as to how it could be otherwise.
2) So let’s start. Suppose I had a black box for energy storage. Suppose for every 1.67 units of energy that put into the box, it could deliver 1 unit of electricity out of storage. What would you call the RTE in this case? The answer, of course, would be 1/1.67 = 60%.
3) Now let’s look in detail at CAES . Please refer to the following link, given at: http://www.princeton.edu/~ssuccar/recent/Succar_IACDurban_Oct05.pdf
4) Jump to slide 17, entitled “CAES Efficiencyâ€
5) We see that CAES takes 0.67 kWh of electrical input into storage, combined later with 4220 kJ of heat energy from natural gas, to produce 1 kWh of electrical output when the air is expanded. Note the units are not quite consistent here. We need to convert kJ to kWh to make it really clear. 4220 kJ = (4220/3600) kWh = 1.17 kWh for the heat energy from natural gas.
6) Thus, an energy balance of the overall CAES process is as follows: 0.67 kWh + 1.17 kWh units input yields 1 kWh out of the process. The efficiency, then, can be calculated by the ratio of (1/1.84) = 54%.
7) Someone somewhere along the line wanting to inflate the efficiency of CAES probably made the following argument. Here it is. They reasoned that electricity out of modern combine cycle plants is usually 55% efficient. Thus, 4220 kJ of natural gas (1.17 kWh) would normally produce 1.17*.55 = 0.64 kWh of electrical output in a combined cycle gas plant. But more is obviously achieved from CAES because compressed air is used as input, which elevates the output to 1 kWh. If one were to treat the compressed air as free, it could be possible to calculate the thermal efficiency of CAES, which produces 1 kWh of output, with 1.17 kWh of input. Such an efficiency would be 1/1.17, or 85%. To conflate this [i]thermal efficiency[/i] with the true [i]round trip efficiency [/i]of CAES, however, would not be accurate. The compressed air stored in the cavern is not free energy, and has to be included in any round trip efficiency calculation, as illustrated in point 6 above.
8) Do you agree?
A good article, but you are typical short sighted Americans. The grand plan is world wide. Buckminster Fuller already thought of the missing part, a world wide power grid. Connect the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia together and then you don't need storage capacity for night time power usage. The solar panels in daylight generate power for the rest of the world. This requires more solar panels overall, but saves the cost of the storage system (which is likely to be very inefficient). This plan however needs the technology of ultra high power capable power lines which can be run across continents and under the sea (Bearing Straight). So while local generation with storage is a near term solution, the goal should be WORLD POWER from solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to Erik Elllis on CAES efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe state a turnaround efficiency of 78%, which is based on fossil fuel consumption.
You are correct in your net energy effiiciency calculation. In our calculations we use a higher quantity of energy for air compression (0.8kWh PV electricity in per kWh of electricity production by CAES plant), and our net energy efficiency is 48%, which is somewhat less than what you calculate using Succar's compression energy estimate. Regardless of how you cut it, PV-CAES improves the efficiency of simple-cycle peak gas turbine power plants by 55-60%. And in terms of fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions the improvements are even greater.
And you point to an important issue in your post, the use of combined-cycle CAES plants. We do not model combined-cycle CAES. We do not use any of the compression heat. With the design of combined-cycle power plants, the efficiencies, fuel consumption rate, and carbon dioxide emissions rate will improve even more. And with the low fuel consumption of combined-cycle CAES plants, the use of biofuels to replace natural gas will become economical, and we can realize zero carbon dioxide emissions electricity production.
I've read about storage, and it seems that on a (almost)totally RE powered world, we would only need about 15% extra storage capacity. Yet, since even global weather is not always averaged out, and that calamities do happen, the world should build more RE capacity with A LOT more storage. I think storage is much cheaper than generation. Also, it would be nice to be able to depend on more localized intermittant RE, thus the reason why more research is needed for ultracapacitors. They are not yet dense enough to compare with batteries, but are not toxic and absorb - release juice far quicker, and last as long as their physical housing - up to millions of "recharges". The supercap dispatch system would definately be "at the speed of light"! Could they require far less construction and space than compressed air, hydropumped, massive flywheels, electrolysis, or ???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEdit...
I came across this site...
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2005/tech-options/tor2005-134.pdf
and it explains how even fossil plants can benifet from storage, and has a little list of advantages for each, ect.
I'll continue to search the supercapacitor... Thanks for all the info, still trying to read all the posts..
--
Edited by fireofenergy at 01/06/2008 12:40 PM
I agree that the SW United States is a vast untapped solar generator and feel that it is criminal that we are not taking advantage of it, especially given the current situation in the middle east.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI claim not to be an expert in the field that we are discussing, but have a few thoughts about what we should be doing to change our energy delivery system.
In a nutshell, I think we need to build 100 square miles of Solar Sterling Engines in the desert. No need for silicon, as they are solar concentrators using mirrors. The energy produced can be distributed to end users across the US where it will power home based electrolisis machines to produce hydrogen which we will fuel our hydrogen fuel cells with that will power our homes/offices, as well as our automobiles. Honda has these machines in development currently for future owners of their hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that will allow them to fuel up at home! It is just another step to bring the whole building into the plan.
Yes, over time RE technologies will advance (ultracapacitors ? sterling engines ?, fresnel lense ?, tower CSP ?, etc. etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we are proposing is that with the current energy situation, (and what is not being publicized is that U.S. and North American natural gas production is now in DECLINE which means that by 2020 the U.S. natural gas market will be dependent on foreign sources similar to today's oil situation), it is important that we not delay in deploying on a super-large-scale the RE technologies that we have on the commercial market shelf. And when other technologies advance to the commercial stage of development, then those can be deployed in addition to and/or as replacements for the RE technologies deployed in this model.
We are conservative on our modeling of distributed energy systems, but before distributed energy systems can truly take off, they have to be brought to "lowest cost" through optimized scale manufacturing. This is why the "current" emphasis needs to be on centralized systems - to bring all market ready RE technologies to competitive optimized scale manufacturing to achieve lowest cost, then distributed RE systems will take off. This could significantly alter the "long-term" energy mix projections in this article, but they do not alter the "near-term" energy mix projections.
--
Edited by James Mason at 01/06/2008 1:12 PM
What looks like a piece of black paper, can be twisted, stacked, even cut into smaller pieces, can withstand temps up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit and down to 100 below zero, is non-toxic and definately still in its foward looking stage?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA new hybrid supercapacitor battery.
Rensselaer researchers infused this paper with aligned carbon nanotubes...
“When we get this technology down, we’ll basically have the ability to print batteries and print supercapacitors,â€
Couldn't help it...
(but watch out for the site's quicktime, it messed with my browser).
I hope that we can at least just get started on the RE generation, but I feel that something like this "paper" idea may blow away conventional storage techniques.
We should craft a law that declares null and void ANY enviro impact reports for RE with the following exception;
No clearcutting, and no turbines in the way of migratory paths!
Interesting point you have made, C Portela. You may be interested in "Modeling for All Scales - An introduction to System Simulation, by Howard T Odum and Elisabeth C Odum, Academic Press, 2000
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of wider public understanding of how people perceive scale, EC Odum has been working on this problem in public schools. I am unaware of any specific reports of the outcomes, but this is for lack of trying, on my part.
A significant amount of the core content of "Modelling for All Scales" is available at emergy.org
I believe architects have gone further in integrating the ideas of energy efficiency and embodied energy savings than any other group of professionals. My guess is that they have responded most directly to individual consumers (their clients) who are interested in savings, across the set of , integrated systems which comprise modern houses and commercial buildings.
There is an age-old precedent for energy-efficient architecture in the "magnetic" termite nests of Northern Australia. For example, see photos at:
www.travelblog.org/
Oceania/Australia/Northern-Territory/
Litchfield-National-Park/blog-184992.html
The nests aren't aren't literally magnetic, but rather are aligned to optimise heat exchange over the daily pattern of variations in their tropical environment. It's pretty stunning, when you consider this physical architecture has evolved from modifications of instinctive behavior of social insects, over untold thousands of years.
These individual creatures likely have less than 50,000 neurons in their nervous systems: when I consider the size of each individual termite "computer", and the massive parallel computing that evidently goes on in a living colony, and has gone on over the course of termite evolution, I am at a total loss for words beyond "Awesome".
We here, with our larger "biocomputers", personal computers and far vaster technological resources have a lot to learn yet about optimising energy flows in our communities.
My guess is that many of the solutions are available for the observing, in older traditional architectures which have stood the test of time in harsh environments. My hope is that we can adapt them so as to help us live in better long-term equilibrium with the living natural systems which support us, and with each other.
Thanks for posting links to your software, CP
Let me make another appeal to the authors of this article and to others who are monitoring the discussion. It's a great piece of work; and i've been directing people to it and will continue to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut along with this, if we are to move beyond "feel good" and go to action, someone needs to pick up the ball.
From my knowledge of what is going on in the West, CSP is starting to have significant play and will need a few years to get enough hardware on the ground to prove itself. This will probablyl amount to about 2000 mw or more by 2011.
I don't know enough about pv as central station to comment on where it will stand competitively in that time frame.
WHAT IS MISSING IS ACTION TO DRIVE THIS ACTIVITY NATIONWIDE; I.E., A MOVE TO SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THE HI-VOLTAGE DC TRANSMISSON SYSTEM. IS THERE SOMEONE IN THE EAST WHO BELIEVES THAT IMPORTING ELECTRICITY 2000 MILES FROM THE SOUTHWEST IS ACCCEDPTABLE? I CONTINUE TO SEE WHAT I CALL "FEEL GOOD" ACTIVITY IN THESE COMMUNITIES - WHICH ARE NOT BAD, BUT MISS THE NEED FOR A MAJOR NATIONAL THRUST.
I SEE A NEED TO GET DOE AND CONGRESS TO INITIATE STUDIES, POSSIBLY THROUGH NATIONAL LABS ON THIS HI-VOLTAGE DC SUPER-HIWAY.
SO WILL THOSE WHO ARE READY TO GO TO BAT ALONG THOSE LINES IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THAT PURPOSE.
ON THIS SITE IS FINE BUT I ALSO PUT MY CONTACT INFO HERE:
SOMARL@MSN.COM
Think of how easily the centralized farm(s)could be incapacitated by an attack with conventional or electromagnetic missle or other. What about that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice Article. But I think there is a better way than using PV cells and air tanks. The energy efficiency per space required with air is way off, and at sufficient pressures to be compact represents a huge bomb. The better way is to use solar-thermal-electric plants. That is what the utilities are starting to employ. Heat can be stored in a very small space. The storage time at high efficiency goes up as the storage size increases, because the heat capacity increases with the volume, while the heat loss increase with the surface. A 1 cubic meter store is good for a day of heat storage at a temperature of 400 degC with about a 10% loss. Insulation is cheap, and there is no danger from explosion. In addition, the heat can be captured at about 85% efficiency vs. the 20% or less from the PV cells. Later the heat can run a turbine at about 40% efficiency. Small systems can be employed at the local level, and in this case the waste heat can be used for other purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome years back, I developed a design for fabric photovoltaics. As part of that I realized that putting up this material in deserts would change the ecology if done on a large scale. If you think about it for a bit, it's pretty obvious. I think it would be true of your concept also. Just modify it a little. Put the collectors up on a frame that is 15'-20' off the ground. (Could be taller, but let's leave it there for now.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happens then is that the ground below below has a huge amount of solar energy taken out of it, so the ground cools off, which causes moisture to condense, and it also acts as a barrier to moisture evaporating after rainfall. A layer of air under the collectors would maintain a much more stable temperature throughout the day, acting similarly to the way that moisture in air does to keep warm at night and cooler in the day. The desert would bloom underneath it. It could be farmed with the right kind of shade plants. If it wasn't farmed, in 10-15 years it would be filled with plants and wildlife. Think of the understory of a rain-forest and the ecology that supports. Temperature and water are the key to life.
If you start sticking solar collectors up on sticks you hit problems with wind, one of the main perils of solar arrays.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you take somewhere like Arizona, one of the areeas often touted as ideal for solar, the expected life of PV panels is around half of normal, due to abrasion from dust driven by high winds..
That is why Ausra is keeping it's array as close as possible to the ground, and has the facility to reverse the mirrors to expose only the steel bakcs during storms.
Back in 1973 during the Mideast Oil Crisis the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson had these words to say about solar energy during a public talk:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA nation that is dependent on others for its energy needs, finds its strength diminished and weakened...
But it need not be so. The U.S. does have the resources, and this country, with G-ds help, can be self-sufficient in energy. The problem lies elsewhere, in the failure to utilize G-ds gifts to their fullest. The motto on this countrys currency is "In G-d We Trust." We need but live up to it. There are various sources from which the U.S. can derive its energy needs...
There is, however, one energy source which can be made available in a very short time. Solar energy is non-polluting, cheap, and inexhaustible. Already used in many countries, it can power individual homes as well as giant factories. The United States has been blessed with plentiful sunshine, especially in the south, and it is no great technological feat to transport the energy derived from it to other parts of the country. The entire United States, and indeed, other countries not so well blessed with sunshine, can have their energy needs met with the solar energy produced in the southern United States. The U.S.A. need but have the proper determination, brush aside all opposition, and very quickly solve its energy problems. Then, no longer dependent on foreign countries, it can utilize its G-d given assets to influence peoples around the world -- to be productive, G-d fearing citizens...With the independence and power thus granted to it, the United States can fulfill its role of bringing peace and stability to this sorely troubled planet...
I think the Solar Grand plan is incredible and doable. I hope that the authors and all peple involved in developing the plan get the word out to our political leaders and effectively "lobby" these ideas. Also I think that leaders in the fields of renewable technologies need to focus more on educating kids through our school systems etc about how solar -wind technologies work and career paths in these fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there is a huge lack of awareness out there. They can't help work for change if they don't have the knowledge or means to effect change...the youth are the future.
I'm curious what affects on the local ecology are anticipated from this plan. I expect that the vast shade areas created by these solar arrays would have a profound impact on the local flora and fauna. What kind of effects have been seen with existing southwestern solar plants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/business/09stream.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&adxnnlx=1199743281-CYq0UaXcpwEOl/k3anEtSQ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Solar Grand Plan: The Team to put Solar Grand Plan in Orbit
Taking a lesson from history, I would like to encourage community members to begin a collaborative discussion for making this Plan a reality.
There's an historical model to begin this discussion (see link), and genesis of the Internet is, today, a cause celebre. Now many technical generations removed from that era, the tools to promote and execute A Solar Grand Plan are powerful and available.
Ideally, I would like all interested parties to draft an outline of their particular model, and through collaboration reach a consensus for action.
.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaybe, they can build also the "Wind Energy Skyscrapers" Power Plants:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/028energy.html
.
Thank you for your workable, well thought-out plan to finally give us true energy security. What can we do to get this plan in front of lawmakers and start working toward this goal? America needs this plan. But be prepared--surely Big Oil will fight back with every trick in the book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see two problems with this. Using their numbers, 2.5% of 250000sq.mi is 6250sq.mi which is 4 million acres. That is assuming that the cells are 100% efficient. They are not close. I wonder what the enviromentalists will have to say about that? Second, I work for a power company in the west, and the cost of putting up windmills has doubled in the last ten years. I see no reason that would not happen here also. Imagine the demand for solar cells and the problems producing them. It is being very charitable to say the price of this system will only double in the 40 years of the plan. Now it cost 800 billion and probably more like 1600 billion.Wait till you get your utility bill on that. It all sounds good in a perfect world but we obviously don't live there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving finally gotten enough time to read through the article, and think about it a bit.. Several comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) Solar Cell Degradation. What is the expected life of solar cells? I believe you can get 25 year warranties on their output, but what is the expected degradation? This runs in the range of 1-2% per year, for thin film cells I believe. This needs to be added back into the expected costs of the system, as an increase in O&M cost or declining capability. Similarly, as shown from existing experiments that cover plates get scratched or etched from environmental effects or even the cleaning processes used in the on-going O&M program. Perhaps this is not a major driver, but needs to be considered -- I'd estimate this would increase the 0&M costs (assuming $2/W solar installations) by about $0.01/ kwh)
b) In a previous response (168) the issue of Concentrated PV systems was briefly covered. I believe this is a very promising area, and some modest (10's of $M ) in the near term can provide substantially decreased costs for PV system. Using solar cells at around 35% efficency (Triple Junction -- available commerically today from several suppliers, with a production capability of around 300-500 MW/ year), and conceentration ratios of 800-1000X shows the promise of reducing costs down less than $0.10/kwh at production rates of 20-50 MW per year. Higher production rates can push costs down below grid parity. {R.W. Swanson, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl., 8, 93-11 (2000), among others] Spending a few tens of millions to check otu these engineering projections might be very fruitful -- this could cut the land requirements for a PV system by 2-3X, as well as produce lower costs.
c) The problem with wind is its peak production appears based upon the diurnal wind cycle -- peak production is in the early morning and early evening. Peak demand however, is in the 4-5 PM time period in the summer, when winds are historically at their minimum.
d) A good combination renewable system might be CPV (high efficency, low cost), combined with CSP systems with thermal storage (molten salt, for example) to extend the solar systems utility into the evenings, coupled with wind systems to cover the evenings and add to a CAES reserve system. Backup and extended baseload power can be provided by geothermal and nuclear power. The combination provides multiple energy sources, general distributed supply (but more oriented into the US southwest), overlapping peak production times, some long-term sustainable baseload power independent of the local environment (weather), and near zero CO2 emissions.
The Grand Plan is like they say about putting 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean - a great start! Several others have added comments regarding the engagement of homes and office buildings in this effort. The plan, to be practical, needs to be diversified (hopefully without losing its central core of the solar utility in the desert).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf every house and office building were built with excellent insulation, solar orientation, geo-exchange heating and cooling, and a modest PV array, how much additional power would be required by our solar utility? In addition, about 20% of our country's power is wasted up the smoke stacks of industry. That source should also be tapped.
This is all to take nothing away from the Grand Plan - let's get it started!
In the article it says there are 500 miles of HVDC lines. What about the pacific intertie, which is 846 miles long, and was built in 1961? It is still functioning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read all the posts. Very informative, thanks y'all. Thermal dynamic economics favors displacing fossil fuels used for low temperature applications, like wet steam industrial process heat for food processing, over high temperature applications, like power production. We do not build a dairy just for the cream, nor a foundry just for stainless steel. We should not build out solar just for power, but rather skim the power off the top of the total solar energy cycle. CSP can supply industrial process heat and cogenerate power with better economics than dedicated solar power plants. Our approach uses glass dishes for wet steam with the option of some power off the top from Spectrolab's type III-V cells or from PhotoVolt's VMJ high-intensity silicon cells. Solar cogeneration will likely cost less than $1/Watt(e) and thermals less than $0.20/Watt(t).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat thinking! The plan that you have outlined is thoughful, strategic and well grounded. I am pleased to see this article in SciAm. This will be an effective tool to bring about true market transformation if we stick to the formula - create awareness, educate and build demand. I chair the solar energy advisory council for the State of Arizona and would like to help you facilitate necessary discussions...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding terrorism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s assume it is 2100 and this vision is fully implemented.
Assume that we are terrorists who hate Americans and have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.
We will not drop a bomb on a field of solar collectors. We will use small shaped charges to drop every HVDC power line crossing the Mississippi river, into the river.
We will watch the weather channel, and pick a time when they predict that a huge mass of arctic cold air will flow down from Canada generating record cold temperatures from Main to Florida, as happened a couple of weeks ago. Or we will attack during a record heat wave such as the summer heat wave of 2006.
The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
This impact is many orders of magnitude greater than we could achieve attacking the Indian Point nuclear station, and the attack would be much easier to carry out.
You could specify that we maintain an array of conventional power plants with a sufficient fuel supply to cover this situation. Building those facilities and hiring the people to maintain and operate them would be an enormous expense not included in your cost estimate.
In the cost estimates for these initiatives I haven't seen anything on what amortization we would get from selling the developed technologies to other countries. Like other technologies, take for example the aircraft industry, the sales to other countries are a huge benefit to our economy. If we initiate these technologies with an investment from the government we will reap the benefits later. As oil reserves dwindle and international pressure mounts for cleaner energy China, India, in fact the whole planet will be looking for new solutions. If we DON'T fund this effort, we will be buying from Europe, China, Japan and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust eliminate the conflict between energy efficiency and building environmental activists and you'll save energy. A house built today requires extreme air space sealing, then it must exchange the air several times a day - essentially a built in leak factor. Further, apart from the energy independence during power outages, clean home power generation will never be as cost efficient as power generation at the industrial level. Rather than promoting everyone build their own, take the same amount of money and build large efficient systems. You'll find energy independence will come much faster for the same financial investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom comment 137 and others;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]“Our plan goes through 2100 and is equivalent to about 10,000 nuclear reactors. I don't want to get too graphic on this subject, but it is a major concern.
Whether it's 10,000 nuclear power plants (10 TW) or using a major part of the US deserts for solar, we will have to adjustâ€[/i]
Ken,
104 reactors with an average rating of less then 1GW are producing about 20% of our electricity. Next generation reacrtors are being designed with ratings of about 1.5 GW.
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/BROCHURE_EPR_US_2.pdf
http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-1-3.pdf
Most existing reactors are getting 60 year license extensions. Adding 300 new and larger plants will provide near 100% nuclear electricity.
At a 1% growth rate electricity consumption would increase 262% by 2100, but reactor power ratings could also triple by then. So 400 to 1200 plants would be sufficient in 2100.
What makes you think we would need 10,000 new reactors?
The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that solar and other renewable energy technologies are fully capable of providing close to 100% of total U.S. energy needs in 2100. The only exception being industrial coal use such as coke for virgin steel production. The large growth in electricity consumption is due to the use of electricity for space/water heating and transportation, which are currently provided by fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 2100, total electricity consumption is 29,000 terawatt-hours. We provided for both energy conservation and energy growth to maintain U.S. lifestyles. For example, we model the universal adoption of geothermal heat pumps for 100% of all space heating and cooling with a 30% energy savings; as well as, the universal adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for 100% of light duty vehicles and light duty commerical trucks.
Assuming a nuclear plant size of 1.5-GW and a 90% annual capacity factor, the total number of nuclear power plants is 2,452 nuclear power plants. And that is just the U.S.
Assuming that the U.S. is 15% of total world energy consumption in 2100, the nuclear path would result in 16,000 nuclear power plants worldwide. Since nations with nuclear power also develop nuclear bombs (e.g. the current debate over Iranian and N. Korean nuclear power plants), the Solar Energy Campaign for which I speak is opposed to the nuclear path. To assume that the U.S. can have them and others cannot is just not going to wash in an increasingly fossil fuel scarce world. With worldwide proliferation of nuclear weaponry and the current status of international political relations, I'm afraid that some country or countries will find justication to use "the bomb." This is my worst nightmare, and the solar path presented in this article provides an option.
With the Solar Grand Plan, we have the opportunity to build a clean, sustainable, and risk free energy future. This is just one of the messages that this article presents.
I'm trying to help by pointing others to this discussion from Renewable Energy Access. I wish I knew how to do more (To positivly engage action) but basicly the only reason I write about RE is because I have time... Cause I'm not working enough to even afford "cheap fossil fueled energy" (need to paint another house but ther'es snow everywhere, otherwise it's late and no one responds!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't help but to keep reiterating, We will need many times the energy we use today if we expect to continue to survive and grow.
Before, I thought indium was a good choice because it's non-toxic, but I found out that at only one micron thick (on thin film), there would be enough to cover only about 1,000 sq miles or less. Nevertheless, I believe that the companies doing that would figure the next step... perhaps carbon sheets...?
The U.S. consumes just over 100 quads Btu (primary energy consumption, EIA '04), which if converted = about 30 trillion kWh. About half to two thirds of that is wasted to the confines of physics. At 100% a 1 gigawatt plant would provide 8,760 GWH into the grid = to 8.76 billion kWh's, thus 30 trillion / 8,760,000,000 = 3,424 1GW generating plants (or farms). Of course, we would need to produce much less since that 30 trillion figure represents wasted energy also. I believe that with the capacity factor of RE so low, we just might need to build that kind of capacity anyways (to power electric cars, provide electrical storage, ect). And with nuclear, there will not be enough fuel for 2,000 or so large plants (unless we eneacted breeder tech to recycle the fuel).
Vision:
By the time the solar and wind becomes decommisioned 40 years from now, humanity should have come up with fusion, and reclame the solar fields (that kept us going through the oil shock) for more multi-level EV accessable cities...
--
Edited by fireofenergy at 01/09/2008 3:17 PM
--
Edited by fireofenergy at 01/09/2008 3:59 PM
Changing a paradigm starts with a vision and I think this article does a good job of laying out a technically achievable vision. The practical issues are cost and timing. The real cost won't be know until we have committed to a course and are well down the path. Having said that, no matter what course we choose we know the following: 1) no forecast will be accurate, but cost for enery is going to be a lot more in the future; and 2) consumers will ultimately have to pay either through increased energy charges or through tax subsidies or both. I can't question the cost estimates in the article, but that is probably not the real issue. The real issue is whether we can get the changes needed in industry structure, government policy and consumer expectations to achieve something like this article suggests. I am not hopeful. For example, the current patchwork of state by state policies would need to be eliminated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘This is just for the PV alone. With the rest of the costs, dispatchable electricity would come out closer to 11-12 c/kWh.â€
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOption 1 The solar system.
In 2020 the local utility will buy power at 11 cents per kWh and deliver it to the residential customer for about 15 cents per kWh, corrected for inflation to the present.
Option 2 The nuclear system
104 nuclear power plants make about 20% of our electricity. Most of them paid off their capital costs long ago. The Operation and Maintenance costs, O&M, are less than 2 cents per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
So the owners of these plants are making a lot of money.
Power from new nuclear plants is expected to cost about 5 cents per kWh until the plants are paid off, then much less.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
The local utility would add 4 cents per kWh for a customer cost of 9 cents per kWh. So the difference between option 1 and 2 is about 6 cents per kWh.
The U.S. consumes over 4000 tWh now. If that number is going to 29,000 tWh by 2100, let’s assume an average of 10,000 tWh from now till then.
With a difference of 6 cents per kWh, option 1 will cost consumers $600 billion more than option 2 each year.
Over the next 92 years option 1 will cost consumers $55,000 billion more than option 2. That is 131 times the $420 billion subsidy called for in the paper. The subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Regarding nuclear weapons.
I agree with you that the U.S. should be making a vigorous effort to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. We do not need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, and we are the most likely target of a nuclear attack, we have the most to gain by eliminating them.
In 1942, when the president initiated the Manhattan project. Knowledge of nuclear energy was very fuzzy and limited, yet 3 years later we had 2 working designs for nuclear weapons, 15 years before the advent of commercial nuclear power. Now the details of nuclear technology are available on the internet and in textbooks with great precision. Making nuclear weapons now is much easier than in 1942.
There are three paths to nuclear weapons.
1 Extracting weapons grade plutonium from low burnup fuel made in simple cheap unpressurized plutonium production reactors.
2 Extracting uranium 235 from natural uranium, referred to as enrichment.
3 Extracting power reactor grade plutonium from high burnup commercial reactor fuel. This is the most difficult, expensive and time consuming route. Power reactor plutonium contains heavier isotopes of plutonium that makes bomb design and fabrication extremely difficult. I do not know of any nuclear weapons state that uses this path. How does eliminating the most difficult, expensive, untraveled path enhance our security, knowing that the easier paths will always be available with or without commercial nuclear power plants?
The only countries that do not have nuclear weapons are those that do not want them or have not wanted them until recently.
Regarding uranium.
The oceans contain 4.6 billion tons of uranium, half of which is sufficient to support 10 billion people for 400 years using first generation reactors and over 30,000 years with breeders.
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html
In reality the oceans are continuously supplied with uranium by the erosion of land, so the uranium supply is effectively unlimited.
For more information see Things Everybody Should Know About Energy.
http://www.nuclearcoal.com/energy_facts.htm
Download the paper and the spreadsheet for easier reading.
To the Authors,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we get our incoming political leaders to realize the opportunity here to change our country. This is a vision that needs to be promoted at the highest level. This needs to get placed before our candidates to see which ones have the vision to push this as the next challenge for the country like JFK did with the Apollo moon project. I'll do what I can by email but we need help from many to make an impact.
Wow. Lots of information here (it took a LONG time to read it all). Overall, I agree with the concept of more solar power plants, but I wonder if relying a bit more on a distributed system where the generation is closer to the point of use wouldn't be more efficient and cost less. I drive around San Diego, Pheonix, Los Angeles, Tucson, etc., and I see large asphalt parking lots, huge flat building roofs, etc., all over the place. Our cities have already created microclimates so adding lots of solar panels will not change things that much. I realize that there will be a loss of efficiency because you won't use technology that keeps the panels optimally pointed at the sun and that your weather will be less than optimal, but that decrease in efficiency can be largely offset by the savings in infrastructure upgrades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, as the article so keenly highlights, the first step is to change the economics of the situation. The article relies largely on large subsidies. I don't disagree that this is needed and I applaud California's subsidies to renewable energy sources. However, I think that the economics need to be changed even more. Currently a residential solar system cannot sell extra capacity back to the grid. The best you can do is trade on peak generation for off peak usage where the power companies get any extra generated for free. It would seem to be a huge incentive if you could actually sell the power company your extra electricity. Scaling that up to a large shopping center (or a large car dealership), companies may begin to view the installation of parking lot/building shading solar panels as a potential money maker.
I do not disagree that some large scale renewable energy system is needed and that large solar power plants need to be a piece of the picture (along with technologies that we haven't even considered yet), but I wonder if we aren't selling the concept short by not concentrating more on point of use generation in the large southern cities.
Dear editors,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction in the US, SPARE US, is an environmental organization created during the period of the original Earth Day. It has always warned that solar energy is not entirely problem free. It continues to point out that altering the Albedo of significant areas of the world, to harness solar energy on a wide scale, will produce dire climate change.
The typical Albedo or reflectivity of the Earth is about 30%. That means that 30% get reflected back to Space and 70% get absorbed. This proposal would increase 50,000 sq km with an an additional
5.5 x10**15 more watts per day than the Earth currently receives. Enough to outdo all the GHGs could do to warm the Earth in thousands of years.
It is stark raving madness. Thankfully it is also impossible to do.
This fanciful proposal is shear, stark raving madness. Thankfully, a simple analysis as conducted by the Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction in the US, SPARE US, an environmental organization existing since the First Earth Day, has conducted, shows it could never be done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe waste heat would be 5.5x10**15 watts, daily.
Such a project would never pass an EIS examination. If tried, it would barbecue and fry every plant or animal in three states and drive into extinction anywhere from 10^^3 to 10^^6 species of the biota. But the facilities would likely destroy themselves in operation, from the localized climactic effects; many resembling a stationary hurricane.
Contact us for the full analysis.
That energy thing about nuclear is way convincing by Bill Hannahan (Things everybody should know about energy).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMabey we should learn more about how to build nuclear reactors that breeds its own fuel from thorium which is three times more abundant than uranium with no plutonium production - and in the mean time, cover the deserts with solar foil (and/or thermal).
Edit,
Solar fields made from foil or solar troughs can not "fry" anything other than its intended target (a few bugs maybe)and DO NOT reflect on the order of whole human monthly primary energy usages per day. However, they may, if un planned absorb to much and create waste heat above the norm, why not change to the appropiate color?
--
Edited by fireofenergy at 01/09/2008 10:54 PM
One important resource I see missing from the plan: Deserts are not only huge positive energy sources during the day, they also represent huge energy sinks during the night. Humans have actually been making use of this fact since the time of the Pharoahs when they used the heat-sinking capability of the clear night sky to manufacture ice, using little more than shallow clay trays filled with water and straw for insulation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the critical limits in concentrated PV systems is the relatively low working temperatures of silicon photocells. Active cooling permits systems that use a lot more reflector or fresnel surface than expensive PV surface. Likewise, heat engines in concentrated solar thermal systems extract energy from the difference between the hot storage medium and some cooler medium.
Both of these types of systems can be made more efficient by using the energy collection hardware to radiate heat into the clear night sky in order to cool another heat storage medium (EG. insulated tanks of salt solution). This cold medium can then be used to keep concentrated PV cells in their high-efficiency temperature range during the day, or to help the energy conversion process in continous heat engine systems.
This is a bit off-topic, but I would like to get the ideas exposed: Residential solar energy systems could be made at least 100% more efficient if they incorporated a few simple improvements. For example, even in the American Southwest deserts optimal fixed-angle PV panels only receive the equivalent of about 6 hours of noon-strength sun per day when averaged over a full year. But every unshaded location on earth averages 12 hours of sunlight per day over a full year. Why not use a variable concentration mirror system so the PV array gets full-strength sunlight from 11 am to 1 pm, but gets more concentrated sunlight in the morning and afternoon? (This is most easily done with a solar trough reflector.) This alone could keep the PV array's power output at full strength and change the effective ensolation from 6 up to 10 hours average per day. The beauty of it is that this would never operate the PV array at more than one full sun, so no additional cooling would be required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut really, what is wrong with cooling the PV array so it could operate at 2 suns or even 10 suns? By adding more reflector area we would get a system that would generate much more electricity AND supply a hot water-based home heating system! For most homes in the US, water and space heating represents their single largest energy sink. We get that for free just by designing more integrated PV and heat collection systems.
World power grid is a nice idea. But it ignores human motives to war. The first world of North America and Europe have taken on a win-win paradigm quite thoroughly. But the rest of the world still lives by zero-sum-game where your loss is my gain. This is, by the way, the logic of what we call terrorists (more correctly called "asymmetric warfare" practitioners, or "violent non-state actors" VNSAs.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> If you start sticking solar collectors up on sticks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> you hit problems with wind, one of the main perils of
> solar arrays.
True at small scale. But not if you are tallking about such huge coverage areas. With the level of coverage discussed in the article you would establish a new plane above the ground that the wind would pass over. You could see bernoulli effects sucking air in a high wind and lower air pressure under this huge array. And the reason you have dust and sand blowing in the wind is that the soil is bone dry in a desert and not held by vegetation. This kind of huge solar array would end that because the soil would be protected from evaporation. It would function as a moisture trap.
It is a grand plan, but flawed in its conception. It that old bugbear between the degree carrying theorists and us diploma holding practical engineers. This is not to say all that is proposed is not acheivable, but the scales needed will be much larger, and more complex than they imagine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlant like this is very intensive in its needs for mainenence of its systems. On this sort of scale it is necessary to oversize by probably 12-17% to allow for losses in efficiency, plant being off line for repair and maintenence. This figure would increase with age, so the need for a rolling replacement of equipment would also need to be paid for.
Obviously, this increases costs, and I unfortunately have to comment that the costings in this article are definately from the 'glass is half full' theory of economics. 12cents/kWhr+ would be nearer, I suspect, the true cost.
But, it is a good 'idea', the western world needs to get started now weaning itself from oil. National security is the main gain.
The plan could be completed with windenergy hydroenergy and geothermal energy. Such a plan is made for Europe, Africa and Middle East by TREC/Desertec and should enable at 2050 full fuel independancy see http://www.desertec.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHerre Rost van Tonningen
The report claims that by 2020 the cost of reliable solar kWh’s may drop as low as 11 cents per kWh, if the improvements in solar cell efficiency and energy storage and transmission line cost advance according to projections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOption three.
Start charging 11 cents per kWh for nuclear power now. O&M costs for a nuclear plant are less than 2 cents per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
A new 1.5 GW reactor would produce an excess income of 9 cents per kWh. Assuming a capacity factor of 90% it would generate an excess $1.06 billion per year, enough to pay for itself in five years and pay for a second plant in another five years.
Our existing 104 plants produce about 800 TWh per year now. At 11 cents per kWh they will immediately produce an excess income of $72 billion per year.
This money will finance the construction of modern facilities to mass produce the required reactor vessels and other heavy equipment required.
It will also finance the construction of multiple facilities to mass produce floating nuclear plants in the same way that Boeing produces jumbo jets. Such a facility was built but never put into production.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/aug96/Offshore.html
By taking the lead in the production of floating nuclear power plants we can make clean safe inexpensive energy available all over the world. We can have the high paying jobs and control the technology. We can design the plants to be highly resistant to acts of terror and the diversion of nuclear material. We can insist that plants be subject to international inspection as a condition of sale or lease. We can sell or lease these plants at a cost that is much lower than traditional construction methods, eliminating the fig leaf of energy production to hide a nuclear weapons program.
There is no need to wait 20 years. Coal plants are killing 20,000+ Americans each year, perhaps a million per year around the world.
http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/dirtyAir.pdf
We can start replacing coal plants now with mass produced floating nuclear power plants.
Maintenance and loss of PV performance with time have been included in our analysis (both cost and land use estimates). We used actual maintenance data from Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Springenrville, AZ PV plant, and we assumed, conservatively, a 1% loss of performance per yr, whereas TEP's latest numbers show losses of only 0.5% /yr loss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe concur that this plan could be completed with wind energy, hydroenergy and geothermal energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the proposed for the US Solar Grand Plan, we include renewable forms of energy to their cost-effective limits; and determined that solar is the biggest number here. In other countries the mixture of renewables could be different. In Scandinavia, for example wind capacity is much higher than that of solar.
--
Edited by Vasilis Fthenakis at 01/10/2008 12:13 PM
There are a lot of issues related to nuclear power that are not pertinent for discussion in this forum. My point is simply this. Sofar, solar energy has been viewed as only a minor contributor on to the energy mixture of the U.S. due to cost and intermitency constraints. Our studies show that both of these constraints can be surpassed economically with existing technologies, and that solar has the same (near term) and better (long term -does not need fuel) capacity potential in the US, than nuclear and carbon technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe jury is still out on which kind of techologies can meet the dual challenge of fuel depletion and global climate at minimum cost. However, the external costs of energy associated with environmental, (near and long term), societal , security and risk implications have to be included in future economic analyses. Accounting for external costs and benefits, makes solar energy to be even more cost competitive with nuclear and coal-with C sequestration, than what our article indicates.
Hallo, At Global Eco we have been promoting and using solar energy for 35 years and are pleased to see your article but could not find the map online.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBest, harry
Why use the desert SW? I know it sounds a little crazy but why not put the same amount of investment into an area that gets sunlight all day, and all night - the moon? It may start out expensive to get a lunar manufacuring base set up. But once it is you have 100% sunshine without all the environmental concerns. And then you would just need to decide how to tranfer the energy back to earth in a concentrated form - like microwaves. It could become a true global effort and utilize all of the world's tech to accomplish. If the entire world were signed up for this kind of effort to resolve mankind's energy needs...there really would be a chance for world peace and stability. After-all, war is really a function of resource scarcity and competition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn alternative/ additional solution to the energy storage problem could be found in combining the centralized power generation with decentralized energy storage. On-site & household storage using compressed air tanks combined with compressed-air generators (refer to: http://www.itmdi-energy.com/ for one example) will provide a reasonably cost effective solution, and also provides the benefit of energy decentralization, from a centralized power source - the best of both worlds!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the moon suggestion - wouldn't it be easier to leave the panels in Earth-orbit? However your idea of looking at areas with greater sunlight has merit - what about solar panels in the Arctic? In certain times of year 24hr daylight is achieved (although this would lend itself to PV rather than Thermal!). Of course the plants would only work at certain times of year (when there is greater energy demand though).
The moon or solar power satelites may be additional future options. We do not have the technologies for such yet and space loading is very expensive. In the Solar Grand Plan we show that the job can be done using existing teresstrial technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe land area covered by the PV modules by 2050 is 30,720 square kilometers in a total area of 74,218 km2. (The spaces between PV arrays are 2.5 times the area of the arrays to prevent shading and allow access). We envision large clusters of PV arrays dispersed in a total desert area of approximately one million square kilometers). One may assume 7 clusters of ~10,000 km2 each (with 40% of each cluster covered by PV modules, the rest being just desert land), dispersed within 1 million km2 of desert land in the SW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch installations are not expected to change the albedo and regional meteorology but detailed studies are in progress.
[i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this…solar has the same (near term) and better (long term -does not need fuel) capacity potential in the US, than nuclear and carbon technologie…[/i]
Vasilis
Please provide the analysis to back up this statement.
It is very unfair to compare 30 year old nuclear technology with 15 – 20 year future solar performance projections, yet I showed how nuclear power can expand rapidly right now at the rate of 11 cents per kWh with no subsidy at all. It is not possible with solar, so how is that the same?
There is enormous room for improvement in reactor performance. Current generation reactors split less then 1% of the uranium atoms mined to fuel them, yet they can support ten billion people for 400 years with sea water uranium. Breeder reactors can increase the utilization of uranium to 99%.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
The mass production of floating nuclear power plants can drive down construction time and capital cost dramatically.
[i]…the external costs of energy associated with environmental, (near and long term), societal , security and risk implications have to be included in future economic analyses. Accounting for external costs and benefits, makes solar energy to be even more cost competitive with nuclear…[/i]
Another unsupported claim. I showed how terrorists could attack the proposed system and kill tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans. It is much more vulnerable then a nuclear power system with numerous plants distributed around the country.
I see no discussion of backup power plant capacity or its cost. Suppose a large winter cold front settles in over the desert SW cutting off most of the energy for a few days. The compressed air runs out, what then? That could produce huge external costs.
The proposed solar system will burn large quantities of natural gas to reheat the compressed air, releasing large quantities of CO2, a large negative externality for solar. Nuclear plants do not need this additional fuel source.
The fuel cost for natural gas turbines is 52.46 mills per kWh.
Reactor fuel costs 4.85 mills per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
By using expensive photovoltaic electricity to compress air, the report claims it can reduce the natural gas consumption by 2/3. The natural gas fuel cost is reduced to 17.49 mills per kWh, which is still 3.6 times higher then the cost of reactor fuel, and the reactors do not emit CO2.
With 20,000+ Americans dying each year from coal, waiting 20 years for solar to take off creates a substantial deficit for solar right off the bat, even if the effects on global warming are not considered.
These are all substantial negative externalities for the proposed solar system, please show us the balance sheet of external costs and benefits you refer to.
B Hannahan, regarding your posts 327 and earlier, it seems to me you are entirely ignoring the diplomatic and security risks associated with dual-use nuclear technology, as well as the risks associated with remote targeting of reactors by nuclear explosives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am not particularly in favor of the vast scheme proposed by Z, M&F, it is far preferable to an equivalent or greater area of land becoming radioactive and uninhabitable as a result of a limited (or not) nuclear exchange.
It has been widely and uncontroversially appreciated since the mid-80's that a nuclear detonation near a reactor multiplies the area of destruction and damage in its vicinity. I expect that some US and other nations' reactors are all on someone's target list. The current international concerns about North Korea, Iran and Pakistan convince me that nuclear fission is world's most spectacularly dumb way to get electrons to flow along a conductor, short of flying a kite in a thunderstorm .
Of course kites get flown one at a time. To underscore the scale,
I offer the diagram on p 34 of
http://www.worldscibooks.com/
environsci/etextbook/p377/
p377_chap01.pdf
Note the area affected and the recovery time estimated for a nuclear accident. I would rather live downwind of a solar collector extravaganza.
I would argue that we all live downwind of nuclear reactors and targets, and I see every reason to work toward reducing this risk by phasing out of nuclear electricity and reducing diplomatic dependence on nuclear arms, which have also been reduced in number since the mid-80's.
I have made repeated reference in previous posts to the overall systems analysis of energy flow in built and natural systems. My preference is for the system of analysis developed by HT Odum and others of his "college". If you know of such analyses, or simpler, economically-based life-cycle analyses, I would be interested in your opinion of how your preferred nuclear solution measures up against the Solar Grand Plan.
We demonstrate in the "Solar Grand Plan" article that the U.S. has the renewable energy resource base where solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power technologies can provide close to 100% of U.S. energy in 2100.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe renewable energy path is safe, sustainable, and near-zero emissions. The renewable energy path cannot produce nuclear weaponry or have nuclear meltdowns. Renewable energy power plants are fully insurable by the insurance industry, which is not true of nuclear power plants. And renewable energy power plants have no waste disposal problems (the cadmium in PV is actually removing cadmium from the environment and disposing of it in the correct manner since it is being encapsulated within layers of annealed glass, and all CdTe PV modules are being recycled at end-of-operating life).
In response to the complaint about the 10-year scale-up period, once solar is scaled to optimum manufacturing scale in 2020, it will be possible to construct PV power plants in a much shorter time period than any other type of power plant, particularly nuclear power plants which take 4-6 years to build.
It has been documented at the Springerville, Arizona PV power plant (pictured in the article) that six construction workers are able to install 135-MW of PV capacity in a forty-hour work week. With a construction staff of 2,000 workers (comparable to the construction staff for a nuclear power plant), a 1-GW PV plant can be installed in less than 6 months. Therefore, once solar is at scale, it will be able to install capacity at a rate to meet power production goals.
Also, it is important to recognize that the low fuel consumption of CAES turbine power plants, which are coupled to PV power plants, will enable the use of bio-fuels to make them near-zero emissions power plants in the post-2020 period. By first reducing the use of natural gas and then eliminating it, the U.S. can phase out the natural gas labor force and thereby reduce labor transition effects.
It would be good to have a national debate on a variety of National Energy Plans where each present their case for achieving 50% carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2050 and over 90% carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2100.
I know that nuclear power plants are not able to provide cost competitive peak period electricity (8am-6pm). Peak period power plants have an average 30% operating capacity factor, and they have to have the capability to ramp-up and ramp-down power output in response to variable daily peak period loads, which is not suitable for nuclear power plants with their very long start-up and shut-down timeframes.
James Mason said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'I know that nuclear power plants are not able to provide cost competitive peak period electricity (8am-6pm). Peak period power plants have an average 30% operating capacity factor, and they have to have the capability to ramp-up and ramp-down power output in response to variable daily peak period loads, which is not suitable for nuclear power plants with their very long start-up and shut-down timeframes.'
This is just a cherry-picked argument.
You are seeking to compare 30year old nuclear technology which was not designed for peak-load with unfounded assumptions of generating and back up capability in solar requiring heroic extrapolations of untested technology.
As you well know, or should do, there is no essential problem with designing fast-ramp reactors - just very cheap coal made them uneconomic, although mind you never approaching the excess costs you want to saddle the economy with even under your wildly optimistic scenarios.
In the Mohave desert in the winter you would get around 25% of the solar incidence of that during the summer, so the economics of your scheme are frankly outlandish, as you basically need around 4 times the name-plate capacity to provide power year round.
You have two answers to that, the first is natural gas burning.
Supplies of natural gas now are tight, and demand across the world large and growing, so over the time period you are talking about sure to become more expensive.
So your 'renewable' idea in fact is predicated on huge use of a non-renewable resource, for which the US would be dependent on some of the most unstable regions of the world.
Your second fall-back is storage.
No-one in the world has done storage on large scale with the technologies you propose.
There are sensible (and relatively modest) schemes by Ausra and in Iowa to test storage on a larger scale.
If we can get it working at all then it might be time to consider some scaling up, and get an idea of what the limits and costs are.
It seems to me that your proposals are based on no realistic appraisal of current technologies at all, and are essentially pure fantasy.
With only modest improvements to well understood technologies nuclear could do everything that you claim for this scheme, at enormously lower costs, even should your wild projections into the blue pan out.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but really, as the Great Man said, 'You cannot be serious!'
In reply to DaveMart post 330, we do know the output of solar plants during the winter months and have modeled plant sizing and storage accordingly. The following website provides "real time" electricity production by the Springerville PV plant (which is pictured in the article).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.greenwatts.com/pages/solaroutput.asp
Regarding energy storage at the scale we describe. The natural gas distribution system in the U.S. currently has approximately 400 underground storage facilities with a 4 trillion cubic foot capacity. Underground storage of pressurized natural gas has been in existence in the U.S. for over 80 years. Therefore, the dynamics of underground storage are well known. And the McIntosh, Alabama CAES power plant, which operates with stored compressed air, has operated reliably since 1991 and is pictured in the article. Numerous energy analyses, in addition to ours, have indicated the feasibility of utilizing underground compressed air storage as a means of transforming intermittent PV and wind electricity into a continuous, supply of electricity.
We foresee a phase-out of natural gas for CAES plants with the development of a cellulosic (prairie grass and switchgrass) biomass syn-gas industry in the U.S. and the development of hydrogen production through the electrolysis of water. Even with the use of natural gas by PV-CAES power plants and CSP thermal power plants, natural gas consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by over 80% for peak period electricity production. In order to minimize labor force disruptions in the natural gas industry we need to phase-out natural gas use. In the near term, we need to prevent becoming dependent on foreign natural gas sources and our solar plan helps make this possible.
Natural gas turbine power plants are the primary source of peak period (8am-6pm) electricity production. Nuclear and coal plants cannot be turned on and off (while the electricity generators can be disengaged, the nuclear and coal power plants are still in operation heating water for when the plant does generate electricity). For this reason the operating costs and capital recovery periods for expensive nuclear and coal power plants are not conducive for the economically competitive production of peak period electricity. Again peak power plants have an average operating capacity of only 30%, which makes the payback for expensive nuclear and coal plants impossible at low electricity prices ~ $0.10/kWh when they are operating in peak period electricity production mode.
On the other hand, solar electric power plants with thermal and kinetic storage are tailor made for peak, daytime electricity production. The near-term solar perspective in this article is to deploy PV and CSP power plants with thermal and kinetic storage to produce dispatchable peak period electricity. If proven successful by 2020, then we can begin deploying these technologies for base load power production 24/7.
Natural gas prices are rising because U.S. natural gas production is in decline and we are beginning to have to import ever greater quantities of natural gas from foreign countries (same countries we are now importing oil).
Peak solar plants will reduce natural gas consumption for peak power plants by more than 80%. We need to begin reducing natural gas consumption in the U.S. to prevent foreign dependence on another energy source.
We need to get the message to the U.S. Congress to hold "Energy Hearings" to evaluate whether the solar path we propose is the best way to go in the near term for a long-term solution to the emerging peak period electricity production problem. These hearing should assess the solar path in conjunction to other paths for peak period electricity production such as nuclear and coal with CO2 sequestration. Rising natural gas prices and the corresponding increasing price of peak period electricity is the greatest driver in recent increases in U.S. electricity prices.
I apologize for being away so long, but I've been busy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a Solar Grand Plan standpoint, there's been some successful exposure. We've talked to Chicago Tribune, NPR, a radio station in Monterey, and various other venues. We are writing an article for EnergyBiz Magazine and giving a talk to the Optical Society. With luck, the attention will continue to build.
I want to also say that this interaction has been educational, bringing up some issues that we will follow up on. On the bright side, we haven't unEarthed any show stoppers - standing up to such scrutiny is a good sign.
Ken
[i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been widely and uncontroversially appreciated since the mid-80's that a nuclear detonation near a reactor multiplies the area of destruction and damage in its vicinity[/i]
Thanks for pointing out one of nuclear powers lesser known advantages, the ability to lure terrorists away from the best targets, densely packed cities.
If the 9-11 attack had been against nuclear plants the death toll on the ground would have been a small fraction of the actual number.
A bomb from North Korea or Pakistan would likely have a yield similar to the bombs used in WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
Photos show that buildings of steel concrete or brick construction survived the blasts, including the Hiroshima Peace Memorial a few hundred feet from the hypocenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/A-bomb_dome.jpg
Power reactor cores are contained in a steel vessel about 5 inches thick. It is surrounded by a steel reinforced concrete shield 10 - 15 feet thick. That is surrounded by numerous spaces with reinforced concrete walls. It is all sealed in a containment building made of heavily steel reinforced concrete 3 - 6 feet thick with a stainless steel inner liner.
A nuclear plant would have a good chance of surviving such an attack. If all the cooling systems were disabled, they are designed to take a full (China syndrome) meltdown without hurting anyone. See pages 50-51;
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/BROCHURE_EPR_US_2.pdf
Older reactors would probably contain the core after a meltdown, but that requirement was not part of their design basis.
If the containment was breached most fission products would plate out on internal structures. The Chernobyl plant had no containment and a powerful steam explosion actually ejected fuel from the building.
I would consider some additional contamination acceptable in exchange for saving tens of thousands of lives in a densely packed city.
[i]
The current international concerns about North Korea, Iran and Pakistan convince me that nuclear fission is world's most spectacularly dumb way to get electrons to flow along a conductor, short of flying a kite in a thunderstorm[/i] .
You are the first person I know of that believes North Korea, Iran and Pakistan would have no desire for nuclear weapons if only the United States would give up commercial nuclear power plants.
[i]The renewable energy path cannot produce nuclear weaponry or have nuclear meltdowns.[/i]
Commercial nuclear power plants do not produce nuclear weapons and next generation reactors are designed to contain a full meltdown.
[i]Renewable energy power plants are fully insurable by the insurance industry, which is not true of nuclear power plants.[/i]
I explained how terrorists could use this solar system to kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people. They cannot get insurance for that event.
[i]In response to the complaint about the 10-year scale-up period, once solar is scaled to optimum manufacturing scale in 2020, it will be possible to construct PV power plants in a much shorter time period than any other type of power plant, particularly nuclear power plants which take 4-6 years to build.[/i]
If Boeing built airliners by hand in the middle of a swamp it would take a long time and they would be much more expensive. If we build nuclear power plants like Boeing builds airliners the plants will be less expensive and faster to build.
The solar paper mentions that we completed about 5 nuclear plants a year in the 70s – 80s. We did that with no strain on the economy at a time when fossil fuel was dirt cheap and most people never heard of global warming. Had we not done that we would have 104 more coal plants generating another 20% of our electricity, killing another 5000 Americans each year.
The key to completing 5 plants per year every year is to begin construction of five plants per year every year. It can work for any number.
Some people say Germany has a very successful solar program because they are installing solar at a rapid rate. The reason for this is that Germany has guaranteed owners about 40 cents per kWh of solar electricity.
If nuclear and solar were guaranteed 11 cents per kWh I believe we would see nuclear power ramp up much faster then solar. Let’s try it and see what happens.
[i]Also, it is important to recognize that the low fuel consumption of CAES turbine power plants, which are coupled to PV power plants, will enable the use of bio-fuels to make them near-zero emissions power plants in the post-2020 period.[/i]
Natural gas provides about 20% of our 4000 TWh / year of electricity, 800 TWh. If electricity consumption goes to 29,000 TWh as projected, and if 70% of that energy passed through a CAES system, it will be 20,300 TWh of stored energy / year.
That is 25.3 times the amount of electricity that is produced by natural gas today. If natural gas consumption / kWh is reduced by 2/3, the solar system will still need 8.4 times more natural gas or natural gas equivalent than we are using now.
How much land will be dedicated to producing that gas and what will it cost?
[i]I know that nuclear power plants are not able to provide cost competitive peak period electricity (8am-6pm). Peak period power plants have an average 30% operating capacity factor, and they have to have the capability to ramp-up and ramp-down power output in response to variable daily peak period loads, which is not suitable for nuclear power plants with their very long start-up and shut-down timeframes.[/i]
This is absurd. At 11 cents per kWh a nuclear plant operating at 30% capacity factor would still make more money than today’s reactors at 90%.
The emergence of battery and/or hydrogen transportation will raise nighttime loads, which aggravates the storage problems for solar, but enhances conditions for nuclear plants by balancing nighttime and daytime loads. Also nuclear plants can take better advantage of storage systems than intermittent energy systems can.
When peaking plants are supplying a small fraction of total load they must be capable of large rapid power swings, but in an all nuclear system all of the plants are peaking plants, so the magnitude and rate of power swing for each plant is small.
Nuclear plants can follow a load as well as any, they have fast control systems. It is required to avoid over speeding the turbine after a grid disconnect, as with any steam plant.
For example, the GE BWR can transition to hot standby after a grid collapse, with no reactor trip, and help bring the grid back up. It does not need offsite sources of emergency power, due to inherently safe design features.
Here are some excerpts from design documents;
“The TG has base load and load following capability.
10.2.1.3.3 Load Maneuvering Capability
The plant is capable of daily load following with control rod drive operation between 100% and
50% of rated power on a 14-1-8-1 hour cycle and with ramp rates up to ±1%/minute (16 Mw / min).
Power maneuvers within the capabilities above do not require isolation or bypass of
condensate/feedwater equipment such as feedwater heaters.
The TBS, in combination with the reactor systems, provides the capability to shed 100% of the
TG rated load without the operation of SRVs and without reactor trip.â€
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML072900480
There are three grand plans, and combinations thereof, I can think of - coal with sequestration, safer nuclear, and our solar plan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the past, there were only two - that's plenty of progress.
One plan I don't like - business as usual.
Ken
I was wondering if anyone has heard of this solar plan I saw it in an Electrical Engenering Journal in the late 1970's I have read in a engineering magazine that there was a proposal to erect in outer space solar collectors that would collect sunlight that would not cast a shadow on the earth, and convert this sunlight to electrical energy then convert the electricity to microwave energy and beam it down to earth this could be done close to the city or load centers at large existing substations . Now there are drawbacks to this, one being losses in conversion and transmission but as there are no fuel costs and the sunlight is free. The maintence in space would be minimal. The engineers who dreamed up this scheme had designed in safe guards to prevent airplanes from flying into the beam such that if by accident they did enter the perimeter of the beam would be surrounded by monitoring beam that would defocus the main beam causing the energy to be only a degree or two above ambient and the people in the plane would be safe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe up side to this technology would be no high voltage transmission lines across our province. Something the folks in Tsawwassen would like I’m sure. The production cost for this power would be very low, but the cost to build and install would be enormous, but if spread out over 100 or 200 years it may be viable. I have been reading the Sun but have yet to see this proposal. There could also be a spin off to Global warming too if we set these solar collectors up to block out the sun marginally so as to have less heat from the sun but I leave that to others more informed to comment on that.
$420 billion in subsidies from 2011-2050 sounds like a big number. "A little over $1 billion per year for the next 40 years," is a much more palatable figure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat size (MW) are the gas turbines that you show in underground storage facility?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKen, James, Vasilis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell done!
I've been waiting for Scientific American to publish a paper like this for years. Having had a home on a non-grid served island in the San Juans of Washington State that runs almost totally off the sun for the last 17 years (cloudy western Washington!) proves that solar energy works. There is lots of energy around us that is not being exploited. All we have to do is just move it around efficiently and electricity does this beautifully. Having been involved with our "WOOPS" mess here in Washington many years ago I am not enamered with Nukes. I perfectly understand the process but the long term baggage is just too great.
So again from an old physics and EE guy.
Well done!
In practice this article is unreadable for Europeans, due to the use of archaic 19th-century units like BTU's, cubic feet, pounds-per-square-inch, etc., next to GW and kWh's. By the way, what are quadrillions? Never heard of that (although I am a physicist).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn future articles, please use the SI or provide conversion data.
This is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four years, President Bush used much more than $400 billion. These scientists are asking for this sum of money in 40 years, not four. What does this tell us? That it CAN BE DONE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is definitely worth further investigation. Sure it's expensive, but in the long run, everyone will save a LOT of money. Plus, in four years, President Bush used much more than $400 billion. (nearly $800 billion, to be exact) These scientists are asking for half this sum of money, and in 40 years, not four. What does this tell us? That it CAN BE DONE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompressed air energy storage ,the method you propose for bridging the dusk-to dawn gap, is of course inherently inefficient mostly as a result of loss of heat when air is compressed.You propose reheating with natural gas to power turbines when reclaiming this energy.This seems somewhat unsatisfactory.Specifically for large scale air conditioning applications( Think Las Vegas hotels), have you considered piping the compressed air directly to buildings to power AC compressors?The escaping , cooled air can enhance efficiency considerably in such a system.(alternatively,the output heat from the A/C compressor can be used through a heat exchanger to preheat the incoming compressed air, reducing heat loss and preventing condensation/icing from occurring as the air is decompressed.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Wessel at 01/12/2008 3:12 PM
The most significant contribution of the Solar Grand Plan is it may lay to rest the contention that moving to a renewable energy economy is not possible in the foreseeable future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Colorado, for instance, legislators adopted a 20% renewable mandate by 2020 because they were told 25% would be the practical upper limit. The Grand Plan lays out ways to reach ever higher percentages from solar, with no upper limit.
The authors propose a Carbon Tax to fund the Plan. While a Carbon Tax may be necessary to fund some federal subsidies, particularly biofuel, many states have creatively bypassed the tax discussion and its bureaucratic inefficiencies. The state mandates for renewable percentages of electricity generation fold the extra cost of mandated renewable electricity percentages, into the rate base. This allows utilities to meet a goal set by the public in the most efficient and direct manner.
Craig A. Severance CPA
Co-author, The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power
It seems to me that the authors of this article have made a conclusive case - for nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is by the supporters of solar, not it's detractors, and we are told:
$420bn is required in subsidy is required to get it off the ground.
For that sort of money you could build around the entire present nuclear fleet - and that is as an investment on which you would earn money, not a subsidy which ain't coming back.
At the end of this period you end up with power costing about 11ckwh - nearly twice as much as you can do nuclear for. today, let alone what could be done with mass production and with improvements in the technology.
In this supposedly sustainable model you lock in huge amounts of natural gas - where is it going to come from? Certainly not from the States, so even if it can be obtained, it could be very expensive as reserves aren't unlimited, and would come from very unstable regions of the world, if available.
If the gas is not available, you have thrown away your $420bn, not to mention a large portion of the much vaster sums you would have spent on top of the subsidy to build the stuff- you would end up with power when available in that case instead of as needed.
Nuclear would displace fossil fuel, pure and simple, and uranium and thorium is available from some pretty stable places.
Moderate progress in technology such as the Fuji reactor under development would mean you could burn around 50% of the fuel instead of the present 1% in any case and produce far less waste which would also decay rapidly to acceptable levels, without many of the most troublesome products.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/thorium
With this solar proposal, you need a vast grid extension, and are totally dependent on conditions in the South-West.
Nuclear can be put pretty much where you want it, and you don't need this super-grid.
You need vast storage systems for this proposal
It's not needed for the nuclear alternative.
If this is the case presented by the advocates of solar thermal utility scale generation for powering the US, then they could hardly have done a better job in demolishing it.
The article got mentioned in today's episode of "Forecast Earth" on TWC. (But they got some numbers/units wrong - switched 30,000 acres for 30,000 sq. miles and $400 million for $400 billion.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope and pray this will be come a reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this50 years, and 30,000 miles? Why not start NOW? From southern California to Texas, homes are without shade & overheated over 300 days every year. Just cover businesses, homes, and ESPECIALLY parking lots with PV arrays... You would get funding support (from businesses/homowners & their builders/developers), a place to test new advances in hardware (at least until the target %14 efficiency is achieved), and us Southwesterners would actually get money BACK from power companies, instead of taking it in the ...wallet like we do now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe cannot pay for the whole development plan, any more than the government, or most utilities... However, we can match-funds, or make payments for the hardware matching or even slightly exceeding current power consumption costs IF that means 'tomorrows' power bill would be lowered.
BTW: Pressurized Caverns or Hot Salt are still 'pie in the sky' potential technologies. What we need to do is reduce oil dependency IMMEDIATELY, not have to wait another 50 year.
I believe energy will always be largely the domain of the large corporations. A small number of Americans who are innovative and fed up with the high costs of energy will figure out ways to produce it themselves. I have little faith in the gov't to solve such problems. Switch grass and caverns? We have all heard of such solutions before. Maybe we should stop dreaming and start doing. Gnix
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most interesting thing is this article is the estimated large cost. I believe the cost is about $420 Billion, or less than half of the Iraq War!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDonald wadleigh said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'The most interesting thing is this article is the estimated large cost. I believe the cost is about $420 Billion, or less than half of the Iraq War!'
Nah, that's not the cost, just the estimate of the required subsidy before you start building it.
After all the subsidy and the cost of the actual construction, according to the authors you end up paying utility bills which are twice as high as at present - and that is if everything works as they hope.
To say this is crazy is too kind.
A viable solution, but it needs to be combined with research into allied technologies, especially thsoe which are more distributed. i would suggest that hydrogen generation would be the best mode for both storage and alternatefuel generation. The only way we will get out from under the thumb of the Middle East.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you got any idea of the inefficiencies and losses involved in the use of hydrogen as a fuel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/hydrogens-death-knell.html
Ballard Power, who were the leaders in hydrogen fuel cells have packed up that side of their business.
The big car companies are just using the idea of hydrogen fuelled cars as a distraction for their inaction.
Lets talk about the best way to achieve this politically and with the most flexible free-market approach:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. As noted in my previous post, a non-tax method to accomplish ever increasing percentages of electricity generation from renewable energy is the use of mandated percentages, the approach now adopted by several states. The electric utility industry is a regulated monopoly industry, which allows utilities to pay for the cost of the mandate by including the increased generation costs in the electric utility rate base, charged uniformly to all electricity customers. In Colorado, for instance, which is now under a state mandate to achieve 20% of electricity generation from renewables by 2020, the costs of this program have already been folded into the electricity price per kwh and there has been no political backlash, as the costs have been modest. If as your article states the overall cost of the Grand Plan averages out to approximately 1/2 cent per kwh, folding this 1/2 cent per kwh directly into the electric utility rate base should be equally acceptable, with no need for a Carbon Tax and the government inefficiencies inherent with putting the government in the path of the money flow -- at least for the electric utility industry.
2. Our legislators and Congress have traditionally found it much easier politically to enact mandates than to impose taxes. Examples include environmental standards for traditional air and water pollution, safety standards, CAFE mandates, etc.
3. Enactment of a simple measure such as a mandated percentage of electricity from renewables does not favor any particular technology. The utility industry is free to adopt whatever technologies are found to be most effective and cost-efficient to meet the goal, which allows the free market to operate efficiently. In most states with mandates, a wide variety of technologies including distributed PV, wind energy farms, solar PV and CSP farms, etc. are being put under contract to meet the goals. As new technologies emerge they will come into play, without approval of government agencies or political games such as the popularity of ethanol.
4. The discussion about centralized vs. distributed energy production will also fall out according to whatever proves to be most efficient. If an electric utility is in an area without cost-efficient locally available renewable resources, it may find it economically viable to purchase renewable energy from a distant source. Once the entire country's electric utility industry is put under a renewable mandate and allowed to include the costs of meeting this mandate as simply part of the cost of generating electricity in the utility rate base, the marketplace will work to find the most effective means to meet the goal, which may very well include significant purchase of electricity generated in the SW and wheeled to other regions.
5. The Proof of Concept Grand Plan will help policy makers to know what Percentage Mandate is reasonable. This is its primary policy-making value. Policy makers need only know that some technologies can work, not what exact technologies will ultimately be adopted to meet a mandate.
6. Charging the cost of renewable electirc utility generation directly to electric consumers, rather than to taxpayers, will raise electric rates somewhat but not enough to make electricity cost-prohibitive for use in plug-in hybrids, especially if gasoline is subjected to a fossil fuel tax.
7. Most mandates have been stated as a Percentage from Renewables, which moves the electric industry toward renewables rather than toward nuclear energy. You can debate this ad infinitum but the public clearly favors renewable energy rather than nuclear energy and if the costs are anywhere close to being comparable the country will choose to avoid the nuclear option and move straight to a renewable energy economy.
8. A Carbon Tax may still be useful to raise revenues for the Federal government's general revenue needs, and discourage fossil fuel use at the same time. Many fiscal conservatives can see the value of taxing undesirables such as fossil fuel use to meet Federal funding needs, rather than raising Income Taxes. Income taxes impose a tax upon desirable activity (economic productivity) while a "vice tax" so to speak on fossil fuels may be far more politically popular among both Republicans and Democrats alike as a means to help bring the Federal Deficit under control.
Craig A. Severance CPA
Co-Author, The Economics of Nuclear & Coal Power
Praeger Publishers, 1976
I am now a CPA in local practice in Grand Junction, CO
While I laud the goal of the Solar proponents, I have questions about the efficacy. I have been an electric system operator for many years and have switched electrical systems from 120V to 500kV including 500kV HVDC systems. I have also worked the generation desk to maintain the voltage and power supply to major metropolitan areas. I have had the DC system fail when it is most needed because of flashovers on the transmission system or component failures of the inverter-converter at the transmission end points. Electricity is the only commodity we have which must be produced at the same moment of consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe operators are fortunate when we have a mix of generation (gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, etc) we can call on to ramp up at a moments notice. The loss of any major component leads to system instability. When we are not able to call on needed resoures, we have to drop load or de-energize segments of our customer base. When that happens our customers lose production capability including those who use our energy to supply other forms of energy (refiners, chemical companies, chip manufacturers, etc.). When that happens, they lose their production runs which run into millions of dollars. Our ability to charge our hybrid cars and run our green homes would be effected as well.
The reason I talk about the above is that NERC (National Electrical Reliability Council) will require any system to be able to supply the system with spinning reserves for an N-1 system loss. System stability is the reason for NERC's existence. In the case of solar energy coming from a narrow source in the southwest, the loss of a single critical point in the HVDC generation-transmission system becomes the N-1 criticality. Multiple and redundant resources to increase reliability will also increase costs. Given the distances and locales you hope to serve as a primary source, I would have concerns about tornadoes, ice and wind storms, hurricanes, and human fallibility.
It is my own belief we would be far better off pursuing a policy of distributed generation which will not leave any urban or rural community vulnerable to to system problems. My personal vision would be homes or communities which use a combination of fuel cells, solar cells, wind turbines, or any other energy generating devices the mind of man can conceive. Using local waste, including human waste, in conjunction with natural gas and other energy sources, we can create a fuel source for fuel cells in communities. Solar and wind at an individual and community level will also reduce the need for and on a national grid.
Further, I think Edison had it right about DC (At this time in history and technology, at any rate :=) ). We should be converting our homes and businesses to use DC energy. Imagine the reduction in demand for for commodities used to build POWER SUPPLIES (AC/DC converters) if we were to eliminate the need for power supplies in all our electronic devices and instead we used DC directly. We would also be eliminating power losses from the AC/DC conversion process which shows up, for the most part, as thermal energy. (I even want DC motors in each wheel of my hybrid car. :=) ).
Instead of power supplies, I envision SMART PLUGS which use variable or fixed resistors and capacitors to take our 120VDC (or whatever voltage is necessary) and supply the proper voltage to our electronic devices and DC motors running electric equipment. Only a few types of motors, equipment and industries really need the AC system or a conversion from DC to AC using a proper type of inverter. The advent of LED lighting makes DC an even more formidable form of electrical energy. We would be able to run lighting for hours from a small bank of batteries.
All of the above will not negate the need for an electrical grid. Solar energy, as envisioned by the authors, should be a part of the mix we use on our electrical grid. However, we need to be wary of becoming too dependent on any one resource as the dependency reduces system reliability until and unless we find a way to cheaply and effectively store electrical energy long-term.
Last Friday, on NPR's Science Friday (1/11/08), I heard Wind Power proponents make the same claim as our Solar Power proponents, that wind could supply 60% our our energy needs. That claim is preposterous and not any where near the capability of Solar Power given the way our electrical system works because the following equation must be met: Supply = Demand at any moment in time. Unless and until there is a viable long-term method of storing electrical energy, wind is not constant enough to supply our demand. At least the molten-salt concept envisioned as short-term, energy storage has some probability of success.
Sam Brown
sabrown@bigfoot.com
Craig Severance said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'7. Most mandates have been stated as a Percentage from Renewables, which moves the electric industry toward renewables rather than toward nuclear energy. You can debate this ad infinitum but the public clearly favors renewable energy rather than nuclear energy and if the costs are anywhere close to being comparable the country will choose to avoid the nuclear option and move straight to a renewable energy economy.'
They are not comparable.
Nuclear is far cheaper, and if coal had to clean up it's wastes in the same way would be by far the cheapest energy source.
You can play a shell game and hide the costs of renewables so long as you are not generating much of your capacity that way, and it's vast costs are hidden if it is at say, 10% of total.
If it goes much above that, the costs start to show.
In windpower, for instance, Denmark hugely subsidised it, on the theory that building new plant would get cheaper as they learnt how.
They stopped the subsidy and building new plants stopped, as in fact costs had not dropped far enough to make them profitable.
The only reason they existed was to eat subsidy.
They also do not save much fossil fuel, as their intermittency means that they need back-up, usually with gas.
The back-up gas plants is also not built to the highest efficiency standards, as it is too expensive as it is only used part of the time.
'“Germany has spent billions of euros subsidising wind and solar, marching to the greens’ drum. They have not succeeded in reducing their CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, which remain among the highest per capita in Europe [10.4 tonnes/capita/ year, up from 9.5 in 2,000. That is because wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable. Every solar panel and every wind machine must be backed up by reliable power for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing,†he said.
Moore said Sweden had the lowest per capita CO2 emissions in Europe (6.3 tonnes/capita/year) and France had the second lowest (6.8 tonnes/ person/year). Sweden is 50% hydroelectric and 50% nuclear. France is 80% nuclear, 10% hydroelectric and uses only 10% fossil fuel. Denmark has the highest CO2 per capita at 11.0 tonnes/capita/year “because their mix is 18% wind and 82% fossil fuel. It is clear to see that the more hydroelectric and nuclear in the mix the lower the carbon emissions will be. Wind has a minor role to play and solar is not even worth the investment,†said Moore. '
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article2982694.ece
Renewables so far are entirely ineffective at reducing CO2
If you have not got hydro it is clear that nuclear is the way to go.
That is not to dismiss all renewables, some which have made do without the hype and subsidies are effective, notably residential solar thermal and heat pumps, both ground and air.
France has about the only coherent energy policy, as it had little coal and no natural gas or oil resources to confuse the issue.
75% of it's electric is nuclear, and it is installing 50,000 air source heat pumps a year, and aims to install 5m solar thermal panels in the next few years.
Burning wood pellets for heating is also popular.
Unfortunately it is being roped in by the EU renewables mandate to build a load of windmills to clutter the landscape ineffectually.
Regarding the CHINA PROBLEM:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course what China does or does not do will affect the world as a whole, regarding especially Global Warming. This is not however a convincing argument that the United States should NOT do what is good for the U.S.
As the authors have mentioned numerous times in these discussions, cutting half a trillion dollars per year from our Trade Deficit is a profound reason to use our own domestically available, renewable energy resources.
Indeed, China's strategy to use massive amounts of coal makes sense for China in this narrow sense that it uses an energy resource available to China domestically, avoiding huge imports of oil to fuel China's economic growth.
The Grand Plan offers a more environmentally sound method to strengthen America's energy economy than China's current plans to strengthen its energy economy, but the two plans actually share the important economic objective of cutting oil imports.
Make no mistake -- if our nation does NOT develop a viable plan to cut its oil imports we will be in no position to bargain on the world stage, with China or anyone else.
Craig A. Severance, CPA
Grand Junction, CO
Co-Author, The Economics of Nuclear & Coal Power
Praeger Publishers, 1976
In this post I would like to revise my thoughts and questions about the solar plan, and ask the authors for their thoughts and answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 Let’s assume it is 2100 and this vision is fully implemented as proposed.
Assume that we are terrorists who hate Americans and have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.
We will not drop a bomb on a field of solar collectors. We will use small shaped charges to drop every HVDC power line crossing the Mississippi river, into the Mississippi river. Most wind power is west of the Mississippi river, so it will also be cut off.
We will watch the weather channel, and pick a time when they predict that a huge mass of arctic cold air will flow down from Canada generating record cold temperatures from Maine to Florida, as happened a couple of weeks ago. Or we will attack during a record heat wave such as the summer heat wave of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wave
The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
a) Is this scenario possible? If not, why not?
b) If it is, do you agree that utilities will not be able to buy insurance coverage for it?
2 Under the solar plan the local utility will buy solar power at 11 cents per kWh corrected for inflation to the present.
Power from new nuclear plants is expected to cost about 5 cents per kWh until the plants are paid off, then much less, so the difference is at least 6 cents per kWh.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
The U.S. consumes over 4000 TWh now. If that number is going to 29,000 TWh by 2100, let’s assume an average of 10,000 TWh from now till then.
With a difference of 6 cents per kWh, the solar option will cost consumers $600 billion more than the nuclear option each year.
Over the next 92 years solar will cost consumers $55,000 billion more. That is 131 times the $420 billion subsidy called for in the paper. The subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming an average population of 350 million the average additional cost of solar will be $1,710 per year per person, $6860 per year, every year, for a family of four.
Only one third of that cost will show up in our electric bill because two thirds of the electricity that supports our lives is wrapped up in the prices we pay for goods and services. It will appear as inflationary costs associated with energy, but in reality it will be a reflection of bad energy policy.
a) If congress proposed a bill to raise taxes on a middle class family of four by $6860 per year, every year, to pay for the marginal cost of solar, how far would it get?
b) Is it ethical to tell people solar is a one time cost of $420 billion spread over 18 years when actually that is a tiny fraction of the real cost?
The countries pushing renewables the hardest have the highest energy prices and generate most of their electricity from fossil fuels.
Denmark is in the lead at 29.5 cents/kWh, due to its huge push in wind power since 1979. Germans pay 21 cents/kWh, and it has recently put up a huge subsidy for solar, over 40 cents / kWh. It will be interesting to see what happens, my bet is that in a few years it will push them into the lead. Netherlands pays 25.8 cents/kWh, due to their huge wind subsidies.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
France is among the lowest in electricity cost and emissions in Europe because it is 80% nuclear.
3 I see no discussion of backup power plant capacity or its cost. Suppose a large winter cold front settles in over the desert SW cutting off most of the energy. The compressed air runs out.
a) What happens next?
4 The proposed solar system will burn large quantities of natural gas or equivalent to reheat the compressed air.
From previous comments;
[i]“Adding this 300 Btu/kWh to the CAES power plant fuel consumption of 4,100 Btu/kWh gives us total fossil fuel consumption of 4,400 Btu/kWh.
The end result is fossil fuel efficiency of 3,412 Btu out / 4,400 Btu in, which is a 78% efficiency…
our net energy efficiency is 48%, which is somewhat less than what you calculate using Succar's compression energy estimate. Regardless of how you cut it, PV-CAES improves the efficiency of simple-cycle peak gas turbine power plants by 55-60%. And in terms of fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions the improvements are even greater.â€[/i]
Natural gas turbines have demonstrated 60% efficiency.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54943
Since the authors assume big improvements in solar and CAES efficiency, it seams barely fair to compare it with proven state of the art gas turbines.
At 60% efficiency the turbine will need 5,687 Btu to make one kWh of electricity.
The solar – CAES system needs 4,400 thermal Btu to make one kWh of electricity.
The reduction in fuel consumption from using solar and CAES is;
(5687 – 4400)/5687 = 0.226 = 23%
Not the 66% savings claimed in the paper.
5 The fuel cost for the current fleet of natural gas turbines operating at 40% efficiency is 52.46 mills per kWh. Upgrading to 60% efficient machines would reduce fuel cost to 35 mills per kWh. Reactor fuel costs 4.85 mills per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
By using expensive photovoltaic electricity to compress air, the solar system can reduce the natural gas consumption 23% below the best turbine. The natural gas fuel cost is reduced to 27.1 mills per kWh, which is still 5.6 times higher then the cost of reactor fuel, and the reactors do not emit CO2.
Natural gas provides about 20% of the U.S. 4000 TWh / year of electricity, 800 TWh. If electricity consumption goes to 29,000 TWh as projected, and if 70% of that energy passed through a CAES system, it will be 20,300 TWh of stored energy / year.
That is 25.4 times the amount of electricity that is produced by natural gas today. The CAES system will require 13.1 times the amount of natural gas or natural gas equivalent that we are using now.
a) How much land will be dedicated to producing that much bio gas?
b) What will it cost?
c) Is that cost included in the published cost estimate of 11 cents per kWh?
If we can produce that much bio gas in 2100 at an affordable price then the smart move would be to produce 29% more bio gas which would allow us to eliminate CAES completely and replace it with 60% efficient gas turbines. This would allow us to;
A) Eliminate the entire cost of the CAES system.
B) Reduce the size and cost of the solar collection systems by 70%.
C) Reduce the capacity of the HVDC power lines by 70%.
D) Provide reliable distributed backup power to counteract the threat of terrorism and natural disasters.
a) What are the author’s thoughts on this change?
6 With 20,000+ Americans dying each year from coal, and considering the threat of global warming, waiting 20 years for solar to take off does not seem reasonable.
The report claims that by 2020 the cost of reliable solar kWh’s may drop as low as 11 cents per kWh, if the improvements in solar cell efficiency and energy storage and transmission line cost advance according to projections.
Let us start providing 11 cents per kWh for any low emission electricity sources now, wind, solar, nuclear, sequestered coal, geothermal etc. This will speed up the reduction of carbon emissions dramatically, and if solar is a good way to go it will acquire its fair share.
a) Do the authors support this recommendation?
b) If not, why not?
For more information see Things Everybody Should Know About Energy.
http://www.nuclearcoal.com/energy_facts.htm
Download the paper and the spreadsheet for easier reading.
--
Edited by BILL HANNAHAN at 01/13/2008 9:41 PM
--
Edited by BILL HANNAHAN at 01/14/2008 1:00 AM
Some key issues which I have not seen addressed in the posted comments so far:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Peak vs. Base Load - There has been some limited discussion about peak vs. base load. I do not think that it has been discussed nearly enough. The increased use of renewable sources for electricity generation may change the mix of power needs placed upon various existing types of generators (coal, natural gas, nuclear) and their capacity factors. As renewable generating capacity increases, the renewable source electricity will be used first (similar to a base load plant) because it has no fuel cost. As renewable generating capacity available from wind, solar, geothermal, etc. rises, the traditional generation capacity would increasingly play a "back up" role when needed such as when the sun or wind resources are not available. Thus the traditional sources would increasingly play a role similar to peak load power plants. If this is the future role to be played by non-renewable power plants when renewables are a large portion of the power base, the economics will favor lower capital cost and smaller units that can be spun up on demand, for these back-up power sources.
2. Nuclear Power OR Renewables, Make Your Choice Now -- The nuclear industry, which has experienced no growth in the United States (no new orders) for 30 years, is now lobbying to restart. Nuclear plants must operate as base load facilities with high capacity factors (% of time in use) because of very high initial capital costs. Nuclear does not compete economically with coal or natural gas as a peak load/back-up generator power source (and indeed long ago lost the battle to coal as a base load source). The point I stess here is that nuclear and renewables do not mix well, as once the renewables reach a certain percentage of the mix this will cut capacity factors for other power sources. Natural gas, and as needed coal, can serve this back-up need well while the world transitions to renewables, but nuclear plants were never intended to compete economically with gas or coal as peak load plants, and utilities will not choose them for this purpose.
3. Time of Day to Plug in The Hybrids -- A crucial factor in the development of an electified transportation industry and its relationship to the electric utility grid will be what time of day the hybrids get plugged-in. Without the addition of electric plugs to employer parking garages and city parking meters, this will occur at night, at home. Plug in Hybrids could thus increase the demand for electricity at night, a time when solar electric generating capacity is either unavailable or less efficient (on storage-discharge mode). If however the nation developed incentives for employers and cities to install and provide the electricity for electric plugs in daytime parking facilities, what driver out there would fail to plug in their hybrid with employer-provided electricity while at work? Because the time-of-day difference would cause billions of dollars of impact upon the efficiency of the electric grid, tax or utility company incentives for employers to provide daytime plug-in may ultimately be a necessary component of energy policy promoting solar electricity generation.
4. Will Peak Load Thinking Flip? -- The above paragraph is a good example of how solar electric generation can turn our discussion of peak load vs. base load "on its head". With solar electric available in the daytime most efficiently, our traditional problem of meeting a high daytime peak power demand will diminish. The initial impact will be to decrease the need for construction of new peak load generating capacity from traditional sources. However, in the end it could become such a powerful factor that we may even find ourselves actually encouraging people to use electric in the daytime vs. at night. I do not think this has been projected out with any degree of sophistication yet because the whole scenario of having a high percentage of solar in the mix is so new.
5. Public Policy Decisions vs. Technical Decisions -- While these points emphasize the complexity of the actual realities of meeting the nation's electric needs, I do not think technical complexity necessarily demands a highly complex public policy solution. No one wants Congress to decide the details of operating the grid, or to get bogged down and do nothing. As noted in my previous post, very simple public policies (a utility mandate for percentages to be supplied from renewables) leave the public policy up to the public policy makers, but leave technical implementation to those who have the expertise to manage the grid.
Craig Severance, CPA
Grand Junction, CO
Co-Author The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power
Praeger Publishers, 1976
Hi Grand Plan team
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm not proffesor,but note one in your small group.Keyfocus is logicly the "off fossil",and no import of energy:and all that for 0,5 cent carbon tax pr.KW!!!Criminal NOT to start the masterplan!
All the best®ards
Bo Sorensen
Denmark
I can surely agree with you, Ken Z, on the idea that business as usual is not a good plan (post 334).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMind you, until the nuclear electricity advocates start calling for the immediate repeal of the Price-Anderson Act, I am strongly convinced that they are merely advocating business as usual.
A more subtle manifestation of busines as usual is the current paradigm for analyzing the long-term impacts of a given product, process or system.
Such analyses always assume that values are to be assessed in dollar amounts.
For example, I would say that insurance premiums represent one widely accepted measure of risk and/or environmental impact.
The US nuclear industry has circumvented this method of evaluation by successfully appealing to the US Congress to annul any legal obligation arising from a catastrophic, low-probability-high-impact reactor accident.
That's what the Price-Anderson Act does.
My amateur understanding of Life Cycle Analysis, such as your group has used in evaluating the environmental impact of CdTe solar photovoltaics, is that the costs measured by LCA are also in terms of orthodox economics: dollar
amounts for services within an economy which does not explicitly put an economic value on ecosystem services.
Both the insurance industry and LCA analysts seem to me to ignore the more basic requirement for an evaluation of energy flows: of energy consumed, of net energy balance at the various scales and systems levels, as well as the the
materials flows and the feedbacks involved.
I believe such an analysis is essential if we are to realistically appraise the long-term viability of large-scale, high-technology projects such as A Solar Grand Plan.
Which is why I have been banging on for about a dozen posts, about HT Odum's Emergy Analysis.
I got no further reply from you regarding my explanation of emergy (post 247), though I replied at your suggestion.
The most significant aspect of the idea of emergy is that it puts energy from different sources into a heirarchy of logical types. As energy is changed from one form to another, the inevitable energy losses associated with conversion compel that a qualitative distinction be drawn between the two forms.
To me this is not a dated idea, any more than Newtons Laws are dated. Instead, it is an idea that demolishes the economic boundaries between the natural and built world.
Energy flows into and out of the built world, and through highly complex sub-systems within each of these nominally separate worlds. If energy has an economic value, then the systems and process of the natural world have a non-negligible economic value.
Resources cannot be recklessly assumed to be without limit and natural ecosystem services cannot be taken for granted. We cling to classical economic assumptions at our peril. I expect most readers here have already figured this one out. Emergy analysis addresses this issue.
The most comprehensive example of its application which is readily available is the paper I cited in my first post here: Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: Evaluation of the State of West Virginia, by Campbell, et al.
Easily Googled.
Anther key article would be "Self-Organization, Transformity and Information, by HT Odum,
AAAS Science vol 242 pp1132-1139.
It is available electronically to and through subscribers at
www.sciencemag.org.
Explanations and tutorials on environmental accounting, modeling for all scales and emergy analysis are available at www.emergy.org They are far more articulate and better organised than my own comments to date. The site also includes a good set of peer-reviewed articles on these
topics.
Naturally I would appreciate your reply. I don't expect an instant emergy accounting of the Solar Grand Plan, as a thorough energy-flow analysis, through the built and natural systems, would be a solid project in itself.
Why not start now by using the least cost, most efficent, way of using our natural resources by tapping those resources at their point of use. This simple concept is what we need to do FIRST. Why? Think about it. Sun shines, sun makes oil(million years and a few dinosaures), oil extracted from earth, oil burned to make electricity, electricity sent to house (37% efficient), electricity converted back to thermal energy to heat water, Why? Why not just take the sun and convert it to usable thermal energy (62% efficient) with a thermal, never PV, panel? What is the cost of the first plan, the utility plan?Tremendous in $, huge depletion of natural resources and polution. We "coulda" simply stuck a solar thermal collector on the roof at much less REAL cost, but that isn't possible because utilities are subsidized to the point where that utility cost to the average homeowner takes too long to recoup. Then, let us propose harder, more exotic ways to provide for our energy futrure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the authors state that HVDC offers significantly lower line loss than HVAC transmission lines, we are talking huge distances here. Further, the ;backbone' is a southern 'backbone and does not offer any northern tier backbone in which themjority of US energy is consumed. This must be estimated in addition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We can't wait --- to begin scaling up". The barrier is man's chronic incrementalism. We just don't jump to new configurations, short of the present one's colapse, and this, not the technological barrier is what must somehow be overcome. We have to get the psychological and social scientists to work on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding Price Anderson insurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine that the terrorist attack on 9-11 never took place. Instead, suppose that on a busy weekday morning at about 11 AM, a design defect in the floor attach fittings of a World Trade Center building caused a mid level floor to collapse on to the floor below it.
That started a chain reaction collapse that brought the building down. The upper floors tipped into the other WTC tower, triggering the same defect and bringing it down.
There is no evacuation because there is no warning, and 40,000 people die in 30 seconds.
A United Boeing 747 takes off with a full load of fuel on a long transcontinental flight. One minute after takeoff it flies through the wake of another jumbo jet. The turbulence causes an undetected crack in the vertical fin to propagate, and the fin snaps off. The 747 yaws sideways and spirals down through the roof of a giant sports stadium holding the national championship basketball game.
2 million pounds of fuel vaporize on impact with the floor and erupt in an enormous fireball inside the building, consuming all the oxygen and incinerating 40,000 people on live HD worldwide television.
In 1997 the EPA determined that a human life was worth $5.8 million. (Pdf. page 103)
http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/guidelines
Corrected for inflation, that is $7.6 million now.
The loss in each case would be $304 billion for human life, plus the property loss.
The WTC did not carry this level of insurance. Should they have been prevented from constructing those buildings without adequate insurance?
United does not carry this level of insurance, should United and all airlines be grounded for lack of adequate insurance coverage?
Coal plants are killing 23,000 Americans each year.
http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/docs/dirtyAir.pdf
That is a $175 billion loss each year that the coal plants are not paying for, a virtual subsidy.
Dam failures have killed 8000 people in the U.S.
http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/damfailure/pdf/fema-94-inflow-design-floods.pdf
In 1975 a single dam failure in china killed about 30,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Dams in the U.S. are not insured for the maximum imaginable loss. Should we tear down all dams and give up our hydroelectric power?
You are holding a wedding reception for 150 people in your home. An F5 tornado sucks your home and its contents up to 1,000 feet, grinds it into small pieces, and deposits the mess in a field 2 miles away, killing everybody.
The tornado loss is $1.14 billion plus the property loss. Are you carrying that much liability insurance on your house? If not, should you be denied the privilege of owning a home?
If we required every corporation and individual to obtain insurance coverage for the worst possible event no matter how unlikely, we would have no civilization at all.
[b]The Price Anderson Act requires that the utilities provide $10 billion in insurance coverage without cost to the public or government and without fault needing to be proven.[/b]
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
It covers power reactors, research reactors, and all other nuclear facilities.
It was renewed for 20 years in mid 2005, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover. The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US $300 million liability cover which is provided by two private insurance pools.
The second layer is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. It is funded through retrospective payments if required of up to $96 million per reactor per accident collected in annual installments of $15 million (and adjusted with inflation). [b]Combined, the total provision comes to over $10 billion paid for by the utilities.[/b] (The Department of Energy also provides $10 billion for its nuclear activities.) Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event of a major accident.
More than $200 million has been paid by US insurance pools in claims and costs of litigation since the Price- Anderson Act came into effect, all of it by the insurance pools. Of this amount, some $71 million related to litigation following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.
American Nuclear Insurers is a pool comprised of investor-owned stock insurance companies. About half the pool's total liability capacity comes from foreign sources such as Lloyd's of London. The average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site is $400,000.
Two teenage brothers are home alone. They break into the liquor closet and find a half gallon of tequila. The older boy challenges the younger boy, “Bet you can’t drink the whole bottleâ€. “Yes I can†says the younger boy, and proceeds to start chugging. He passes out without finishing it, losing the bet, and within the hour looses his life.
This establishes that 64 oz. of tequila is a lethal dose. The Linear No Threshold (LNT) model says that if 64 people each drink one ounce of tequila one of them will be dead within the hour.
This is how we calculate the risk of low level radiation.
60 years of studying the effects of radiation has still not proven low level radiation to be harmful or beneficial. We can say with absolute certainty that the health effects of low level radiation are very small compared to other risks we accept without much thought.
Google “radiation hormesis†for an interesting debate, or try this.
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/179/5/1137
The Chernobyl accident exposed millions of people to a small dose of radiation. The estimates of the number of deaths from Chernobyl over the next 40 years range from 4,000 (IAEA), to 100,000 (Greenpeace), based on the LNT theory.
If radiation hormesis turns out to be valid the Chernobyl accident may prevent thousands of cancer deaths.
The Chernobyl reactor had design defects that, combined with gross operator error, allowed it to go rapidly to 100 times the design power level, creating a powerful steam explosion that tore the roof off the building and dispersed fuel. It could never have been licensed in the US.
If it had an appropriately designed containment building for that reactor design, the release would have been minor.
Modern reactors have improved instrumentation and control systems, passive safety systems and strong containments designed to contain a full meltdown.
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/BROCHURE_EPR_US_2.pdf
http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-1-3.pdf
Nobody is going to build another Titanic, or a De Havilland Comet, or a Chernobyl reactor.
I showed how the solar grand plan could be used by terrorists to kill tens of thousands. It will not have insurance for that event.
I cannot think of any industry that handles insurance coverage as well as nuclear power.
I posted recently a note regarding a proposed building in Paris (by US Architects and Engineers) that will use Solar panels covering the whole roof area to power the building, with cooling water taken from the River Seine, so the building would be totally self-sufficient for heating, lighting, air conditioning, and all other power requirements, etc, but the note seems to have vanished from here since then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf articles which have some relevance to topics posted here are to vanish like Brigadoon, into the mists, very soon after making a brief appearance, what IS the point of bothering to post articles in the first place?
This is in response to the Hockin Post asking what happened to his post a few days ago regarding a green building in Paris. It is Post 38 in another discussion titled Grand Plan for Solar Energy. The Grand Plan for Solar Energy discussion was created independent of the article discussion, which is titled A Solar Grand Plan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry David for the confusion resulting from multiple discussions sections, but your Post still exists, just in a different discussion section.
I have several concerns with this article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1: How do you convert from low voltage DC(from cells) to HVDC for power transmission?
2: Isn't compressing air and then passing through a turbine a low effeciency process? Why not use excess power to pump water to a higher elevation and then use hydoelectric generators?
3: Why the aversion to nuclear energy?
If we are really going to reduce our CO2 footprint, all resorces will be required.
"Solar Farms" make little sense. Placing solar modules on end user rooftop reduces transmission loss, which is typically 40% transmission loss of total energy use, is eliminated by transmission of 3 to 5 feet from the rooftop to the DC-AC inverter box. 40% energy saving in all US energy use with with no added infrastructure seems more prudent than exotic energy storage systems. In New Mexico alone the advent of consumer end user rooftop "Solar farms" would avoid a transmission loss of 40 Trillion BTU of energy per year of the total 106.8 Trillion BTU total energy use in New Mexico.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do agree that large transmission line from New Mexico to California are required to use this rooftop "Solar Farm" energy savings and production.
Zero Consumer Cost Rooftop Solar Modules and Space-Based Solar Power can supply our energy needs without the infrastructure suggested by Ken. Dual use manufacturing of TFSC (Thin Film Solar Cells) for rooftop and Space-Based Solar Power is key to energy supply.
"40% transmission loss"??? This is an unfounded, gross exageration. Try about 6% loss. stick to the facts, please
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to the question of converting low voltage DC electricity to high voltage DC, I quote Tom Hansen of Tucson Electric Power who has been advising us on many utility issues, "Large capacity DC to DC voltage converters are already designed and operating at very high efficiencies greater than 99%. These machines are already in common use throughout the electric utility industry in power conditioning devices and high voltage DC power lines in Europe and the US. The array converters will be boosting array voltages of around 1000 volts DC to a "gathering" voltage of around 50,000 volts DC. In all likelihood, a second DC to DC converter will be needed to boost the "gathering" voltage to the "transmission" voltage of around 1,000,000 volts DC or higher. One million volt DC lines are current state of the art technology in the industry." End of quote by Hansen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe major strength of long distance high voltage DC (HVDC) transmission lines is the low power loss rate, which is approxlimately 6% over 2400 kilometers and less than 10% from any location in the SW to any areas in the lower 48 states (not the 40% you state). Both the U.S. and Europe recognize the growing importance of HVDC long distance transmission lines and both are beginning to install them. This technology is fully developed and is a good means of distributing electricity produced in the high sunlight Southwest and high wind Midwest to all regions of the U.S. And CAES provides an efficient means of storing intermittent solar and wind produced electricity for use on demand 24/7, year-round.
Gas turbines (jet engines) have to have compressed gases (air is a gas) to turn the turbine blades. Conventional gas turbines use two-thirds of the turbine energy for air compression, which leaves only one-third of the turbines energy for electricity generation. In the CAES design we advocate, the air compressors are completely separated from the turbo generator train. This enables 100% of the turbine energy to be applied to electricity generation. In the PV-CAES concept, we use renewable solar energy to supply the energy for air compression and then store the air in underground reservoirs to be used on demand by the gas turbine power plant. In the CAES scheme, 0.8-kWh of PV electricity is used to compress a quantity of air sufficient to produce 1-kWh of electricity by the turbine power plant. This is a very efficient process and results in a very large reduction in fossil fuel consumption by gas turbine power plants.
We are not evaluating the nuclear power path in this article. We are discussing a renewable energy path and are suggesting that the renewable path should be included in the national energy debate alongside the current energy paths of fossil fuels and nuclear.
As we have previously stated, rooftop solar systems (PV and thermal) are very important and should be utilized to the max. Also, rooftop thermal hot water systems are really being short changed in this discussion and are quite possibly the most effective means of using residential rooftops to reduce energy consumption. However, rooftops generally have enough space to include both thermal and PV systems.
But electricity production by PV is intermittent and to supply electricity on a continuous basis requires storage. This is why we model central PV systems and CAES storage. This solves the intermittency problem in a cost effective manner. Small scale energy storage systems are very expensive and make the widespread adoption of continuous supplied distributed PV costly. CAES bulk storage is cost effective.
Space based solar. While this is an intriguing idea, I would have to see the details of system design, construction, maintenance, and all costs before I could make an informed decision. All studies I have seen are "concept" oriented, and there is not a planned commercial scale pilot project to evaluate. I would support a commercial scale pilot project to enable a researcher such as myself to evaluate system performance and costs. If a space based system were to prove reliable and cost competitive to the centralized, desert based solar system presented in this article, then I will be a strong advocate. But we should not delay implementing the solar plan advocated in this article in order to wait for the twenty or so year period to evaluate the long-term efficacy of space based solar systems.
Hi James Mason,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that you have emphasised (post 371), that you are:
" ... discussing a renewable energy path and are suggesting that the renewable path should be included in the national energy debate alongside the current energy paths of fossil fuels and nuclear."
My own interst, expressed more or less consistently in my baker's dozen of posts, is the method of evaluating the energy paths which you mention.
A purely qualitative set of evaluation criteria (accessible to amateurs and other non-experts such as myself) is put by A Lovins in his Foreign Affairs article of October, 1976 - "Energy Strategy - The Road Not Taken",
Using Lovins' criteria, I would put your "proof of concept" in with other hard energy strategies. This is because it is highly centralised and high technology, regardless of the products (electricity, fresh water, heat) that it distributes, and its lesser impact on the global carbon cycle.
I would be interested in your assessment of your concept against the criteria set and discusssed in the Lovins article.
There are also sets of criteria which have more qualitative attributes. Life Cycle Analyses and actuarial risk estimates are the two that are best known to me.
I would be pleased if you could post some bibliographic references on the Life Cycle Analysis method, generally, and specifically if your investigations have resulted in information which is available to the public in scientific publications (and even more conveniently, on the internet.
I would also be interested in your opinion of the validity of analytic methods based on energy flow analysis and net energy availability.
I know that the method I have repeatedly mentioned here, associated with HT Odum, is but one of this general type.
Again, I am not interested in banging on forever on the topic. I am interested in gaining a sense of how you and your colleagues see your project interacting at the boundaries of the built and natural worlds, and affecting the natural world in a wider sense than a beneficial change in the carbon cycle.
I am interested in an energy accounting of your GSP, and your comments about such a possibility.
It seems to me that methods and standards set at a state and/or (preferably) national scale, for evaluating the energy flow and outcomes of technological proposals for energy harvest and distributions systems.
My impression is that such standards do not currently exist. My amateur opinion is that an energy accounting system would necessarily be a key part of any environmental impact assessment of a project.
I am satisfied that your intentions are responsible. I am not convinced that GSP concept, implemented, offers the social viability and improved environmental amenity you hope for, over (say) the next few hundred years.
Kindly accept my congratulations for offering a far softer path than that proposed by some posting here. That's progress.
It is interesting that in 1976 Lovins was my inspiration for the work that I do. At the time, he introduced the active and passive solar paths. For some reason, I have been most interested in the active (direct electricity production) by centralized solar plants. At that time my brother and I convinced my mother to install a geothermal heat pump heating/cooling system in her home. It is still the only geothermal heat pump heating/cooling system I have ever seen in a home (and I ask just about everyone I know for thirty years). I have never had the money to own my own home, and my landlord will not allow me to install solar systems on his property. For whatever reason neither passive nor active distributed energy systems have taken off in the U.S., and fossil fuel use just keeps increasing and increasing. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that we have to turn to the active, central PV path as soon as possible, if we are to solve the myriad of fossil fuel energy issues that are converging on us at present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVasilis Fthenakis, a co-author of the article, is one of the world's leading authorities on Life Cycle Analysis. He is the founding Director of Columbia University's (New York City) Center for Life Cycle Analysis. Below is a link to numerous life cycle studies:
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/publications.html
Solar technologies, including PV, have excellent life cycle environmental impacts, especially regarding energy and carbon emissions payback times.
--
Edited by James Mason at 01/17/2008 6:10 PM
420 Billion over a 40 year time period! And you want more taxes for subsidies and carbon! Not gunna happen. I mean, we spent more than that last year on our military alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPOST 20 “This is our position, but we respect and seek others' opinions.â€
POST 137 “It's interesting to put all the "grand plans" on the table and have a dialogue. Thanks for adding yours. Others are also most welcome.
POST 371 “We are not evaluating the nuclear power path in this article.â€[/i]
Very well, I only mentioned nuclear in comment 357 (pg. 24) for comparative purposes. Ignore those comments. 90% of comment 357 is focused on an analysis of the Solar Grand Plan (SGP).
There are many questions in 357 about the SGP left unanswered that must be answered favorably before we make a commitment to it. The issues include;
Vulnerability to terrorism and natural disaster.
Insurance coverage.
Total cost increase to the consumer, not just the obvious subsidy.
Backup power requirements and their cost.
Fuel consumption, amount, cost, source, environmental impact, land use.
Equal incentives for all low carbon energy sources.
Please review comment 357 and provide answers if you have them. If some issues do not have favorable answers, we cannot bet the future on the SGP.
[i]“Conventional gas turbines use two-thirds of the turbine energy for air compression, which leaves only one-third of the turbines energy for electricity generation.â€[/i]
As explained in post 357, the demonstrated commercial state of the art in gas turbines is 60% efficiency.
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/gasturbine_cc_products.pdf
[i]“In the CAES scheme, 0.8-kWh of PV electricity is used to compress a quantity of air sufficient to produce 1-kWh of electricity by the turbine power plant. This is a very efficient process and results in a very large reduction in fossil fuel consumption by gas turbine power plants.â€[/i]
As explained in comment 357, at 60% efficiency the turbine will need 5,687 Btu to make one kWh of electricity. The solar – CAES system needs 4,400 thermal Btu to make one kWh of electricity.
The reduction in fuel consumption from using solar and CAES is;
(5687 – 4400)/5687 = 0.226 = 23%
Not the 66% savings claimed in the paper.
This is not what I would call a very large reduction, especially considering the enormous cost in land and equipment of the solar collection system, transmission system and CAES system required to provide the 0.8 kWh PV / kWh output.
By the way, what is the total land cost for the SGP and how much land and water will be required for bio fuel production?
[i]“PV has an excellent payback time in terms of energy and carbon emissions (comparable to energy and carbon emissions payback times for wind and nuclear power plants).â€[/i]
A 1.5 GW nuclear plant would cost about $5 billion. Operating at 0.9 capacity factor it would make 11.8 billion kWh per year. At 11 cents per kWh it would earn $1.3 billion per year. Subtracting 2 cents / kWh for operation and maintenance expenses, the profit would be $1.0 billion per year, and it would pay for itself in about 5 years with no subsidy.
It can pay for a second plant in less than 5 years because the interest on the loan is the largest single cost factor. By paying for the second plant in advance the interest charge becomes interest income.
A solar system with 0.25 capacity factor and 70% combined transmission and storage efficiency would need a data plate rating of 7 GW to produce as many kWh’s as the nuclear plant.
What would the total cost be for a system to replace one nuclear plant (land, PV, HVDC, CAES, land and equipment for bio fuel production).
Will the SGP pay for itself in five years, how long will it take with and without the subsidy?
Bill, I appreciate your commitment to the nuclear path. I have a similar commitment to the solar and renewable energy path.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe appropriate forums for the debate you are pursuing in this discussion section are the Energy Committees of the U.S. Congress.
A national nuclear plan is in the current national energy bill. We are advocating that solar be given its due.
Those of you who desire an open debate in Congress regarding the merits of a renewable energy path for the United States get involved by writing your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate and get your friends to do likewise. We cannot remain silent and expect to have our voice heard.
[i]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Bill, I appreciate your commitment to the nuclear path. I have a similar commitment to the solar and renewable energy path.â€[/i]
Thank you James, I understand and concur.
I mentioned nuclear in the last post because you said the payback period was about the same for both, I was following your lead.
Lets forget about nuclear.
Answers to the questions about the SGP in comment 357 and 375 are essential to determining whether the SGP can work or not. Please address those questions.
I appreciate your investment in time and effort in this debate, I know it is substantial.
I spent considerable time reading the report and associated documents, and the other comments on this site. Thinking about that material and visualizing how the system might work led to the questions.
If Scientific American publishes a pro nuclear paper I will probably argue on its behalf and you can fire questions at me.
Getting energy right or wrong will mean life or death for hundreds of millions of people in this century, and I think this format is the best way to air out ideas quickly and perhaps avoid expensive time consuming mistakes.
I sure wish Amory Lovins had hosted a discussion like this when his paper was published.
What about hydrogen Fuel Cells? Developing this technology could also reduce our dependence on oil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a 'fan' of solar power because to date it not been cost effective. That said, the 14% efficiency target and $1.20/watt is interesting in that the "nanosolar' low cost roll printed solar cells are listed by the German solar megaproject as having 13.95% efficiency, and cost per watt under a dollar. If this can be put into higher volume production, solar may become the top 'renewable'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be interested in a study that takes this solution string to a global view. We are on planet..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've held the opinion expressed in the magazine article for decades. Solar is the "killer app" as far as energy is concerned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, it will never happen in the 2020 or even 2050 timeframe outlined for one simple reason. Our education system (including teachers, media and parents) will never get the message across because oil interests buy more influence in the "anything, even perhaps at sometime for a small percentage in the future, solar," direction.
Until they teach energy in school whereby oil is a small blip in energy history hardly worth mentioning, solar will never be recognized by the masses as the dominant energy source it is across all human history.
It is obvious that we must find an alternative to oil. We knew this in 1972 when OPEC held America hostage. Here we are 35 years later and we're still in the same leaking boat! Solar energy is the only logical. The Southwestern United States can act like a massive solar battery supplying about 75% of the energy we need and it is renewable! This project should be at the top of the agenda of every Presidential candidate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoing solar is clearly the path to a sustainable energy policy, but schemes to build massive, centralized solar power stations are being pushed by industries and utilities that want to maintain their monopolistic positions. There must be a massive deployment of solar technologies, to be sure, but it must be accompanied by a restructuring of the distribution system and a transition to decentralized power production at the point of demand. This Grand Plan correctly promotes the solar option, but the smart approach to solar conversion is to support local, decentralized power generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 420 billion is peanuts when considering that the power is completely renewable. The projected costs for roof top solar systems is equally high and would be going to American companies if they invested in plug in renewable energy systems that could be a combination of battery storage or even compressed gas storage or other types of storage but a distributed power grid is also a much more secure power grid and if the people also produce some of the power that hits their yards and roof tops they can easily right size solar solutions for their own needs but the only companies this far sighted are outside the US. Affordable plug in power systems can be created and sold by scaling and using existing manufacturing systems but the US is in dire need of a manufacturing base and the payoff for the people is rather obvious so a letter or two to our congress critters and to our presidential candidates is needed. They need a plan and this is a good one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr. Zweibel, Mr. Mason and Mr. Fthenakis - I highly congratulate you on this article. I hope that this will be the seed that generates enough interest to overcome the inertia in this country. I have sent your article to everyone I know and written my senators, congresspersons, and the White House. Your plan is practical and it can save the planet from rising co2 levels. As an architect, I tell every prospective client who wants to go green that solar panels are the best thing that they can do. This country needs to focus our resources on alternative energy and conservation before it is too late. We need to literally give away our advancing technology in these areas to China, India, and the developing world. Again, my highest kudos for your brilliant effort. Russell K. Johnson, AIA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi James Mason,
Regarding your post 373, where you mention your geothermal heat pump system, you may be interested in the installation being implemented at
General Theological Seminary in Chelsea, NYC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/realestate/commercial/19seminary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin,
or
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/drilling_for_he.php
The NYTarticle notes that the Dean of the Seminary intends to install a similar system in his home in Tennessee.
“There’s no other way to go; it was the right thing to do for the earth,” said Dean Ewing, who is renovating his historic Tennessee homestead in a similarly environmentally conscious manner. “The economic payoff in energy savings won’t come for more than a decade, but it’s worth it.”
So there is a second home geothermal heat pump installation.
I have been mulling over further comments to your post, after reading and scanning the numerous articleson life cycle analysis life cycles, available at the website you provided:
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/publications.html
as well as other sites.
My concerns appear to be best addressed addressed by Jorge L Hau and Bhavic R Bakshi of the Department of Chemical Engineering, Ohio State University, in an article available as a pdf file, on the web, titled:
Promise and Problems of Emergy Analysis.
The article discusses the difference between emergy analysis and life cycle analysis.
A current article, available to the public, notes the consequences of a narrow analysis of environmental impact:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/122/2?etoc
The article notes that
"Sixty percent of ecological services--benefits such as clean air for breathing or timber for building--are degraded or being used unsustainably, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Science, 1 April 2005, p. 41). However, attaching monetary value to these damages is difficult because the costs are typically ignored during economic transactions. An airline, for example, does not pay for the pollution it emits"
This economic blind spot exemplifies the problem which must be addressed, as realistically and unflinchingly as possible, if humans are to develop built systems which which provide us with a viable interface with our natural world and the ecosystem services we take for granted. HT Odum's systems language provides a valuable means of describing qualities and quantities in this grand relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've just collected a general list of solar energy creation methods. I hope it helps anyone interested.
SOLAR POWER-WAYS OF CREATING ELECTRICITY FROM SUN
--
Edited by nireus at 01/23/2008 3:55 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
I think we all should forward copies of this article to everyone we know as well as to all who hold public offices and or positions of influlence!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat idea in theory but there will be a bunch of lawsuits - guaranteed - because there will be natural, "virgin" land that has to be polluted by man's mere presence to make it happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeothermal HVAC can also cut electricity needs by as much as 20% if everyone replaced their old system. The ROI is only 7-9 years. Strangely Geothermal gets absolutely no funding or incentives from the government. Meanwhile SolarPV gets most of the money, which regardless what this author says, is still the most expensive alternative energy. Utitlity CSP Thermal is where it's at (especially with Ausra's technology).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not an expert in these matters, but I wonder what effect possible changes in prevailing cloud cover -- the possible result of a combination of global warming and the energy absorption resulting from the use of the solar technologies -- might have on the efficiencies and the total volume of solar energy available anticipated in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors may be interested in the opportunity for a small-scale trial of generating capacity:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-23-095.asp
Hawaii Plans Big Solar Power Arrays at Airports, Harbors
HONOLULU, Hawaii, January 23, 2008 (ENS) - Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has unveiled a plan to develop large solar power arrays at 12 locations around the sunny state, highlighting what she calls "her administration’s commitment to developing renewable energy in Hawaii."
Under the plan, the state Department of Transportation, DOT, Airports Division is soliciting proposals from private companies to develop photovoltaic systems that could generate as much as 34 megawatts of electricity at 11 DOT sites, as well as the Hawaii Foreign-Trade Zone in downtown Honolulu.
(snip)
A 34-megawatt photovoltaic system will reduce Hawai‘i’s need for approximately 130,000 barrels of fuel oil per year and would generate enough power to supply about 9,000 homes per year.
The added power will be welcome as the island state is 92 percent dependent on fossil fuel, all of it imported.
(snip)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolute nonsense. Solar will only be a viable energy source if it can be space based and beamed to earth. This article is another example of the "enviornmentalists" to spend taxpayer dollars to prevent the real solution the the energy crisis from being utilized. NUCLEAR STUPID!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo: The Joker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour absolutley right. Nuclear power is the answer is makes complete sense... except for all the nuclear waste generated!! Where are we gonna put it? How about up your... ?
See http://whorledview.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/all-solar-energy-by-2050-scientific-american
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn post 375, Bill Hannahan, in defense of the economics of nuclear, uses a sale price for energy by the supplier of 11 cents per kwh less 2 cents per kwh fro fuel, op and maint. What happens if the market price for electrical energy is 7 cents per kwh or less as suggested by a Sargent and Lundy study in 2003 for solar thermal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not an expert, just an avid reader of SciAm for the past 15 years. I discussed this article with friends of the Sullivan County Alliance for Sustainable Development, and they had some interesting feedback. Most agreed that a change in the national energy infrastructure is required in order to adequately and responsibly meet the energy needs of the future US. They disagreed that a centralized solar power generating facility would be the most cost effective approach. They argue for a regionally-based, integrated infrastructure that takes into account the natural resources and land layout of the particular region. For example, with the abundance of wind, rivers, and streams that we have available here in the northeast of the country, it might be more cost effective for us to develop wind/hydro plants to supply the Northeast. For a more in depth understanding, please visit: http://www.sasdonline.org/workplan.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe definitely need to address the nation's coming energy crisis by revamping the infrastructure. I shared this article with a few acquaintances at the Sullivan County Alliance for Sustainable Development. They only questioned whether a centralized solar energy generating plant would be the most cost efficient. Rather, they promote an integrated, regional approach that takes into account resources already available in particular regions. Solar is no doubt the way to go in the Southwest. But, for example, here in the Northeast, it might be more prudent to take advantage of the abundant wind/hydro resources already available. Such projects, by the way, are already being carried out here and are worth perusal: http://www.sasdonline.org/workplan.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the grand plan, it should become America's new Manhattan project.
One thing that I haven't noticed while reading through the posts is what will traditional energy's response be to the competition from solar?
If we do manage to begin implementing the SGP, economics would dictate a drop in oil prices, perhaps a precipitous drop. If fossil energy becomes much less expensive, even factoring in carbon sequestration or other mitigation methods, would that not tend to slow down SGP implementation?
And don't forget the millions upon millions of dollars of campaign contributions still available from fossil energy companies. It's unfortunate, but we can't ignore the political factors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLizCook on post 406 suggested that it might be better to generate energy locally, rather than in the southwest and ship it east.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one wants to stop local energy generation; but I think you'll find that if you want to replace your fossil generated energy in the east with renewables in a quantity which is meaningful, it will prove to be much more expensive than "importing" the energy from the "friendly southwest."
Look at the numbers if you can; and I'll apologize if I'm wrong.
We import oil 6000 miles from the Middle East becaust that's where it is; same story for solar and the southwest.
I believe a solar stirling engine is the answer with morethan 30% efficiency. Why is there no mention of this in the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs a 1.9% inflation rate used for cost calculations (see post 107) realistic? While it is not central to the technical feasibility of this proposal, I have to question the use of such a low (standard or otherwise) figure in the face of everyone's experience that real inflation is much much higher. -- Edited by The Future at 01/26/2008 12:21 PM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by The Future at 01/26/2008 12:22 PM
2 comments and 1 question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Large partially shaded installations will definitely disturb wildlife but a new wildlife environment would actually be created on which we have no information but which satisfies the 2 basic conditions of 1) long lifetime and 2) sufficiently large size, to allow biological variety. I would make its research part of the project.
- The highest risk part of this proposal is pressurized air storage. An intermediate step could be use solar power during the day and "conventional" sources during the night (and I also think that the storage R&D should start in parallel).
- What about deep thermal (10 km) deep well drilling? Experts say that it is doable, it could be done close to consumer sites (the Earth is hot everywhere at that depth) and it would not become depleted unlike some shallow reservoirs.
I just realized there are two threads going on and i posted 2 queries in the other (smaller) thread hence I have copied them here:
Regarding reply # 16, it is interesting to note the attempt to pursue the realization of this concept by political means. The European and the American approach to establishing renewables via political decisions appear diametrically opposed.
In Europe, governments have had no qualms about creating aggressive subsidies to encourage green energy. Germany, England, Denmark and others are offering up to 10 years worth of pricing at up to 90% of the RETAIL rate for those who fund renewable projects.
In other words, they are siphoning money away from existing suppliers. In America, I believe largely due to the astounding lobbying based approach to policy formation, at best govt gives tax breaks.
As such, in other words, big business has much more say in policy that the common people. Established oil and energy companies will fight this proposal at the govt level with every dollar they have.
And that is a lot of dollars.
So despite the fact that this makes sense, it will take some real magic to navigate the political and economic landscape - especially as non-billionaires.
Good luck!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have spent a few hours reading the messages here and congratulate the authors for giving such depth of thought to the issues and also for providing so much customized feedback. I have also read up on the CAES and the McIntosh project in particular.
I was under the impression this was a pure CAES plant but now I see this is not the case.
From the vendors website: "When the compressed air is needed for generation, it is mixed with natural gas in a convention gas turbine combustion process to generate electricity."
How can we rely of the efficiency numbers when using a pressurized but otherwise conventional gas turbine combustion process?
Are we not comparing apples and oranges?
If govt subsidies are used to expand manufacturing capacity to super large scale, will the purchase of equipment from the manufacturers still be available to other countries? (Think China, Brazil etc.)
If so, the actual capacity may be an order of magnitude too small in a open market.
And if not - I.e. sales from private companies restricted to domestic markets - there would be communist labels being thrown around (very un-American) although in these Shock Doctrine times you could justify such a communist approach under the guise of national security.
Then again....what couldn't be justified? (scary)
And as far as the generating plant itself, who will own it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing! I'm so tired of hearing about energy problems, it is so refreshing to hear that we are now seeing solutions! I'll spread the word!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello, i read your article and think it sounds like a great idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishowever,
i am a bit skeptical as to how realistic the possibility of it actually being implemented is. I was also wondering what a young college student like myself could do to become more involved in the green movement.
Andrew, Lansing MI
Regarding reply 196 and the "folly of biofuels" David Blume has successfully and thoroughly demolished the myths (food vs fuel, space requirements and all) about ethanol. Check for his voluminous book Alcohol Can Be A Gas and see videos on youtube etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget govt.
Do the X prize type approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy concerns center on the centralized generation and distribution system of your plan. It still puts the power we all need to live in the control of a few, when decentralized solar systems allow for much more flexibility and reliability. Also, a few well-placed terrorist bombs dropped in the desert could immobilize the nation - an easy take-over. Let's look how a combination of some centralized and a lot of decentralized systems could meet our needs: passive design, cogeneration, microhydro, wind, PVs, etc on a neighborhood and community level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne apparent constraint to building a 30,000 square mile array of cadmium telluride cells would be the availablility of sufficient tellurium. The US currently has a stockpile of only 3,000 metric tons (according to USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries). Consumption and price are both going up. And stocks appear to be mostly gained as a byproduct of copper-- not a good omen for future major finds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people have raised the issue of technologies that might be complementary to centralized solar... wind, geothermal, distributed solar, solar hot water, biomass, etc. There are also additional technologies for demand shifting such as pumped water, V2G, freezing ice at night for later cooling or heating water in the daytime for delayed heating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould not the first step in a grand plan be to construct models encompassing all these alternatives and then use optimization algorithms to match supply to load to minimize the overall cost... reducing as much as possible losses due to transmission and storage. This has been done for Europe by the researcher Gregor Czisch. With the possible combinations of technologies creating such a vast solution space, it is hard to simply rationalize a particular solution with back of the envelope calculations.
Something Czisch did not do was run the same analysis but with the inclusion of nuclear. That would give a pretty clear idea of whether and to what extent adding expanded nuclear into the mix might reduce overall costs. If there would be an economic savings then the public could decide if the savings are worth the risks.
Good article and it looks feasible. ROE must be calculated of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe onlt thing I guess is odd is using electricity generated from solar power plaqnts to make hydrogen. It would be waste of energy. It is much better to use electricity to power transportation. The number of cars should be reduced. Fossil fuels are not the only resources we are going to lack. If to take personal transportation from the picture and replace it with developed public transportationin and between cities we would be in much better position.
I would best characterize this as "yesterday's news".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the approach described is feasible technically, it won't work in the economic/political climate of the US today.
I also think that the whole solar power schema will be revolutionized by very low cost thin film technology which is just starting to come online.
I also believe one other point needs to be made -- a mix of green technologies will likely provide the best total solution. While wind will likely be the largest, there are also new micro and small hydro designs that are fish-friendly. Concentrating only on one power generating solution and one power storage solution just won't work, and indeed is not the best solution.
At this point US government policy is more a hindrance than a help in developing an alternative energy policy, and it is wasting a lot of money on unnecessary and non-needed nuclear alternatives. It is a shame it is not more which is positive, but then, it is captured by "big energy".
Hi
I think the costs of the support infrastructure for DC-HVDC conversion in this plan are way underestimated. Here's my reasoning. PV cells themselves produce about 1-1.2V. Of course they can be put in series to produce higher voltage, but for safety and reliability reasons the limits will be about 60-100V.To use a reasonable amount of copper needed for interconnects and to limit resistive losses the maximum current will probably be limited to 100-200 Amps on the module interconnect bus bar. This means the local module size without need for inverters is a maximum of 12-20kW. DC-DC inverters are much more expensive than DC-AC inverters or AC-DC converters, they also have lower efficiency. Their cost also does not linearly scale with capacity. One hundred 20kW inverters cost a lot more than one 2 MW inverter. But it seems the cost estimates as stated are based on large inverters as used currently for HVDC conversion.
- Klaus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA review of China's activities since 2002 reveals that China is already executing this "solar grand plan".
The Chinese have divided the silicon PV problem into four parts: wafers, cells, modules and installations.
Wafers: silicon wafer constraints are artificial - sand and energy to melt it can be "free" using solar itself. Today's wafers are over-purified (for IC production). Chinese solar-specific wafers are here and will dominate by 2009; they'll will grow by 3x every year till 2020.
Cells: The Chinese recognized that cells are relatively simple to make up to 22% efficient on mono wafers and last >50 years.
Modules: Chinese are automating and integrating modules for many sites, including glass "tints" and BIPV.
Installation: Chinese companies like STP are buying patents to make installations trivial in many applications.
Look at SunTech Power to see the future of China. Because the Chinese know they MUST do it - and they CAN do it.
China's Next: Lithium and Ultracaps for e-storage.
--
Edited by Dr SFZed at 01/30/2008 12:06 PM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
This is both a welcome and a troubling analysis. Welcome, because I fiercely agree we require a vision for a solar-electric future. Troubling, because it assumes that solar power generation must be centralized and concentrated in large scale utility installations. I beg to differ: America (and in particular the solar-rich southwest) has millions of acres of untapped solar resource lying dormant today - the bare rooftops of big box retail stores, shopping centers, malls and distribution centers. Before we despoil tens of thousands of square miles of what the authors inaccurately describe as "barren" land, it is incumbent upon us to first cover land that is already developed with photovoltaics. This would create an enormous, distributed power generation capacity that would be more secure and flexible. Let the big utilities concentrate on building the new transmission backbone and night storage facilities that the grid requires. Then incent corporations and citizens to pump in kilowatts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA location to put the 'Solar Grand Plan' into effect has been under study for some time. The Draft EIS is completed for the 'Caliente Rail Corridor'. This 318 mile rail corridor is to be used to transport spent nuclear fuel from the Union Pacific Rail Road in Caliente, Nevada to Yucca Mountain. This corridor travels East to West through sparsely settled central Nevada. If this were to become an 'Energy Corridor' that has pre-zoned areas for all none fossil fuel energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear, additional inroads into energy independence would be achieved. Construction of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities as well as nuclear power plants solves the night time power generation issue that limits solar power generation as well as no/low wind generation issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe serious southwest water issue could also be addressed by using the residual heat from spent nuclear fuel to desalinate sea water. Free location, free energy, and free water. Larry Lytle
Great plan put forth here.
Do you have a website to promote this plan? Would be good to have one if you don't.
Also, if you have a spreadsheet that shows the numbers behind the plan (possibly in Excel or better yet using Google Spreadsheets) I think that would be helpful. I am curious what kind of assumptions you use, and how tweaking them would impact the results/timeline of implementation.
I think of carbontax.org which has a similar mission to yours and their site is effective in promoting it. They also have spreadsheets to back up their analysis.
I am also curious what happens if you change the $400 billion in subsidies assumption. What would happen if there were no subsidies? Would this plan still occur, only it would take an additional 25 years to get there? Or what if we did $800 billion in subsidies. Could we advance the pace by 10 years? Once again having a spreadsheet would allow people to see the impact of changes like this.
Thanks for coming up with this plan and best of luck in promoting it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI made the comment, many pages back in these comments, that there would be a serious political conflict between CO2 and compressed air storage underground. None of the authors responded.
Already, the powers-that-be are working to control the US's underground storage for the fossil fuel industry. Witness this recent c-span video, where John Kerry testifies, to support a bill to control this storage.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/energy/energy013108_carbon.rm
Is the Solar Grand Plan even possible, without significant political reform and aggressive lobbying over a long period of time? Are the authors being politically or deliberately naive? Is this Plan dead already? It may well be, unless we all wake up to the political realities...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShipping DC Current within the USA will smooth solar load but shipping beyond USA borders seems unlikely to be politically realistic. Storage by compressed gas plays into the hands of "big industry".
The car/train problems of mobile energy storage are pushing the development of Ultra Capacitors. UltraCaps have key advantages over chemical batteries:
- can be cycled millions of times without degrading
- can be charged very rapidly - in seconds given a BIG wire
- can provide large currents at high efficiency
- can be used in wide temperature ranges without significant property changes
Ultra Caps are already in use, but need radical improvements in price performance. Initially they'll be used to buffer spiking input/output to chemical batteries, such as in hybrid vehicles whose main e-storage is chemical batteries.
Can Ultracaps become distributed e-Storage for all the USA? EEStor may license a manufacturing technology to the world, allowing rapid proliferation of a high voltage Ultracap, claimed to store 52 kWh in a $2100 "EESU" (2012 price). That is roughly $40/kWh. A typical "green" household uses 15000 kWh/year; their plug-in cars will need another 4000 kWh to go 30000 miles/year. To save one day's power usage, they'd need 19000/365 or about 1 EESU - the one in their car. To save a week's power, they'll need 7 EESU, and will need to spend $2100*7 or about $15k.
EEStor's Ultracaps may not work as well as promised, but Carbon and SIlicon nanowires are showing promise in the labs. In the next 10 years, it seems very likely that Plug-in vehicles will drive the production of low-cost Ultra caps - ultimately a "personal" approach that would be cheaper and more acceptable than a world-wide power share by DC transmission, or a Giant Company Rip-off using centralized power production.
In any case, though, solar is the way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is a great idea. Unfortunately, in our present culture here in America, I forsee lawsuit after lawsuit stopping the deployment of a good idea because 100's or 1000's of acres of unihabited, barren "wilderness" will be "ruined" in the pursuit of energy-hungry consumeristic ideals. I don't mean to be skeptical but unfortunately I am.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, it is great to see a mainstream and respected publication promote a more imaginative solution than more of the same polluting and non-renewable fossil fuels, biofuels, and nuclear (all BAD for the long-term, just to be clear about it).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are quite a few holes that can be poked in this particular article, and several commenters have done so. I will summarize my objections, in the overall context of appreciating the authors' push for a solar solution:
* distributed generation on large and small roofs nationwide is a more secure, less transmission-reliant answer. We could still have major facilities as well in several strategic locations including the southwest US, but they would not need to be so behemoth and the points of failure would be distributed more widely
* the lowering of cost and increasing of efficiency of generating with photovoltaics is likely to far surpass what the article projects - look at the Nanosolar / Google efforts, for example
* there is no need to depend only on photovoltaic, since wind, waves, and tidal power have great potential as well, and can easily be distributed in other parts of the country for local generation
* the goal is not ambitious enough - 2050 is too far away. We are at risk of global tipping points. Even if the most disastrous scenarios are only 10% likely (just a sample number), do we really want to take that chance? This should be the proverbial Manhattan Project type of effort. The time for baffling expedients and political waffling is over. Perhaps after November 2008 we can start to talk and think more clearly.
* on a minor note, the apologetic or anxious tone over spending $420 billion on any particular plan for renewables is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. We have spent that on Iraq, on telecommunication, and on many other areas. Spread over 10 or 20 years we should not even blink an eye for a solution which saves money, increases security, and protects the environment (not necessarily in that order).
Thanks for the article - and I 100% agree with the final point, we need the public and politicians to gain more understanding that solar or wind could provide the needed answers, and even more so, a combination of those.
--
Edited by PlanetThoughts at 02/02/2008 6:27 AM
As a tax payer I pay 420 billion and then have to buy it back! I'd rather have a tax credit and put in my own system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA separate Sci Am article on DC transmission technology would be very welcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDK Adams
The long-term ultimate solution to the energy (and any other resources) crisis is Population Control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFace it, we are the solution to most of our problems.
You mentioned First Solar's thin film CdTe as the leading low-cost technology. However, I did not see any discussion about where the required amounts of tellurium (one of the rarest elements on earth) would come from. First Solar's panels use about 8 grams of Te per 60 W panel. Let's say this can be brought down to 6 g, that would mean we still need 100 g/kW, or 300,000 tons of Te for 3000 GW of capacity. Annual Te production is currently somewhere around 200 tons/year, so we are talking about over a thousand years' worth of Te production. I believe the situation for indium (CIGS) is similar. Am I the only one here who sees this as a potential showstopper for thin-film PV?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is nice to see that this possibility is being seriously considered. Next to nuclear fusion (which is currently impossible) solar energy is the only viable power source that is both sustainable and environmentally friendly. Wind and tidal energy are not likely to be sufficient on a large scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, in my opinion this plan's reliance on photovoltaic cells is a mistake. Solar thermal power (collected by reflectors and used to power a heat engine) is significantly more efficient than current photovoltaic technology. It is my understanding that solar thermal arrays already provide a signficant amount of power to parts of California. While photovoltaics may become more efficient with time, they are still more expensive to produce, both in monetary terms and pollutant emissions. The chemical processes used to create them cause significant pollution. By comparison, the processes of metalworking consume mostly heat energy, which could be provided largely by electricity, and emit less pollutants directly. In my opinion, photovoltaics are better suited to small applications such as private power and small towns where the economy of scale is insufficient to operate solar thermal power. Would it not be more efficient in terms of money, emissions and research and development to use a much greater percentage of solar thermal power, reducing the number of photovoltaic arrays?
Perhaps I am just too much of a fan of the elegant simplicity of solar thermal power. Personally I like nuclear fusion as the power source of the future, but that's comparatively far off.
It will no doubt be possible to tease out rare metals from new sources, once demand goes higher. But that will raise costs. This is a problem both for Nuclear and for thin films.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, the cost of monocrystalline wafers will plunge shortly. Today's wafers are very expensive because the six vendors who control worldwide production - wafer-OPEC - have built a lock making ultra-pure (95 re-crystalizations) wafers for ICs. But the Chinese are creating a new generation of solar-specific wafer makers - at 1/10th the cost. That will make monocrystalline PV cost competitive outright, while retaining their efficiency and life-cycle advantages. Eventually wafer-making will use solar and become dirt-cheap.
Of course thin film will have the advantage of winning on shaped, flexible and transparent surfaces like car-roofs and windows. So the future seemss to be a health mix of thin film and wafer PV.
Here's an interesting announcement that might put the use of wind energy in this plan in a new light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=51357&src=rss
A new study is planned looking back over a number of years at a huge swath of the midwest using computer models to estimate the real time output (in 10 min increments) of power that could be produced by a hypothetical fleet of up to 900GW of peak rated wind turbines. The results will be publicly available.
This is precisely the type of data that would be needed to perform a really accurate analysis of the type Gregor Czisch has done in Europe to hour by hour match the potential renewable sources with the demand patterns in a cost optimal way. My guess is that very intelligent placement of wind turbines could greatly reduce the need for energy sapping and cost rising storage and transmission in a grand renewable plan.
Unfortunately, this study will not produce similar data for offshore wind.
To think that solar farming would proceed without Big Oil taking a controlled share of the profit is shortsighted. Currently, [$4B - Exxon and the other six of the "Seven Sisters" posting similar profits points out that they are currently the only Enterprise that can afford the cost of Engineering and Construction. The key impediment is payback, and tht would take as long it takes to build it and maintain it; ie: For-ever! The US Gov. could do it, but politics would ensure that it would business as usual and that means the $$$ would go to those that already have it, again! Read yoru History folks, it's plain to see even if you just read the history of the early 1900's forward and wht oil meant to the country and still means. The same would apply for Solar...As Kurt Vonnegut would say; "Catch 22"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaccording to David Fridley ,a n energy researcher from Lawrence Berkeley Lab "the limiting metal for large scale PV development is indium. The USGS review of the metal in 2004 (http;//pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1300/2004-1300.pdf) found that current reserves could last for 20 years, "barring the advent of some high volume application". A "grand solar plan" would be exactly that..." A New Scientist article showed Indium lasting 13 years at current consumption, just 4 years if world consumption were half the US rate. Could the authors of the Grand Solar Plan address the material requirements ,feasibilty and availability of the vast PV expansion envisioned by their exciting plan?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all horse-pucky. Focus Fusion will be ready within 5-6 years, and generate power at 0.1¢ / kwh, with no waste or radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFocusfusion.org.
Yep, Fusion been 5 or 6 years away for the last 30 years or so. While I certainly support continued research and development of Fusion, let's concentrate on more practical solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I'd like to congratulate the authors on a real service in stimulating discussion about solar energy and showing its potential. Ever since I got interested in the subject as an interested observer, over 30 years ago, almost every forecast I've seen of how much solar could contribute has been unbelievably timid--typical projections being perhaps 20% of energy by 2050--or was it just of the electric load?--either way, I could never see a fundamental reason why we couldn't do much better than that, since there are no real resource barriers to its expansion and cost reduction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently, installed wind power greatly exceeds solar power, but solar is growing much more rapidly, so a lot of near-term interest in wind is appropriate, but within a decade I think you'll see solar dominate over wind.
What happens after that brings some other things into play. The cost of PV, and maybe solar thermal too, is likely to come down enough that storage cost will be the dominant cost. That is, unless there is major progress in that area, too. And there might be. Like another recent poster, I'm really excited about prospects for supercapacitors, especially with EEStor coming along. They may or may not ultimately succeed, but in any case, their product or something like it is likely to shake things down to their foundations.
For fixed locations, presumably the critical factor is going to be how efficiently you can get energy in and out of storage (assuming, of course, that the cost of manufacture isn't too high). I suspect that supercapacitors will do at least a little better than compressed air in this regard, but have no figures at hand--would love to see a comparison.
For electric cars and the like, the acid test is probably going to be energy storage density (again, assuming cheap enough manufacture). Here's where I start getting excited. It's important to understand that the energy density you can get with any storage device (flywheel, wound up spring, battery, or for that matter hydrogen or gasoline) depends on the strength of the chemical bonds you can exploit, and how fully you can use that strength. The strongest bond of all, I think, is the covalent hydrogen bond. But that presents problems. It's hard to picture generating hydrogen, say from electrolysis, then using it (probably in a fuel cell) as efficiently as the very direct process of charging a battery or a supercapacitor. So given the difficulty with hydrogen on that score, what's the next strongest practically usable bond? Well, the four bonds of a carbon atom. I look at how much energy can be stored, theoretically, in a kg of carbon nanotubes, and it supposedly is about 47 megajoules. How much energy can be stored in a 1 kg EEStor supercapacitor? I believe they claim 1 MJ/kg. And that's wonderful, stupendous--right up there with advanced batteries, but with the advantages of supercaps. But it still leaves quite a bit of room for improvement. How long will it be before that gap will be closed? What will it take to close it? And what will happen when that occurs? I really want to find the answers to these questions.
The authors believe a major government subsidy will be necessary to really get solar going, and their main reason seems to be the need to transmit electricity over long distances, to take advantage of sunny spots. I wonder if the time is perhaps finally ripe for an alternative, based on major advantages in energy storage. If you can build energy storage equipment cheaply enough, you can create huge stored energy reserves, and move them far away from the point of generation. If you can do the conversion efficiently, you can get around much of the expense and other difficulties of huge power grids. These grids are amazing creations, and have been brought to a high state of development, but distributed power generation and storage may have obvious advantages. Such storage could be deployed in small increments, as needs arise. The storage could be used to separate generation and consumption points by vast distances--in fact, this could make other energy technologies more attractive as well, including nuclear, which could then finally be in almost nobody's back yard. OR--the storage and production could be very close together, perhaps even with the storage on the same module as the solar cell, if desired. That's the beauty of it--you could go either way.
----
Now a few comments on other assorted things. Fusion power, some wags like to say, is the energy source of the future, and always will be. OK, hee hee, I get it. Now, with that said, tell me if it is not true that the Q factor (how close you are to energy breakeven) has been improving fairly steadily ever since they started in the 1950s, and that it is now approaching that breakeven condition, and that the ITER project, when built and operating, is seriously expected to finally exceed both scientific and engineering break-even? The problem with fusion's timetable seems to be just that it takes so much time and money to get one of these things constructed, setting a necessarily slow pace due to the long latency. But once it finally gets developed to the useful point, it may become a hugely attractive prospect. Someday. For now, I'm betting on solar.
Solar power satellites--I don't see any clear reason why they wouldn't be feasible, but the cost of putting stuff into space has only been going down very, very slowly, at the same time that terrestrial wind and solar have been improving rapidly. By the time that changes, terrestrial solar is likely to already be dirt cheap. It has always seemed to me that people who are interested in SPSS are the same ones who are already space enthusiasts. And there's nothing wrong with that in my view, but they should own up to it. I see vast potential in space solar power--but in space, not down here.
Finally, BTW it wasn't Kurt Vonnegut who gave us the phrase "Catch-22" (though it certainly sounds like something he might have said), but Joseph Heller. (-:
Um, did you actually read the FocusFusion site? Doesn't sound like it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not Tokamuk or cold fusion, this is something other. I won't bother to summarize, but go over the material. It's all orthodox physics, and when the engineering is refined, you'll likely see one built down the street (a unit is about the size of a two-car garage, and supplies about 20-30MW. Cost is ~$500,000. )
The current cost of bulk electric generation is on the order of $0.02 per kilowatt hour, and this article says for $400B electricity can be generated for $0.08 per kilowatt hour? How are people going to afford electricity if the wholesale price quadruples?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to reiterate: the projected focus fusion costs of generation are $0.001 / kwh. That would be a reduction of 95% even from the low current estimate of $0.02 / kwh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Um, did you actually read the FocusFusion site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Doesn't sound like it.
Um, Brian, did you actually read [i]my post[/i]? (It immediately preceded your comment, so I assume it refers to it, though you don't make that explicit.) Comments on fusion were only a small part of it, and mostly favorable thereto. Most of what I said was about better energy storage, which would be beneficial to fusion as well, since like most other energy sources it isn't likely to be on-board in cars and trucks.
But to answer your question: No, I haven't--the site is currently down.
> > Um, did you actually read the FocusFusion site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> > Doesn't sound like it.
>
> Um, Brian, did you actually read [i]my post[/i]? (It
> immediately preceded your comment, so I assume it
> refers to it, though you don't make that explicit.)
> Comments on fusion were only a small part of it, and
> mostly favorable thereto. Most of what I said was
> about better energy storage, which would be
> beneficial to fusion as well, since like most other
> energy sources it isn't likely to be on-board in cars
> and trucks.
>
> But to answer your question: No, I haven't--the site
> is currently down.
Mondo;
I'd clicked on the Reply option in realistdmr's comment, one higher, but I see there's actually no backlink unless I use the Quote Original button. Sorry. And the site is not down, and has AFAIK never been down.
http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php
Brian, thanks for the clarification. And from this system I can get to the site just fine. Tried it exactly the same from home this morning, and it didn't work, although other things were all right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRE: Post 395, with oil at $75.00 US or more per barrel, the savings are approximately $10,000,000 US, or better per year. That makes the ROI time shorter as the price per barrel goes up. Also the last time I looked Fossil Fuels are being depleted at a rapid rate, but sunlight and wind will be with us long after the current political/economic system is gone. What would happen if the State of Hawaii just bought all the gas powered POV's and gave every one a electric one? After all it is a collection of islands and the longest distance that you can drive has got to be in the range of any electric vehicle on the market today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuilding a new wiring infrastructure across the U.S. to transmit D.C. efficiently will require immense amounts of copper because the diameter of the wires to carry D.C. any distance have to be far greater than those for A.C. (Type into your favorite search engine, "Tesla versus Edison" for clarification, for instance.) This much demand for copper will seriously tap our supplies, pushing us once again into the corner of having to depend on imports. This is not an enviable situation and one that I thought the authors were trying to avoid. Surely the authors meant to transmist that power with the more efficient A.C. method, requiring far smaller wires? Did I miss something in that article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this420 Billion! I hope I get some of that back when its cloudy! Maybe it would be good to diversify the investment and put, say, 20 or 30 Billion into engineered geothermal systems?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> 420 Billion! I hope I get some of that back when its
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> cloudy! Maybe it would be good to diversify the
> investment and put, say, 20 or 30 Billion into
> engineered geothermal systems?
Grump. I repeat: something like 1% of 1% of that number ($42 million) would be more than sufficient to jumpstart the focusfusion.org project I referenced. Fortunately, Livermore and the Govt. of Chile are now providing (barely) adequate backing to keep the ball rolling (testing, modelling, refining of engineering parameters).
As for the automotive and transmission issues, the latter is irrelevant to focus fusion, as the generating plants are comparatively small (30 MW) and local, so transmission is local. The DC/AC issue is trivial; alternator technology is about a century old.
As for automotive use, check out teslamotors.com. And then http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
, Stanford's 10X increase in lithium battery capacity. (Tesla Motors uses them for its storage. Current battery banks yield 220 miles/charge; the new tech could boost that to 2000, theoretically.) Even at current power prices, the Tesla gets 135 mpg equivalent. With focus fusion's 20-50X cheaper output ($0.001 kwh), that would become about 3000+ mpg, equivalent.
Talk about disruptive technology! I call it a mini-singularity, personally.
So you can leave the deserts alone. And stop wasting corn making biofuels that actually worsen net carbon emissions. Etc.
> Brian, thanks for the clarification. And from this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> system I can get to the site just fine. Tried it
> exactly the same from home this morning, and it
> didn't work, although other things were all right.
Hm, at this moment I can't get thru either. I've emailed the webmaster to ask if there's a problem.
> > Brian, thanks for the clarification. And from
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> this
> > system I can get to the site just fine. Tried
> it
> > exactly the same from home this morning, and it
> > didn't work, although other things were all
> right.
>
> Hm, at this moment I can't get thru either. I've
> emailed the webmaster to ask if there's a problem.
Back up again; don't know what the problem was.
Excellent thought-provoking article, I thought, so it set me thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot being familiar with the technology, I read up a little on it, but I'm by no means an expert on any of it, so forgive me if this is a stupid question.
For a PV capacity of 2940 GW operating at virtually 100% capacity factor (assuming CAES or some other storage method to fill the gap at night), the annual electrcity output would be 2940*8766 = 25 772 040 GWh.
If one now assumes that this is done in areas where there is a high incidence of solar radiation, say 8 kWh/sq m/day (like in Death Valley), and the conversion happens at 14%and the land area is 40% covered by PV panels (as the authors have suggested, I think), one would generate 8*14%*40% or 0.448 kWh/sq m/day. That sounds about right, doesn't it?
The land area required to generate 25 772 040 GWh per year would thus have to be 25 772 040/(0.448*365) = 157608 square kilometers, and dividing by 2.59, I get 60 852 square miles, not 30 000 square miles. It is peculiar that the answer is out by a factor of 2, not 10, so it doesn't look as if a decimal has gone astray. A factor of 2 suggests one of the assumptions is incorrect.
Unless I'm wrong, this also has implications for the area of PV modules required and would double the cost. That would be a real blow!
Can some kind soul please point out where my mistake is?
So many misconceptions in this discussion. Concentrator solar systems require a point source of light. Any clouds whatsoever results in zero energy conversion. Climate change may turn the southwest more cloudy. Can we afford to make a huge investment in technology dependent on the vagaries of cloud cover? Photovoltaics produce a significant fraction of their rated output even in cloudy weather. They do not require any tracking or mechanical element at all, making them close to a zero maintenance proposition. PV is actually going down in price when you take inflation into account and the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. If you actually understand economics and how the system constantly inflates, then you can see that the cost of PV is actually about 1/4 what it was in 1980. We can get to a significant solar energy economy, through distributed, mass produced, modularized, integrated PV energy/electronic controls/power conditioning/instrumentation systems using what we already know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> As for the automotive and transmission issues, the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> latter is irrelevant to focus fusion, as the
> generating plants are comparatively small (30 MW) and
> local, so transmission is local. The DC/AC issue is
> trivial; alternator technology is about a century
> old.
>
> As for automotive use, check out teslamotors.com.
> And then
> n
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/na
> nowire-010908.html
> , Stanford's 10X increase in lithium battery
> capacity. (Tesla Motors uses them for its storage.
> Current battery banks yield 220 miles/charge; the
> e new tech could boost that to 2000, theoretically.)
> Even at current power prices, the Tesla gets 135 mpg
> g equivalent. With focus fusion's 20-50X cheaper
> output ($0.001 kwh), that would become about 3000+
> mpg, equivalent.
Brian, there's an obvious question that I don't see directly addressed directly, even at the Focus Fusion site. [i]Does it work?[/i] Not [i]will[/i] it work, but [i]does[/i] it work? I don't see any mention of a working focus fusion reactor having been built. At first glance it looks at though this may well be research worth funding, with such huge hoped-for results, a plausible concept, and the frankly modest investment called for. But you talk about it as it already exists. As far as I can see, it doesn't, and you can't directly compare it to solar technology already in use.
If focus fusion works as well as you expect, then indeed storage and transmission issues should be minor--bear in mind, though, that existing coal, oil and gas plants still provide electricity expensive enough, and with enough outages, to justify that huge electric grid. My hope, as stated earlier, is that with the huge improvements possible in energy storage--the fact that we're so far away from the theoretical limits, especially in Joules/kg, there may be a better way than that grid. In any case, a fusion plant will have to provide astoundingly cheap energy to make the issue unimportant, even for fixed uses.
And although you sound a bit as if you doubt it, energy storage will still be an issue even if focus fusion is everything you hope it will be--because of mobile energy use. The lithium battery breakthrough is an example of what I'm excited about, but it looks as though eventually we can do much better. Well be needing that regardless of the electricity source.
I hope that the authors will get this plan to the energy policy staff of Barack Obama's campaign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was totally in favor of solar energy 12 years ago when I bought two photovoltaic panels for my family's cabin, and I still am. But I disagree with your Grand Plan's assumption that 6 cents per kWh is desirable. No matter what our energy sources are, we must first ask ourselves, "Do I want to use this power?" As I look out my window I see 2 of my neighbors have once again left their porch lights on, all day, in broad daylight. Do I really need to see 80 TVs and computer monitors lit up when I walk into an electronics store? As for transportation, what is so bad about walking our kids three blocks to school instead of driving them, no matter how fuel-efficient our hybrid vehicle is? These questions don't get asked when electricity is 6 cents a kWh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore we ask governments to invest billions in renewable energy, let's first bring in a carbon tax to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels; if we do that, then solar energy automatically starts looking more attractive for everyone.
Sounds sensible enough--but there's no reason for one of these actions to wait on the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the idea of covering thousands of square miles of the southwest desert with solar energy collectors is severely flawed. What about the environmental impact to these delicate ecosystems. To exclude any discussion of nuclear energy is ridiculous. Modern nuclear electrical energy generating plants would be a wiser choice for areas that don't receive enough sunlight for efficient energy collection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo simply disreguard nuclear energy is irrational. William H.
But what does "simply disregard" mean in this context? Shut down all nukes now? Few would advocate that. None build any more? Possibly. Under what conditions should we built what plants--that is the question. And in my view it comes down to whether any given proposed fission plant makes sense, once you have factored in the necessary expense to make it acceptably safe (in all of its operational aspects), and compared it to the other choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in the scientific field. I need to see a body of peer-reviewed, juried articles cited at least quietly, invisibly even in a tiny non-distracting script at the end of your article or even on a separate page if necessary. This way I can take the information seriously (and it is an important issue).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know that this article (and magazine) is for the general public, however I feel very suspicious about your information...you don't even have to use standard citing footnotes or other distracting citing features.
This would not get in the way of a general audience and would help people in the scientific communtity... like me.
How do I know if you, or your sources are being biased or not? I am raising a point of this now just because this issue is so important...especially if you really want to increase dialog about solar initiatives.
Increased Local Temperature. The albedo effect (amount of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back into space, hence no global warming impact) is 40% for desert sands and 5% for dark, light absorbent materials such as PV modules. Therefore, covering desert area with PV module means that more sunlight (heat) is being retained at ground level and thereby raising the local temperature. However, of the total 160,000 square miles of solar installations that we use in the article only 40% of this area or 64,000 square miles is covered by solar materials. Overall, the area of the great Southwest desert that is covered by solar modules is on the order of 10% of total desert area. The actual rise in temperature will be small, and due to the high temperatures that occur naturally without solar modules, the small increase should have minimal impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this worked tho, many other nations with deserts would want to do the same so this effect would most likely increase a lot. Any idea at what point this would be a concern - just how much area would it be safe to use. Just think china and africa alone would be a LOT of land area in desert!
--
Edited by kedro1 at 02/14/2008 7:26 PM
Hello William H.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand the appeal of nuclear energy. The plants are extremely expensive to build, to refurbish, and to decommission. They use enormous amounts of increasingly scarce water. They become attractive targets for terrorists and increase the availability of weapons-grade material which may be attractive to terrorists for their own use. And the kicker is, no one on the planet has ever devised an acceptable means of dealing with nuclear waste, which will be lethally radioactive for thousands of years.
A twelve year old study by Colorado's Rocky Mountain Institute showed that if the United States could live without "phantom loads", then two nuclear power plants could be shut down. One such phantom load is the clock on our microwave ovens. Who looks at those, anyway? Over the course of a year, however, in most households the clock uses more power than running the oven does. 30 seconds or three minutes of microwave power doesn't add up to much, but the 5 or 10 or 20 watts used 24/7 by the clock certainly does ratchet up the kWh.
That study was 12 years old. How many more phantom loads do we have in our homes now? Clocks on coffee pots and VCRs, the instant-on feature on our TVs, the digital clock on the stove. And these are small amounts of power. What if we actually got serious about energy conservation, and my co-workers shut off their office lights and computers when they leave for the night? I'm sure you've seen the milliion-dollar homes where the two people living there have every room lit up. I learned about energy conservation from my accountant father at the age of 7, and I notice the ubiquitous waste in our society constantly.
No matter what our energy source, we must first address our wasteful habits and practices. Then shifting to more efficient appliances such as compact fluorescents, better refrigerators and motors, and computers like the elegant iMac, can further drop our energy requirements to the point where renewable energy starts to look like a viable source, and we can kick the fossil fuel habit. Nuclear power would only be a costly and dangerous distraction.
> ...Overall, the area of the great Southwest desert that is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> covered by solar modules is on the order of 10% of
> total desert area. The actual rise in temperature
> will be small, and due to the high temperatures that
> occur naturally without solar modules, the small
> increase should have minimal impact.
I've never thought this would ever be an issue. So what if you decrease the albedo of the area covered by the PV modules from 40% to 10%. Just cover, say, 50% of the area with these modules. Cover the rest with something having, say, 90% albedo, and the overall albedo will be about 50%--an actual slight increase in overall albedo. And use the land under the panels (both dark and light) to grow mushrooms or whatever seems advantageous.
The albedo issue may be no issue at all as the warming is local and if the air clears, the cooling is global. However, that is just a quess on my part and i would like to see a serious study of the effect of greatly increasing the scope of doing this. Anything that works is going to attract interest so just seems prudent to look at it sooner rather than later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the albedo impact (heat island and global warming), we have contacted experts. Tucson Electric Power who owns and operates the 4.6 MW Springerville PV plant, which is pictured in the SA article, states that they have detected a 2 to 3 deg F increase in the field center and wind vectors from the periphery into the center. They are working with the newly formed Solar Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona who is seeking funding to do broad environmental impact studies on large-PV installations. Other climate experts have stated an interest in conducting albedo effect studies and state that they will be seeking funding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the global warming impact, Gregory Nemet of the University of Wisconsin Madison has an article under review for publication studying the impact of utilizing PV to produce 50% of the world's energy in 2100 with 25% of the PV being super-large-scale installations in the world's deserts similar to what we propose in the SA article. His finding indicate that the warming caused by the reduced albedo from PV installations is at most 5% of the counter-warming from greenhouse gas reduction created by the reduction in fossil fuels from the PV installations. HIs conclusion is that PV is one of best weapons in the fight against global warming.
In response to Post 467 (Ordway), the technical article that is the basis for the results in the SA article has been submitted to the peer-reviewed scientific journal Energy Policy, and it is under review. In addition, the authors of the SA article have submitted a PV-CAES study to the peer-reviewed scientific journal Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, and it is under review.
In response to Post 458 (LeonJac) on calculation of land area, we use the following parameters: 14% efficient PV (140 W/m2) and a spacing between PV array rows that is 2.5 times the area of the PV modules (which prevents module cross-shading during sunlight hours). Therefore, the 2,940-GW PV plant referred to has an area of
(2,940,000,000,000 W / 140 W/m2) x 2.5 = 52,500 sq. km (20,270 sq. mi).
The electricity output is based on average insolation in the SW US is equivalent to 6.4 hours of peak insolation per day (annual average) and a PV system efficiency of 85%. Therefore, the electricity output of a 2,940-GW PV plant is
2,940,000,000,000 W x (365 days x 6.4 h) x 85% = 5,837 TWh (terawatt-hours of electricity).
I think the better idea is to put all those PV panels on all new and existing homes in the US and then allow those home owners the option of selling the excess back at "realistic" prices to cover costs.The initial investment for homeowners could be offset by that 420 bil subsidy program. I see no reason to give 420 bil to a few corporations. This in effect would recreate the oil companies. Would it not be better to put that money directly back into the economy via the general population and support many smaller companies and small businesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh and a quick peek at the census statistics estimates the number of housing units in the US to be 126,316,181 as of 2006.Granted that this also includes apartments and highrises however thats what wind turbines are for.
Not to mention when you spread out the entire system among the general population the sun is always shining somewhere in the US so instead of having a day to 3 days of low to 0 solar production while a storm system passes over you would at least have a medium amount of energy being produced throughout the day.
The more I think about this plan the more it doesnt make sense from a national infrastructure point of view. Why put all your eggs in one basket ie.in the south west. If you take the example of a large disaster the last thing you want to have is the nations energy grid offline due to things (storms, earthquakes, ect) that we know are going to happen. One could also imagine that if all the homes in the US are participating in the national energy grid and are for the most part self sufficient then we actually would mitigate the overall impact a disaster such as Katrina would impose. Each house could have at least some capacity for producing its own electricty(at least those that were not completely destroyed) thereby allowing for some immediate needs to be met, such as boiling water for drinking until FEMA decides it wants to show up and the main grid could be repaired.
This could also elliminate the need for a DC backbone to be created...thats what power inverters are for. Why destroy the AC industry?
Now lets say that all the homes in the US have added PV panels and create at least some electricty and that a program exists that allows individuals to create electricty and sell it back to the grid at "realistic" prices with no constraints on the amount they produce...it seems reasonable to assume that some people and a lot of small businesses would try to profit off of this and in the process create massive surplusses of electricity. Why not take that surplus and create hydrogen out of it. Once you have the hydrogen in production then you can do away with (when you are talking transportation) biofuels,hybrid cars, and most importantly oil. you could also run homes primarily off of hydrogen (Heat Pumps,stoves, clothes dryers ect...ect). Now instead of the US being a major importer of energy it could be quite possible that we become a major exporter of energy to the world market. If the US were to start producing major amounts of hydrogen for export you could also mitigate the effect emerging industrializing nations would have on the climate.
Now we can also throw in the terrorist factor and then look at having the energy grid all in one centralized area. From that perspective it seems almost foolish to put the entire national energy production in one place/area. If we cant control immigration across the southwestern borders now whats to keep a terrorist from grabbing a plane in Mexico and crashing the thing into this big solar grid killing off most of the national energy supply.
The idea of solar producing the largest part of the nations electrical needs is not what is at issue for me here...its placing it all in one place and allowing only the few and powerful to profit from it along with basically bottlenecking the nations energy supply. This plan needs some rethinking and in its present form discarded in its entirety. There are better ways of implementation.
--
Edited by Hammer231 at 02/16/2008 5:53 PM
Since renewable energy is not at all reliable (solar not available at night or when there are clouds) wind not available when there is no wind, etc., etc., obviously provision for storage is crucial. But storage costs vary hugely depending on the type of renewable energy. PV, which your compressed air system requires a whole parallel system of pipes, caverns and pumps, is very costly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt reminds me of when I was taken through a pumped-storage plant in the Alps intended to match the steady output of the associated nuclear plant with the load. It required more than the equivalent of over one complete hydro plant equal in capacity to the nuclear plant itself. I say "more" because there was not not one dam but two, a lower one as well as an upper one. Plus labyrinths of huge conduits, monster turbine halls, generator/motors, switchgear, control rooms, etc. It appeared to have doubled the cost of the nuclear plant itself. I imagine your compressed air system will be similarly expeni
In response to the Hammer231 post above, there are false assumptions. The concern of a terrorist attack on the Southwest solar power plants is fear-mongering. There would have to be a full scale attack on the U.S. (not a terrorist attack) to have any measureable impact, and if this should occur nuclear power plants would be much more vulnerable than the widely dispersed and modular solar power plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe land area of the Southwest U.S. is over one million square kilometers, which is a land area greater than the combined land area of France, Germany, and England. The oil infrastructure along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast is much more concentrated.
We fully support the maximum use of rooftop PV systems, however, as you state, they can only provide a small portion of home, business, industry electricity needs because the sun only shines a portion of the day. This leads to the need for storage. Batteries are too expensive except for the very wealthy.
The U.S. has a centralized energy system at present, and the Solar Grand Plan is based on modernizing the U.S. energy system to include Hybrid Solar-Thermal power plants, which will enable the U.S. to seamlessly evolve beyond fossil fuels over the course of the 21st Century.
And what many people in the U.S. do not see at present is the fact that U.S. natural gas supply is beginning to go down the same foreign importation path that we began with oil in the 1970s. This represents a "very serious" errosion in U.S. energy security. Wake up America.
And the price of electricity is going up as natural gas prices go up. Therefore, the adoption of peak hybrid solar-thermal power plants is in the nation's economic self interest since it is a certainty that hybrid solar-thermal power plants will be able to provide peak period (8 am - 7 pm) electricity at a lower cost than any other source of "peak" power plant. Solar is tailor made for peak electricity production, especially in the case of the hybrid solar-thermal power plants presented in the Scientific American article.
An organization is being founded, ASAP (American Solar Action Plan). To get involved and help build support for the U.S. Solar Grand Plan:
email: solar.plan@verizon.net
Generating electricity from solar power will not cut US oil demand. We barely use oil to generate electricity (5% maybe).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we find a way to use electricity instead of gasoline to run cars and airplanes, then we would be able to reduce demand.
This article is confused about energy usage.
We will wean ourselves from our oil addiction with electric cars using electricity produced by the solar/wind/geothermal power plants, augmented with hydrogen produced by cellulosic biomass gasification and electrolysis of water using the electricity from the solar/wind/geothermal power plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am participating in GM's Driveway Fuel Cell Vehicle demonstration program in New York, and electric cars are just around the corner. Once you have driven an electric car, you will never want anything else (quiet and powerful).
GM and Toyota have annouced plans to place plug-in electric cars in the showrooms in 2010 (Chevy Volt not sure of Toyotas brand name yet). These are fully electric vehicles (all wheel power provided by electric engine with a small auxiliary engine to act as a generator to maintain a battery charge for long distances). Also, Honda is leasing their Honda Civic fuel cell car in Los Angeles beginning this July and hopefully will extend that to New York since we are developing a hydrogen distribution infrastructure (GM promises 40 hydrogen pumps in NYC area by 2010). In June, the first two hydrogen pumps on Long Island will be available.
The Solar Grand Plan is a comprehensive energy plan if you read it carefully. In a couple of decades, oil will be too expensive to operate vehicles (maybe already is) and hydrogen will be replacing oil. There are many sources of hydrogen. The U.S. is currently producing enough hydrogen by natural gas steam reformation and coal gasification to power 150 million vehicles (the hydrogen is produced for oil refineries in the removal of sulfur from crude oil and for fertilizer companies in the production of ammonia. Zero emissions hydrogen can be produced by cellulosic biomass gasification and electrolysis of water using solar electricity. This is what we propose in the article for 2050-2100.
If you think building a hydrogen infrastructure is impossible, just google "U.S. natural gas pipeline system" and look at the morass of pipelines we have built in the U.S. in the 20th century. It just a technical job and the cost is built into the price of the hydrogen just as it now is built into the cost of gasoline and natural gas. But the BIG issue is the country's ENERGY INDEPENDENCE from foreign energy sources.
U.S. national security is underminded by our dependence on foreign energy, which is the nation's achilles heel and is becoming increasing important now that we are having to import ever greater quantities of natural gas from the same locations that we are currently importing over 65% of our domestic oil consumption.
Just imagine how powerful the U.S. will become in coming decades as we lead the way to sustainable, totally energy independent, non-fossil fuel energy technologies. Also, imagine the horrors (world conflict) that is inevitable in the energy scarce world that is developing, and we better not delay because we have a big job in front of us.
The U.S. energy system we built in the 20th century is truly awesome and to replace it will take just as long as it took to build it in the first place. But this is a normal process; systems are always evolving, let's just prevent a crisis driven transition. In other others, we need to be forward thinking and prepared.
The military budget for FY 2008 is around $500 billion for the DoD alone. Other military expenditures are hidden amongst various other agencies: foreign military aid is under the department of State, nuclear weapons are partly under the Department of Energy, the militarization of space is partly hidden in NASA's budget. Taking those into account and adding in the iraq supplemental budget and the so-called global war on terror, the total amount spent is probably a little over a trillion dollars. We have more than 700 military bases in around 120 countries; it's implausible that all this is necessary for national defense. We should decrease our military spending by a minimum of 20% per annum, and redirect the money to a Green New Deal, of which the construction of renewable energy grids would of course be a major component
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure calling the threat of terrorism complete fear mongoring would be appropriate. The threat is real...to what extent..who knows for certain...but given past events in the last 10 years Id say as a nation...like it or not...it is something that has to be taken into account when considering a national infrastructure strategy. Any bill (which would have to be implemented through Congress to approve 420 bil over 40 years) presenting a new national energy grid infrastructure will be evaluated by Homeland Security and thier assesment will be posted on that bill. I think it prudent when proposing a plan that is going to be so far reaching and costly to at least address issues concerning security.And no....im not a republican. My point in my post was to illustrate that the plan...as presented...is lacking in a few areas. Such as when you confine these arrays ( I assume now that a number of arrays will be spread out across the 4 corners regions) even to a large area you still have created a limited number of "points of failure" or "chokepoints". If you look at this scenario from a risk management point of view I think in all fairness you would have to conclude that if there was a way to eliminate or mitigate chokepoints and bottlenecks you should... if nothing more than for simple failover capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as needing a full scale attack on the US...ill just say this - 9/11 didnt require a full scale attack, the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing didnt require a full scale attack, the anthrax attacks didnt reqire a full scale attack,and all were very effective, so I dont think an attack on the nations solar energy grid would require a full scale attack to be effective. If you use new and existing homes for the nations energy grid you virtually take the grid off the maps for any terrorism. My overall point being why have a risk when you really dont have to?
On this next one Ill quote you here
"[i]We fully support the maximum use of rooftop PV systems, however, as you state, they can only provide a small portion of home, business, industry electricity needs because the sun only shines a portion of the day. This leads to the need for storage. Batteries are too expensive except for the very wealthy[/i]."
2 things here - 1st, yes given the current policies on net metering and startup costs Rooftop PV panels are not viable at the moment for a national energy grid strategy. What would need to happen (Hillary and Obama are allready speaking about it) is enact a fair net metering standard and subsidize costs for home owners and small businesses to afford the initial startup and to be able to recoup those costs and dare I say...make a little money. IF you have such a policy in place rooftop PV panels, wind and hydrogen all become part of the solution (again with spreading the risk out to avoid bottlenecks in technologies) and viable. If such a plan mandated that all new and existing homes over the course of x years be able to at least provide half its own electrical needs ( going to guesstimate somewhere around 1 to 2 Kw average) With either a fair net metering standard or feed in tarrifs and federal subsidies that make it worth while to produce surplus electricity (ie. it becomes profitable ) then I think we could expect to see what is happening in Europe. Solar and wind are exploding because it is profitable for the average homeowner to produce surplus electricity which is then fed directly back into the grid.
2nd - the need for storage as the current plan calls for is compressing air inside of abandoned mines and such. This is not a good idea for several reasons- your using electricity from the solar arrays to power huge air compressors which will then pump air inside the ground that will be used as a fuel additive to increase the efficency of generators that will be burning biofuels to power the grid at night.
These mines /caverns DO leak as anyone in the natural gas industry can tell you as they store natural gas in old salt mines. Also when you compress air you squeeze out all the water in the air and ambient soil mositure(when storing underground)...where does all that water go? Will it leach out into the drinking water...(Arsenic is to my understanding naturally occuring in the soil in the 4 corners regions)...which in the southwest is getting very scarce. If the water does stay there without pumping it out it will eventually fill up the mine / cavern. If the water is caught before going into the mine/cavern how much of the grid will be used to address the wastewater and is that in your current calculations? Even if you do catch all the water that is being compressed out of the air what happens when you pump all this dry air inside the ground and it starts pulling all the ambient moisture out of the ground. Ill point to a National Geographic article called "The Drying of the West" Feb 2008. They paint a pretty dry picture for the future of the 4 corners region and I dare say that environmentalists in the area might protest pumping compressed air underground.
Also once you have this air stored you want to use it for an additive with biofuels to run generators at night. Well biofuels...for all thier media hype "Still Pollute". IF you use Hydrogen as a means of energy storage you do 3 things
1. you dont pollute anything as the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water vapor.
2. you create a source of fuel that can "substantially reduce" the amount of electricity used by the average homeowner thereby reducing the amount of PV panels / wind turbines on the home needed so that your actually increasing the electrical surplus of homes tied to the grid. And since hydrogen is one of the most efficient fuels out there to burn you have a wonderful means of replacing gasoline. Hydrogen cars are on the market...GM has allready announced its first hydrogen car.Once you have hydrogen being piped into peoples homes you can also use the hydrogen to make electricity by running generators on it ...just in case you needed another way for the homeowner to create electricity.(Again with spreading out the risk)
3. you can use hydrogen as a commodity on world markets.
Now if you do the same thing with hydrogen that you have done with solar and wind you could just as easily have homes producing hydrogen instead of surplus electricty and feed that back into a national hydrogen gas grid. You could also fill up your car at home...which at this point in time sounds very appealing to me.
Also you do not need natural gas to produce hydrogen...its not even a very efficient way of producing it. All one needs to produce hydrogen is water, electricity, and an electrolizer. A European company has developed and is now looking to put into production an electrolizer unit that when all is calculated out produces hydrogen to be used in a generator for producing electricity at a cost of US $198.00 per Kw for start up costs. Solar nor wind can come anywhere close to that. Its interesting to note that the US Navy have contracts with this company and Boeing is working on contracts with them. Look up ITM Power on google and take a look at thier videos and presentations.
I might also add that within this discussion we are speaking about addressing 2 different problems with one solution. Global Warming and Energy Independence. Biofuels are only a very short term solution as it only addresses one of
the problems...Energy Independence. Biofuels pollute and are at best a very short term solution that could easily be avoided. Why use a polluting fuel when you simply do not have to? If we are going to lead the way on Global Warming...it doesnt make sense to use "moonshine" to run our country. Keep in mind carbon taxes are coming. It just makes more sense to go ahead and make the switch to hydrogen and phase out biofuels while its still young. Take all those research dollars and dump it into energy sources that are "NON" polluting.
With the above you have a completely decentralized system with massive failover capacity, no batteries are required and everyone in the nation gets a slice of the pie instead of just a handful of elites. The idea of taking the nations energy away from the oil companies and handing it over to yet another bunch of monster companies is not (in my opinion) in the best interests of the U.S.. Energy independence requires that we be independent...not just reslaved to a different company.
--
Edited by Hammer231 at 02/17/2008 10:42 PM
Why can't Solar cut oil usage? People, you need to think. Oil is just a storage commodity for energy as is Gas, Coal, Ethanol, Hydrogen, etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar is a technology for capturing the energy from the sun and then one can either directly generate electricty or use that electricity to produce, Hydrogen, Ethanol, Compressed air, hot water, heated rocks, etc...
If the cost to do this is less than the cost to use coal and oil for the same thing, then why not do it on a massive scale and replace something that not only costs us dearly from the standpoint of our environment, security, economy, land use, cleanup, health, foreign wars, etc.. but is also quickly running out. The Sun on the other hand is good for another couple billion years.
How about this idea, If everyone, were to give they're economic stimulus refund checks $150Billion we could conceivably build 600 solar thermal power plants the size of Nevada's Solar One that just opened last year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow look at how impressive these numbers are. That plant powers 14,000 homes. So based on 600 plants of like size we are talking about 8.4 million homes and the technology is available right now. So in reality how much does $600 dollars do for you right now vs 600 new solar thermal plants?
The reality is that this kind of money needs to be in private sector hands and not handled by the government. This is economic stimulus as far as I'm concerned, We would be investing in infrastructure and jobs in construction, manufacturing, and maintenance for the next 30 years.
This kind of development makes a lot more sense than giving all taxpayers $300-$1200 to spend at their leisure. If someone can figure out how to do it, you can have my $600 check,
--
Edited by Nick in Arizona at 02/18/2008 3:42 PM
--
Edited by Nick in Arizona at 02/18/2008 3:42 PM
Responding to your Grand Solar Plan with a few facts that I have not seen mentioned, but which are critical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all PV is already cost effective. But it is not practical because every system is custom engineered and there are not enough good engineers to meet the need, much less the requirements of designing, and maintaining a million custom engineered systems. By the inclusion of PV systems (which can last 40 years +) there are critical and unusual engineering challenges. I have been engineering, installing, maintaining and living with solar energy systems since 1982, so I believe my perspective is founded in reality.
Even the large commercial systems are problematic, because they are also custom engineered systems spread out over a huge area. Part of the problem is the cost of designing and installing these incredibly materials-intensive systems, but by far the major cost is the maintenance of millions of connectors, thousands of junction boxes, incredibly complex instrumentation requirements and the exceptional liability of the mechanical portion of the system - tracking devices. The superbly low maintenance characteristics of PV are ruined by the inevitable fallibility of mechanical support systems.
The beauty of PV is its low-maintenance longevity. (The cost of PV is very relevant to its durability; $1/watt in a ten year appliance is equivalent to $5/watt in a 50 year appliance) That is why it can be cost effective right now. But only as a part of a modularized, integrated energy appliance that requires no engineering for installation and is designed from day-one for ease of installation with very user-friendly characteristics. We already have all of the technology to do this. It awaits only the visionary financiers with the comprehension and commitment to act.
It appears to me that your plan tends to try to plug solar into the existing energy industry paradigm. Huge, centralized systems owned privately but paid for by the taxpayer. It reminds me of a time in history when railroads were the behemoths of the transportation industry and then along came automobiles that did not need tracks and so anyone could own their mechanized transport device. Still it was only when people like Henry Ford realized that only with modularization, integration of the best technologies and mass production to make a truly PRACTICAL transport appliance, would the technology take the world by storm.
That's where we are in solar right now. The way to go is not to make more "tracks" (read: HVDC lines) at huge public expense so the existing monopolies/oligarchies can continue their dominance by dragging their feet. The key is an entrepreneurial revolution in integrated solar energy appliances.
Some of us have been living on sophisticated solar energy systems for decades. An executive once said that if you want to create change in an organization, look for where the change already exists as an insurgent activity and then provide the insurgents with resources.
http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/
x
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article and a great basis for increased public awareness and discussion. However, I would like to raise several issues:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- My gut feeling is that the AUSRA proposal for using on-site excavated cavern storage for saturated steam at 90 bar will prove to be superior to compressed air storage. See the David Mills article "SOLAR THERMAL POWER AS THE PLAUSIBLE BASIS OF GRID SUPPLY" (http://ausra.com/pdfs/T_1_1_David_Mills_2049.pdf)
2-The general consensus is that thermal solar has a substantial cost advantage over PV, both currently and for the future for utility scale installations, as well as offering better storage options.
3- The generally accepted figure for % of capacity that can be supplied by wind is 20+% based upon the Danish experience. Wind power is a proven, highly developed technology that already meets the most favorable price goals for PV. Yet you discount it as a future energy source.
4- Your proposal for a national HVDC grid should receive the highest of national priorities. However it is incomplete in scope because it is derived from a bias toward desert utility scale solar.
What is needed is an National Renewable Energy HVDC Highway to link the Southwest's solar power, Wyoming, North Dakota & Texas' wind power, and the Bonneville system hydro and pumped storage capacity into one synergistic system. By incorporating different renewable sources with different production cycles the entire system would gain stability and efficiency.
5- The many social and economic advantages from decentralization of small (residential to 1mw) PV installations are overlooked. From the standpoint of grid stability, incentives should be designed to maximize dispersion of PV. These systems should receive a premium price for the power they contribute to the grid at least commensurate with the cost of building a national HVDC highway or subsidizing coal or Nuclear.
Yeah, yeah. Fine. Even at 15%, you are essentially painting the desert black. Most of the solar energy will be absorbed, and re-radiated as heat. Where does that heat go? What is the effect of 120 or 130 degree ambient daytime temperatures?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a great concept. It's not a great plan. We need better solar cells and better batteries before we start fixing technology and installing a base system. Keep looking.
The half trillion figure for the current cost of imported energy- does that include our military expenditures to protect our access to those sources?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the greatest plan in this Century..here are many interesting plan on ---- http://tallmeet.com ----
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, I thought our military
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswas a guardian of nascent
democracies!!!
WRT post 472 (James Mason): Yes, globally the benefits of CO2 reduction surely must greatly exceed any reduction of albedo due to the area of the solar cells. But that wasn't the question. It's whether there's a local temperature rise due to all those dark cells in one place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, as I said earlier I don't see a problem--just mix in some really white panels with the dark ones. I'd like to see a study of the feasibility of that.
More and more, as this discussion continues, I think the real controversy is going to be over what is the best energy storage system. (Actually, there could be two parts to that issue--what to do for fixed power generation, and what to do for moving electric vehicles.) Better energy storage is important for solar and wind (intermittency), for nuclear (as it influences how closely sited the plants need to be), even for novel fusion devices such as have been referred to (because you still need energy storage for electric vehicles).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd really like to see comparative efficiency figures for different energy storage systems. The ones most in favor seem to be (1) compressed air, (2) hydrogen, and (3) advanced batteries and capacitors. Efficiency is crucially important, as it directly bears on how much generating capacity you need (and fuel consumption, where that applies).
After efficiency comes the question of cost reduction prospects for energy storage systems, and for the energy sources that feed them. Depending on how the cost curves plot out over time, we could wind up with either the sources or the storage media being the main cost determinants--and that could affect the whole way we think about the issue.
If BOTH PV and some storage media get to be dirt cheap to make, then what? Maybe land use, in competition with other uses, becomes the big issue? Maybe cost issues fade out, leaving other things such as political issues at the forefront? Surely that's the kind of problem you'd want to have.
The article covers concentrated solar thermal and thin film tech well. But there is also concentrated PV which is an excellent contender as a solar farm technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy must the system be so dependent upon large centralized infrastructure? In my experience one can reduce the costs of a large system designed for work by using distributed architecture. If we all come up with our own production/storage solutions we can keep the total cost of implementation & Maintenance much lower. This would have to be done with the exact same goals & would require someone to be in charge so that it would be as efficient as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile more dispearsed power generation would be much better all around, subsidies would attract more invetors. How fast it is needed may play a role in which way to go - so the big boys may prefere to run out the oil first so we are forced to go the faster route with them still in charge. If we stall around too long, we will pay the price!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand the comparison. You could subsidize either a centralized or a distributed approach (or a mix of both, which is perhaps the most likely).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubsidizing big bussiness would attract big investments from fat cats that want to reap all the profits - subsidizing me is not gonna get much more cause i don't got much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopeing a middle ground can be found but regardless, we really need to reduce oil/coal use.
Gentlemen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe January 2008 issue concerning solar power selects a very inefficient, and historically unproven method of energy storage as documented below. Considering that the entire basis of the solar power scheme described in the article (420 billion dollars over a 40 year time period) is contingent upon being able to efficiently store, and convert the stored energy to electricity; I would like the authors to respond the below items:
1. The "only" large scale energy storage system that has been proven to function reliably over a long period of time, and which is cost-effective, is Pumped Storage. In most industrial nations, Pumped Storage Plants provide 5 to 10% of the total electrical generation capacity. This is the rationale for the existence of 300 Pumped Storage Plants around the world; and the reason another 42 Pumped Storage plants were under construction in 1997. (Ref."Standard Handbook of Powerplant Engineering, 2nd edition, Thomas C. Elliott, Kao Chen, Robert Swanekamp, McGraw Hill, 1997, ISBN 0-07-019435-1, Chapter 1, Sect. 1.5, Hydroelectric Energy.)
2. Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) plants are difficult to maintain because of turbine corrosion problems related to the dust/salt/etc. located in the Underground caverns; and leakage/low recovery from the caverns. This is the reason only two plants (one in 1978 in Germany & one in 1991 in the U.S.) have been built to date. CAES plants do not have the proven historical record for reliability that Pumped Storage Plants have established.
3. The authors state that "...suitable geologic formations exist in 75% of the country...", but I have seen other data (Ref. IEEE Power & Energy magazine, Mar/Apr 2005, "Commercial Success in Power Storage") which states that "suitable" CAES plant sites are quite limited. The statement that the CAES plant sites are quite limited would seem to be the more correct of the two statements as only two CAES plants have been developed over the last 30 years; and the technology to build CAES plants has been available for this 30 year time period.
4. The conversion of stored potential energy to electric energy for a pumped storage facility is much higher (in the range of 85%) than a CAES facility; and a Pumped Storage Facility does not require that "...The turbines burn only 40 % of the natural gas they would if fueled by natural gas alone...". No additional burning of fuel is required to generate electricity; and therefore a Pumped Storage Facility has "zero emissions " in regards to greenhouse gasses.
In summary, why would the authors identify CAES as the preferred method of energy storage when it is less efficient; produces emissions, and does not historical record equivalent to pumped storage?
David M. Clemen
Senior Electrical Engineer (Retired)
4556 Wolf Road
Western Springs, IL 60558
Sounds as if pumped storage should be on my list. Any contrary views?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW I would think that the pumped storage could be entirely below ground, if so desired. That might be easier in a lot of places, and better protected from the elements.
In view of this, a new question: what's the round-trip efficiency for pumped storage, AND how does it compare to, say, batteries? (No doubt it's cheaper to build, but I'm thinking, as I suggested a few posts back, that a few decades down the road equipment cost will be trumped by efficiency, at least when comparing against batteries and supercaps.)
The round trip efficiency for pumped storage is stated in the texts (Hydropower Engineering Handbook by John S. Gulliver & Roger Arndt, P.11.26) as 72%. This is based upon an 85% efficiency for both the pumping and generating cycles; however, we could usually get 90% plus out of the generating cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBattery efficiencies are listed as 70% in The Energy Primer by Richard Merrill & Thomas Gage; altho I find this hard to believe as it is a chemical to electrical conversion vs. the pumped storage potential energy to electrical conversion. However, the larger problem with batteries is the large scale of energy storage we are talking about. To date, the largest batterry storage system installed is a 40MW NiCad system commissioned in Aug 2003 in Fairbanks, Alaska. This required 3,440 NiCad batteries which were connected to converters to change the DC power to AC power. Converter efficiencies are in the low 90% range. This would make the overall efficiency of the system 63% (90% x 70%)
The reliability/replacement requirements/longevity issues of this battery system are still in question whereas pumped storage facilities have a longevity of 70 to 100 years plus for the civil works; usually 15 to 40 years before the electrical/mechanical systems have to be replaced (depends upon which system/equipment you're talking about)
And yes, pumped storage can be constructed underground. There are a number of plants operating, and plans to construct a few more utilizing abandoned mines or other underground caverns.
Great article most people do not even know of this type of tech. I feel it is something worth getting into, we have got to get away from this fossil fuel. It is an addiction and we must look at other resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are batteries that can do the storage job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://altairnano.com/markets_energy_systems.html
These batteries have been in manufacture for a little over a year. They are no-maintenance, 20+ year deep cycle batteries with 15,000+ deep cycle capability and are environmentally safe without the fire and explosion problems of lithium ion batteries. The company has recently completed the manufacture of a 2 megawatt/hr battery for a customer at the cost of $.50 /watt/hr. I understand the in/out efficiency to be better than 90%. And excellent low and high temperature characteristics (-22 to 480 degree Fahrenheit.). I also understand that the manufacturing process is scalable meaning that prices should fall rapidly with the scaling up of manufacture.
Thanks for clarifying my confusion, Dr Mason (Post 472). As I said, I'm no expert, but I'm willing to learn. So you will need 20 000 square miles of land, not 30 000. Incidentally, that coincides, it seems, with the view of Mills & Morgan ( "SOLAR THERMAL POWER AS THE PLAUSIBLE BASIS OF GRID SUPPLY" (http://ausra.com/pdfs/T_1_1_David_Mills_2049.pdf) I think 10 000 square miles is a rather large difference (33%), if I may say so. Is there any reason that your assumptions have changed so much? Surely this must also make a difference in the cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI notice that the effective capacity factor of PV is only 22-23% (a bit lower than the 100% I had assumed!). That is a big disappointment, because I had assumed that CAES was an integral part of the numbers. Unit costs of less than 6 cents seem to be out of reach with such a low capacity factor. I was under the impression that CAES would fix that. Can you put me out of my misery and tell me why my muddled thinking is leading me up the garden path?
By the way, I appreciate the way you so patiently help dunces like myself back on to the straight and narrow. I'm a great fan of solar power, but I'd like to be convinced (as I'm sure many others do) that it all hangs together. Thanks for your time and trouble.
--
Edited by LeonJac at 02/24/2008 3:10 AM
I'm responding to several posts. First, the Solar Grand Plan article does not favor any one renewable technology over another. The initial question the authors asked was - "Could renewable energy technologies produce the 100 Quad-Btu of energy that the U.S. is consuming on an annual basis?" Then the question became, "Could renewable energy technologies produce enough energy for the U.S. to sustain growth over the course of the 21st century to maintain current U.S. lifestyles?" Then became the questions of costs and retail prices?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur findings indicate that renewables can produce the energy and at prices that are not that much higher than current energy prices if we use a mix of the "best" renewable energy resources (solar insolation in the Southwest and wind primarily in the Midwest). To achieve the electricity prices quoted in the article, we need a solar insolation level comparable to the Southwest average and a wind resource level of at least Class 5, since in both cases the economics deteriorate with lower resource levels.
We found that no one renewable resource is sufficient on its own. We will have to maximize energy production from every available renewable energy resource to get the job done in 2100. This means distributed as well as centralized renewable energy systems, which include decentralized hot water heating systems, PV systems, and geothermal heat pumps for electric air conditioning and electric space heating.
We focus on the importance of solar energy because it is by far the largest renewable energy resource, a factor several times greater than the wind resource and a factor many times greater than other renewable resources such as geothermal, tidal, etc.
But before we count on solar and wind energy resources as a energy solution, we have to solve the energy storage issue since these are intermittent energy sources (capacity factor constraints of 40% at best).
After twenty-five years of energy storage research the two lowest cost (affordable) sources of energy storage suitable for solar and wind are thermal storage and compressed air energy storage. But in both cases, questions remain as to their suitability at the scale that we are proposing in the article. Also, we support R&D for the development of advanced battery technologies for the storage of electricity by decentralized, distributed PV systems.
The Andasol I solar thermal plant in Spain, which will be completed later this year, is the first commercial application of thermal storage (seven hours) for concentrating solar power plants. Compressed air energy storage is on the drawing boards for wind farms in Iowa and Texas, and the first are proposed to come into operation by 2011-2012.
We are proposing a U.S. National Energy Plan that will provide the funding base to evaluate all the current technologies at optimized manufacturing scale, which includes several types of concentrating solar plants (Ausra is one) with thermal storage capabilities and PV with compressed air energy storage in order that each can to provide fully dispatchable (to meet electricity loads on demand 24/7) electricity.
A cost comparison of the recent construction of the Juwi PV plant in Germany to the Nevada One concentrating solar plant just completed outside of Las Vegas and to the Andasol I concentrating solar plant being built in Spain, the cost of a PV compressed air storage power plant will compare favorably (in fact at a somewhat lower cost) to the cost of concentrating solar power plants with and without thermal storage. But our point is that we need to fully develop both concentrating solar and PV by 2020 and to then let market forces determine which of the technologies will attract investors for further development.
Therefore, the $420 billion price support subsidy we propose can be interpreted as a R&D budget to bring a range of solar technologies to maturity. This is a bargain compared to the $150 billion tax one time economic stimulus package where the U.S. government sends $600/person this spring, and hundreds of billions spent annual in military expenditures to secure foreign energy sources.
The major point of the article is that renewables can get the job done with current technologies, which implies that over the course of the 21st century things will get better with technological progress. But the current task is to bring solar technologies into the mainstream mix by bringing both concentrating solar and PV to optimized manufacturing scale and thereby be able to evaluate "lowest" cost potential, which is the purpose of the proposed price support subsidies.
To clarify the land estimates for PV asked by Leontac in Post 503 above. The 33% discrepancy you find in the estimate I provided in a previous post and the number stated in the article is the fact that we add 33% land area to accomodate "annual operating and maintenance expense" for PV additions to maintain a constant level of PV electricity output in lieu of degradation in PV electricity output due to module soiling and aging. In the article, we modeled a 1% annual degradation rate, which is derived from the warranties provided by PV manufacturers. However, we now realize that this is in fact too high and that a 0.5% degradation rate is probably more accurate. For example last Friday I attended a seminar at Columbia University with the speaker being Richard Perez of SUNY Albany who stated that the PV installation on his builiding was manufactured in 1975 and that a recent reading of its electricity output is still 90% its rated output, which is a degradation rate of only 0.3%. This raises the question of "How long will PV modules last, or in other words, What is their useful life expectancy?" We know for a fact that they will last 30-years since we have installations such as the one at SUNY Albany that have been in operation for over 30 years. Now, the question is "Will they last 60 years?" We fully believe that they will, and this is the reason that we modeled 33% extra land. If true that PV will last 60 years, then we will have truly have low cost electricity, which will be comparable to today's hydro electricity prices. The long life expectancy of PV is a very important point to take into account when evaluating PV technology.
And finally, comprehensive environmental studies WILL be conducted on LOCAL desert environmental impacts, i.e. water, albedo, moisture, vegetation, wildlife, etc. To date, there are no RED FLAGS by environmental scientists conducting peer-reviewed scientific studies (if anyone is aware of studies that do suggest red flags please draw them to our attention, but only peer-reviewed studies please, not armchair speculations).
--
Edited by James Mason at 02/24/2008 10:03 AM
The authors ducked the tough questions on the Grand Solar Plan in comment 357,
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan/Solar-Grand-Plan/300005617?start=345&#msg300018299
and comment 375.
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan/Solar-Grand-Plan/300005617?start=360&#msg300018653
The authors have provided no answers to these critical questions, clearly indicating that the plan is not practical. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Why do you dismiss Pumped Storage as an energy storage alternative when their are over 300 "existing" pumped storage plants operating, and only 2 CAES plants. With a round trip efficiency of 72%, pumped storage definitely beats CAES efficiencies by a wide margin; and has longevity, low maintenance in its back pocket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do not dismiss pumped hydro storage in the article. Pumped hydro storage is the most cost-effective means of storing electricity (and is very efficient). The U.S. has 19.5 GW of pumped hydro capacity and Europe has 32 GW of pumped hydro capacity. The problem is finding appropriate locations for pumped hydro plants. Since it has long been known that pumped hydro is the most cost-effective means of storing electricity for peak electricity production and is proven to be cost-competitive, our rationale is that industry will be adding this capacity first. But it isn't adding this capacity because of site constraints (at least this is what the electricity industry maintains). Therefore, we only model a 33% increase in hydro capacity in the U.S., which I believe is the largest projection for "new" hydro in the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to the nuclear option, I speak here for myself and not the other authors. The Solar Energy Campaign agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists that the possibility of nuclear weapon confrontation is the single greatest risk to the well-being of humanity in the 21st century. And since the route to nuclear weaponry is often through the route of nuclear power plants, the Solar Energy Campaign calls for an international ban on nuclear power plants. In lieu of the present political situations in North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela, the concern about nuclear weapon proliferation is growing. And a policy where the rich/powerful nations can have (or control) and the poor/weak nations cannot have is not a morally palatable or defensible position for the Solar Energy Campaign and is believed to be a recipe that will only foster increases in international conflict.
And the modular solar power plants distributed across the vast Southwest U.S. and its one million square kilometers (which is larger than the combined land area of England, France, and Germany) represents a much less risk of exposure to terrorist or full scale military attack than the exposure of nuclear power plants to either terrorist or full scale military attack (look for the study assessing the vulnerbility of the Indian Point nuclear power plant just north of New York City to a 9/11 type of attack). And thank our lucky stars that those nuclear plants were not the 9/11 target.
The 23% reduction in fuel consumption by CAES power plants (23% lower than the fuel consumption of advanced combined-cycle power plants) is a VERY significant improvement. And the development of combined-cycle CAES plants will increase the reduction by another 20%. And CAES for storage of intermittent PV and wind electricity opens the door for the use of biomass for electricity production. The biomass resource estimate that we use in the article (1.4 billion dry tons) is from the Perlack et al. 2005 study and the link to the study is below.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA436753&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
We do not advocate the use of ANY food crops or land available for food production for biomass production. We only advocate cellulosic biomass and agricultural land that is in reserve in the land rotation system. Also, biomass for energy production needs to be highly monitored to make sure that land allocation is maintaining the integrity of U.S. food production system (and global food production). Land for food is of the highest priority. We have other land resources for energy production, therefore all land suitable for agriculture needs to be strictly allocated for food production; and only land held in conservation reserve should be used for cellulosic (natural prairie grass and switchgrass) biomass production.
Just a quick reply for now to post 505 (Bill Hannahan). I'll leave it to the authors to reply WRT the nightmare terrorist scenario within their own context; but from my perspective, with my interest focused on energy storage, all this just underscores the desirability of a storage system where you can store, and easily transport, concentrated energy. Initially I thought of hydrogen as the source of this desirable solution, but the conversion on both ends requires expensive and massive equipment, and the conversion efficiencies don't look good enough; in addition to which, there are serious safety and other issues posed by the extreme volatility of the storage medium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPumped storage and compressed air do not appear to enjoy the advantages (ability to stockpile stored energy, and easy transportation) that would completely negate the objectives raised in post 505 WRT terrorism and natural disasters. Hence my continuing interest in advanced batteries and/or supercaps. It looks to me as though the theoretical limits for those are vastly higher than we've yet achieved, and I'd like to see what it would take to get closer to those limits. Things that look totally out of the ballpark now can potentially be orders of magnitude cheaper, given the right circumstances, as we've seen with PV since its humble beginnings.
Just a slight quibble about post 504, which contains the statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> We will have to maximize energy production from every
> available renewable energy resource to get the job done in
> 2100.
Surely this isn't meant literally. Even if you don't take this as meaning we need to use [i]all the available[/i] energy of each renewable type (which would dwarf even our future req'ts), even exploiting each type of resource to its maximum practical level (whatever that is) seems like a scattershot approach that is bound to be too expensive. No doubt there will be a shakeout at some point, whether early or late.
One thing I'm not clear on, even after re-reading the article: How much of the $420 billion subsidy is to be used to subsidize cost reduction for solar generation, and how much is toward the HVDC transmission infrastructure?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW it's a funny thing about this proposed system: It can be seen as less centralized than nuclear power (because there are many generation plants), or as more centralized (because they're mostly in one area of the country).
Thanks, Dr Mason (Post 504). I apologise - I did not attach the significance to your previous post about the extra land it obviously has. Your explanation makes good sense, and it certainly wasn't a point I had considered. But now you've really got to help me out of my misery, because this makes my problem even worse. With the previous input from you, I'm struggling to get the costs down to anything near six cents per kWh. If degradation must be added in, it makes it even worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the dilemma: In 2050, 2940 GW of PV would set me back 2940*1.2 = 3528 $bn. Add to that another 558 GW at $3.9/W (which comes to 2176 $bn) for a grand total of about $5704 billion. At a cost recovery factor of 10% per year, that is an annual cost of $570 billion. Now, without even figuring in any other costs, that is already too much.
The solar panels generate 5,837TWh/yr (as you pointed out previously) which means the sent-out energy of the total system (PV + CAES at 80% turn-around efficiency) must be about 4,900TWh (5,837*0.845). That equals 558 GW at a 100% capacity factor, so it looks right. This implies a unit price somewhere in the order of 11-12 c/kWh, about twice as much as expected.
I'm not adding the energy output of the natural gas, because I have no way of knowing what the gas costs, but I'm assuming that cancels out more or less, and would not change the overall unit cost that much ... or does it?
I'm sorry to bore everybody with my stupid questions, but unless we all understand the same numbers, we will simply argue in circles. At the moment there are furious debates raging about storage, for instance, without everybody singing from the same hymn sheet, and it sounds a bit cacophonous, to say the least. Is it not possible to publish somewhere a constant set of assumptions and basic calcs that we can all follow in a consistent way? That might help to get to the important points in this debates a lot sooner.
--
Edited by LeonJac at 02/25/2008 6:06 AM
--
Edited by LeonJac at 02/25/2008 6:12 AM
Dr. Mason, in your post #507 you dismiss the nuclear option on the grounds of nuclear weapons proliferation. This is a common misunderstanding on how civilian nuclear reactors work. To produce weapons grade plutonium requires specialized reactors, designed and operated specifically for that purpose. Reactor grade plutonium, which IS produced in a civilian light water reactor, is impossible to use in a nuclear weapon. It contains too many higher level isotopes of plutonium (not only Pu239), which cannot be separated, to allow that weapon to work. Aside from that, a plutonium bomb is far harder to realise than an uranium based one. However, for an U235 bomb NO reactor is required. Just high level enrichment capability, far higher than needed to produce reactor fuel, as is being demonstrated currently by Iran. Therefore the proliferation argument against nuclear power clearly is not based in the reality of nuclear physics. In addition, other reactor types, based on the Thorium fuel cycle, do not have any weaponizable products, and orders of magnitude smaller quantities of waste fission products with much faster decays to harmlessness (a few hundred years max). Your envisioned initial subsidy of USD 420 billion could most likely completely finance a complete fleet of thorium based reactors (if mass produced), which could supply ALL the electrical energy needed all the time without costly backups, storage or long distance grid options. And without any further major costs except maintenance. As with all nuclear power plants, as with renewables, the "fuel" costs are negligible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this option nearly eliminates ALL CO2 emissions from electricity, not just reduce them.
[img src="image002.gif"]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is in response to Post 511 (LeonJac). The details may be boring to some, but I personally appreciate boring details, which is the only way to learn. You just about have it LeonJac. We estimate a PV-CAES cost of electricity in the $0.09-0.10/kWh range. We are using conventional EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) financial assumptions 30-year capital recovery period, 6.5% cost of debt capital, 10% cost of equity capital, 38.2% income tax rate, a 5% discount rate (weighted average cost of capital), MACRS accelerated depreciation, a 55/45 debt/equity capital structure, a 1.9% annual inflation rate, and a standard net present value cash flow analysis method.
For the peak PV-CAES model, which we advocate for the 2010-2020 scale-up period to prove PV-CAES' potential. The size of the PV plant is 160-MW and the size of the CAES gas turbine power plant is 110-MW (130-MW of PV electricity production is dedicated to direct grid electricity distribution and 30-MW of PV capacity is dedicated to air compression at the CAES power plant). The attached graph above represents the hybrid peak PV CAES electricity production model.
Capital costs are $2,718/kW for the combined peak PV-CAES plants ($1,300/kW for PV and $821/kW of the CAES gas turbine plant. PV plant system efficiency is 85% (dc-to-dc power line), average transmission distance of 1,500 miles between PV plants and distributed CAES plants, 10% power line losses, and 0.8 kWh of electricity to compress a quantity of air sufficient to produce 1.0 kWh of electricity by the CAES gas turbine power plant. The heat rate for the peak gas turbine power plant is 4,800 Btu/kWh. We are using the high heat value of natural gas, which is appropriate in order to accurately estimate natural gas consumption and cost.
Natural gas is a significant cost component for gas turbine power plants and the one and a half cent per kWh difference in cost of electricity may be attributable to you having a larger fuel consumption rate than what will actually occur. I have attached a simple schematic of the electricity production profile for a peak PV-CAES power plant.
Notice that direct PV electricity production (area under smaller-dash red line) accounts for 69% of the scheduled electricity going to the grid (area under green line), and the CAES gas turbine power plant provides the remaining 31% (area under the blue line).
The aggregate heat rate (fuel consumption) for the 1,100 MWh of daily electricity delivered to the grid is only 1,732 Btu/kWh. This translates into a remarkable fuel efficiency of 197% (3412 Btu/kWh of electricity output / 1732 Btu of fossil fuel energy input).
By the way, the fuel efficiency of CSP power plants is even better and consume approximately 1,000 Btu of fossil fuel energy/kWh of electricity output.
These low heat rates for hybrid solar-thermal power plants are the reason for our optimism regarding the long-term potential of utilizing biofuel or electrolytic hydrogen as natural gas prices rise over the next decade.
And most importantly, if it turns out that PV plants have a useful life expectancy of 60 years, then second generation (post-amortization) PV-CAES electricity prices will be comparable to today's low hydro electricity prices.
A final response to the nuclear issue, why introduce nuclear risks unless we have no other option for energy. If renewable energy can get the job done, why involve nuclear risks at all. The possibility of nuclear terrorism scares the dickens out of me, and once again I state how lucky we were that the Indian Point nuclear plant was not the 9/11 target, I live on Long Island and wow the resulting evacuation and chaos would have been unbelievable even if there were no meltdown, and if there were a meltdown then the NYC area would be still recovering just as NO is still recovering from Katerina, this is an unacceptable risk in my opinion. I would like for ALL NATIONS to put nuclear on the shelf until that future point in time when humanity has demonstrated an ability to live in relative harmony.
Then it appears that, barring objectives, we can agree that security threats WRT nuclear plants are not much at all about proliferation, but rather about terrorism against operating plants and waste holding facilities. (We can also mention meltdowns, but that appears to be a fading concern since future designs will likely be of inherently fail-safe designs such as the pebble-bed reactor.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy own perspective leads me to offer a further comment: To the extent that such concerns exist, advanced, mobile energy storage technologies can mitigate it a lot, by making it more economical to site nuke plants distant from population centers. I'd like to see an analysis of the current costs of distributing energy via electric transmission grids, v shipping mobile storage media, for example by train or ship. BTW it doesn't appear that the cost of energy storage media are all that widely separated--didn't the "grand plan" article say that compressed air was just a factor of two cheaper than lead-acid batteries? Not that big a cost differential to cross.
Ah, we are coming to the terrorist argument against nuclear power. I wish the terrorists HAD attacked Indian Point, instead of the WTC. The US airforce has actually tested what would happen if a jet aircraft crashes into a reactor containment building, by flying a remote controlled jet fighter at 800 mph into a concrete wall of the same strength as a reactor containment building. Note that this is at twice the speed than an airliner can achieve at low level flight, and with a much denser "missile" with much higher point of impact energy. The resulting damage to the wall was miniscule and in case of a containment building would not damage anything in the reactor and would not diminish the integrity of the containment building. People inside and the reactor inside would be quite safe. It certainly would not lead to a melt-down. Attacking the spent fuel pool is neigh impossible, as it is too small of a target and would most likely not cause much damage either. The terrorist know that and have therefore not attacked a nuclear reactor. Attacking high-rise buildings is much more effective from a terrorist standpoint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo again, why spent trillions of dollars on a scheme that does not eliminate CO2 production, just reduce it somewhat from todays tons of CO2/GWhr? But also replace it with more costly (and not sustainable) natural gas. I would expect by 2050 that the peak daytime loads of today would move to night-time peak loads at much higher levels than todays daytime peaks if the current fossil fueled vehicle fleet is replaced to a large extent by plug--in hybrids and/or electric vehicles.
>...I would expect by 2050 that the peak
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> daytime loads of today would move to night-time peak
> loads at much higher levels than todays daytime peaks
> if the current fossil fueled vehicle fleet is
> replaced to a large extent by plug--in hybrids and/or
> electric vehicles.
Keep in mind that at any given time, day or night, the vast majority of electric vehicles would be parked somewhere. The average passenger car gets driven what, maybe one hour per day? There is therefore plenty of ability to charge vehicles while the Sun is shining, as well as at night.
Which would mean needing charging stations at basically any daytime parking lot in the country. I don't think there is enough money or copper and refined silicone in the world to do that. At least not by 2050. Therefore people would most likely re-charge at night, when the likelyhood of them needing the vehicle is lowest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorst case, you could expect a doubling of the charging stations needed--one station for the workplace, one for the work location for each employee. But it probably wouldn't be that much--many workplaces have multiple shifts, some people will be working at home, some will not choose to charge at work on any given day. We really need some informed estimates here, though. None of us know, ex tempore, what the numbers would really be. My original point is just that people are not necessarily going to be charging at hours far off the peak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the hell would you need to build a DC transmission backbone? DC can be converted to AC easily, and AC travels MUCH further than DC. It's one of the major fights that Edison lost to Tesla.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really true. Using AC makes it simple to use transformers to step the voltage up and then down again; but DC at the same average power level actually has lower average current, thus lower losses. (Without actually working through the equations, consider an analogy: You're pushing water through a pipe--will your frictional losses be less with steady pressure, or when you're pushing it in pulses?) There's also less loss due to skin effect, but (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) I think this is probably much less important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEdison lost the fight over DC v AC for other reasons (including its greater effectiveness for frying convincted murderers). There's been considerable interest for a long time in HVDC for long-distance transmission.
Skin effect does not play a role at 60 Hz. However, a long wire, like a power line, also acts as inductor and capacitor. Which means there are inductive and capacitive losses, as the "capacitor" has to be charged and discharged 60 times/second and the both create a phase shift over the length of the wire. No such problems at DC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm, seems like my post didn't go. I was saying that yes, there are reactive losses, I didn't even think of those, but the resistive losses alone are also greater because the current varies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is critical to the US economy and security for the nation to become energy neutral as rapidly as possible - producing and exporting those forms of energy we can produce in abundance to compensate for oil, for example, that may be required for chemicals and transportation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar, geothermal, tidal, wind - all are necessary and should be exploited when appropriate - and should be openly and freely discussed as this article does so well with solar.
Nuclear is also a critical component and merits extensive public discussion to help understand the technology and make a better decision.
Specifically, the US doesn't recycle nuclear fuel rods currently, a policy that makes as much sense as not recycling aluminum. Significant energy remains in "spent" fuel rods - thus the storage risks. That very energy can be captured, re-manufactured, and reused - in some cases extracting over 100% of the energy that was present when the fuel was first mined.
Would it make sense to use high temperature superconductor (HTS) wires to transmit power across vast distances with NO losses? A company called American Superconductor Corporation makes superconducting wires now, which are used in windturbines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" And since the route to nuclear weaponry is often through the route of nuclear power plants, the Solar Energy Campaign calls for an international ban on nuclear power plants. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTotal nonsense. Which countries developed a real commercial nuclear power industry, not a fig leaf, and used spent fuel from their commercial nuclear power plants to make nuclear weapons? Which countries are or have used high burnup commercial nuclear power plant fuel to make nuclear weapons? Provide evidence to back up this statement.
In 1942, when the president initiated the Manhattan project knowledge of nuclear energy was very fuzzy and limited, yet 3 years later we had 2 working designs for nuclear weapons, 15 years before the advent of commercial nuclear power. Now the details of nuclear technology are available on the internet and in textbooks with great precision. Making nuclear weapons now is much easier than in 1942.
There are three paths to nuclear weapons.
1 Extracting weapons grade plutonium from low burnup fuel made in simple cheap unpressurized plutonium production reactors.
2 Extracting uranium 235 from natural uranium, referred to as enrichment.
3 Extracting power reactor grade plutonium from high burnup commercial power reactor fuel. Power reactor plutonium contains heavier isotopes of plutonium that release large amounts of heat and penetrating radiation that make bomb design and fabrication extremely difficult. This is the most difficult, expensive and time consuming route.
I do not know of any nuclear weapons state that used this path. How does eliminating the most difficult, expensive, untraveled path to nuclear weapons enhance our security, knowing that the easier paths will always be available with or without commercial nuclear power plants?
Fission, like fire, is a natural process that can be used for good or evil purposes. If we give up all peaceful uses of fire will that make us safe from enemy firebombs or will that make us weak and put us at higher risk by making us a more attractive target to our enemies? The same logic applies to fission.
The only countries that do not have nuclear weapons are those that do not want them or have not wanted them until recently.
" In lieu of the present political situations in North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Venezuela, the concern about nuclear weapon proliferation is growing. "
Totally irrelevant. Provide references showing that the leaders of these countries will give up their lust for nuclear weapons if only the U.S. will give up its commercial nuclear power plants.
" And a policy where the rich/powerful nations can have (or control) and the poor/weak nations cannot have is not a morally palatable or defensible position for the Solar Energy Campaign and is believed to be a recipe that will only foster increases in international conflict. "
That is not my position. The U.S. should be leading a vigorous effort to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. We do not need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, and we are the most likely target of a nuclear attack, we have the most to gain by eliminating them.
These issues have nothing to do with commercial electric power, they are a smokescreen.
When people ask me questions, or point out perceived problems with nuclear power I do not attack solar power, I respond to the issues raised. It is interesting that the author of the Grand Solar Plan responds to questions on the GSP with attacks on nuclear power. It makes me suspect he does not have good answers to my questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets get back to the GSP.
" And the modular solar power plants distributed across the vast Southwest U.S. and its one million square kilometers (which is larger than the combined land area of England, France, and Germany) represents a much less risk of exposure to terrorist or full scale military attack than the exposure of nuclear power plants to either terrorist or full scale military attack "
It makes no sense to assume that terrorist will conduct the most ineffective attack imaginable. What percentage of terrorist attacks in the last ten years have been designed to minimize loss of life?
1 This is an attack I would expect.
Assume it is 2100 and this vision is fully implemented as proposed.
Assume that we are terrorists who hate Americans and have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.
We will not drop a bomb on a field of solar collectors. We will use small shaped charges to drop every HVDC power line crossing the Mississippi river, into the Mississippi river. Most wind power is west of the Mississippi river, so it will also be cut off.
We will watch the weather channel, and pick a time when they predict that a huge mass of arctic cold air will flow down from Canada generating record cold temperatures from Maine to Florida. Or we will attack during a record heat wave such as the summer heat wave of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wave
The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
My questions are;
a) Is this scenario possible? If not, why not?
b) If it is, do you agree that utilities will not be able to buy insurance coverage for it?
2 " For the peak PV-CAES model, which we advocate for the 2010-2020 scale-up period to prove PV-CAES' potential. The size of the PV plant is 160-MW and the size of the CAES gas turbine power plant is 110-MW (130-MW of PV electricity production is dedicated to direct grid electricity distribution and 30-MW of PV capacity is dedicated to air compression at the CAES power plant)…. The aggregate heat rate (fuel consumption) for the 1,100 MWh of daily electricity delivered to the grid is only 1,732 Btu/kWh. This translates into a remarkable fuel efficiency of 197% (3412 Btu/kWh of electricity output / 1732 Btu of fossil fuel energy input). "
It makes no practical sense to build solar storage for the 2010-2020 time span. Given the small fraction of energy solar will be producing, the sensible approach would be to feed all solar power onto the grid as it is produced and save all the expense and energy loss associated with storage.
The only good reason to build a solar storage demo plant would be to model how the GSP would work if we got the vast majority of our energy from the sun.
In the future electric vehicles will probably raise nighttime loads to match or exceed daytime loads. We should model a solar power system to supply a steady load 24 hours a day including occasionally a few days of bad weather. That would require vastly more storage capacity, and the fraction of energy going through the CAES system would be very high, resulting in much higher fuel consumption / kWh and cost / kWh than claimed here.
Modeling a solar CAES system that only produces nine hours of steady power on a sunny day is not a realistic simulation and only serves to produce unrealistic cost and efficiency numbers like “fuel efficiency of 197%â€.
3 " Land for food is of the highest priority. We have other land resources for energy production, therefore all land suitable for agriculture needs to be strictly allocated for food production; and only land held in conservation reserve should be used for cellulosic (natural prairie grass and switchgrass) biomass production. "
I have flown across the U.S. many times and I see very little flat treeless unused land with substantial unused supplies of water.
The fuel cost for the current fleet of natural gas turbines operating at 40% efficiency is 52.46 mills per kWh. Upgrading to 60% efficient machines would reduce fuel cost to 35 mills per kWh.
Nuclear reactor fuel costs 4.85 mills per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html
By using expensive photovoltaic electricity to compress air, the solar system can reduce the natural gas consumption 23% below the best turbine. The natural gas fuel cost is reduced to 27.1 mills per kWh, which is still 5.6 times higher then the cost of reactor fuel, and the reactors do not emit CO2.
Natural gas provides about 20% of the U.S. 4000 TWh / year of electricity, 800 TWh / yr. If electricity consumption goes to 29,000 TWh as projected by the authors, and if 70% of that energy passed through a CAES system, it will be 20,300 TWh of stored energy / year.
That is 25.4 times the amount of electricity that is produced by natural gas today. The solar CAES system needs 4,400 thermal Btu to make one kWh of electricity, 8.93 E 16 Btu to make 20,300 TWh, 13.1 times the amount of gas we are burning now.
" The 23% reduction in fuel consumption by CAES power plants (23% lower than the fuel consumption of advanced combined-cycle power plants) is a VERY significant improvement. And the development of combined-cycle CAES plants will increase the reduction by another 20%. "
60% efficient combined cycle gas turbines use a large fraction of the turbine energy to drive the compressor. Solar CAES uses solar energy to compress the air so that all of the turbine energy can go to the generator. A 50 MW CAES turbine will burn less fuel than a 50MW combined cycle turbine, so there will be less waste heat in the CAES turbine exhaust and therefore less energy available for extraction by the topping cycle.
Combined cycle gas turbines are 60% efficient when operating at or near their design point. I doubt that a combined-cycle CAES plants can achieve the additional 20% averaged over the wide range of pressure ratios required by using compressed air storage. Can you provide a reference?
" And CAES for storage of intermittent PV and wind electricity opens the door for the use of biomass for electricity production. The biomass resource estimate that we use in the article (1.4 billion dry tons) is from the Perlack et al. 2005 study and the link to the study is below. "
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA436753&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
I could not open that link but found the report at;
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf
This 2005 report claims that 190 million dry tons of biomass provided 2.9 E 15 BTU, (2.9 quad) in 2003, 3% of all U.S. energy consumption. The report claims that we can ramp up annual biomass collection to 368 million dry tons from our forests and 998 million dry tons from agriculture, for a total of 1.37 billion tons per year, equivalent to 2.09 E 16 Btu (20.9 quad), enough to replace 1/3 of our oil consumption.
If we convert all of that biomass to natural gas with a conversion efficiency of 85% it will have a heating value of 1.78 E 16 Btu / year. If we divert all possible biomass energy to the solar CAES system it can provide only 20% of the required heat.
The rest (4.2 times the amount of natural gas we are burning now) will have to come from natural gas or dedicated agricultural production.
With a nuclear powered grid we could use all the biomass for other applications such as making liquid fuel for difficult transportation applications such as aircraft, ships at sea and off road vehicles.
My questions are;
a) Where do the authors propose to come up with the remaining 17 quad of required gas?
b) What area of land is required to produce the additional amount of biofuel required to drive the CAES systems?
c) Link to a map showing where all this unused land is.
d) What will it cost to build all the new infrastructure for the new bio fuel system, power lines, pipelines, water lines, roads.
e) What will the bio fuel cost?
f) Is that cost included in the published cost estimate of 11 cents per kWh?
g) How much water will be needed to grow and process all that biogas?
4 If we can produce that much bio gas in 2100 at an affordable price then the smart move would be to produce 29% more bio gas which would allow us to eliminate CAES completely and replace it with 60% efficient gas turbines. This would allow us to;
A) Eliminate the entire cost of the CAES system.
B) Reduce the size and cost of the solar collection systems by 70%.
C) Reduce the capacity of the HVDC power lines by 70%.
D) Provide a distributed array of gas turbines resulting in a stiff reliable grid, highly resistant to the threat of terrorism and natural disaster.
My question is; What are the authors thoughts on this change?
5 Under the solar plan the local utility will buy solar power at 11 cents per kWh corrected for inflation to the present.
Power from new nuclear plants is expected to cost about 5 cents per kWh until the plants are paid off, then much less, so the difference is at least 6 cents per kWh.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
The U.S. consumes over 4000 TWh now. The authors project that it will be 29,000 TWh by 2100, let’s assume an average of 10,000 TWh from now till then.
With a difference of 6 cents per kWh, the solar option will cost consumers $600 billion more than the nuclear option each year.
Over the next 92 years solar will cost consumers $55,000 billion more. That is 131 times the $420 billion subsidy called for in the paper. The subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming an average population of 350 million the average additional cost of solar will be $1,710 per year per person, $6860 per year, every year, for a family of four.
Poor people will not be able to pay these energy cost increases. They will need energy subsidies, so if you are rich or middle class get ready for a double whammy.
That $6860 per year per family is going to come out of other parts of their budget, health care, education, nutrition, heating and cooling. They will have to drive a cheaper, older and less safe car.
Expensive energy is dangerous and uncomfortable.
My questions are;
a) If congress proposed a bill to raise taxes on a middle class family of four by $6860 per year, every year, to pay for the marginal cost of solar, how far would it get?
b) Is it ethical to tell people solar is a one time cost of $420 billion spread over 12 years when actually that is a tiny fraction of the real cost?
6 With 20,000+ Americans dying each year from coal, and considering the threat of global warming, waiting 20 years for solar to reach take off speed does not seem reasonable.
The report claims that by 2020 the cost of reliable solar kWh’s may drop as low as 11 cents per kWh, if the improvements in solar cell efficiency and energy storage and transmission line cost advance according to projections.
Let us start providing 11 cents per kWh for any low emission electricity sources now, wind, solar, nuclear, wave, tidal, sequestered coal, geothermal etc. This will speed up the reduction of carbon emissions dramatically, and if solar is a good way to go it will acquire its fair share.
My questions are;
a) Do the authors support this recommendation?
b) If not, why not?
7 I see no discussion of backup power plant capacity or its cost. Suppose a large winter cold front settles in over the desert SW cutting off most of the energy. The compressed air runs out.
My question is; What happens next?
" why introduce nuclear risks unless we have no other option for energy. "
Realistically, what is the other option? Perhaps Green Freedom.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf
In reality reducing U.S. emissions now is of minor importance. If we eliminated all of our greenhouse emissions tomorrow, the developing world will gobble up the savings in a relatively short period of time.
The most important goal for the U.S. should be to use our technical capacity to develop technology that is so inexpensive it can be implemented quickly all over the world.
Expensive boutique energy systems will not curtail world CO2 emissions. We need huge sources of cheep low carbon energy. This is why my energy paper recommends that the US increase R&D spending for non fossil energy sources from $2.09 per person per year to $200.00 per person, $60 billion / year. If some technology emerges that can generate more energy than fission at a lower price, that will be great.
It is amazing how people can compare theoretical idealized future wind solar and biofuel technology with reactor designs from the 1960’s and call it fair and balanced. How many new reactor designs has the DOE tested since the Ford administration? Even so, the nod goes to nuclear if we ever get serious about closing coal power plants.
A gold plated GSP will not solve the worlds energy problems.
--
Edited by BILL HANNAHAN at 02/29/2008 2:19 PM
" (look for the study assessing the vulnerbility of the Indian Point nuclear power plant just north of New York City to a 9/11 type of attack). And thank our lucky stars that those nuclear plants were not the 9/11 target. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" , I live on Long Island and wow the resulting evacuation and chaos would have been unbelievable even if there were no meltdown "
The TMI core partially melted, yet there was no meltdown and no mandatory evacuation, so if there was no meltdown at IP there would be no evacuation.
If there was a meltdown resulting in a significant release the most probable advice for Long Island would be to stay indoors until the leakage is capped.
Imagine a Boeing 777 sitting on a concrete ramp. Imagine a giant wooden mallet smashes the plane against the concrete, squeezing all the empty space out of the structure. The plane would be reduced to a lumpy slab of aluminum, steel and composite material in the outline of an airplane, with an average thickness of less than three inches.
Now imagine squeezing all the empty space out of the WTC towers, they would be reduced to a solid mass about 60 feet deep. On 9/11 gravity squeezed most of the empty space out of those buildings.
So, when we look at a skyscraper or jumbo jet they look like solid substantial objects, but, in fact, they are mostly empty space, built just strong enough to survive the environment in which they normally exist.
Knowing this does not diminish the stunning effect of the slow motion video of a jumbo jet disappearing through the side of the WTC tower with almost no visible sign of impact for a few tenths of a second, and it does not diminish the horror of what was happening behind the facade during that time.
Suppose we cut a section of four foot thick wall from a nuclear power plant containment building. Then we use the wooden mallet to squeeze the empty space out of it. What will we have left? We will have a solid piece of concrete and steel four feet thick.
The basic airframe of an airliner is made up of thin sheets of aluminum and composite material riveted, welded and glued together forming a strong structure that is quite large but weighs less than an old steam locomotive. That structure will be pulverized against a containment building.
The key question is, will the engines penetrate the containment building? Engines are more dense and use stronger materials than the airframe.
During the Gulf War, allies needed a way to destroy concrete bunkers. The defense department came up with a penetrating bomb that used artillery cannon barrels packed with high explosives, and fitted with a hardened tip to concentrate the kinetic energy of the entire bomb on a small point, to produce the enormous pressure required to push concrete and steel aside.
When a jet engine strikes a conventional building like the WTC it strikes as a single object that punches through the structure. Jet engines are not well designed for penetrating reinforced concrete. Look at a cutaway jet engine and you will see that they are made mostly of thin convoluted pieces of metal and contain a large volume of empty space. When a jet engine strikes a hardened object like a containment building it does not behave like a solid object, it behaves like a collection of parts flying together in close formation.
On the front of the engine is a large titanium disk. Remember the disk that exploded in a DC-10 due to a small rice grain sized defect? While titanium is strong it is also very light, half the density of steel and one fourth the density of tungsten. The flat disc is a terrible shape for penetrating concrete because it spreads the force over a large area. The disk rapidly decelerates and crumbles while the rest of the engine continues moving forward at nearly the original velocity. The next disc slams into the back of the crushed first disc ejecting the fragments sideways. This process continues until the entire engine is pulverized. There are one or two substantial hollow shafts that support the rotating parts, but they are thin walled for a penetrator and would most likely buckle and collapse.
The kinetic energy of the engine is dissipated over 40 square feet and 30 thousandths of a second rather than being concentrated on a small point in space and time, as it is with a penetrating weapon. The resulting peak pressure is orders of magnitude below that produced by a penetrator. For these reasons I believe that the engine would not penetrate the containment, rather it would crush several inches of concrete, the wall would be dented, with the underlying concrete cracked, but the steel rebar would hold the wall together, protecting the reactor and its associated components.
http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx
The engines are so far apart that at most one engine would strike the surface at a right angle. The other engine would strike a glancing blow and deflect off the containment building due to its curvature.
Suppose I’m wrong, what would happen if an engine did penetrate? Only a small fraction of the engines initial mass would make it completely through the wall. The pieces that did get through would be relatively small, badly mangled, and their velocity would be a fraction of initial impact velocity, so the energy available to do damage inside the containment building would be a small fraction of the initial impact energy.
The reactor fuel is contained in a reactor vessel made of steel 5 inches thick. It is surrounded by a concrete radiation shield 10 feet thick. Any engine parts that get through the containment building will bounce off the shield.
Piping outside the shield is largely protected by an array of reinforced concrete walls, but pipe damage could cause a loss of coolant accident.
The key to preventing a release of radioactive material from the fuel is to prevent fuel cladding damage and the key to that is to keep the fuel under water. In addition to the pumps that provide water to the reactor during normal operation there are typically three or four emergency high pressure injection pumps and three or four emergency low pressure injection pumps, located deep inside the containment building, distributed in an array of steel reinforced concrete rooms.
Any one of these pumps can supply enough water to keep the fuel submerged. If piping on the impact side of the building is damaged piping on the other side will be protected by the radiation shield and associated walls.
There are typically three sources of offsite power and three emergency diesel generators on site, any one of which can power the pumps. With the supply of water to the reactor vessel maintained, there would be no fuel damage and no large scale release of radioactivity.
In the extremely unlikely event that containment is penetrated and all pumps are disabled the building is equipped with two containment spray systems that can create a downpour of chemically treated water that will absorb chemically active fission products including the two of biggest concern, iodine and cesium.
If both containment spray systems fail operators can jury rig systems to minimize the release. They can open the containment access doors and draw air from the containment building into the turbine hall using the turbine hall ventilation fans. This will make the air flow through containment penetration inward, not outward, and the turbine hall provides lots of volume and surface area for fission products to settle out or plate out. They can activate the turbine hall sprinkler system to wash out the air from containment.
The vent fans are normally equipped with HEPA filters and sometimes charcoal filters, so the radioactive emissions would be mainly noble gasses, which are not a serious problem because they dissipate quickly and do not attach to objects or people.
They can hang mats of rebar over the containment hole and shoot concrete onto it to make a temporary patch, terminating the release.
If the 9/11 attack had been directed at nuclear power plants the most likely number of deaths on the ground would be near zero. Here is a report with similar conclusions.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/epri.pdf
Next generation plants will be designed to be even more resistant to terrorism.
In sharp contrast, the Chernobyl reactor was a pressure tube reactor with a graphite moderator, housed in an ordinary industrial building. It was designed with a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning that under certain conditions a power increase resulted in an increase in the rate of power increase.
Defects in design and a long string of procedural violations by operators caused the reactor to go rapidly to 100 times the design power level resulting in a violent steam explosion which blew the roof off the building and ejected s substantial amount of fuel. A graphite fire continued the release for a few days.
The Chernobyl reactor could never have been approved in the U.S. but if it had a containment building appropriate for that design, the release would have been negligible.
The Chernobyl reactor was a 300 ton dirty bomb that never should have been built. Other power reactors are inherently incapable of doing what the Chernobyl reactor did by the physics of their design.
For more details on energy check out;
THINGS EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ENERGY
http://www.endofglobalwarming.com/energy_facts.htm
For a more readable version use the links 1/3 down the page.
I just finished reading all the posts in this thread and want to thank the authors and thoughtful engineers who have contributed here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands."
However I think the terrorist claims such as this are getting a little absurd and off topic.
So if we're successful with the Grand Solar Plan, we get 92 years of significant solar energy usage and because of a single terrorist attack, we get a one week blackout in a region of the US. Doesn't Mother Nature currently do this almost on a yearly basis somewhere in the US?
Are we assuming the HVDC grid is going to be constructed in such a vulnerable way that we will not be any redundancies and backup plans? How long does it take to re-cable a couple of HVDC lines, or replace up a couple of rows of panels? Even if a whole solar farm is taken down, this would only be a small percentage of the total energy generation capability and probably would be reflected as a glitch.
If we had a Grand Nuclear Power Plan, then aren't we talking about a 92 years of guarding up to 16,000 nuclear power plants worldwide. Material theft from just one of these plants could cause havoc in our cities.
--
Edited by firstchoice at 03/01/2008 2:50 AM
--
Edited by firstchoice at 03/01/2008 2:54 AM
I too want to state that I think the terrorism issue is getting more attention than it deserves, and on different sides of the argument. And can't resist adding that better storage media, and the consequent reduced reliance on the power grid, will reduce the likelihood of this, as well as problems from natural disasters on all scales. (I had a three-hour power blackout a few weeks ago, and about five years ago was without power for a couple of days. These little events are the ones that really affect people over the great span of time.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need more data, more study of the likely ways these different options play out over time. Or maybe some of that has already been studied? In particular, I'm interested in the way distributed storage using electric vehicles would work with this--so-called V2G. The more I think of this, the more I think it is neither simple nor obvious how this would work in practice. It is not obvious that everyone would charge at night. It is not obvious that much of the charging being done during the day is impractical, as one poster said earlier. It is not even obvious that most of the charging would be done on batteries in cars: If swapping batteries is made easy enough, a lot of charging could be done on batteries not in cars at the time.
And again, note that all of this is of interest whether your favorite is solar, wind, fission, or fusion. It only declines in importance if you picture us driving around on ethanol or hydrogen, or petroleum derivatives, and those are options I for one just don't see as ascendant.
Thanks, Dr Mason for your clarification (Post 513), but I'm not out of the woods yet. You say I'm getting close with my 11-12 cents/kWh, but this seems at variance with what the article says (or I'm misunderstanding it). If I have X at 5c/kWh and Y at 9c/kWh (as the schematic on page 51 shows), I would have thought it impossible to end up with a price of more than 9c/kWh. In fact, given that the bulk of the energy is generated at 5c/kWh, I would have expected a price of 6-7 c/kWh for a combined PV+CAES system (by 2050). Obviously, I'm not interpreting the numbers in the article correctly. Can you put me out of my misery?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, when I crunch the numbers on your peaking plant example using the same method, I get a price (with all the assumptions the same) of about 10 c/kWh, counting no fuel costs (which you indicate must be substantial). This seems very high compared to other alternatives. I understand that solar thermal plants could do much better. Do you or your colleagues have any information on that?
I'm following the debate about he perils of nuclear with somewhat of a bemused interest. I thought the debate was about solar power, and now I find it hijacked by fears about nuclear terrorism. Isn't that exactly what a terrorist would do?
Has the world become so obsessed with this issue that the imperative of sustained development for billions of people - for wich you need a cheap and abundant (and non-polluting) source of energy - and which is probably the best way to counter alienation in the long run, has been totally obscured? Surely scourges like poverty, famine, AIDS, malaria and TB, etc. are equally as frightening (if not more so) than a few days in the dark? I would suggest it might be more fruitful to take a longer term view and look a bit further that just our own back yards. The sooner the debate can get back on track, the better.
The discussion member who uses the name Bill Hannahan has a valid point about security, but unfortunately he keeps distracting this forum with long advertisements for nuclear energy. Security concerns are valid for every power and chemical facility (Lemley J., Fthenakis V. and Moskowitz P., Security Risk Analysis for Chemical Facilities, AIChE Process Safety Progress, 22(3), 153-162, 2003), and that is an area where solar has a definite advantage over conventional power sources and chemical plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPV installations are modular and even if a paranoid person shoots some, the rest will work and the damage would be easier and faster to repair than a damage to a thermoelectric power plant. There is absolutely no possibility for chemical or radioactive emissions following an attack on a PV installation. Furthermore, a terrorist or somebody who may want to shoot at the arrays for fun, would take notice that it is not easy to escape undetected from the desert. The arrays will be monitored for output and the state police can monitor long stretches of sporadic traffic in the highway with relative ease. Regarding the HVDC lines crossing the Mississippi and the scare of loosing them, one should note that protected underground cables and submarine cables are common our days and they can be part of the HVDC transmission wherever is needed. And of course redundancies will be built in critical paths. An HDVC line, with parts underground and parts in the depths of the Adriatic Sea, connects Italy and Greece, and continues in overhead lines in the Greek mainland. A study for HDVC transmission of solar energy from Africa to Europe that was commissioned by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and conducted by the German Aerospace Center (DLR), can be found in http://www.nerc.gov.jo/events/TRANS-CSP/TRANS-CSP-Executive_Summary_Final.pdf
Vasilis Fthenakis, co-author of the Grand Solar Plan
--
Edited by Fthenakis at 03/02/2008 7:57 AM
The article states that 2.9TW should be directly fed to the HVDC-grid and another 7.5TW dedicated to compressed air energy accumulation plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is very surprising. The solar arrays only collect energy during daytime and most energy is consumed during the same hours.
I wounld expect around 85% to go directly to the grid. Not 30%.
> The article states that 2.9TW should be directly fed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> to the HVDC-grid and another 7.5TW dedicated to
> compressed air energy accumulation plants.
> This is very surprising. The solar arrays only
> collect energy during daytime and most energy is
> consumed during the same hours.
> I wounld expect around 85% to go directly to the
> grid. Not 30%.
We size the system so that it meets the winter and night demands of the country, that's why we store a lot of day solar electricity into CAES for using in dark hours. So most of the PV arrays will feed into CAES, instead of feeding into the grid on real time.
Hydrogen produced by renewable energy powered electrolysis water extraction could be the interim measure to power carbon-based-fuel thermal generating plants. Situated on the ocean coasts and transported in an inert state in metal hydride sequestering on freight trains pulled by Hydrogen powered locomotives(?). Or just transport the water to where the Hydrogen can be extracted as needed. Existing technologies just waiting to be exploited. Fiscally feasible but would it be allowed to happen by the carbon club??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen produced by renewable energy powered
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiselectrolysis water extraction could be the interim measure to power carbon-based-fuel thermal generating plants. Situated on the ocean coasts and transported in an inert state in metal hydride sequestering on freight trains pulled by Hydrogen powered locomotives(?). Or just transport the water to where the Hydrogen can be extracted as needed. Existing technologies just waiting to be exploited. Fiscally feasible but would it be allowed to happen by the carbon club??
Hydrogen no doubt will have a place, but in general I think it's over-hyped as a general solution. I don't like saying this, because I've seen some really idiotic things said against hydrogen as well by some. But from what I've seen, its overall efficiency as a storage medium is just not high enough. Too much loss in electrolysis (or any other generation method I know of, and too much loss in getting back the energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm still partial to advanced batteries or supercapacitors. One key is to make the devices from abundant, cheap materials (which also need to be safe to work with, and fairly nontoxic in use).
The one major place I can't see advanced storage+electric drive is in aircraft--maybe that's a good place for biofuels. (Frankly, more and more I think air transportation is overrated anyway, along with satellite communications, but that's another story, for another time.)
--
Edited by Mondo Sinistro at 03/03/2008 3:09 AM
--
Edited by Mondo Sinistro at 03/03/2008 3:09 AM
Has anyone considered how aircraft navigation will be affected by HVDC transmission lines? Compasses will surely be skewed by the magnetic fields generated. This situation could result in some hazards to navigation, which I doubt would be acceptable to the passengers on the affected aircraft. Before we get too enthusiastic about HVDC technology, perhaps we may want to check with the FAA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, there'll have to be an environmental impact study and statement, and rules of the FAA, the FCC, and godknowswho else will need to be observed. But actually, the higher the voltage, the lower the current, and therefore the lower the magnetic field; and it's DC, so you won't be wobbling those compass needles around. AFAIK there's nothing net in those systems that hasn't been long since used somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGOOD GRIEF!!! Edison's Power is back??? What about all the line loss inherent to DC power transmission over distances??? WTF is your solution to Resistive loading of the transmission lines--- super conductors??? Remember Tesla and AC power transmission, or are you planning on HEATING the world one giant long resistor at a time???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter how many times you say it, it doesn't change the fact that you're totally UNaware of the facts about HVDC, including the fact that it's [i]already used[/i] in a number of substantial installations all over the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we may have finally found something on which (almost) all of us can agree.
--
Edited by Mondo Sinistro at 03/05/2008 1:16 PM
It is always a hoot to see the future planned with yesterday's knowledge. Sure, we can't just make stuff up but we can think deeper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was no mention of the real possibility of the eestor ultracapacitor which would make solar and wind three times more attractive as well as making EVs a better vehicle for everyone. Then if everyone is driving a EV, which are 3X more efficient then we need 1/3 less energy so suddenly we are 9x better off and also building codes are updated and houses are more efficient as the solar cells help insulate, and advanced electronics powers our goodies and manages power consumption to much less than is used today. LEDs are used for lighting. Soon we realized that we don't need but a fraction of the energy we use and have a better life.
Geez its time to start looking foward to the future! Get rid of Bush and lets roll!
1. Vehicle to Grid
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMondo Sinistro remarked that the storage scheme known as "Vehicle to Grid" (V2G) appears problematic as a replacement for the CAES scheme described in the article.
Maybe not replacement, but the numbers suggest that they could be part of a mature system. There are 69 million registered vehicles in the US today. Assuming a conversion to all electric vehicles over the coming decades each with a range of 135 miles and a 35 Kwh battery, that is 2.17 TW. Sure that is nowhere near the alway availble 7.5Tw of stored power in the Solar grand plan. V2G might be more than an augment in a mature system when one takes note of the Tesla electric sportscar with 230Kwh of Li-Ion batteries. 35Kwh per vehicle may well be a very conservative number unless we can count on American culture to change.
But in the near term, it is hard to make the numbers work for V2G. The 2008 Energy bill (H.R. 5351) has a provision for tax breaks for vehicles with batteries 5Kwh or greater. NiMh batteries at 50 cents per watt would come in at $7500 per vehicle after this subsidy, but would add 2000 pounds. Altairnano batteries don't have the narrow operating temperature and cooling requirements of Li-ion, or weight problem of NiMh, but at 2 dollars per watt, they would add $60K to the sticker price after subsidy.
Perhaps there will be an aggressive campaign to build vehicles with large batteries, but industry is not moving there on its own. The Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid only has a 1.8Kwh battery- so even if half the US sales were hybrids like that, that's only 42GWh added per year. It is dispersed everywhere, you can't use all of it, and as Mondo pointed out- the time you are recharging is the wrong time for solar. So it makes it pretty problematic for a comprehensive solution until there are lots and lots of these with huge batteries. Maybe that's the long term story for phasing out the CAES.
2. Apollo
Back in note 6, "Ken" compared such an aggressive program to Apollo. It might be useful to recall that the engineering strategy was hard nosed and practical- only known technology would be relied on.
If the IPCC reports' warnings are correct, we are facing the loss of 20 to 30% of species loss if this problem is not addressed in a very tight timescale. The climate models take us into the world of probabilities and incomplete data sets, but some plausible scenarios say we will be too late if we don't get to zero net additions by 2015.
That's an extremely aggressive number for any mix of technologies, so it's a Faustian bargain. Lose on the order of 75 species per day for 20 years, or hold our noses and live with some nukes for 80 years giving us the time we need to develop a more optimal alternative energy mix.
3. HVDC for Nuclear?
Even advocates of nuclear admit that it is a very difficult political sell. Perhaps the HVDC backbone provides some relief to the NIMBY syndrome. Maybe the states where construction of nukes on a massive scale is politically feasible are not the states that need the power. Say Michigan wants auto jobs, and part of the electric car stimulus package deal is that they must accept construction of 100 nuclear plants on lake Michigan. Way more power than Michigan needs, but with an HVDC backbone, they could provide it to their vehicle customers who certainly are going to need it to deliver the kind of kws they will need to juice their vehicles up by sunup.
I am also thinking of the objection mentioned earlier in this thread regarding local opposition to offshore wind turbines in Maine. In place of nukes, substitute other black sheep technologies (eg coal plant with sequestration) that people don't want in their neighborhood.
Sure, it's a nontechnical ("silly") rationale for an HVDC transmission system. But it might be a practical way to bypass the NIMBY major obstacle to getting us off foreign oil, and reduce CO2 emissions in a sufficiently rapid time scale to avert climate disaster and answer some economic and military problems caused by our current energy infrastructure.
It doesn't mean we have to change our minds about nukes. After the threat has abated, we look at expeditiously decommissioning and moving over to more ideal alternative sources.
JMesserly, please be careful to properly characterize my comments. I'm not sure what you construed as thinking V2G is problematical. In fact, I'm very interested in it, and my comments were largely in response to someone else who was saying, essentially, that vehicles would be charging at night, at the time that they would need to be delivering power because solar power would be unavailable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I actually said was this:
>>...In particular, I'm interested in the way distributed storage using electric vehicles would work with this--so-called V2G. The more I think of this, the more I think it is neither simple nor obvious how this would work in practice. It is not obvious that everyone would charge at night. It is not obvious that much of the charging being done during the day is impractical, as one poster said earlier. It is not even obvious that most of the charging would be done on batteries in cars: If swapping batteries is made easy enough, a lot of charging could be done on batteries not in cars at the time.
<<
> There was no mention of the real possibility of the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> eestor ultracapacitor which would make solar and wind
> three times more attractive as well as making EVs a
> better vehicle for everyone.
Again, it really helps if people take note of what's been written here previously before they say things that are incorrect. In post #445, the first post I made here, I specifically referred to EEStor, saying I felt sure that either EEStor would achieve something truly huge in this area, or someone else would very soon, as there do not seem to be any fundamental barriers to doing so.
1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMondo, My apologies. The intention was to underscore the point that V2G is very interesting for a mature system, a theme I expected that you also felt was true. Certainly, the needs of the driver versus the grid manager are not irreconcilable- for the most part these needs are complementary. I should have stuck with your phrasing that how this works in the near term is non obvious. No doubt the authors would have highlighted V2G if these challenges could be solved economically in the time frame discussed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere appear to be peer reviewed papers on the subject, EG: [url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4FXHJ9P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2aecbdcf9bbabe14c516837b4a9a620a]Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy[/url] (Journal of Power Sources June 2005, Pages 280-294).
> abstract excerpt: "Our calculations suggest that V2G could stabilize large-scale (one-half of US electricity) wind power with 3% of the fleet dedicated to regulation for wind, plus 8–38% of the fleet providing operating reserves or storage for wind."
It would be very nice if Scientific American could provide an article surveying the field of grid storage, since it is crucial to nearly all forms of renewable energy. In particular, it would be interesting to see a thorough discussion of V2G. It is unfortunate that so many of these papers are unavailable to those who are unable to spend $31 per pdf download.
> Mondo, My apologies. The intention was to underscore
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> the point that V2G is very interesting for a mature
> system, a theme I expected that you also felt was
> true.
Yes, and thanks for the clarification.
> It would be very nice if Scientific American could
> provide an article surveying the field of grid
> storage, since it is crucial to nearly all forms of
> renewable energy. In particular, it would be
> interesting to see a thorough discussion of V2G. It
> is unfortunate that so many of these papers are
> unavailable to those who are unable to spend $31 per
> pdf download.
Yes, certainly I for one would be interested in a full-scale SA article on this.
This is indeed a grand plan. I wish the US would have the courage to implement it. The danger, and cost, of a war due to energy interests, is not being sufficiently realized! Thus the cost mentioned is not that high! The US should regard thi splan as todays Manhatten Project to save the US from future conflicts. But is geothermal energy being treated so timidly? It also could supply plenty of energy, day and night. Iceland is doing it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards, Hans Heuchert, Hot Springs, AR 501-922-6676
Thanks everyone for the imaginative ideas found in your comments. I do note that there are some general "sides" that we take. Some see a large government/investor funded scheme and some prefer a more decentralized approach. I think it is possible to do both if not all done at once. There is so much that can be done with establishing national standards that transcend corporate interests. Thus a NASA like agency to coordinate the standards and prohibit the "beta/vcr" wars that bedevil emerging technologies. Also the citizen energy producer must be considered on par with any corporate energy producer. The grid must belong to the people. I also note that with potential efficient energy storage such as ultracaps, energy should be used closer to home. The home could be a integrated part of the solar/wind energy collection to prevent structural redundancy and household energy use including transportation could be efficiently managed at home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMetin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissosyolog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissounds cheaper than the iraq war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnored in the warming is the hot water bottle we put under the gas comforter we have created. Along with many obvious human warming activities I suspect the hockey stick shaped graph of the warming might be closely replicated by one of the development and exploding increase of wireless communication whose energy frequencies activate, thus warm, just as those from the Sun with no built in regular cooling/resting periods. Increasingly 24/365 we have over the time period of the hockey stick blade and now the handle we have radio, data transmission, TV, remotes, satellites, internet, cell phones, sensors, locaters, trackers, GPS, CBs, pagers, hand helds galore and growing, etc. all which create or utilize energy frequencies that permeate the atmosphere and many surfaces keeping things in a constant state of activation,,,aka: warmth. The denial and/or inconvenience would dwarf dwarf that of the warming itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEr, Babelfish isn't allowed here, is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the same charge was tied to the warming itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that new neclear reactors are pricing at approx $8.5Billion each and generate approx 1GW, how does the Solar Plan vs. Nuclear?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is interesting . I am now traveling the SW and see the areas involved. Could the plan start with powering LA and LV for test sites. What changes are necessary from AC to DC xmision
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy policy proposal below uses some ideas about energy policy embodied in legislation such as the recently passed H.R. 5351. It could be coupled with the solar grand plan's idea for use of $400 billion in seed money to initiate building of an significant solar generation. Power requirements to replace all petroleum vehicles with electrical vehicles is around 1300 billion KwHs (assuming 146 billion gallons of gas/ year times 9 Kwhs equivalent energy utilized by an electric vehicle to generate the same power utilized by a gallon of gas [20 percent efficiency for gas, 81% efficiency for electric vehicle]). So that is something like a required increase of 25% beyond our current 3 Terawatt capacity. Unlike the solar grand plan, this does not require some unspecified mechanism to efficiently and economically force the retirement of undesirable sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt creates a huge new demand and restricts the technologies that can be used to answer the new demand.
The central idea is financial- it is the notion that an untapped source of revenue may be leveraged: the difference between electrical energy cost and price of gasoline at the pump. This difference can be used to defray the cost of car battery technology, and the currently more expensive alternative energy sources. No specific technology for electrical vehicles or alternative energy technology is mandated.
Scheme outline:
1) Federal government subsidizes the cost of the batteries for domestically manufactured all-electric vehicles at the rate of $1 per 1KW per 100lbs of curb weight. (this metric allows for a 100 mile range).
2) Power companies are required to surcharge for electricity at 75% of the prevailing national rate for price per gallon of gas. So for example, at $4.00 gas, cost per KwH would be 33 cents**, not the prevailing national rate of 10 cents per KwH.
3) The power company totals the power used for electric cars. If the power company has added additional capacity from a renewable non CO2 generating source*, then they keep the revenue from the surcharge. If less, they only keep the revenue for which they had actual capacity to generate. The remainder of the surcharge fees are submitted to the federal government and is used to defray the cost of the battery susidy.
*qualified sources include solar, wind, hydroelectric, wave. If the company had 100MW of such power but electric car rate was 200MW, then they keep the surcharge only for the first 100MW of capacity.
**(Calculation: There is 36.4 KWh of energy per gallon of gas. At 20% thermodynamic efficiency typical of car engines cruising, that's 7.28Kwh of energy utilized per gallon. Electrical vehicle motor and mechanical energy efficiency is about 81%, so an electrical vehicle requires 8.99 Kwh equivalent power per gallon of gas. That means for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gas at $4.00/gal, you would have to pay 45 cents per KwH, making the 75% discount rate come out to 33 cents.)
Analysis-
• The consumer has an incentive to buy a vehicle that is guaranteed to have a fuel cost of 75% of current rate. This gives an incentive to domestic auto producers.
• The electric company has a strong incentive to build non CO2 energy capacity, or figure out where it can buy some off the national HVDC backbone.
• Wholesale producers have incentive to build capacity since they have a ready market for alternative power.
• Electrical generation margins from alternative sources increase as petroleum prices increase.
Q/A section:
Q: What makes the car owners pay the higher rate?
A: The same technology that is used by cable video or cellular phone systems to authenticate devices before they access services. In the same way that your cell phone is challenged and authenticated on a cellular network to confirm it is allowed to use the system, software in an electrical car challenges the charging device to verify that it is a legitimate charging device. All legitimate charging devices communicate to the electrical company the amount of KWHs that were used to charge the electrical vehicle.
Q: Couldn't the charging system be gamed?
A: Some hackers may learn how to bypass security on smart meters that charge vehicles. An encryption algorithm in the car authenticates the charger as a valid source of energy. Even if the security is bypassed, the electrical company can detect the fast surge of power required to recharge an electric car overnight. This second level of detection could be avoided by slowly charge batteries (assuming the gamer only traveled short distances per day), or if the gamer had multiple packs of batteries.
Q: Why not 200 mile range? Why not 50% not 75% surcharge? Why not perscribe battery type? Why exclude Hybrids? Why not allow $1.50 per watt if Altairnano or other advanced battery types are used?
A: Lots of variables- To evaluate the options, an economic model would have to be constructed to determine the optimal weights on each of the parameters to achieve the desired outcome. My uneducated impression is that there is a lot of wiggle room in there to play with numbers. This is due to the sustained high price of petroleum due to demand in the rapidly industrializing third world (especially China and India), this leverage will not evaporate as after previous petroleum price spikes.
--
Edited by JMesserly at 03/12/2008 10:02 PM
No one, of course, wants to consider the hot water bottle we put under the gas blanket. It would be far more than just inconvenient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSi todo el material lo envian en español serÃa una gran ayuda para Carlos Fernández Campos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican Solar Action Plan (ASAP) is now a registered non-profit organization building national support for the solar grand plan http://www.solarplan.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the site is the written testimony Ken presented on the Solar Grand Plan to the House Science and Technology Committee (U.S. Congress) March 3. Also, we have posted several of our studies that provide background for the SCIAM article in the Resources folder. Comments are welcome by emailing us at solar.plan@verizon.net.
LeonJac (Post 530) sorry for the delay in continuing our work through the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) calculation.
You are just about there. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for peak PV-CAES and CSP power plants supplying peak period electricity for 2600-hours per year will be approximately $0.10 per kWh with a natural gas prices of $6.33/MMBtu (which is approximately the current contract natural gas price for electric power companies). Today's wholesale price for peak electricity is $0.10-0.15, therefore there is no question that peak PV-CAES, CSP, and wind-CAES power plants will be able to produce cost competitive electricity in 2020.
In the peak PV-CAES diagram presented in Post 513, the aggregate heat rate (fuel consumption) for the 1,100 MWh of electricity produced is just 1,732 Btu, which is a fuel efficiency of 197% (3412/1732). This is an 84% reduction in fuel consumption compared to conventional peak natural gas turbine power plants.
The symbiosis of PV-CAES, CSP with thermal storage and thermal power plant backup, and wind-CAES provide synergies that insulate them from fuel cost volatility, which is probably the strongest argument for their adoption. If natural gas prices go higher than $10/MMBtu, then the peak electricity rates from hybrid solar/wind power plants will be a bargain, even when compared to combined-cycle natural gas power plants with a heat rate of 7800 Btu/kWh (high heat rate).
Combined-cycle plants have high capital costs and when operating at low capacity factors, the LCOE increases. When you add in rising fuel costs, the LCOE goes up. And when carbon capture and storage systems are added, the LCOE goes through the roof.
If we want to cut carbon emissions and reduce natural gas consumption (for prevent dependence on foreign natural gas supply), then peak PV-CAES, CSP, and wind-CAES are the solution. And most importantly, the $0.10/kWh wholesale LCOE for peak solar/wind electricity is cost competitive at 2008 electricity prices. This is a great deal.
A German edition of Scientific American Solar Grand Plan aricle has been published in, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, and we have been informed that its post is getting a big response. The article is also published in the Greek version (hey the Solar Grand Plan is going global). The authors want to thank you, the readers for making this a most successful effort.
One final note: A major CAES study is being released by the Energy Systems Analysis Group (Samir Succar and Robert Williams), Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University titled “Compressed Air Energy Storage: Theory, Operation and Applications.†Vasilis, Ken, and I have read a draft version and are impressed with the work. I do not know if Princeton will make it available for free or not (but their fees are nominal something like $10 for reports). This study will be released within a couple of months (if not already), and if you are interested in learning more about CAES, this is the study, check their website for details.
I found some errors in my earlier proposal, and have done some further work, so rather than revise my earlier post I decided to post a new 1.1 version of my proposal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was wondering here- Hasn't the spike in petroleum prices created a new opportunity here to generate demand for power that the solar grand plan could deliver? The idea is that the $400 billion in subsidies necessary for startup of the solar grand plan would be unnecessary, due to the mandate that the new production demand for Electric vehicles could only be answered by solar (or wind) sources charged the KwH rates the authors would guarantee to jump start the solar system. This would make the Solar grand plan largely revenue neutral.
Demand for such solar electricity needed would be rapid, since new vehicle customers would be attracted to the idea of paying for fuel at half the rate they pay for gasoline. Total switchover to EVs would create new demand for 1,275 billion kilowatt hours per year.
I footnote my calculations, so maybe someone can assist me in seeing why this is not a winning proposition .
I start by calculating the cost of power required by an electric car to deliver the same power utilized from a gallon of gas. Using an electric car it turns out I would pay the equivalent of 89 cents per gallon *
If each US vehicle uses on average 2.2 gallons of gas per day**, this means that the yearly cost of gasoline per vehicle is $3194. So an equivalent electric vehicle would save $ 2486 in fuel costs. 2.2 gallons of gas per day would require a battery with 20 Kwhs***. So that battery at 62 cents per Watt for Li-Ion**** would be paid off in 4.5 years.
There are many ways to leverage this price differential. One is a toll road approach. To allow consumers to see this savings up front, one policy approach would be for the federal government to subsidize 100% of battery cost up to 62 cents per Watt for domestic vehicles, and then add a surcharge on electricity used to charge the battery (metered by the car). The electricity company is required to add a surcharge for the electricity used at say 50% of the prevailing equivalent cost of gas. Instead the consumer pays the equivalent of $2 per gallon of gas- creating a stampede for domestically built electrical vehicles. The cost of the battery is spread over current battery life of 10 years.
Like toll roads the investment is amortized over an extended period. The scheme is revenue neutral.
One variation would attempt to maximize electricity use among high mileage drivers. One half of US vehicles drive less than 25 miles per day. The other half will be burning fuel after their 20Kwh battery is exhausted. A business model that would maximize efficient use of capital investment in batteries would be to put the resource in the control of an entity whose profit motive drove efficient utilization of that resource. Renault-Nissan, and Israel have committed to a major nationwide Electric vehicle plan that separates the cost of a vehicle from the cost of the battery. So for example for the US, there would be a federal standardization for the form factor and connector of the battery that car manufacturers must adhere to. The battery packs are owned by the electrical company, and the electric company is motivated to provide an additional pack for high mileage customers so that they may maximize their electricity sales. The number of packs that are subsidized by the federal government is proportionate to customer demand, so the packs are a scarce resource that they have a disincentive to waste on low mileage cars. This standardized power pack scheme has the advantage that "filling stations" could swap out batteries for extended road trips, long haul shipping, and commercial fleets. Battery utilization is maximized to the full 10 year life, and maintenance and inspection extends the life and safety of batteries.
Another variation to spur alternative energy supply is to use the same price differential as a weapon against the objections that the ROI isn't there for expensive CO2 free sources. EG- tell power companies that they can pocket a portion of the surcharge if the power used by electrics is covered by new CO2 free power capacity built after the start of the program. 89 cents per KWH can provide some handsome margins- justifying the cost a whole lot of solar in the Nevada desert. This would generate demand for the building of new plant at a furious pace: An all electric fleet would require generation capacity of 3.49 billion KWH per day, requiring total yearly production of an additional 1,275 billion KWHs per year (an increase of 31%)*****. That is politically attractive since it creates a lot of domestic alternative power jobs- since many of these sources require more labor per Kwh of capacity than CO2 generating technologies. Note in this variation, the unused battery capacity can be used to augment distributed grid storage- something that is needed due to the inconstant nature of most CO2 free power sources. With a portion of 3.49 billion of KWHs of electric company batteries available during the day, the electricity company will be motivated to provide power connectors in commuter parking garages so that this resource may be fully utilized for grid storage. This significantly reduces the requirement for CO2 generating schemes to balance power, such as CAES.
I would note that although I focused on all electric vehicles for simplicity, a hybrid approach using a generator to provide a 200 mile range of the mostly electric vehicle might well be the preferred scheme.
Legislation: The Senate version of H.R. 5351 increases the subsidy for Hybrid vehicles to 62 cents per Watt up to a capacity equivalent to 1KWH per 100 pounds of curb rate. A requirement is added for vehicles to meter charging in a way that power companies may efficiently surcharge to recover the cost of the battery. Suggest the subsidies only be for domestic vehicles as a recession fighting measure. The surcharge rate is set to price vehicle power at 50% cost of the same power from gasoline. From the start of the program, if the electricity company builds or purchases new CO2 free power from qualifying sources such as the solar grand plan, then they are entitled to a portion of the surcharge to defray cost of the more expensive power source.
I am new to this and so it wouldn't be surprising if I have made some serious errors here. If so, I would be indebted to anyone who can take the time to point out my errors. Is there something wrong with the calculations or data?
Notes:
*Assuming a national rate of 10 cents per KwH. Assumes 20% efficiency for a gas car, and 81% for electrical- including mechanical inefficiencies. At 36.4 KwHs of energy per gallon of gas used in a 100% efficient car, actual power utilized is 7.28KwHs/gallon. To deliver the equivalent power, and 81% efficient electrical vehicle would require 8.99 kwHs/ gallon, making its equivalent cost per gallon at 89cents.
** DOE cites R.L. Polk estimate of 181.4 million registered vehicles (residential and non residential) ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/alternative.fuels/stock2b.pdf see page 2-6. They base their estimate of US cars on this 1991 figure. Presumably, they regard that as representative of the current fleet numbers. Diesel Industry Forum states that 3% of new vehicle sales are diesel. http://www.dieselforum.org/newsarticle/article/energy-bill-reinforces-critical-role-of-clean-diesel-to-u-s-energy-policy/51/ This puts gasoline vehicles at 175.9 million.
DOE's Energy Information administration page states US daily consumption of finished motor gasoline was 9.253 million barrels per day for 2006 (388 million gallons) http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/gasoline.html
388 million gallons divided by 175.9 million gas vehicles yields 2.2 gallons per day per vehicle.
*** 2.2 gallons times the previously calculated 8.99 kwhs/gallon would require a battery with 19.85 KwHs
**** GM states the cost of the Volt's Li-Ion will be $10K for 16Kwhs (source) http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/news/2007/01/72424
***** 388 Million gallons/ day means 3.49 billion KWHs /day (1275 billion per year). Total US electricity produced in 2006 was 4063 billion Kwhs, so new production needed is 31% of this.
PS. Dr. Mason- It is wonderful that the solar grand plan is gaining exposure. Perhaps you could enlist some of your supporters to run a blog on your new site so that you could continue to benefit from additional ideas, reality checks, and humor from interested parties. By the way- great acronym.
Solar panels are dark and will absorb light and energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly when we erect this will we have global warming.
OISM, America's most qualified group of scientists, the record snow, and a decrease in hurricanes according to Gore's film are all proof that global warming is a hoax.
We need newer/cleaner refineries, nukes, and drilling in Alaska. We need riggs and need to help Mexico create 10000s of jobs in oil.
I have been quite disappointed with the responses to questions (esp those of Bill H) regarding availability of natgas or "biomass energy" in the [b]quantities that would be required to make this proposal work[/b]. This is less a "solar power generation system" than it is a "solar-supercharged [b]natural-gas [/b] power generation system". Certainly, as a natural-gas power generation system this is much more efficient than natgas generators available currently (for $420bn it better be!), but that's not the pont. Where is the GAS coming from? Mr. Mason blithely suggests that "biomass" will replace the natural gas at some point, but there is not one word of analysis regarding the feasibilility of such a changeover (where's all this "biomass" coming from?), nor even a recognition that any analysis is required!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor this reader, this exercise has a disturbing whiff of fanaticism and disingenuousness about it. As another comment suggested, if this is the best solution that dedicated and committed advocates of solar can propose, then bring on the nukes.
In response to JMesserly (Posts 561 and 568), I applaud your efforts. These are important and we did include these in the SCIAM article. There is too much detail to present here but we will be posting an Electrification of Transportation folder on the ASAP (American Solar Action Plan) website soon and feel free to email us with feedback (and your idea of creating a blog on the site is being considered, thanks for the suggestions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to DarrenMc (Post 570). Yes solar and wind electricity production will require some fuel use (but with a 85-95% reduction). This reduction in fuel consumption for power plants to firm intermittent solar and wind electricity production enables the use of syngas from the gasification of cellulosic biomass (as we have stated previously, ASAP does not under any circumstances endorse the use of foodcrops or land under cultivation for foodcrops for fuel production. The best report analyzing the U.S. cellulosic biomass potential is the 2005 Perlack et al. study (link to it).
http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf
But this will be only a fraction of the total fuel required in the U.S. for electricity generation, transportation, etc. The rest of the fuel we propose in the Solar Grand Plan is hydrogen (H2) produced by the electrolysis of water using solar and wind electricity for the electrolysis process. Zweibel and I have published a couple of papers on PV H2 production and distribution, which can be accessed at the ASAP website in the Resources folder.
http://www.solarplan.org/
Just picture the elegance of an energy system based on sun and water (clean and refreshing). It will be affordable and sustainable. All it takes to realize is a little creativity and hard work. And it will make America STRONG and SELF RELIANT.
Slogans:
Sunshine and Water - Our Energy Future
Days of Fossil Fuels Past
Americans for Energy Independence
This will be my last response in this forum. Thank you everyone for a most pleasurable experience.
Now let's make it happen - ASAP
Well, a lot of text and certainly a nice idea that theoretically *might* work,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT:
even a rough calculation of the amount of energy necessary for
- building the infrastructures for the manufacturing of the components
- the extraction, the transport and the transformation of the required raw materials
- the production of the required components
- the transport of those to the chosen sites
- the building of the power plants
will show that the systems might have to work a mighty long time to reach break-even.
Besides from that, all that oil is simply not available any more - just for example, Shell has announced today that they have to reduce by 50% the reserves declared only last year, and the other petroleum extracting companies are not in a better position.
...and don't think of the stated reserves of the Middle East! Those doubled "miraculously" overnight during the Oil Crisis in all the OPEC countries, once the organization had decided to fix extraction quotas for the single member countries based on their declared reserves. An independent survey of those reserves has never been allowed...
> even a rough calculation of the amount of energy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> necessary for
>
> - building the infrastructures for the manufacturing
> of the components
> - the extraction, the transport and the
> transformation of the required raw materials
> - the production of the required components
> - the transport of those to the chosen sites
> - the building of the power plants
>
> will show that the systems might have to work a
> mighty long time to reach break-even.
You've done the calculation? Let's see it.
Need to develop the DC-3 of solar panels ie: can be used, abused & maintained for decades, always reliable for it's original application, no outsourcing of componentry or unusual technical skills necessary to install & use. The kind of solar energy receptor that can be relied on out in the boondocks for 50 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about Solar Tower technology, like that used in Australia EnviroMission?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this42 years. We can do better than that right. How about before the end of the next decade?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether solar or otherwise, it's clear that we need significant government subsidies if we're going to make a real dent in the energy crisis in time to avoid a bigger climate change crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKent
www.ecounit.com
Each home owner can easily do their own solar trick NOW! PV is not feasable for most, but solar thermal is. Everyone who uses hot water can lay off this cost with thermal panels. CVT collectors work well in all latitudes and even better than others in extreme cold. PM, "Affordable Solar"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot going to happen, too many people making too much money from oil and gas and they can control that. I am talking about corporatocacies and central banks that dictate government policies and global prices. look at the inventions of Nicola Tesla that never made it to fruition for one. Lots of "zero point" energy machinery out there that won't be made etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some of my personal vues on the issues of Solar Power from a few of my personal writings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.quazen.com/Science/Technology/Solar-Power-Source-of-Endless-Energy.21176
Solar Power, Source of Endless Energy
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Our-Energy-Conservation-Dilemma.32660
Our Energy Conservation Dilemma
So now one author (Mason) has bowed out, and there don't seem to be any other noteworthy comments coming in. Since there seems to be no way to send messages to individuals from this board, I just want to say: If any of you wish to correspond further on this subject, and especially on the related matter of advanced energy storage, I'd be interested in hearing from you. As of this writing I have no vested interests--I'm just an interested citizen, you can speak freely and get honest replies in return:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismondo_sinistro@yahoo.com
--
Edited by Mondo Sinistro at 03/24/2008 7:56 AM
Obviously I am behind in my reading as I just read this and am excited for the future. I want this to become my political goal. Is it okay to share this article with out national politicians and start pushing this? I would vote for any candidate that seriously considers this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't imagine why there would be a problem sharing the article--obviously that was the idea of writing it. It's even online.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for politicians, yes, I think that would be a big plus for any Presidential candidate--although I think you would not necessarily want to promote it in the way it's presented in SA. Instead of it being a "solar energy" plan, you might want to put it forth as an "energy independence" plan, or something like that. And of course, given my own particular hobby horse, I would emphasize the advanced energy storage side of it, as this is something around which I think people could unite, whereas you will get lots of controversy right up front if you want to push solar as opposed to nuclear, coal, or even wind for that matter.
In complete honesty, what if we spent all this money to do the conversions....and within the next 3 years (the amount of time it takes to pay off for a PV cells production) significantly more effiecient technology has emerged.....after we spent the money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only this stuff could be deployed that fast! Certainly this technology is being developed at a substantial rate, as evidenced by growth of around 50% annually. And continuing price drops probably do have some effect in causing some to delay getting into the technology. Still, for purposes of comparison, prices of computer equipment are dropping much faster than they are for solar panels, yet most people go ahead and buy now, in order to not delay the anticipated benefits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole idea is just silly. The government doesn't have to invest anything and you don't want all the power generated in one state and having to be shipped to the rest of the USA. You want diffuse power generation by individuals who have solar panels on their rooves aka Germany.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn listening to a NPR Science Friday discussion two weeks ago, abandoned farm land in Arizona are being proposed as the site of a new solar energy development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater issues have become critical in the west during the last few years. I believe that marginal farmland could be taken out of production, the land owners well compensated for the land and water rights and utilized for additional energy "farms" as outlined in this article. Water rights from these acreages would then be auctioned/sold to either municipal water users or to other farms where better soils and more efficient irrigation systems exist. The marginal farmlands can be developed for energy harvest (these lands tend to be level, accessible, and can be restored to the native vegetation types over time). Certainly, areas of wildland (state or federally owned) would be utilized for solar energy production, but I would hope that destruction of desert vegetation & ecosytems would be kept to a minimum.
In comment 526 I wrote;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. "
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan/Solar-Grand-Plan/300005617?start=525&#msg300024999
Here is the reaction.
" I think the terrorist claims such as this are getting a little absurd...
So if we're successful with the Grand Solar Plan, we get 92 years of significant solar energy usage and because of a single terrorist attack, we get a one week blackout in a region of the US…
How long does it take to re-cable a couple of HVDC lines, or replace up a couple of rows of panels? Even if a whole solar farm is taken down, this would only be a small percentage of the total energy generation capability and probably would be reflected as a glitch…
I too want to state that I think the terrorism issue is getting more attention than it deserves,…
I had a three-hour power blackout a few weeks ago, and about five years ago was without power for a couple of days. These little events are the ones that really affect people over the great span of time…
Surely scourges like poverty, famine, AIDS, malaria and TB, etc. are equally as frightening (if not more so) than a few days in the dark?...
PV installations are modular and even if a paranoid person shoots some, the rest will work and the damage would be easier and faster to repair than damage to a thermoelectric power plant. "
Imagine it is 2100 and the GSP is fully implemented. You live in a massive high rise apartment building in Atlanta GA.
It is mid July, a massive heat wave is just starting to develop. You wake up early one morning sweating. Your bedroom is abnormally warm, you switch on the light and nothing happens, nothing else works either.
You turn on a battery powered radio and find out that terrorists have dropped all the HVDC power lines crossing the Mississippi river.
As the day wears on outside air temperatures zoom past 100 deg F as does the temperature in your apartment. You drink up all the fluids in your refrigerator.
Where will you and the other 5.000,000 people of Atlanta find safe drinking water?
The GSP will be built over several decades. It takes specialized equipment and a trained construction crew to install a large high voltage power line over water. It will take weeks to assemble the workers, barge cranes and spare parts to replace a power line, and then another week or two to actually install the new line.
So the first line may be up in two to three weeks. What about the other 20 to 30 HVDC lines. There are not enough trained construction workers and equipment to build them in parallel. There are no warehouses filled with cable and towers.
New cable and towers will have to be manufactured. If the manufacturing facilities are east of the Mississippi river their skilled employees are struggling to stay alive, and some of them are loosing the struggle. It will take months or longer to acquire the necessary material to make repairs.
By 2100 the population of the U.S. could be over 400,000,000 and if half live east of the Mississippi that is 200,000,000 people without power during a heat wave.
How many National Guard tanker trucks will it take to provide 200,000,000 people with drinking water, where will the trucks find safe treated water with which to fill up, where will they find fuel or electricity to recharge their batteries?
Think about how slow the response to New Orleans was after Katrina, that is just one medium size city. A meaningful response over the entire eastern half of the country is not possible.
It will require several weeks to restore minimal services, water treatment, waste disposal and minimal food delivery. How will 200,000,000 people survive several weeks of heat wave conditions without these things?
If 99% of them survive, the death toll will be 2,000,000. If 90% survive the death toll will be 20,000,000. If 50% survive the death toll will be 100,000,000.
In comment 526 I deliberately low-balled the casualty estimate to avoid being accused of hyping the situation. That did not work. Hopefully this analysis will put the terrorism issue in perspective.
Can you think of anything that makes this scenario absolutely impossible, other than the initial assumption, “Imagine it is 2100 and the GSP is fully implemented?â€
Mr Hannahan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a while you were interesting, with some of your comments about nuclear power. But now you've completely gone over the top, with seemingly endless self-quoting, and lurid fantasies about mega-terrorism--as if the whole proposed idea depended only on the one component of HVDC transmission working perfectly. Why don't you just take this scenario of yours to its logical conclusion, and try to promote it on [i]Coast To Coast[/i], where it really belongs?
PG&E SIGNS CONTRACTS WITH BRIGHTSOURCE ENERGY FOR UP TO 900
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMEGAWATTS OF SOLAR THERMAL POWER
The first of these solar power plants, sized at 100 MW in Ivanpah, California, could be
operating as early as 2011 and is expected to produce 246,000 megawatt hours of renewable electricity
per year.
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/PGEPressReleaseApril12008.pdf
as the sunlight , wind power is free and available 24 hours a day. so solar power can be used during daytime and windpower during nightime and during cloudy day. concerning the 420 billions, a lot more than that amount has already been spent for a stupid war in irak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomplementary to sunlight wind is available day and night. concerning the 420 billions , a lot more than that has been spent in irak for the most stupid war ever. nlonely man
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure if this has been discussed yet. The new transmission lines needed to carry power across the US in this grand plan are daunting. Assume by 2050 that 10 TW of electricity is being generated using solar, of which 5 TW needs to be transported to the East coast, and the balance to the western side of hte US. Lets focus on just the Eastern side. A typical DC intertie carries two lines of +/-500KVDC at 2000 Amps each, giving 2 GW maximum of power capacity. The total power flow eastward of 5 TW will need 2,500 DC interties. A typical large intertie will need a converter station on each end, which are priced in the $0.5B range per pair. That is $1250B of converter stations. A typical new transmission line at 500 kV costs about $1M per mile. A typical run from the Southwest to TN or upstate NY is going to average at least 1000 miles of line. That's $1B per line, or $2500B for the transmission lines. The total for the Eastern half of the US is $3.75Trillion. A smaller additional amount can be expected for the West coast. I would estimate at least $5Trillion total. But, that does not include consulting, legal and regulatory fees that are a dominant player in any financial decision made by utilities today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consumer's cost for power generated using solar in an optimum location in the US is dwarfed by the costs associated with transporting that energy to the consumer. Surprisingly, this is not much different from the situation today. Last year nuclear power provided electricity to utilities for about $0.0165 per kilowatt-hour. But no consumer is paying that.
Interesting points, paminator. If your analysis holds up, I guess I should feel happy, because this tends to vindicate my interest in advanced energy storage. This is an issue I need to keep in mind as I research these things further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Hannahan is holding on to a strawman here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, terrorism could be a problem, and no, nuclear power would not have a competitive advantage here. It would face the same problem. If a terrorist group is organized enough to sabotage dozens of solar transmission lines, it could do the same in a nuclear dominated grid.
Destroying a nuclear powerplant is very difficult. Destroying the transmission lines that come out of it is just as easy as destroying the solar transmission - they are in the same order of size.
About cost: nuclear power plant cost is shooting through the roof. FPLs plants have been costed at 7000 US dollar per kW.
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/06/2008 11:50 AM
5 trillion for the transmission, sounds like a lot doesn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, no actually. You have to put this in perspective. The expected generation capacity is 10 TW which is almost ten times what is installed today in the US!
5 trillion for 10 TW of solar is only 50 cents per Watt extra. The decommissioning cost of nuclear power plants alone will be greater than that number, even after favourable discounting. For example, decommissioning the UK nuclear fleet has been costed at about 1200 cents per Watt, in the ballpark of 600 cents per Watt after discounting is taken into account.
And I think some of your numbers are overestimated, for example a 500 kV line is a bit cheaper than 1 million/mile, probably more like 550-600k but I'd have to check it again.
I'm not sure about an average 1000 mile number. Seems like you picked this rather mandatorily, as you did with other figures as well.
I would like to see a detailed cost estimate of the total transmission infrastructure costs.
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/06/2008 12:10 PM
I actually was trying to take advantage of cost reductions due to the massive scale of the transmission corridors needed. A recent example of transmission line costs can be gleaned from the proposed construction of two nuclear reactors at an existing nuclear site in Florida. Of the total cost, about $2.5B is being requested for a 400 mile long transmission line. Since it is likely to be a 500kv line, and some of the costs are associated with the substations at either end of the line, the cost is estimated to be at least $5M per mile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, you say that $500 per kilowatt of transmission is not much of a price tag. Compared to the solar panel investments, that is true. Today solar hovers around $8000 per kilowatt for PV, not including storage. Solar thermal has estimates in the $4000 per kilowatt range. Of course, those numbers are based on peak generation. Averaged over a typical year, the numbers inflate by a factor of four to $16k - $32k per baseload kilowatt. In our wildest dreams solar may eventually come down to $1k per kilowatt baseload. That comes out to a wildly optimistically low price of $10Trillion for the 10 TW solar power collection /conversion facility. The half-trillion or so proposed in the article is just the down-payment.
FWIW, I was talking to colleagues about this back in 1999. Hoffert et al. presented it back in 2002. Nothing new here.
Why not build solar thermal plants, a lot of solar thermal plants, everywhere across the U.S. Where ever it's practical. Here in New England, there are about 2300 hrs of sun per year. That's only (?) 70% of the sunlight received in the sunny southwest, but it is 70% and you don't need to ship the power thousands of miles with the resultant power loss. The energy can be used at the point of capture, say when the air conditioning load is high. When there is surplus power, hydrogen, methane and methanol can all be manufactured. Electric vehicles can charge during the day. The country does not have all it's generators in one geographical area and for good reasons. Solar thermal will work just about anywhere in the lower 48 states more than half of the time. That's a lot of energy that can be added to the country's energy base for immediate use and a very large quantity of manufactured fuels can be stored for use when the sun isn't shining. And with the millions of heliostat reflectors and the thousands of control systems and boilers and generator sets that would be needed, economies of scale would come into play lowering the retail cost of solar thermal power to about the cost we have right now, $.20 - .21per kilowhathour here in New England.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by James Flaherty at 04/07/2008 7:40 PM
--
Edited by James Flaherty at 04/07/2008 7:42 PM
James, the one quibble I would have with that is that your figures don't take into account whether the sunlight is direct, or mostly diffuse as it is on a cloudy day. With cloud cover, you have much or most of the sunlight you get under cloudless conditions, BUT you can't easily concentrate it, and for thermal plants that's critical. Taking these things into account makes location much more critical, though less so for non-concentrating plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are about 4400 hours of daylight per year at our latitude. There are about 2300 hours of direct unclouded, concentratable (Is that a real word?? Oh, well. Close enough.) sunshine per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs with other electrical generation plants, a plant will have to be managed according to the available energy input and the load, depending upon the circumstances at any given moment.
It is unlikely that a solar power plant will run at it's optimal efficiency very often, but whenever there is sunlight, the plant can be turning out power or a combination of products: heat, electricity, hydrogen, (and through the conversion of CO2 with hydrogen using copper and zinc catalysts), methane, methanol and possibly other chemicals or fuels, greatly increasing it's overall efficiency. Methane can be put into natural gas pipelines for transport and/or storage. Hydrogen can also be produced and piped to nearby fueling stations for transportation fuels. Liquid fuels can be stored in tanks to be used for transportation fuels, or as generator fuel for when the sun is not shining . Flexibility in the generation and use of energy and energy products provided by solar thermal power plants will be one of their greatest strengths and they will create an extremely robust energy base and monetary foundation for the United States and that is to say nothing about millions of high paying jobs.
The point of what I'm saying is, there is a huge amount of high temperature, high quality solar power available anywhere in the continental U.S. and it can captured and used nearby profitably. Further, although this is slightly off the point, fully one third of the energy in the United States is used to heat buildings, domestic hot water, and as industrial process heat. All of this is below steam temperatures. This low temp energy is now being absorbed using low tech absorption, transfer and use methods, such as roof mounted heating systems, which are cost effective and profitable. If it were more widespread, low temp solar heating at point-of-use, could reduce the country's total energy use by about 20% and is in fact, the fastest and most cost effective way for the country to reduce it's use of fossil fuels and CO2 production. (It's amazing that our government has not mandated or even encouraged low temp solar use, but then we also don't have a national energy plan, so this lack probably shouldn't surprise anyone. Perhaps Mr. Bodman has something to do with this, his having been an oil company executive prior to becoming the U.S. Secretary of Energy.)
Last but not least, solar thermal power plants will generate huge quantities of low temperature heat even on cloudy days and if sited near residential, commercial or municipal districts or industrial demand areas, much of this low temperature heat can be profitably used. Low temp solar is not very sexy, but it's very energy efficient, converting as much as 80% of the energy to usable heat, whatever the source.
James, while there may be opportunities for co-generation of solar electricity, heat, and other products, I think you overstate those by a lot. First of all, I don't see any way that you can generate substantial amounts of heat on a cloudy day. You won't generate any in a solar thermal plant. You can generate a little by solar PV, but the collection is diffuse enough that it's hard to imagine collecting a significant amount. As for using excess heat for space heating, this can work well if you have a fairly concentrated development (industrial, residential, or whatever) that can be close to the power plant. A large-scale solar plant, such as the authors of the article envision, will not be close to enough such places to use much of the plant's excess heat. Small-scale PV installations will generate such small quantities of excess heat, at such low density, that capturing it to use it effectively will be difficult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for generating a variety of products, you are not going to have a single plant that some of the time will create electricity, sometimes H2, and sometimes methanol, or something like that. You will need to optimize it for one purpose. If you work it out really well, you may be able to benefit from some side product, such as space heat. But it'll be very limited.
Well 500 per kWe is still low. Even 1000 per kWe would be low, I mean have you looked at some of the new nuclear project costs? They are in the 5000 to 8000 per kWe range, and may escalate even further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd on top of that, the cost of the transmission could be compared to decommissioning the nuclear plants, you know the UK has costed it at about 12000 per kWe, even after discounting (considering the costs are back-loaded, there would be a big discounting benefit) it's still more than the cost of the entire grid. Of course that's for the UK, not the US, but some plants in the US also look to have very high decommissioning costs, such as Big Rock Point with more than $ 5000 per kWe.
The solar scheme looks very competitive to me, even with all the costs included. Nuclear power is looking ever more expensive. Coal is expensive if the externalities are excluded, and natural gas isn't cheap either and is subject to the liability of rising fuel costs.
Here is the point of what I'm saying. I don't think it is efficient to build enormous plants thousands of miles away from their demand. On the other hand, there is no reason to not build solar thermal plants in every town and city in the country, very near the demand. Transmission losses will be much less, and the several different forms of energy can serve many different functions in nearby towns and cities î º electricity production, high and low temperature heat, hydrogen for the still ephemeral hydrogen highways we're suppose to be building, methane and methanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcerning low temp heat on cloudy days, a solar thermal power plant will still collect about 10 to 12% as much energy on a cloudy day in the dead of winter as when there are no clouds. If the plant is a 10 megawatt facility, it will turn out about 1 megawatt as low temperature hot water and/or steam. This would be enough heat for 100 or so homes at 10 kilowatts each, (80 to 100 kilowatt-hours of heat per day). Of course this could be done more efficiently with rooftop collectors. Perhaps it would work better to heat a large facility such as a hospital or school or a municipal building. Regardless, low temp heat on an over cast day is the least significant product from these types of plants.
More significantly, is the ability to produce different energy products according to the demand circumstances at any given time. High quality heat and electricity would be produced whenever the plant is powered up. The electricity could be put into the local power grid, or when demand is low, it could be diverted to the fuel manufacturing part of the plant, where it would first produce hydrogen. What is done with the hydrogen would again depend on the circumstances at that time.
There are no engineering reasons these plants can not be built to work to produce multiple products. There is no reason why ten thousand of these plants can't be built in the next five to ten years. And they would serve very well as the backbone for a national alternative energy power infrastructure with their ability to produce massive quantities of electricity, hydrogen and the liquid transportation fuel, methanol.
These multiple energy sources would also allow the U.S. to continue to use most of it's existing 10 trillion dollar energy-use infrastructure
$7000/kW for nuclear is about the going rate on recently bid projects, but that cost often includes the new transmission lines needed to carry the power into load centers. India just approved a 4GW coal plant at $1000/kW. A solar thermal plant being proposed for Florida, if built, will be $6500/kWpeak x 24/5 = $31200/kW, since Florida is not as sunny as Nevada or Arizona. Solar PV plants are costing $35,000/kW in sunny Southwest locales. Wind turbines, for grins, run about $3000/kWpeak x 1/0.25 = $12,000/kW in quality wind locations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast year the US nuclear fleet delivered power to the grid at 1.67 cents/kWhr, which is the cheapest form of electricity available today. Given this situation, it would be crazy to decommission nuclear plants rather than renovate and upgrade them to be returned to service.
By the way, a 10TW solar collection facility with a 33% fill factor in the Southwest (where you can expect 208 W/m^2 year-round average solar input) and 15% system efficiency will require 3.2 x 10(11) m^2 of land, or 79 million acres. That is just slightly more than the entire state of Arizona. I'd imagine the environmentalists will be apoplectic if this ever becomes a serious proposal, but it is fun to think about looking down from a mountaintop onto an endless array of solar collectors stretching beyond the horizon, with robotic cleaners tending to the dust layer and other maintenance issues...
Paminator, you're making a common mistake - to compensate for capacity factor using 100% is misleading, as the correlation with demand is far more important. Nuclear advocates often brag about capacity factor, but it's not nearly as important as the correlation with the load.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, the average aggregate demand in the US is in the ballpark of 45 percent, perhaps even less. 1 TW installed but only 4000 TWh used. So that's what you want to compare to, how well it correlates with demand.
With solar, there is a very strong inherent correlation with demand. So you only need about 3x the solar field.
This is a disadvantage for nuclear powerplants, which have to follow this load and incur serious thermal cycling degradation issues which greatly increases O&M and reduces reliability. Diurnal load following increases stresses due to thermal cycling by two orders of magnitude. Reactors weren't designed for that, and will have to be re-enforced, perhaps even use more expensive alloys and materials etc.
I would definately include nuclear fission in the energy policy, but it's not nearly as economic as many people think.
Where did you get the 6500 per kWe figure? The Ausra 175 MWe plant is a peak plant with a small buffer storage, it will cost about 4000 per kWe, for about 20-25% load factor. And that's for the first of a kind plant, larger plants are cheaper, there's nothing magical about economies of scale.
The Nevada Solar One recently went online, and employs a considerable amount of thermal storage in the form of molten salts. So that's commercially proven now. And that plant cost only slightly more than 4000 per kWe.
And 3000 per kWe for wind turbines? Recently installed projects in the US were more like 2000-2500 per kWe and get much higher load factor than 25%, more like in the 30-40% ranges. Even better sites exist, and with Tubercle technology, high load factors are possible, but these better sites often don't have a decent grid tie so that's extra expense.
Also, you're worried about the environmental impact (or perception of impact) of the solar plants? Do you really think that at the 10 TW scale, there can be a no-impact electricity technology? You have to put it in perspective.
Besides, that is assuming no further advances in efficiency etc. and also, 10 TW is a bit overestimated IMHO. It is more likely that energy use will flatten out somewhere during the next several decades. Of course when that will be is subject to debate.
Oh, and about transmission: modern HVDC losses are very low, and there's advances in rectifiers, converters etc. which have made the conversion losses much lower as well. Technology doesn't stand still. The average losses would be in the order of 10-15 percent nationwide. It's very manageable.
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/11/2008 2:00 AM
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/11/2008 2:03 AM
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/11/2008 2:06 AM
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/11/2008 2:14 AM
--
Edited by Cyril R. at 04/11/2008 2:18 AM
Cyril-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your responses. I am enjoying this discussion. I would agree that the availability of solar or wind is less of an issue if you want to use it as a small portion of a total energy portfolio, but you need to have spinning reserves to avoid blackouts during variability of solar and wind output. Those spinning reserves will never be nukes, but rather natural gas turbines that can cycle up and down very quickly. That is the situation on the grid today. If you are storing solar energy in thermal salt tanks, then the baseload comparison is perfectly justified. However, once you start talking about market penetration of solar or wind above 5%-10%, then you must count it as part of baseload generation. If the plan is to replace all energy sources with solar by 2100, then solar is completely baseload, independent of daily, weekly, or monthly usage cycles. You need to deliver 10TW of energy on average all the time to support an average demand of 10TW.
The $6500 per kW peak is a number from a proposed Ausra 300MW plant in Florida last year- $5000 per kW for the plant and up to $1500 per kW for interconnect, land purchases, etc. I agree that it can come down in price, but how fast and is a factor of 20 price drop realistic?
Wind availability in the best areas can approach 30%. In GB where operational data is now accumulating, the average is more like 22%, with some poorly sited turbine farms closer to 9%. We'll see how the Texas windfarms do over the next 5-10 years.
The nuclear power numbers are from recent utility annual reports for 2007, summarized in the usual utility trade journals.
Personally I would love to hike up to the vista I previously described. I would not be picketing to stop the solar horizon, but I predict there will be many west-coasters who will be screaming foul.
"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, terrorism could be a problem, and no, nuclear power would not have a competitive advantage here. It would face the same problem. If a terrorist group is organized enough to sabotage dozens of solar transmission lines, it could do the same in a nuclear dominated grid.
Destroying a nuclear powerplant is very difficult. Destroying the transmission lines that come out of it is just as easy as destroying the solar transmission - they are in the same order of size. "
Show us your calculations Cyril.
I assumed the grand solar plan will have a grand transmission system with a modest number of very high capacity HVDC lines.
To supply 5 TW with 1,500 MW plants requires 3,333 reactors. Some stations would have multiple reactors, so lets say 1,000 stations east of the Mississippi. The average station will have 3-5 power lines radiating from it in different directions.
So that’s about 4,000 heavily interconnected conventional power lines forming a grid, none of which cross the Mississippi river. The average distance traveled by a kWh would be a tiny fraction of that in the Grand Plan.
If you were a terrorist Cyril, how many people would you need to take down such a grid and keep it down for several months? How would you do it?
--
Edited by BILL HANNAHAN at 04/11/2008 10:23 PM
I assumed the grand solar plan will have a grand transmission system with a modest number of very high capacity HVDC lines.
Which the authors clearly stated as untrue; typical 1-2 GW or lower HVDC size interconnections would be used. Some of the largest one could get are about 5 GWe. It would be an extension and complement to the current AC grid, not a substitute.
Whether or not the lines would cross large rivers etc. is not that relevant. Again, if a terrorist group is resourceful and organized enough to sabotage hundreds of transmission lines cr