SO LONG, MR. SECRETARY: U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is stepping down, leaving behind efforts such as ARPA-E to accelerate the development and deployment of alternative energy technologies.
Image: Courtesy of Department of Energy
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—The artificial leaf promised to revolutionize the world by bringing reliable modern energy to those mired in poverty. But the company founded to commercialize the research—Sun Catalytix—has found that it needs to concentrate its efforts on something likely to make money in the nearer term, namely the kind of flow batteries that might provide large amounts of energy storage on the U.S. electric grid.
The alternative energy landscape is in tumult, judging by the recent fourth annual summit of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E. A glut of cheap natural gas threatens to sweep all other energy sources before it. The so-called "shale gale," as Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski put it at the recent ARPA-E energy summit, is forcing a rethink of energy strategy. "Before this so-called shale gale came upon us, groupthink had most of us focusing on energy scarcity," Murkowski noted. "The consensus now is that we have abundant energy. We can't fall into the trap of groupthink again."
Funding for alternative energy—whether from the federal stimulus bill or venture capitalists—has dried up. "We're here because it's ARPA–E, and they have some resources," says Saul Griffith of OtherLab, a research and design firm that has received funding from the agency for researching uniquely shaped tanks for natural gas. "We all suffer from a lack of resources. We all have ambitions that want to go faster and bigger." Or as retired Marine Corps Gen. James L. Jones put it as part of a talk about the link between national security and energy security: "A vision without resources is a hallucination."
More than 250 exhibitors came to show their wares alongside ARPA–E efforts ranging from Smart Wire Grid's power-flow controllers for electricity transmission lines to OPX Biotechnologies's modified microbe that builds liquid fuels from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. "After three years have there been home runs?" asked retiring Secretary of Energy Steven Chu at the summit. "Maybe not, but there are people rounding second or third base."
View a slide show of future energy efforts.
The question becomes: Will energy alternatives falter in the face of a new abundance of fossil fuels as happened in the 1970s and 1980s? "Today we have the gas," observed financier T. Boone Pickens of BP Capital Management, who has been pushing for increased use of natural gas since 1988. "We're fools if we don't use it."
Even ARPA-E has begun to shift its limited funding into projects to enhance the use of natural gas, such as the Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, or the MOVE program, as well as an effort to convert natural gas to liquid fuels via microbes or chemistry. "We can meet U.S. demand for liquid transportation fuels over the next 50 years," argues biological engineer Ramon Gonzalez, ARPA–E program director.
Or is there enough momentum behind alternative energy that the renewables revolution has become unstoppable, thanks to progress in making solar power cheap and the proliferation of wind farms as well as the possibility of electric cars displacing gasoline-powered vehicles? Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander drove to the conference in his Nissan LEAF and urged scientists to work on making battery technology cost less. "We are more likely to see electric vehicles as a second car for many Americans when it's cheaper. Most of that cost is in the battery."
The goal of ARPA–E remains to encourage innovation so that sustainable energy solutions, however defined, become the cheapest and therefore most common options. But how many of these exhibitors, like Sun Catalytix, will be showcasing different wares in future? "In the energy domain, we need to get to what is right faster," added OtherLab's Griffith. "That means getting things wrong faster."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentOne word: Biocrude. As long as we can manufacture petroleum from organic waste alternate energy sources are going to have to be more economical to succeed. The end of cheaply extracted natural petroleum won't end the dominance of petroleum in our lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is an unspoken assumption natural gas is cheaper than solar or wind. Yet the latest studies show that in many cases this is not the case. Perhaps future articles should mention what the perceived costs per kWh are so they can be challenged if not correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with carbonaceous energy sources is that they don't currently reflect the cost of cleaning up their pollution (CO2). Apparently we're going to wait until circumstances become much more dire to start considering the real costs of these fuels; until then we have an artificial situation where fossil fuels *appear* to be cheaper than alternative sources and nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solar & wind energy fads will die even faster than they sprang up. Japan has begun to tap vast quantities of methane hydrate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday's papers report:
IT may be the most important regional energy story of the year: Japan has found a way to tap into what has been estimated at 49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying off its coastline.
The Nikkei news service reports the government research team drilled 330m into the seafloor at an ocean depth of about 1000m, then decompressed and gasified deposits of methane hydrate trapped in the sediment.
Methane hydrate deposits off Aichi and Mie are said to be equal to 10 years' worth of domestic natural gas consumption.
There are massive deposits of methane hydrate in other parts of the world too.
It alternate energy is effective on a long term basis everyone will adopt it. When it is show to not be cost effective, the projects become economic failures. Those are the simple facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease show the numbers of gas vs solar panels. If I remember correctly, they are either very old panels that are WAY more expensive than panels available today or you got severely ripped off on the installation (or are cooking the books...).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you'd better believe that if a customer is using 3000 or 4000 kWhs a month, then the monthly demand charges are necessary to cover the costs of delivering these large loads! And what are you doing using that much electricity, running a factory or something?
California has trouble balancing its books because changes to tax law require an UNDEMOCRATIC 2/3 majority and Republicans think anything with the word tax in it is equivalent to cyanide. That and the state locks up WAY too many people for victimless drug "crimes", spending more per inmate annually than per college student, as per the for-profit prison industry's wishes. Messed up priorities...The incentives for clean energy are nothing compared to the correctional budget. If you're worried about taxes, focus on that first!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see prid the troll and his lies are still around.
He can say whatever he wants but in todays prices you can buy PV for well under $1/wt retail at many places. What did prid pay if he even has panels? sunelec among other sources.
Either on or off grid if done right easily beats grid cost from any fuel over 3-7 yrs payback and another 15-20 yrs near free power afterward.
Why is on homes you capture the utility's full cost, profit plus fuel/generation costs giving retail customers a 2-3x's cost advantage over grid power.
And now you'll hear various strawman arguments proving that it doesn't but that is just the twitching of the old energy system dying off as a new home/buildigs that makes their own becomes the new model over the next 20 yrs.
Each 100'x100' average US lot gets 5Mwhrs/day of average sun not to mention biomass, wind and garbage resources mens there is no and never will be an energy shortage, just the equipment to catch it which are simple many build their own better than many on the market as in the case of wind.
And now well done RE costs around $2k/kw installed means it hard to beat it with free fuel vs the same plant cost of the utility plus fuels plus overhead plus profits it's not that hard to beat.
And that doesn't include the fact you'll likely pay 3x's as much for fueled plan fuels, etc in just 10 yrs but by then the RE has been paid off with electric bill savings for many yrs and producing nearly free power for another decade or more.
jerryd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you have written is wrong regarding the payback for a solar system. You dreamers think that something is viable when in fact it is not.
Why do you believe that solar is not on every homeowners residence if it is such a good investment?
What Priddseren and his type fail to see is this: Unregulated enterprise does not bring about the nicest or most efficient economy in the long or short run. It just makes the greedy and successful people happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey ignore a key point in economics: that people make wise choices only when the have perfect knowledge. (this includes scientists and policy makers.
The goal of advertising is to pirate the means of transferring knowledge, so that profitable lies and half-truths prevail.
But our wisdom is not only undermined by salesmen, many of us hold grudges against the policial policies of the left or right, thus rendering us unable to see clearly.
If you are among those who spit out words like socialist, or capitalist, etc. I suggest that you examine how you may be blinded by your emotions.
Marx and Milton Freedmen were giants alike, we must stand on their shoulders, as well as modern thinkers and scientists if we are to make progress.
This forum should be a place to discuss the merits of technologies. Please refrain from whipping up the hackneyed political ideas of the 1950s.
Solar may become cheaper. (Think big, think of our grand kids). CH4 will become more expensive in time. Solar hot water is VERY cheap in some places. Waste water heat recovery is VERY cheap when installed in new construction (yes, that means "socialist" building codes).
But, the cheapest thing is to foster urban designs that require less driving, more playtime in the neighborhood, local shopping, shorter work days. ETC
Got It? Buying less junk, means more time playing.
Energy saved for our grandchildren's farm equipment.
Is that science?
The so-called glut of natural gas, due to shale gas production is a mirage. Yes, there was a glut, causing the price to plummet, but this made shale gas extraction uneconomic. Companies are cutting back development and we have seen production top out. Those companies want to propagate the notion that there are huge supplies so that they can push up demand to get prices back to profitable again. If prices rise to the levels that started all this production, then demand will plummet again. Fossil fuels are nearing a plateau world wide. It's time to rework our living arrangements for a lower energy world. Best to do it now than wait for energy to noticeably decline in affordable supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as the cost does not include damage to the environment, complete destruction of the ecosystem, loss of all potable water then gas is cheap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of stupidity and gluttony is exorbitant.
I guess that solar doubling every yr for the last 10 isn't enough for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you want to pay too much, 3x's the fuels cost once put through a utility, 10-20x's the fuel's cost for nukes vs under $6k system once for an eff home giving 20-25 yrs of not increasingly costly power.?
Be my guest and I'll be glad to sell you the solution when you finally get smart. Meanwhile I'll be laughing all the way to the bank with my savings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone doubts the electric car is viable, watch:
www . movie2k . to/Who-Killed-the-Electric-Car-watch-movie-780880.html
Solar and wind may not be the best clean renewables. I defend deep geothermal (MIT’s favorite, see http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-geothermal-energy) complemented by thorium (because of its abundance and safety if used in the non-uranium cycle – it can be used in two different cycles, one of which produces uranium – and suitability for small local reactors the size of a house), see http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/29/thorium-nuclear-power-a-lesson-from-norway/.
But solar and wind have the logical advantage of tapping inexhaustible clean supplies, so they’re worth putting some effort into.
Running your car on natural gas is cheaper than gasoline or ethanol, but that’s just postponing the problem.
Imagine how pleasantly clean and healthy the air will become in cities, when fossil fuels have become obsolete.
The only reason Solar is rapidly increasing is due to incredible subsidies and even more incredible the Renewable Portfolio Standards Rip-Off SCAM. And China loves Solar PV because its a good way to print US dollars & Euros. The People's Bank of China finances the $billion Solar PV manufacturing plants with interest free loans that it creates with a stroke of the pen. It is understood that the Fiat money need never be repaid. So the USA & Europe buys the Solar PV with $US & Euros which effectively give China free cash to use for buying foreign tech, like Nuclear tech, which they duplicate and will sell it back to gullible fools, when the Energy Crash occurs and we are desperate. It is easier for China to print $US than it is for the US Gov't which must sell interest bearing bonds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent avg installed cost for Solar PV installs in the USA in 2012 is $5.83/wpk for all installations, according to the National Authority - the NREL. The utility scale portion of that cost is $4.43wpk, so Jerry's home Solar is averaging upwards of $7 per wpk. That works out to typically $29K/kwavg $47k per kwavg. That is 3-20X more expensive than FOAK GenIII Nuclear. Nuclear actually produces power 24/7, summer/winter, north/south, night/day, windy/calm, snow/rain/hail, sunny/cloudy, volcanic eruption/sandstorm/smoke/smog. And produces it for 60-100yrs not 20-30yrs.
As for your savings, they come from food stolen out of the mouths of poor children, let them starve, so wealthy homeowners can stick Solar Panels on their roofs, with subsidies of upwards of $30k per home, so they can claim "we're green".
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=norway-shows-the-way-with-electric-cars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorway Shows the Way with Electric Cars, With a Cost
Norway is paying $13,600 to avoid a tonne of emissions, a stratospherically expensive policy since the right to emit a tonne of carbon dioxide costs about 4 euros on the EU's carbon market.
It will have an effect. Of course in time, when easy energy does become depleted, then the public will suffer the usual agony of procrastination. Human natural seems to require periods of acute reawakening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo have fun now. Be honest, how many have a genuine concern for those in the future? Based on behavior and attitude I would have to estimate almost none. Sure a few of us care but that won't change anything soon.
So are you advocating a shift to nuclear power? The only course capable of significantly reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, or are you moralising without supporting a realistic solution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjerryd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease try to explain to me- "Why do you believe that solar is not on every homeowners residence if it is such a good investment?"
The fact is it isn't. It it was really a good investment they would be getting installed on every house in the US wouldn't it? The truth is that it makes little economic sense today. I wish it did, but it simply doesn't.
It's amazing the fanaticism against the fanaticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world wars are over, the evil Germans of that time, are already in hell. Why demonize the hydrogen to move the transport?
At 200 bar, the stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, undergoes auto-ignition at higher temperatures than gasoline. This allows a closed cycle of these elements, that even by electrolysis, can recover the braking energy.
That if, either this, or batteries that can carry children, with enough stored energy, we need enough clean energy to power the grid.
That energy has already been discovered, OCEANOGENIC POWER OF PANAMA....... ¿BUT?
https://www.google.com/#hl=es&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22oceanogenic+power%22&oq=%22oceanogenic+power%22&gs_l=hp.12..0i10i30.606.4872.0.9115.19.19.0.0.0.1.366.2836.10j5j3j1.19.0...0.0...1c.1.6.psy-ab.yN-qtr8pEA4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.eWU&fp=e3e445f65d02e68f&biw=1152&bih=650
Here in Germany I am always hearing the slogan 'the sun does not send you a bill'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell – if photo voltaics is such an economically viable solution why then is every kwh generated via a PV module subsidized with a feed-in tariff of 36,51 ct (Euro) ?
In the meantime the yearly overall feed-in subsidy payed by consumers on our electricity bills is around 8 BILLION Euro just for PV (one of the reasons why in Germany we are charged for one kwh about 26 ct (Euro) ). And it continues rising.
And the generated PV electricity is just about 4% of Germany's overall electricity consumption.
So – right now the sun sends us a yearly bill of 8 Billion Euro.
Without these outrageous subsidies I think here only idiots would invest their money into the PV business !
And - by the way - as others said already, with this money we subsidize jobs in China as the majority of the PV modules are imported from China.
That would be true except it's not Null.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI gave my sources, sunelec for the complete kit under $2k/kw and pay someone to bolt it together and wire it in for $100-400 so easily a full install under $2k/kw. Do your numbers again at real world prices most anyone can get.
Sisko, things don't change in a day. Last yr the US put in 3.3Gw peak of solar, 80% more than last yr so yes they are putting more in every day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd let's not forget PV has dropped by 50% in the last 2 yrs making the bad numbers many here give completely out of date, on purpose in fact as they don't seem to like the truth.
a ton is about 1000lbs of gas saved x's 20 yrs 2,000 gal saved that they don't have to use their own oil for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are getting about $7/gal for their oil so 7x's 2,000 is $14k not including how much higher oil will go in 10 yrs. So for getting their country off oil it's a wash cost wise for the country who then can sell their surplus oil to others to bring money into the country .
You might notice Norway is likely the most stable economically, wealthy, healthy country in the world before you critize it and it's policies. They seem to being doing quite well with them.
Is Sisko and DWBD the same person? Their reply comes up from the same, null.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, Yeah DIY specials. The DIY can usually undercut commercial or contracted residential, but 99% of people won't do DIY, they are busy all day at work, come home tired and want to drink beer and relax. And most people wouldn't be able to or want to do anything "lectrical" other than plug something into a wall socket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the proof is in the NREL numbers, average costs reflect the high cost of virtually all commercial & residential installs. That's just the way it is.
Jerry give the people of Florida an open offer of a fully installed by you, 100% zero homeowner effort, >10kwpk Grid-tied Solar PV system. And what is your warranty? Tell us what you will charge - including electrical connection, permitting, inspection all costs included. Give us your quote.
And get me some low enriched uranium fuel, and I will beat you out on my own DIY system which will supply all of my electricity, heat, hot water, vehicle EV power for the rest of my life, no problem. Heck, at one time low enriched uranium was oozing out of the ground, natural fission reactors abounded, water would seep around the uranium, it would sizzle and boil generating 10-100kw, once the water boiled away the moderation was lost and the rock cooled again until more water seeped in, and more natural fission. Lucky thing Greenpeace and the NRC wasn't around at the time or they would have banned the entire planet.
If you call buying a kit and someone putting it together as DIY or just being, shopping smart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut then you pay your utility bill and those with RE pay less or even get a check back. Please tell me which is better? RE owner homes are worth more, yours not so much. RE owners will never get an energy cost increase, you not so much.
Yep, keep on DWBD getting ripped off because you have little ability to think critically. Sad really. Just try to insult when faced with the facts instead of admitting you are just wrong in so many ways.
Well that is a bargain. Save $14,000 over 20 years as an individual but at a cost of $272,000 to the Norwegian taxpayer. Voodoo economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe internal combustion engine lasts a lot longer on LPG than with liquid petroleum that tends to wash off the protective oil from the cylinders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore the maintenance costs are seriously reduced.
I had a complete solution for energy but difficult to access .I'm should I do to develop it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntended to find solutions Technology and Alternative Energy for the energy crisis and aims to develop new ideas with impact on Economics and the Environment.
Please add my new energy sources 100% Green
Activities such as wind power, but not necessarily placed outdoors, working 24/24h
See my model wind energy. simple - mild-effective-inexpensive, can be placed anywhere in the southernmost islands north pole ( the Arctic and Antarctica )(even cold weather)
It is located in a closed cycle -not too noisy - not interfere with the direction of the wind
Details at www.trongdong.weebly.com
"If solar is so smart then how come we ain't got solar everywhere already, then huh smarty pants?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany have been asking some form of this question. The answer is two-fold.
First, these things take time. Doubling our solar capacity every year is pretty good. It means in 10 years, it will effectively be everywhere.
Second, there's this thing called "start-up costs" ... especially high in manufacturing new technologies. The subsidization (by pretty much every government in the world, but especially China) is driving down the initial costs to help these technologies come to market. Eventually, these subsidies will go away and there will still be a competitive product. The cost of that product will continue to decline, just like the cost of a digital camera, for example, continues to decline without subsidization.
Contrast that with the cost of using fossil fuels. As those resources become more scarce (or the market perceives them to be more scarce, as it has in the recent past) the cost goes up.
As a bonus, this means the more energy we can generate using renewables such as solar, the less subject we are to the boom and bust cycles of fossil fuels.
Note: it is true that the components that make up solar panels are potentially subject to the same cost increase due to scarcity, but this is likely to occur at a pace much slower than the rise of fossil fuel costs on the long term.
That wasn't my quote, by-the-way. It is easy to double capacity when you are starting at NIL and increasing to SLIGHT. I can do that easily with anything I have around the house. Projecting that indefinitely is FALSE economics. You quickly run into demand, supply-chain, grid-integration, installation, labor, material shortages - especially critical materials like Rare Earths, rapid price escalations. Funny how you guys always conclude Solar will continue exponential growth and price drops but Nuclear, which did the same in the 70's, can't achieve that, and started at a FAR LOWER cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NO JUSTIFICATION whatsoever to conclude without subsidies Solar will be competitive. Installed costs have dropped, but the cheapest and best utility scale Solar PV projects in the USA in the past 12 months have avg $3.6k per kwpk, acc to the NREL. With an avg capacity factor of 15% that equals $24k per kwavg. You are DREAMING if you think that cost can drop to the <$3k per kwavg that Nuclear is EASILY capable of, and did achieve ~$1k per kwavg ($2012) in the 70's. Even if Solar PV reached $0/kw, the installation, electronics, etc cost would still make it uneconomical.
And you pretend that a power source that is only available when the Sun shines is somehow comparable to a 24/7, winter/summer, night/day, cloudy/sunny/rain/snow/sandstorm/volcanic eruption, north/south power source. It ain't.
Try showing us how you can power just sunny California with Solar power. Show us the details. Match California Load Profile. Tell us how you plan on doing that. Warning: you won't succeed. And if you can't even do California how on earth do you plan on doing the colder, less sunny regions that are very common on this planet.
You're dreaming dude. You AIN'T EVEN CLOSE to a viable alternative to Fossil Fuels. Work the numbers and get educated.
It is customary to acknowledge comments which cause a story edit (replacement of penguin photo). It is considered unprofessional to quietly delete them. Tsk-Tsk. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry the above comment was intended for this thread:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-melting-stacked-weather-deck-in-favor-of-superstorm-sandy
This comment and 10:39 PM 3/16/13 can be deleted. Sorry. GK
OCEANOGENIC POWER… I read into it. It relates to an alleged difference in tidal hight in Panama:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“An 'open sky spillway' of 70 kilometers between them, in one of the two times daily that reach their remarkable difference in tides, would permit to form by simple gravity a flow of seawater that would include a hydraulic pressure gradient against a dam parallel to the rotation of the Earth.” http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-654397
If this is true, and the southern end of the canal is really washed by waters about 10m higher, this would deserve some looking into by a real scientist on behalf of Panama; perhaps it could partially power Mexico or Colombia and boost Panama’s export revenue.
Carlyle (how do you pronounce that, anyhow?), Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course solar and wind today require subsidies, oil receives all sorts of subsidy too, but the point is, they are worth it. You're not suggesting, certainly, that the tech won’t evolve over time. The solar and wind that will eventually take over will probably look like today’s like a Focus looks like a Model T. So it costs money. So what.
Changing the subject, one nice thing about producing your own power at home, by any means, and storing it in batteries is when there’s a power shortage, and you don’t have to spend the evening by candlelight hoping the food won't go bad. Again, it’s worth some effort.
Please read the SIAM article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=norway-shows-the-way-with-electric-cars&posted=1#comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same type of economics applies to all alternative energy schemes except hydro & in exceptional circumstances geothermal. The energy density is simply too low with wind & solar. The energy density remains the same regardless of what methods you use to harness it. No matter how efficient your PVs might become in the future, it is not going to increase the amount of solar energy falling on a square metre of area or with a wind mill, how consistently or how strongly the wind blows. No technology can make either technology work when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. There are sites you can go to that tell you what wind is blowing or what sun is shining virtually anywhere in the world. You can enter the coordinates of a solar farm or wind farm & check on how they are doing. You will see that billions of dollars worth of investment are laying idle. Backup must take over. In fact it has to be running in the background all the time.
Pronunciation: Carlyle. Car as in auto & Lyle as in boy’s name.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right. But:¿ When the first world countries have recognized scientists in the Third World? Very few times. This is so important to learn to do it, that when Constantine made it for the first time, the Roman empire, revolutionized the known world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also have to keep in mind, that to study in the universities, more in the developed world, besides money, you have to prove ability. In other words, the university is not giving you the brainpower.
So, mood, uses the current "informatic revolution", read the details, and syre, you can assess the veracity of my discovery on your own.
Leroy , concerning the costs of the PV technology going down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not only the module and the system set up costs of PV.
It is the additional grid extension costs you need to collect the distributed generated elecricity of the PV systems, and feed it into the grid, which also needs to be extended such, that it can accomodate the max kwh delived by the PV systems (This is by the way the same problem for wind power).
Then – for industrial users you need storage systems for the generated kwh, because the sun is not always shining, but there are many industry applications requiring electricity on a 24 hrs / 7 day basis. In Germany about 40% of the yearly generated elecricity is the base load (= current which must be always available ).
Without an economically viable storage technology this cannot be provided by PV.
Also - as the PV stuff creates their kwh regardless whether there is a demand for it or not you need a smart grid technolocy which might help to bring supply and demand in sync.
But this is – as cheap economical storage technology - an open question when this will be out in the market.
So – right now it wouldn't help to build more and more PV systems. They would just make the existing grids unstable.
Another thing - of course – is the PV for home use, because you always have the grid connected to your house if the sun is not shining.
Nor does you read everything, this energy is sufficient for all USA, the Americas, and the World.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd why, if when you halt spinning the liquid in your cup of coffee this morning, even a little, it forms a pressure gradient towards the center of the cup, is it so hard to recognize that the same will happen with the Earth's oceans?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know but a 72% increase to 7Gw IIRC of solar installed last yr alone kind of proves my point, not yours though, sorry.
Most would consider that impressive and along with wind was most of the new generation installed including nuke, coal and NG combined.
I expect it to do as well but likely far better as prices have dropped even more. I can buy good panels for $.66/wt, $666/kw in the last few weeks from several sites. sunelec as one. Prices, stock changes by the day but lower and going lower is the trend. Deal with it.
The current nuclear fuel should be stored for future cosmic contingencies against Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear fusion small, still is dream.
Oil, it's over, especially the cheap.
All existing ideas for energy, very good, but which coincidence, gets financing and advertising, because they are, for the future.
Natural gas only is recyclable, and cheap, if we adapt for producing it, hydroelectric plants.
OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, hydraulics, cheap, plentiful for the world, clean, scalable, renewable, extremely easy to carry, and even produces renewable natural gas, 300 times cheaper , and up to 1000 times cleaner than any other way.
http://www.academia.edu/1478086/OCEANOGENIC_POWER
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Ocharpen
http://challenge.ecomagination.com/ideas/OCEANOGENIC-POWER-Up-to-16000GW-of-Energ
After this article, and some information requested by authorities in Panama, about Oceanogenic Power: Spanish wikipedia erased, without notice or allow retort, the writing that for one year, allowed me keep in mine, or theirs, user page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so, in its pages in English. Will be censorship? From who?
Anyway, this is the information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Panamá