TOWERING CHALLENGE: What needs to be done if we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?
Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO/DEBIBISHOP
-
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 »
Climate change. Energy independence. Air pollution. There are countless arguments for moving beyond fossil fuels for our energy needs. Unfortunately, there are just as many hurdles that must be cleared before we can feasibly count on other sources to supplant oil, coal and natural gas, which currently provide the lion's share of U.S. electricity generation and transportation fuels.
To illuminate the scope of the task, Scientific American recently surveyed a number of top executives at firms engaged in developing and implementing energy technologies—solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels—that could reduce our global dependence on fossil fuels.
The execs were asked to describe some of the challenges facing their industries. In a time of worldwide economic turmoil, many of those challenges are financial, but others are technical, infrastructural and even cultural. Taken together, the surveys provide a blueprint of steps companies, policymakers and consumers must take to wean the U.S. and the world off of fossil fuels or at least limit their use.
This week and the next, we will present the energy executives' surveys in their entirety. Check back as we roll out their responses as follows:
Monday, April 20:
Eric McAfee, chairman and CEO, AE Biofuels
Gerald Grandey, president and CEO, Cameco Corporation (uranium production)
Tuesday, April 21:
Barry Cinnamon, CEO, Akeena Solar
Aris Candris, president and CEO, Westinghouse Electric Company (nuclear)
Wednesday, April 22:
Alan Hanson, executive vice president, AREVA (nuclear)
Harrison Dillon, co-founder, president and chief technology officer, Solazyme (microbial fuel production)
Thursday, April 23:
David Crane, president and CEO, NRG Energy (nuclear)
Leon Steinberg, CEO, National Wind
Friday, April 24:
John Melo, CEO, Amyris Biotechnologies (renewable fuels)
Daniel Kunz, president and CEO, U.S. Geothermal
Monday, April 27:
John McDonald, CEO, ExRo (wind)
Sanjay Pingle, president, Terasol Energy (biofuels)
Tuesday, April 28:
William Johnson, president, chairman and CEO, Progress Energy (nuclear)
David Mills, founder and chief scientific officer, Ausra (solar thermal)
Wednesday, April 29:
Bob Gates, senior vice president for commercial operations, Clipper Windpower
David Ratcliffe, president, chairman and CEO, Southern Company (nuclear)
Thursday, April 30:
Lucien Bronicki, chairman and chief technology officer, Ormat Technologies (geothermal and recovered energy)
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThere could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! I just read a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com Investing in energy independence would positively impact our economy and futures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell here I go again. The idea is a lighting capture device,an unlimited source of energy,I realize that it can't be transformed,but that doesn't mean it's heat energy can't be utilizlized.It would require a remote location and some engineering ,but there is no reason that it can't be done. A ceramic lined pool filled with water , and a method to direct the lighting to it. If there's a flaw in my logic, someone please let me know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjack.123
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you talking about "lighting", or "lightning" like that which occurs during thunderstorms? "Lightning" energy capture would be extremely difficult from an engineering point of view.
Jack.123,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy exactly would energy harvested from lightning be untransformable? An electric current is an electric current, whether generated by dynamo or magnetism or heat current. In every case you generate a flow of charged particles, so I fail to see why the rules would no longer apply in this case.
Thanks for the responces. Sorry about the misspelling.Engineering problems aside ,there's a charge difference between the ground and higher elevations,I had read that an electric charge can be carried on laser beam,is this being done yet? No need for a thunder storms to be around? There are lots problems to be solved, but the rewards would be great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problems concerned with converting lightning discharges into energy are threefold:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Geographical dispersion of lightning - even though we have many thunderstorms in a year (Chicago has 40 storms per year per the isokeraunic map by the U.S. Weather Bureau, Florida has 90), the ability to intercept lightning strokes is limited. It is estimated that a 1000 ft tower in a region of moderate thunderstorm activity (Chicago area) would be struck by lightning only 10 times per year (Reference "All About Lightning" by Martin Uman, 1986, Chapter 17). And, quoting from the text: "It would take 100,000 towers, each collecting energy from the ten strokes per year to equal the 100 Megawatts generated by a typical small power station."
2. Energy variability - Lightning strokes vary from short time duration (less than 1000 microseconds) & low current (less than 20,000 amps) to long time duration (2,000 to 200,000 microseconds) and high current (greater than 200,000 amps). The first type is called "cold" lightning, and has the affect of blowing off bark from a tree due to rapid vaporization of the water content immediately below the bark. The second type of lightning is called "hot" lightning, and will destroy the tree, or start it on fire. The degree of variability between cold and hot lightning makes it difficult to design your energy storage equipment economically because you must design for the higher level to avoid destroying all your equipment in the event that you intercept one of the massive "hot" lightning strokes.
3. Energy Storage - as with other temporary forms of energy generation (wind/solar), the storage of the energy in a suitable form for an extended period of time is a problem. With the scientific progress made recently on super-capacitors, this may be less of a problem than it was 10 years ago. I would have to look into again as I have not stayed current on this issue.
I hope some of this info helps. I had also thought that lightning could be "harvested" for practical energy usage, but after doing significant research 15 or 20 years ago, and discussing this with numerous engineers; have decided this method of renewable energy is not economical and/or practical (Altho it is still very impressive)
Does the fact that you present twice as many "challenge" interviews concerning nuclear power (6) as you do for the next-most covered areas, wind and biofuels (3 each), imply that nuclear power faces twice their challenges? As a solar power advocate, I like that implication, since PV and CSP (solar thermal electric) have only one interview each!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and efficient end-use has zero!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I havn't been back lately,been busy.Thanks to David M. Clemen,and Galaxy man in joining in this debate with me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for #1- Researcher's are currently using rockets with copper wire spooling out behind it to direct lightning to a specific site,thus elimiting the random aspect,and need for towers,but this would too expensive to be pratical.Thus the need to use a laser beam to carry a charge to produce a positive streamer to connect to step leader.Next would be the need for a remote locations, as the neighbor's wouldn't appreciate having thousands of lightning strikes a day coming down near them.
#2-Energy varability.There more varierations of lightning than hot and cold ,heat,ball, and in the stratosphere red sprite,and blue jets ,but the responce of these sources would still require a lot of reseach,as for the damage to collector one could use a gas discharge arrestor connected to the laser and direct the charge to a inclosed ceramic basin lined with thousand's of conductors in order to disaspate the current,and heat exchanger technology as well, thus solving the variability problem.but lots research to do!
#3-Storage.Molten salt,under ground air pressure are good candidates,as well as many others,perhaps superconducting battery's.
P.S sorry about mis-spelling eliminating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry about miss-spelling eliminating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad to see that technology has reached a level that really does match the wind speed and makes as much as possible from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever there needs to be a standard by which all energy production techniques can be assessed against each other and i suggest that it should be based on the total energy consumed to design, make, maintain,and dismantle and disposal of the Equipment and return site to original, compared to the total energy that it may produce in its life time.
The cost comparison is open to abuse ,with grants,subsidies and the like from all quarters ,it makes the sums not add up and distorts the real benefits of all the systems.