Subscription Center
The Web-only article below is a special rich-media presentation of the feature, "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030", which appears in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American. It was created by FlypMedia.com. Use the arrow in the lower corner to navigate
October 26, 2009 | 131
See what we're tweeting about
kahoakes Is that mountain staring at me? Mapping the Earth with facial recognition software - love it http://t.co/tW79sv20wc
JenniferFrazer My Latest: Pirates, Charles Darwin, and One Very Un-Extinct Dodo #sciamblogs http://t.co/NdusEjco2o
BoraZ Pirates, Charles Darwin, and One Very Un-Extinct Dodo http://t.co/57DXN1eZvH by @JenniferFrazer at #SciAmBlogs
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
131 Comments
Add CommentWhile they are off some like biomass of which 95% is going to end up CO2 anyway, their basic premise is good. Another is H2/foolcells as it's only 25-35% eff. Batteries cost far less and 80+% eff. Heat storage is cheap too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDetails are Nukes are not cheap. Recently built ones go for $7B-8.5B here in Fla and Finland, about $8k/kw. Nukes I think can do better with 4.0 units but they are too far away. Coal is $4k/kw, both plus fuel.
Wind is around $1.3k/kw, google axial flux wind generators for many builders.
Solar CSP in home sizes are once in mass production under $3k/kw with a 3kw heat bonus. Solar happens at peak power needs and it can be fed wood pellets if needed and the sun don't shine. Battery storage is only $100/kw so storing it is cheap.
PV is now selling for $2.5/k/kw for panels and inverters, you make mounts, install. www.sunelec.com
For under $10k most families of 4 can have in an eff home all the energy needed for it an 100miles/day of EV for 50yrs plus minor maintaining. What fossil/nuke fuel can do that?
Tidal/river power which is constant baseline, I've done it for under $2k/kw and the US has enough resources as does Europe to replace both coal and nuke. Sadly I seem to be the only one doing it right but I expect they will soon.
The biggest fuel of all is that which we don't use though eff/conservation. That in the US is at least 50% right there. Others not so much.
We can use 10% of the fossil fuel now used without hurting the environment, especially NG for semi's, chemical feedstocks and peak power needs. Most chemical feedstocks are not released but in plastics, etc so not a GHG problem.
But the detractors mostly miss the facts of what staying on fossil fuels will cost as their price is rising with a bullet vs RE which is dropping fast. Only a fool would bet on fossil fuels
Honest facts easily show RE, Eff/conservation are by far the lowest cost energy source of the future. Deal with it.
Why not considering Solar Thernal Power when a big part of energy is needed in the form of heat? e.g.: water heating, space heating, industrial heating (steam), solar cooling (a/c).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis will enable us to change from solar assited heating-cooling to fossile assisted heating-cooling and diversify solar energy sources with a proven widely used technology.
I find your estimates for the costs to be extremely optimistic. I assume the wind estimate is for on-shore wind, as the costs for off-shore are much higher. Additionally, there is the question of the intermittent nature of both wind and solar. Without a reliable storage mechanism, they would need some sort of back-up for reliability. Finally, as very briefly mentioned in your final paragraph on page 8, there is the question of the transmission of these new energy sources to the demand. This would add significantly to the cost of this proposal and yet it is being downplayed here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry but your plan is merely a dreamy-eyed sketch that has not yet been pulled through a reality filter. I recommend you read Prof. David MacKay's publication "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" at www.withouthotair.com and learn how a realistic plan should be constructed. Also note that he arrives at much more modest results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anyone not consider scrapping the grid as we know it? if we ship water to the remote power producing sights and convert it to hydrogen when power is being produced. Then ship the hydrogen to the places that need the power you have your battery and start the hydrogen economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEventually doing away with the grid enterly.
I can see rail transport going all-electric ( the Great Northern had an electrified line at one time and some short-line track in Niagara Falls was DC electric), but it seems to me that heavy truck and marine transport might still need to rely on fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am almost entirely in agreement with the article. I have log felt that hydro power should be used as quickly contreolled peak power sources, not as base load power. Many hydro plants might also be pumped storage facilities at better efficiency than can be expected from compressed air storage. Almost all new england cities have old power dams that could be so used, if refurbished.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe net cost of solar electric panels might be greatly reduced if they were designed as roofing material instead to be mounted on roofs, which must remain weather tight while supporting the panels.
The authors mention the Interstate highway system as an example of what can be done. In my opinion, it is an example of what should not have been done! Before, the US had one of the best rail systems in the world and exported oil. Since, the rail system has greatly degenerated and oil is an import. I never considered getting a car until I was unable to travel by rail, in 1959. Electrified rail can be especially beneficial, a descending train can generate much of the power needed by an ascending one.
While lead acid batteries were not mentioned, they could be a particularly efficient short term peak shaving technique for buildings. They were so used in the early 1900s when electric power was locally generated both to handle late night loads of plants not running full time and peak commuting loads on the longer trolley car lines; a battery at the end of the line often saved the cost of a substation or other power plant there.
I know it had to at least be mentioned in the article & I just missed it! Why wasn't there a lot of discussion about Algae Oil? If my information is corect, it is probable that trucks and trains will never be able to use electricity for power. Why would anyone fail to mention Algae in looking at alternatives to oil and coal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind is more expensive than many believe, with offshore twice the cost of land based. And connecting it to the grid, not only requires expensive powerlines, it requires grid balancing, something hydroelectric does fairly well if the environmentalists allow it. Wind is being blocked all over by environmentalist because of wildlife, aesthetics, noise, land access, NIMBY. We've lost projects because of clams, whales, bats, eagles, and murrelets. Ocean energy also has been blocked, and some environmentalist now are blocking solar because it shades the ground - "let's study the effects of shade!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant cheap clean energy? Get the environmentalists to actually support what they've been pushing.
But don't push the corrosive fuel ethanol into our fuel supply. That stuff rots out fuel systems, dramatically increases ground level ozone, and wastes energy.
For those who think hydrogen is a panacea, escaped hydrogen reacts with hydroxyls in the upper atmosphere and removes it. Hydroxyls are one of the gases that reacts and removes methane. So a hydrogen economy may increase the longevity of the GWG methane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichMCK: Algae based fuels are frequently discussed at www.biofueldigest.com. It's a great free electronic newsletter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRare earth metals may be the chink in the environmentalists' argument about increased alternative energy jobs in the US. Rare earth metals are now almost entirely controlled by China. Environmentalists have gotten our mines shut down. China says by 2012 it no longer will export rare earth metals, rather, they want to be the provider of products made from them. Where are they used?...how about some formable permanent magnets (such as used in wind turbines), high resolution displays, super conducting wire, high density data storage, lasers, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur future over the past couple decades has just been handed over to the Chinese, and with all the money we pay them in interest (on the debt they own), and on the products we buy from them, they will continue to buy up our resources, and manufacturing facilities (and ship the tools to China).
Only a paradigm shift in attiude into what is most important to Americans will save us. Are US jobs more or less important that you worship of Gaia? And when will environmentalist realize that shifting production overseas actually makes the global environment dirtier?
As usual, Jacobson's comments in regards to ethanol are way off. He says "with land use change, cellulosic ethanol is worse than gasoline." According to what research? The EPA calculated that cellulosic ethanol was a 60-116% decrease in GHG emissions compared to gasoline depending on the source of the feedstock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, he says "it takes a lot of carbon to grow the corn, transport the corn and harvest the corn." But if we have a wind, solar, water powered economy there won't be any carbon sources of energy...right? So, the carbon it takes to plant, grow and harvest corn will be gone...right?
If his work on ethanol is any indication of the amount of research he put into this study, I wouldn't spend much time on it.
Whats with the cimments about trains not working on electricity? Has no one ever heard of Mag lev?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to think out of the box for a change.
the grid is older than dirt and more bandaids will only serve to perpetuate a very wasteful system.
Lets pipe hydrogen to the places that need power and let the consumers turn it into electricity with fuel cells.
You can even do it at your house and eliminate the need for central power producers.
Hydrogen is a most difficult substance to contain or ship. Leakage is almost impossible to control. The grid is there. Electricity is the most useful form of energy we have. It can be used for nearly everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is storage. Storage is batteries. It is a rare problem that can be solved with a single technology. Batteries offer us that single technology solution. We need to scale up production of advance Lithium Ion batteries, reduce the cost of charge management and prove their long term reliability. An engineering, manufacturing and testing challenge less than either the Manhattan project or Apollo.
Hydrogen is a most difficult substance to contain or ship. Leakage is almost impossible to control. The grid is there. Electricity is the most useful form of energy we have. It can be used for nearly everything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is storage. Storage is batteries. It is a rare problem that can be solved with a single technology. Batteries offer us that single technology solution. We need to scale up production of advance Lithium Ion batteries, reduce the cost of charge management and prove their long term reliability. An engineering, manufacturing and testing challenge less than either the Manhattan project or Apollo.
Good job
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood job...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I will have to apoligize for my sugestion that hydrogen might solve a lot of energy problems since it is rather dangerous to handle and can cause ozone problems. I suppose we will just have to wait until someone from afar teaches us about research and what it is so we can begin to solve some of these problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay be after that happens we can even figure out how to put a man on the moon.
In the meantime I'll just wait for--- I can't think what.
Water is also increasingly scarce, and while desalination plants are making huge advances, it will take much more investment to secure a stable supply. Huge industrial corporations are now including water usage and wastes in their environmental reports, which is another indicator of the growing issue. They are also quietly purchasing enormous water resources wherever they can--without all the publicity that they give to their environmental reports, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould not a hydrogen economy also put a huge strain on fresh water supplies? Increased redirection of resources away from subsistence and into energy--like corn and sugar--sounds like we will have to keep choosing between putting fuel into our cars, or food into our mouths.
Water is also increasingly scarce, and while desalination plants are making huge advances, it will take much more investment to secure a stable supply. Huge industrial corporations are now including water usage and wastes in their environmental reports, which is another indicator of the growing issue. They are also quietly purchasing enormous water resources wherever they can--without all the publicity that they give to their environmental reports, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould not a hydrogen economy also put a huge strain on fresh water supplies? Increased redirection of resources away from subsistence and into energy--like corn and sugar--sounds like we will have to keep choosing between putting fuel into our cars, or food into our mouths.
Hydrogen might prove to be a very good way to move water from one place to another since the water returns when the hydrogen is used in a fuel cell. There is no water lost the conversion and then use of the fuel is as far as water is concerned a zero sum game
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, It's a very good project our environment need it rapidly all over the world. The pollution effects expand to any place in our earth. the Global Warm is a live example for that, some places disappeared and another will also . So your project is our hope all over the world . the future hope for our Kids . But we should built this program away from the main food of Many populations of world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad that scientists who have clearly thought this project through are missing some of the key problems with wind power which don't appear to have been resolved. These problems are the fact that wind power is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Totally unpredictable due to the fact that exact wind velocities are not easy to predict.
2. Difficult to connect to the grid as the windiest places are often far from major transmission lines on the power grid.
3. Difficult to make use of because wind blows much more powerfully during the night when electric loads are far lower.
4. Currently much more expensive than coal/nuclear/hydro/natural gas produced energy. (I work in the power industry and see the prices associated with all of these power sources daily)
Wind is a great idea for a supplemental power source but the problem with all of these sources is that they don't provide the consistent, cheap source of power that nuclear and coal plants provide.
Sorry guys :-(
But are really renewable sources of energy adequate to sustain constant growth and to offer to the whole population of the Earth the living standards of the affluent West? Read the article in the link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society, by Ted Trainer:
http://www.greens.org/s-r/48/48-11.html
He has also written a book about his research, you can find it in Amazon.
I am new to the energy field, and I very much wanted this to be a believable article, but I own a calculator, and the figures on p. 61 just don't compute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3.8 million wind turbines at 5 MW each should be 19 terawatts, almost double the total 'goal' of 11.5 terawatts the authors have in mind. 1.7 billion PV systems at 3 KW each should be 5.1 terawatts, alone more than the 4.6 they have slated for all things 'solar.' And 89,000 solar plants at 300 MW each would yield almost 27 terawatts.
I suppose these observations suggest that we can accomplish the authors' goals more easily than even they thought. (And these numbers should have a bearing on the debates above about the physical area the authors have said that wind turbines would take up.) But since this is not my field, the basic computing errors in this article were enough to destroy my confidence in anything true they might have said.
If all motor vehicles are electrically powered, there will be a lot of surplus battery capacity in these vehicles. This could be used to feed power to the grid during peak periods and reduce the need for base load power generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo discussion of Nuclear power based on Thorium (which does not have many of the negatives of uranium ... India is heading in this direction). Also, no discussion of the problems associated with wind and solar ... i.e., when the wind dies down or there is significant cloudy wheather ... the fluctuation of power from this sources is definitely an issue. Also, the $/KWH is underestimated for wind. Also the economic impact of the transition for an oil based energy economy to WWS in such a short timeframe (20 to 30 years) will be devastating. Overall the presentation is too pie-in-the-sky and they do not have a handle on the practical implication of such an abrupt change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthought this article was great. Some good ideas for the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThought this article was great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinland. The sea freezes, the sun don't shine and the wind turbines ice up. Not one ounce of common-sense in the whole article. Horrific dose of Madeleine Basset.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlanP
It is a pity the two scientist are so very ignorant about the topic and biased against really important alternative energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydropower is by far the most greenhouse contributing energy form known. Stale water is quickly oxygen depleted and organic material sink to anaerobe zones andcombust to produce methane and CO2. The water is depleted of fertilizing minerals which is a problem for agriculture and catastrophic for the sea where the lack of minerals limit algae growths which reduce carbon binding ability and strangulate the food chain so there is less fish available.
30.000 people produce wind turbines in Denmark and they get smarter at it every year. For about 30 years the efficiency improvement has annually been around 5% and there is no reason to believe that the thousands of engineers in this business wont go to work and achieve progress at the same rate. If you do the numbers you will foresee a dramatic drop in electric power costs. Why then emphasize solar power so much where there contrary has been almost no positive movement of electric power generation costs?
Really strange bias against biofuels must be a personal problem for the researchers because it is certainly not founded in real science. Second generation biofuels are based on abandon resources that today are carbon recycled by being burnt, rutted or composted, so covering the power needs of the transportation sector instead just delays carbon recycling and substitute massive amounts of fossil fuels. Also it is home grown literally and a great contribution to the agricultural industry. What could possibly be the problem you even cut pollution and improve local air quality. Novo and Danisco have both readied second generation enzymes and have driven cost down at a staggering pace and mind you they are commercial companies and they are not anticipating to be subsidized. Follow the scientists wise notion of introducing carbon taxes and remove incentives to the fossil energy complex including expensive military operations and they will be competitive on market basis in a few years.
Many other alternative energy resources and technologies are dismissed with superfluous remarks or even not mentioned at all. Many alternative power resources not mentioned can cover the earth entire energy demand.
In an important magazine such as Scientific American you have grown accustomed to expect a higher level of expertise. The research sources behind my information is all published.
It is a pity the two scientist are so very ignorant about the topic and biased against really important alternative energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydropower is by far the most greenhouse polluting energy known. Stale water is quickly oxygen depleted and organic material sink to anaerobe zones where the combustion produce methane and CO2. The riverwater is depleted of fertilizing minerals which is a problem for agriculture and catastrophic for the sea where the lack of minerals limit algae growths which reduce carbon binding ability and strangulate the food chain so less fish can be catched.
30.000 people go to work every single day in Denmark to produce wind turbines and they get smarter at it every year. Annual efficiency improvement in about 30 years is 5% and there is no reason to believe that the thousands of engineers in this business won’t go to work and achieve progress at the same rate. If you do the numbers you will see a dramatic drop in electric power costs. Why then emphasize solar power so much where there contrary has been almost no positive movement of electric power generation costs?
Really strange bias against biofuels must be a personal problem for the researchers because it is certainly not founded in real science. Second generation biofuels are based on abandon resources we today burn, rut or compost, so if you delay carbon recycling by covering the power needs of the transportation sector you can substitute massive amounts of fossil fuels. Also it is home grown literally and a great contribution to the agricultural industry. What could possibly be the problem – you even cut pollution and improve local air quality. Novozymes and Danisco have both readied second generation enzymes and have driven cost down at a staggering pace and mind you they are commercial companies and they are not anticipating to be subsidized. Follow the scientists wise notion of introducing carbon taxes and remove incentives to the fossil energy complex including expensive military operations and they will be competitive on market basis in a few years.
Many other alternative energy resources and technologies are dismissed with superfluous remarks or not mentioned at all despite some of them can cover the entire global energy demand.
In an important magazine such as Scientific American you have grown accustomed to expect a higher level of expertise. The research sources behind the information I provide here is all published and available on the internet. My question is why is the quality of the plan so low?
The real cost of nuclear power is disguised by several subsidies, most of which are hidden from view. They are described in a new report, "Nuclear Subsidies", from the Energy Fair group, which may be downloaded via a link on http://www.nonukes.org.uk/home .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrains cannot run on electricity? Trains use a diesel engine to run either a generator or an alternator. The ELECTRICITY is used to run the train.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030, November 2009
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe subject article, although technically correct, does not pass the basic logic test. All energy sources described are for electricity only. Are we to believe that by 2030 all transportation, agriculture, construction, heavy industry, household and commercial heating, and even the petro-chemical industry will be run on electricity? At the current time even the most advanced LiH batteries are at least an order-of-magnitude away from being practical even for small light-weight motor vehicles. Articles like this give your readers a rose-colored glasses view of our most pressing near-term global problem. The magnitude and gravity of the problem should not be under estimated by simplistic far-term solutions (which, by the way, have all been presented in Sunday-supplement articles over the past several decades)
John R. Fortun, author
The Global Energy Handbook
Robertson Publishing, 2008
Re: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030, November 2009
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe subject article, although “technically” correct, does not pass the basic logic test. All energy sources described are for electricity only. Are we to believe that by 2030 all transportation, agriculture, construction, heavy industry, household and commercial heating, and even the petro-chemical industry will be run on electricity? At the current time even the most advanced LiH batteries are at least an order-of-magnitude away from being practical even for small light-weight motor vehicles. Articles like this give your readers a rose-colored glasses view of our most pressing near-term global problem. The magnitude and gravity of the problem should not be under estimated by simplistic far-term solutions (which, by the way, have all been presented in Sunday-supplement articles over the past several decades)
John R. Fortun, author
The Global Energy Handbook
Robertson Publishing, 2008
We can do even better quicker. We have the technology and the ability. We just lack the balls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell mr fortun the nuclear subsidies plonk has been debunked in many places. Do some research before you drop discredited hooey on this site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you follow the commentary on Jacobsen's article
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet
you'll find the original report shredded in so many ways - it is claptrap.
We are closing rapidly on a ten years from now climate and peak oil precipice and renewables have zero chance of reducing even a small amount of GHG's by then. They cost 10 times as much as mass produced nukes.
A $2.5 trillion investment in mass produced nukes using less than 5% of our current industrial capacity would end and be paid for by eliminating our annual $1 trillion in fossil fuel burns.
You folks with your new age fuzzy wuzzy "renewable" religion are worse than the Denier's at driving towards over the climate precipice.
Very nice articles (this one, links, related)!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSometimes it is hard to see how all this works together. The EIA has energy flow diagrams showing how different fuels/etc. are refined, converted, and used. I think it would be really helpful to see such diagrams for various technologies and for a proposed overall energy mix, and also, to show energy inputs (differentiating between thermal and electric). Values might be given in both standard electrical and fuel equivalents for ease of comparison.
For example, for solar PV power plants, a flow diagram would show:
solar panels: area of panels, area of land, capacity, average output
input into production (panels, tracking/mounting, wiring)
input into maintenance operation
input into recycling/disposal/etc
inverter efficiency, production input, etc
HVDC efficiency, etc.
CAES efficiency, etc., fuel inputs
H production efficiency, etc, and fuel cell efficiency, etc,
AC grid distribution, end uses, etc, noting equivalent amounts of petroleum, coal, natural gas that would be displaced...
And little bubble/boxed notes attached to various parts noting non-climate emissions (mercury, etc. - or lack thereof), and water usage.
PS When the various figures of power consumption are given, I recognize the current value to be in primary (fuel equivalent) terms; is that also the case for both the business as usual projection and the smaller number replacing it in the renewable energy scenario, and if so, is the difference mostly the reduction of energy use by the energy sector? (I realize I could go through the upstream factors and tease this out on my own, but just thought I'd ask anyway. It would be interesting to compare the energy use by the energy sector in the WWS scenario to that of the present system.)
THANKS!
Several comments. To achieve the authors desired goal of 100% renewables would require several miracles. One would be to convince individuals and governments to act in concert to achieve common goals. The relinquishment of personal rights and control would be massive. Secondly, the assumption is made that electricity is the best alternative to heating and transportation. An example is given in the article about gasoline being only 17-20% efficient in providing motion whereas electricity is 75-86 efficient in providing motion. If efficiency is the concern then they should mention the gross inefficiencies in converting wind and solar PV into electricity. A PV facility is no more efficient that the individual cell efficiency, which is typically about 15-18% [Sun Power goes to 23%]. With associated losses the efficiency before transportation is only about 16%. Overall annual wind efficiency is only a little better. Fossil fuel, coal, is around 37% before transportation. Am I advocating coal? No. But I am asking for some objective discussion regarding the efficiency issue. Because of the inefficiences the source can't be near the user [requires to much area] therefore transportation depends upon the grid which is rapidly approaching saturation. The rare earth minerals situation is far worse than they convey, without which green technologies come to a screeching halt. The total estimated costs mention on page 64 are grossly low typical of most of these "plans". Finally, the authors are saying in the next to last paragraph that 100% of NEW SUPPLY [not total load] is ALMOST POSSIBLE whereas replacing the current existing fossil fuel capacity "... could THEORETICALLY be retired and replaced in the same period, but with more modest and LIKELY policies full replacement may take 40-50 years." Even this is optimistic. As an architect deeply involved in energy issues for 35 years I am constantly amused by what are offered as "doable plans."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn efficiencies...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, so there are efficiency problems with wind and solar but, isn't the important point that wind and solar are inexhaustible? Can you explain to a non-engineer/scientist why it matters whether it takes more wind or solar radiation to make a certain amount of energy if there's truly an abundant source of wind and solar radiation available? My understanding is that, with a limited amount of fossil fuels on the planet, we've essentially got a limited amount of energy we can get from these fuels. If we have a limited amount of available energy from fossil fuels, and only 17-20% of that energy can be converted into motion, then it just seems to me that using energy in the form of electricity (of which 75-86% can be converted into motion) coming from inexhaustible sources is a much better option, regardless of the inefficiencies involved in converting them to energy. Is it because of monetary costs? I don't get it.
On miracles...
We need optimism right now, and reasons for hope lest we all give up in despair... I don't think there are as many miracles needed as you do. We put people on the moon over 50 years ago - surely that took more teamwork than these two scientists had at their disposal to create this plan. Think of what would be possible if we focused a similar effort to these problems as we did to get people into space, flying in a plane, setting off nuclear bombs, nanotechnology, brain surgery... there's a lot of potential here.
Yes, it is unfortunate that environmental action is politically unfeasible right now. There is a way for us to make it politically feasible... all we need to do is demonstrate to everyone that environmental action will not result in "the relinquishment of personal rights and control". Perhaps Coca Cola's marketing team could get to work on that...
Please explain how "the economic impact of the transition for an oil based energy economy to WWS in such a short timeframe (20 to 30 years) will be devastating."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find some of the ways we do things now pretty devastating from a certain point of view. I can't quote the numbers but from what I've heard is spent everyday on war, it sounds like we can afford to refocus where our money is spent and prevent a lot of people from dying let alone being terrorized by living in a war zone.
These projections have a big flaw since they do not take into account the carbon footprint or energy/environment cost of all forms of automobiles. As long as there are no proper replacement of fossil fuel based transportation, such talks are only romantic dreams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSustainable energy is great, but we also need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere to maintain a livable planet while we are dealing with the damage from our profligate fossil fuel consumption. For one option see the paper by Van Vechten on the "Year of Energy 2009" website from the research society Sigma Xi (http://energy.sigmaxi.org/?page%20id=245). The key point is the use of electrodialysis in the electrolyzer to produce NaOH and HCl(aq) in addition to hydrogen, with the NaOH being used to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and the HCl being used to extract commodity compounds from basalt rock (which underlies many of the best wind sites). When operated in remote areas the hydrogen can be transported as nitrogen compounds (ammonia, urea, or guanidine) which can be used as fuels or sustainable fertilizers to help feed the growing population. This is definitely a new approach to the most pressing problem of our time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that this commitment should be ratified with first definite goals between the rich countries and subsequently with the countries in development. In case of of Brazil, our energy matrix already is example for the remainder of the world with the utilization of renewable and alternative springs of energy, as the use of biomass-biodiesel and alcool. the big energy generation potential through hydroelectric head offices (CH) and small hydroelectric head offices (PCH) in our country. To big argument that we should do should be directed as will be shared the costs of the environmental service, which mechanisms or regulating instruments of the Reduction by emission of deforestations (REDD)? This is going to be clear and arranged between the countries members of the conference of copenhagem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that this commitment should be ratified with first definite goals between the rich countries and subsequently with the countries in development. In case of of Brazil, our energy matrix already is example for the remainder of the world with the utilization of renewable and alternative springs of energy, as the use of biomass-biodiesel and ethanol. the big energy generation potential through hydroelectric head offices (CH) and small hydroelectric head offices (PCH) in our country. To big argument that we should do should be directed as will be shared the costs of the environmental service, which mechanisms or regulating instruments of the Reduction by emission of deforestations (REDD)? This is going to be clear and arranged between the countries members of the conference of copenhagem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo produce 20% of electricity in California with wind power would require 20,000 1.5MW turbines. It is necessary to build 3 times the rated power since useful power is generated only about 1/3 of the time (the capacity factor). Each turbine is 100m tall and bigger than a 747. The each require 80 acres of space. That means we need 2500 square mines of space for our wind turbines. The California Energy Commission maps of sustained wind speeds at 100m above ground level indicate there is not enough area on land with the required wind speed characteristics. Consequently, they must all be built at sea. Marine wind power is much more expensive than conventional power. The end result is a band of wind turbines 500 miles long from the Oregon border to the Channel Islands near Los Angeles, with maybe 14 rows extending 5 miles out to sea, each turbine spaced about 1/3 of a mile from the next.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople assume the high prices we pay for electricity is due to the price of fuel. The real cause is the high cost of electricity produced by inefficient peak power generators. If we built more conventional power plants, the price we pay for power would drop like a rock.
To produce 100% of California's electricity with nuclear power would require 24 San Onofre plants on 3 square miles of land. It would be available 24/7/365. The waste would decay to the level of the original uranium ore in about 150 years. Each coal-fired plant releases tons of uranium and thorium in to the atmosphere every year.
Most renewable power schemes don't scale well, meaning they can't realistically supply power to tens of millions of people. The erratic nature of wind and solar power means the utility will have to build smart grid to protect the power grid from damage.
When the wind speed at the wind farm drops from 15 mph to 12 mph, the utility may declare a 'power emergency'. It is not possible to ramp up conventional power plants quickly to compensate for the power loss. That means the utility needs to implement autoresponse, and turn off things in your home.
Smart grid will extend into our homes to monitor and control electrical devices. HomePlug technology will form the backbone of the 'Home Area Network', or HAN. Smart meters will be the modem/router. GE, IBM, Intel and others, are salivating over the new state-mandated market we all will pay for. A new computer power supply will put your computer on the HAN the moment it is plugged into the wall. Thus, your personal information could be stolen by hackers.
Is this worth the trouble? Shouldn't we stop this now?
I know this is only marginally constructive, but 'if politicians made the right decisions', the world would be a hell of a lot better off. If everyone got rid of their nukes, we could be a nuclear free world. If...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sirs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am mailing you from the Gathering area (Almahsher)-Jordan's division. I am searching for a job, i.e. a work (or a PhD or Masters course that comes with funding) within my field or outside it, something that can be a future investment. I am a hard worker; a person who looks forward to upgrade his position. Unfortunately my situation havent been blessed in establishing any career that provides a raising income for my own self in the area that I am staying in now, this is way I am betaken this step for a batter life and looking forward to moving on in my career so I can mow and establish a good life annuity that fits with my ambition. Please see the attached file for my C.V.
Looking forward to hear from you,
Mohammad zaher Alhabash
- Cheeping energy is something but rising the income living (i.e. way of life) in this material world unfortunately (as you can realize this word in English is driven from fortune) is everything.
- Clean means direction, direction means believes, believes doesn't in matter mean proofs; and here is the problem.
Interesting article – however to me it is somewhat overoptimistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst – I have a problem with the chart #4 in the media presentation of the article.
When clicking on the Solar icon there is a world map with the solar radiation showing up.
It lists the annual downward solar radiation in watts per square meter.
Now watt is a power unit – what does annual mean in this respect ?
For Germany the chart shows on an average 120 watts. Is this peak power at noon time in summer or what ?
The annual solar radiation input in northern Germany is about 1100 kilowatthours per square meter.
That is – with an efficiency of about 12% a solar panel of 1 squ.meter generates at best about
12% x 1100 kwh = 132 kwh per year.
An average 4 person household uses here about 3500 kwh per year. So it needs at least 3500 / 132 = 26 squ.meter
(a square 16 by 16 feet) on the roof for its electricity needs.
Plus short time back-up storage for the night time and long-time back-up storage storage for the winter time.
In case the year is somewhat low on solar input (the 1100 kwh are average solar input)
it needs also a back-up solution for the missing electricity – or he just has to save in dish washer usage etc.
So – back to my question : What do these annual watt numbers mean ?
Next problem here in Europe : We don't have here these large desert-like areas as the US has them.
There is a proposal to utilize the Sahara desert in northern Africa for setting up solar heating
and photovoltaic power plants (the Desertec initiative).
With large DC high-voltage lines the generated power would then be transferred to the European countries.
The problem is, that to our current import dependency on oil (the arab countries) and gas (Russia)
we are running then into an import dependeny for electricity from countries like Lybia, Algeria or Egypt.
And each electric power line has an on/off switch which can be used to blackmail the receiving end.
Another problem is wind : In Germany most of the favourable areas onshore are already covered with windmills.
But onshore the efficiency of our windmills is about 22% - that is – on a per-year basis
the rated power of a windmill of 1 Megawatt just delivers 0.22 MW.
The rated power itself is utlized about 15% on a per year basis.
There are grand plans to invest in off-shore wind parks – but up to now there are just 3 test windmills set up.
As those windparks are planned in water depths of 40 m and more (about 130 feet) the base structures in the water
to support those wind mills are really massive (900 tons of concrete).
In addition you need such structures to house the DC converter boxes that feed in into the high-voltage DC lines connecting to the shore.
In summary – these off-shore windparks are much more expensive than originally thought.
In fact, the offshore operating companies supposed to invest in these windparks are now afraid
that the proposed feed-in tariffs would not be sufficient.
And the water resources in middle Europe are pretty much utilized.
So – within the next 10 to 15 years we are back to coal (with CCS) and nuclear – bearing in mind,
that electro mobility will drive our electricity consumption up..
The article suggests that WWS will become economically competitive with present resources. I want to know how?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacobson and Delucchi talk about how the Wind, Water, Solar System is a technologically viable option but is not a politically viable one. What should we, as a country and more specifically our leaders in power, do in order to make it a more politically viable option?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find this report extremely encouraging; however, I have one main, large reservation: How can we expect the US government to overcome the vested interests of the fossil fuel-based industries? These industries are certainly not going to simply lie down and accept obsolescence without a fight, and that's a fight I find it hard to believe that they will not win, based off of history and common sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors state renewable sources (WWS) lead to about 30% lower energy needs. I understand that coal and other burning technologies lose lots of energy as waste heat. Are there other source of effeciency with WWS to be included? For example, I expect losses are much low for solar PV on a house's roof compared to a utility scale PV generated one hundred miles away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre the authors taking into account the expense, not only of building the plants and facilities necessary to generate electric energy, but also the infrastructure necessary to receive such energy? (i.e. housing, transportation, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe were excited to see that wind energy was so prominently featured in the article. People are reluctant to take wind energy seriously in terms of its potential for large-scale use and implementation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, we wish that the authors would address the social issues concerning ethanol and corn production, such as its effect on Mexican citizens as a food source.
How would we mobilize society to commit to this plan? The government isn't the only factor, an entire job force has to be trained, companies have to have incentive to change their industry, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a geologist working on and off in the energy industry for 34 years, I'm distured that Scientific American allows such a fluff piece to be published....and no fact checking to catch fundamental errors of mixing 'apples and orange'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisunits of measure. Errors are too numerous (and should e blatant to editors) to mention.
Scientific American meeds to return to science and leave 'boosterism' to other media.
As wonderful as this proposal sounds, is it really feasible by 2030? The cost implications are huge, and I have my reservations that consumers and the private market are going to be willing to make all the necessary changes by 2030.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe implementation can be done through economic incentives, government grants, regulations, research, trade policy, and government contracts. For instance, subsidies for infant alternative enrgy industries would help overcome steep start-up costs. The main obstacles include public opinion, lobbying groups, and time. The research is coming, but it requires more time to reach a point where it can achieve proper scale and competitive pricing. The market does an exceptionally good job of guiding the implementation of industrial change in America. The government can easily manipulate this for the good of the people with enough support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe think that this is a wonderful article. The WWS switchover is probably not politically feasible right now, but we believe that if a world leader took a strong leadership position in this movement, most people would jump on board and support this cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, there are quite a few financial barriers to the actual implementation of the plan (namely that many of the world's wealthiest people and groups have procured their wealth from fossil fuels), but once we get past these (perhaps they can switch their portfolios over to investing in green energy?) we should be fine.
Mexican citizens are a food source now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article ignores the fact that, for many countries in the world, switching to WWS energy is not realistic. Developing countries may not be able to afford to build solar and wind facilities, let alone convert all of their transportation and heating technologies to use WWS power. Political issues play a part as well. Many governments simply do not have the authority to implement such drastic changes in their nations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbe*** (oops?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, what errors? It seems a little unfair that you are so vehemently attacking this article without offering any actual examples of the "numerous" errors.
Thanks.
At a meeting at the Department of energy I was at last week I asked them about this article. Policy analysts said the feasibility of this proposal is very low and that too much is ignored in these types of scenarios to be taken seriously. Personally, I like that it makes us think about the issues and possible solutions, but I'd have to agree that getting 100% of our energy from WWS in 20 years is not going to happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also like to hear more about the environmental impacts of these renewables. I'm not against there use, but I think the green community does a disservice to itself by claiming some things to be infallible. For example, if 2% of land mass will be devoted to these structures, where will they be placed? Will construction harm specific habitats? How does tidal energy collection affect coastal communities? What about the major resource investment in dangerous or limited materials for the production of these technologies? I think the dialogue over green energy should be more open and honest.
These ideas are exciting and have a lot of potential to change the way we create energy. I like the idea of using solar when the wind is low and wind when the sun is down. However, this does not apply in all situations and locations, and would require a large power grid, as was stated in the article. I also think that hydroelectric power has more potential than it was given credit for. Tidal and wave energy do not give a very large quantity of energy compared to a hydroelectric dam, and are not as controllable (you can open the spillway when energy demand is high and close it when low). I am very interested in this development of WWS energy and am impressed by the full-scale plan that was laid out to accomplish the goals. Thank you for your article!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the major problem. As of right now, the private market is very comfortable with cheap gas. I highly doubt it'll be willing to pay $4/gal so as to encourage new resources, considering the recession we're in. Given the straight facts of today, this energy policy probably won't be underway until at least 2014
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that this is a great idea in principle, but I cannot see how the industry and consumers will willingly change to these new fuel sources. I assume that the government will need to offer significant incentives to industry and consumers in order to bring about this change. How will the government afford to provide incentives if it is already buckling under the cost of making the changes to the nation's infrastructure? Perhaps if global warming were viewed as an imminent and serious threat to Americans' way of life, as in the WWII and the Interstate Highway System examples, extreme change could be more feasible. With the current state of public opinion I am not optimistic about the probability of these changes being supported without massively expensive government incentives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstalled nuclear power only supplies 6% of world energy. At present rates, uranium supplies will fail in 70 years. Nuclear generators cannot follow demand, as they are only stable at low turnover, so gas, oil or coal-fired power stations have to take over, producing CO2!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for hydrogen cars, the technology is decades old. See:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=sp%c3%A9cial:livre&bookcmd=download&collection id=f854cc50a51567f4&writer=r1&return togazog%c3%A8ne
The first cars ran on hydrogen distilled from wood!
You are right nuclear reactors supply a stable electricity base load and they cannot adapt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquickly to a changing electricity demand.
But in a WWS scenario the situation is worse because you have to provide both
for changing electricity input (depending on changing wind and solar radiation input)
and also for varying demand.
Mass produced nuclear power is so cheap- far cheaper than fossil fuels - that it doesn't really need to follow load. However, nuclear produced methane and electric car charging would be ideal uses for off peak nukes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith modern efficient generation 3.5 reactors able to use reprocessed and thorium fuels, a huge eighty year current supply of natural uranium and orders of magnitude more efficient fast breeder reactors like Sandia and Toshiba's new designs there is sufficient nuclear fission fuel to last hundreds of years. Thorium is five times as abundant as uranium. Old generation nuclear waste is used as fuel for gen Iv reactors eliminating the waste problem.
The province of Canada I live in is a major oil and gas producer. there has een extensive study of the cost of energy after infrastructure and fuel use is accounted for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe use coal to produce most electrical energy as it is about 60% the cost of oil or gas . Studies of nuclear energy put it at about 2.6 times the cost of coal (and no guarantees of no cost over runs). Wind energy comes in at aout 9 times the cost of coal.
One can make rational arguments for green energies, nuclear, etc. but polyanish economic benefits have no credibility. Benefits, if any, need to be rooted in the real world.
I take your point but in addition to energy now, nutrient sustainability needs consideration. In much of the northeastern forest, a depletion of calcium threatens to undermine the potential of forestry; most dangerous is a whole tree harvesting which removes twice the calcium of a normal forestry operation. Biomass needs and whole tree chipping could lead to forests that such up less CO2 because they are now limited by soils depleted in calcium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if we grow perennial grasses in waste areas for cellulosics and fertilized these with human waste.
Nick Hill
That Alberta study uses the current cost for onesey and twosey nuke builds every ten years or so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern American designed AP1000 reactors now being built in China are coming out at $1.7 billion a gigawatt 42 month construction process, one quarter the cost of lawyered over, overregulated, over banked, corrupt, private power American AP-1000 builds taking 10 years to get fired up.
Mass produced AP-1000's are projected to cost less than $1 billion a gigawatt far cheaper than coal and 10% of any renewable alternative.
The proposal should be studied further, but is a good start of something that requires, as the authors indicate : drastic changes in the political arena to be execute without dilations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose drastic changes in regard to new sources of energy production, as substantial changes in consumption must come as soon as possible.
Close the eyes to those two realities in highly developed countries (USA in the lead) is trying to maintain unsustainable energy models and the consequences will be paid lather at unimaginable costs.
This proposal should be studied further, but is a good start of something that requires, as the authors indicate : drastic changes in the political arena to to execute without dilations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose drastic changes in regard to new sources of energy production, as substantial changes in consumption shall come as soon as possible.
Close the eyes to those two realities in highly developed countries (USA in the lead) is trying to maintain unsustainable energy models and the consequences will be paid lather at unimaginable costs.
The proposal should be studied further, but is a good start of something that requires, as the authors indicate : drastic changes in the political arena to to execute without dilations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose drastic changes in regard to new sources of energy production, as substantial changes in consumption shall come as soon as possible.
Close the eyes to those two realities in highly developed countries (USA in the lead) is trying to maintain unsustainable energy models and the consequences will be paid lather at unimaginable costs.
I'd like to invite you to see my blog: www.ideasforagreenplanet.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar and wind power cannot supply a baseload. In Victoria and NSW, Australia recently, these power sources failed. NSW (primarily) underwent a severe dust storm which coated the photo-voltaics ans South Australia and Victoria had calm conditions, no solar power AND no wind power. The geothermal projects in South Australia have failed due to cracks in the system and the ground. $5b granted to Flim Fammery's company to drill a new hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy late father always promoted the use of tidal power, at least this can supply a base load as well as being Irish, I mean green. Currently, for a reliable base load, go coal, gas or nuke.
Besides, CO2 makes up less than 3% of the so called greenhouse gases. Dihydrogen Monoxide, also a "greenhouse" substance counts for 96%. May be C has a bad wrap and we sould be crucifying H and O?
RRV
Solar and wind power cannot supply a baseload. In Victoria and NSW, Australia recently, these power sources failed. NSW (primarily) underwent a severe dust storm which coated the photo-voltaics ans South Australia and Victoria had calm conditions, no solar power AND no wind power. The geothermal projects in South Australia have failed due to cracks in the system and the ground. $5b granted to Flim Fammery's company to drill a new hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy late father always promoted the use of tidal power, at least this can supply a base load as well as being Irish, I mean green. Currently, for a reliable base load, go coal, gas or nuke.
Besides, CO2 makes up less than 3% of the so called greenhouse gases. Dihydrogen Monoxide, also a "greenhouse" substance counts for 96%. May be C has a bad wrap and we sould be crucifying H and O?
RRV
I agree we need to explore all forms of energy, however I don't see the research toward what the long term affects of these strategies will produce. Any study into the natural world shows us that all systems function together and changes to one part has effect on all parts. In harnessing wind energy we disturb the energy that carries weather fronts which in turn may cause areas of drought. Solar power is great however if we absorb all that energy and the suns rays are not reflected back what change will that bring in our world temps. Wave power ok but what change will happen in those tidal areas will it change the ecosystem causing species decline. I think if we have learned anything it is that this planet of ours has evolved to its present state without our interference, the balance in nature has been functioning for billions of years to think we can make substantial changes to this and not expect serious consequences is insane. Our use of fossil fuels only reinforces this thought. It is hard to predict what will happen if we push forward with technologies stated in this article but thinking there will be no adverse affects is short sighted.The old saying there is no free lunch comes to mind. This maybe a good idea for some of our greater minds to consider of course there is no money set aside for it and the industry may not want to see the results or be trusted to present the results regardless of what they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand what makes you think i am going to believe a scientist on any issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisagain i ask.....why should i believe any scientists? there is no more credibility amongst there ranks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a minor point, what is wrong with warming? The most dangerous climate for life and ecological changes such as desertification is cooling. Historically, ice ages and mini ice ages are detrimental to life (as we know it). Warm periods generally lead to an abundance of food etc. After all, what do horticulturists do to promote growth in plants, fruit and veges? The put them in a greenhouse and enrich the atmosphere with CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as sea level rise is concerned, how come it is only rising in Kiribati and Mauritius? I thought water sought its own level and it hasn't risen in Deception Bay, Queensland, or Redcliffe, or the Gold Coast or the Sunshine Coast or Sydney Harour or Port Phillip Bay etc.
Maybe if we nuke Mauritius and Kiribati, no more sea level rise!
Oh well, world Marxism is here, like it or lump it.
RRV
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken
Hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am planning to built a new home and could use all the advice I can get regarding green , sustainable plan, energy source. If you have a few web sites, literatatur I would appreciate if you can share tham with me.
Csaba
I liked the presentation style here. I also liked the links to more detailed information. I especially liked seeing the curve of power usage over the course of a day: I had been trying to find this for some time with no luck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, this definitely looks somewhat biased. The authors minimized the problems and overstated the advantages with green technology. While I am very much a green enthusiast, I do not think this helps the situation. There is obviously too much B.S. already going around on this subject. (Just look at some of the comments!)
The problem, I think, is that the authors are promoting their research projects and are not exactly unbiased. What I would really love to see from S.A. is an independently-authored article that takes an honest looks at the problems and present and near future possibilities of green technology.
There are a number of anomalies in this report for example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Geothermal is not a WWS energy source, should be WWSG.
2. WWSG produces thermal or electrical energy as primary commodity, possibility hydrogen as secondary; neither is really suitable for flying or shipping.
3. Enough known Lithium reserves (excluding Li in oceans) for ~1.5Bn BEVs about 50% more than at present (ref Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air by David MacKay - free online at www.WithoutHotAir.com - ecellent read).
4. Big numbers-1: ~800,000 WWII aircraft in 6 years. 5MW W-T (wind turbine) ~$3M, Spitfire at todays prices ~$500K (�12,600 in 1939) therefore if say 4 WWII planes equate to a 5MW W-T then 800,000 WWII aircraft = 200,000 W-T in 6 years, or 3.8M W-T in 114 years!
5. Big numbers-2: 47,000miles of highway in 35years. Assume 1sq-m solar panel requires same resources as 1 sq-m of highway and highway 20m (66ft) wide average. Total area ~1.5Bn sq-m. CPV in hot sunny places (Nevada, Sahara) could yield ~120W/m2 of panel (average, possibly a bit more) therefore yearly install = (1.5Bn x 120)/35 = 5.1GW/yr ~100GW in 20y, ,i.e. 5TW in 20y requires ~ 50x resources to build US highway.
Incidentally Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air spends some time discussing big numbers.
Dont get me wrong, Im fully behind WWS (and G), but I also I believe we will need a lot of energy storage to cope with unpredictable RE (renewable energy) sources, the fact that the wind often blows when the sun aint shining cant be relied on, overcast calm days in winter when supply is low and demand high could cause real problems unless the supergrid is global as hydro will not be sufficient to fill the gap if both wind and sun have sustained low output. It is also highly likely that we will still require a moderate amount of chemical (liquid or possibly solid) fuels particularly for aviation and shipping. I also think we are capable of doing this, particularly if we could spend the resources required for fighting terrorists etc. on the problem and avoid trying to compare the magnitude of the challenge against past achievement
How many trillions of USD have the world economies spent (or will spend/guarantee) bailing out the financial gambling of the world's megabanks? 10 trillion? 20 trillion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCost is no issue when it comes to saving the skins of the world's wealthiest investors, but when it comes to actually doing something good for society as a whole, the well is suddenly *bone* dry.
To those that claim the bank bailouts were done to prevent economic collapse:
The banks are not really lending that much are they? So hasn't "credit availability" collapsed anyway (esp to small businesses)? Hasn't the economy actually collapsed for the additional tens of millions worldwide that are now unemployed or underemployed?
Anyway, the real point is "where there is a will, there is a way". It "just" has to be the will of humanity to do it. I think the robber barons (oil + financial industry) are too busy robbing and the masses are too busy mobbing (killing each other for religious/patriotism reasons (Middle East) ) for renewable energy to be realized in the near future.
Why do you see $8/kw for Nuke as expensive, but $100/kw for batteries cheap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
Dear Sir and Staff 6 May 2009
While your efforts at energy conservation are applauded, we are aware of certain political realities that inhibit you from proposing optimal solutions. The following describes an energy source, wind turbine farms, with construction schedules that achieves US energy independence in the first ten years of its implementation and makes the United States carbon free in the following thirty years; it pays for itself, and underwrites future economic and cultural success. No new technology is required: leadership is. Your statement of policy describing the following will turn on this program. The basics are: US will stop burning oil in 10-years, renewable, carbon free, electrical power will be delivered and used first, grid construction will be by the Federal Government to be paid for by consumers, and transitions will be enforced with incentives.
The cornerstone of achieving the ten year goal of energy independence is to turn away from burning too valuable and expensive oil to subsidizing carbon free electrical power sources at two cents per kilowatt hour at program start diminishing to zero at the tenth year end. Motor fuel will be generated from carbon free electrical power. The goals of such a program are so far sweeping as to compare favorably with the man-on-the-moon initiatives of an earlier period. But the difference is this program pays for itself and contributes significantly to building a stronger US economy. Seizing the moment now is vital since this program is part of a large taxpayer-free economic stimulus; world oil production has peaked; world carbon dioxide emissions far exceed tolerance; and oil as feedstock for wind turbine manufacturing is available at this moment at lower prices.
Oil is too valuable to burn and coal costs too much in environmental loading to burn. Compared with implementing alternative energy sources, expenditures to reduce coals environmental impact or load will be dead end. Developing the means at full scale to scrub stack gasses of carbon dioxide, separating it from the reagent and then pump sequestering it underground would be a major development expense, a major increase in plant construction cost, operating costs, and plant energy consumption. Reliability problems with the carbon dioxide sequestering equipment would require plant operation be enabled using conventional (no carbon dioxide sequestering) exhaust. For cost and power demand reasons it is expected that much of the time plant operation will not be clean. Development effort applied to coal should be confined to making coal an efficient feedstock for pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, rubber, fiber, adhesives, resins, and explosives. In these applications coal becomes part of materials with high value compared with its value as a fuel with a high environmental load/cost; carbon dioxide sequestering from these processes can be rigorous.
The following is based on meeting energy generation objectives using wind turbines and solar voltaic panels. In the following the calculations are based on only production from wind turbines. Production from solar voltaic panels will be additive and accommodate growth in US energy demand or diminish the calendar time to meet objectives, thus making this planning conservative. It is intended that start-up power production subsidies would be applied to wind and solar equally. There should be no hardware subsidies.
Disaster avoidance demands US implement a carbon free, renewable, energy system on an emergency basis. Threats are: 1 - World population is increasing with increasing use of energy. 2 - World carbon dioxide emissions are increasing with population increase; this is 4.1 tonnes annually per capita now. 3 - World temperature is increasing with climate changes as indicated by all measurements and observations at rates that exceed analytical predictions. 4 - Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is at 380 ppmv and continuously increasing; this is 100 ppmv, 36%, above the level where Earths climate has been stable for 40,000-years. 5 - Earths carbon dioxide sequesters, the seas and tundra, are being damaged; tundra is melting, then rots, giving off methane and carbon dioxide gasses; the seas are warming and becoming acidic affecting the calcium carbonate shell forming sea life negatively; other negative changes are operating affecting the sea food chain. 6 The US needs a durable stimulus program that does not build debt but rather improves tax revenue, reduces negative trade balance and improves living standard.
There will be a lot more warming and climate change, even if atmospheric carbon dioxide stays at the present value, since it takes a very long time to warm the seas. The world must get away from all carbon-based fuels now. There is no scientific basis for arguments supporting tolerance of atmospheric carbon dioxide higher than 380 ppmv.
The short time, critical reason to implement a properly scaled solution to the US energy system is that world oil production peaked, a geologic fact, not political concept, in 2005 at about 85 million barrels per day; world demand peaked at about 86 million barrels per day so oil price headed up towards economic unsupportability, and international economic competition for oil reserves became intense. World recession reduced demand, price got reasonable and all gets back to business as usual. By the time world recession abates and oil demand gets back to normal levels prices will be very high and there will be supply interruptions. By 2020 world oil production will be about 15 million barrels per day less than the 2005 peak. When people get into survival mode from inadequate motor fuel for work commute, food production and distribution, chaos results in cities all over the US making social repair impossible.
Termination of the US import of 13 million barrels of oil per day is possible by using the energy of wind turbines to replace all of the energy of import oil; 13 million barrels per day is required to make the 160 BILLION gallons of motor fuel used annually in the US. The energy needed is that to replace the motor fuel made from oil with motor fuel made by electrolyzing hydrogen gas fuel from water using wind energy.
Wind power must provide the energy to make 160 BILLION gallons of motor fuel used annually in the US. It takes 40 kWh to make one gallon of gasoline energy equivalent in hydrogen gas fuel. At 40% up time for each turbine this takes 507,000 3.6-megawatt wind turbines located on some of the 2 million square miles of windy region in the US, all grid connected with adequate supply to major population centers. Since this is a national system, federal government builds grids and recovers costs by charging $0.001 per kWh moved. Landowners will welcome the turbines and grid lines on their lands because of the $15,000+ royalties paid annually per turbine to be based on power output.
One 3.6-megawatt capacity wind turbine makes 12,600,000 kWh per year. The numbers are 3,600 x 24 x 365 x 0.4 = 12,600,000 kWh per year. The unfamiliar number, 0.4, is the up-time fraction for the turbine and is considered conservative meaning that the real up-time is expected to be higher than that. Some wind turbine sites have up times at 80+%. 3,600 is the turbine capacity rating in kilowatts.
At high manufacturing rates turbine costs about $1.00 per watt or $3.6 million each running. This money at 5% costs $180,000 per year. Add $120,000 for depreciation, maintenance, royalty, and insurance the cost is $300,000 per year. Sell the electrical power output for $0.06 per kWh gives $756,000 revenue per year so the investor gets 5% on his investment and has $456,000 to reinvest per year. The raw production cost is $0.024 per kWh.
To match the loss timing in world oil production, the 507,000-turbine system has to be completed in 10 years. This requires 975 be contracted with land owners, grids installed, foundations built, turbines transported-assembled-made operational, and grid connected PER WEEK.
When the system is complete in 10 years, it will look like a 730,000-megawatt (730 gigawatt) capacity electrical power generating plant that is up 24/7. This plants electrical power production is 6,400,000 gigawatt hours per year or 64,000 giga kilowatt hours per year. This is the equivalent of 730 1-gigawatt capacity coal plants or 243 3-gigawatt capacity, Palo Verde sized, nuclear plants. The difference is that wind turbines use no fuel, use no water, have no emissions, have no ash, require little operational labor, require little land, produce at less than $0.03 per kWh, and require no motor transport since their product is transported in wires at the speed of light.
The 507,000-turbine system will be distributed over lands extending from Texas to the Canadian border and coastal regions generally. Its connecting grid receives power from individually controlled turbines and matches it with demands at all load points while compensating for regional low wind speeds, storms and the like. Meteorological information and load histories enhance control of the grid.
Wind energy is used to electrolyze hydrogen gas fuel from water to meet fuel demands and to store surplus fuel when excess power generation is available. This fuel powers Combined Cycle Gas Turbine electrical power generating plants that can be brought on line quickly to supply momentary peaks in demand or emergencies. Hydrogen fuelled CCGT plants are carbon free.
Hydrogen gas fuel is made at points of sale or at homes. Hydrogen gas fuel can be produced at any location that has water and electricity. Everything that runs on fossil fuels will run on hydrogen with minor modification. Hydrogen gas fuel has three times the energy of gasoline per pound and is safer to use since it doesnt puddle and burn when spilled. Aircraft fuelled with hydrogen will have lower take-off weight than if kerosene is used for the same flight parameters. Airlines will enjoy business based on low fuel cost with stable prices determined domestically.
New technology is not required. Continuing technical development typical of need to improve earnings will occur. Siemens, Vestas, Iberdrola, General Electric and other manufacturers have 3.6-megawatt wind turbines in series production with asynchronous controllers (advanced controls for turbine life, energy capture, and grid power quality advantages) operational in wind farms. There are no problems with manufacturing or manufacturing rate. Wind turbines are made in factories and assembled from modules on site. Tooling the 975 blade manufacturing lines each capable of making 3 blades per week is a big deal; doing this in one year requires making 19 blade tooling sets PER WEEK.
High rate manufacturing is what US does. During WW II, 442 foot long, 56 foot beam, 4,500 ton empty, 11,000 ton capacity ocean going freighters were made in one shipyard at the rate of one every 46 days. The B-24 bomber was a 41,000-pound empty weight, 7,200 HP, 200 mile per hour, 12,000-pound bomb load aircraft made on one production line at the rate of one every 63 minutes. The B-24 cost $254,000 each from standard manufacture and $137,000 each in high production. These production efforts were done with 1940s technology.
Wind turbine operation is profitable so government subsidy is required only to enhance start-up. This is a $240 BILLION annual industrial effort with a 40+ year life. The first 10 years replaces all of the energy represented by imported oil; this is 25% of US emissions. The next 30 years replaces all US energy use with wind generated electrical power.
At the end of the import oil replacement phase, the first 10-year program, annual US carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by 1.63 BILLION tonnes; in the next 30 years US emissions will be reduced by an additional 4.87 BILLION tonnes to a practical zero emissions level.
Side benefits are: 1 - This program and its aggressive schedule has a magnum stimulus effect. It is a non-dead-end $240 BILLION annual industrial effort. This is 4 million $60,000 annual salary plus benefits jobs in a wide range of skills generally available.
2 - Carbon emissions of US are cut by 25% in the first 10 years eliminating carbon cap and trade policy need, uncertainties and politics. By 2050 the US will have essentially zero carbon emissions.
3 - Terror threat from extremists is minimized since the US will not be seen as controlling the resources of other nations; no oil will be imported.
4 The need to participate further in oil wars is eliminated. World oil production peaked in 2005 and world production will again be less than demand by the time world economy returns to normal. National competition for diminishing world oil supply will be extreme. Such expenditures are non-productive since the world oil resource is being exhausted.
5 - The wind turbine production capacity available at the end of the first 10-year phase will be able to replace all US fossil fuel energy generation in the 30 years starting at the end of that program, 2020 to 2050, and hence eliminate all US carbon emissions. The entire US energy system will then be essentially carbon free. Costs will be stable, determined domestically, and low. Carbon cap and trade politics are obsolete.
6 - Putting wind turbine blade factories in the windy corn states replaces all the corn ethanol jobs, and minimizes turbine blade transportation costs.
Corn-ethanol manufacture is a dead end assault on the ecology and economy of the US. It is a fossil fuel based, taxpayer funded jobs program that makes subsidized ethanol from subsidized corn at a huge energy deficit and a high environmental load, with tariff market protection, while destabilizing the world food market.
7 Providing carbon free energy to the US consumer at a very low, domestically controlled stable price supporting economic development represents a real advance in our living standard and US competitiveness in the world. The cost of wind power is less than 3-cents per kilowatt hour.
8 - When world economies return to normal oil prices will soar since in 2020 world oil production will be about 15 million barrels per day less than the 2005 peak. Eliminating US imports at a future cost of about $260 per barrel for 13 million barrels per day reduces negative trade balance by $3.4 BILLION per DAY. This assumes 13+ million barrels per day would still be available to the US from the world market. These dollars stay in the US.
9 The program represents a farm subsidy independent of food production since turbine royalties will be about $15,000 annually each to the farmland owner paid for by turbine electrical power production. The farmland stays in production.
10 The future economic level enabled by available, stable low price, carbon free energy will generate a tax base permitting pay-off of the current very high debt.
11 Elimination of all US carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil carbon based fuels in 40 years meets current national objectives. US emissions are currently 25% of world carbon dioxide emissions. Elimination of this is a significant contribution to world effort to avoid further, or total, destruction of Earths life support systems.
12 The program achieves the objective given to DOE at its formation in 1977 of reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
The above is a description of an energy source construction solving environmental and supply problems that achieves energy independence in the first 10-years and makes the US carbon free in the following 30 years. It is practical; it is a campaign with visible progress that people will get behind, and it underwrites future US economic and cultural success. New technology is not required, leadership is.
Additional information is available.
Please
John Baird 10177 E Floriade Dr Scottsdale AZ 85260 bardjoh@qwest.net
Current "Windfarms" are worse than doing nothing, since the total quantity of energy returned over their reasonably expectable lifespan is merely a fraction of that required to replace them. There are two main reasons for this which I shal be glad to state if anyone should ask, suffice to say here that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) the cost of facing any given area of weather is a necklace-shaped function of (log) SIZE of Turbine-Alternator Devices - TADs - deployed
2) The mode of operation - constant revs - progressively wastes the higher winds producing an output pretty-much "pro-rata" with windspeed, as opposed to the "cubic" relationship characteric if the "constant pitch - revs varying to suit windspeed" mode of operation.
3) What Mr. Betz reasoned-out way back when. 1/3 of total k.e. taken from wind is absolute max possible with simple rotor placed in the wind.
Meanwhile, it is readily possible to achieve many percent p.a. of cost returned from a sensible design - of about the lowest cost SIZE - which is around one metre diameter. Just under this and the gearbox disappears !
bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom
Deal with what ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must invest our time sensibly. It's too late for college, and probably wouldn't help that lot anyway. Sort it out and try to get to physical reality rather than jargon and bullshit.
But have you any credentials in these fields whatsoever ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as soon as you make the first cheap fuel-cell !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry "fool-cell ?"
Some interesting stuff ! As you say, regarding "Wind". I would take it further - whilst qualifying it to "Modern Wind" - and say that it is actually of negative economic benefit. This is brought-about by the fact that the promoters either don't yet know, or ignore, the facts that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The cost of facing any given area of wind is a necklace-shaped function of (log) physical SIZE of the Turbine Alternator Devices deployed, the lowest cost being with sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around One metre diameter !! Just under this and the gearbox disappears !
2) The "Constant revs' mode of operation progressively wastes the higher winds, making the power taken pretty-much "pro-rata" with windspeed. The other possible mode, "Revs to suit wind - Constant pitch" results in a "cubic relationship, because it uses high winds effectively.
3) And of course there is what Mr. Betz reasoned-out way-back regarding the way in which air is free to flow around any object placed across its direction of travel. This shows that the maximum possible fraction of its total k.e. that can possibly transfer to a simple (un-"ducted") rotor, is One Third. If the rotor is fitted upwind and downwind with suitably-shaped air-passage, things are quite different, because the situation is different, and a transfer of around 75% can be demonstrated.
I hadn't thought of the implications of low-grade ? ethanol - containing water, of course ! - in rusting. Yes, problems for mild-steel.
And right - since when was "shade" a problem in Spain and Africa ! Maybe it would attract DR Congo rebels ?
Dear Superheat,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI build a wind energy system based upon a very successful "ducted fan" direct driving an alternator, but don't be deceived, it's only "simple' after about 20 years and a computer to finish it ! The thing readily returns several % p.a. of cost, which, (the 5%, that is) is about 50 x that of "modern windfarms" - which are banal.
It's good to hear - even if simply another voice in the wilderness - what you were saying regarding Hydro. To extend upon that, I feel sure - having done significant successful work in turbines - that hydro doesn't have to be yet another environMental horror (hmm - those "windfarms ) because huge pressure is not required for a sensibly designed turbine. A few metres is totally perfect, and there is then multitudinous small drops insted of one Almighty one !! Current designs appear to be based more upon psychology/psychiatry ? than physics. To be fair, water and metal are not aware, and therefore the former "sciences" aren't really helping !
Regarding the old "Lead-acid", convenient as it can look, would someone please convince me of its longevity and thereby, sustainability ? Credo in "pumped storage" !
It's something I have noticed that, the less people actually DO about something, the more they feel that they know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent "Windfarm technology", for instance, provides only a fraction of the energy required to replace it.
If only dreams - and essays - could be converted to kW-hrs, you would be all we need !
Your data is highly optimistic. For example in the article you have a diagram showing how energy demand can be met at different times of the day mixing wind and solar together. This will only work at the best of times i.e. in California in the summer. What happens in the winter or for northern latitudes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso for wind you are using a power factor over 30%. While this may be possible (doubtful as many of the best sites for wind are already in use and their number will only diminish) the size it is not the entire picture. Much of this energy will be created at unusable times meaning that real used lower factors are generally lower. That is why even though Denmark can effectively and easily export much of their excess wind energy their electricity prices are the highest in Europe. Wind in its current form generates a lot of energy that the Danes do not use. Sroeage of this energy is the key that they are missing.
I also find that your spacing calculations are somewhat optimistic for a 5 MW turbine network. But even considering that amount of construction will be similar to building every building on Earth we currently have again in terms of area required. The infrastructure stain in this is enormous.
Further what about transmission losses. You state that you could connect different farms 100's of kms away but do not include the number of substations that would be required to do this. Further transmission losses would be larger as this system compared to conventional systems is dispersed and transmission lines cannot be easily consolidated into one line without many substations (unless superconductors are made cheaply).
Your plan needs to include two words; storage and infastructure. Without these there is no point in say useless things like oh we build more than that in cars etc. Your study is what is wrong withg many environmentalists; not facing up to the complete task but instead subsitiuting buzz sentences like that just listed.
Hey, something is missing from the wind map above, I live in Uruguay (South America) and the wind is stronger than posted there. The Uruguayan wind altas made by the local energy department shows areas with annual average above 10m/s along the coast. Wind parks installed there are performing accordingly with capacity factors above 40%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease email bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom, if you are really interested in wind-energy systems that pay for themselves. Current (80m high) "technology" returns during its lifetime only a fraction of the energy required to replace it. Maybe it is not quite this bad on the Uraguay coast, but the fact is that a sensible design - of the most economic SIZE - does around 50 x as much in the same wind. Thanks for the post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJens Stubbe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydropower is not a greenhouse energy polluting source. What are your sources? It can't be "actual" measurements of greenhouse gasses from hydro reservoirs as there is not even an accepted international standard for measuring greenhouse gasses from hydro reservoirs? Ontario hydro and Hydro Quebec, along with the Brazilian hydro utilities are currently working on "establishing" an acceptable standard.
Moreover, hydro power plants are more efficient than wind generators (90% efficiency vs wind generators 40% efficiency), have an availability of over 85% (you can get the energy when you need it), have Operation & Maintenance costs that are one tenth of wind generators, and last 75 to 100 years vs wind generators 20 years.
Your clear bias to wind generation is noted.
This is such an interesting interactive feature. The predictions and prescriptions for sustainable energy are reasonable and attainable by 2030. If you're looking to help in creating and promoting sustainable energies, check out http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has hundreds of case studies on emerging green technology and solar power. It's also the largest b2b green directory on the web.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, shipping hydrogen will work, but it doesn't replace the inherent efficiency of grid transmission, particularly in dense urban areas. Ship people, fuel & such for transport & hydrogen great for that, but there will always be a use for power grids, particularly well run interactive networks which reward every level of consumer & producer fairly. I can see the day when centralised distribution might be at an end & each home / factory / business will manage energy inputs & outputs just as we do budgetting in all other areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can imagine the day when interactive grid power will allow each household / business / factory to manage it's input & outputs & budget accordingly as part of usual finance. It could likely take over the role of centralised generators & foster a more stable & balanced renewable energy system. Governments will need to regulate in order to mandate acceptable & fair rewards for the market to then follow & enhance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see hydrogen replacing the grid praticularly for major built up urban centres, however I can imagine hydrogen forming the basis of long haul transport & particularly regional generation supply needs.
Brilliant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow easy is it to store, & transport Hydroen safely?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisraptordigits:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou noticed that as well?
This piece is so full of errors that I can't understand how it ever got published.
Hydrogen is very difficult to store as it requires tremendous pressure to achieve energy/storage value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also causes metal to fatigue quickly, becoming very brittle.
It seems to me that we need to start saying we can instead of we can't. Things change from the inside out so I think this issue needs to be addressed on the corporate,political and individual level. That's how the current system came into existence and that is how it can be changed. Instead of focusing solely on power plants focus on the individual home owners and provide retrofits for existing homes using the availability of renewable energy in their locations thus lessening the burden on the power plants. Attack this problem in both directions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow difficult, or easy is it to store Hydrogen Gas??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow difficult, or easy is it to store Hydrogen Gas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is now technology to store hydrogen. Check out the California Fuel Cell Partnership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are developing a solar powered electric generator that is more efficient than what is available now, allowing a lot of electricity from a small amount of solar. It should be able to continue producing electricity through several days of no sun. If we are doing this in our living room, surely there are many other inventors developing new technology to make transition possible. I just wish there was some help for the small inventor/business! We will need help when it comes time to start manufacturing our generator. We don't want to use venture capitalists because we want to produce them using a democratically run worker-owned cooperative. It sure would be nice if the government even recognized this sort of thing, but they don't even consider grants for small start-ups or inventors.
Many fail to understand that hydrogen is not an energy source, but rather an expensive and impractical fuel. The few cases where a safe liquid fuel is required, because of portability or high energy density requirements, may be addressed with plant oils and/or liquid fuels synthesized from renewable energy sources depending on the application.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy transportation is currently accomplished with electricity, and even though electricity is by far the most efficient method of transporting energy at this time, there is still much room for improvement. Investment in the electrical grid is overdue, regardless of how our electricity is generated or consumed. High voltage DC transmission, and/or a superconducting power backbone are more likely to help the country that a high cost hydrogen transportation network.
Why do I call it high cost? Understand that it is possible to transport hydrogen; however, there are several intrinsic problems with efficient transportation of H2 in either its gas or liquid form. Transporting H2 will never be as practical as transporting electricity. H2 gas has an exceedingly low density and requires pressurization and cryogenic refrigeration to maintain a liquid form. Fortunately, the losses in these precess alone almost guarantee that a hydrogen infrastructure will not be developed. H2 has huge potential for detonation, is dangerous when mixed with air at almost any ratio, leaks through just about everything, embrittles steel, and cryogenic hydrogen causes burns on contact. Any way you slice it, the hydrogen economy as envisioned by our former president is a non-starter, and provides only a distraction to development of the future electrical infrastructure that the country needs to remain competitive with the rest of the world.
Furthermore, how can anyone imagine that it would be any easier to get right-of-way to build a fragile, dangerous, and costly hydrogen pipeline than to acquire the right-of-way to put up proven electrical power lines?
Federal regulation of utilities currently promote investment in hydrocarbon based energy generation as opposed to efficient energy transportation. Access to this interstate energy transportation grid by small scale generators is regulated in such a manner as to discourage investment in distributed energy and preserves the entrenched centralized energy generation industry.
In the future, we will generate more electricity, and we will use more electricity. This infrastructure is critical to our comfort, our security, and our lives.
This is quite correct, nuclear technology deployed in the U.S is outdated, and was selected more for political reasons related to atomic weapon development than efficiency or effectiveness. Furthermore I believe that we will need to develop every clean energy technology to become energy independent (or even to meet our continuously growing electricity appetite), and I firmly believe that nuclear energy is far less polluting than the combustion of hydrocarbons. Had we developed these new reactor types instead of relying on 50 year old designs, we could be profiting from exporting this technology. The same is true of the other clean energy and renewable resources. We can either develop it now, profit from the investment, and from sale of the technology, or we can buy it from France, China, Brazil, and Malaysia as our global leadership continues to deteriorate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I am quite tired of picking up product and seeing Made in China, Made in Mexico. What are we going to make here in the United States? No one wants the ridiculously inefficient automobiles that we are building. Exporting democracy Bush/Cheney style doesn't appear to pay very well. It turns out that basing an economy on financial services may not be the answer. We had better invest in some real capitol, or this country is a lost cause. Obviously there remains much profit to be made in energy generation and delivery, including efficient transportation. Investment in a new renewable energy infrastructure as suggested by the authors is just the ticket. The entrenched energy interests and the anti-competitive legislation that they "lobby" for are the real challenges.
I believe that given the resources, the scientists, engineers, managers, carpenters, and construction workers of this once great country could easily transform our energy infrastructure as indicated. I know that we can build plug-in electric cars; however, there are hundreds of these shredded and buried. in the Arizona desert. Having the technology and resources to implement these changes is not the primary challenge. Market forces would normally enforce a good mix of wind, water, solar, nuclear, oil, and coal derived energy; however, federal subsidies paid to the entrenched industry, allowing free pollution of wind and water, and subsidizing security for the oil industry in the name of national interests has distorted the mix in favor of those industries who can best afford the “legislative process.”
If you refuse to believe the scientific community, then who are you going to believe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName some authority that has greater credibility than our scientists!
Perhaps we should let the board of Exxon Mobile make our decisions, congress? Or maybe we should follow the example of our former president, and just pray for answers?
So, who are you going to listen to for credible advice. Personally, I value the words of folks who publish in magazines which subscribe to the scientific method, like Scientific American, Nature, or the IEEE Spectrum.
Wind can be much cheaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep an eye on new technology.
Here is some information.
Also follow the links in the discription, the video is only the teaser.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJ1SwW4Mms
Joining the ROE caucuses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have started a Running on Empty (ROE) caucus of Washington State Democrats . We have also started a national and Earth/UN ROE caucus. The goal of this caucus is to bring more emphasis by our Party to the coming end of cheap oil and natural gas which will result in an extreme disaster.
To become a member of our caucus we require some more information from you. If you agree or basically agree with the following statements and you are a Democrat, then we will accept you into our caucus.
Note we don't get into HOW the population should be reduced. I think that is a question for civil society.
1. There are no sustainable energy sources that will rescue us at our current population levels.
2. Population reduction must be a part of any plan to rationally deal with peak oil (the end of cheap oil, natural gas, and coal), global climate change, biological/species decline, and natural resource depletion.
3. Global climate change will only be mitigated with extremely stringent emissions policies that reduce consumption rates and this must be done before fossil fuels are depleted.
4. Absent immediate attention to peak oil, our government and/or political system have no chance whatsoever to react soon enough to help us.
Books about Problem(s)
Richard Heinberg The Party's Over
Richard Heinberg Power down
James Kunstler The Long Emergency
Thom Hartmann Unequal Protection
David Korten Agenda for a New Economy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmptyDemocratCaucusWA/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROEearthUN/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmptyCaucusDemocratsUSA
Joining the ROE caucuses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have started a Running on Empty (ROE) caucus of Washington State Democrats . We have also started a national and Earth/UN ROE caucus. The goal of this caucus is to bring more emphasis by our Party to the coming end of cheap oil and natural gas which will result in an extreme disaster.
To become a member of our caucus we require some more information from you. If you agree or basically agree with the following statements and you are a Democrat, then we will accept you into our caucus.
Note we don't get into HOW the population should be reduced. I think that is a question for civil society.
1. There are no sustainable energy sources that will rescue us at our current population levels.
2. Population reduction must be a part of any plan to rationally deal with peak oil (the end of cheap oil, natural gas, and coal), global climate change, biological/species decline, and natural resource depletion.
3. Global climate change will only be mitigated with extremely stringent emissions policies that reduce consumption rates and this must be done before fossil fuels are depleted.
4. Absent immediate attention to peak oil, our government and/or political system have no chance whatsoever to react soon enough to help us.
Books about Problem(s)
Richard Heinberg The Party's Over
Richard Heinberg Power down
James Kunstler The Long Emergency
Thom Hartmann Unequal Protection
David Korten Agenda for a New Economy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmptyDemocratCaucusWA/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROEearthUN/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmptyCaucusDemocratsUSA
Can the corporations that have been recently defined by an extremist US Supreme Court as natural persons... save us? I don't think so. Then we have the believers in god and they believe it is ethcial to have as many kids as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntentional community of Non-believers-in-god
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#!/group.php?gid=279992478066
Non-believers-in-god Caucus of WA State Democrats
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269252840467#/group.php?gid=253470168285
SOME UNKNOWN HISTORY OF THE U.S.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeUnknownUSHistory/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeUnknownUSHistory/messages
well, I'm really impressed on the same land as us with the means to survive, I think this is very important to make but you have to see how these methods more cost environmentalists speaking nationally for countries like Mexico and thirteen worldist can also be employ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell, I'm really impressed on the same land as us with the means to survive, I think this is very important to make but you have to see how these methods more cost environmentalists speaking nationally for countries like Mexico and thirteen worldist can also be employed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the article, though I must say that to change our way of obtaining energy is going to be a bit complicated, since many(many people) are very stubborn as(like) to agree and to try to remedy the enormous hurt(damage) that we have caused to the planet. Certainly that to obtain everything proposed, was going a lot of time, since to obtain everything necessary budget is needed and that the leaders facilitate the process; but definitively when it is achieved, our style and quality of life were improving
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the article, though I must say that to change our way of obtaining energy is going to be a bit complicated, since many(many people) are very stubborn as(like) to agree and to try to remedy the enormous hurt(damage) that we have caused to the planet. Certainly that to obtain everything proposed, was going a lot of time, since to obtain everything necessary budget is needed and that the leaders facilitate the process; but definitively when it is achieved, our style and quality of life were improving
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with "The WWS Plan", I think that the systems are going to work, and politicians need to think about what they preffer: money or their lifes? We all have to contribuate to make that kind of change and accept the challenge, no matter how big it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne day we'll realize that we can't eat or drink money.
We all need to make conscience for taking care our environment, trying of stop making so much garbage and recycling the one that exists. I think that each of us needs to try to help our planet to stop the global warning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi agree with "The WWS PLan". I think that the systems are going to work out realy well, politicians just need to think more about what they prefer: money or their lifes?. We all also need to think about it, and we all need to be pacient to make a change and take the challenge, no matter how big it is. If we all contribuate our world could be better in 20 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother Utopian vision that glosses over the reality on the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does all this ideal electric power get transmitted around the country? The cost and time to build out the appropriate grid capacity are being ignored.
Dr. Criswell's Lunar Solar Power System actually IS capable of supplying the entire planet with electricity in short order - and wouldn't require massive new grid construction.
It can be built today, using 1990's technology.
Basically, ten years to build the first phase to the capacity of half the U.S. energy consumption, rapidly scalable beyond that, break even on the investment at 15 years. Cost per kilowatt - around one tenth of present rates.
http://lunarsolarpowersystem.blogspot.com is a good resource for links on this.
There was a great article on this in The Industrial Physicist Magazine back in 2003. Dr. Criswell is actually a working expert in the field.
We have started a Running on Empty (ROE) caucus of Washington State Democrats . We have also started a national and Earth/UN ROE caucus. The goal of this caucus is to bring more emphasis by our Party to the coming end of cheap oil and natural gas which will result in an extreme disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo become a member of our caucus we require some more information from you. If you agree or basically agree with the following statements and you are a Democrat, then we will accept you into our caucus.
Note we don't get into HOW the population should be reduced. I think that is a question for civil society.
1. There are no sustainable energy sources that will rescue us at our current population levels.
2. Population reduction must be a part of any plan to rationally deal with peak oil (the end of cheap oil, natural gas, and coal), global climate change, biological/species decline, and natural resource depletion.
3. Global climate change will only be mitigated with extremely stringent emissions policies that reduce consumption rates and this must be done before fossil fuels are depleted.
4. Our government and/or political system have no chance whatsoever to react soon enough to help us.
search facebook for our website/ we have 48 members : Democratic Party Running on Empty caucus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom April 2009 oil was about $40 per barrel, now it is $82 per barrel.
In April 2008 oil was about $140 per barrel.
We are never going to recover from the Very Great economic Depression we are in.
Join our Caucus, see our facebook webpage and join us. “ Democratic Party Running on Empty caucus “
We have started a Running on Empty (ROE) caucus of Washington State Democrats (48 members) We have also started a national and Earth/UN ROE caucus. The goal of this caucus is to bring more emphasis by our Party to the coming end of cheap oil and natural gas which will result in an extreme disaster.
To become a member of our caucus we require some more information from you. If you agree or basically agree with the following statements and you are a Democrat, then we will accept you into our caucus.
Note we don't get into HOW the population should be reduced. I think that is a question for civil society.
1. There are no sustainable energy sources that will rescue us at our current population levels.
2. Population reduction must be a part of any plan to rationally deal with peak oil (the end of cheap oil, natural gas, and coal), global climate change, biological/species decline, and natural resource depletion.
3. Global climate change will only be mitigated with extremely stringent emissions policies that reduce consumption rates and this must be done before fossil fuels are depleted.
4. Our government and/or political system have no chance whatsoever to react soon enough to help us
Right now, infrastructure providers are producing wind towers that can stand at 120 meters, with generators that are 75% smaller than the present standard, producing the same amount of power at 99% mechanical to electrical efficiency. Just imagine what we’ll be capable of in another 20 years!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this