Re: Al Gore and Winston Churchill. No, really.

On 2009-07-16, The BorgMan <me@xxxxxx> wrote:
Con Reeder <constance@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:slrnh5si8p.tbn.constance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


What they've given us...

Massive advances in fusion (none of which are theoretical - from a
theory standpoint fusion is well understood and requires no
fundamental discoveries, everything now is a case of details)

But nowhere near commercial exploitation.

Sure... and we may never get there. If you only fund research you know will
end in success, you'll never fund any research.

Exactly. Which is why mandating solar and wind isn't going to work.
We have had 50 years working on solar, and though there have been some
nice advances, we are nowhere near the point where we can even see
providing 20% of power with it. Not even close. And mandating that
we need to do that by 2018 won't do the job, either.



Proven the existence of quarks

Discoveries of previously unknown species

[snip admirable list of advances in those areas]

How many of these are commercially exploitable on an efficient basis?
(None of them are the major thing I am talking about, i.e. the holy
grail on storage and watts/acre efficiency).

There is no holy grail. There is no "one big thing" that is going to solve
the worlds energy issues. The solution is going to be a hodge-podge of
hundred of little efficiency advancements, conservation ideas, various
power sources, etc.

The Manhattan project and space programs you cited had no need to be
commercially exploitable.

Yet they produced thousands of discoveries which were commercially
exploitable.

Over time. But we were talking about crash projects to cause a massive
switchover from fossil fuels to other. It is not going to happen for
wind and solar.


Or for fossil fuels to actually have to pay for all their costs,
instead of pretending externalities don't exist.

Ah yes, but what are those externalities? That is the question.

Smog, ozone, cost of extraction, coal fly ash ponds drowning
communities, mountaintop removal, mercury filled fish in the midwest,
military adventures and middle east presence, and on and on...

Even if you assume C02 is good for us - there are piles of other
externalities that aren't currently being born by the
producers/consumers.

As would be the land use issues, waste, etc. of solar and wind
technologies. There are plenty of them. And the fewer watts per
acre produced, the more they accrue.

Of course. The idea that there is a magic solution out there with no
drawbacks or externalities is a fallacy people need to get over. There is
no "good", only "better" and "worse".

Now we are coming into sync. I agree. There is only one quick fix for
the kind of energy needs we want -- nuclear. And that is going to take
decades to reach the kind of reliance that France currently has.

Solar and wind can supplement, but pipe dreams that they will be
providing the majority of our needs are ridiculous at this point.


Both rely on a breakthrough in storage technology which even
the most optimistic forecast to be decades away from deployment.

Nope - it already exists. See pumped storage hydroelectric.


At what efficiency?

Pumped storage is basically as efficient at producing power as any
other hydroelectric type is.

Once you get the water pumped to its storage facility. In other words,
it is a net power consumer on a large scale.

Of course. ALL power storage (and generation for that matter) is a net
consumer of power. Thermodynamics requires it. As far as efficiency goes
for power storage solutions - pumped storage is a spectacularly good one,
and is technologically simple and well understood.


And what transmission cost?

Same as any other power plant.

Subject to the siting issues. Which is of course the problem -- wind
and solar are normally remote from the area where the power will be
used. And that isn't something that is going to change quickly. I
don't care how much money you throw at the problem.

Oh, we CAN change it quickly should we choose to do so. In fact - we need
to do so, regardless of our power sources. Our grid is teetering on the
edge of an imminent collapse as it exists today. Demand IS increasing.

And the type of long-distance transmission that is needed for wind
and solar is not going to make that any easier.

Nuclear and fossil fuels have a very efficient long-distance transmission
method -- you transport the fuel. And you store the energy in the fuel
as well.


What technical
breakthroughs are going to be made there?

None - because there aren't any needed. It's an existing power
storage technology that is used worldwide, has been in use for 30+
years, and works spectacularly for load balancing.

But is nowhere near being a primary source.

It isn't a SOURCE at all. It's a load balancing/storage technology to allow
you to deal with changes in demand or supply. It's basically a giant
mechanical battery.


I understand this. But you have to bring it to the location where it is
needed, or you run into the same transmission problems. We don't use
Columbian hydro energy in the Midwest, do we? Of course not.



We aren't anywhere near
exploiting that yet with costs even remotely nearing gas or coal.

Actually if Nanosolar actually fulfilled their deliveries last year -
at their claimed price point - they have generation cost similar to
natural gas (~$1/watt) which is still slightly worse than coal, but
not much.

But they haven't. And it won't surprise me if it becomes yet another
one in the long line of solar advances just over the horizon which
failed to materialize in any substantial way.


Actually they have. They've sold out their entire thin film production for
the last two years (supposedly at $1/watt) and have mad money doing so.
Whether they can ramp their production is hard to say - but they're
currently building two solar power plants in Germany, and claim to have all
their production sold for the next year...

Good on them. When they can ramp to the point that economical installation
becomes commonplace, things might change. But it is nowhere near proven
technology yet. When it is it should take over because of the one thing
that can really make it attractive -- cost.


I am an optimist that we will eventually get somewhere useful with
solar, but I sincerely doubt it will be by throwing government
money at it.

Basic scientific research turns no profit, but enables private corporations
to leverage it into money making products.

But not on a schedule.


Nuclear is great - but there is little need for research investment
in nuclear. The technology already exists, the expertise for building
already exists, etc. Our biggest problem with nuclear is that the
newest plants in the USA are all still first generation power plants
- all designed pre- Three Mile Island. When we move on to the 2nd/3rd
gen plants (see Japan, France) it'll be a huge leap.

And that is somewhere where government can help by trimming red tape.
And educating consumers, which I would hope could avoid some NIMBY.
Instead of condemning large tracts of land for inefficient wind
generation, it can condemn some locations

Wind generation in o way condemns land - most land in wind generation farms
is still perfectly usable for things like farming.

It isn't very nice for living on or working on, the noise is
maddening. And the number of high-wind-density sites that have low
population density, anywhere near where transmission is economical,
are limited indeed.

Bottom line is that there are many, many, unsolved challenges to making
wind and solar a viable widespread energy source. It will take decades
to iron those out.


It will certainly help, but long term it is absolutely necessary that
we find renewable alternatives to oil/gas/coal/nuclear.

Which will happen naturally as the costs of fossil fuel increase.

It will happen naturally, much like the Permian-Triassic extinction
happened naturally.

I am very optimistic that we will figure it out over time. But I
am certain that it won't be accomplished by the government mandating
it.

...and I'm certain that government funding and directing of basic research
in the area will help speed and ease the transition.


It will all help. But to mandate "50% emission decrease by 2050" is
insane. It would handicap the US economy greatly while depressing
the price of fossil fuels and making their use in non-complying
countries more attactive. The emissions get moved out of the US, and
the net effect on world "carbon footprint" is negligible.

That is EVEN IF emissions have anything to do with climate.



I am generally an optimist in all of this. We will muddle our way
through. But we will hurt ourselves and waste time if we try and
mandate the technology.

...and we will hurt ourselves and waste time if we don't. Hurting ourselves
and wasting time are inevitable. No matter the government mandates, we're
still talking about something operating at the fringes.

We can encourage but not decree. We have one big area where we can conserve
in the US, and that is transporation. It is the major thing we can do over
the next 20 years. That is why I was not bothered a bit when gas went over
$4.00 per gallon. Now that it is lower due to the recession, we should look
at taxing it up to that level again. Talk about mandating change -- that could
really do it. Then you would see not only some research, but some development.



It will cause overinvestment in technologies
that may fail, and suck away resources from other avenues like
nuclear.

So will the free market. It's inevitable. One shouldn't expect pure
perfection in government while being accepting of the same inefficiencies
in the market. The government is great for doing basic research which can
lead to profitable ventures, but has no profit incentive itself. Basic
science is never profitable, but it's the necessary base from which
profitable science springs - a necessary infrastructure if you will.

We agree then, in many ways. My problem is with mandating wind and
solar usage, which simply won't work. It will work when the technology
is there, and that won't happen on any schedule. It has the potential
to replace some of our power usage, but not much in the next 20 years.

There has been plenty of research in solar, and we have made quite a bit
of progress. But it is nowhere near a candidate to replace 20% of electricity
in the next two decades. Nuclear is easily capable of doing that.

And I am certain that the one thing that will really encourage it is
high fossil fuel prices. If the US reduces consumption too much, it just
transfers the usage to other places which will then have a competitive
advantage.

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Solar & Wind Energy
    ... Your best bet may be rooftop wind units. ... probably peaks in the winter when solar would be least effective. ... sobering conclusion about solar power using the currently- ... So if you've sized your panels based on peak power, ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Antarctic Cities
    ... How would you power it (apart from nuclear reactors, ... Could wind turbines keep you going through the ... Solar is out during winter, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Say, Larry
    ... I found this Maine Solar House on: ... Click on SOLAR DATA on the left panel to get what power they generated ... with a whole roof of solar panels, 4,200 watts of them! ... I'm not endorsing ANY wind generator product. ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Wind turbines
    ... This is comparable to a solar ... electricity and how tall your tower is," Stimmel said. ... A wind turbine for a 1,000-square-foot house would need to be 40- to ... There are a lot of variables and wind power will not be a good solution ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Books
    ... if a technology isn't yet perfect it is therefore a failure and shouldn't be pursued. ... not only are there solar thermal collectors but multilayer photovoltaic design can increase output while reducing cost. ... This one is just a baby and only supplies power to 80,000 homes at the moment but the next stage will provide all the power for the entire city of Seville. ... Some sunlight is older than other sunlight. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
Loading