THE Renewable Energy Thread (merged)

[pstarr]

I guess I'm able to hold two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time. No one is taking peak oil seriously (and as per Hirsch) and that is very bad news. On the other hand solutions seem so apparent, at least to me. So easy peasy.

While it is true that no amount of alt energy is going to power this consumer based society, or magically resupply the nation with abundant fresh water, arable land, cheap fish, or meaningful employment that does not mean that there are no solutions. They are all around us. But it will mean re-imagining what it means to be an Modern American. That's the problem.

[Graeme]

Yeah, here's an example:

How to make solar even more sustainable

Sure, solar power is greener than electricity from fossil fuel, but that doesn't guarantee that all solar panels are made sustainably. For corporations buying or investing in solar panels for their environmental benefits, it makes sense to keep track of the sustainability leaders -- and to be wary of the potential risks of associating with manufacturers with less sustainable practices.
The good news, though, is that many solar manufacturers are highly aware of the issue, according to a new report from San Francisco-based nonprofit As You Sow. The group, which advocates for environmental and social corporate responsibility, supports solar energy and put out the report – titled Clean & Green: Best Practices in Photovoltaics -- as a guide for investors, consumers and others.
“I was really pleased to see how much awareness there was,” said Amy Galland, the report’s author, adding that solar companies likely want to avoid the criticisms about sustainability that other industries have faced.

greenbiz

[vtsnowedin]

We used since the beginning of industrial civilisation 500 billions barrels of oil, aka half of world reserves. Those 500 billions barrels were made by nature in 500 millions of years, meaning it's a sun stock of half a billion years.
So we consumed on average since 1930 (since rate of extraction is actually in constant increase, if not exponential, until it reachs the peak) around 5 millions years of sun stock each year, aka around 14'000 years of sun energy a day!
From there, how the hell it's imaginable to run our civilisation -without even thinking about growth- on solar pannels which would return at best 1 day of energy for each day they are used?

We are about to experience a total collapse of industrial civilisation and massive die off. There is no such thing any more as businnes as usual.
As we hear on mainstream medias that "recovery" is here, oil skyrockets above 100$ a barrel. This is where recovery is an illusion. It's like willing to run faster than your shade. The truth is that never will we again recover from the first wave of peak oil which occured in the form of "subprimes" in 2007-2008.
A wiser question would be : "What can be preserved with far less fossil fuels?"

Major flaw in your argument here. The oil that was stored was only a tiny fraction of the solar energy that reached the planet over those millions of years. Nobody managing it and most was lost to evaporation and the lack of geologic trap structures to store it. What we can do with the sunlight that is reaching earth today is another question. We need most of it just to keep the climate stable and to grow our food. how much we can syphon off without causing a new ice age remains unclear. We could use all the excess that global warming has trapped here but is that enough to support six -seven -nine billion people?

[ian807]

On the other hand solutions seem so apparent, at least to me. So easy peasy.

It depends on your definition of solution. Quantitatively, there's nothing that we can implement that replaces 160 exajoules of energy input into society. Nothing. There are the inefficient solar collection schemes (algae, hydrogen cracking) and the less inefficient solar collection schemes (hydropower, wind) and the somewhat more direct solar collection schemes (solar panels and mirrors), but we have nothing that's as cheap and energy dense in large quantities as oil other than nuclear power, which too has both limits and problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil).

So the solutions are, "Use a lot less energy" and "get the transportation sector off liquid hydrocarbons" and "use the oil we've got to build decentralized energy production systems."

The problems, of course, are human. There's no political will to implement any of the obvious solutions. At all. Capitalism (the real world government) is like a bacteria colony. It reacts well to immediate stimuli, but doesn't think ahead 25 years, so there'll be no meaningful preparation for this problem except by small groups of individuals here and there, building sustainable communities, some of which may even survive societal deterioration.

[pstarr]

The United States contains 450 million acres of arable land for 300 million people. There. Food. Done. Add in a PV park 100 sq. mi* 100 sq. mi in the Southwest (attached to local grids with superconducting transmission lines) and you have your electricity. Done. Power. Next.

[ian807]

The United States contains 450 million acres of arable land for 300 million people.

The funny thing about arable land is that people like to to use the sunlight on it to grow food. That sort of defines "arable." You'd want to place your solar facilities on unarable land, which still might destroy the local ecology in some way, but that's the trade-off no matter what energy system you favor.

Add in a PV park 100 sq. mi* 100 sq. mi in the Southwest (attached to local grids with superconducting transmission lines) and you have your electricity. Done. Power. Next.

Oh, for a world with affordable superconducting transmission lines. Unfortunately, you have to build those and they take some power themselves just for temperature maintenance. Thousands of miles of supercooled materials, which would by necessity have to be buried underground, are neither technically nor economically trivial. If we ever get inexpensive, room-temperature superconductor wire, this may be feasible. Not before.

So, line loss is still a problem. New Mexico power isn't going to make it to Oregon. Perhaps to southern Colorado, but that's about it. Not that distributed solar power is bad, it'll just never replace oil in any significant way. Still, it might keep some lights on, some batteries charged, some electronics working, and so on.

[pstarr]

Somewhat playing the devil's advocate there. sorry. Montequest was so fond of identifying "solutions in isolation," myriad solutions to the peak oil problem that, while theoretically and even technically possible, would entail paradigm and lifestyle changes that are simply beyond the limited imagination of the American Consuming Public. So I kid a little, for fun.

[Graeme]

I kid you not:

Fact Sheet: 6 Things You Should Know About The Value Of Renewable Energy

Clean energy should play a central role in revitalizing our economy, putting Americans back to work, and keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation and growth. Recently a slew of misguided attacks on the merits of clean energy have exchanged petty partisanship for hard facts.

Here are the top six things you really need to know:

Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy

Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels

Clean energy improves grid reliability

Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels

Investments in clean energy are cost effective

Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy

Here are the supporting details:

thinkprogress

[sparky]

.
some very good comments ,
Sys1 solar production is definitely hammering the facts

As a though experiment , to avoid the old rut of truth we could think of a society with the same
global energy profile but with much less people in it

the bottom tier of scratch subsistence would be limited by the availability of fertile land

the middle tech would have to live like post communism Bulgarians

the top tier of 10 kw/h per person per day would have to be seriously shrunk

the best solar is to grow biomass , more land taken out of food production
corn for fuel would need more acreage since productivity would be low ,
that would means less acreage for the poorest to be fed from
costlier food means a drop in the standard of living , hence cheap labor
a small investment in security (armed goons) should keep things peachy

wind and hydro would be quite costly in time and lives ( the boulder dam cost hundreds of lives)
since safety is an industrial luxury , but with the drop in wages
the economy would switch to being labor intensive



It's doable , the critical point would be at what sustainable population number

[The Practician]

I guess I'm able to hold two contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time. No one is taking peak oil seriously (and as per Hirsch) and that is very bad news. On the other hand solutions seem so apparent, at least to me. So easy peasy.

While it is true that no amount of alt energy is going to power this consumer based society, or magically resupply the nation with abundant fresh water, arable land, cheap fish, or meaningful employment that does not mean that there are no solutions. They are all around us. But it will mean re-imagining what it means to be an Modern American. That's the problem.

They'll re-imagine it when they don't have a choice. I don't think it's worth "planning" for a worst case scenario, because its really just to hellish to bother with. I'm "prepping" for best case, where we slowly figure sh*it out amid much economic pain and strain, probably involving the dissolution of democracy as we know it. This is going to suck, I know, but I don't have any illusions about a house in the burbs with two kids and an SUV. I NEVER deserved that, and I'm not about to get all mad at the world because I can't have it now. The way I see it, If you want to insist on the "american dream" this late in the game, you deserve whats coming to you, and I will not feel shame for the smug self-satisfaction I derive from your failure. It's one of the few pleasures left to the sane.

Honestly though, Things are going a lot better than a lot of people have expected. People have the bad habit of reducing all human interaction to the level of of an elementary school classroom, and assume because "we" are dependent on extreme levels of fossil fuel consumption "we" just can't handle any reduction in their availability without freaking out. Not true. Humans is as humans does, and if a generation never learns the pleasure of Bass boats with 130hp Evinrudes on the back, they will never miss it. In this way, our failure to learn from the past is a virtue.

[sparky]

.
"....They'll re-imagine it when they don't have a choice " Ohh yes !

preparing for bad stuff make sense if taking account of the time scale
the more brutal and sudden the change ,
the more it make sense to be ready for the worst
naufrage .....life boat
nuclear war ....one month shelter
economic collapse...little farm
global society shrinking ... don't bother
beside moving to a robust place with a good community and fair basic economics ,
and that's a good thing in itself

The steepest the fall , the greater impact a small amount of preparation can make
but if the change is on the timescale of years ,
it's better to be flexible and alert ,

bad news never come alone , usually they come in bunches
it's not obvious which one will come knocking first

[SeaGypsy]

the top tier of 10 kw/h per person per day would have to be seriously shrunk

I think your dyslexia affected this post Sparky. We Aussies have more like 5 kw CONSTANT not per hour. That's just electrical use averaged. Well over 120 kw/h per person per day (only a small portion of which is burned in our homes and shown on our electric bills). And no end anywhere near being in sight. The USA isn't far off this and is well capable of maintaining it for many decades to come. If/ when thorium gets going 10 kw/h per person per day could be a nicely achievable median to aim for globally.

Oil running out isn't about the lights going off, it's about the wheels falling off BAU. Then it's about total energy in and out, particularly oil dependent agriculture. Stage 1 of peak oil is well underway, so far we have not done too badly. Hopefully we keep getting smarter quicker before our petri-dish runs out.

[sparky]

.
I'm aware of the 5 kw national average , that include the outer suburbs bogans

I'm talking of the top 10 % movers and shakers the bottom 90% will go back to being peons

In India there is billionnaires , some middle class and a lot of poors to miserable folks

The first victim of an energy crisis is equality

[vtsnowedin]

I kid you not:

Fact Sheet: 6 Things You Should Know About The Value Of Renewable Energy

Clean energy should play a central role in revitalizing our economy, putting Americans back to work, and keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation and growth. Recently a slew of misguided attacks on the merits of clean energy have exchanged petty partisanship for hard facts.

Here are the top six things you really need to know:

Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy

Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels

Clean energy improves grid reliability

Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels

Investments in clean energy are cost effective

Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy

Here are the supporting details:

thinkprogress

I think clean or green energy is the wave of the future but you have done it a disservice here by your very poor and even false arguments.
Point one: Clean energy "Will" be competative with other types of energy when the price of the other types rises due to peak oil and peak population. It is not today, and to assert that it is totally discredits yourself and your position.
Point two, the number of jobs created or maintained will vary with the percentage of each type of energy in the total energy inventory. To assert that clean energy creates three times the jobs is to also assert that clean energy is only one third as efficient as dirty traditional energy.
Point three: Grid reliability/ totally false until they run out of coal , nuclear or oil. Maybe someday but not now.
Point four: The amount invested on a technology is not directly related to the results. We have built the western world, modern commonwealth, on the back of fossil fuel extraction and exploitation. what do we have for our investment in clean energy other then Al Gores bank account?
Point 5: Investments .. cost effective? maybe someday but at present no new clean energy cost less then old dirty energy or hydro power. You have to subtract the subsidies to get the real cost.
Point six:The amount of subsidies that old dirty fossil fuel technologies have received over the last one hundred years though substantial have been passed on to customers through lower prices and the benefits of a reliable supply. The customers have yet to receive any benefit from the subsidies paid out to clean energy but hopefully they will in time as the supply of fossil fuels is exhausted and we have no choice but to switch to clean renewable energy sources.

[Graeme]

Solar Policy Can Advance (Or Delay) Grid Parity By A Decade

In their excellent interactive graphic, Bloomberg Energy Finance calls solar grid parity (when electricity from solar costs less than grid power) the “golden goal.” It’s an excellent illustration of how the right energy policy can help a nation go gold on solar or wallow in metallurgical obscurity. In the case of the U.S., it may mean delaying grid parity by eight years.
In the screenshot below, countries in purple have reached the golden goal in 2012, based on the quality of their solar resource and the cost of grid electricity, as well as a 6% expected return on investment for solar developers.

*But this picture isn’t accurate, because the type of solar policy influences investors’ expected rate of return and solar policies vary significantly across countries. In Germany, their feed-in tariff policy offers long-term, fixed-price contracts for solar. This certainty and policy transparency means lower risk and investors accept a modest 6% return on investment.
In the U.S., however, there is high uncertainty.
Incentives for renewable energy have a habit of expiring based on the vagaries of federal and states legislatures. Incentives come in the form of tax credits, leaving developers dependent on a fluctuating market for tax equity partners to “monetize” the credits. This higher risk means solar developers want higher returns (more like 10% than 6%). (I wrote about this in a report last fall).
The 4% higher expected rate of return means another eight years of waiting for the golden goal, delaying solar grid parity in the U.S. from 2020 to 2028.

[Graeme]

Senate Republicans Agree to End Big Oil Subsidies After Watching Polar Bear Film

In an stunning reversal, Senate Republicans have accepted President Obama's call to end tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, reversing a procedural vote on Thursday that had killed the Mendendez Bill (S. 2204 - Repeal Subsidies and Tax Breaks for the Big 5 Oil Companies), introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). On Thursday, the bill was defeated by a vote of 51-47, nine votes short of the 60 required to pass.

But in a rare Saturday afternoon session called by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the measure was swiftly rejuvenated—and passed—after nine of the Republicans who voted against the bill on Thursday had a change of heart after watching a sneak preview on Friday of To the Arctic, a documentary that follows the life of a mother polar bear caring for her two seven-month-old cubs in the Arctic. Narrated by three-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep, To the Arctic arrives in IMAX theaters on April 20.
The surprise passage of the bill puts the Senate more in line with a majority of the American people when it comes to big oil. A CNN/ORC poll taken last week found that 55 percent of Americans believe that oil companies deserve "a great deal of blame" for the recent increase in gas prices. The majority of Congressional Republicans have consistently voted against ending fossil fuel subsidies, which is unsurprising, considering that many Republican lawmakers receive contributions from and invest in the oil and gas industry. But with Saturday's abrupt turnaround, that is likely to change as well.

ENN

[Graeme]

2011 Clean Energy Patents at New High

Clean Energy Patents hit a record high in 2011, up 450 patents relative to 2010 according to the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index. GE took the yearly Clean Energy Patent Crown from GM in 2011 while also leading the Wind and Solar sectors and making the annual top ten in hybrid/electric vehicles. U.S. patent owners hold more U.S. patents than any other country. Also, solar and wind patents continued their rise to pull away from the lower tier of CEPGI sectors while fuel cells continued to lead.

As depicted in the below breakdown of the CEPGI by its sub-components, patents in wind energy were up over 85 percent followed by solar patents at almost 50 percent. Although being the largest component of the CEPGI by far, fuel cells in 2011 were actually down 44 patents. Hybrid/electric vehicle patents were up 20 percent over 2010. Tidal energy and biomass/biofuel energy patents were up 50 and 65 percent, respectively. Geothermal patents were up 2 while Hydroelectric patents was the only sector besides fuel cells that decreased, at 4 fewer patents than 2010.

renewableenergyworld

[Frank]

I suspect things would change a lot quicker (at least in the US) if we were to impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Ex. the trend today is that smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are selling very well here in the US. If fuel cost were priced more truthfully the trend would accelerate.

Community-sized underground nuclear reactors might supply electricity to localized regions. There are several examples: Hyperion Power, Babcock & Wilcox, GE, etc. These can be buried for security, are passively safe in case of cooling system failure, etc. I am a huge believer in solar and wind but to maintain anything close to our standard of living we'll have to use nuclear. And in this case smaller = better. C'mon NRC, hurry up with approvals please.

[EnergyUnlimited]

At population level of 200 - 500 millions running European life standards of early 70-ties they can.

As it stands now - no way.

[Graeme]

Donald Sadoway: The missing link to renewable energy

What's the key to using alternative energy, like solar and wind? Storage -- so we can have power on tap even when the sun's not out and the wind's not blowing. In this accessible, inspiring talk, Donald Sadoway takes to the blackboard to show us the future of large-scale batteries that store renewable energy. As he says: "We need to think about the problem differently. We need to think big. We need to think cheap."

Donald Sadoway is working on a battery miracle -- an inexpensive, incredibly efficient, three-layered battery using “liquid metal."

TED

This is a 15 minute video talk presented by Professor Sadoway (MIT). What I found worth reading are the comments on this talk (see TED link).

I've posted a thread about hydrogen storage that is being used in Germany here.

I'd like this thread to be about heat or energy storage. I welcome any comments about this general topic.

Molten salt has been used as an alternative to store heat.

A variety of fluids have been tested to transport the sun's heat, including water, air, oil, and sodium, but molten salt was selected as best.[66] Molten salt is used in solar power tower systems because it is liquid at atmosphere pressure, it provides an efficient, low-cost medium in which to store thermal energy, its operating temperatures are compatible with today's high-pressure and high-temperature steam turbines, and it is non-flammable and nontoxic. In addition, molten salt is used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with molten-salt systems exists in non-solar settings.
The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. New studies show that calcium nitrate could be included in the salts mixture to reduce costs and with technical and economical benefits. The salt melts at 220 °C (430 °F) and is kept liquid at 290 °C (550 °F) in an insulated storage tank. The uniqueness of this solar system is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. Normally tanks are well insulated and can store thermal energy for up to a week. As an example of their size, tanks that provide enough thermal storage to power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 9 m (30 ft) tall and 24 m (80 ft) in diameter.
The Andasol power plant in Spain is the first commercial solar thermal power plant to utilize molten salt for heat storage and nighttime generation. It came online March 2009.[67] On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight. It achieved this using a molten salt heat storage design.[68]

Here's a news article about this topic.