Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy

[DavidFolks]

After looking at the questions with a critical eye, I think that the title should be changed to: "If we can't use the alternative in exactly the same manner as oil, is it worth pursuing?".

Any energy source used to produce work that is not direct solar, wind, or water is effectively draining a battery that has been used to store energy that has been produced by one of these means.

What seems to be missing here is the original generation of the energy used burning oil. Question #4 alludes to this when it refers to only 4 original sources of energy that can be stored. Oil is biomass that has captured sunlight, been compressed under tremendous pressure for millions of years, and then extracted to be refined for use. This makes it a battery, that has been invested with huge ammounts of energy for a really long time.

The only problem associated with energy, is storage in anticipation of need. Currently we store it in lead/acid, lithium ion, lakes behind dams, alcohol in cornfields, bio-diesel in canola fields, coal and oil fields.

Considering the huge investments made in energy to produce a 40 gallon oil battery, I think that all of the other battery solutions we have come up with are more economical and sustainable. We can't make more oil. We can find more and more energy dense ways to store the energy that falls on us every day.

Personally, I don't have a couple of million years available to recharge the oil battery I use today.

[Revi]

Now is the time to secure some kind of battery. Batteries in my opinion include woodlots, solar hot water systems, PV with traditional batteries,
solar vehicles and walkable communities. Now while we have some resources is the time to get these things.

[Hawkcreek]

--

[mos6507]

Another way to store energy is pumped water storage, something many utilities use. I've been thinking about how this might be scalable down to a personal level, maybe integrated with either a cistern or gray-water system. I just don't know what kind of volume of water would need to be displaced in order to provide a typical household with night-time energy. Probably several pool's worth at least.

Anyway, the advantage to this design is it is simple enough mechanically to be viable long-term post collapse. If you invest in conventional batteries they will invariably wear out and if we're in post-crash, you won't just be able to go down to the store and buy new ones.

[Revi]

Now is the time to secure some kind of battery. Batteries in my opinion include woodlots, solar hot water systems, PV with traditional batteries,
solar vehicles and walkable communities. Now while we have some resources is the time to get these things.

One good battery is insulated fluid storage heated by concentrated solar. Various fluid mediums are available which can be heated up to 4-500 degrees. I intend to try this some day for a solar heated oven - tubes circulating the heated medium inside an insulated oven.
Old Mother Earth idea, that allows you to use the sun after dark.

We use that to heat our water, but it won't get over 160 degrees, I hope! I love the idea of running an oven off of it. We built an oven with clay this weekend at the kneading conference. It runs on wood, which is a form of solar storage, I suppose. It cost almost nothing and can cook thousands of loaves of bread. It was smaller, but similar to this one

http://www.intabas.com/mayashome.html

There are also huge solar ovens called villagers that can feed hundreds of people without any wood at all

http://www.sunoven.com/villager.asp

[Nicholai]

What area would you need to fill in solar panels to accommodate both a growth in energy use and a reduction on our current fossil fuel based electricity generation? Remember, it's not just about replacing our current energy demands, its accommodating for growth at the same time.

[Nicholai]

My question was worded poorly.
I heard you would need to fill the entire Sahel Desert in solar panels just to power Europe at current electricity demand.

[DavidFolks]

What area would you need to fill in solar panels to accommodate both a growth in energy use and a reduction on our current fossil fuel based electricity generation?

Step 1, determine your energy requirements and add whatever percentage required for growth. For sake of simplicity, state them in kilowatt hours.

Step 2, determine the average ammount of energy that falls on the area in the form of sunlight. Measure this in kilowatts per square meter.

Step 3, determine the average time the area is exposed to sunlight.

Step 4, determine the average time the area is not exposed to sunlight. This includes night, average cloud cover, etc..

Step 5, determine the percentage energy loss in charging and discharging your storage system.

Step 6, determine the percentage energy loss in converting sunlight to electricity.

Now, set up enough solar panels so you can meet the demand while the sun is shining, PLUS charge the storage system, PLUS make up for conversion losses.

As a for instance:

1) We need 100 + 10% kilowatt hours, or 110kwH

2) We average 1.35 kilowatts per square meter from the sun

3) We average 8 hours per day of strong light

4) We average 16 hours per day of insufficient light

5) We average 15% energy loss charging, and 15% loss discharging, for a total of 30% loss

6) We only get 30% conversion of sun to electricity.

So for 110 kwH average daily requirements, we need about 66 kwH storage. Because of conversion losses, we need to generate about 86 kwH.

We also need to generate what we can use during daylight, which is about 34 kwH. This gives a grand total of 120 kwH over an 8 hour period, or and average of 15 kilowatts per hour.

Now our panels are only 30% efficient, so we get about .4 kilowatts per square meter. That means we would need 37.5 square meters of solar panels to generate what we need.

With 10% growth, we would need an additional 3.75 square meters per year.

Finding the actual figures required, and the necessary calculations, are left as an exercise for the student.

Bear in mind that this is a very simplistic approach to your solution, but should provide a little better idea than a WAG.

[BobWallace]

The problem is that it's a whole lot cheaper to build 1000 solar panels at one site than to build one solar panel at 1000 sites. Perhaps if you're of the survivalist paradigm that seems common on these forums it might make sense, but it'd be a whole lot easier to just buy 1/100000th of the equity in a firm that's going to supply 100,000 people with all the energy they need from solar as a hedge against high energy prices.

I'm not sure that's correct if you throw a few more things in the mix.

If panels are installed on a private house vs. an energy company site then the energy company saves on real estate and insurance (theft, liability, etc.).

Installation on multiple houses in an area would also mean a "smoothing effect" on partially cloudy days. Rather than one big field going into shadow at once the effect might lessened by more widely distributed panels.

If the panels are installed on a non-energy company building then the company avoids maintenance costs as well. This may sweeten the pot for energy companies and may help explain why power companies are willing to pay rebates to individuals who install PV (or other energy producing systems).

[Revi]

I'm thinking of buying some FPL stock to try to keep up with inflation. They are #1 in greenhouse gas reduction. Lots of wind, and even solar. What do you think? I got burned a bit with my evergreen solar stock, but maybe this time...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070927/20070927006100.html?.v=1

[BobWallace]

I know nothing about FPL, but do know a little about investing.

First, diversity is the key to success.

There is no way to predict the future. Some companies will succeed and some will fail. Others will putter along somewhere in between.

What if you put all your money in one single company and it goes bust?

FPL may be the very best company in the world (in terms of financial success), the next Microsoft or Google. But it may be the next version of "Fred's Most Excellent Submarine Screen Doors, Inc.".

If you want to invest for your future, then make good investment decisions.

If you want to support a promising startup company that might do a lot of good for the planet then do so, not as an investment, but as a bit of "good works". And don't base your future plans on getting your investment back. And certainly don't expect to get rich on this type of speculative investment.

(I can give you some basic investment info if you wish.)

[Revi]

I agree completely. Maybe I'm doing a little of both. FPL has gone up a lot in the past 3 years. Who knows if it's at the top or it has a ways to go yet?

[seobro]

We worry about $5/gas, well when I was in Europe I was paying approx $7/gal for gas and now I hear that in the Brits are paying one pound per litre, approx $8/gal for their petrol.

OK, I have successfully changed the fuel air ratios and gotten my lawn mower, scooter, car, and truck to run on ethanol. I have land to grow corn on and can burn wood to boil the mash.

The problem I have is that local authorities will arrest me if I build a "snuffy smith" type apparatus. Our police state run by a Texas oil man, does not allow anyone to become oil free.....

[Specop_007]

The problem I have is that local authorities will arrest me if I build a "snuffy smith" type apparatus. Our police state run by a Texas oil man, does not allow anyone to become oil free.....

You mean you cant run a still??
Check into whether you can use additives so that what comes out isnt considered consumable. Either that or check into what a small operators license would cost. If a distillers license is $100 bucks, well, hell you make that cost up on your 25th gallon of ethanol give or take depending on local price.

[Speed]

There may be a tenth question to ask - how much power does a new renewable energy REALLY produce over its lifetime after deducting energy invested. Call it "True EROI". For example, consider our two major renewables - solar and wind. Its not so pretty. And due to the intermittent nature of these two renewables the added cost of power back up must also be added - but is not. Though these are very successful industries (with subsidies at every level) they may never evolve into the large scale global energy options to fossil fuels we all are looking for.

[jackmcmanus21]

Please consider adding:

Would you consider living (next to, under, over, near) this source of energy?

terrific point...I live by several power plants and this is a big deal to a lot of people