JustaGirl wrote:Posts like these are what makes me continue to come to this site. Well done, Tanada.
I'm also shocked to find out TheDude is not the mega-doomer I had pegged him to be
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Quinny wrote:For producing 'emergency/essential' fuels this would seem to be useful, but I'd question the scalability... How many of these plants would be needed to support BAU.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
The US Department of Energy will invest up to $366 million to establish and operate three new Energy Innovation Hubs focused on accelerating research and development in three key energy areas, one of which is developing an effective solar energy to chemical fuel conversion system—i.e., “Fuels from Sunlight”. Each Hub, to be funded at up to $122 million over five years, will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.
The objective of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub is to accelerate the development of a sustainable commercial process for the production of solar fuels, likely using mechanisms based on photosynthesis.
Graeme wrote:Looks like this concept is getting Federal financial support to fund research. Do you want to apply,Tanada?
DOE Launches $122M Energy Innovation Hub to Focus on Solar Fuels: “Fuels from Sunlight”The US Department of Energy will invest up to $366 million to establish and operate three new Energy Innovation Hubs focused on accelerating research and development in three key energy areas, one of which is developing an effective solar energy to chemical fuel conversion system—i.e., “Fuels from Sunlight”. Each Hub, to be funded at up to $122 million over five years, will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.
The objective of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub is to accelerate the development of a sustainable commercial process for the production of solar fuels, likely using mechanisms based on photosynthesis.
greencarcongress
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.
That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.
Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.
During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.
To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.
There had been hints of this happening.
Graeme wrote:I agree that the global enhanced geothermal resources are enormous but exploitation of them is not yet proven to be technically or economically viable. This could change with more research. I'm following the development of this resource quite closely.
A similar situation exists with solar as this article suggests:
Solar Could Generate 15% of Power by 2020, If US Ends Fossil Fuel SubsidiesSolar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.
That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.
Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.
During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.
To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.
There had been hints of this happening.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/29-9
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Feed-in tariff policies will ensure that solar energy's popularity continues unabated, a white paper from a photovoltaic industry association says.
According to SEMI, 80 percent of PV demand is from countries that support FIT policies. The policies are the best way of increasing demand for solar projects, the manufacturing industry association adds, for three reasons. They are performance-based, paying for electricity generated; they don't require taxpayer subsidies; and they do not conflict with other renewable energy policies.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Feed-in tariffs would incentivize solar energy investment: ... they don't require taxpayer subsidies
A feed-in tariff (FiT, feed-in law, advanced renewable tariff[1] or renewable energy payments[2]) is a policy mechanism designed to encourage the adoption of renewable energy sources. It typically includes three key provisions: 1) guaranteed grid access, 2) long-term contracts for the electricity produced, and 3) purchase prices that are methodologically based on the cost of renewable energy generation.[3] Under a feed-in tariff, an obligation is imposed on regional or national electricity utilities to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources, such as solar thermal power, wind power, wave and tidal power, biomass, hydropower and geothermal power), from all eligible participants. [4].
The cost-based prices therefore enable a diversity of projects (wind, solar, etc.) to be developed, and for investors to obtain a reasonable return on renewable energy investments. This principle was first explained in Germany's 2000 RES Act:
“The compensation rates…have been determined by means of scientific studies, subject to the proviso that the rates identified should make it possible for an installation – when managed efficiently – to be operated cost-effectively, based on the use of state-of-the-art technology and depending on the renewable energy sources naturally available in a given geographical environment.” (RES Act 2000, Explanatory Memorandum A)[5]
As a result, the rate may differ among various forms of power generation, and for projects of different sizes.
In addition, FITs typically offer a guaranteed purchase for electricity generated from renewable energy sources within long-term (15–25 year) contracts [6]. These contracts are typically offered in a non-discriminatory way to all interested producers of renewable electricity.
As of 2009, feed-in tariff policies have been enacted in 63 jurisdictions around the world, including in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and in some states in the United States. [7]
In 2008, a detailed analysis by the European Commission concluded that "well-adapted feed-in tariff regimes are generally the most efficient and effective support schemes for promoting renewable electricity." [8]. This conclusion has been supported by a number of recent analyses, including by the International Energy Agency [9], [10], the European Federation for Renewable Energy [11], as well as by Deutsche Bank [12].
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
SeaGypsy wrote:While attempting thoroughly environmentally sound sources is laudable, what I get from Tanada's angle is that nuclear seems to be an unavoidable transition step in the process towards renewable sufficiency. It seems to be the only source which is capable of keeping anywhere near up with demand as oil wanes. Humanity needs to get itself under control and educated, to avoid massive tragedy/ dieoff. It seems nukes may provide the cushion to delay the inevitable fall in population. The biggest problem I have with this is that TPTB seem frozen in their mindset with regards to growth economics and therefore will most likely use the nukes and such technologies as described in this thread to perpetuate further growth. Most likely outcome is that these technologies will come into play as die off starts to really bite, not before. In a way this may be the only possible wake up call humanity will listen to. Unfortunately, logic is not the main driver of human behavior. The modern, globalized world is a new child, who is learning by playing with fire. How many of us get burned before the child learns and modifies it's behavior remains to be seen. Education being the key to humanity having a future is a cliche whose timelessness never reduces it's truth.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Carbon dioxide could soon be ready for a PR makeover. With a bit of clever chemistry, the gas could become a feedstock for alternative fuels or find a role in cooling freezers rather than warming the atmosphere.
Carbon capture and storage schemes propose to snatch CO2 from industrial chimneys and bury it in ocean basins or geological formations. But having gone to the trouble of capturing the gas, squirrelling it away underground is a wasted opportunity, says Dermot O'Hare at the University of Oxford. He thinks converting CO2 into methanol for use as fuel is a smarter move.
But that's easier said than done. "One of the difficulties chemists have is doing anything with CO2," O'Hare says. The trouble is that the molecule is so stable, it's hard to find chemicals reactive enough to target CO2 but specific enough to ignore other components of the atmosphere such as carbon monoxide and oxygen.
Now O'Hare and Andrew Ashley, also at Oxford, have demonstrated how to do it at the relatively low temperature of 160 °C and at standard pressure. All it takes is a bit of frustration.
"Rubisco is one of the most important proteins on the planet, yet despite this, it is also one of the most inefficient", says Manajit Hayer-Hartl, a group leader at the MPI of Biochemistry. The researchers are now working on modifying the artificially produced Rubisco so that it will convert carbon dioxide more efficiently than the original protein. Their work has now been published in Nature (Nature, January 14, 2010).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests