Just read an interesting thought by author Thomas Friedman... he says that between now and 2020, a mere 11 years away, an additional 1,000,000,000 people will be inhabiting the earth. If you gave every one of them a single 60 watt indandescent lightbulb, it would take 20 new 500 megawatt coal-burning power plants just to handle the increase electrical load.
Now, I'm not sure how accurate that is... without doing a little research I'd have to take his figures on faith, but if true, an interesting observation.
And yet some think we are going to make meaningful reductions in CO2 by nibbling around the edges.
BTW, the actual increase in peak load is qty 120 - 500 MW generators. But that’s using a load factor (diversity factor) of 100%. A more typical diversity factor for 1,000,000,000 people all in the same time zone would be closer to 60% (resulting in 72 generators). Distributed evenly around the world a diversity factor of 40% to 50% is probably more appropriate (48 - 500 MW generators or only about 6 nuke plants). This increase represents an increase in the 2006 U.S. generating capacity of only 2%. I’m estimating but you and I and the average American probably uses about 5 to 10 times that 60 watt bulb.
I'm in favor of nuclear power, especially now that we have a presidient who can pronounce it.
The problem is that everybody wants clean power, but nobody want the plants to be near them. If you can see the cooling tower from your house, your property values are lower.
It's like everything else. We want more cops on the beat, we want better public transportation, we want better government services of every kind, but we don't want to pay for them.
A little off subject, but I had occasion to go to Philadelphia's permit office not too long ago. They have an underground parking facility attached to a concourse that leads to the zoning offices. 20 years ago, I remember it being clean, well lit and a kind of mini-mall where there were coffee shops, newspaper stands, etc. When I went there recently, it was dark, dirty, no shops at all and lots of boarded up areas, with homeless people lying in the corners. It was a sad sight, and an example of the endemic plight of most urban areas today. The cities just don't have the money to maintain these structures; I don't know the solution, but as much as I hate to say it, and as much as I know that most American's won't agree with me, I do know that lowering taxes isn't the answer.
I was reading in National Geographic that total energy consumption around the world is currently 14 terawatts (that's a TRILLION watts). By 2030 it's expected to grow to 19 terawatts.
Right now the sun provides the planet with 120,000 terawatts, and it does so for free. Solar is the greatest energy resource we have and we're letting it go to waste.
The biggest problem so far is making a commericialized solar panels that get beyond 10% efficiency. However, there are products in development that can get as much as 40%.
The genius with solar is that it can be literally everywhere. We could place them just about anywhere. Use them to cover parking lots. Cover rooftops. They even have solar panel paint now. Just paint, hook it up, and you're good.
With solar, energy PRODUCTION can become entirely decentrialized. Imagine not ever having to pay an electricity bill again, much less go to the gas station.
Germany has a model set up so that you can get a cheap loan to put solar panels on the roof of your home. And any excess power you have left over you can sell back to the energy companies at retail prices. As a result Germans are doing this, learning to save energy, because the more they do so, the more profit they make. For most, the selling of the energy back to the grid is paying for their solar panel loans.
And the crazy thing...we could do this much more easily here in the U.S. The southern most tip of Germany is at about the same latitude as the state of Maine. That means that the U.S. as a whole gets FAR more sun than Germany does, with the sole exception of the state of Alaska.
The company I'm currently working for has solar panel installations as an ancillary part of the business, so I've learned quite a bit about solar energy lately. You're 100% correct, the main problem with solar panels is that solar cells barely reach 10% efficiency, but as you said that number is improving steadily. Also, costs are coming down so even that 10% is becoming more affordable.
And solar panels are becoming more than just ugly roof mounted behemouths... they now have architectural solar panels that can be installed as balcony surrounds, building facia, windows, etc. and as covered parking lots that would protect workers from rain and snow while generating electric for the corporation.
It is the way of the future, no doubt.
without huge government subsidies the break even payback (even somewhat irrespective of interest rates) is still 20 to 50 years, depending on regional costs of electricity. The present PV panels wear out in as little as 5 to 10 years (their efficiency decreases over time).
No doubt PV (or other equivalents, paint, other polymer coatings, etc.) offers a bright future. Think about the possibility that instead of producing electrons directly from photons (PV), we could store the energy (similar to how a plant does it but using something other than Carbon). We'd have transportable stored energy than when oxidized would release a different by product (not that there's anything wrong with CO2 other than it offends some people for the moment).
We'd be better off with governments spending their subsidy money on research than the roof of your house. Government mandates that force or entice immature technologies too quickly can do more harm to the economy in the short term than is necessary.
...but I think we ought to look at the flip side of the coin a bit. There are massive subsidities for fossil fuels, and personally I would count our adventure into Iraq and Afghanistan as part of that subsidy.
PV does see it's efficiency go down over time, I believe as much as 25% after 10 years, making them only about 7% efficient after 10 years if you assume a starting point of about 10%. From what little I understand of the science behind it, I think there's a move away from PV cells to something more durable and efficient.
I think one of the best parts of solar power is that it's decentralized. A decentralized power source is one that makes our energy infrastructure more secure, and would likely eliminate nasty things like brownouts and Enron style price gouging.
I think you're likely wrong about the immature technology. Once a product is out in the market place, further development often takes care of itself. Not that gov't can't help this along if done correctly. But I'd rather see our fossil fuel consumption go down now and do what Germany is doing than research things for another 20 years. I mean, take the automobile. By today's standards, the Ford Model T was a very immature technology, but without it, we may have never gotten the cars we have today.
The German government has GUARANTEED they will purchase the PV generated electricity at something like twice the going rate. There are Germans putting up huge farms, almost totally subsidized and guaranteed by the government. And people are calling it free enterprise.
Do you think the Model T was subsidized too? Of course not. It succeeded because it was something the people wanted, needed and could afford. When government starts subsidizing at the consumer level or even commercial level, it inevitably MUST start picking winners and losers. NOT A GOOD THING.
The down side to decentralized power generation of the current PV technology is that the cost of the PV panels is a small piece. Other costly pieces that also wear out more quickly than the people that have been buying them realize are the batteries for peak ride through and dark days plus the inverters (convert the DC to AC) so that it can be used conveniently and sold back to the grid. Same is true for wind turbines. The batteries and large capacitor banks are not very eco friendly themselves.
As I understand it, the German gov't has forced the power companies to buy electricity at retail prices instead of wholesale prices. It's an important distinction, because at wholesale, it's not very economically feasible for a home owner. Really, it's just subjecting the power companies to the same rates they expect their customers to pay.
Actually, I would say that Model T was heavily subsidized. The entire automobile industry is heavily subsidized. No one would buy a car if there were no roads to drive them on, and Ford isn't building interstate highways.
Generally speaking, I agree with you about gov't picking winners and losers. No, that's not a good thing.
You're quite right about the problems associated with batteries. They aren't very environmentally friendly. But if this technology took off, there would be a great incentive to make them environmentally friendly.
That's part of the larger point though. I find this a little difficult to express this clearly, but we have an entire economy that is built upon centralized fossil fuels. There are economic incentives and advantages built into the infrastructure you already have, even if it won't work in the long run, as presumably the stuff will eventually run out, even if you discard any environmental concerns. This is why its difficult to get solar up and running. For it to be sucessful, massive parts of our economy has to be rearranged and religned. And that may or may not happen, regardless of consumer demand.
The danger in all this is the gov't getting into bed with production, and helping to make a product that the public may not even want. But if it's workable, and solution can be found to make solar more feasible, then I think anyone would take free electricity over electricity they have to pay for.
“. . . it's just subjecting the power companies to the same rates they expect their customers to pay.”
“free (solar) electricity?
Spoken like a true collectivist, LOL.
There’s no doubt that we will shift away from fossil fuels, fairly soon (unless we start making lots of new discoveries). Were it not for the hoax of man made global warming it will happen naturally. The world is going to wean it’s self off petroleum all by itself, and market forces will cause it to happen. Yes, governments should help and nudge and help finance research, etc. so as to prevent global conflicts and wars. But trying to force such a massive shift in socioeconomics as fast as the U.N. is attempting without popular support is ludicrous. When we shifted from horses and buggies to automobiles the average person saw and embraced the benefits and it took over a generation to accomplish not 10 years.
I personally think we should embrace T. Boone Picken’s idea for a move to vehicles (initially government fleets) powered by natural gas for the next 20 to 50 years (many busses already are), but that’s not radical enough for the libs. Can’t build nuke plants? Nope not radical enough.
A “new” economy must be based on things that people can see and touch and embrace and appreciate, otherwise they are just going to say fuck that (unless of course they’re German, LOL.)
Cheap, cheap, cheap. Ugly, but relatively easy to do. It won't generate electricity, but you can pretty much heat an average home with it at an affordable price.
Every little bit helps.
Doesn't seem very efficient. The power generating equipment cost per watt always has a sweet spot and 20KW to 40KW is too small. How about a mini nuke plant in everyone's backyard? LOL It's actually doable.
Geothermal is getting popular around here. My next door neighbor's full time job is a company he started that does nothing but run tests for contractors.
I like the idea of solar powered steam turbines. A array of mirrors superheating glycol or something similar. Much more efficient than PV.
I'm still trying to crack non-Carbon based photosynthesis. I will then be a gazillionaire.
The actor Dennis Weaver, of "Gunsmoke" and "McCloud" fame, built a remarkable house back in 1989. It was built almost totally of recycled tires, recycled aluminum cans and dirt. As the article linked below states, it was basically one massive thermal battery. It's south face was passive solar, and he used a little bit of PV solar as well. The home was 8500 square feet and his electric bills averaged $50/month.
While the article doesn't mention it, I believe the house also used a system of thermal vents to shunt hot air out when it was too hot, and in when it was too cold.
Remember, this was TWENTY YEARS AGO!!!
BTW, the house was gorgeous... check out the link below.
My point about NOT living or building COMPLETELY off the grid is based on two lines of reasoning.
1) Sharing a “grid” with other people makes it much much easier to return energy to others on the same grid rather than paying for more infrastructure to store it. Even if that grid is a local one, even a small DC grid.
2) The vast majority of people live very very close to other people making #1 very easy.
generate enough heat on the planet such that the surface temp of the earth would equal or exceed the surface temp of the sun...
what happened? Well, for on thing, we no longer use klystron tubes, we have far more efficient engines, lights, appliances etc.
what will we do? I actually think that prior to a total meltdown we will come up with a replacement to the use of hydrocarbons. Much as we came up with a replacement to the horse.
but if you really, really, really want the solution, it is obvious. Less people. but no one wants to talk about that, do they?
Nature seems to be working on it though, fertility rates going down, emerging diseases... imagine ebola mutating such that it would have the sustainable transmission of say, the common cold.... now that is scary, but it would solve sooooooo many of our problems.
or how about a good world war? that too, would do it.
we could use your insight.
has replaced the impartial debate within the scientific community. Peer review of articles and grants often pits folks against each other for the the limited research funds necessary to conduct research.
If you put in a grant to a federal funding agency, and your particular hypothesis runs counter to Professor ex's hypothesis, and he is on the funding committee, who do you think will get funded?!
Same thing happens in the R&D Within companies, only on a more local level.
It will be interesting when all the dust settles on climate change... or for that matter on the issue of the altered rules for breast cancer detection.... and please don't get me started on the issues related to nuclear fusion....
But for the life of me, I really don't have a solution to how to better do the review to ascertain scientific merit. Don't quite know how to solve that.
all I know, is there has been evidence for quite some time now, that the man-made climate change is not quite true. The earth has undergone climate change for ALL of its history, and for us to think that WE Can stop climate change is highly egotistical. - especially if as now supported by independant data, it has more to do with solar activity.... but hey? who knows.
much of our problems are associated with a population that has just grown beyond our limited resources. There is only so much land and only so much food.
If we managed to eliminate 7 out of 8 people on this planet there would still be double the number of people on this planet when Lincoln gave the Gettysberg address. If that happened, on average every person on earth would be 7 times richer. Poverty could be eliminated.