Reactions to Al Gore’s book o’ solutions, “Our Choice” 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Steven Earl Salmony Posted 1:14 pm
   03 Nov 2009

   I find it irresistible not to at least take a moment to wonder aloud what Galileo is doing tonight. My hope would be that the great man is resting in peace and that his head is not spinning in his grave. How, now, can Galileo possibly find peace when so few leaders speak out clearly and loudly regarding whatsoever they believe to be true about the distinctly human-driven predicament that could soon be confronted by the family of humanity which results directly from the unbridled overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities of the human species now overspreading the Earth and threatening to ravage the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit? Too many of our leaders are remaining silent.
   
   Where are more leaders like Al Gore who are willing to openly support science that is being presented in the solid scientific observations and consensually validated empirical data of the IPCC? The pivotal climate change conference in Copenhagen is to occur next month. Look at the disarray in which we find ourselves now and how far we have to travel in a short time to reach legally binding commitments that move the human community away from precipitating some unimaginable sort of global ecological wreckage.
   
   What would the world we inhabit look like if scientists like Galileo had chosen to adopt a code of silence and maintain the gag rule promulgated by the rich and powerful in his day. In such circumstances, Galileo as well as scientists today would speak only about scientific evidence which was deemed by the super-rich and powerful Masters of the Universe among us to be politically convenient, religiously tolerable, economically expedient, socially correct and culturally prescribed. Scientists would be effectively breaching their duty to science and humanity to tell the truth as they see it, as best they can report it.
   
   Science must overcome silence, lest everything our leaders say they are trying to preserve and protect could be ruined.
   
   Perhaps there is something in the great work of Al Gore, the scientists of the IPCC, and the leaders at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference that will give Galileo a moment of peace.

   Permalink

2. 

   Gene Preston Posted 5:34 pm
   03 Nov 2009

   If Al Gore were serious about solving the climate change problem he would heed the advice of the father of climate change science, Dr James Hansen: http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/. The US program is ineffective because of several factors. The rooftop solar program is not working because rooftop solar does not produce enough energy to make the effort worth while. Here is an example of a solar community that seems to be a workable model: http://egpreston.com/costofsolar.pdf and yet its easy to show that centralized solar is twice as cost effective: http://egpreston.com/costofcentralsolar.pdf. Also, the CCS program will be a failure if the cost of CCS is as expensive as $100 per tonne (2204 lbs) which some engineering firms now think it will be, because that cost adds another 16 cents per kWh to the cost of coal powered electric energy, which makes the coal technology far too expensive. Therefore we are basically left with wind solar and nuclear. Wind and solar will require massive amounts of new transmission infrastructure to improve reliability as vast weather systems move across the US. These lines can be avoided by implementing small nuclear plants at existing coal plant locations. Also, the IFR group has a plan for eliminating nuclear waste. Dr Chu needs to become familar with the IFR technologies just for their waste removal potential and benefits. Sincerely, Dr Eugene Preston, http://egpreston.com.

   Permalink

3. 

   neosapiens Posted 2:32 pm
   05 Nov 2009

   One refreshing thing about "Our Choice" is that it speaks openly about the deniers. The efforts to address global warming will only take off when the denier's stranglehold on policymaking is broken.
   
   We need to be pursuing all ways forward, and reward the cheapest and quickest ways to transition to low-carbon energy. Rooftop solar may only be a small part of the solution from a total gigawatt point of view, but it has great potential to shift public sentiment in favor of renewables in general, since it is a way that ordinary people can take responsibility for their impact on the environment. Rooftop solar is available now, and is in fact getting cheaper year by year. I think that Amory Lovin's point about nuclear being too slow to implement and too costly is pretty compelling: in a level playing field, not many nuclear plants would be built, but solar, biomass, combined heat and power, and other small and medium-scale projects are being built and given a level playing field, they would be the clear winners. Even with enormous incentives, nuclear plants aren't being built. Shift the incentives from fossil fuels to distributed power and renewables, and let the market sort out the winners.

   Permalink

4. 

   ToddinNorway Posted 5:15 am
   06 Nov 2009

   I have been monitoring innovation activity in energy technologies as part of my professional duties and there is a low-emissions energy revolution about to happen, supported by subsidies for a few years, but then becoming commercially competitive on their own by 2014 or earlier (as for point 1, which is already hugely commercial without subsidies). The main headlines will be:
   1. Shale gas as a fuel for power generation completely outcompetes coal in N. America. Latest generation combined-cycle natural gas power plants will replace old, low-efficiency coal plants at a break-neck speed. This will reduce unit CO2 emissions from power generation by 65%, and criteria pollution by 100% compared to old coal plants. Mountain-top mining will cease due to it being economically uncompetitive. Other regions of the world will repeat this success where shale gas resources are found.
   2. Radical improvements in electricial generator concepts, now being tested for marine applications and hydroelectric dams, will allow wind turbines to achieve up to 20 MW nameplate capacity, compared to max. 5 MW today. These will be best suited for offshore service, and there will be 100's of GW of capacity installed in a decade using this. On land, the biggest units will perhaps double in capacity from typically 2 MW to 4 MW for a single wind turbine. The wind turbine business case will "take off".
   3. Thin-film PV will deliver integrated, utility-scale, grid-connected systems for less than $3/Watt (peak). These installations will be typically 20-40MW, and will dominate the market for peak-load power generation in the market where about 150 million North Americans live. In China, there are already plans for a 2 GW(peak) facility to be built using thin-film PV. This concept will be copied many, many times as the thin-film innovation process continues to lower costs and increase conversion efficiencies. Subsidies will disappear in the next 5 years.
   4. Building-integrated thin-film PV, like the roof shingle system recently advertised by Dow Chemical, will be installed in tens of millions of roofs world-wide, with minimal subsidies due to the rapidly falling costs of thin-film PV and the built-in cost advantage of BIPV. Typical installation will have 2-10 kW (peak)capacity. The sum effect will be hundreds of GW (peak) that will provide a large fraction of residential electricity needs in many important regions.

   Permalink

5. 

   Gene Preston Posted 6:23 am
   06 Nov 2009

   Rooftop solar is not going to ever be economical compared to centralized solar. There will always be a about a 2 to 1 difference in the cents per kWh between rooftop solar and centralized solar. Its not true that rooftop solar total system installed costs are significantly dropping. Even though the solar panels are dropping in cost, the other costs for rooftop solar are increasing and these things already represent more than the cost of the solar cells themselves. The newer less costly and less efficient thin-film cells do not work out well for non tracking rooftop installations because the lower efficiency means a larger surface area and more hardware that is in itself going up in price. So we are at the bottom of the installed solar price curve with regard to lower cell efficiency and lower prices. Any lower efficiency regardless the cell manufacturing price will drive up the other costs and make rooftop even less cost effective (higher cents per kWh). I discuss several renewables scenarios for a stand alone subdivision of 150 homes on my web page http://egpreston.com see "Designing a small system to be reliable, low cost, and have zero CO2
   emissions:"

   Permalink

   1. 

      ToddinNorway Posted 8:00 am
      06 Nov 2009

      I support your conclusion for retrofit of rooftop solar that does not function as the roofing material itself. I disagree however with you on originally installed roof material that is PV. Your house must have a roof, and the concept presented by Dow is that it is installed like a traditional composite shingle roof. Thin-film PV works well in diffuse light and the performance benefit of tracking is not cost-effective. The solar shingle roof will produce DC and if you want to connect to the grid it needs an inverter, fair enough. But there is a long list of home appliances that run on DC. Some battery storage will be justified in that case, and this cost should be planned for. Think of the Dow PV roof as expensive shingles that also produce electricity. It may only make sense to install this on the west and south-facing parts of your roof. But this is without doubt cost-competitive.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Gene Preston Posted 9:25 am
         06 Nov 2009

         I used to think the same thing, that solar panel shingles to replace regular shingles would be great. That would probably do the trick on the economics. Then I learned that PV cells get hot and need cooling air behind the cells. I did a search for solar shingles and came up with these references: http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/products/three-manufacturers-of-solar-shings/. What is the net cost of these after subtracting the cost of the roof materials that were not installed. i.e. in a new house? I didn't locate the DOW product. Where is info on it?

         Permalink

   2. 

      ToddinNorway Posted 3:56 pm
      06 Nov 2009

      See the dow chemical press release at http://news.dow.com/dow_news/corporate/2009/20091005b.htm . Their PV shingle is CIGS thin-film, which is essentially unaffected by temperature, which is another reason why thin-film PV seems to be preferred in the market in addition to its much lower installed cost compared to crystalline silicon, which definitely loses conversion efficiency as temperature rises, as it inevitably does in summer sunshine.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Gene Preston Posted 4:32 am
         07 Nov 2009

         Thanks very much for that DOW announcement link. Its significant. If these shingles could replace what would have been used as shingles, and there is not a lot of expensive supporting hardware, like sealed glass enclosures with metal frames, then this rooftop solar might make economic sense. I wonder what the cost per "shingle" and the size of each shingle is? Now all we have to do is get Na ion batteries developed to replace Li ion and we are set to really make solar and PHEVs and energy storage more affordable. Anyone have any info on Na ion technology? I have asked other experts to comment on Na ion (including John Goodenough, patent holder of Li ion) and am waiting for their replies.

         Permalink

6. 

   starlatifah123 Posted 5:37 pm
   12 Nov 2009

   moral duty to protect the planet is Our Choice?
   
   beat making software
   
   beat maker software

   Permalink