Techno-obsession 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   sunflower Posted 9:56 am
   03 Oct 2007

   Tooling growth and industrial inertiaNot enough supply for demand causing back orders and price increases - wind blades and silicon shortages.  New foundries cost lots of money and time.  There is some market fear that subsidies are not reliable.  And conventional energy numbers are huge.

   Permalink

2. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 10:16 am
   03 Oct 2007

   ReasonsWell, the obvious reason is cost, and the obvious culprit is solar PV.  In many people's minds "renewable energy" == PV.  And PV is pricey.
   The less obvious but probably more real reason is technological maturity.  If you think about it, we have lots of very sophisticated technology that is ubiquitous -- cars, aircraft, computers, whatever -- that are much more complex than a PV module or a windmill.  The difference between a computer chip (complex) and a PV cell (simple) is that the computer technology is mature -- it's been subject to a broad-based, long-term development effort.  Its uses and integration into other systems are relatively well understood.  This makes a big difference when you're trying to penetrate a conservative industry like the power industry with a new technology: if they don't know what to do with it, or what to expect from it, they get scared of it.
   Of course, the irony is that the only way a technology ever becomes mature is that it undergoes serious development and enjoys widespread adoption.  So that's a catch-22.
   In my opinion, though, the real reason for this phenomenon is one part physics and two parts psychology.
   
   The physics part has to do with energy density.  Solar energy, at a maximum of 1 kilowatt per square meter, is less dense than fossil fuel energy (which is essentially solar energy distilled by time and pressure).  Other forms of renewable energy are able to concentrate the insolation somewhat, e.g. wind.  But it's still hard to compete with oil, at ~6 kilowatt-hours per pound.
   The two parts psychology is simply our expectations, which have been set by a recent history of easy, cheap energy in vast quantities.    The thing about renewable energy is that you have to collect it, and its diffuse nature means that the cost of the collection infrastructure is relatively high per unit of supplied energy.  The integrated cost over time is  low, because this infrastructure, once built, will collect alot of energy over its lifetime.  But the immediate payoff per unit investment isn't as good as what we've become accustomed to with fossil fuels.
   This reality is immediately obvious to a corporate accountant type who is trying to decide where to invest the company's money.  I think it's also something that's understood, albeit very vaguely, by many members of the public.  And because, as a culture, we have such great faith in technology, the reflex reaction is: oh, it's not very good now, but it'll get better once the technology arrives.
   And that's true, to an extent.  And it's happening now, to an extent.  But I don't think we're ever going to get to the point where the technology is getting good enough, fast enough, to support exponential growth in both population and per-capita use/waste of energy.  Which means that a certain degree of disappointment is inevitable.
   Don't misunderstand me: I think we can gather enough renewable energy to maintain a good standard of living for ourselves and ultimately for the rest of the world.  But we're not going to gather enough that we can afford to waste 2/3 of it.  We're going to have to change our thinking about energy, about its value, and about how readily we can afford to waste it, before we can hope to satisfy our needs with renewables.

   Permalink

3. 

   Colin Wright Posted 11:37 am
   03 Oct 2007

   Who killed the Renewables?Most ordinary people I talk to don't believe it's a technological problem. They get it right immediately, in my opinion: the oil companies. That is, they intuitively understand how power works in this country.
   Unfortunately the further one moves up the educational chain, (and the more people buy into the current system) the less likely people are to see this basic truth.

   Permalink

4. 

   GRLCowan Posted 11:38 am
   03 Oct 2007

   Not technical but definitionalBy "renewables" does Roberts mean token renewables, so that his question becomes, why are token renewables so token?
   If that weren't what he meant, he would have said non-hydro renewables. Nothing's more renewable than falling water.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, former H2 energy fan
   
   Internal combustion power without exhaust --
   
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 11:50 am
   03 Oct 2007

   Microprocessors took 20 years......to make it into the mainstream of the economy, which was the basis of the 1990s boom.  At the rate we are going, it will probably take another 20 years for solar to work it's way into the mainstream thinking of the mainstream builders and the mainstream utility companies, who would rather just pull up the old blueprints and build another coal plant, it's easier.  We need to jumpstart the process with public investment

   Permalink

6. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 11:53 am
   03 Oct 2007

   energy densityAs it happens Robert Rapier's summary of a recent paper by Pimtel touches on the energy density of renewables vs. fossil fuels. Good stuff.
   Also, GRL, big hydro isn't really renewable.  In addition to the enormous environmental damage associated with their construction, dams silt up, eventually becoming unusable, and the reserviour generates CO2 and methane as the accumulated biomass decomposes.  Small hydro and run-of-river stuff is a different story, but big hydro is just one more way to rape the planet for our benefit, with the added bonus that it looks green to the casual observer.

   Permalink

7. 

   sunflower Posted 12:15 pm
   03 Oct 2007

   Solar system displaces its weight in coal per year

   Permalink

8. 

   GRLCowan Posted 12:20 pm
   03 Oct 2007

   That is why I said nothing is *more* renewableI knew what you were going to say, although not who would say it. Token renewables can have downsides that would be very severe indeed if they were called upon to supply hundreds of millions of tonnes-of-oil-equivalent per year. Hydro has real problems, but they are, of course, much smaller in proportion to output.
   --- G. R. L. Cowan, boron car fan
   
   Internal combustion power without exhaust --
   
   http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

   Permalink

9. 

   JMG Posted 2:29 pm
   03 Oct 2007

   Well, talking about the need for behavior changedoesn't seem all that popular here, so the only thing left seems to be to fixate on wondertoys, new technologies that promise that behavior change is optional.
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:40 pm
    03 Oct 2007

    Mass delusional mediaIt spreads the conventional wisdom.
    Here's the argument:
    Renewable power is not in widespread use.  
    If it were technologically/economically feasible it would be in widespread use, since it would cure so many of our problems.  And yeild huge profits for the companies that build out and use it.
    Therefore:  
    Renewable power must not be technologically/economically feasible.  It must need more research.
    The facts:
    Renewable energy and conservation are cheaper and quicker to build out than any other alternative.  They are ready now.
    Monopoly corporate/government power working in concert with mass delusional media are blocking implementation and the resulting economic boom and end to war over oil and nuclear proliferation that would result.
    It's exactly that simple.  Vested interests support the status quo for their own benefit over the obvious benefits of change to the rest of uS and the living planet.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:56 pm
    03 Oct 2007

    Hillary's planDivert subsidies from the status quo corporate sectors (big oil, coal, nuclear) and devote that capital to building out renewable power and conservation.
    The problem will be getting the bribe swilling congress to turn on their corporate hog-trough fillers.  As with health care reform in '93, when democrats were in control of congress, enough bribed democrats will be found to join with the bribed pubs to block any real change in the direction of subsidies.
    These hogs must be told at the local level, if you return to try and get re-elected and keep voting the corporatist line, you will be given the boot.  Enough green troops exist to do that at the local grassroots political level.  To take over local parties.  But environmentalists will not lower themselves to the task.
    They would rather stay home and simply donate to orgs with glossy magazines they can put on their coffee tables to garner status with their crowd.  Orgs like NRDC, that oppose wind power, back fuel farming, clean coal, and nuclear.  Orgs that sell out to corporate power at every turn.
    A congressman who is deluged at a local fundraiser with calls to back renewables by diverting subsidies from the corporatist cabal, can go to his corporate lobbyist loving staff and say, "Look I can't go against the voters or I won't be here next year."  No amount of campaign "contributions" (bribes) from the corporatsis will change that.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

12. 

    Erik Hoffner Posted 12:57 am
    04 Oct 2007

    Star Trek effectGreenEngineer is right to include psychology - my sense from hawking renewable energy at festival and conference booths is that there are folks who, while they think the current renewable energy technologies are neato, are expecting some big breakthrough that makes all this intermediary stuff irrelevant, on the order of phasers and photon bombs. (Of course, the Enterprise's power source was nuclear.)
    
    The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
    
    

    Permalink

13. 

    GreenEngineer Posted 3:29 am
    04 Oct 2007

    one part, two partsThe focus on high tech solutions is grounded in psychology and economics, and Amazingdrx correctly points out that it is in the short-term best interests of the powers that be to maintain their position of control over our energy sources.
    However, he is greatly underestimating the real physical basis of the challenge: We CANNOT maintain our current wasteful, autocentric, go-go-go lifestyle  on current solar income.
    At the very least, such a transition would require much more careful engineering of buildings, vehicles and processes.  (The extra design time required would, by itself, tend to slow down the go-go pace.)  Before air conditioning, architects had to design buildings to work within their natural context.  Air conditioning has allowed architects to become (more) arrogant and engineers to be (more) sloppy -- that trend will have to reverse.
    Such a transition would also require a shift away from auto-centricism.  The car would still be part of life, but it would be one of a number of transportation options, rather than the central and primary one.  Electric autos are great, but you can't beat well designed rail for energy efficiency (noting that most current American rail systems are not well designed).
    Air travel would still happen, but high-speed air travel would be EXPENSIVE, because it would most likely rely on biofuels.  When it comes to biofuels, you can have them sustainable, or you can have them cheap, but you can't have both, because of the fundamental limits on the density of the energy you are harvesting.  Most likely, most air travel would ultimately have to be by airship, which is much slower but can readily by powered by solar energy.
    Personally, I see a civilization powered by current solar income being much more calm, tempered, thoughtful, careful, and centered on the needs of people (as opposed to corporations and other "big bodies").  I think it would be a better world to live in.  But it would undoubtedly be a different world, and that in itself is a cause for fear to many (most) people.
    My point is: a high-tech civilization supported by current solar income is both possible and desirable, and the vested interests that Amazingdrx points out are definitely one of the things holding us back.  But there are many other factors at play, not the least of which are the limits that living within our energy means would entail, and (more importantly) people's psychological reaction to them.  Bottom line is, it's NEVER" exactly that simple".  And people who have thought about this to the extent that Amazing obviously has should understand this.

    Permalink

14. 

    sunflower Posted 6:51 am
    04 Oct 2007

    Morality does not work in markets.And that's why the US renewable energy markets are so lame.  Moral discrimination, with religious vigor, was leveled at renewable energy developments during decades of extreme right wing US policy.  Europe and Japan are way ahead in the race to develop clean energy futures.  The US is very late to the party, and is still not there.  Even China is responding to this new economy.  
    I've got vision, hope, enthusiasm for the future.  Those are the breakthroughs we need for finding local sustainable energy resources.  I'm getting a little depressed reading in the US how desperate we all are and how nothing will work soon enough.   Bull spit.

    Permalink

15. 

    Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 7:14 am
    04 Oct 2007

    regulated utilitiesHardly anything, at least in our view, is ever "that simple." But, we must start thinking about what it would look like and what it would mean to live within our energy means. We must also think about what those limits are when more and more people in places like China and India, for example, want their chance at enjoying the energy-intense "luxuries" of a modern economy...
    Regarding technological barriers to the more widespread adoption of renewable energy, there are some barriers, such as intermittancy of wind and solar. If implemented, energy storage technologies, will go a long way in remediating those barriers. (see  Wind & Storage: Better Together.)
    Also, let's not forget that many electric utilities operate in regulated environments under the guidance of state public utility commissions. Here's a recent discussion of that from our Pearl Street Power Blog.
    Over and over, people ask me questions like:
    
    If the technology's there, why don't we have more wind (or solar)power?
    
    Why do we have to use so much coal when we could use renewable energy?
    
    Why aren't there smart meters installed everywhere?
    
    Why don't we have a smart grid?
    
    Why are my rates going up so suddenly?
    
    Why? Why? Why?
    Well, one of the most important things to remember is that, for the most part, our utilities live/work/play in a regulated environment -- particularly at the transmission and distribution level. Even in deregulated states, the movement is reversing towards re-regulation of electricity. The business model of a regulated utility is to invest in something and be allowed a reasonable rate of return on that investment by the regulator, the public utility commission (PUC). For the most part, utilities don't much care what they invest in, as long as they can be assured of a predictable rate of return.
    So, if you don't like coal, believe strongly in renewable energy, and want smart grids communicating with a smart meter in every home, start lobbying regulators to compel utilities to invest in these things. The utility has to have a regulated rate of return for its shareholders (just about everyone who owns a basic mutual fund or has a pension) and as long as the PUC allows the utilities a regulated rate of return on the investment in renewable energy, smart grids/meters, it will happen.
    The problem with the utility industry today is that it is facing increasingly difficult problems from all sides--demand for CO2 controls, deteriorating infrastructure, rising costs due to increased international demand for raw materials, competition for skilled workers, shareholders demanding their dividend checks, PUC's regulating every breath they take, and consumers who want cheap, reliable, electricity that's always available at the flip of a switch. It's a viscious circle of competing interests including the state PUC, the utility, and a generally disengaged consumer base...consumers who rarely pay attention to their electricity unless, of course, they've just experienced a loss of service or their rates are escalating abnormally.
    But, it is precisely at this time of increasing challenges that consumers need to wake up and pay attention to that magical thing called electricity that lights their world at the flip of a switch. it is up to all of us to think about what we want, what we need, and what we are willing to pay for in terms of electricity. This is no time to point fingers and ask why not??? It is a time to come together, become informed and engaged in the debate about the direction of our energy future.
    
    Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
    
    Read Lights Out reviews
    

    Permalink

16. 

    amazingdrx Posted 2:49 pm
    04 Oct 2007

    All togetherWind and storage go together...and especially go well with conservation.
      Along with solar, plugin cars, biogas powered solid oxide fuel cell turbines, distributed generation and storage, internet enabled smart power grids.
    Restored prairie and wetlands as carbon sinks, organic farm soil as a carbon sink. Restored coral reefs as carbon sink.
    Wind powered hydro electric power storage that pumps flood waters up the water shed into wetlands to replenish aquifers.
    This whole thing put together using the subsidies that now go to the status quo oil, coal, fuel farming, and nuclear industries, would do the whole job.
    And restore our job base and economy, balance of trade, pay the national debt, and save the  climate of spaceship earth from GHG disaster.
    We could even afford national healthcare with the booming economy.  What more do you want?  
    Endless war?  Oh yeah, I forgot.  Not much for the military industrial complex in this plan.  That will nix any support from the pubs.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

17. 

    amazingdrx Posted 2:56 pm
    04 Oct 2007

    Light railOh yeah, forgot one more thing. light (electric powered) rail built in the freeway median.  They are doing it in Minneapolis.
    Put those commuter trains in tubes and they can compete with air travel.  Due to the higher speeds possible with clear, dry, deer, cow, and car free tracks.  Not to mention the ease of using electric power safely inside a nice dry tube.
    Would all this provide enough good jobs for everyone who wants one?  I think so.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

18. 

    solar greg Posted 12:10 pm
    05 Oct 2007

    Wind storageHas anybody thought about hydro storage in flatlands. A tank on the surface collects water pumped from either underground water source or an underground storage tank. When power is needed it is sent down again through turbines. The lower the water table, the better head for turbines. It probably would only work with high head.
    About carbon fixing, I think trees are vital. How about high altitude seed dropping. World wide. Even if a small amount stick, it probably would be more effective than phisically planting each tree only in accesible lands. It would be similar to the way nature does it, only the ones in the right place will prosper, only with a wider range.

    Permalink