HiTension’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Good to see some agreement

  I just wanted to note that there is in fact some overlap here and that there are some practical suggestions.  Very often conceptual disagreements disappear when people get together and look at the on-the-ground options.  As noted, there are places in the desert that are disturbed and near existing transmission lines, and it just makes sense to look there first rather than "greenfield" sites.  

  One tricky thing about transmission lines is that federal prohibits reserving use of a transmission line for any particular type of energy, therefore the only ways to make a judgment about the likely blend of renewable and fossil fuel/nuc that will be on a new transmission line are to (1) undertake economic modeling that can estimate what types of generators are given economic advantage by the line; and (2) to look at the likelihood that a sufficient amount of proposed renewable energy generation plants will be built and approved before fossil fuel/nuc power plants are permitted and that the renewable energy will be economically competitive given foreseeable cost structures.  

  For example, if a proposed transmission line starts right near a fossil fuel development zone (such as the coal fields of North Dakota) and ends near a major load (say Minneapolis), there are no planned substations along the route for connection of other generators and the line's capacity could be used by planned fossil fuel plants or fossil fuel plants that could be quickly built, then it would be almost certain that the line is for fossil fuel-fired power.  

  Where this gets gray is where such a line includes substations that could accept renewable energy and some renewable energy capacity is proposed or possible in the vicinity of these substations, but the government permitting agency is just as likely to permit the construction of new fossil fuel/nuc plants as renewable energy plants or the renewable energy plants will not be queued early enough to have much of the line's capacity.  In such situations, economic and grid modeling can help predict the blend of energy on the line and/or help determine the "break even" point where the transmission line actually results in a net decrease in carbon emissions.  Such modeling can at least help us pressure government permitting agencies to limit or deprioritize fossil fuel development so that renewable energy is given first crack at using the line.  Unfortunately, some agencies talk a good piece about renewable energy but then end up doing the wrong thing.  This all gets much more complicated when transmission lines cross state and/or international borders.  

  Without a clear understanding of how a proposed line will function in the grid (which is a complicated technical question) and full knowledge of the situation and other energy options, most people just have uninformed opinions that are not particularly valuable to debates.  Therefore, it is incumbent on advocates to work closely with transmission and power engineers and economists and to examine the merits of these situations very closely.   As with many things, snap judgments from afar can do more harm than good, and those with good intentions can unintentionally do a lot of damage.  There are many ways the fossil fuel industry can game this system. It is true that reliance on local renewable energy installations instead of transmission lines substantially reduces the risk of not getting the renewable energy you want.

  Thanks for listening to this and to each other!On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Clarification

  By "above post" I mean the original article entitled, "Check Out Our Ray-Bans!" and not the comment immediately proceeding mine.  

  Sorry for the confusion.  On Feds freeze new solar projects on public land, pending review posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More on this issue and avoiding infighting

  The above post is one of three on this exact issue.  The post at this link has many more comments:

  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/27/01236/3260

  There is a distinction between, on the one hand, reducing the ultimate rate and amount of fossil fuels consumed through displacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy, and, on the other hand, adapting to the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels by supplementing fossil fuel energy with renewable energy without actually reducing the rate of consumption or ultimate amount of fossil fuels burned.  

  The first situation would be beneficial to non-human elements in the environment.  The second situation would be an example of a species turning to a lower intensity resource as its higher intensity resources are consumed, and while it would help humans adapt to their changing environment it may not reduce ultimate human impacts on non-human elements of the environment.  

  Some people are called more toward protecting the non-human elements of the environment and point out that renewable energy deployment will not as a logical necessity reduce human impacts to non-human things because renewable energy deployment consumes resources.  They worry that deployment of renewable energy technologies may not help the non-human environment because it could be mostly a human adaptation to an increasingly burdened environment and not a lessening of the ultimate human footprint.  They are skeptical that unbridled renewable energy development will advance their values and would like to see quantified proof that it is making a difference in reducing the human footprint at a global level and not just making this footprint deeper.  Some of these people see that a human crash is biologically inevitable and prefer to protect specific places and their inhabitants.  

  Others are called more to protect the human environment and see that renewable energy deployment is necessary over the long run to human survival.  They are more concerned about using renewable energy to help avoid a societal crash as fossil fuel reserves deplete and population increases.  They understand that we face tremendous challenges but must do as much as we can to lessen the risk of human catastrophe because that would harm everything on Earth.  

  Many of us value both perspectives.  Both of these perspectives have merit and are important, but neither has a corner on "the truth."  It is the tension in these values that can help us discern how to address specific energy needs.  

  I find it helpful to think about renewable energy from both perspectives, because it helps me appreciate the concerns and values of both sides, and to remember that those of us who are concerned about fossil fuel consumption, renewable energy and the environment have much more in common with each other than we do with those who are care primarily about near-term personal gain and comfort, who prefer a more "reactive" approach to the challenges we all face.  

  Those who value desert environments can help by being skeptical of industry solutions or proposals that use unproven technology or target sensitive areas because these may be designed to create fights between us.  Not all renewable energy proposals have merit or integrity.  Renewable energy is a tool, and as with all tools, it can be used for good or ill intent.

  Those who value renewable energy can help by aiding in our choices about when, where and how to deploy specific technologies. While I appreciate that some want to deploy all renewable energy technologies everywhere as fast as possible, resource and technological limitations will result in differences in deployment rates and appropriate applications of technology. They can help us find the best solutions for particular places and communities and also help us distinguish the relative merit of industry proposals.  

  Since there are many appropriate places for renewable energy development, it seems to me that there may be a high correlation between proposed renewable energy projects with significant impacts on sensitive habitats and political manipulation by individuals with a political agenda who are using specific renewable energy technologies inappropriately as a tool to accomplish other unjust objectives.  For different reasons all of us can call BS on dubious proposals.

  As we move into an era of declining fossil fuel extraction rates due to "peak" effects, it will become increasingly important to track changes (up or down) of fossil fuel extraction rates in light of peaking dynamics so that we can determine whether and to what degree renewable energy deployment is in fact slowing greenhouse gas emissions more than that caused by a declining resource base. That way we can have a clear understanding of what we are doing to our environment and the degree to which we are, or are not, succeeding in our efforts.  
  On Feds freeze new solar projects on public land, pending review posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Another correction

  
  I, too, am delighted to see a technical discussion here.  Now for something non-technical.  In looking back through my comments I found an error.  The President of Sempra is NOT on the Board of Directors of Haliburton.  The President of SDG&E, Debra Reed, IS on the Haliburton Board of Directors:

  http://www.halliburton.com/Default.aspx?navid=342&pag ...

  SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra.  I regret this error.  The CEO of Sempra is Donald Felsinger, who in this June 18, 2006 San Diego Union Tribune article

  http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060618-9999 ...

  said he's not interested in pursuing renewable energy and doesn't think that global warming is proven:

  "And although SDG&E says it will comply with state mandates on renewable energy, Felsinger says he no interest in pursuing renewable energy projects elsewhere in the company. In fact, he expresses no interest in dealing with the issue of global warming, although environmentalists generally target the energy industry as among the biggest contributors to the problem. But Felsinger said he is unconvinced that the phenomenon of global warming exists. 'There is definitely a debate about global warming, and when you look at the opposing views, neither one has prevailed,' Felsinger said. For example, he said, "The coal industry says there is no evidence of global warming.' Later he added: 'I don't think the science supports either side. So you ought to take a position of moderation. It's difficult to take sides between smart people.'"

  . . .

  "But Felsinger says he's reluctant to invest in renewable energy technologies beyond what the state requires. 'I will deploy our dollars in a way that is less controversial,' Felsinger said.
  His interpretation of less controversial, however, is a matter of debate. Sempra is investing heavily in projects related to natural gas, including liquefied natural-gas receiving terminals in Baja California and along the Gulf Coast. The LNG terminals are a source of controversy, as critics argue that importing gas will continue U.S. dependence on a fossil fuel and at the same time raise the cost of the commodity because of the cost of shipping and processing."

  Since this article was published in 2006, Sempra's PR people have adamantly backpedaled on these statements and claim that, gosh, Don really does want to do something about global warming.  But this individual was (and is) the top dog in the company that in 2005 picked Stirling Energy Systems as SDG&E's means to achieve the 20% by 2010 CA RPS mandate.  At that time, SDG&E stood at around 5% to 6% renewables, far behind all the other large California utilities.  And they are still way behind.  Perhaps the foregoing quotes explain part of the reason for this failing.

  Thanks to all for this interesting thread. On BLM contemplates two-year moratorium on solar power plant construction in the West posted 1 year, 4 months ago 68 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More on Price

  
  I think we need to be cautious here about making apples to oranges comparisons.  Since PV is a commercially available product, there is little uncertainty about equipment price at any particular time and location and the full turnkey price can also be estimated very accurately.  In comparison, I'm not certain about what Osborn includes in the $225,000 per unit price. Is this just the price of the equipment or does this price also include installation, startup, overhead and profit?  Having worked a bit in R&D and renewable energy development, the price he quotes seems pretty stripped down for custom-built and installed equipment.  

  And of course, therein lies the rub.  The mere fact that this is nearly unique hand-built equipment financed from both government and private sources means that its current price isn't all that useful other than as something of a ballpark.  One should take cost estimates coming out of prototypes with something of a grain of salt and realize that what favorable estimates do is justify further preliminary development.  What matters here is commercial viability and that includes every cost needed to purchase, install, operate and maintain this equipment while making a profit.  

  The weak link for Stirling engine commercial viability has been in the operation and maintenance side.  As I mentioned, if we assume a mean time between failure of 200 hours, then this means that each dish would be expected to break down around 20 times a year, which would translate into a great deal of maintenance and lost opportunity cost to the point where the current equipment would not be commercially viable, particularly if one considers having to maintain 12,000 units (SDG&E contract) or 20,000 units (SCE contract).  A DOE researcher was quoted in a article as saying that the technology needed something like 4,000 hours MTBF, which would translate into about one breakdown per year, approximately the same as current wind turbines. Even at one breakdown per year, the maintenance demands for a 20,000 unit project would be an ongoing challenge.  Statistically (and without assuming that preventative maintenance couldn't bring this figure down further) the raw number of machines that would need to fixed each day would be 55. With a 25kW machine, scale is important.

  As a point of reference, how difficult would it be to install, operate and maintain 12,000 25kW diesel gensets in the desert, even if fuel costs and fuel delivery logistics are ignored (magic free fuel)?  That's a lot of equipment monitoring and oil changes.  

  With regard to operations, one concern I heard from the DOE is that the SES engines, as other engines, require an electric starter and that if all 12,000 starters fire up simultaneously then the power draw would be problematic for the grid, such that the units need to be started in a cascading sequence quickly enough to get them all running when the sun comes up.  Physically possible?  Sure. Has something like this ever been done before at this scale with any technology?  I dunno. How long would it take to develop and refine such a control system so that it works like clockwork every day, year in, year out?  I dunno.  

  My understanding is that this 200 MTBF figure is about the same as it was back in the 2003 to 2006 timeframe.  If the DOE 200 hour MTBF number is accurate then SES hasn't made much progress in this particular indicator, though they may have made progress elsewhere.  This suggests that the current prototypes have some fundamental design and/or materials limitations, which in turn is in accordance with a recent presentation by a DOE researcher and a DOE research outline that the DOE feels a need to design, built and test another prototype generation to overcome these reliability issues.  

  In addition to these repair costs, planned maintenance costs would need to be included in any cost estimate, and while maintenance costs can be estimated, it is likely that only a pilot plant would provide accurate estimates of the cost of maintenance in full-scale operation, at least to the point where investors would be comfortable in providing serious money.

  The entire point of the R&D process (lab to prototype to pilot project to small commercial to large commercial) is to prove to investors that a technology is worthy of investment at a particular scale.  The more money involved the higher the due diligence of the investors and their bankers and attorneys.  Moreover, there can be a lot of "back to the drawing board" in the first two development steps before a technology can finally breakout to a pilot project phase, and many technologies die at these earlier stages.  Stirling-dish has not yet progressed beyond the lab and prototype stages.  

  SES has plans to build a 1MW / 40 dish pilot project, and in fact its contract with Southern California Edison quite appropriately requires that it do this (SCE having a fair amount of experience in dealing with new technologies), but my latest info is that SES has not moved forward very far or fast with required permitting over the past few years. A certain amount of preliminary inquiries and rudimentary filings, but nothing substantial.  But then, if the DOE is correct in its assessment that the tech needs another round of prototype development and that this prototype cycle will not end until the 2015 timeframe, it wouldn't make much sense to proceed with the pilot project phase now, though there might be pressure from investors and other vested interests to move ahead even if the technology is not yet ready.  

  There have been prior examples of pilot project and even larger-scale rollouts that ultimately did not prove to be commercially successful because the technology wasn't ready, but other pressures and the encouragement of government funding/subsidies provided for political reasons resulted in premature advancement.  There's always a balance here.  It would be physically possible to build a 40 unit SES pilot project based on existing technology, but this would not appear to be appropriate.  Assuming the DOE MTBF figure is correct and their prototype effort is required, doing a pilot project now would appear to be a waste a great deal of valuable solar R&D resources.  

  Nonetheless, attempting to initiate a pilot project could pump up perception of the value of this technology, thereby possibly achieving near-term investor financial objectives as well as advance the interests of the utilities that contracted with SES, but would this really help society?  If SES suddenly announced that it was going to move ahead with a 40 unit pilot project tomorrow based on current technology, I would be concerned, but they haven't done so.  
  On BLM contemplates two-year moratorium on solar power plant construction in the West posted 1 year, 4 months ago 68 Responses