Comments solarwind has made

thnx michael

You said it well.  I'd like to add a couple quick thoughts:

*CSP with TES can provide firm dispatchable baseload power.  Andasol 1 just came online in Spain, 50MW with 8 hrs. storage.  Andasol 2 and 3 are in construction.  And central receiver designs have more potential for storage, even 24hr+.  There's now doubting CSP's current and future potential for significant power gen.

*the current antiquated grid can support 25% PV penetration before mass storage.  So as thin-film and c-Si continue to fall and money from the Iraq war is redirected towards healthy incentives to bring PV to grid-parity, it will be a good DG supplement to the utility-scale CSP, wind and geothermal.

*There's something near 140,000 times the US electrical consumption of potential resource for enhanced geothermal, which is another baseload generator.

These are not technological, nor are they overly economical; all technologies mentioned are nearly competitive with current generation portfolios prices, and are much cheaper than new infrastructure, particulary peaking plants to meet excess peak (which is growing faster than baseload demand, btw).

And finally, it's important to remind ourselves of why we want to do this at such an ambitious pace:  curb GHG emissions.  Remember?  What did Al Gore say in one of his recent speeches...something about a 75% probability that w/in 5 years there will be no summer arctic ice (i think the source he mentioned was Lawrence-Berkeley Labs)?  Everything is accelerating, things will surely get worse, and FAST.  This is the reason why we must stop debating trivial minor economic differences.  Internalize the costs on the damage carbon from coal and other hydrocarbons cause and there's no doubting the "business model" of RE.

If there weren't climate change motivations, no one would be pushing this so hard.  All other related issues such as peak oil and national security (domestic production) are ancillary problems, and this should be recognized.  We need to stop eCO2 emissions ASAP.On Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

wow...

whew!  where to start... first of all, apparently, a VP of an "int'l fortune 50" co. doesn't have anything to do all day but blog - how many times... - 5 or 6?  I'm not going to count.  My favorite part is that he mentions the BSME as if it's a point to brag about.  Oooohhh..  I also have a BSME....oooohhh, but I have MS too!  my god!  wooowwww... should I mention that everytime I mention something technical?  Furthermore, when you rebutted my post, where did you get first- the hostility, and second - that I was talking about avoided cost analysis for a solar power plant?  You've made ridiculous assumptions.  Yes, I know all about LCOE and LCA and amortization and EBITDA and bla bla bla.  I don't feel inclinded to mention every aspect of what my job encompasses in a short blog.

I'm probably wasting my time explaining this, but since I'm almost done I'll continue - renewables are completely viable for firm, dispatchable electric generation.  Mr. Hostility, you mentioned you work with geothermal?  I'm assuming you mean large-scale geothermal power plants?  Well then, you'd know that there's more than enough resource to supply the U.S.'s needs with that technology alone.  And here's the crux - it's dispatchable.  And CSP with TES (esp. molten salt) can obtain capacity factors of 70% or more.  God, man, do your homework.  And you claim to be the CSP guru!  Wind - yeah, you're not going to get capacity factors much better than 30%...but the idea is that you spread enough out over a wide area, these local fluctuations and rapid transients more or less cancel out and the generation profile becomes much more predictable.

I don't understand, Mr. BSME, Mr. 20+ years in the industry, how you can't see how the combination of geothermal (firm) + CSP w/ TES (firm) + wind (non-firm) + distributed gen PV (non-firm) won't work?  Add-in additional energy storage in the form of PEV's and/or utility-scale pumped-hydro, CAES, a smart grid...

These are not technical issues - they are policy issues.  And policy can decide any price of electricity they want for renewables.  Even today, the LCOE we compare isn't a true LCOE.  We include incentives and subsidies.  How else do you think coal is so incredibly cheap (aside from the astounding chemical energy density)?  Incentivize more, and you're not raising the price that consumers pay at all.

Lastly (god, why did I waste so much time on a blog), my concerns for this specific article (which my first post makes quite clear, I believe) relate to the carbon emissions from extracting energy from fossil fuels... and yes, jubilao, even nat gas fuel-cells release CO2 as a biproduct.  CH4 -> CO2 + H20 + (a little)CH4

There's no panacea, but renewables are more than capable.
On Consumers express renewed interest in natural-gas vehicles posted 1 year, 3 months ago 20 Responses

umm....climate change? hydrocarbons are culprit

Grist - I know you're just regurgitating stories from other sources, but let's make sure we remind people that, ultimately, the motivations for doing away with petroleum is to curb climate change; the biosphere cannot support the current ecosystem if we burn all of our fossil fuels.  This includes nat gas.  

So a switch to using nat gas as a fuel source would what - lower fuel prices for automobiles? - slightly (I use this carefully) reduce auto carbon emissions from terrible to just-better-than-terrible....And it's another non-renewable resource, so as both population and energy consumption per capita continue to rise, demand will continue to grow as well.  Fact of the matter is that we will eventually run out of our plentiful reserves.  Bottom line is that even if nat gas were two cents a therm (i.e. much cheaper than petrol, coal, etc.), we still should not be combusting it.  

Think of it as an avoided cost - when we price renewable energy generation systems (solar, wind, etc.) for clients, we like to calculate the avoided cost, which is their savings.  This is the kWh that the R.E. equipment generates for free (no fuel costs) that would have been purchased from a utility company at a set rate.  Compare that to your capital cost, and there's your simple payback.  So let's try something similar and try to justify using renewables over petroleum or nat gas by calculating the avoided costs of the future damage of climate change - the costs we would have to pay to build levies to combat rising ocean levels, billions in increased health care costs, skyrocketing food and water prices as droughts and floods wreck agriculture and infrastructure, bla bla bla.  A report prepared for Defra and the Treasury estimates that each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted costs about $35 in environmental damage.
On Consumers express renewed interest in natural-gas vehicles posted 1 year, 3 months ago 20 Responses

guys guys guys....

ugghhh...and we come back to birds again.  do i really have to say this?  buildings are the number one killer of birds BY FAR.  followed by house cats.  people are missing the point.  first of all, there's no silver bullet.  there's no cold fusion that will produce no waste, little footprint, and massive power.  ok, so now what...

let's see the big picture - why are wind turbines better than coal?  because our best climate scientists tell us about the consequences of global warming.  otherwise, we wouldn't need solar or wind or biomass or geothermal in the U.S.; we'd just build more coal plants.  our coal reserves are massive, the power is abundant and dispatchable, and we don't have to think outside of the box due to the heritage of the mature coal industry.  ok given that we cannot keep emitting carbon into the biosphere, we need clean energy sources. and if you can't follow this post to this point, then go do some research and get educated already!

will wind turbines kill a few birds?  absolutely.  will a fossil-fuel-powered world eventually make extinct thousands of bird species?  without a doubt.  will there be a case of a few birds that see the bright light of a CSP plant's receivers and fly to it and get fried?  probably.  again, compare apples to apples here - fossil fuels = eventually lead to the extinction of thousands and thousands of species, wind turbines = will kill a small percentage of a species that's much more threatened by high rises and your cat.  wanna stop human-caused bird deaths?  take that office window of yours and cover the exterior with something opaque.  there - now stop complaining about birds.

and people - an electric car TODAY running off of electricity generated at a COAL PLANT has LESS carbon emissions per mile than your standard I.C. gas-fired automobile.  With all of the embodied energy involved iwth the processing, transportation, etc, and taking into account the ~15% poor conversion efficiency of the I.C. engine, it works out that way.  so an electric fleet right now today would at least be a step (albeit small) towards carbon reductions.  so let's switch out our dirty electric infrastructure ASAP...this ambitious goal is absolutely attainable.  We just need to be get on the same page and attack it and stop wasting our time with blogs...ugghhh....too late.On The media's central arguments for and against Gore's challenge to the nation posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses

haha

that's hilarious...

jabailo - c'mon, man.  that's such an ignorant comment.

and regardless of whether the airline business is struggling or not, we need to begin to cap their pollution emissions.  If the coal industry were "struggling", should it mean that we should cut them slack?  Airlines have become an integral part of the global economy and way of life, but does that not mean we can't adapt?  How about more increased utilization of other communication technologies (see&share, teleconferences, etc.)???

And for the remaining travel, how about the respective governments subsidize the airline companies more than they do currently (idealy take some of the billions they give to the oil companies)?  The current situation is ridiculous...The rising price of oil is hurting everyone but the companies responsible for it in the first place (windfall profits, yada yada)On Airlines must pay for emissions, E.U. says posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

(cont.)

forgot to get to my point...i think these goals for emissions reductions are without a doubt a good start. They "get the ball rollin'" with the policy makers.  After the goal has been set, they have to go back and figure out how to make it happen; w/o any established goals, there would be no time pressures and little political/social pressures, thus insignificant results.On Connecticut goes big with emissions-reducing goals posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses