Anti-Fossil Fuel, Anti-Nuke People: What's the Solution to Our Energy Problem

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Whack-a-Mole

First, it has to go down in price A LOT! A lot a lot. Has a ways to go to be cost competitive. Yes we have been told of spray-on cheap solar cells. Sounds great…where can I get some?

Spray-on-solar has been invented. This is like when I first heard about Perpendicular Recording back in 1986 or 88 or so and it took TWENTY YEARS for it to get to market. The first perpendicular recording-based hard drives came out in 2005, to be exact.

The next-gen solar energy technology is there now. The question we should all be asking, persistently, is why does it take so long to get to market?

Maybe it’s relevant or maybe not, but patents typically last 20 years…

Second, so far this is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

It has been invented. What we need now is for the market to get out of the way and let it get produced. I have a strong suspicion that lots of stuff gets “sat on” by industry players until the patent runs out and royalties can no longer be collected. Or, as I said before, it damages existing industries’ profit models. Oil is entrenched; it will not simply give itself up. Plus technology like spray-on solar is, as you said, a front-load cost: after that nobody makes a profit off the energy it generates.

Which do you think investors will see more attractive? An industry that makes endless residual profits off charging $110 BBL with millions of barrels coming out a day into the foreseeable future, or an industry with an ever-decreasing front-load cost that is not backed up by any residual profit? Oil’s going up in price, solar’s going down in price. Hmmmmmmmm. I know what I would invest in if I believed in raw capitalism.

This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. It exists. The market forces, or more specifically, entrenched corporations with a lot of money to lose, are getting in the way of it being implemented.

Build a test plant.

You need funding for that. See above. Who’s gonna fund you, except the Government?

All that stuff will mitigate how many primary power plants are needed. If they get so good they can replace them completely then great!

Completely replacing power plants is much harder to do. However, a mass roll-out of solar energy would reduce their number drastically. This would make energy less profitable - it would shrink the economic pie by reducing scarcity. As I said in the beginning, this means greatly reduced profits for fossil fuel based energy companies.

Spray-on solar cells at $0.05/Kw sounds great.

If it can be done super. If they can provide power at night even better.

The technology exists. It needs more investors to get it to market.

This is where China is in a position to take us down in the energy race - their Government has no problem funding the research for this. Which is part of why a lot of solar tech now comes from China. :mad:

Our own investor community is shooting us in the foot.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Le Jacquelope (I’m too tired to do a point-for-point quote post):

Again, I am all for alternate energy sources.

When discussing energy policy YOU need to show what is available today can meet needs… By “today” I mean tech available today or tech that needs minor testing but is mostly good to go.

We have been promised fusion energy it 20 years away for the last 50 years.

Some cool stuff in the area of fusion has been achieved but still it is 20 years away with no end in sight.

I am all for such cool, new tech. I will be the first to cheer if fusion or solar or wind make a breakthrough to provide the bulk of our energy.

So far though the promise has fallen far short of reality.

Now, today, our options are fossil fuel or nuclear for long term energy needs.

[DSeid]

@gonzomax

 Bloom boxes run some of the biggest corporate buildings. the point is they are off the grid. No transmission necessary.

Customers - Bloom Energy

Not quite.

1. These companies are using these units to provide some of, not all, of their electricity. They are also plugged into the grid and use it.

2. They are using these units as much as anything else to have some security in their electricity supply. If the grid fritzes out they can still keep their essential operations going; likewise if the Bloom Box busts, they have the grid to go 100% off of.

3. Even a company that attempted to use the Bloom Box to entirely go without an electricity grid connection needs a transmission source for the fuel for the Bloom Box. Generally that will mean natural gas.

Again, there are some advantages to having distributed generation, be it with roof top solar, Bloom Boxes, or micro-CHP. If hooked into the grid and using net metering you may end up having a smaller carbon footprint (especially if you otherwise are pulling mostly from coal plants) and maybe they’ll get to a point that they save money. It spares some load from the transmission infrastructure which helps everyone else as well. And when (not if) the grid power goes out, in a storm or with summer demands, you can keep yourself going off what you make yourself with many of these systems.

But don’t oversell.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Le Jacquelope (I’m too tired to do a point-for-point quote post):

Again, I am all for alternate energy sources.

When discussing energy policy YOU need to show what is available today can meet needs.. By “today” I mean tech available today or tech that needs minor testing but is mostly good to go.

That would be spray-on solar. That would also be night-time solar.

We have been promised fusion energy it 20 years away for the last 50 years.

There is no proof of concept for fusion. There is proof of concept for every aspect of cheaper solar energy that I have discussed. There is no fusion reactor. There is spray-on solar and there already is an airplane that has flown 26 hours on pure solar energy, including night time flying.

Cheap solar and night time solar technology exists and has been clearly demonstrated in the wild. I simply do not know how to say this any clearer.

What the Government needs to do is bypass the industrial inertia, subsidize these inventors and push this existing technology into mass production.

[matt]

@Le_Jacquelope

That would be spray-on solar. That would also be night-time solar.
There is no proof of concept for fusion. There is proof of concept for every aspect of cheaper solar energy that I have discussed. There is no fusion reactor. There is spray-on solar and there already is an airplane that has flown 26 hours on pure solar energy, including night time flying.

Cheap solar and night time solar technology exists and has been clearly demonstrated in the wild. I simply do not know how to say this any clearer.

What the Government needs to do is bypass the industrial inertia, subsidize these inventors and push this existing technology into mass production.

Well the Joint European Torus has demonstrated controlled fusion, with net power production, for a short amount of time. The technical hurdles remain pretty daunting and I’m not holding my breath.

Spray-on solar has not been demonstrated as far as I know, and in fact I haven’t found any references to it that are more than an extrapolation from a result from a single quantum dot. Maybe I’ve been reading about the wrong thing and you have a link to better information?

The extrapolation might be right but an awful lot has to happen before this technology is ready for… well, anything at all really. It’s like the difference between a silcon diode and a dual core processor - there’s a REAL long way to go.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@matt

Well the Joint European Torus has demonstrated controlled fusion, with net power production, for a short amount of time. The technical hurdles remain pretty daunting and I’m not holding my breath.

Spray-on solar has not been demonstrated as far as I know, and in fact I haven’t found any references to it that are more than an extrapolation from a result from a single quantum dot. Maybe I’ve been reading about the wrong thing and you have a link to better information?

It looks like there’s an existing 12x12 inch prototype already in existence. That appears to be something beyond a mere extrapolation result from a single quantum dot.

Like I said, the next step simply requires more funding. We could get that from pulling our troops out of Afghanistan.

[gonzomax]

It seems pretty clear that strides will be taken in alternative energy and we should support them. They are the industries of the future. The longer we cling to obsolete energy systems, the farther behind the rest of the world we will fall. Somehow we just don’t take getting off fossil fuels as seriously as many other nations.

[Zeriel]

@gonzomax

It seems pretty clear that strides will be taken in alternative energy and we should support them. They are the industries of the future. The longer we cling to obsolete energy systems, the farther behind the rest of the world we will fall. Somehow we just don’t take getting off fossil fuels as seriously as many other nations.

I don’t think there’s any mystery to the fact we have a lot more invested in a fossil fuel infrastructure (both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of energy infrastructure) than almost any other nation. That doesn’t excuse our collective unwillingness to stop throwing good money after bad but it certainly explains it.

[DSeid]

@gonzomax

It seems pretty clear that strides will be taken in alternative energy and we should support them. They are the industries of the future. The longer we cling to obsolete energy systems, the farther behind the rest of the world we will fall. Somehow we just don’t take getting off fossil fuels as seriously as many other nations.

Pertinent.

Global investments into the alternative energy sector totaled $243 billion in 2010, a dramatic increase from the prior year, according to a study from Pew Charitable Trusts.

After the global recession crippled national investments into clean energy, the Group of 20 nations ramped up investment last year. The United States, hampered by politicians debating the merits or necessity of clean energy due to ideological differences, fell into second place globally in investments into the sector.

China ranked No. 1 with $54 billion in investments into clean energy in 2010, followed by Germany with $41.2 billion. The United States came in third, from second place in 2009, at $34 billion. Italy was No. 4 on the list.

Graphically presented.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@DSeid

Pertinent.Graphically presented.

And they say Gonzomax is never right. Looks to me like we already are falling behind, just like he said. Third place, eh? Pretty dismal indeed.

[XT]

It’s almost like the US is in some sort of, I don’t know, recession thingy. Or that we already HAVE invested a lot in wind and solar, and have one of the largest already deployed capacity in both? Couldn’t be. And China couldn’t be investing more in clean energy because they are investing more in ALL types of energy in an effort to rapidly expand their capacity? And Germany…couldn’t be because their Green party has been trying for a while to get rid of all their nuclear, and so they need to cover the gaps in their own energy that’s going to raise?

[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
And they say Gonzomax is never right.
[/QUOTE]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day…and even blind squirrels find acorns occasionally. Heck…even YOU might be right sometime. I haven’t seen much evidence that this has happened, but I’m sure that somewhere, sometime you’ve been right about something…

-XT

[levdrakon]

One thing about China is that it isn’t fully electrified yet. They’ve made lots of progress, and I think they’re up to 98%, but that still leaves possibly millions of people, mostly in the west, who don’t even have access to electricity yet. Parts of China don’t have the energy infrastructure to use electricity even if China produced enough for them.

It’s not really surprising that China’s investments in renewable energy would dwarf the US’s. China is still struggling to generate enough electricity. In China,

The vast majority of Chinese still do not own a car and half the population still lacks access to winter heating.

In the West, the winter holiday season looks like this.

I think electricity access in India is worse, and in Africa it’s far easier to point to the 25% or so who do have electricity than the numbers of people without. In sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of people with electricity is pathetic.

So anyway, it’s not surprising China is investing more in energy than the US. The US basically has all the energy it needs, and now it’s a question of what color of energy we prefer.

Also:

“For most mom-and-pop types of business, the electric bill is a nuisance, but not a major part of their cost,” said William R. Lloyd Jr., Pennsylvania’s small-business advocate. “They’re worried about making payroll, or paying taxes. For them to shop around for power may not be a good use of their time.”

Total energy expenditures as a percentage of sales varies dramatically for different types of businesses, according to a 2008 Small Business Administration study. Small food and beverage stores spend 2.1 percent on energy, restaurants and bars spend 2.8 percent, and accommodations – hotels, guesthouses – spend 7.1 percent.

But for most retail stores, professional offices, and warehouses, energy costs account for less than 1 percent of expenses.

http://energybrokerreview.com/new-parameters-for-small-pa-firms-seeking-deregulated-energy/

Business accounts for a very large percent of our energy use, and it accounts for a very large amount of energy waste, but for most businesses there really isn’t much incentive to improve energy efficiency because compared to their other expenses, energy is near the bottom of their list of things to worry about.

[DSeid]

Dismal? No. As much as we should be doing given our use of energy and our share of GHG emissions? Also no.

[DSeid]

Another way in which we lag, a resource which we do not exploit, literally just throw away - waste to energy.

Their use has not only reduced the country’s energy costs and reliance on oil and gas, but also benefited the environment, diminishing the use of landfills and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The plants run so cleanly that many times more dioxin is now released from home fireplaces and backyard barbecues than from incineration.

With all these innovations, Denmark now regards garbage as a clean alternative fuel rather than a smelly, unsightly problem. And the incinerators, known as waste-to-energy plants, have acquired considerable cachet as communities like Horsholm vie to have them built.

Denmark now has 29 such plants, serving 98 municipalities in a country of 5.5 million people, and 10 more are planned or under construction. Across Europe, there are about 400 plants, with Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands leading the pack in expanding them and building new ones.

By contrast, no new waste-to-energy plants are being planned or built in the United States

How much energy is being thrown away? Well we use only 7% of our copious waste stream for energy, and bury 69% of it. Denmark uses 51% for energy and buries only 4%. To put it in MW terms …

… From that supply of residential waste alone, the U.S.
could more than septuple its waste-produced energy to 21,000 megawatts of electricity per year. That could save nearly 14 billion gallons of fuel oil. Add industrial and agricultural wastes, and total U.S. energy gains could skyrocket. …

Or try to go with more original source material, the DOE’s numbers. Current total is about 10,000 MW from MSW and 7,000 MW recovered landfill gas. If we moved up to Denmark’s percentage, 8x more energy from waste and hardly any landfill, (they recycle the other 45%) then we’d lose that 7,000 MW of recovered landfill gas and gain an additional 70,000MW from direct energy production, to a total of 73,000 MW added in.

That’s a lot to just throw away.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I am always amazed when I drive by garbage dumps and see the jets of flame burning merrily away. I can’t help but think it is just a waste. Energy doing nothing.

I can only assume the money to capture that gas costs more than letting it bleed away.

Sucks but it is the economics. Fossil fuel is so cheap it is not worth capturing that fuel so they burn it off to no effect.

Someday it will be valuable but not today.

[foolsguinea]

We take 16-year-old kids, neuter them, and use them for slave labor, like the Good Old Days[sup]TM[/sup]. This will help deal with the real underlying problem, overpopulation.

More seriously, Greens recognize that in the long term, total reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable, & nuke plants turn into dirty white elephants in a generation. So it’s a matter of acknowledging the problem, rather than sticking fingers in ears & yelling, “LALALALA,” like a child.

Some alternatives: For electrical grids, hydroelectric is highly sustainable, though it does involve flooding river valleys & some conservationists get annoyed at that. Producing steel and aluminum can be done with geothermal energy in some places. I have moderately high hopes for tidal power.

Personally, I’m very in favor of fusion power, although it can’t be sustained in Earth’s atmosphere; and we happen to have a giant self-sustaining mass eight light minutes away. It’s just a question of harvesting it. I hear there are these things called “plants” that turn light & water into chemical energy. I hope to see more research into renewable organic energy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@foolsguinea

We take 16-year-old kids, neuter them, and use them for slave labor, like the Good Old Days[sup]TM[/sup]. This will help deal with the real underlying problem, overpopulation.

More seriously, Greens recognize that in the long term, total reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable, & nuke plants turn into dirty white elephants in a generation. So it’s a matter of acknowledging the problem, rather than sticking fingers in ears & yelling, “LALALALA,” like a child.

Some alternatives: For electrical grids, hydroelectric is highly sustainable, though it does involve flooding river valleys & some conservationists get annoyed at that. Producing steel and aluminum can be done with geothermal energy in some places. I have moderately high hopes for tidal power.

Personally, I’m very in favor of fusion power, although it can’t be sustained in Earth’s atmosphere; and we happen to have a giant self-sustaining mass eight light minutes away. It’s just a question of harvesting it. I hear there are these things called “plants” that turn light & water into chemical energy. I hope to see more research into renewable organic energy.

What?

Do you have a scintilla of a clue of what you are talking about?

[Le_Jacquelope]

@DSeid

Another way in which we lag, a resource which we do not exploit, literally just throw away - waste to energy.

How much energy is being thrown away? Well we use only 7% of our copious waste stream for energy, and bury 69% of it. Denmark uses 51% for energy and buries only 4%. To put it in MW terms …Or try to go with more original source material, the DOE’s numbers. Current total is about 10,000 MW from MSW and 7,000 MW recovered landfill gas. If we moved up to Denmark’s percentage, 8x more energy from waste and hardly any landfill, (they recycle the other 45%) then we’d lose that 7,000 MW of recovered landfill gas and gain an additional 70,000MW from direct energy production, to a total of 73,000 MW added in.

That’s a lot to just throw away.

Facepalm for America.
High five for Denmark.

[matt]

@Le_Jacquelope

It looks like there’s an existing 12x12 inch prototype already in existence. That appears to be something beyond a mere extrapolation result from a single quantum dot.

Like I said, the next step simply requires more funding. We could get that from pulling our troops out of Afghanistan.

Ah, polymer photovoltaics. I was indeed looking at a different technology (actually two different technologies!) I do think that New Energy Technologies have quite a way to go before it becomes viable. Their own cite gives it an efficiency of 0.42% in sunlight but their report page rather misleadingly hypes its superior performance over existing technologies “under normal office lighting conditions, without the benefit of outside natural light from windows”. Fluoro lighting is quite different from sunlight, and being able to run a calculator under weaker fluoros doesn’t excite me all that much. It’s also not at all a “spray on” solar cell that you can apply to any existing surface in situ. The “spray on” aspect is a factory manufacturing step, avoiding expensive vacuum processing. I’ll be keeping my eye on the company though.

[foolsguinea]

@Whack-a-Mole

What?

Do you have a scintilla of a clue of what you are talking about?

About nuke plants turning into white elephants, yeah, actually. A lot of my post was just snark though.

That said, is it your contention that fossil fuel usage is sustainable long-term?