Why Renewable Energy Isn’t Just A Matter Of Will
I think that moving off of a petroleum based economy is the biggest challenge in the next 50 years and will determine whether we stagnate or are prosperous. Unfortunately, I think the issue has become politicized to such an extent that many people believe we have the technology now and it’s just a matter of willpower (and money). This is actually not the case.
The New Scientist points out that renewable energy using current technology is not sustainable because it relies on rare metals or inordinate amounts of physical (land/water) resources. Even nuclear power isn’t the answer as it would run out in a mere 40-60 years if it became our primary form of energy production (although there are potentially ways to get more uranium). I have this concern about technology in general; a lot of electronics rely on rare metals that will become in increasingly short supply in the next 50 years. The key will be to move towards biological and (new) carbon based technology.
I think people are underestimating the radical advance that is required. Metals have been studied and manipulated for thousands of years, while utilization of biological components for engineering purposes is in its infancy. While there are some promising developments (e.g. algae biofuel) energy efficiency will be the dominant determinant of prosperity in the intermediate term. We have lots of technology to reduce power/fuel consumption by 50-80% that has been around for decades (geothermal heat pumps, tankless water heaters, CFLs, passive heating/cooling architectural designs, even windows and insulation design) that tend to ignored when discussing our energy problem.
Also, this. We need to do this and faster.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Why Renewable Energy Isn’t Just A Matter Of Will”
Yeah, I read this the other day. I pretty much agree with the content of the article, though not with the broad statement of the title.
Example: FSLR (First Solar). They use an “advanced” technology using Cadmium Telluride. It's a loser, yet they are the highest trading Solar Stock on the market (hype). Tellurium is very very rare, but these guys are counting on it for the basis of their technology, irrespective of the fact that they'll never be able to scale up as will be needed. Cadmium, btw, is toxic. First Solar panels are only 10% efficient, compared to basic silicon-based ones at around 16%.
Indium is being used by alot of players out there, and they'll run into the same kind of supply constraints as the CdTe users, but it might not be quite a bad. Nanosolar is one of these. They use CIGS (Copper, Indium, Gallium, Selenide), as does ASTI (Ascent Technologies). Again, none of these producers can match the efficiency of Silicon Based Solar.
There are all sorts of other options and technologies out there, including some highly efficient cells that they combine with focusing techs in order to minimize the amount of semiconductor involved, but I still think that Silicon Based is the way to go in the long run.
Silicon is the second-most comment element by mass in the Earth's crust, but it is expensive and technically difficulat to purify it to the point that it's useful in Solar. Basically the Polysilicon market has been all about computer chipmaking until just a couple of years ago. The producers worked out deals to keep the supply limited, and to keep their technology from leaking out. Around 2002 Polysilicon was running $40 / kg but Solar started taking off, and by last year it was over $400 / kg on the spot market. Currently it's going for around $150 / kg. Ok, so the cat is out of the bag, though. There are now multiple companies that will sell you a poly production plant if you want one. There's GT Solar from the US, and MSA and Centrotherm from Germany. So, what we'll see in the next few years is that the World Supply of Polysilicon is going to explode, and prices will collapse back down to $30 – $40 per kg. This will allow for an incredible scale of solar panel production, unlike anything we've seen before, and the prices will come way way down. We'll NEVER run out of Silicon, so all we'll have to worry about as far as supply constraints will be the doping materials, and whatever other technologies that you use in conjunction with those cells (antireflection coatings, potentially frequency-shifting coatings to allow for greater efficiencies, etc.)
Anyway, the bottom line is that China is taking to production of Solar in a big way, and if we don't compete, then we'll just end up buying from them. In any case, Solar is here to stay.
BTW, there's also Silicon-based thin film out there. Check out Sunfab by Applied Materials (AMAT) it's really nice tech for very cheap thin film panels, but once again, it's not as efficient as standard crystalline Silicon.
Also note that the amount of energy that you can get from the material used to construct a solar inatallation is pretty much unlimited over time, considering that the actual energy involved is coming in fresh every day from the sun, as opposed to being released on a one time basis from the burning of some fuel. Your panels will last 25 years under a typical warrantee, but likely even longer than that. There aren't any moving parts to wear out, and there's hardly even any maintenance required. You don't have to ship in fuel every day, and in fact, there's added value to these technologies simply because they make a great hedge against fossil supply disruptions (or even grid disruptions potentially). Heck, even coal production and distribution is dependent on oil production, so if the one goes, then the other is at risk.
So, when your panels are outdated or broke, there's nothing to stop somebody from recycling them. In fact, this is a critical part of First Solar's business plan. Not only do they have to assure the EU that their toxic panels will be taken care of at end of life, but First Solar REALLY REALLY needs that extra bit of Tellurium.
Meanwhile, when you've burned through a big chunk of coal, that energy is gone, and you have to find more coal.
Thanks for the very detailed reply. I agree that while silicon is the way to go, there the decreased efficiency will also make it so we need a lot more…do you know if that makes it harder to upkeep? Also we need way better battery technology as well.
To be honest, I wrote it up last night in response to that article.
Yeah, we'll need a heck of alot of panels, no matter what. I do think that we'll get some very nice increases in efficiency in the next few years even considering the various supply constraints that we'll also be dealing with.
If you want to get an idea of a rough comparison in land use between solar and coal, check out a couple of posts I made recently elsewhere. Here's a very rough one: http://americansolareconomy.blogspot.com/2009/0… and here's one that based on real-world Solar: http://americansolareconomy.blogspot.com/2009/0…
Man, looking at the numbers it's easy to see why it's so hard to get started though. That is a hell of a lot of land to cover in solar panels. But as you point out, they are more permanent. Personally, I'm hoping for us to figure out how to make self replicating photosynthesis cells that we could then just cover a huge region and let them grow. I can dream can't i.
We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. We need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail ourselves out of our dependence on foreign oil. Jeff Wilson has an eye opening new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. He explores our uses of oil besides gasoline, our depletion, out reserves and stores as well as viable options to replace oil and the pros and cons of each. Oil is finite, it will run out in the not too distant future. WE need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail America out of it's dependence on foreign oil. The historic high price of gas this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. WE should never allow others to have that much power over our economy again. I wish every member of congress would read this book too. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent. Create cheap clean energy, millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop! America needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
This article/commentary sure sounds like a pitch from the petrolium/coal industry.
That's the fist thing I though when I read it. Now, weigh all the expenditures in the Middle East's Bushco war for oil, the pollution that fossil fuels dump into our atmosphere, the raw materials needed to produce and transport fossil fuels across great expanses of oceans, shipping, processing, hazards etc etc etc…
Then compare it with geothermal…
That's why I've been harping about geothermal all along, If we put our big brains on how to drill holes into the ground and exploit volcanic thermal vents in the west, the “materials” argument falls flat on its face.
Here's how geothermal works: You get steam from the ground and put it through a turbine which spins a magnet inside of coil windings to spur an electric current. You hook those turbines up to a wire.. End of story.
Here, let me pitch the story the way it truthfully is coming from the petrolium/coal magnates:
“We shouldn't rush into alternatives and don't get your hopes up for them because we know for a fact that they work and they will put us out of big business eventually…subjegating us to a more minor player in energy resources. Please! Our stock will plummet! Waaaaa waaaaa waaaa”
Sell your interest in BigOil/Coal and buy alternatives. They're on the ground getting ready to spread their wing$ and fly…!
Yes, sometimes when I read about some proposed technologies I find myself thinking “They call them 'rare earths' for a reason.”.
Silhouette, you forgot to add the consequences, such as a 70-80 meter rise in sea levels, human extinction, and the Usual Solutions at hand (along with this guy's necessary tin-foil hat):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/au…
[sigh]
So many on the Left need not only to understand just what is needed to see their dreams realized, but to _grow_up_ while learning it.
With solar and wind, which are intermittent, not consistent, sources (requiring advances in battery storage and other forms of energy for electrical production when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing), people are so naive or ignorant about how much land and how much materials and labor are required for construction (one reason why they're more dangerous and dirtier energy sources than nuclear energy, not to mention more energy-intensive in construction than adherents ever would understand if they could or would try). Then comes maintenance, not to mention the transmission costs (and losses in transmission).
At least we don't get bombarded constantly with “superconducting transmission” as the magic solution to the transmission problem. (Even achieving higher enough temperatures to where nitrogen can cool the lines isn't going to be a magic solution, sorry to say. As for ambient temperatures, including in the desert Southwest, that's merely good for snickers.)
Just _grow_up_, be patient, view things _realistically_ and _factually_, and distinguish between what competes with other things for research and development at this time versus the closer-at-hand items fit for refinement or incremental improvement, the normal way things get better.
Superconducting is the answer though…and they have a detailed model that explains the mechanism and a prediction of what the material that will superconduct above room temperature will look like. Of course they still have to figure out how to make that material (or figure out how to make graphene in large quantities) and who knows how long that will take.
In general though not enough attention is paid attention to storage or transmission and those are two things that are arguably more important than production.
“In general though not enough attention is paid attention to storage or transmission and those are two things that are arguably more important than production.”
We need more, better transmission, anyway, so it's perfectly sound for funding of this, even though along with other infrastructure items it's not as much a short-measure as some stimulus advocates would prefer or recommend. Upgrading and new construction would be welcome. We need new rights-of-way, too (sorry, NIMBYs!) but we ought to pay attention to reusing existing rights-of-way, going to more compact designs, composite rather than metal structures, etc. I'd also like to see six-phase and twelve-phase considered but this is not conventional (we use three-phase) and I doubt higher-phase-order transmission will be adopted or pursued at all.
Mikkel, good luck to them if they can achieve superconductivity, the application of which correctly belongs everywhere, in all electrical conductors (transmission, distribution, household wiring, vehicle wiring, appliances, motors, electronic applications, everywhere). I favor the more realistic and the more achieveable and practical things now, though. And with transmission (and other infrastructure work), it is something that probably has the least opposition, political or otherwise, when it comes to government intervention and spending plans.
* * *
“Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered.”
Moreover, it is the feedstock of the petrochemical industry, involved in the production of plastics and other materials. Obviously it's more sensible to make stuff using this oil rather than merely to burn it. The problem is that there is no economical, practical, realistic substitute at this time for petroleum-based transport fuels. I've been enamored of electric vehicles for many, many years; but they are in no way at this time a replacement or even a substitute for conventionally-powered vehicles. The capacity often is questionable, but more importantly, the range is laughable, recharging is not only much too frequent but takes far, far too long, and the vehicles simply cost too much to make any sense. (A $40,000 Chevy Volt with a 40-mile range is hardly any change for the better over the EV-1.) It would be great not only for a huge air pollution improvement in metro areas, but even _noise_ abatement to go to electric vehicles, but it's not serious at this time. And do not neglect the needs for electrical service for these vehicles, both in production and distribution of the electricity and the provision of charging facilities. (A suitable high-use NEMA plug and socket combination for 240 volts — 480 volts are better, but would be unlikely, sadly — has not been designed or built. 240 volt plugs and sockets are for ranges and other large appliances, infrequently manipulated.)
“Create cheap clean energy, millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil all in one fell swoop!”
There is no magic, rapid “revolution” [sic]. Wind and solar power have many deficicies, some of which never will be overcome (their intermittency and their lack of consistency when present, mainly). Area requirements are vast, material and construction requirements (and safety hazards) are much greater than with other energy sources, etc. History says it will be stepwise improvement (incremental) or refinement, not any sudden revolution. With energy (for both electricity production and for transportation) and with wind and solar, it will likely be as with so many other things (to name one, electrification) to be adopted and integrated into our lives — it is a 40 year process, as it has been with so many other things (to name one, electrification).
Magic green jobs? Far fewer in number than the dreamers realize, and reality has already arrived and harmed the dream:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/…
(These people are merely faddish when referring to “green jobs,” whereas the problems they see and the scope of their efforts extends throughout the entire economy.)
http://www.changetowin.org/connect/2009/02/good…
I think the naysayers have been scaring us away from pursuing alternative energy for a long time. The point is always made that alternative energy sources can't compete with oil and gas. But oil and gas are very heavily subsidized. If the subsidies for those products is elimintated completely, and the same subsidies applied to alternative energy sources, the equation totally changes. Now we can say oil, gas and coal just can't compete economically with wind solar and geothermal. Do the math. It is already commercially viable.
Now let's get off of our high-tech addiction and stop talking about exotic technologies for a minute. For example, when we talk about geothermal, we're talking about tapping into a geyser basically. But every single new home can use geothermal, no matter where it's located. It's cheap, it's effective and it's available right now. Take a look at my friend Eric's zero net energy home. PLEASE, take the tour, especially if you still believe this is years in the future or unattainable. It costs only 8-10% more than conventional construction to build. There is no reason for any new home in America ever to require any energy input. The geothermal angle? The home uses an ordinary 6 inch pipe running completely around the foundation and all air taken into the house goes through this pipe. Because of the thermal mass of the earth, the air entering the home is already heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. Then it passes through a heat exchanger that captures the warmth of exhaust air in the winter and transfers it to the incoming air, further heating it. These are simple technologies that can be used anywhere, and should be.
And if that 10% seems to be too much (it isn't) consider that my friend David built a net zero energy office out of all sustainable materials for 25% less than conventional construction. He shows in exquisite detail how to update every single system in your home.
Now let's talk about new power plants. If we take the cost of a coal-fired power plant, and spend exactly that much money to retrofit existing energy inefficient homes, we never need to build that power plant. There are 120 million homes in America that need to be retrofitted. That simple fact is the salvation of the home building industry (which is dying) and a huge part of solving our energy problems. If all of these homes, and offices, were retrofitted, we actually produce more energy right now than we will need 10 years from now. Blowing in insulation, installing solar, replacing single-pane windows, weatherstripping etc. are all LOCAL jobs with massive returns in energy efficiency and sustainability.
How about transmission and “superconductors”? The beauty of the wind and sun is that they distribute energy everywhere. Yet here we are thinking about building massive centralized power plants using alternative energy sources, and worrying about transmitting the energy to someone's home. Instead, make everyone's home a power generator. Transmission problem solved. Every BTU produced in a home hot water system eliminates energy that must be delivered to that home over the electrical grid or through gas lines. Every watt of electricity produced reduces the need to deliver a watt of electricity.
New battery technology. Yes, any advances in electrical storage technology will be very helpful to us. But we already have storage mechanisms that are more efficient than batteries. For example, excess generating capacity from whatever source, can be used to freeze water, which can be used to cool buildings or homes. It can be used to pump water uphill, which can then drive hydroelectric generators to recover the energy later. There is no loss of energy potential in time, as there is with batteries. If you don't have water available, for example in the desert, use the excess energy to winch a heavy object up a tower. Lower it back to Earth, generating electricity, when you need it. Again, there's never any loss of the potential energy in such a system, as there is with batteries.
For automobiles, I continue to be intrigued by hydrogen from starch technology, that can use inedible starches, such as those from kudzu or switchgrass to create a slurry that is pumped into an automobile, broken up by a combination of enzymes and converted into hydrogen, water vapor and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen drives a fuel cell. All the problems with the use of hydrogen for vehicles (explosive flammability, new high pressure pipelines, dangerous filling stations) are solved, with the exception of the need for a catalyst. I do not know if our current catalytic converters utilize more or less than will be needed for fuel cell vehicles. Biodiesel from microalgae is also promising, and can be grown in areas in which the real estate is undesireable, the sun is hot and the landscape boring, for example parts of the Mojave Desert.
We can do this. We must do this. If you can't get on board, at least please get out of the way.
You have a good point about non-battery based energy storage. Can you point me to any designs out there? I'm planning on building a “house” (more like sustainable farm) out in CO in the next couple of years and am looking at designs.
“I think the naysayers have been scaring us away from pursuing alternative energy for a long time.”
Greendreams, be aware that many of us actually find the alternatives interesting and even desireable, and like the idea of less dependence on foreign oil supplies as well (in the case of electric vehicles) in a great deal of reduction in air pollution (and even noise pollution) if we could enjoy electric vehicles someday. But the alternatives will have to be economic and practical in order to be taken seriously. There is no imperative for these things, no legitimate basis for childishly insisting on rushing. (This is even more true in the case of augmented greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which often is a fig leaf for those simply wanting to take ourselves down, which is perverse, and to control people without their consent; _real_ air pollution is what should be addressed, and even this on a rational and cost-benefit basis, obviously.) We cannot expect to see off-grid self-powered homes and vehicles any time soon from solar energy. Wind has its appeals (unlike others, I don't find wind towers or farms to be eyesores, either), but must be viewed realistically, not in a hopelessly idealistic or childish way. Wind power will never constitute a majority, much less all, of our energy supply; the current dream, which is highly ambitious but could be reached given our wind resources, is to reach 20 per cent of electrical production by 2030.
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report
Recommended reading, by one of the few lefties who discusses such things to merit attention outside the activist subculture:
“The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity” by James Lovelock
Note who the author is. Yes, Mr. Gaia himself, who is pessimistic about the earth's and humanity's future. He's not a big wind fan. (Nor are others such as the authority he quotes that says in one place with wind farms on land and offshore, it amounts in reality to something like a three per cent solution to meeting the needs there.) Find out why not. It's a book I've enjoyed owning and reading. (Or is doing either something unfit in today's faddish culture, where tech is now associated in selective ways and circumstances with the hip and politically correct crowd alone?) He's not a fan of alternative fuels, for he is consistent and doesn't like to see people burning anything. See if you can find the book somewhere. (I got it for $5.98, money well spent.)
Mikkel — non-battery-based energy storage example from Iowa, which is developing a wind power capability:
http://coen.boisestate.edu/WindEnergy/resources…
http://www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/ESB/2003/03Aug/esb0…
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/Publications/presen_h…
http://www.isepa.com/index.asp
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-reserve…
* * *
“If we take the cost of a coal-fired power plant, and spend exactly that much money to retrofit existing energy inefficient homes, we never need to build that power plant.”
Not only that, but there _are_ instances where conservation measures can make a difference, a substantial difference. I'm all for even super-insulation, which is strictly not cost-effective, but which certainly leads to an improvement in quality of life as well as lower environmental maintenance power costs. The problem is that conservation and improvements like this alone will never solve our problems. And where we _can_ achieve something of a “breakthrough,” it enables us to consider using more energy to greatly improve things even more. An example is using money to replace high-intensity-discharge street lighting (in addition to indoor lighting) with LED lighting. It costs a lot less. But that in turn leads intelligent people to consider what was cost-prohibitive in the past, that now becomes cost-effective, even if it means using more total energy and spending more total money. In the case of street lighting with LEDs, it means the ability is there for us to light so much that wasn't lit before, and to increase our lighting of roadways from use of a number of what amount to point sources of light, to full-roadway-length lighting, of “light bars” and other ways of placing luminaires beside or over an entire roadway's length. Just as with medical care, say, this increase in lighting constitutes an improvement, and is obviously a good, not a bad, thing, and only those who are anti-progress or have behavioral or other personal problems would object to it. No, we cannot fully light all our Interstate highways along inter-city routes. But there's no reason with LEDs why a large number of arterials and even other roads lower on the hierarchy in cities and towns and metropolitan areas could not be lighted fully along their lengths, a substantial kind of safety and quality-of-life improvement. This is something that must be borne in mind, just as would be the development of solar or wind power the way the environmentalists think too often of it, that is “too cheap to meter.”
* * *
“kudzu or switchgrass”
I'm still intrigued by isobutanol from switchgrass (a fuel that would have a similar energy density to gasoline, something that is needed and is all too often overlooked, when considering alternative transportation fuels). But with any new crop, vast new amounts of land are going to be needed for cultivation. (At least switchgrass ought to be able to be grown in less productive lands.) That is often overlooked.
Here in Michigan, I believe most hydropower resources are tapped already, but we have good wind potential, plus we can work at something obliquely referred to by our governor here in her latest state address (when discussing pulp mill biomass). We can return to good silviculture here, and even achieve something that is sustainable (in the real sense of that word, many years before it was taken by activists to be a trendy fashion word for environmental causes), with rotating varying-age plots of land. Michigan has fantastic forest resources and if enough land could be devoted to this (from marginal farms, etc.) we could have a big biomass power industry here in addition to wind. (We already have transmission rights of way here that could be upgraded, plus there are projects to overlay even more new 765-KV transmission — I'd instead look to reusing existing rights of way first.) Michigan has great potential when you combine wind with biomass and modest transmission distances by North American standards, but even then I am not going to expect instant miracles.
Interesting sidenote on the confluence of green thinking and outright fear of the future. The # 1 magazine at retail. Ready? Mother Earth News. Back to the land types have loved it for decades. Now lots of people are looking at solar refrigerators, low flow ram jet generators and such, as well as growing their own food, sprouts, even meat.
Geothermal Heat Pumps are used for heating and cooling from the earth’s constant temperature of 50 to 60 degrees under ground. Geothermal using hot rocks require a deep borehole hitting a geyser or hot pocket to generate steam for generating electricity. Geothermal Heat Pumps will save 30 to 70% energy in a home, business or manufacturing plant. Geothermal Heat Pumps can be installed by an individual, where as, Geothermal Hot Rocks has to be done by a utility company. If all new construction and existing homes would required Geothermal Heat Pumps saving 50% energy cost we would wipe out foreign oil requirements in a short time. Almost all solar homes have a geothermal heat pumps installed first.
energy is a great problem and we have lots to do for our children and ourselves.
Silicon is the second-most comment element by mass in the Earth's crust, but it is expensive and technically difficulat to purify it to the point that it's useful in Solar. Basically the Polysilicon market has been all about computer chipmaking until just a couple of years ago. The producers worked out deals to keep the supply limited, and to keep their technology from leaking out. Around 2002 Polysilicon was running $40 / kg but Solar started taking off, and by last year it was over $400 / kg on the spot market. Currently it's going for around $150 / kg. Ok, so the cat is out of the bag, though. There are now multiple companies that will sell you a poly production plant if you want one. There's GT Solar from the US, and MSA and Centrotherm from Germany. So, what we'll see in the next few years is that the World Supply of Polysilicon is going to explode, and prices will collapse back down to $30 – $40 per kg. This will allow for an incredible scale of solar panel production, unlike anything we've seen before, and the prices will come way way down. We'll NEVER run out of Silicon, so all we'll have to worry about as far as supply constraints will be the doping materials, and whatever other technologies that you use in conjunction with those cells (antireflection coatings, potentially frequency-shifting coatings to allow for greater efficiencies, etc.)
that is what i believe
[...] led under Alternative Energy Resources, Environment, Oil, Pollution, Science, Math, Technol…
…
tankless heater…
They come in a variety of sizes for different applications…