Thought this book was really interesting and folks here might be interested in it. Basically the author claims that the idea of making America "energy independent" is neither reasonable, possible, nor deisrable, and that the whole concept of it is based on a bunch of myths and falsehoods.
Bryce himself is an energy journalist, and in his words "a raging moderate." This it definitely seems, he is definitely not a hardcore Republican as he does much knocking on the "neocons" (who he distinguishes from "Republicans," so he doesn't consider all Republicans neocons) as well as the Democrats. He also quotes from both Left and Right sources, so the book seems pretty non-biased.
He also completely firebombs the whole concept of ethanol, which if he is accurate, is an enormous sham.
I will try to summarize the points he makes for why America should not and cannot ever be energy independent, but to get the full details you need to read the book:
1) Even if energy independent, the U.S. would still be subject to the global price of oil, because domestic oil producers will sell to countries outside the U.S. if they can get higher prices there than here; oil traders sell to whereever costs the highest, to make the most profit.
2) He says the whole concept of trying to remain independent is silly because now that energy is increasing in cost, the energy industry, in order to keep prcies as low as possible, is becoming very globally integrated. For example, a huge oil discovery was just made in Gulf of Mexico by three oil companies, two U.S. and one from Norway, all working together, as it is no longer practical for companies to search for oil strictly by themselves. Another example is BP (Beyond Pretroleum, formerly British Petroleum) is the largest domestic producer of oil in the U.S. (even though it's a foreign company!). He basically says, should we just tell BP and the Norwegian company to go take a hike and become "independent"? He says that the days in which one company did the searching, drilling, etc...itself doesn't exist anymore.
3) He says the idea that being energy independent of the Middle East will not keep us militarily out of the Middle East because Saudi Arabia is such a crucial supplier of oil to the rest of the world, and will be so for decades to come. He says keeping the Saudi Royal Family in power is very important to keep that oil flowing, as if they were overthrown, it could disrupt the supply. He says economists estimate that if just 4% of world oil shipments are halted for a significant length of time, world crude prices could triple. The thing is that even if independent of the Middle East oil, the United States is not independent of the global economy, and skyrocketing crude prices from a disruption in the flow of Saudi oil could send the global economy reeling, which would of course impact the U.S. economy a lot as well. And of course, with the U.S. remaining under the global price of crude, tripling crude prices would cause a lot of havoc still.
He also says that while vulnerable to this economically, the European and East Asian economies are very vulnerable to a disruption in the flow of the Saudi oil, and since the United States is who ensures the safety of the Saudi family, essentially the United States militarily subsidizes the security of Europe and East Asia.
4) He says people make it sound as if oil is the only crucial ingredient the U.S. imports, but he says oil actually is only one substance very crucial to the functioning of the U.S. economy that is imported, and he gives a list of multiple other minerals: The U.S. imports 100% of its bauxite, alumina, manganese, strontium, yttrium, thirteen others. It also imports 99% of its gallium, 91 percent of its platinum, 88 percent of its tin, 81 percent of its palladium, 76 percent of its cobalt, and 72 percent of its chromium. He also says oil makes up only 7 percent of U.S. imports.
5) He points out that America gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico and not the Middle East, and the Middle East supplies about 11% of U.S. oil needs.
6) He says that the commonly held notion that when you fill up your SUV, you are also providing the money to fund terrorists is not true. He gives a big description on this, talking about each country in the Middle East. He talks about how the finger is often pointed at the Saudis, but he says that the Saudis actually have worked within OPEC to keep the oil prices from growing too high (he explains how this is in their own best interest). He also explains about some good things Saudi Arabia has done. However, he doesn't deny that Saudi Arabia is still a place of fundamentalist and radical Islamists.
He says that one can't deny that the Saudis have helped fund terrorists, but he says the notion that the Saudis and the oil money are the root cause of terrorism, and if the U.S. stopped buying their oil, that it would undermine the terrorists, is wrong. He references G.I. Wilson, a former Marine Corps colonel who has written extensively about the subject, who says the conflation of oil and terrorism is a contrivance.
He points out that many terrorist groups have functioned for years without oil money, and that they mostly fund themselves through drugs and other illegal things. He gives more details, but too many to list here.
7) He says the notion that energy independence would protect the U.S. from another oil embargo is false, and he explains that the first oil embargo in the 1970s did not really work and did not achieve its objectives, and that it would not at all be desirable these days for the Middle Eastern nations to enact an embargo. He also says any attempt to repeat the 1973 embargo would increase global crude prices, so the pain would be felt by everyone, not just America.
8) He says another argument for energy independence is that if we stop buying the Middle East oil, and cause a collapse in global oil prices, it will crush dictators like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad. He says that it's an interesting theory, but that acollapse in global oil prices could cause effects that would be ba for America long-term.
For example, cheaper oil would allow the Chinese and Indian economies to go into hyper-drive and start growing even faster, China especially, as they have an insatiable thirst for oil, and will only be happy to start buying larger amounts of it if prices go down.
He says that low prices would be terrible for Iraq, as the current higher prices have allowed Iraq to amass sizeable funds for its rebuilding effort. He also says they have helped offset Iraq's faltering oil production.
He says a oil price crash could be disastrous for Mexico and could increase the illegal immigrants coming to America, as the Mexican government gets so many of its revenues from oil (about 37%). He points out that Mexico's state-owned oil company is already in dire financial straits, and a price crash could send it reeling, and with it, the Mexican government, which he says has already been weakened since the 2006 Presidential race there.
He says that an oil price crash could end the push to create for fuel-efficient vehicles in America, and the push for renewable energy.
He points out that a price collapse would devastate America's domestic oil industry, which would increase oil imports.
He says a long period of cheap petroleum could cause instability in key regions of the Middle East because of economic problems, and if any major problems were to occur, the U.S. would have to step in.
9) He says that energy independence will not provide the U.S. with better energy security. An example he gives is that after Hurricane Katrina, the reason gasoline shortages lasted only a short period of time was because of increasing oil imports. If the U.S. had been completely independent, then the gas and oil shortages would have continued for a long while until they repaired the oil refineries that had been damaged. He also gives other examples.
10) He gives a huge chapter on the sham that is ethanol. Some points are that the company that has 60% of the ethanol market (Archer-Danliels-Midland Co. or ADM) is a known price-fixer (they were taken to Court in the 1990s over this). The family of this company has essentially admitted even that they want socialism of the agricultural industry in America.
He also names many politicians, Republican and Democrat, who are in the pockets of this company, and industry overall. He points out for example how one Texas Republican tried to kill the ethanol subsidies, but was stopped short by Newt Gingrich. He also points out that Barack Obama actually used the corporate jets of ADM his first two years in office. He also shows how the ethanol industry has perverted the U.S. election system a good deal, because by making Iowa, the largest corn producing state (ethanol is made from corn) so influential in voting for Presidential candidates, all the Presidential candidates have become "pro-ethanol" to garner the Iowa vote. For example, both Senator Hillary Clinton and John McCain were staunch critics of ethanol. But then they did complete 180s and became huge supporters of it when they began running for President.
He points out some other neat things though, for example, assume we could fuel all cars and trucks with corn-grown ethanol and stop importing oil. Well what happens if there's a long drought or bad weather that seriously messes up the corn crop? Fuel prices would skyrocket. Furthermore, remember this fuel would be being provided by a company that was dragged into court for price-fixing, controls 60% of the ethanol market alone, and is already supported by subsidies; if there was a corn crop shortage, the American taxpayer might have to bail out these ethanol companies while at teh same time paying higher fuel prices, and of course food prices.
And something that occurred to me myself is, usually the same people pushing for ethanol are also the global warmers who claim that global warming will cause massive crop failures (for example Ted Turner said recently that we will become cannibals soon). So their solution, with impending crop failures, is to turn the entire fuel supply over to crops! A crop that when burned will likely increase greenhouse gas emissions, and produces less energy than gasoline does, meaning you need to use more of it to get the same effect.
And to supply all of current America with ethanol, we'd need 546 million acres of farmland. This is a problem, considering current U.S. farmland covers 446 million U.S. acres, and then you consider the fact of how our gasoline and diesel use will continue to grow in the future by a large amount. We could always start cutting down lots of trees I suppose to increase the farmland, but this would put the tree-huggers up in arms, so...point is, ethanol is a complete sham. It will not make America energy independent, is a lousy fuel source, it is a risky fuel source even if we could power all cars/trucks with it, and it is bad for the environment.
And then there's all the water it would need; the West is already strapped for water.
The ultimate question is: Do we use America's farmland to grow food or fuel? It cannot be both right now. And if we do go the ethanol way, we will end up just producing a useless fuel that will not make us less dependent on foreign oil (which as said isn't desirable anyhow), and at the same time, possibly making us dependent on other nations for food. It would be a real irony for one of the world's largest food producers to become one that has to import a lot of food.
Ethanol also is what is increasing food prices; he points out how it has increased prices on multiple foods such as cheese, ice cream, eggs, poultry, pork, cereal, sugar, and beef.
And finally, he says American taxpayers are taxed three different ways to pay for corn ethanol:
1) Billions in subsidies for growing corn
2) Billions in subsidies for turning that corn into ethanol
3) Billions of dollars in costs resulting from higher food prices
One group of scientists also wrote a report claiming that corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and ethanol from wood biomass, and soybeans, are all net losers in the energy, they all have a net loss.
11) Going back to the massive need for water already, he says oil and refined fuel imports could actually be good in this sense, in that it will decrease the need for water for domestic fuels; the U.S. has little oil, but a large ability to grow food and lots of water; the Middle East has little freshwater, and thus little ability to grow food, but lots of petroleum; this thus creates mutual trade between the U.S. and these countries, where both countries benefit.
12) He points out that despite being the Saudi Arabia of coal, America actually imports a good chunk of its coal and in the coming years is likely to become a net coal importer. He says one reason is because the federal regulations require low sulfur-dioxide coal and many companies just find it more profitable to import coal.
14) He points out that the concept of America using nuclear power to be energy independent makes no sense, because America imports all its uranium. America does have uranium of its own, but this industry was pretty much ruined and likely will never reach its previous levels; also, America doesn't have the uranium reserves other countries do.
15) He points out that America already imports electricity, getting certain electricity from both Mexico and from Canada.
16) He criticized New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, because Friedman has talked very much about the world economy becoming so globalized and interconnected, but then he also is a staunch advocate for energy independece. Bruce says this is a totally contradictory viewpoint, because the energy business is the largest in the world and is very globalized and interconnected and becoming moreso every day. He says it is impossible to embrace the global economy but try to become completely independent of other countries for energy needs because everything is interconnected now.
17) He says the U.S. cannot isolate Iran. The U.S. is currently the largest consumer of oil, yet it does not buy any oil from Iran. This does not stop Iran from selling every bit of oil it produces. Furthermore, it doesn't stop multiple other countries, many that are U.S. allies, from buying oil from Iran and doing business with them, either. Even Halliburton did business with Iran for years, albeit that has now stopped. Point is that despite trying to isolate Iran, companies and countries will find ways to work around trade sanctions imposed on Iran.
18) The U.S. is losing its ability to be the main influencer of global oil usage because of China and India and other nations. If the U.S. stops buying oil from foreign countries, they will just sell it to someone else. So it wouldn't make sense to be enegy independent to try and "stave" the oil producers who are thugs.
I didn't agree 100% with everything he said in the book, but I think he makes many very valid points and that people should definitely read the book.
OrbitalPower
06.25.08, 11:17 AM
Interesting post. I think the point of energy independence was to not have to deal with brutal regimes so directly, as it is very hypocritical for us to be doing so. But, I agree this seems implausible even if we allow more of our oil resources to be tapped by the oil companies.
This seems like even more of a good reason to strongly pursue the use of alternatives.
gendou2
06.25.08, 12:14 PM
I am curious as to why nuclear power is, as you say, ruined?
Granted, it would take a lot of time and money, but couldn't we build new plants?
From what I've read, nuclear technology has come a long way since we build all ours.
What about solar energy? I hear a lot of hubbub about solar in the news.
I wonder how much money/time/area it would take to build enough solar power plants to displace coal and oil?
Surely, solar is a truly independent energy source, right?
DrClapeyron
06.25.08, 01:18 PM
Good intentions pave the road to hell.
The British did not wake up one day and say gee, we ought to use coal for no obvious reason. More like they found one day the supply of wood to be running low; with a supply shortage in effect, the British used coal first in home heating and then used coke from coal in the iron industry.
Necessity is the mother of invention, not preference.
BobG
06.25.08, 01:20 PM
He has some good points.
He's right about energy independence not reducing the cost of fuel in a capitalist country free to sell goods to anyone in the world.
Energy independence would improve national security in that you can't be denied a product at any cost. Having a lot of different suppliers provides almost that same security level, though. You have to piss off the entire world to be denied a critical product (plus you have to lack products critical to the rest of the world).
Increasing the diversity of products you import (oil and ethanol instead of just oil) increases your security because you've increased your number of suppliers (of course, you've also increased the number of people in third world countries that will die of malnutrition since you raised their food prices). Electric cars (where your electricity comes from hydro, nuclear, or coal) and ethanol all improve our energy security even if they don't provide energy independence.
Ultimately, the only way to reduce the price of energy is to reduce the amount you use. You either need machines that make more efficient use of energy or reduce your lifestyle to a lower level requiring less energy to sustain.
quadraphonics
06.25.08, 02:02 PM
Ultimately, the only way to reduce the price of energy is to reduce the amount you use. You either need machines that make more efficient use of energy or reduce your lifestyle to a lower level requiring less energy to sustain.
No, you can also come up with new, more efficient, cheaper sources of energy.
turbo-1
06.25.08, 02:47 PM
No, you can also come up with new, more efficient, cheaper sources of energy.I cannot (alone) impact the global, or even local, price of energy, but I can impact the price of the energy that I use. I have a small 4-cyl pickup and drive only when necessary. My wife has a fuel-efficient 4-cyl car to commute to work. She consolidates trips and generally does all her shopping on the way home from work, and if she and her sisters want to shop for things that aren't locally available, they plan ahead and go together. I raise the majority of the vegetables we eat, and pay the cost of electricity for the two chest freezers, because it is a LOT cheaper than buying that food from a store. I planted rows closer together this year to maximize yield - so close that I leave my old Troy-Bilt tiller parked and weed by hand with a scuffle-hoe. I pick wild berries and freeze them and raise apples and freeze them, as well. If the weather cooperates, we should have a bumper-crop of grapes this year as well. We have an oil furnace, but burned probably less than 10 gallons of oil last year, setting the thermostat low for freeze-protection when we were to be away for a day. Heat is supplied by well-seasoned firewood, burned very hot in a small efficient wood stove - the house is small and well-insulated.
Conservation and self-reliance can reduce our exposure to increases in fuel and food prices, but people have to be willing to make some changes. I have a good friend that wanted to build a modest home - planning ahead for retirement, but to preserve domestic tranquility, he had to settle for a much larger, more expensive house that his wife wanted. Another couple who are friends planned more intelligently, sold their big old "dream house" and bought a small, rustic place similar to ours. They have doubled the size of the previous garden spot, rebuilt the pig pens, and have refurbished the chicken coop for new poultry residents. I realize that not everybody lives in a rural or semi-rural area that can support such choices - that's not the point. We all make choices that impact our consumption of energy, and we can all take at least some steps to reduce consumption.
mheslep
06.25.08, 03:32 PM
I posted a link to a recent Bryce vs Zubin audio debate here
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1778571&postcount=76
mheslep
06.25.08, 03:50 PM
5) He points out that America gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico and not the Middle East, and the Middle East supplies about 11% of U.S. oil needs.
...Yes in that line he also states US total imports come from several dozen countries and actually exports some 1m g/d to several dozen countries. His point being that with all these interconnects no amount of local energy production (renewable or domestic drilling) can break them. I think that argument is weak, as oil is a fungible commodity. The price is driven by global supply and demand; it matters little where the supplies and users are located, other than some overhead for transportation. So in this case, I counter that if the US substantially grew its domestic energy sources (renewable or drill), it probably would still import and export to/from many places, but no longer out of desperation. The important point then would be that the US (and other importers) would have much more pricing power and would be much more immune to threats from OPEC states.
quadraphonics
06.25.08, 05:07 PM
I cannot (alone) impact the global, or even local, price of energy, but I can impact the price of the energy that I use.
That's your cost that you're impacting, not the price. Otherwise that sentence is self-contradictory.
turbo-1
06.25.08, 05:21 PM
quadrophonics, if you read the post, I'm exploiting price. Thanks to the move, I have shifted my heating from petrochemicals to wood, so I'm using a lower-priced fuel. Same with food. Some of the cost-reduction comes from conservation, and some comes from exploiting price differentials. I cannot change the price of gasoline, but I can conserve. I cannot change the price of heating oil or the prices of food in the supermarket, but I can choose alternate sources that are lower-priced.
quadraphonics
06.25.08, 06:04 PM
quadrophonics, if you read the post, I'm exploiting price. Thanks to the move, I have shifted my heating from petrochemicals to wood, so I'm using a lower-priced fuel. Same with food. Some of the cost-reduction comes from conservation, and some comes from exploiting price differentials. I cannot change the price of gasoline, but I can conserve. I cannot change the price of heating oil or the prices of food in the supermarket, but I can choose alternate sources that are lower-priced.
All of the actions you list DO change the prices in question. No, you aren't a big enough consumer to single-handedly dictate the global prices of commodities, but your consumption choices most certainly DO alter the prices of local goods and services.
WheelsRCool
06.25.08, 08:06 PM
In the book, he mentions that in his opinion, a $1 billion reward should be put up for whoever can create a superbattery, a challenge that has eluded scientists and engineers since the creation of the battery. He says such a technology would make things like wind and solar power a lot more viable and and also would allow us to reduce dependence on fossil fuels a good deal.
McCain right now is offering a $300 million reward for whoever can come up with a battery for an electric car I believe, which the idea of the battery I like, but the electric car I do not.
Think about the strain on the power grid if we have 60 million electric cars plugged into it!
WarPhalange
06.25.08, 08:28 PM
We can have more powerplants. Even if they were to run on automobile gasoline, it would be better. Why? Because having a large plant would make it easier to keep clean and more efficient than thousands of beat up pickups driving around.
That's not exactly what we are looking for, but I'm just saying that transitioning even now would be beneficial.
mheslep
06.25.08, 09:24 PM
In the book, he mentions that in his opinion, a $1 billion reward should be put up for whoever can create a superbattery, a challenge that has eluded scientists and engineers since the creation of the battery. He says such a technology would make things like wind and solar power a lot more viable and and also would allow us to reduce dependence on fossil fuels a good deal.
McCain right now is offering a $300 million reward for whoever can come up with a battery for an electric car I believe, which the idea of the battery I like, Its not just for cars, intermittent electric power like solar and wind also want energy storage. The reward might help a but I don't think any more incentive is necessary. If someone invents a dramatically improved battery they'll be become the next Donald Trump/Bill Gates overnight, no help needed from the government.
...but the electric car I do not.
Think about the strain on the power grid if we have 60 million electric cars plugged into it!Not a problem, the US grid has ample excess capacity at night to handle several million cars now; 60m E cars won't appear quickly even if the perfect battery discovered tomorrow.
OmCheeto
06.25.08, 10:04 PM
Where's Ivan?
Think about the strain on the power grid if we have 60 million electric cars plugged into it!
Someone actually ran the numbers here at the forum on that the other day, and came up with a price tag of $15,000 for the average American automobile driver to install solar panels to take the load off the grid to solve this problem. For about the price of a cheezy new car, we could give the entire nation (not to mention emerging energy-hungry societies) energy independence. Establishing energy infrastructures on alternative foundations for fast growing economies like India and China can only make it that much easier for them to adapt to new energy paradigms.
1) Even if energy independent, the U.S. would still be subject to the global price of oil, because domestic oil producers will sell to countries outside the U.S. if they can get higher prices there than here; oil traders sell to whereever costs the highest, to make the most profit
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. America, relying solely on it own supplies, has 3 years worth of oil left. Hence the Manhattan Project-model urgency of developing alternative sources.
vanesch
06.26.08, 10:10 AM
As it is one of my favorite discussion points, I'd like to point out that concerning nuclear power, if one switches to breeder reactors (the so-called 4th generation reactors), as they are about 100 times more efficient with uranium than current reactors, the problem of uranium supply is in principle solved: the current "waste" (including depleted uranium) still contains about 100 times more nuclear energy than was already extracted from it. So the currently stored "waste" is still good for centuries of energy. Time enough to see if we can get fusion working. I wonder what we will have first: a good battery, or fusion :smile:
As to the $ 15 000,- solar panel to charge your electric car, I'm a bit surprised, but let's do the math. If we take $5,- per installed Watt, that's 3 KW installed, or about 500 W effective, which amounts to 12 KWhr a day. Now, 1 toe (ton oil equivalent) is 42 GJ. 12 KWhr is 0.4 GJ, so that panel set will generate the energy equivalent of 10 kg of oil/petrol/diesel.
Of course, the petrol undergoes an energy efficiency of a thermal engine, but I take it that the battery charging and so on also have their efficiency toll, so indeed, $ 15 000, - of solar panels can take care of producing you the equivalent of about 10 liters of gas a day, or 3000 liters a year, so this installation paid itself back in about 4 years, all else equal.
At about 40 W effective per square meter, we're talking about an installation of about 12 square meters, which would fit on the roof of a reasonable house.
Andre
06.26.08, 10:26 AM
No, solar panels do not *produce* equivalents of energy. Panels convert between 12%(higher todays standard) - 40% (extremely sophisticated) of the solar energy into electric energy. At the world average of about 340 W/m2 solar energy, full time (that is without clouds) we're looking at 3.5 MJ per M-2 per day. Oil burns for about 40-50 MJ per Kg, however only about 30% of that can be converted to electrical energy so we would need about 4 m2 solar panels to have the equivalent electrical energy of 1 kg fossil fuel. So these numbers are a bit less it seems, apart from the clouds.
vanesch
06.26.08, 01:36 PM
No, solar panels do not *produce* equivalents of energy. Panels convert between 12%(higher todays standard) - 40% (extremely sophisticated) of the solar energy into electric energy. At the world average of about 340 W/m2 solar energy, full time (that is without clouds) we're looking at 3.5 MJ per M-2 per day. Oil burns for about 40-50 MJ per Kg, however only about 30% of that can be converted to electrical energy so we would need about 4 m2 solar panels to have the equivalent electrical energy of 1 kg fossil fuel. So these numbers are a bit less it seems, apart from the clouds.
Mmm. I see the problem, but I don't know where it comes from. I took 200 W per square meter year average solar power, and 20% efficiency, which gives me 40 W per square meter, which amounts to 3.5 MJ per day, about the same as you (you took higher insolation power and lower efficiency). 500 W effective then corresponds to about 12 times 40 W effective, so 12 square meter. 500 W effective gives you 12 KW hour a day, or 43 MJ... AAHH, I made a factor 10 error. I said that it was 0.4 GJ and it is 0.04 GJ, so not 10 kg, but only 1 kg of oil. So our solar panel of 12 square meter and $ 15 000, - only delivers a daily single kilogram of fuel. The daily commute mustn't be very far :-)
I didn't factor in (on purpose) the 1/3 thermal fuel efficiency, as I assumed that there would be more or less equivalent losses on the solar-battery-electrical side.
And the panel doesn't pay back in 4 years, but in 40 years, when it is already over the end of its life time. That is, at $ 5,- per installed watt, which is maybe a bit expensive - prices are somewhat lower now, but one should take into account of course also installation, electronics, ... and the price of the batteries.
mheslep
06.26.08, 03:09 PM
...As to the $ 15 000,- solar panel to charge your electric car, I'm a bit surprised, but let's do the math. If we take $5,- per installed Watt, that's 3 KW installed, or about 500 W effective, which amounts to 12 KWhr a day.... Price/watt is coming down but $5/W is still a little low. Examples:
-US Nellis AFB installation was $7/W ($100M/14MW)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellis_Solar_Power_Plant
-Sunpower online calculator for home installation _starts_ at $8/W.
http://sunpowercorp.cleanpowerestimator.com/default.aspx
WheelsRCool
06.26.08, 03:29 PM
Not a problem, the US grid has ample excess capacity at night to handle several million cars now; 60m E cars won't appear quickly even if the perfect battery discovered tomorrow.
Yes, but the problem is how to build more powerplants. The environmental extremists do not want any more nuclear plants, let alone additional coal plants developed.
The French I know recycle their nuclear waste, but the U.S. stopped this in the 1970s to avoid appearing to the Soviets as if we might be using it to make more nuclear weapons in secret, or something like that.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. America, relying solely on it own supplies, has 3 years worth of oil left. Hence the Manhattan Project-model urgency of developing alternative sources.
America has, in the Rocky mountains, I believe it is estimated by some to be 3X the Saudi reserve of oil in the form of shale oil, it just cannot be extracted profitably (this is an estimate though, and some disagree with it). It would also take some time to start up the actual extraction and then there's the environmental protesters as well, and whether we would want to drill there.
The U.S. also has about 230 years worth of coal reserves I believe as well, and coal can be turned into oil, just again, not profitably. If someone comes up with a profitable method for either of these, who knows.
The Canadian tar sands also have more oil than the Saudis I think, just again, it can't protably be extracted.
mheslep
06.26.08, 03:45 PM
Yes, but the problem is how to build more powerplants. The environmental extremists do not want any more nuclear plants, let alone additional coal plants developed....None the less new coal plants are being built now, most of them in Texas, Kentucky, Ill., and Wisconsin. EIA predicts, in 2011-2015, the following will come on line in new plants:
11GW of coal
5GW gas
6GW renewables (wind/solar/bio)
In 2016-2020 they predict ~8GW of nuclear will arrive. Those nuke plants are in planning now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf, page 68.
mheslep
06.26.08, 04:14 PM
...America has, in the Rocky mountains, I believe it is estimated by some to be 3X the Saudi reserve of oil in the form of shale oil,
RAND Study: 500B to 1100B bbl in Rocky Mountain shale.
Saudi estimate reserves: 264 B bbl
it just cannot be extracted profitably (this is an estimate though, and some disagree with it). Economically yes it can be mined, per a RAND study estimated cost is $70-95 / bbl to start, declining to $35-48/bbl within 12 years. However, RM shale oil mining currently requires lease approval by the US Department of the Interior; Interior has stated it won't grant them before 2010, if then.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Oil%20Shale%20Development%20in%20the%20United%20States%20-%20RAND%20August%20200.pdf
quadraphonics
06.26.08, 04:39 PM
If someone comes up with a profitable method for either of these, who knows.
More realistically, we can just wait until the price of a barrel of oil goes high enough to make these things profitable.
mheslep
06.26.08, 05:55 PM
No, solar panels do not *produce* equivalents of energy. Panels convert between 12%(higher todays standard) - 40% (extremely sophisticated) of the solar energy into electric energy. At the world average of about 340 W/m2 solar energy, full time (that is without clouds) we're looking at 3.5 MJ per M-2 per day. Oil burns for about 40-50 MJ per Kg, however only about 30% of that can be converted to electrical energy so we would need about 4 m2 solar panels to have the equivalent electrical energy of 1 kg fossil fuel. So these numbers are a bit less it seems, apart from the clouds.
Mmm. I see the problem, but I don't know where it comes from. I took 200 W per square meter year average solar power, and 20% efficiency, which gives me 40 W per square meter, which amounts to 3.5 MJ per day, about the same as you (you took higher insolation power and lower efficiency). 500 W effective then corresponds to about 12 times 40 W effective, so 12 square meter. 500 W effective gives you 12 KW hour a day, or 43 MJ... AAHH, I made a factor 10 error. I said that it was 0.4 GJ and it is 0.04 GJ, so not 10 kg, but only 1 kg of oil. So our solar panel of 12 square meter and $ 15 000, - only delivers a daily single kilogram of fuel. The daily commute mustn't be very far :-)
I didn't factor in (on purpose) the 1/3 thermal fuel efficiency, as I assumed that there would be more or less equivalent losses on the solar-battery-electrical side.
And the panel doesn't pay back in 4 years, but in 40 years, when it is already over the end of its life time. That is, at $ 5,- per installed watt, which is maybe a bit expensive - prices are somewhat lower now, but one should take into account of course also installation, electronics, ... and the price of the batteries.
For a plug in electric vehicle charged from PVs calculating HC fuel equivalents seems a bit out of the way. A plug in vehicle running on just battery/motor likely needs only 20HP to 30HP for highway level road cruising, or 15KW to 22KW. I think 40 mins round trip running commuting time is reasonable, as idling in congestion in an electric is relatively free unlike combustion engines. So I use 10kW-hrs to 15kw-hrs a daily commute, call it 12kW-hrs to 18kW-hrs replacement energy after conversion losses.
To size the PVs, I think 500W/M^2 is a rationale choice at least for the US given the initial stated problem, which was providing a nationwide power generation pool sufficient to charge the national vehicle fleet. In that case the PV construction will concentrate in the sun belt just like it does now, where 500W/M^2 avg per day is reasonable, no need to average in the artic circles. PVs at 20% efficiency are now available for home installation. I'd expect the performance to keep climbing as the reflector-concentrator PV companies are making the more exotic high efficiency PVs economic simply by using less PV per area of solar collection. Thus I have 100W/M^2 power or 2.4kw-hrs / day/M^2. Summary: 5 to 8 M^2 of 20% efficient PV installed in the US sunbelt per nationwide E plug-in vehicle should cover commute energy; cost at 8$/W installed=$4000 to $7000.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/sunpower_announ.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1584273&postcount=8
vanesch
06.26.08, 11:28 PM
To size the PVs, I think 500W/M^2 is a rationale choice at least for the US given the initial stated problem
First of all, I thought it was a stand-alone personal installation one was talking about, to charge one's own car. But when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
which is the year-average solar power received per square meter, you see that your 500 W is optimistic!
Chronos
06.27.08, 12:46 AM
People on this planet use, on average, use more energy than the sun provides - which is the mother of energy on earth. Sensible use of energy is essential to the future of humanity.
vanesch
06.27.08, 02:13 AM
People on this planet use, on average, use more energy than the sun provides - which is the mother of energy on earth. Sensible use of energy is essential to the future of humanity.
??? By far humanity doesn't use the energy the sun provides ! Total electricity consumption is about 1.6 TW (that number is a few years old, it might be a bit more now), and total energy consumption (everything) is about 20 TW. Earth receives about 174 PW from the sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
So earth receives about 9 000 times more solar energy than humanity consumes.
WarPhalange
06.27.08, 02:17 AM
Do you think that gap will stay that big? People are using more and more energy, especially countries that are getting industrialized. On the other hand, there is a lot of research into minimizing the amount power used, i.e. making things more efficient.
Of course, we can't ever hope to use all 174PW of power the sun shines on us, either...
vanesch
06.27.08, 03:27 AM
Do you think that gap will stay that big? People are using more and more energy, especially countries that are getting industrialized. On the other hand, there is a lot of research into minimizing the amount power used, i.e. making things more efficient.
Of course, we can't ever hope to use all 174PW of power the sun shines on us, either...
Power consumption in industrialized countries doesn't rise much.
Look at total primary energy consumption for north america:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/26TFC.pdf
for Europe:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/25TFC.pdf
while for non-OECD countries, total (different stat: total primary energy supply)
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/24TPES.pdf :
and for specific cases such as China:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/CNTPES.pdf
or India:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/INTPES.pdf
You see that it are mainly the develloping countries which are having an energy boom.
In any case, we would face a problem of direct heating of the earth if ever we came close to the total solar input, even if we had a source (like fusion) that didn't have any other problem. As of now, the human energy activity has negligible impact on the total energy balance of the earth ; the eventual AGW has to do with changes in atmospheric composition, which changes how this 174 PW is re-emitted into space. AGW has nothing to do with "direct heating" of the earth by heat-releasing processes. However, if ever we would produce, in one way or another, say, 20 PW ourselves, then this would seriously disturb the direct energy balance, unless if we use solar power directly.
OmCheeto
06.27.08, 10:34 AM
Sorry to change the subject, but I heard on the radio this morning that on the front page of the daily paper, there was an article that stated that our local wind farm was producing so much energy, that the system couldn't handle it, and the energy was being dumped.
They said they would supply California with the power, but the transmission lines are maxed out. I guess we'll need to invest in some more infrastructure.
The radio guy jokingly said that since it's going to be in the mid-90's this weekend, everyone in town should crank up their air conditioners. Why dump clean energy when we can be kept comfortable and feel good about it.
Delusions..... Bah! I ain't gonna invest a penny in some chicken little book. I think I'll pick up another book on thermodynamics this evening, and get more edumutated.
mheslep
06.27.08, 12:03 PM
First of all, I thought it was a stand-alone personal installation one was talking about, to charge one's own car. I thought this power thread was kicked of by ...but the electric car I do not. ... Think about the strain on the power grid if we have 60 million electric cars plugged into it!i.e. how does a national power 'grid' handle millions of E cars in aggregate. It need not be done one car, one home PV rig.
But when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
which is the year-average solar power received per square meter, you see that your 500 W is optimistic!Yes I was mistaken; I was thinking of some kind of simplistic 24 hr day simple physics model, amount of energy reaching the surface, w/ no clouds, etc. Looks like for the southwest US a better annual average can be found here, from NREL:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_may2004.jpg
8 kWh/m2/day or 333W annual average, tracking collector, and down to
6 kWh/M2/day, 270W a. avg, flat plate tilted collector.
So my prior estimates must increase ~40% to 10M^2 and $10k installed.
mheslep
06.27.08, 12:16 PM
Sorry to change the subject, but I heard on the radio this morning that on the front page of the daily paper, there was an article that stated that our local wind farm was producing so much energy, that the system couldn't handle it, and the energy was being dumped.
They said they would supply California with the power, but the transmission lines are maxed out. I guess we'll need to invest in some more infrastructure....Or, as discussed above, invent the better battery (equivalent) to store the power. There are also some studies out there claiming solar and wind can be 'firmed up', as its called, simply by better systems engineering.
mheslep
06.27.08, 01:18 PM
...But when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
which is the year-average solar power received per square meter, you see that your 500 W is optimistic!
Yes the number/model Andre mentions here
At the world average of about 340 W/m2 solar energy, full time (that is without clouds) ...is what I originally had in mind, no clouds. If one looks at just low latitudes it is more like 500W/m2, but this is indeed a high estimate for annually averaged PV collection; the NREL maps give realistic data.
vanesch
06.27.08, 11:14 PM
Sorry to change the subject, but I heard on the radio this morning that on the front page of the daily paper, there was an article that stated that our local wind farm was producing so much energy, that the system couldn't handle it, and the energy was being dumped.
That's the main problem with wind energy: it doesn't come when you need it. That's why the Danes sell a lot of wind energy generated electricity to Sweden, and buy it back when they need it and there is no wind. The Swedish regulate with their hydro and nukes.
vanesch
06.27.08, 11:26 PM
I thought this power thread was kicked of by i.e. how does a national power 'grid' handle millions of E cars in aggregate. It need not be done one car, one home PV rig.
Yes I was mistaken; I was thinking of some kind of simplistic 24 hr day simple physics model, amount of energy reaching the surface, w/ no clouds, etc. Looks like for the southwest US a better annual average can be found here, from NREL:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_may2004.jpg
8 kWh/m2/day or 333W annual average, tracking collector, and down to
6 kWh/M2/day, 270W a. avg, flat plate tilted collector.
So my prior estimates must increase ~40% to 10M^2 and $10k installed.
How do you get to the $10k installed ? I usually take that the installed power is 6 times the average power (and I used to count $5,- per installed watt, while you use $8,-).
So if you have 50W per square meter (not very far from my estimate 40W per square meter) average, I take it that that is about 300 W installed, and hence costs about $1500,- (at $5,-).
That's even optimistic:http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
where we see that a 1 KWp (peak, or installed) costs about $8000 - $12000 for the total installation, bringing us to about $8 - $12 per installed watt.
Now, if you look at the worst case: Germany: a 1 KWp panel produces 860 KWhr per year, which means 860 KW / 365 / 24 = 98 Watt or only one tenth of the installed power. In California, that's better, and we find a factor of about 5 between installed and average.
Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...
wildman
06.28.08, 12:20 AM
Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...
That can be done with overhead electric trains with the electricity supplied by nuclear power. France does that.
wildman
06.28.08, 12:25 AM
??? By far humanity doesn't use the energy the sun provides ! Total electricity consumption is about 1.6 TW (that number is a few years old, it might be a bit more now), and total energy consumption (everything) is about 20 TW. Earth receives about 174 PW from the sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
So earth receives about 9 000 times more solar energy than humanity consumes.
That is what I love about this forum. So many of the members know so much....
vanesch
06.28.08, 05:08 AM
That can be done with overhead electric trains with the electricity supplied by nuclear power. France does that.
Actually, it isn't such a big success: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&id=259
(insee is the French official statistics agency)
About 11-12% uses trains. About 80% uses trucks. There are a lotof logistic problems with transport of goods by train: the begin and end of the travel (supermarkets don't all have their own railwaystation!), the overloading, the timing, ....
I've read a book on the subject that indicates that trucks are so much more flexible than trains, that it are only very select industrial sectors that can really think to use mainly trains as their logistic transport.
wildman
06.28.08, 01:59 PM
Actually, it isn't such a big success: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&id=259
(insee is the French official statistics agency)
About 11-12% uses trains. About 80% uses trucks. There are a lotof logistic problems with transport of goods by train: the begin and end of the travel (supermarkets don't all have their own railwaystation!), the overloading, the timing, ....
I've read a book on the subject that indicates that trucks are so much more flexible than trains, that it are only very select industrial sectors that can really think to use mainly trains as their logistic transport.
I was thinking of the train technology, not how well they apply it to freight. France has been long known to be very efficient in moving people by train and not freight.
It seems though that is a problem that can be solved by technology. If each item was tracked (a la Federal Express) by computer from the moment it was loaded on a train to the moment it was off loaded onto a truck, the problems with timing me thinks could be solved for all but the most sensitive perishables.
mheslep
06.28.08, 09:31 PM
...Now, in this whole discussion, we've only been talking about the daily commute transport. But a big chunk of transport is long distance freight with trucks...Yes, though switching commute driving alone from oil to battery - solar would would reduce oil needs enough to eliminate US imports (~65%)
LowlyPion
06.28.08, 10:08 PM
Maybe dealing with the other side of the supply demand problem - namely lowering demand would be a more fruitful course of action?
With the human load on the planet looking like it will increase close to 50% by mid-century unchecked, not to mention the signs of anthropogenic climate changes already apparently being recorded, maybe the signs are there for humankind to consider going on a diet?
vanesch
06.29.08, 02:08 AM
Yes, though switching commute driving alone from oil to battery - solar would would reduce oil needs enough to eliminate US imports (~65%)
You are telling me that commute is the main use of oil in the US ? And hence the main use of petrol in the transport sector ??? :confused:
You seem to be right: about half of oil is used for car gas, not for diesel. Now, I'm not sure that's mainly used for commuting and not for long distance driving, but hell, it might be true.
That said, solar is maybe not the most optimal technology. If we take $15.000,- per car then for 60 million cars, we'd need 1000 billion $. Each car needed an average 500 W production, so we need 30 GW electric. Now, we would still have to accept that certain cloudy days, the car is not charged up, and you won't go on your trip. But let's say that you have a lot of batteries that you can charge on extra solar days (we didn't calculate their price).
That's 30 billion per GW electric. Mmm. My favorite, nuclear, does it for 10-15 times less the money and you don't need all the batteries. Even wind does better, at about 2-3 times less the price. You put up your local wind turbine, charging the cars of the whole town. A 5 MW turbine (installed power) costs about $15 million, and can deliver say, 1 to 1.5 MW effective, so can charge about 2000-3000 cars (500 W effective needed). So that comes down to $ 5000 - $ 7500,- per car.
OmCheeto
06.29.08, 09:56 AM
First of all, I thought it was a stand-alone personal installation one was talking about, to charge one's own car. But when you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png
which is the year-average solar power received per square meter, you see that your 500 W is optimistic!
I knew I'd seen that bug stained image in the past. Thankfully, Matthias's name is in the lower right hand corner.
Mr. Loster is one of those delusional liars who believes all of humanities energy needs could be satisfied by 8 solar farms strategically placed in deserts.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/index.html
Bah!
Ok. Seriously, I think a better book to read would be the one Astronuc's friend wrote:
Sustainable Economics and Ecological Psychology (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210033)
Being brainwashed into thinking putting clothes on the line, rather than throwing them in the dryer, might do us some good.
vanesch
06.29.08, 11:06 AM
I knew I'd seen that bug stained image in the past. Thankfully, Matthias's name is in the lower right hand corner.
Mr. Loster is one of those delusional liars who believes all of humanities energy needs could be satisfied by 8 solar farms strategically placed in deserts.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/index.html
Bah!
Well, the arithmetic is correct I'd say. I knew this drawing (but not the author and its site), and I thought it was just for people to get an idea of the relative amounts of energy used by man, and "available" by the sun. Then there's the slight problem of transport, storage, conversion and all that. If that drawing is a plan for energy provision, it is of course utterly naive. If it is to get people have an idea how much energy people consume, and how much of this is represented by solar energy, then it is OK to me.
OmCheeto
06.29.08, 11:49 AM
Well, the arithmetic is correct I'd say. I knew this drawing (but not the author and its site), and I thought it was just for people to get an idea of the relative amounts of energy used by man, and "available" by the sun. Then there's the slight problem of transport, storage, conversion and all that. If that drawing is a plan for energy provision, it is of course utterly naive. If it is to get people have an idea how much energy people consume, and how much of this is represented by solar energy, then it is OK to me.
I think the following statement negates his naivety;
although the particular scenario shown is suboptimal for many political and technical reasons.
I mean really. It's a picture and one paragraphs worth of information.
I looked at it as more of a planetary homework problem.
And judging him by his homepage, I'd accuse him of being a minimalist.
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/index.html
Not necessarily a bad thing, in a world full of long winded people.
mheslep
06.29.08, 09:47 PM
You are telling me that commute is the main use of oil in the US ? And hence the main use of petrol in the transport sector ??? :confused:
You seem to be right: about half of oil is used for car gas, not for diesel. Now, I'm not sure that's mainly used for commuting and not for long distance driving, but hell, it might be true.
US Oil for transportation, yr 2007: 69% and rising as oil is no longer preferred for E power generation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/diagram2.html
Transportation breakdown, yr 2002: light duty vehicles 61%, commercial light trucks 2.2%, 14.3% heavy trucks, 10% airplanes.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/appa.pdf , table A7
Both gas and diesel can use plug-in technology, indeed electric/diesel should be preferred for efficiency reasons over gasoline/electric. I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation, it is just that it can't support but a fraction of the longer hauls. I can't readily find a commuting usage; I can only say anecdotally that easily 3/4 of my yearly mileage is short trips. So, guestimate percentage of Oil use replaceable by solar charged vehicle batteries: .69 transportation x ~.64 gnd transport x 2/3 short distance = ~30% or only half of imported US oil; not quite there w/ plug-in cars alone.
That said, solar is maybe not the most optimal technology. If we take $15.000,- per car then for 60 million cars, we'd need 1000 billion $.Price might be a little high, but ok, $1T, once every ~30years array lifetime. Note that also saves ~500 US gal fuel/year x $4.20/gal x 60 million cars= $126B / year, every year, regardless of the electric source.Each car needed an average 500 W production, so we need 30 GW electric. Now, we would still have to accept that certain cloudy days, the car is not charged up, and you won't go on your trip.Why? We're not on the moon, we're still connected to a 1000 GW national grid (US) + Canada, that's larger than local cloud coverage.
But let's say that you have a lot of batteries that you can charge on extra solar days (we didn't calculate their price).
That's 30 billion per GW electric. Mmm. My favorite, nuclear, does it for 10-15 times less the money and you don't need all the batteries. Well I hope nuclear can be done cheaply, but we will see when the final tab comes in for the Finnish project. US planned projects are presenting very high budgets. In any case we're changing scales here. I don't believe you're accounting for transmission construction in that comparison, which is zero for the local roof top array. Also, at larger scales like Nellis AFB, solar enjoys better cost of scale just like most anything else.
Even wind does better, at about 2-3 times less the price. You put up your local wind turbine, charging the cars of the whole town. A 5 MW turbine (installed power) costs about $15 million, and can deliver say, 1 to 1.5 MW effective, so can charge about 2000-3000 cars (500 W effective needed). So that comes down to $ 5000 - $ 7500,- per car.Nice idea. Interesting power scale point, Id like to look around to try and find an existing 5MW solar project (recent) to compare, though no doubt solar is still a bit more expensive.
mheslep
06.29.08, 10:25 PM
Denmark finding transmission a hard problem for wind as well
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/11/thar-she-blows-dongs-wind-woes/?mod=WSJBlog
March 11, 2008, 3:00 pm
Thar She Blows: DONG’s Wind Woes
Posted by Dana Mattioli
Leila Abboud reports:
When a hard wind blows across Denmark’s green plains, Anders Eldrup, chief executive of the power company DONG, shudders. Not because of the bone-chilling cold, but because his company’s power grid is under enormous strain.
On windy days, some 30-50% of the electricity flowing into the grid comes from wind turbines that dot the countryside. At less windy times, turbines spin more slowly and send much less electricity through the grid. The grid infrastructure wasn’t designed for such fluctuations. What’s more, windy days bring in more electricity than DONG can profitably sell.
It’s a problem of success. A decade of Denmark’s generous subsidies to wind power producers has produced striking results: Some 16% of the country’s total electricity needs come from wind. Denmark’s government wants to be getting 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. “It’s an increasingly difficult challenge for us,” said Mr. Eldrup in an interview on the sidelines of an ongoing Carbon Market Insights conference taking place this week in Copenhagen.
vanesch
06.30.08, 05:55 AM
I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation
Now re-read your phrase :rofl:
Price might be a little high, but ok, $1T, once every ~30years array lifetime. Note that also saves ~500 US gal fuel/year x $4.20/gal x 60 million cars= $126B / year, every year, regardless of the electric source.Why? We're not on the moon, we're still connected to a 1000 GW national grid (US) + Canada, that's larger than local cloud coverage.
The point is that if it is just to tap 30 GW from the grid, we might just as well use the most cost-effective technology to provide it. As we've seen, solar is of the order of 30 billion $ per GW. Wind is of the order of 15 billion $ per GW.
Well I hope nuclear can be done cheaply, but we will see when the final tab comes in for the Finnish project. US planned projects are presenting very high budgets. In any case we're changing scales here. I don't believe you're accounting for transmission construction in that comparison, which is zero for the local roof top array. Also, at larger scales like Nellis AFB, solar enjoys better cost of scale just like most anything else.
The EPR is a new generation of power plants, so it is normal that the first few ones will be more expensive than a series of it. It is also a luxury kind of reactor: double confinement, core catcher, many many extra safety systems etc...
Up to now, the price ticket was about $1.5 - $2,- per nuclear electric watt, but price has gone up, to about $3,- to even $5,- per nuclear electric watt. That's probably due to higher material costs, but mainly, higher safety requirements (and hence more safety systems and all that).
Nice idea. Interesting power scale point, Id like to look around to try and find an existing 5MW solar project (recent) to compare, though no doubt solar is still a bit more expensive.
The point is, if you are just going to tap the recharging power from the grid, better use the best technology available to feed that grid.
mheslep
06.30.08, 09:30 AM
Now re-read your phrase :rofl::redface: Not the best wording. The idea of course with any solar - plug-in vehicle scheme is that the solar would charge some energy storage gimick during the day - either on the spot batteries or a feed to the grid which stores energy and then gives it up again at night for charging the vehicles.
The point is that if it is just to tap 30 GW from the grid, we might just as well use the most cost-effective technology to provide it. As we've seen, solar is of the order of 30 billion $ per GW. Wind is of the order of 15 billion $ per GW.
The EPR is a new generation of power plants, so it is normal that the first few ones will be more expensive than a series of it. It is also a luxury kind of reactor: double confinement, core catcher, many many extra safety systems etc...
Up to now, the price ticket was about $1.5 - $2,- per nuclear electric watt, but price has gone up, to about $3,- to even $5,- per nuclear electric watt. That's probably due to higher material costs, but mainly, higher safety requirements (and hence more safety systems and all that).
The point is, if you are just going to tap the recharging power from the grid, better use the best technology available to feed that grid.No argument that the most economic, environmentally compatible power source should be used, though I think you may be pricing solar a bit high here and rationalizing away nuclear costs. My first motivation was to show that a national fleet of plug-in cars is doable with technology that is available now, that it is economic even with solar on the back roof, and that step alone could displace a large chunk of oil consumption. If other sources like nuclear can do it better, great.
BTW, today's WSJ has a very good in depth supplement section on Nuclear: for and against.
mheslep
06.30.08, 12:25 PM
Some more detailed cost information on solar.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432258309100153.html?mod=2_1586_leftbox
Shedding Light on Solar
Why is it so expensive? What subsidies are available? And answers to other questions for the perplexed.
By YULIYA CHERNOVA
June 30, 2008
Q: Let's start with the basics: How much will it cost to put a solar panel on my home?
A: The average cost of a rooftop solar system, also known as a photovoltaic, or PV, system, is roughly $8.25 per watt installed, based on companies' listed selling prices and conversations with industry executives and analysts.
Q: Where does all that money go?
A: The solar panel itself usually constitutes less than half of the total price of installing a residential system. Distributors, installers and manufacturers of components needed to attach the panel to the roof and to connect it to the electricity grid account for the rest. This may be more than you want to know, but the $8.25-per-watt cost breaks down roughly as follows: $1.50 for polysilicon, 75 cents to create wafers from the polysilicon, 75 cents to create solar cells from wafers and another 75 cents to complete the solar panel. Installation costs consist of 50 cents for inverters that convert the current of the solar modules to the alternating current used by the home's appliances, 75 cents for racks, wires and other installation equipment, $1.25 for labor and $2 for installers' overhead.
There are ample opportunities for reducing costs at larger scale here
A benchmark for polysilicon efficiency:
There are higher-efficiency panels on the market designed to extract more power from the same surface area. Some of the most efficient panels in production, from Sunnyvale, Calif.-based SunPower Corp., can yield about 220 watts of power from one square meter when 1,000 watts of sunlight is shone on it, up from 140 watts to 150 watts for the average panel five years ago.
Then there's the thin film approach:
A much cheaper alternative already exists: solar panels made of various nonsilicon semiconductor materials that are typically spread on a sheet of glass or stainless steel. These so-called thin-film panels are easier to make, so it doesn't cost as much to produce them. First Solar Inc. of Phoenix makes thin-film solar panels for about $1.25 per watt, which is about two times less than the average cost of making a polysilicon panel.
The problem with thin film is that it captures less of the sun's energy per square meter than polysilicon, so it takes a larger panel to generate the same amount of energy. As a result, thin-film panels usually are too large to fit on residential rooftops and are used more often in power-plant applications.
Future cost predictions:
Q: When will we see a significant drop in solar costs?
A: Many module makers predict their selling prices will decline 10% to 20% next year, mostly because of the rush of new polysilicon supply that is expected to be produced. "We're in the process of a dramatic readjustment of system prices in the next couple of years," said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower.
David Chen, head of clean technology investment banking at Morgan Stanley in California, predicts the industry will reach grid parity -- the point at which the cost of solar energy is competitive with conventional grid-supplied electricity without subsidies -- by 2012, "which will open up the floodgates for vendors that can price competitively."
vanesch
06.30.08, 12:45 PM
BTW, today's WSJ has a very good in depth supplement section on Nuclear: for and against.
I saw it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=2_1586_topbox
The problem with the way the article is written is that you get first the answers, and then the problems to which these were the answers. However, the "yes" part is pretty accurate concerning its claims, while the "no" part is much more "speculative". In fact, I think I recognize in the "no" part, Helen Caldicott's book!
Let's look at the "no" arguments:
exorbitant costs, the risks of an accident or terrorist attack, the threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste
Subsidies:
The cost issue alone will mean that few if any new nuclear power stations will get built in the next few years, at least in the U.S., and any that do will require expensive taxpayer subsidies. Instead of subsidizing the development of new plants that have all these other problems, the U.S. would be better off investing in other ways to meet growing energy demands and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
One seems to think that it would be sufficient to throw a few billions of $ to a problem to get it solved. It isn't said HOW this is going to be done.
Cost:
While no one knows what a new reactor will cost until one gets built, estimates for new construction continue to rise. Building a new plant could cost as much as $6,000 a kilowatt of generating capacity, up from estimates of about $4,000 a kilowatt just a year ago. FPL Group, of Juno Beach, Fla., estimates that two new reactors planned for southeast Florida would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion each.
Well, let's show another system, solar or wind or whatever, that generates the same power for that price. Power when we want it, that is. Not when it is available.
More important, though, there are less-costly ways of weaning ourselves off these carbon-emitting energy sources. Even if a high price of carbon makes nuclear economic, the costs of renewable energy such as wind and solar power are cheaper, and getting cheaper all the time. By contrast, nuclear is more expensive, and getting more expensive all the time.
Show me.
Storage of electricity:
And yes, it's true that wind and solar suffer from the problem of not being available 24 hours a day. But new technology is already beginning to solve that problem. And we'd be better off -- from both an economic and safety standpoint -- if we used natural gas to fill in the gaps, rather than nuclear.
Ah ? Show me. What technology ? Fuel cells ? Batteries ? Superconductors ? Anti-matter ? Price ?
In the end, we're going to use GAS. That's not a fossil fuel emitting CO2, right ?
Part of the reason for the rising cost estimates is the small number of vendors able to supply critical reactor components, as well as a shortage of engineering and construction skills in the nuclear industry. Perhaps the biggest bottleneck is in the huge reactor vessels that contain a plant's radioactive core. Only one plant in the world is capable of forging the huge vessels in a single piece, and it can produce only a handful of the forgings a year. Though the plant intends to expand capacity in the next couple of years, and China has said it plans to begin making the forgings, this key component is expected to limit development for many years.
Now, the question is: is the solar power industry, or the wind industry capable of putting down much more than "a handful of 1 GWe plants a year", and if they do that, don't you think that there will also be a price increase due to increased demand ? Is that capacity there right now, or should we also have to wait for many years before this capacity is reached ?
What is interesting, is this:
The important thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers, because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another antinuclear backlash among the public and investors.
It is probably true, but it is silly. Using Chernobyl to point to the danger of western power plants was irrational. Pointing to TMI is irrational too, as nothing ever happened there.
It is strange that such standards are not upheld for coal for instance. If there is a mining accident in China, does the US close down all its coal mines ?
What's also interesting is the following:
There's also the question of waste disposal. Proponents of nuclear power say disposal of the industry's waste products is a political problem. That's true. But it doesn't make the problem any less real. California, for instance, won't allow construction of more plants until the waste issue is resolved.
where it is recognized that the waste issue is ONLY a political problem. Well, then it needs a political solution, not a technological one. The funny thing with California is that it doesn't want (politically) to have more nuclear power, until the (political) waste problem is solved - will it help in solving the political waste problem ?
Finally, what's interesting is this:
Expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk, but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current anti-proliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to be in countries -- such as those in the Middle East and Africa -- where a nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious weapons development and create the local expertise in handling and processing nuclear materials.
So it is recognized that the proliferation risk isn't much linked with nuclear power in the US. Now, the Carter policy already showed that the rest of the world doesn't stop using nuclear power in this or that way, simply because the US does so. So one already knows that what the US does, is not necessarily followed elsewhere. Here, it is stated that the main proliferation risk is by foreign nuclear power industry (which is, as we saw, uncorrelated to the US nuclear power industry). So in other words, nuclear power in the US has no correlation with the main source of proliferation risk. Is that a good argument against it ?
So, in fine, we have as "no" arguments:
- nuclear power is expensive (but are there alternatives that are cheaper ? Don't think so!)
- nuclear power industry is limited in its production capacity of new reactors. (but are alternatives capable of doing better ? No).
- there is hypothetical technology that can solve the problem of the fluctuations in renewables. That technology doesn't cost anything, isn't limited by any industry, and... doesn't exist. Ah, yes, I forgot, in the mean time, we will use... gas.
- the safety problem seems to be that there might be a nuclear accident somewhere far away in countries that don't apply safe rules, which will then lead to the irrational backlash of nuclear power from power plants that have nothing to do with that.
- the waste problem is recognized as being a political problem.
- there is the proliferation risk, mainly due to nuclear technology abroad, which has not much to do with the US nuclear power industry.
Mmm.... that's indeed Helen Caldicott's book.
vanesch
06.30.08, 01:07 PM
Some more detailed cost information on solar.
There are ample opportunities for reducing costs at larger scale here
The point is that $8.50 per installed watt means 5 times more per average watt in California, and 10 times more per average watt in Germany (see the quote I showed earlier). So we are around $42 per watt in California, and $85,0 per watt in Germany.
This was the link:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm
in it:
In order to translate, kWp (a standardized measure excluding solar conditions) to kWh (a measure which takes account of solar conditions), an adjustment for the actual location of the solar panel is necessary in order to take into account how much sunlight would be expected in that location over the period of a year.
Some simple examples are that a 1kWp System will produce approximately:
· 1800 kWh/year in Southern California
· 850 kWh/year in Northern Germany
· 1600-2000 kWh in India and Australia
1kWp (installed power or peak power)
1800 KWh/year is 1800 / 24 / 365 = 205 Whr/hr or 205 Watt average: a factor 5 between peak and average.
850 KWh/year is 850 / 24 / 365 = 97 Whr/hr or 97 Watt average: a factor 10 between peak and average.
I hope there is room for improvement. The "no" part in the WSJ was already coughing at the exorbitant price of $6.0 per installed watt for nuclear...
And remember, in all that, we haven't yet taken into account the regulation and storage for peak demand. All this is no problem as long as we are with a few % of this in the grid. When we reach 70%, that's another matter.
Then there's the thin film approach:
The $1.25 per installed watt is attractive, but I have some difficulties believing it. Is it the price of the full installation ? Or just of the foil ? But even at this amazingly low price, we are around $6.0 in California for your average watt, and $12.5 in Germany. And still we have to add the price of the buffer. But it is true that this starts looking attractive. However, the problem we face now is the surface needed. At 20W per square meter average, a 1 GW plant average takes a surface of 50 square kilometers. That's a square of 7 km on 7 km. I don't know how much that land costs. And we still don't have the buffer.
Edit: to get an idea of the price of the land, an acre seems to be ~4000 square meters, or 0.004 square kilometer. Price indicators per acre:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-03-09-farmland-usat_x.htm
Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.
mheslep
06.30.08, 01:33 PM
The $1.25 per installed watt is attractive, but I have some difficulties believing it. Is it the price of the full installation ? Or just of the foil ?As I read it, the $1.25 for thin film compares to just the PV parts of polysilcon at about $1.5 polysi+0.75create wafers+0.75create cells= $3.00/W, i.e., doesn't include labor, wiring, conversion, etc.
mheslep
06.30.08, 01:38 PM
And remember, in all that, we haven't yet taken into account the regulation and storage for peak demand. All this is no problem as long as we are with a few % of this in the grid. When we reach 70%, that's another matter.I don't see anyone serious pushing that level. US DoE talks about 20% by 2020, or ~200GW average across the nation.
mheslep
06.30.08, 01:55 PM
Edit: to get an idea of the price of the land, an acre seems to be ~4000 square meters, or 0.004 square kilometer. Price indicators per acre:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-03-09-farmland-usat_x.htm
Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.Whoa, that's a price for farm land. Solar would (does) use land in otherwise useless dry basin desert areas. That's why we frequently see some trash land that's otherwise just sitting there, like the back 40 at Nellis AFB, turned into solar arrays by existing owners. So the land is often ~free, or at least very cheap. Also, an owner can put in solar on spare land where they couldn't or wouldnt put in fossil. They otherwise would not tolerate the emissions or the construction time.
See the New Mexico rural price in your link -$250/acre for a better idea, great for solar not so much for anything else. There the 50 sq km = 12355acres is $3m and I suspect even that is high. Nuclear is always going to need a good water supply so the land is always going to be more expensive. Edit: I'm also speculating, as I posted earlier, that nuclear requires just a much land as solar once everything is factored in - the plant itself, waste storage, mining, etc.
mheslep
06.30.08, 02:41 PM
Power when we want it, that is. Not when it is available. ...I think you may be overplaying the availability of nuclear a bit. Edit:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/
So nuclear capacity factor is good but its not there all the time. Median CF in the US is 91%, though ~15 plants are below 85%.
vanesch
06.30.08, 04:07 PM
I think you may be overplaying the availability of nuclear a bit. Edit:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/
So nuclear capacity factor is good but its not there all the time. Median CF in the US is 91%, though ~15 plants are below 85%.
The point is not that it is always there, the point is that you can regulate it. In France, the nuclear capacity factor turns around only 77%, because it is not only used as base load, but as load follower. At 22 hr, you can crank up nuclear power if desired. Try cranking up solar.
So one should see how much in the capacity factor was actually desired reducing of production, how much was maintenance time etc... but in any case, it is not erratic down time during "normal operation", which is the typical mode of operation of solar/wind. When the plant is operational, you can count on it, and you can, if so desired, diminish or crank up its power. Now, because in the US, nuclear is only a minority contributor, it usually works as baseload (near 100%) and never as follower. So 85% means that 15% of the time, it is in maintenance, or stopped for another reason. But it is not *randomly* 15% in small chunks, throughout the day and throughout the year.
THIS is the problem with solar and wind. That problem remains invisible of course below the 5 or 10%. But the Danes are having a hard time coping with more than 20% of arbitrarily fluctuating power sources. Now, solar is a bit more regular than wind, but whereas wind can blow day or night, summer or winter, solar has the problem that it is fully absent at night, and much less efficient in winter than in summer. As long as it is a minority contribution, "something else" will take over of course, but when it is supposed to replace the main source, it should be able to adapt to the demand, and instead it is introducing itself, uncontrolled variability.
This is why I'm always insisting on storage. If one is serious about reducing CO2 exhaust, then one should be able to get off fossil fuels for, say, 80 or 90%. Getting off fossil fuels for 20 or 30% doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Under the hypothesis of AGW, that would only delay a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a decade or so. In order to have any effect on the long term, one has to cut CO2 emissions by a factor of 2 to 4. Electricity production is responsible, in the US, for about 40% of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions. That means that if we could turn ALL electricity production into a CO2-poor emission system, that we have gained a small factor of 2. The rest must be sought in the transport sector and the industrial sector. If we reduce CO2 production in electricity with 30%, we've only diminished overall CO2 exhaust by about 12%. That's peanuts compared to the target (75%), and it was the easiest part.
So one should target an almost CO2 free electricity production towards 2040. That means that the technologies we should consider should be able (at least together) to take over a LARGE FRACTION of the electricity production. And that means: a serious power source that can adapt to demand, at any hour of the day, and any day of the year.
mheslep
06.30.08, 04:49 PM
The point is not that it is always there, the point is that you can regulate it. In France, the nuclear capacity factor turns around only 77%, because it is not only used as base load, but as load follower. At 22 hr, you can crank up nuclear power if desired. Try cranking up solar.Point taken, however in some of these calculations we've been doing in this thread, to price enough solar and wind to meet some demand X we've been factoring in capacity while nuclear gets a pass. Time to start dividing nuclear required Watts by 0.77
... Getting off fossil fuels for 20 or 30% doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Under the hypothesis of AGW, that would only delay a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a decade or so. AGW is not the only concern; its certainly not my first. So for other reasons, geopolitics, economic growth, of course a 30% renewables goal makes a great deal of sense.
mheslep
06.30.08, 04:50 PM
There's another issue I'm just reminded of in reading on the topic that argues against large centralized power (of any source). Any electric utility that constructs a large centralized power plant, esp. something requiring several $B in capital, then the operator necessarily wants to sell every single kWhr of capacity, meaning they necessarily become anti-efficiency for a time, advertising for silly things like electric heating, until demand eats up the new capacity and then they're 'green' all of a sudden, attempting to avoid any new capital outlays to build more power. Local distributed power such as co-generation, solar, ~wind avoids this use-it-all, conserve-it system of growth. I sat in on a forum once where the CEO of utility (nuclear,coal, gas portfolio) basically confirmed this model for big projects.
mheslep
06.30.08, 06:00 PM
... At 20W per square meter average, a 1 GW plant average takes a surface of 50 square kilometers. That's a square of 7 km on 7 km. I don't know how much that land costs. And we still don't have the buffer.
...
Say, about $3000,0 per acre, or 750 000 per square kilometer. Right. This is negligible. Our powerplant would only cost $50 000 000 in land. I'm surprised.
...See the New Mexico rural price in your link -$250/acre for a better idea, great for solar not so much for anything else. There the 50 sq km = 12355acres is $3m and I suspect even that is high. Nuclear is always going to need a good water supply so the land is always going to be more expensive. Edit: I'm also speculating, as I posted earlier, that nuclear requires just a much land as solar once everything is factored in - the plant itself, waste storage, mining, etc.
Yes here's a comparable.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
Progress Energy has a two reactor 2200W (total) plant on the table. They bought 5200 acres in Florida for $80M ($15k/acre). That doesn't include the right of way for transmission yet. BTW, proposed price for the plant is $17B
vanesch
06.30.08, 11:41 PM
Point taken, however in some of these calculations we've been doing in this thread, to price enough solar and wind to meet some demand X we've been factoring in capacity while nuclear gets a pass. Time to start dividing nuclear required Watts by 0.77
No, not really, because that's WANTED under-efficiency, which is part of the buffer capacity of the system. You are right that one should divide by the factor of *availability*, which, in France, is over 90%: that means that a plant is *capable* of delivering full power more than 90% of the time: the other part is (usually planned) downtime for maintenance.
So that means that, if you want to have, say, 9 GW available all the time (because it is your peak consumption, plus a margin), that you need to install not 9 GW, but 10 GW. 1 out of 10 is then able to be in maintenance or whatever, while the others take over.
If consumption is, most of the time, only 5 GW, then your utility factor will only be 50%, but you are nevertheless 90% available all the time, and that's necessary because at any moment, they can go for their peak demand, and you are capable of doing that.
What you have to take into account is not the factor of use, but the factor of availability. Your grid needs a certain amount of available power, and you have to design your sources in such a way that you can guarantee that.
Now, if you do that for solar, the factor of availability is simply 0% because at night, none is working. Same for wind on windless days. So if you want to reliably provide a potential peak demand of 9 GW with solar or wind, you'd have to install an infinity of it...
So what you have to do is to smooth out with storage capacity. And what do we have now ? Well, if we have storage capacity for a night (say, a pumping station), remember, FULL capacity that can take over the production entirely when it is dark, then the overall system now has a factor of availability which is equal to the minimum DAY production. Some cloudy days in winter, that will be pretty low, much lower than average. I have no idea, but let us say a factor of 3 easily (I think it is more). This means that in those days, the factor of availability is 30% of the average power. This means that such an installation, to be fully autonomous, should be 3 times as big than its average power would indicate. You'd have to install 30 GW (average! So that's 300 GW peak in Germany, and 150 GW peak in California), with a buffer for 9 GW for a night, to guarantee operability at 9 GW all the time.
The only way to avoid that, is to have a buffer that can work the whole winter.
AGW is not the only concern; its certainly not my first. So for other reasons, geopolitics, economic growth, of course a 30% renewables goal makes a great deal of sense.
To me, it makes sense in the sense of stimulating research and development. I 30% is ambitious, though. However, unless we have one day a good, cheap way of storing massive amounts of electricity, wind and solar remain to me, an inferior source of electricity, which doesn't deliver when it has to.
So the point is that in any case we will need another majority source. If we want to get rid of fossil fuels, we will need at least 70% of another source. And then the question is: purely economically, why would one install 30% of an unreliable and for the moment still much more expensive source, next to 70% of something else which has to work away the problems (unwanted fluctuations) of the first source in any case ?
Diversification ? Not really. Diversification means that we could use it on its own, which we can't. Solar doesn't work on its own. A town cannot run on solar ALONE. It can run on coal alone, it can run on nuclear alone, it can run on gas alone. But it can't run on solar/wind alone. Because it is cheaper ? Not really. No. Because we could rely on it to add some elasticity in the fuel market ? Not really. Coal is domestic in the US (and those for whom it is not domestic, better don't use it), and nuclear fuel can be stored for a couple of years ahead.
I think the only good reason would be to stimulate some research, because who knows, one day we might have solar cells that work on moonshine (eh :tongue:) or we might have a good storage for electricity.
But as technology stands now, and as it will be in the coming decade(s), there is no real economic incentive at all to switch to these sources. If you optimize resources, like say, a fleet of trucks, do you include 30% of trucks that are more expensive and don't run all the time when you want ? No, you go to the highest efficiency per truck, normally. You might diversify over several brands of trucks, in case you have a problem with one of them, but you'd try to have trucks of about similar quality and price from the different brands. You wouldn't include, in your fleet, 30% of expensive trucks that don't always run, just for "diversification". Why would we do that with electricity production ? Apart from research,
the only incentive is, IMO, some green propaganda.
EDIT: to illustrate the above, let us consider that Ivan's algae work out fantastically, and that we have a lot of algadiesel from it. Let us suppose that we set up wind farms and solar cell farms for 30% of production, and that, by lack of a suitable buffer, we count on the capacity of the rest, the algadiesel generators. So, we have now 300 GW of solar/wind effective installed. Let us now suppose that the rest, 70%, 700 GW, comes from algadiesel. In fact, we need 1000 GW of algadiesel installed, because the 300 GW are sometimes not there. And in fact much more, because the algadiesel capacity needs to be designed not for average, but for maximum capacity. So, let us say that we have 2000 GW algadiesel installed, of which we use on average 700 GW, and 300 GW come from solar/wind. Let us imagine that, as it will probably be the case, that algadiesel is cheaper (way cheaper) than solar/wind.
Now, why on earth would we do that ? Why on earth don't we JUST keep the algadiesels, and use it for 50% (1000 GW effective on 2000 W installed because of load following), instead of using it for 35% and the rest solar/wind ?
What would we win ? The entire price of the solar/wind installation, plus a lot of grid interconnect and regulation. The algadiesel installation is in any case sufficient (it has to). The thing that we will win with the solar/wind, is that we can do with 30% less algadiesel fuel.
vanesch
06.30.08, 11:45 PM
Yes here's a comparable.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml
Progress Energy has a two reactor 2200W (total) plant on the table. They bought 5200 acres in Florida for $80M ($15k/acre). That doesn't include the right of way for transmission yet. BTW, proposed price for the plant is $17B
Mmm, I'm beginning to understand the $17B ! The managers of that project simply do crazy things. I really don't see why you'd need 20 square kilometers for two reactors. Have you ever visited a nuclear power plant ? It's not that big ! One square kilometer would be by far enough to put all the buildings on - probably even much less. Or is that this new anti-terrorist thing where you need now zones of security and walls and dogs and crocodiles and all that ?
sketchtrack
07.01.08, 12:56 AM
When a corp drills for oil, the oil goes to the world oil market. Drilling off shore in the U.S. would only add 2% to the world oil market which would do what, at most we would see a 2% price drop. The key is that there is no we when it comes to oil, oil companies are not socialized and they don't share profits with "us".
There is a big political movement going on right now. Oil companies are trying to scare us into letting them drill off shores, but it won't help us much at all, only them.
robheus
07.01.08, 05:48 AM
In contribution to this thread about "energy independence" here are my thoughts.
Firstly the long-term energy future would in my opinion be renewables, like solar, hydro, geo-thermal, wind, gulf streams, and possible others. Except perhaps for wind and hydro, many of these techniques are still under development, and when further developing them, will decline in price.
If enough money is invested in them (temporaral subsidies), the time it takes for such technologies to be able to compete with fossil energy can be shortened.
The problem of the balance between demand and supply is just a matter of technique. Some technologies (like concentrated solar power) already provide a way for internal buffering of the energy so that they can meet demand/supply variations. By setting up the grid for combining several of such technologies, most inbalances can be avoided without the need for using fossil fuels. Of course, using energy storages (like for instance storing it in hydro buffer by pumping up water ) for buffering energy reduces energy efficiency and will add to the price (less efficiency and extra cost for such an energy buffer), and must be calculated into the real price of that energy. But that counts for other energy sources too, which normally hidden. Like for the price of oil, one needs to add the price of the war in Iraq. For the price of nuclear, you need to add the costs of security from terrorist attacks, gaurding the nuclear waste for long periods of time, etc. Those costs are substantial, and are normally not included in energy price calculations, but still exist of course.
We need to compare the real costs of manufacturing the different energy technologies, including everything (also all kinds of indirect costs).
The conclusion is that converting the economy to a renewable energy use is very possible, and all techological difficulties can be satisfactory solved, it's just we need to invest more in those technologies.
The sooner we can be realy independent of fossil and nuclear energy, the better.
Here are some other advantages of renewables over other sources:
1. You can (if you want to) be realy independent of any energy supplier. Using sun, wind and or other available sources you could in theory provide all the energy you need without even needing the grid or any other energy resource. No other energy resource could provide you this freedom. You would not want to have you "home" nuclear installation, and even if it were possible, you still dependent on fission materials.
But all your heat and electrical energy needs, with current available technology already, you could manufacture yourself. You will neither be dependent on one manufacturer, since the technology is that simple that there will be a huge market for suppliers.
2. Fossil and nuclear are in the end not renewable. If we keep on being dependent of those sources, we simply put the burden of solving the energy crisis AND the environemental to future generations. That is not very ethical. We already consumed nearly half of the total supply of fossil energy, in that in only 200 years. Let us face that! How will future generations for coming thousands of years will reflect on that?
Is it "ethical" to use in a small fraction of time (relatively, as seen on the time scale of human civilisation) almost all available stored (fossil and nuclear) energy resources, and leaving nothing behind but the problems and evironemental and political issues connected with that?
I think we have the moral obligation to leave behind a better future for our children and grand-children. And since available stored energy resources will get depleted one day, sooner or later, we better provide our ancestors with a renewable source of energy, by developing these technologies not just as marginal energy resources but as the main energy resource.
3. Let us also see the political dimensions. As we know the war in Iraq had only one real purpose, and that is access to Iraq oil. Such political issues are more likely to arise in a world dominated by scarce energy resources like fossil fuels or fission materials. Renewable energies have much less this problem as these resources are avialable everywhere in some form or another.
4. We do not only have an energy problem but for most countries depletion of fresh water resources is a more urgent problem. Renewable energy sources can solve these problems, as for instance the use of concentrated solar power to both produce electricity and desalinate water. Concentrated solar power already is a very competetive energy resource, which has the potential to become much cheaper as the installed base is increased. This requires of course huge investments, which are not yet profitable.
Huge CSP plants for example in Northern Africa and Arabia can also increase the area of habitable land, since one can use the land area below the CSP installation for agricultural means. Dry, uninhabited desert like landmasses could be turned into habitable, productive land in the course of years. Since increase in population growth and shortages in food production are likely an issue (rising food prices due to massive use of corn etc. for bio-ethanol already is an issue), this is one possible way of solving this.
The fresh water is availabe from the CSP installation itself, you only need to have access to salt water. Which there are abudant, esp. near the coasts. And in those regions, which are mostly poor and underdevelopment, these economic activities would be most welcome.
In realy dry areas, first thing that can grow in such places are the jathropa plant, which can be used as bio-fuel, and grows where no other food crops can grow, so this doesn't compete with growing food. This solution is far better then turning corn into bio-fuels. And after several years, the composition of the ground is improved and can then be used for growing other crops. CSP plants just have to be settled on another desolated/dry place, more land inwards, where the cycle can begin again, thus increasing yearly the installed base, and increasing the available agriculturally and inhabitable land areas.
Using DC power lines will enable to transport the electricity to grids and electricity consumers elsewhere with minimal loss (est. at 15% losses for very long DC lines).
Perhaps other ways of transporting the energy are possible too (producing hydrogen and transport that in huge containers on special adapted sea vessels maybe?) which are economical and safe.
The only question involved in this is simply: are we willing to invest huge amounts of money into the future of humanity? The source for this money is very easy to find: oil profits, costs of warfare.
What were the costs for 5 years of war in Iraq? How many billions of dollars are nett profits of oil companies?
If only a fraction of that money would be spend on developing real renewables (and not just on turining food into oil, which is likely to damage more then solve), we could release future humanity of these urgent problems.
vanesch
07.01.08, 07:36 AM
In contribution to this thread about "energy independence" here are my thoughts.
Firstly the long-term energy future would in my opinion be renewables, like solar, hydro, geo-thermal, wind, gulf streams, and possible others. Except perhaps for wind and hydro, many of these techniques are still under development, and when further developing them, will decline in price.
The problem I have with that discourse, is that IN THE MEAN TIME, we don't do anything, and we STOP good solutions from being implemented, waiting for the "perfect" solution. We say that we should develop technologies, that will solve certain issues, and that in order to do so, we should invest in it. No matter how much money you would have given to someone in 1850, you would not have had color television in 1880. Of course we should develop new technologies (which will be the mature technologies future generations will choose from to implement on large scale), but we should not STOP mature technologies from providing solutions, because we THINK that we MAY develop better ones in the FUTURE.
If enough money is invested in them (temporaral subsidies), the time it takes for such technologies to be able to compete with fossil energy can be shortened.
The problem of the balance between demand and supply is just a matter of technique. Some technologies (like concentrated solar power) already provide a way for internal buffering of the energy so that they can meet demand/supply variations. By setting up the grid for combining several of such technologies, most inbalances can be avoided without the need for using fossil fuels.
I really, really don't believe that. Study the Danish experience (it was not bad will, or subsidies that were missing). Grid balance is a technologically challenging problem, if you don't have steerable sources at your disposal - it is even a challenging problem when you have them ! Tripling the price of electricity is a serious economical problem, but is less of a difficulty than balancing the grid.
It is exactly this (IMO almost technologically almost unsolvable) problem that is missed by all alternative-energy enthusiasts.
For the price of nuclear, you need to add the costs of security from terrorist attacks, gaurding the nuclear waste for long periods of time, etc. Those costs are substantial, and are normally not included in energy price calculations, but still exist of course.
I'm sorry but they are part of the price calculation. In fact, nuclear is the only technology where one takes into account the waste issue. One can argue that one doesn't count enough for it. I wonder if in the price of a park of wind turbines, one has included the price of dismantling them, cutting them to pieces, transporting this to a waste dump and so on.
We need to compare the real costs of manufacturing the different energy technologies, including everything (also all kinds of indirect costs).
In fact, this has been tried, and the problem is that it always includes some arbitrary cutoff, and then discussions turn over this cutoff. Current technologies are based upon a lot of different techniques, science, research, .... You can almost say that a modern nuclear power plant, or a modern wind turbine, needed 4 billion years of evolution to get there, and start calculating what was the cost of that. Do we have to include Tesla's salary into the costs of every electricity generator ? So you have to put a cutoff somewhere. For instance, people insist to include in "government subventions", the research in nuclear technology by research labs. Should we now also include in the price of wind energy, every laboratory that studies hydrodynamics ?
The conclusion is that converting the economy to a renewable energy use is very possible, and all techological difficulties can be satisfactory solved, it's just we need to invest more in those technologies.
I very strongly object to that statement. We simply don't know how to do so. In as much as people in 1850 didn't know how to make a color TV set.
The sooner we can be realy independent of fossil and nuclear energy, the better.
Is that an ideological statement, or is there a reason for it ? Fossil, I understand, in the optics of possible AGW. Nuclear, I don't know what the haste is about.
Here are some other advantages of renewables over other sources:
1. You can (if you want to) be realy independent of any energy supplier. Using sun, wind and or other available sources you could in theory provide all the energy you need without even needing the grid or any other energy resource. No other energy resource could provide you this freedom. You would not want to have you "home" nuclear installation, and even if it were possible, you still dependent on fission materials.
This is correct. Now tell me, where is that region or country that lives on renewables alone ?
If it was so feasible, it would have been done already somewhere, right ?
But all your heat and electrical energy needs, with current available technology already, you could manufacture yourself. You will neither be dependent on one manufacturer, since the technology is that simple that there will be a huge market for suppliers.
Now, how does my steel factory run then, at a winter night, when there's no wind ?
2. Fossil and nuclear are in the end not renewable. If we keep on being dependent of those sources, we simply put the burden of solving the energy crisis AND the environemental to future generations.
Do you really think that people in the 18th century had to solve our energy problems ? That's what you are talking about when you talk about solving the energy crisis for future generations. We don't have to implement technologies that will last hundreds of years. We're not using 18th century technology to solve our problems, right ? People in the 23th century will not use our technologies, and that includes fossil fuels, nuclear fission energy or anything else.
We already consumed nearly half of the total supply of fossil energy, in that in only 200 years. Let us face that! How will future generations for coming thousands of years will reflect on that?
Is it "ethical" to use in a small fraction of time (relatively, as seen on the time scale of human civilisation) almost all available stored (fossil and nuclear) energy resources, and leaving nothing behind but the problems and evironemental and political issues connected with that?
Well, there's a logical fallacy here. Visibly you want our generation already to get away from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. So these will then be "useless" energy ressources already now. If they are then already useless for our generation, they certainly will be for future generations. So we're not stealing anything from them, then, are we ?
I think we have the moral obligation to leave behind a better future for our children and grand-children. And since available stored energy resources will get depleted one day, sooner or later, we better provide our ancestors with a renewable source of energy, by developing these technologies not just as marginal energy resources but as the main energy resource.
Yes. We should develop them. It will take time. In the MEAN TIME, let us use those resources that we know work already. Our great grand children will not use our technology, in the same way as we don't use horse and cart as our main transportation system right now.
What you seem to miss entirely is that we currently don't have economically competitive and technically feasible energy sources that are renewable. That's green propaganda against nuclear, but since the 30 years that they are saying this, they never managed to put it in action. That lie has nevertheless managed to stop nuclear, but where they do so (like in Germany), they replace it with... coal.
3. Let us also see the political dimensions. As we know the war in Iraq had only one real purpose, and that is access to Iraq oil. Such political issues are more likely to arise in a world dominated by scarce energy resources like fossil fuels or fission materials. Renewable energies have much less this problem as these resources are avialable everywhere in some form or another.
Fission materials are NOT scarce. In fact, the current "waste" still contains about 99% of its nuclear energy, which can be made available with fast breeder reactors. The reason is that current thermal reactors only use (mainly) the U-235 isotope, which represents only 0.7% of the natural uranium, and most of the 99.3% of U-238 is untouched. But in a fast breeder, that can be fissioned too. So if we run already 30 years on nuclear, in the waste there is still the potential to run for 3000 years more on the same rate, or 600 years at 5 times more power, which would be the entire world energy consumption. Read this again: the current nuclear "waste" can still be used during 600 years for total electricity production. Now, we won't be doing that for 600 years, because I guess by then we've found much better techniques. But for sure, it isn't a scarce resource, it is the "waste" people want to get rid off ! Fast breeder reactors have already been demonstrated since several decades, but are not yet commercially exploitable. It are the famous "generation 4" reactors.
The only question involved in this is simply: are we willing to invest huge amounts of money into the future of humanity? The source for this money is very easy to find: oil profits, costs of warfare.
What were the costs for 5 years of war in Iraq? How many billions of dollars are nett profits of oil companies?
If only a fraction of that money would be spend on developing real renewables (and not just on turining food into oil, which is likely to damage more then solve), we could release future humanity of these urgent problems.
I think that is a bit naive. I'm also for developing new technologies, but you can't count on a technology that still has to be developed, and it is simply not true that by throwing a lot of money on a problem, you solve it quickly. Wind and solar have a fundamental, unsolved problem: intermittency. Price is only secondary - although it is also a problem.
Then there is another problem: industrial availability. One of the arguments against nuclear energy is that the industry, at this point, is not capable of delivering, say, 200 power plants in the next 10-15 years. First of all, I'm not sure about that. France, on its own, built 58 reactors in 20 years time. But let's take that. Now, do you think that the industry is capable of building, say, for 300 GW of solar and wind power plants in the next 10-15 years ?
The problem of those wanting inexistent technology (but convinced that it "can" be done, and it is just bad will or politics that stops them) do a lot of harm by stopping technology that IS available and DOES work.
We don't have to solve the problems of the 22nd century, we have to solve the problems of the beginning of the 21st century, without putting up those of the 22nd century with extra problems. But those of next century will not use OUR technologies, OUR resources, or anything. They will do THEIR thing, with THEIR technology and THEIR resources. In the mean time, don't stop people NOW from solving problems NOW with technology that exists NOW.
robheus
07.01.08, 01:16 PM
The problem I have with that discourse, is that IN THE MEAN TIME, we don't do anything, and we STOP good solutions from being implemented, waiting for the "perfect" solution. We say that we should develop technologies, that will solve certain issues, and that in order to do so, we should invest in it. No matter how much money you would have given to someone in 1850, you would not have had color television in 1880. Of course we should develop new technologies (which will be the mature technologies future generations will choose from to implement on large scale), but we should not STOP mature technologies from providing solutions, because we THINK that we MAY develop better ones in the FUTURE.
There is no "single perfect" solution, since the energy future will most probably contain a very diverse mixture of several alternatives.
In the mean time we can ALREADY built those almost economical viable solar installations (CSP and those that