Pickens Plan -alternative energy

[Ivan Seeking]

related:

At the time of unveiling, the Volt project had been in existence for less than a year. The Volt was targeted to cost around US$30,000. As of April 2008, General Motors Vice Chairman of Global Product Development Robert Lutz was quoted as saying that the realistic unsubsidised price had risen to US$48,000,[40][41], that he reckoned that US$40,000 might be possible, without making any profit, and that only government tax incentives could take the price tag nearer to US$30,000. When asked directly about the price later, Lutz indicated that this was a misquote - and said "The answer is that we don’t know."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

I noticed last night in the Nova episode, "Car of the Future"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/
that when asked about the readiness of the Chevy Volt, the spokesman responded, ~ "we will be ready when we have batteries".

 

[mheslep]

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again.

So I would call that plan 100% renewable, wind + pump storage + hydrogen (turbine?) storage, and not 100% wind.

Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.

Unlikely that anyone there is considering H2 for transportation - that's out there with fusion IMO. In this case they're likely talking about H2 storage for later use in electric generation via H2 turbines during wind lulls.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

 

[mheslep]

This might put a grin on T Boone's face. GM's VP for R&D likes using a natural gas based engine for combustion end of the PHEV Volt.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/07/natural_gas_an_enticing_alternative.html
Natural Gas: An Enticing Alternative
By Larry Burns
GM Vice President, Research & Development

...In the near term, we can use compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines. Mid term, we can leverage natural gas to create electricity for the Volt and future variants. In the long term, natural gas could be an excellent source for making hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, either at the filling station or in people’s homes...

 

[thewhills]

The US needs nuclear energy, but we complain it isn't safe...Nuclear Energy is VERY safe if properly funded. It shouldn't be long term, just until we have efficient solar panels.

While we are at it, work on a space elevator to dispose of radioactive waste...Until then, but it in a I,believe, a 9in think steel box and launch it into space.

I feel like saying to people

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

 

[Topher925]

You don't want nuclear energy because it is unsafe
You don't want wind because it is an eye sore
You don't want hyrdo because it could hurt fish
You don't want solar because it is inefficient
Most of all, You don't want oil because it cost a lot and gives off greenhouses gases
WTF DO YOU WANT?

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.
Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.
Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear Energy is safe, its the byproducts that are not.
I love wind, but it will never create more than 7% of the grids power since it is so variable.

Close to 20% has already been done in a geographically smallish country like Denmark.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/03/11/thar-she-blows-dongs-wind-woes/?mod=WSJBlog
10 to 15% wind electrical is almost certain to happen in the US without help from the government, 20% w/ government collaboration, maybe 30% with a big government (non-economic) push.

Hydro is great, just not many places to build power stations.
Solar is very expensive and the production of solar panels can be very harmful to the environment.

Only from the energy use to make Si crystals. Thin films not so much.

Yes, we all know why oil sucks.

What do I want? Solar power thermolysis of water for a H2 based economy. Simple, capable, and just about the most efficient process out there from converting solar energy into usable energy.

For other than on the spot use, H2 is not viable as an energy carrier. Can't transport it economically.

 

[LowlyPion]

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

It would be no worse than now wouldn't you think? Why would back-up systems be abandoned? If diesel is the current means of power generation, why would a reserve not be maintained?

From what I've read about the Canaries it seems a pretty windy place. Why not capture that and essentially be off grid as far as hydrocarbon usage - except of course in the case of anomalous weather systems?

 

[LowlyPion]

Musing: Since the island is small it is reasonable that the entire wind system needs backup. 100kWh / person (Spain) / day x 10000 on the island = 1e6 kWh / day, or 5000MWh in 5 days. That's an average 41MW hydro generation facility, say 100MW for peak load and efficiency, probably $150M to build if they use the crater. Then there is the wind generation, which must be ~120MW nameplate or $240M onshore construction cost (2008 dollars). Total: $400M w/ some new transmission or $39k per capita over 20-30 years for the entire all renewable island. Or, they could buy 13M tons ($30/ton) of coal for the same cost, enough to supply the same power for 71 years, assuming a constant price of coal.

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.) As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.

 

[mheslep]

I'd reckon those costs are a bit high considering that prices of wind turbine can be expected to decline in constant dollars with greater experience in manufacturing larger numbers. (As a side note I see the Danish Wind industry estimates costs at about $1/W or about half the number you scratched out.)

The numbers of turbines produced are already quite large world wide (10000-20000 MWe / year) and there is already decades of experience especially in Germany and Denmark. The low hanging fruit has been picked, the manufacturers are mature (Vestas, GE, Siemans, Mitsu.). There's no reason to expect the price to come down, it is actually going up a little due to the cost of steel, concrete, and spiking demand. You will not find any $1/W figures for 2008 installed turbines anywhere.

As an experiment I would scarcely want to discourage it, if only to learn from the experience and the unforeseens.

Wind is no longer an experiment.

Of course at the end of the 20-30 years then the costs are sunk and apparently recovered with only maintenance and life cycle costs to consider. These might be only as much as a couple of hundred dollars per capita per year.

A one time sunk cost implies the turbines/towers can be maintained indefinitely; I don't think this is case. Instead I believe after 30 years its closer to wholesale replacement of blades and generators, versus maintenance. Still, I expect refurbishing the entire wind farm is cheaper than the comparable job at a 30 year old nuclear plant.

 

[LowlyPion]

Wind is no longer an experiment.

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.

 

[mheslep]

I wasn't suggesting it was. Merely that an isolated but substantial community moving to 100% reliance would be. I think that there will be things to be learned from the effort.

Agreed.

As to the costs I was referencing this Danish Wind Association site:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
where they were quoting a number half that you were using in your musing.

I see it was from 2003 so I will leave 2008 numbers to you, though I would have to wonder still as to whether it would have doubled as yet.

Yes not quite 2x yet, $1.8/W for large buys now. However, the Canaries will necessarily not be a large buy and they're remote, so figure at least $2/W.

While I'm sure the low hanging fruit is plucked as regards to the manufacturing experience curve, I'd have to think that there are still some economies to wring out with such low worldwide (not to mention US at maybe 2%) generation figures still.

Sure some, but the raw material and manufacturing costs (tower,blades, turbine) have matured, so the cost of a given size tower is not going to come down much. What has been increased dramatically over the last 10-20 years is the amount of energy a given sized turbine/tower can physically capture from the air stream w/ enhanced aerodynamics (the Danes are kicking themselves about this). It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well all I can say is that as far as wind power is concerned I am a fan.

 

[thewhills]

I still think hydro need to be explored more especially in cities like Boston or San Francisco that sit on top of the water.

Hydro on the coast,Wind in the midwest and solar in the south and southwest is ideal I imagine.

 

[Topher925]

It has been shown though that there's a calculable upper limit to that (retrievable energy) and the newest wind turbines are already closing in - no more dramatic increases forthcoming.

Its called the Betz limit, and its just a tad over 59%. This is due to the kinetic effects of the air passing through the rotor disk area. Today's most efficient VSVP WT can capture about 85%ish of the total available wind energy. Thats converting about 50% of the kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical energy of the turbine itself.

The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...The main problem with wind is not the cost or Betz limit, its the variable power output placed on the grid. Under many conditions wind farms can actually strengthen the grids and larger wind farms have ride-through capability. However, their power output still fluctuates greatly and will never be able to provide a base load power source like nuclear and coal can. Depending on the wind farm location and the loading on the grid, some parts of the nation could never have more than 10% of their energy provided by wind unless some type of energy buffer is used. If you see a country like Denmark or Germany with 20% of their power provided by wind, then its because their grid is much better than ours.

So Pickens' plan to use the midwest good wind corridor, request grid upgrades and transmission right of ways is prudent. The transmission plan is there, but I haven't yet seen a detailed base load power plan. I expect existing hydro will play a role in firming US wind, but what else? Compressed air (CAES) is getting more attention.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/38270.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2002/wan_wind_power_fluctuations.pdf

Notable NREL conclusion:

...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant...

 

[LowlyPion]

Notable NREL conclusion:
"...Although the efforts to monitor wind power plants are ongoing, we can already conclude from the available data that despite the stochastic nature of wind power fluctuations, the magnitudes and rates of wind power changes caused by wind speed variations are seldom extreme, nor are they totally random. Their values are bounded in narrow ranges. Power output data also show significant spatial diversities within a large wind power plant..."

In the article on Spanish wind power I note that they place a strong emphasis in predicting power contributions. This should mitigate somewhat the fluctuations in nature. If and as windfarms become more widespread over larger areas then wind fronts passing through the windfarm grid can be more predictive of upcoming gains and losses in contributions and holes in the grid may even be targeted for deployment to help smooth transitions in wind passing through.

 

[mheslep]

Atlantic Monthly article on GM's PHEV "Volt"
Electro-Shock Therapy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors

Discusses the PHEV players, history, critics, motivations, estimates, and of course the drama.

 

[Alfi]

Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

?

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

i just never know if it's another power from water thing or not.

 

[mheslep]

Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

?

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2008) — In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

This is very big deal if it holds up. Appears Nyocera et al have done this using common materials.
In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

DANIEL NOCERA PROFILE:
Hydrogen Economy? Let Sunlight Do the Work
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/789
(subscription reqd)

 

[Topher925]

Being its MIT, I wouldn't hold my breath. MIT hasn't exactly been delivering lately on their discoveries and/or research. I think the answers to our energy problems are going to come slowly from the industrial sector.

 

[mheslep]

Being its MIT, I wouldn't hold my breath. MIT hasn't exactly been delivering lately on their discoveries and/or research. I think the answers to our energy problems are going to come slowly from the industrial sector.

Cobalt solution with an Indium Tin electrode, electrode is not consumed. It works What's to wait for, unless you doubt what is presented in the paper?

 

[Topher925]

More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is confident that such systems will become a reality.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?

 

[mheslep]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively.

Yes, that is my understanding, and somewhere I saw this would be close to 100% efficient. I believe the solar angle is two fold: 1) It provides a more efficient way to store excess solar produced energy in the form of hydrogen which could later be dispatched as electric power via fuel cells or turbines, the pieces are there to do this now; 2) this work is a step closer to direct hydrogen production from solar radiation, i.e., they hope that direct solar radiation on the solution will cause it the H20 to disassociate.

For 1) your point about why just solar is valid, it could apply to any variable energy source. The solar hype might be explained by Nocera's statements in the press, unrelated to this work, that only solar has any hope of providing and lasting solution to the world's energy problems.

 

[mheslep]

Yes here it is:

Dr. Nocera said human activities, in energy terms, right now are essentially a “12.8 trillion watt light bulb.” Our energy thirst will probably be 30 trillion watts, or 30 terrawatts, by 2050 with the human population heading toward 9 billion.

If that energy is supplied with coal and oil, an overheated planet is almost assured, he said.

Finding other options is a huge challenge, he added. To illustrate, he provided one hypothetical (and impossible) menu for getting those 18 additional terawatts without emissions from coal and oil:

- Cut down every plant on Earth and make it into a fuel. You get 7 terawatts, but you need 30. And you don’t eat.
- Build nuclear plants. Around 8 terawatts could be gotten from nuclear power if you built a new billion-watt plant every 1.6 days until 2050.
- Take all the wind energy available close to Earth’s surface and you get 2 terawatts.
- You get 1 more terawatt if you dam every other river on the planet and reach 30.

As he summed up, “So no more eating, nuclear power plants all over, dead birds everywhere, and I dam every other river and I just eke out what you’ll need in 40 years.”

Then he turned to the sun, his research focus, which bathes the planet in 800 terawatts of energy continually. “We only need 18 of those terawatts,” he said. But the current level of investment in pursuing that energy, he said, isn’t even close to sufficient.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/all-energy-roads-lead-to-the-sun/

 

[BWV]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?

Absolute solar cell efficiency matters less than cost per watt, the goal being to get this number down to around $2 (before installation costs) that comes out to less than 10 cents per kwh amortized cost (including financing costs)

 

[mheslep]

Absolute solar cell efficiency matters less than cost per watt, the goal being to get this number down to around $2 (before installation costs) that comes out to less than 10 cents per kwh amortized cost (including financing costs)

How do you separate PV efficiency from the output power?

 

[LowlyPion]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

I don't really understand why they are directly relating this to solar power? Also, I have not seen any published numbers that states its efficiency. I couldn't read the paper that was linked because I don't have an account at that website. I've read industrial electrolysis can operate at up to 70% efficiency, although expensively. Can this "synthetic photosynthesis" that doesn't use sunlight, compete with that? What about solar thermolysis or thermal solar power? Its made no advancement to increasing efficiency of photovoltaic cells, so how will this cause a "solar revolution"?

"Nocera's new catalyst uses phosphate, cobalt, and an electrode that creates oxygen from water. The method uses 90 percent less energy that current processes."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1505328/mit_professor_develops_more_efficient_way_to_use_solar_energy/index.html

 

[BWV]

How do you separate PV efficiency from the output power?

Efficiency is how much of the sun's energy gets converted into usable electricity - current silicon PV cells are around 15%. But ultimately it is cost per watt, so at some price, a technology that gets, say 7% efficiency could possibly be a better technology

 

[LowlyPion]

Unexplained still is the efficiency that you might expect from such a process.

If you can do it for 10% of the current power can you create enough power from a fuel cell with the resulting separation to generate more electricity and perpetuate the process of separation exceeding the use of the original input of electricity? Are efficiencies then over 100%? Now that would be exciting, but of course there is a bit of a problem with thermodynamics.

Why do these articles make it all seem like late night infomercials?

 

[Topher925]

The method uses 90 percent less energy that current processes."

Thats more of what I was looking for. Although the article refers to the process of making O2 not H2. It states that it uses platinum just like current methods. However it did also state that the process is immune to most impurities and can be done in a glass container at standard environmental conditions which is saying a lot. Even if it is just as efficient as current methods it could possibly be a little bit cheaper.

And current solar cells that are available to the public are typically no better than 8%. The ones that operate at 15% are gallium arsenide based and are used in satellites. And of course extremely expensive.