YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[mheslep]

Jacobson and Delucchi produce more that is "too optimistic". The plan is wind heavy, but in my state for instance the onshore wind resource is nearly nil so the plan calls for 50% offshore wind. Yet there's not a single offshore commercial turbine running today in US waters. This is the case though the US is the world's largest onshore generator of wind. Therefore I would expect some discussion in the paper of why this is so, at least, and what's required to mitigate obstacles. Offshore wind is currently almost three times the price of CC natural gas generation per kWh, a gap that no practical carbon tax will close. But Jacobson et al are not interested, though it turns out there are also good environmental reasons for the lack of wind turbines in US waters that won't go away. They might as well have assumed 50% fusion power.

 

[OmCheeto]

One of the nice things about crossposting on PF and Facebook, is that I get comments from PF Emeritus:

Regarding the "Roadmap" post I posted yesterday evening:

Thanks for posting this. It's fascinating! I totally agree that it's politics that will prevent it, especially in a state where the sheeple are proudly displaying their "Friends of Coal" license plates and bumper stickers. The coal barons have convinced them that if we move away from coal, the state economy will collapse and there will be huge unemployment. Somehow they manage to ignore the horrible impact on health and the environment of both coal mining and coal-fired power plants, and that very few people are still employed in those industries due to automation and corporate greed. I've tried telling state lawmakers and anyone else who will listen that clinging to dying technology doesn't help our economy, shifting to new technology and new industries before everyone else hops on the bandwagon does. I liked that there were job creation numbers, and not just short term employment, but 40 year employment, in other words, steady employment for someone's full working lifetime from early 20s until retirement. That is REAL job creation, not these projects we get that employ people for two years and then don't need them anymore. I know, I'm sort of ranting on this, but it gets very frustrating living in a state where people keep voting against their own interests because they believe the political corporate propaganda.

My response was; "Wow"

My only other response to the post was:

Om's BFF; (I won't even read the article) That's cute. Good luck.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs​

To which I responded:

Om; They do list, in the very first paragraph, the biggest barrier: political willpower. So yah, it's doable, but, I agree with you, it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. I only shared this, as I was curious about their numbers. They link to an interactive map that shows how it is most feasible in each of the 50 states.​

ps. Moonie gave me permission, to share her thoughts on the matter.
pss. Hypatia liked my post too! Though, she did not give me permission to mention that. My bad.

 

[Ziga Casar]

58 sites.. that's a lot to read.. I think you have talked about geothermal energy, in case you didn't: The US have on the west coast enough potencial for using geothermal energy for more 1000 years with the present energy use (if one can believe the book "End of Oil"). This is a great alternative form of energy, because with the oil finding technics, it's pretty easy to get to the thermal water in the underground and than you just need to make pipes to the turbins and back to the ground a few km away. But, I'm more a fusion fan, I'm really excited about the the building and making of ITER in France. Fussion power plants are definately a better option than Nucklear plants, because the site product is helium, not radioactive, and we are getting low on helium anyway.

 

[mfb]

Job creation = higher costs
All those additional jobs will need someone to pay for them. You cannot have something cheaper with more employees at the same wage, that does not work. Every concept that claims to increase employment rate and reduce cost at the same time has some calculation error. It can work if you export something and kill jobs elsewhere, of course.

 

[Jimster41]

Policy change in New York meant to improve market responsiveness to energy industry transformation trends
http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/26BE8A93967E604785257CC40066B91A?OpenDocument

An Environmental Defense Fund Blog on NY's "Reforming The Energy Vision" PSC policy initiative.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange...-energy-vision-just-got-a-little-bit-clearer/

This is maybe a better overview. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-york-launches-major-regulatory-reform-for-utilities

Hawaii is committed to a 100% renewables by 2045
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/100-percent-renewable-hawaii-says-aloha

 

[OmCheeto]

Job creation = higher costs
All those additional jobs will need someone to pay for them. You cannot have something cheaper with more employees at the same wage, that does not work. Every concept that claims to increase employment rate and reduce cost at the same time has some calculation error. It can work if you export something and kill jobs elsewhere, of course.

Is it safe to assume you are referring to the most recent article I posted?
If so, I see it differently.
I just transcribed the cost of crude oil imports into the USA. [ref]
Over the last ten years, they have averaged around $258 billion per year.
That's $2.6 trillion over the last 10 years, with the total from 1973 to 2014 being only $4.1 trillion.
So the trend looks pretty bad to me.

The article claims that the net transition gain in employment will be 5.9 million.

≈3.9 million 40-year construction jobs
≈2.0 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone
the sum of which would outweigh the ≈3.9 million jobs lost in the conventional energy sector.​

The permanent result will be a loss of 1.9 million jobs.

As always, I see a trade deficit to be a much worse burden on a nation, than an internal cost, as, in the later case, the money is recycled. In the former case, you have to figure out what to sell someone in order to break even.

According to another source, the total trade imbalance for the same period is $10 trillion. [ref]

So I consider the $4.1 trillion, to be significant.
The rest of the imbalance is of course, a topic for another thread. And I won't go there, as even I don't know how to fix stupid.

 

[mfb]

Well, not importing something goes in the same direction as exporting something. On a more global scale, it is still just a redistribution of money. Not all redistributions are bad, of course.

 

[mheslep]

U.S. oil imports are on trend to zero by 2020

 

[mheslep]

http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/images/2015_03_figure1.png [ IMG]

Net energy imports

 

[mheslep]

 

[jlefevre76]

I think the reason the political will is not there yet can be described with a metaphor: why plant a farm in your backyard if the wild fruit trees still have enough fruit growing on them to sustain yourself? For the short term, we have enough fruit trees, and nobody wants to look at the long term when the population grows faster than our ability to harvest fossil fuels. In the meantime, fossil fuels are cheap and convenient, and frankly I think a lot of people would complain about the inconveniences associated with renewable energy. So, politicians are not all the keen on inconveniencing their constituents and becoming the bad guy.

Some of the chemical processes are really promising though, like the Navy's CO2 seawater to gasoline and/or jet fuel technology. It offers the same amount of convenience once the fuel is produced (with an energy penalty), it's just not as cheap or easy as pulling oil out of the ground and refining it. Biofuels have a lot of room to grow if algae biofuel can become economical in terms of EROEI and financial cost, or if other biofuel crops can be developed and grown on land that is otherwise not considered arable farmland.

So, maybe when the metaphorical fruit trees start to become bare enough for people to worry, then will the main part of the population start to take renewable energy seriously. I'm not all that hopeful it will happen very soon. For the time being, government and corporations only seem interested in the what makes the most amount of profit and is convenient.

In any case, thanks for sharing, always neat to see plans that are developing around this problem. The biggest thing that I feel is neglected in the transition is storage. Not all forms of energy storage proposed are going to be as convenient as using fossil fuels, which could mean some serious societal and technological changes if they are adopted (like cryogenic hydrogen powered airplanes, for instance...)

 

[OmCheeto]

Well, not importing something goes in the same direction as exporting something. On a more global scale, it is still just a redistribution of money. Not all redistributions are bad, of course.

I guess this can be true.
I just read that Fisker Automotive has come back to life, via its new owner Wanxiang, Chinas largest automotive parts manufacturer, and plans on building the Karma.
Fisker Automotive Plots a Rebirth for Karma (WSJ 6/23/2015)
Wanxiang also owns A123, who was the manufacturer of the batteries for the Karma.
So then, if we hadn't had such a horrific trade imbalance, $3.2 trillion[ref], with China over the last 14 years, they'd have not had the money to buy the two bankrupt companies. But they did, and now Americans will get to have jobs, and pay taxes, and give us another Tesla like company, which in the end, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
So the redistribution of wealth from America to China, in this case, looks good.

I wonder how our other foreign investors are doing.
SolarWorld AG stock prices:

Date          price     ROI
01/24/2015    $0.35     n/a
02/14/2015   $53.95     153
6/26/2015    $13.20     36.7

wow

SolarWorld AG, a German based company, invested about $500 million in my state a few years back.
Yay!

hmmmm... I wonder if this is their "thank you", for taking in my mom, and the rest of us wretched refuse, off of their hands.

 

[mheslep]

... which in the end, will reduce our dependence on foreign :

Shale oil, tar sands oil, and to lesser degree vehicle efficiency has reduced oil imports to N. America, and is on trend to zero N American oil imports by 2020.

 

[OmCheeto]

Shale oil, tar sands oil, and to lesser degree vehicle efficiency has reduced oil imports to N. America, and is on trend to zero N American oil imports by 2020.

To paraphrase:

I think the reason the political will is not there yet can be described with a metaphor: why plant a farm in your backyard if the wild fruit trees still have enough fruit growing on them to sustain yourself?

Yup, we're harvesting more fruit, which keeps us alive, for now. Unfortunately, fracking, and other methods, are giving us a poisonous, ugly, and malformed fruit.

7th generation...

 

[mheslep]

To paraphrase:
Yup, we're harvesting more fruit, which keeps us alive, for now. Unfortunately, fracking, and other methods, are giving us a poisonous, ugly, and malformed fruit.

7th generation...

Dagnabit OC, I told you to stop loop watching Strangelove and taking up all that Ripper on Precious Bodily Fluids.

 

[rootone]

Cure the energy shortfall, and cure obesity with it's consequential cost as a health hazard at the same time!
Setup health centers where the overweight can peddle on bicycles attached to generators for an hour or so, (voluntarily of course).

 

[OmCheeto]

Dagnabit OC, I told you to stop loop watching Strangelove and taking up all that Ripper on Precious Bodily Fluids.

I love that movie.
But, it appears that you've just called me a nut case.
Which is fine.
lisab appears to have done the same, in a "they are all the same" kind of way, a while back:

I tend to be highly skeptical of environmentalists. Their tone is often similar to religious nuts, IMO. It also annoys me that they don't contribute anything tangible to the economy.

While it is true, that I"m an environmentalist, and as a retiree, I no longer contribute to the economy, I do not consider myself, a nut...

The following are the links I browsed through yesterday, for about 6 hours, trying to determine everything I could about fracking:
URL

observation (my conclusion)​

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

congressional webcast regarding fracking, which, for some reason, is un-viewable... (They hate mac-users...)​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith

chairman from above committee. Texan. (hmmmmm...)​

http://thefern.org/2012/11/livestock-falling-ill-in-fracking-regions-raising-concerns-about-food/

“People at the farmers market are starting to ask exactly where this food comes from,” (hmmmm...)​

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e4685257dd4006b85e2/b542d827055a839585257e5a005a796b!OpenDocument

"identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources." (hmmmm...)​

http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

"EPA is working with states and other key stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment." (That's nice. but who are these other "key stakeholders"?)​

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act: Exempt. (It would appear, that we are desperate. Gulp.)​

"Hey Bill Nye, "Are You For or Against Fracking?" (somewhat wishy-washy, but he understands.)​

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...spread-drinking-water-pollution-from-fracking

The Environmental Protection Agency says it has found no evidence that hydraulic fracturing — better known as fracking — has led to widespread pollution of drinking water. The oil industry and its backers welcome the long-awaited study, while environmental groups criticize it. (Yay! NPR wouldn't lie to us!)​

http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

To learn more, read this... (Stop! Just do your job and tell me!)​

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

graph showing crude oil production exploding over the last 5 years (Yup. We're desperate.)​

I learned a little about fracking.

So this morning, I cruised through significant threads here at PF, which included the issue:
Thread URL

Thread starter_____time span_______total posts​

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/fracking-not-in-my-back-yard.740201/

DH(staff) 2/24/2014-2/28/2014 5 posts​

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/epa-hands-over-fracking-investigation-to-wyoming.698510/

Greg Bernhardt(admin) 6/24/2013 - 7/14/2013 9 posts​

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...nto-pennsylvania-and-new-york-streams.476506/

FrancisZ 2/26/2011 - 2/26/2011 3 posts​

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-true-accurate-is-gasland.411870/

CAC1001 6/23/2010 - 3/9/2012 60 posts​

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-i-dont-support-earth-day.750383/

russ_waters(staff) 4/23/2014 - 4/24/2014 19 posts
​

I understand the current need for fracking, but that doesn't mean, I have to like it.
I have several, what I would call, NIMBY, duplicitous, pseudo-environmentalist friends.
I want to stab them, to death.NDPEF; "Hi Om! We're going to the river. Wanna come along"?
Om; "No. It's January, and we'll be wasting 6 gallons of gasoline, just so we can say we did it".
NDPEF; "You're stupid".
Om; "No I'm not. You're stupid".

He is no longer my friend.

--------
Ok to delete. My thoughts are saved.

 

[mheslep]

"You've just called me a nutcase"

Not intended at you OC, but your *idea*, whimsical I thought, that fracking is malforming the fruit.

 

[OmCheeto]

"You've just called me a nutcase"

Not intended at you OC, but your *idea*, whimsical I thought, that fracking is malforming the fruit.

It may have been my imagination, but the last two times I've bought lemons, they tasted like gasoline.
I no longer buy lemons.

From my research, of the label on the first bag, the lemons did not come from a region where they practice fracking.
But it made me wonder.

In any event, I plan on buying a lemon tree. Our water comes from above ground, out in these parts.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting discussion on energy and it's cost - in Australia - but probably applies elsewhere

https://theconversation.com/factche...wer-cost-79-kwh-and-wind-power-1502-kwh-44956

It can certainly become costly when policy makers get it wrong.

Does 80% of Australia’s energy comes from coal-fired power?

Nearly, but not quite. More than two-thirds of electricity is produced from coal, 19% from gas, and 10% from renewables with the balance from liquid fuels such as diesel, according to the government’s http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/image_cache/GA21797.pdf .

2/3s is not nearly 80%.

 

[jim hardy]

interesting indeed,

It's easy to get confused.
Here is cost of energy they posted in their correction

The Electric Power Research Institute (2010) reported estimates of the LCOE of various sources of electricity in Australia, including:

• coal-fired electricity (without carbon capture and storage) — A$78–91/MWh
• combined-cycle gas turbines (without carbon capture and storage) — A$97/MWh
• wind — A$150–214/MWh
• medium-sized (five megawatt) solar PV systems — A$400–473/MWh.

That's easy to confuse that with cost of capacity, ie capital cost to build a plant, in dollars per megawatt $/MW << note no h.
Those numbers are in the thousands of dollars per kilowatt.

 

[mheslep]

Australian primary energy is 96% fossil fuel based (2012) according to that AERA report (http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/image_cache/GA21797.pdf ). Nuclear power has a large hit to climb to get past zero in Australia. Australia is the native country of the infamous crackpot anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicot, and then there's the coal industry crying about how dangerous is nuclear power.

http://depletedcranium.com/anti-nuclear_coal_ad_md.jpg

 

[Astronuc]

Biogas!

Turning cow poo into power is profitable for US farm
http://news.yahoo.com/turning-cow-poo-power-profitable-us-farm-054756487.html

A local organization turns biomass into gasoline. They are scaling up laboratory systems to pilot plant scale.

 

[OmCheeto]

Biogas!

Turning cow poo into power is profitable for US farm
http://news.yahoo.com/turning-cow-poo-power-profitable-us-farm-054756487.html

A local organization turns biomass into gasoline. They are scaling up laboratory systems to pilot plant scale.

Good grief! I never knew that cows, um, "went to the bathroom", that much.

cow              3400    units
poop and pee    70000    gallons
yuck/cow         20.6    gal/unit

In an unrelated, but topic relevant story:

Reshaping the Solar Spectrum to Turn Light to Electricity [University of California @ Riverside]
UC Riverside researchers find a way to use the infrared region of the sun’s spectrum to make solar cells more efficient
By Iqbal Pittalwala On JULY 27, 2015

...
The hybrid material we have come up with first captures two infrared photons that would normally pass right through a solar cell without being converted to electricity, then adds their energies together to make one higher energy photon. This upconverted photon is readily absorbed by photovoltaic cells, generating electricity from light that normally would be wasted.
...

I tried to figure out how this works, but it turns out, that it involves quantum mechanics.
I never progressed beyond grade-school level of auto mechanics, so I'm sure I will never understand how this works.

But here's my attempt, graphically speaking:

base image courtesy of wiki: Photon upconversion
I doodled in my interpretations of the article.
"triplet–triplet annihilation" came from the introduction to the original paper, of which, I only understood the first sentence.

 

[mfb]

The efficiency of that infrared -> visible conversion won't be high, but everything is an improvement if the material does not block visible light (this is not trivial) and is cheap enough.

Cow poo:

The problem is the financing, Costa said. There's a huge upfront cost and most utility companies in the United States won't pay enough for the electricity to make the project appealing to a bank loan officer.

It is the fault of the utility companies, of course.
I had this game-changing idea of employing people to run on tread-mills for electricity, but the companies won't pay me the required ~500$ per produced kWh to make this viable!

If the systems pay off in three to five years as claimed towards the end of the article, then I'm surprised that the systems are not widely used now. An investment with guaranteed 20% to 35% return per year? The farmers should be flooded by cow poo potential investors!

By the way, are US electricity bills in kWh, or do you use foot-slug-force?

 

[OmCheeto]

...
By the way, are US electricity bills in kWh, or do you use foot-slug-force?

kWh, as only a small portion of Americans are familiar with slugs.

 

[rootone]

Well one way to fix the energy crisis in the US and everywhere else would be to reduce the number of people.
Apparently that idea isn't very popular though.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well one way to fix the energy crisis in the US and everywhere else would be to reduce the number of people.
Apparently that idea isn't very popular though.

It's actually my favorite idea. But, as you say, it's not very popular.
And I'm pretty sure that a majority of PFers would agree with you.

One of my favorite quotes:

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
--- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
​

But just imagine if you had posted your idea 11 years ago, and everyone just nodded in agreement. I think this would have been a much shorter, and much more boring thread.

 

[jim hardy]

from a 2014 thread

 

[OmCheeto]

from a 2014 thread

View attachment 87131

hmmm... From a 0000 thread; "...man does not live by bread alone..."

If all we did was solve how to feed ourselves, we'd be little more than cats.

I actually came up with this thought this morning, while pondering the wastefulness of how much water it took to make a tomato.
Then I looked in the other direction, and saw my cats staring at me.