Alternative Energy thread

Someone mentioned that a problem with alternative fuels is the lack of a distribution infrastructure. That's true in a lot of cases, but not for electricity. The limitations there are the development of higher energy density batteries, and clean and efficient sources of electricity.

Solar shows promise and is constantly improving. Unfortunately it is still too expensive to install for general applications.

I have no problem with nuclear, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned fusion. It hasn't been in the news for some time, but it is achievable, only no one is sure how much longer it will take.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion seemed attractive in the 70s, unfortunately, the best plant design would still consume almost 90% of the electricity generated just to run the warm and cold water pumps.

Hydroelectric plants are great. Unfortunately, some environmentalists are concerned that not all the salmon can make it up the fish ladders, so they are demanding that existing hydroelectric plants be demolished. There is no evidence that salmon populations are declining due to man-made damns, and you have to wonder how many weak salmon can't make it past natural waterfalls.

Lightning storage. Quite a lot of energy, if we could just figure out how to store it. Of course it might end up that not letting the lightning dissipate into the ground might create other problems.

How about coal? I've read that there is concern about the immediate future of oil, but not so with coal. Granted, it's not very clean the way we burn it now, but maybe there are alternative ways to use it as fuel that are cleaner.

 

And I'm surprised the myth of fusion is still alive. Well, maybe i shouldn't be.

Fusion has turned out to be a very tough nut to crack, in large part due to the fact that the plasma is at a temperature where nothing can remain solid. Magnetic containment turns out to be not so easy. Also, it requires heavy hydrogen, which is very scarce.

But the big lie about fusion is that it is clean. In fact, fusion is as dirty as fission. This is because the intense flux of high-energy neutrons which sustains the fusion reaction also creates a witches' brew of radioactive isotopes, and a radioactive waste problem comparable to that of fission.

When I was young they told us that nuclear energy (fission-based) would be too cheap to meter. We'd pay a monthly service fee for the wires, and the electricity would be free. Several decades later, and mind-boggling subsidies from the government, and laws granting the nuclear industry immunity from lawsuits in the case of accident, and taking the waste problem on the shoulders of the public, and even with all this, the nuclear industry cannot make a profit.

Fusion, if they ever solve the technological problems, will be just as big a boondoggle.

 

Solar is getting close. The last time I read up on it, panels were approaching $1 per watt. IMO, solar is one of the best possible options. My thoughts are along the following lines:

How many hectares of equivalent empty land space exist on top of current commercial and industrial roofs? Set up agreements with the owners to utilize this space. The buildings get a side benefit of being shielded from direct solar heat gain in the process, slightly reducing their A/C loads. The NIMBY problem is moot, as the panels would be used on existing buildings, and operate silently. Solar is online and making power during peak demand times. The system would also be able to mitigate some large scale power outages. If a building is to be torn down, the panels could then be removed, and reinstalled on the new building, or used elsewhere.

 

It's economical in France and Japan. Fission's problems in the US are the regulatory regime and public relations, not technology. It's the *only* technology now in hand that can meet the world-wide need for carbon-free energy in the second half of this Century. That is, supplying nine bilion people at a standard of living comparable to that of Western Europe at the same energy efficiency of Western Europe (already about twice as good as that in the US) takes something like 10 to 15 times the power Earth uses today. That will not come from wind and surface-based Solar alone, and doing it with coal would profoundly change Earth's climate and ecologies.

 

I agree with Wolfman, I've seen plenty of evidence that solar is completely viable right now (and would be much cleaner than fission). Most home units being sold by BP Solar and Shell take up less than half, and often less than 1/3 of the surface area of a typical single-family home. These units, with battery systems installed, are capable of providing most of the power to a typical home on any given day.

If all that's true, then the other half of the roof on all single-family homes could be covered with solar panels to generate power for nearby urban areas, where building density might preclude solar power. The suburbs of major cities would basically become massive, distributed power generators.

Outside of initial cost, I can't really see any downside to installing a solar array on every roof.

 

Our water company here in San Jose has installed some solar car ports. The car port/overhangs were designed for solar purposes. One is around 40 feet long the other is newer and is a little longer. They say this will power all their needs plus a little more. Hmm... I say for one, we put them on top of buildings.. we really dont' use these spaces.

Didn't they create solar roofing tiles now? I believe they cost more.. but they should work fine.

 

You have to be very careful with pushing this on private residences. This is why I suggested commercial and industrial rooftops. There is already grid intertie regulations on the books in several states regarding residential solar systems. However, forcing the panels on an unwanting resident, would begin a backlash on the concept. Let that remain voluntary, under current established rules. Where there are no regs established, have the same type of voluntary regs written in. While the vast majority of commercial and industrial buildings are also privately owned, they exist to provide public goods and services, and the gains to be had to the business owner should be an easy sell.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean that people should be _forced_ to accept these on their roof (although, why would anyone mind?)

It was more along the idea of "if you buy the first half of the system that covers just you, and then let us cover the rest of your roof with extra panels, we'll give you a discount or sweetheart financing deal, and then you'll generate power for yourself and a few surrounding homes/businesses." This would help spread out the initial cost a bit. Ideally, everyone would jump at this offer.

The one problem I've thought of with this system, in the long run, would be the demise of our local utilities. While PEPCO does a terrible job of keeping the lights on here in DC during an average summer storm, they still serve an important purpose: upkeep on the power lines and power plants that we'll still need to backup a fickle sun. If everyone really does adapt solar, they'll have virtually zero revenue to work with. Though I suppose that would be a "better" problem to have to deal with than all the stuff under our current power system.

 

There is also one other problem with the suburban roof solar array plan, the geometries of typical roofs. Only about half the houses have south facing roofs, and of those, 99.9% have a north facing roof on the other side.

 

East and west facing rooftops can still be fitted with mounting hardware that points the panel to the proper southern angle for the area. Going back to the commercial and industrial rooftops, the overwhelming majority of them are flat, and you can do whatever is required to fit the panels there.

What I've been thinking about regarding the solar power generation, would be supported by the utilities. Meters would still be used to track customers power consumption, with the primary peak consumers being the industrial and commercial sectors. Residential grid intertie systems are, and should be tracked under a different set of rules, where the utility pays the customer for their excess power generation, since these are wholly private systems.

 

i can top that... there are some current batteries that use the momentum of a moving vehicle to store kinetic energy... in fact, im driving one right now!!

 

Wolfman, is there enough space on commercial and industrial buildings to support enough solar arrays to power them? I figured that, since it takes a not-insignificant fraction of a roof to power a single home, any sort of building taller than 4-5 stories couldn't possibly hold enough solar panels on its roof to power itself.

Naturally, they should still pack as much as they can in and take the free solar power that they get, but I think they'll still need to draw power from the grid. Hence, the need for more panels on single-family homes, to generate the extra power for the grid that skyscrapers and big buildings would likely need.

 

Richard:

Nuclear power can indeed provide all our energy needs. At the same time, it produces unimaginably toxic waste products that remain deadly for half a million years. The nuclear industry has a pathetic record of contamination of surrounding air and water, and reliance on nuclear will create a regular commerce in nuclear waste that must be stored for a time scale similar to the total time homo sapiens has been on the planet. And while in transit it will be subject to accident, theft, and terrorism.

It's a real devil's bargain: get all the energy we need now and very possibly render the Earth uninhabitable for the next half a million years.

 

There's also the whole "terrorism, earthquakes, leaks into the ground water, unforseen acts of God" problem with nuclear waste. 'course, we could just dump the stuff in Springfield forest or Springfield River. Apparently, Blinky loves having a third eye; plus he tastes great!

 

umm i think we have been watching a few too many cartoons...

 

Dave: please, please pull over before you next post. It's really not safe to type as you drive...

 

TMS:

actually it isnt safe to type and drive in any car EXCEPT the Prius... which practically drives itself. however... as evidenced by the rear window wiper... the car does not do windows!!

 

Is that even possible?
...
: )

 

Unless you live in an area where the "sun don't shine" Seattle and Portland, OR are know for being rainy but we in Burlington don't fare well either:

Note: An average of 12 hours of sun per day, for an entire year would be 4380 sunshine hours.

Portland Oregon, UNITED STATES 2155
Burlington Vermont, UNITED STATES 2144
Seattle Washington, UNITED STATES 2049

are a far cry from:
Yuma Arizona, UNITED STATES (Most sunny settlement in the world) 4055
Phoenix Arizona, UNITED STATES 4020

but still better than :
Bognor Regis, West Sussex UNITED KINGDOM (Sunniest place in Britain) 1750

 

WOOHOO!@!

i am so glad to hear that we get more sun than somewhere else in this world!!