I’m shoveling bits as fast as I can today, between web site work, prepping for my presentation on the 20th (and if you’re in the Rochester area, I hope you’ll be there–Brighton public library, 9/20, 7PM), and book work. Oy. An energy geek’s job is never done.
Anyway…
Clean Hydrogen Producers To Try Out Solar Water Cracker Technology In Spain
Using solar thermal to create hydrogen that’s then either fed to a fuel cell or sold? I’m not sure about the economics of that approach. Is it better than converting the light directly into electricity with solar PV, even with the higher up-front capital cost plus lower ongoing conversion efficiency of PV vs. thermal?
Aug. 27, 1859: America Enters the Oil Bidness
I can’t believe I didn’t know this was coming–the anniversary of Col. Drake’s first oil well in Titusville, Pa.
Natural Gas Imported To US For Electricity Generation May Be Environmentally Worse Than Coal
Wind data offers some surprises
Winds a couple of hundred feet up are stronger and more consistent than they are at ground level? I’m positively shocked! to hear that the laws of physics still apply. And yes, this isn’t the first such study to find out that we’ve been underestimating the wind potential of just about the entire continental US.
Renewable Energy Vital to Pennsylvania’s Economic Growth
Ecological damage may halt Caspian oil project
Can you say, “getting the maximum economic and political leverage out of reserves of a natural resource that’s facing imminent worldwide decline”? I knew you could!
Interesting article about how one big-time venture capitalist is literally betting that “the” solar solution will be thermal, not PV. Of course, any prediction at this high level of abstraction contains a ton of assumptions about the future regarding the relative costs of various ways to move electrons, how much value we place on reducing CO2 emissions, etc. My primary takeaway from the article: I’m really happy I’m not the one betting cubic miles of dollars on these assessments.
Don’t blame ethanol for the price of food
The main thrust here, that corn contributes such a tiny percentage to the overall cost of food, is a good example of the kind of analysis I think we need to perform more often. I’ve argued here several times over the years that when people wail about how we’ll manage to move food after peak oil are way out in left field, at least in part because of a failure to do this analysis.
Briefly, what percentage of the price you pay for almost anything in your local grocery store is directly attributable to the price of motor vehicle fuel (typically diesel)? It’s literally a few cents per item most of the time, thanks to how efficiently we can move things by truck. If you assume oil gets truly expensive–increases by a factor of 5, so diesel fuel is $15/gallon, and you further assume that the trucking industry is too stupid to become more fuel efficient (clearly a bogus assumption, given their actions already in that direction), then guess what? The increase in food prices will be small, and the reduction in oil consumption will come from other parts of the economy. There will still be plenty of food in the stores.
The only way you get from “oil production has peaked” to “we have less food” is if you assume we experience very significant supply disruptions, so severe that even large-scale government intervention can’t find the fuel for trucks. In essence, you have to subscribe to the “peak oil = no oil” fallacy. Extraordinary challenges produce extraordinary responses, and, if needed, we’ll take some quite drastic steps to keep food moving.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Solar Thermal does have a lot going for it and in the short to medium term looks like a winner, but PV still has potential that nothing else matches - the capability to turn all kinds of sun exposed surfaces into electrical generation. Achieving that potential has proven elusive, at least in respect to cost, however there are innovations and developments occurring all the time. No single form of PV has shown itself to be vastly superior to others (some lower cost, lower efficiency, others high efficiency high cost), but we haven’t sucked that well of innovation dry yet or even reached a peak of “production” of new ideas. Striving to achieve that superior (low cost) PV is still very worthwhile.
I do agree with Vinod Khosler when it comes to electrical transmission - intermittent energy sources can be utilised more effectively if they can be transmitted effectively from abundant sources to high demand consumers. HVDC can carry electricity further with less losses than AC, but it’s an area of need, to improve and extend the power grid. If we can successfully transmit across oceans, we could effectively get a global grid, and storage issues are greatly diminished. I have wondered (I think on this site) if the energy transmission aspects of the Space based Solar proposals might have some applications as an alternative to the good old electrical cable, be it AC, DC or Superconducting for long distance transmission between ground based energy rich regions and energy consumers. I’ve never been convinced the Space Power Satellite proposals can be cost effective in anything like the time frame we need, and seem to be mostly proposed by people who have other agendas, such as space colonization, in mind.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Buckminister Fuller proposed a global power grid where the key link was the 50 mile gap of the Bering Strait. It would connect the solar power from the sunshine side to the moonshine side 24 hours a day with no need for storage. Bucky did like to think big.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I was really surprised that the Solar Thermal article turned out to mostly be an interview with venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. I am mostly familiar with him from discussion on TOD where he is usually described as an advocate for ethanol. The idea that solar thermal is world changing while solar electric is just a sideshow seems pretty questionable to me. Solar thermal has a long way to go to catch up and doesn’t seem likely to benefit from the ongoing cost reductions that solar PV is experiencing due to its connections to the semiconductor industry. Really I think Khosla is (as usual) promoting whatever technology he has recently invested in, to drive up the value of his investments.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’m sure Khosla is promoting but Solar Thermal does have a lot going for it, particularly relatively low cost and Thermal energy storage to make it a producer of electricity overnight as well as during the day. One company he’s invested in (Solar Heat and Power inc aka ) has developed ways to reduce costs significantly including by using shallow mirrors that start with flat glass that’s flexed into trough shape - supposed to be much cheaper than producing true parabolic troughs - and Fresnel lenses under the collector pipes. But I think the potential of PV to keep getting cheaper will make it a long term winner. Definitely not a side show.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“The only way you get from “oil production has peaked” to “we have less food”
is if you assume…”
The interaction between food availability and peak oil involves more than possible
problems with delivery. Fuel for farm equipment and oil/gas inputs for fertilizers
and pesticides are important too. Packaging may be affected as well. This doesn’t
mean there won’t be any food, just that the era of cheap food may be limited.
Certain practices that make sense with cheap petroleum (and cheap labor and materials)
may not then be so sensible. And certain “inefficient” practices such as organic
methods, as well as local production, may be more suited.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
VtDoc: Yes, fuel does indeed come into the equation in more than just transportation. You’ll get no argument from me on that point. I’ve seen several arguments recently that focused on the fuel component, so I made the error of talking about the issue in just those terms. But I think the overall analysis–the cost of oil is a small component of food prices–still applies.
And you’re absolutely right about the shift in how we do things. That’s the whole “economy seeking a new equilibrium in response to a change in the relative price of energy” thing that economists (like me) drone on about endlessly. The big unknown is how much of a shift it will take to rebalance the economy, and how painful these changes will be.