Our Ridiculous Energy Policies

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Meanwhile...

Germany shines a beam on the future of energy

Nation gambles on amped-up push for renewable power

...

For the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Muhlhausen solar farm represents a gamble that Germany, the world's third biggest economy, can replace its principal energy sources -- coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power -- with clean, safe and renewable alternatives.

...

The campaign accelerated a year ago when Germany enacted a law forcing electric utility companies -- and, ultimately, all electricity users -- to pay higher rates to businesses or individuals who generate solar or wind energy and feed it back into the grid. With this guarantee of revenue, solar panels have become commonplace on new German houses and huge new windmills are a typical sight in rural areas, especially in the more windy north.

"This is part of our commitment as a government, to make Germany the world leader in alternative energy and in taking action against global warming, " said Juergen Trittin, Germany's environment minister. "We are willing to do what is necessary."

The country is now the No. 1 world producer of wind energy, with more than 16,000 windmills generating 39 percent of the world total, and it is fast closing in on Japan for the lead in solar power. Wind and solar energy together provide more than 10 percent of the nation's electricity, a rate that is expected to double by 2020.

It has become a profitable business, too, with about 60,000 people employed in the design and manufacture of wind and solar energy equipment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGRAAEL4B1.DTL

just one small problem with that - german gray days, where the sky is a gray soup. plus it rains a lot there too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Meanwhile...

Germany shines a beam on the future of energy

Nation gambles on amped-up push for renewable power

...

For the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Muhlhausen solar farm represents a gamble that Germany, the world's third biggest economy, can replace its principal energy sources -- coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power -- with clean, safe and renewable alternatives.

...

The campaign accelerated a year ago when Germany enacted a law forcing electric utility companies -- and, ultimately, all electricity users -- to pay higher rates to businesses or individuals who generate solar or wind energy and feed it back into the grid. With this guarantee of revenue, solar panels have become commonplace on new German houses and huge new windmills are a typical sight in rural areas, especially in the more windy north.

"This is part of our commitment as a government, to make Germany the world leader in alternative energy and in taking action against global warming, " said Juergen Trittin, Germany's environment minister. "We are willing to do what is necessary."

The country is now the No. 1 world producer of wind energy, with more than 16,000 windmills generating 39 percent of the world total, and it is fast closing in on Japan for the lead in solar power. Wind and solar energy together provide more than 10 percent of the nation's electricity, a rate that is expected to double by 2020.

It has become a profitable business, too, with about 60,000 people employed in the design and manufacture of wind and solar energy equipment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGRAAEL4B1.DTL

just one small problem with that - german gray days, where the sky is a gray soup. plus it rains a lot there too.

I'm sure the Germans have considered all the pros and cons. From all that I've studied on PV and read, most homes can be converted to running solely on solar power with the right amount of energy conservation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New Ways to Store Solar Energy for Nighttime and Cloudy Days

Solar power, the holy grail of renewable energy, has always faced the problem of how to store the energy captured from the sun’s rays so that demand for electricity can be met at night or whenever the sun is not shining.

The difficulty is that electricity is hard to store. Batteries are not up to efficiently storing energy on a large scale. A different approach being tried by the solar power industry could eliminate the problem.

The idea is to capture the sun’s heat. Heat, unlike electric current, is something that industry knows how to store cost-effectively. For example, a coffee thermos and a laptop computer’s battery store about the same amount of energy, said John S. O’Donnell, executive vice president of a company in the solar thermal business, Ausra. The thermos costs about $5 and the laptop battery $150, he said, and “that’s why solar thermal is going to be the dominant form.”

Solar thermal systems are built to gather heat from the sun, boil water into steam, spin a turbine and make power, as existing solar thermal power plants do — but not immediately. The heat would be stored for hours or even days, like water behind a dam.

A plant that could store its output could pick the time to sell the production based on expected price, as wheat farmers and cattle ranchers do. Ausra, of Palo Alto, Calif., is making components for plants to which thermal storage could be added, if the cost were justified by higher prices after sunset or for production that could be realistically promised even if the weather forecast was iffy. Ausra uses Fresnel lenses, which have a short focal length but focus light intensely, to heat miles of black-painted pipe with a fluid inside.

A competitor a step behind in signing contracts, but with major corporate backing, plans a slightly different technique in which adding storage seems almost trivial. It is a “power tower,” a little bit like a water tank on stilts surrounded by hundreds of mirrors that tilt on two axes, one to follow the sun across the sky in the course of the day and the other in the course of the year. In the tower and in a tank below are tens of thousands of gallons of molten salt that can be heated to very high temperatures and not reach high pressure.

“You take the energy the sun is putting into the earth that day, store it and capture it, put it into the reservoir, and use it on demand,” said Terry Murphy, president and chief executive of SolarReserve, a company backed in part by United Technologies, the Hartford conglomerate.

Power plants are typically designed with a heat production system matched to their electric generators. Mr. Murphy sees no reason why his should. His design is for a power tower that can supply 540 megawatts of heat. At the high temperatures it could achieve, that would produce 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to run a fair-size city.

It might make more sense to produce a smaller quantity and run well into the evening or around the clock or for several days when it is cloudy, he said.

At Black & Veatch, a builder of power plants, Larry Stoddard, the manager of renewable energy consulting, said that with a molten salt design, “your turbine is totally buffered from the vagaries of the sun.” By contrast, “if I’ve got a 50 megawatt photovoltaic plant, covering 300 acres or so, and a large cloud comes over, I lose 50 megawatts in something like 100 to 120 seconds,” he said, adding, “That strikes fear into the hearts of utility dispatchers.”

Thermal storage using molten salt can work in a system like Ausra’s, with miles of piping, but if the salt is spread out through a serpentine pipe, rather than held in a heavily insulated tank, it has to be kept warm at night so it does not solidify, among other complications.

A tower design could also allow for operation at higher latitudes or places with less sun. Designers could simply put in bigger fields of mirrors, proponents say. A small start-up, eSolar, is pursuing that design, backed by Google, which has announced a program to try to make renewable electricity for less than the price of coal-fired power.

Mr. Murphy helped build a power tower at a plant in Barstow, Calif., sponsored by the Energy Department in the late ’90s. It ran well, he said, but natural gas, a competing fuel, collapsed in price, and the state had few requirements for renewable power.

“There were not renewable portfolio standards,” Mr. Murphy said. “Nobody cared about global warming, and we weren’t killing people in Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/earth/15sola.html

[Heracles 417]

All great but how does this replace fuel for our cars again.

[HAL 9000 96]

We'll see if those coal scrubbers do what they are purported to do... I see a gradual weaning off of energy oil with no net increase in nuclear use and an increase in coal use. I am not convinced the nuclear waste issue will be solved by relying on "impenetrable" walls as we all know in science that there is no such thing.

Another issue to deal with will be in allocation of lands for coal mining, and the actual coal deposits in question, that are in themselves not unlimited.

Counting on future progress can be as certain as driving 90mph down a traffic-clogged expressway.

Have you read up on the process of glassification of nuclear waste? It's a process that turns it into a totaly inert (albeit radioactive) glass that cannot escape into the enviroment. It has the added advantage of making it useless to terrorists as a dirty bomb.

Well, I do work with radioactive substances on a daily basis. Any conversion process, including detoxification procedures, are subject to the efficiency of the conversion process itself. But yes, the process is not that impactive on the environment itself. Good.

The literal problem with this processing is in the material fragility of the "vitrified" particles. Not to mention the very unconverted radioactive decay that is still an issue that can't be stored away in unlimited quantities...

And the terrorist issue is one that depends on logical, intelligent management of nuclear fission facilities as well as the supply chain.

[HAL 9000 96]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

Our environmental sciences teacher back in HS did this for his house on his teacher salary. Nowhere near a six figure price tag.

[HAL 9000 96]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

I am not sure where you get your figgure of $9000 from. I have been doing some searching and see it's about $14000 for enough solar panels to power the average home. Then there is the cost of the batteries. They run several thousand dollars. Then you have to have a rather large inverter (the gizmo that turns DC to 120V AC). All in all I am coming up with close to $25000 to take your home off the grid. And even at that, as Kaydee pointed out, the cells have a lifetime of about 10 years and the batteries have a lifetime of about 5 years. My average electric bill is about $200/month. That makes my electricity costs about $2400 per year. Over the lifetime of the cells I would expect to about break even. But there is another problem though. In the winter where I live we get a lot less sun. Plus the nights are longer. I would expect to need grid energy for at least some of the time in the winter. That puts me at a net loss overall. The technology needs more work before we can start shingling our roofs with cells. Perhaps someday soon but not right now.

Look at it on the bright side- snow reflects light that is convertible. If a high school science teacher can do it, so can any of us. Most of us would unfortunately prefer to consume more by being completely reliant on the energy grid.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mav,

I had this idea about 10 years ago of going into partnership with 2 of my brothers in Arizona to sell and install PV units for homes. One brother is a chemical engineer. There are legal obstacles....such as HOA regulations, but some the technology is really innovative, like roof tiles that are solar receptors. There is such a potential for this to become a boom to our economy if there was just enough political will to make it happen.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Two words.

####### power.

That would look good on a bumper sticker.

####### does produce power.

[kaydee457 13]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

Our environmental sciences teacher back in HS did this for his house on his teacher salary. Nowhere near a six figure price tag.

Well most commercially available systems are as much as 6 figure depending on how much you want to sell back to the power company. My example above is if one wants to chuck away their gas furnace and install a 1:1 solar replacement.

It's not meant to be a practical solution it's meant to illustrate the fact that these technologies are simply not competitive yet. The capital cost of "going green" altogether is staggering.

The other systems for hot water, exchangers, etc. are still more of a novelty than anything practical and useful. I still snicker everytime I drive through my fathers neighbor hood where I can see a few houses that had collectors setup in the backyards back in the 70's......

I just did a search on solar panels priced by watt. The cheapest I found was around 5$/watt. That's if I bought them myself.

I also looked at some home solar systems, grid type. The one I looked at gives 3kw/hr and costs $17,500 to install.

This is inline with my previous calculations.

That's a hell of a capital investment in equipment. This system, as most these days has no storage capacity and only generates near 100% on sunny days, nothing at night (you run off your ordinary electric), more in the summer than in the winter, and is heavily rebated, and heavily dependend on tax incentives to achieve the stated efficiencies.

A 3kW Grid-tied system costs approximately $17,500 to install after California rebate but before any tax incentives. California rebates depend on your service area and purchasing entity. For example, if you lived in the Southern California Edison, PG&E or SDG&E service area, you would receive a $2.60 a watt rebate. If you live in the LADWP area you would receive $3.00 a watt rebate.

These systems, and technologies just aren't there yet. These industries are heavily subsidized to attempt to bring the cost down and field systems that achieve minimal efficiencies to gain technology innovation and manufacturing experience.

The manufacturer states that you can recover the costs of the system in 5 years but that's based on their notion that electric rates in California soar..........

I say you take the 17.5k and put it in the stock market becuase you'll make far more money than you'll save installing this stuff........JMO

source

Edited May 1, 2008 by kaydee457

[Heracles 417]

Our environmental sciences teacher back in HS did this for his house on his teacher salary. Nowhere near a six figure price tag.

In Chicago? Do you guys in the North even get any sun there..

[Heracles 417]

The other systems for hot water, exchangers, etc. are still more of a novelty than anything practical and useful. I still snicker everytime I drive through my fathers neighbor hood where I can see a few houses that had collectors setup in the backyards back in the 70's......

I just did a search on solar panels priced by watt. The cheapest I found was around 5$/watt. That's if I bought them myself.

A supplementary solar system would work in sun belts places like the south. For the North, hmm not so much. Last time they saw sun in Vermont was 1987. Plus it also gets too cold there for that sort of equipment to last and is practically useless during the snowy winters there. I know there are a lot of people who install solar water heaters in Australia and the systems are quite effective. The system looks quite ugly though because the tank is also located on the roof.

Now when it comes to rural areas where supplying electricity gets expensive, due to the high cost of transmission lines, yes renewal energy is the way to go. Wind Power combined with solar is a great option in these circumstances and should probably even be subsidized by the government.

But I also like the concept of hydrogen power stations. Which are pollution free.

Like this:

Edited May 1, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

A typical solar panel that yields a mere 50 watt-hour output costs about $500.......That's because they're damn hard to manufacture, and yes, fossil fuels play a large part in manufacturing them. The fuel they consume in operation is "free" (sunlight) but the conversion of sunlight to electricity, and hence efficiency factor is extremely low as opposed to that from fossil fuels.

A typical furnace costs around $1500 retail (a non-recurring cost) and cranks out around 35000 BTU/hour. The recurring costs is the fuel; lets say gas.

The costs to operate the furnace is just pennies/hour compared with the solar panel to get similar BTU's.

A solar panel (50 watt-hour) cranks out a whopping 170 BTU's/hour.... To replace the furnace you're talking about it will cost you around $103, 000.......and the panels don't last forever...they degrade over time and become even less efficient and eventually need replacement.

Some go 5 years, some 10. You pay more for the 10 year...

Pretty good huh <shrug>

I'd like to know where you get your information because it's a load of #######. $103,000? I know of a number of people using solar (off the grid) and they didn't spend $103,000 on solar panels...and yes, they are living quite comfortably.

Back in '95, when I was doing a research paper on PV technology, there was a guy living in MD who converted his entire home on PV energy and I think he spent about $9,000. He had backup batteries to store electricity during the night. The technology has progressed now and considering that many homeowners (in Arizona e.g.) have custom pools built into their homes that cost tens of thousands of dollars and there is no return in investment other than a slightly higher resale value. Homeowners are willing to pay for solar as an option...all that is needed is more political will to support solar power technology the way we support looking for cleaner coal.

Our environmental sciences teacher back in HS did this for his house on his teacher salary. Nowhere near a six figure price tag.

Well most commercially available systems are as much as 6 figure depending on how much you want to sell back to the power company. My example above is if one wants to chuck away their gas furnace and install a 1:1 solar replacement.

It's not meant to be a practical solution it's meant to illustrate the fact that these technologies are simply not competitive yet. The capital cost of "going green" altogether is staggering.

The other systems for hot water, exchangers, etc. are still more of a novelty than anything practical and useful. I still snicker everytime I drive through my fathers neighbor hood where I can see a few houses that had collectors setup in the backyards back in the 70's......

I just did a search on solar panels priced by watt. The cheapest I found was around 5$/watt. That's if I bought them myself.

I also looked at some home solar systems, grid type. The one I looked at gives 3kw/hr and costs $17,500 to install.

This is inline with my previous calculations.

That's a hell of a capital investment in equipment. This system, as most these days has no storage capacity and only generates near 100% on sunny days, nothing at night (you run off your ordinary electric), more in the summer than in the winter, and is heavily rebated, and heavily dependend on tax incentives to achieve the stated efficiencies.

A 3kW Grid-tied system costs approximately $17,500 to install after California rebate but before any tax incentives. California rebates depend on your service area and purchasing entity. For example, if you lived in the Southern California Edison, PG&E or SDG&E service area, you would receive a $2.60 a watt rebate. If you live in the LADWP area you would receive $3.00 a watt rebate.

These systems, and technologies just aren't there yet. These industries are heavily subsidized to attempt to bring the cost down and field systems that achieve minimal efficiencies to gain technology innovation and manufacturing experience.

The manufacturer states that you can recover the costs of the system in 5 years but that's based on their notion that electric rates in California soar..........

I say you take the 17.5k and put it in the stock market becuase you'll make far more money than you'll save installing this stuff........JMO

source

I hear ya. Still, I am not sure how, then, my HS teacher was able to do it on his salary and go home in the dead of winter to a very toasty home. Maybe he decided to benefit from long term benefits, if he spent 2 times his annual salary on parts in one install, or if he had help from the inside.

OR, perhaps we are not wording it correctly. Steven hints at it- its about using political will to the benefit of all. Its miraculous how economical the materials can become. Who knows- perhaps the investments opportunities can grow as this budding industry is fed a little more.

Our environmental sciences teacher back in HS did this for his house on his teacher salary. Nowhere near a six figure price tag.

In Chicago? Do you guys in the North even get any sun there..

Plenty of it too.

And like I mentioned... snow reflects plenty of usable photons.

[HAL 9000 96]

The other systems for hot water, exchangers, etc. are still more of a novelty than anything practical and useful. I still snicker everytime I drive through my fathers neighbor hood where I can see a few houses that had collectors setup in the backyards back in the 70's......

I just did a search on solar panels priced by watt. The cheapest I found was around 5$/watt. That's if I bought them myself.

A supplementary solar system would work in sun belts places like the south. For the North, hmm not so much. Last time they saw sun in Vermont was 1987. Plus it also gets too cold there for that sort of equipment to last and is practically useless during the snowy winters there. I know there are a lot of people who install solar water heaters in Australia and the systems are quite effective. The system looks quite ugly though because the tank is also located on the roof.

Now when it comes to rural areas where supplying electricity gets expensive, due to the high cost of transmission lines, yes renewal energy is the way to go. Wind Power combined with solar is a great option in these circumstances and should probably even be subsidized by the government.

But I also like the concept of hydrogen power stations. Which are pollution free.

Like this:

A VERY interesting concept indeed.

As a side note, increasing CO2 load in crustal pockets *may* be a way of investing in the carbonization of future fossil fuel deposits... but by then I doub't we'd need it for more than just antique table lamps.