Prism: Alternative energy less expensive and more effective answer to 90% of our energy needs in less than 20 years

[Burgold]

Begging the Mods forgiveness, but I thought this was worthy of a standalone discussion. Imagine, if solar and wind were the cheapest and most effective way to provide power. Based on his calculations, University of Delaware's Wilett Kempton believes that could be the case. Part of it is based on a cooperative model of sharing wind and solar resources over a wide area, part of it is due to the cost of not paying externalities (like the costs associated with fossil fuels in terms of clean-up, health care, etc.)

Imagine if he's right and that if he exercise the will to get it done how much better off we might be.

Give him a listen and tell me what you think. Personally, I think if we can get it done it would make a great Christmas and New Years gift to us all and prove even further that the Mayans were wrong.

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadca.../98884668.html

[Riggo-toni]

Y'know, if we'd spent even half the money we've pissed/are pissing away on ethanol on alternative research instead, we'd already have alternative energy in widespread use.
Damn Iowa straw poll and Archer Daniels Midland campaign contributions.

[Burgold]

I don't know, Riggo. For a multitude of reasons I think alt research is really important. I want us to be the innovators, I like the idea of reducing cancer, asthma, and other pollution related illnesses, I like the idea of being less dependent on foreign nations for our resources, etc.

I do agree that corn based biofuels seems to be a bad idea based on results so far, but it's sort of like the tax pledge. Anytime, you artificially remove tools from the kit your ability to come up with the best solution tends to be reduced.

Besides, the idea that we could be this close to making it work is exciting to me and I really do think we need to incorporate all of the above. We need to maximully utilize hydroelectric, wind, solar, oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas, as well as conservation techniques, and a whole bunch of other stuff... like walking to places that are two blocks away instead of driving.

[PeterMP]

I don't know, Riggo. For a multitude of reasons I think alt research is really important. I want us to be the innovators, I like the idea of reducing cancer, asthma, and other pollution related illnesses, I like the idea of being less dependent on foreign nations for our resources, etc.

I do agree that corn based biofuels seems to be a bad idea based on results so far, but it's sort of like the tax pledge. Anytime, you artificially remove tools from the kit your ability to come up with the best solution tends to be reduced.

Besides, the idea that we could be this close to making it work is exciting to me and I really do think we need to incorporate all of the above. We need to maximully utilize hydroelectric, wind, solar, oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas, as well as conservation techniques, and a whole bunch of other stuff... like walking to places that are two blocks away instead of driving.

The fact of the matter is that when you take into account our foreign policy, our military that post-WWII has been largely about securing access to oil, and the wars we've funded, supplied (Iran vs. Iraq), and fought, we might be there now.


Unfortunately, many of the true costs of oil (including some of the ones you are talking about in terms of health associated costs) aren't factored in at the pump.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 11:23 AM ----------

Our ethanol policy should differentiate between "corn" based ethanol and celluolose based ethanol.

[Larry]

I'm a guy who's really in favor of alternative energy. Including having the government artificially tilt the market in that direction.

BUT . . .

1) I have to confess that I get really skeptical when I see people saying "but, when you include these other costs". Because what I hear is "here, let me fudge these numbers".

I see studies claiming that tax cuts for the rich, work. All you have to do is to assume that every dollar of tax cut is multiplied by Fudge Factor X, whereas every dollar spent by the government is reduced by Fudge Factor Y. Or, well, hybirds pollute more, if you include all of the pollution produced by every company that makes a component that goes into those cars. And every company that supplies those companies. And all of them.

I wonder, do the people making those claims, do the same "let's trace the life history of every nut and bolt that went into production" of the non-hybrid cars, too? And apply the same fudge factors?

They look at the pollution that happens when you produce Cadmium. Do they look at pollution from producing steel?

I certainly don't know that people who do things like this are lying. But I'm constantly aware of the possibility.

2) But, let's assume he's right. Let's assume that, 20 years from now, that:

• A gallon of conventional energy costs $1.00
• A gallon of alternative energy costs $1.10.
• The conventional energy also comes with 20 cents of "secondary costs".

Guess which option the market is going to overwhelmingly chose.

[Thiebear]

If the govt would USE the alternate energy on their gov buildings it might keep those companies from failing.
Sets the example and pushes it a decade faster.

[alexey]

Great work!

Unfortunately I am also skeptical about difficulties in calculating "true costs" of fossil fuels, as well as getting an energy policy that results in us actually paying those costs.

Maybe energy storage will end up playing a bigger role? This could not only make renewable energy more competitive, but also increase efficiencies in the fossil fuel area - I understand that having to generate electricity on demand, as is usually the case, resulted in us having to accommodate peak demand on the generation side. Getting good storage options could really change the math there. Maybe somebody ran some models of this? Looking forward to learning more about it.

Maybe you can get this guy on the prism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20420557

[Riggo-toni]

Our ethanol policy should differentiate between "corn" based ethanol and cellulose based ethanol.

And yet our gov't (if I'm not mistaken) has all kinds of tariffs/restrictions on importing sugar cane ethanol.
Research into something like switchgrass would be fine, but yeah, stop the damn cornball subsidies.

[DCSaints_fan]

Can anyone provide a transcript?

Wind and solar still have the capacity factor problem, the fact that you cannot control the amount of energy you produce, and therefore cannot match supply to demand. You could solve this by storage, but energy storage systems are pretty inefficient (with the notable exception of pumped water storage for hydro plants), which translates to more expensive. Currently, wind and solar plants are now "backed up" by natural gas plants, which don't operate as efficiently as they could because they have to be run in a combined cycle so they can throttle up and down easily. What ends up happening is that the natural gas has to be turned on and off so frequently, given the inefficiencies in startup that you're not much better off than just using the NG full time, which defeats the purpose of having the wind/solar plant in the first place.

[Riggo-toni]

I don't know, Riggo. For a multitude of reasons I think alt research is really important. I want us to be the innovators, I like the idea of reducing cancer, asthma, and other pollution related illnesses, I like the idea of being less dependent on foreign nations for our resources, etc.

I am absolutely in agreement, and I was confused by your post...until I realized I mistyped "widespread" instead of "alternative" energy...brain fart

[PeterMP]

And yet our gov't (if I'm not mistaken) has all kinds of tariffs/restrictions on importing sugar cane ethanol.
Research into something like switchgrass would be fine, but yeah, stop the damn cornball subsidies.

We have various caps and tariffs on imported ethanol and sugar to support the corn based ethanol industry in this country.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 04:22 PM ----------

Can anyone provide a transcript?

Wind and solar still have the capacity factor problem, the fact that you cannot control the amount of energy you produce, and therefore cannot match supply to demand. You could solve this by storage, but energy storage systems are pretty inefficient (with the notable exception of pumped water storage for hydro plants), which translates to more expensive. Currently, wind and solar plants are now "backed up" by natural gas plants, which don't operate as efficiently as they could because they have to be run in a combined cycle so they can throttle up and down easily. What ends up happening is that the natural gas has to be turned on and off so frequently, given the inefficiencies in startup that you're not much better off than just using the NG full time, which defeats the purpose of having the wind/solar plant in the first place.

A hybrid gas/solar/wind plant that is 69% more effecient than your standard NG plants.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news...solar/?ref=rss

Now, its new and most of the energy is going to come from NG, but the reason the old way was so inefficient was it was mostly based on the old technology, which was we're going to have an NG power plant and then pretty much have a separate solar or wind based power plant.

With more of a long term commitment, there are more concrete plans to actually integrate them into a single real system, which will increase efficiency.

[Corcaigh]

Can anyone provide a transcript?

Wind and solar still have the capacity factor problem, the fact that you cannot control the amount of energy you produce, and therefore cannot match supply to demand. You could solve this by storage, but energy storage systems are pretty inefficient (with the notable exception of pumped water storage for hydro plants), which translates to more expensive. Currently, wind and solar plants are now "backed up" by natural gas plants, which don't operate as efficiently as they could because they have to be run in a combined cycle so they can throttle up and down easily. What ends up happening is that the natural gas has to be turned on and off so frequently, given the inefficiencies in startup that you're not much better off than just using the NG full time, which defeats the purpose of having the wind/solar plant in the first place.

Pumped water storage is the best backup and storage mechanism because it has no thermal rampup. Get a base coverage from NG, nuclear or whatever, and then use 'alt energy' when the sun shines/wind blows.

A factor which still seems to be ignored is simply adding cheap insulation in all homes.

[Burgold]

Great work!
Maybe you can get this guy on the prism
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20420557

Thanks. I'll see if it's possible.

DC Saints... I don't have a transcript of the audio. If you PM me I can an email you an abstract, but there's a lot more info in the fifteen.

Kempton I thought did handle the storage problem of solar and wind well. I thought his answer made some sense though I'm not sure it was perfect.

[Burgold]

Actually, next week I have a segment planned that looks at a promising new battery made from Rose maddor.

(Also, feel free to click on the link... I almost got the office prize for most listened to segment last week and I'm greedy )

[China]

Here's one:

NASA: A Nuclear Reactor To Replace Your Water Heater

This reactor does not use fission, the process of splitting atoms into smaller elements employed by every commercial power reactor currently operating on earth.

And it does not use hot fusion, the union of hydrogen atoms into larger elements that powers the sun and stars.

Instead, a low-energy nuclear reactor (LENR) uses common, stable elements like nickel, carbon, and hydrogen to produce stable products like copper or nitrogen, along with heat and electricity.

“It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste,” said Joseph Zawodny, a senior research scientist with NASA’s Langley Research Center.

“The easiest implementation of this would be for the home,” he said. “You would have a unit that would replace your water heater. And you would have some sort of cycle to derive electrical energy from that.”

Click on the link for the full article