Slashdot Log In
Milestones and Trends in Renewable Energy
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jan 02, 2006 09:00 AM
from the slow-movement-forward dept.
from the slow-movement-forward dept.
Sterling D. Allan writes "Some reflections and projections: The year 2005 saw large wind power installments come into a price range where they are now competitive with traditional grid prices. 2006 could see several solar designs do the same. Cold fusion was boosted with two, concurrent and independent sonofusion breakthroughs, though the stigma in the name is still deeply seated. 2006 could see floating wind turbines arrive on the commercial scene -- floating in the water like oil rigs, or floating high in the air, courtesy of helium. 2006 will see at least three companies offering after-market kits for adding Brown's gas (H and O from electrolysis, common ducted) to the air intake of vehicles for enhanced mileage and performance. Many other fuel economizing systems are slated to mature in the marketplace. Climate change evidence will continue to mount. It will yet be years before we harness lightning, but stable tornado systems prototypes that tap waste heat from power plants could arrive this coming year. Will 2006 be the year that clean energy becomes more the vogue than cool computer gadgets?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Gadgets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gadgets (Score:3, Interesting)
mandatory viewing, MS vs IBM
Re:Gadgets (Score:3)
No...nobody cares about Tesla.
It's like the George Foreman Grill. Nobody knows who really invented the thing. But we all know that some ex-boxer turned nice-guy advertises it.
In Ameri
Re:Gadgets (Score:2)
Zing! Maybe it's just me, but that "Jerry Lewis is popular in France" joke just never gets old. Keep the chuckles coming, bigman2003.
Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, we're finally starting to see some clean energy.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, PBRs have a very large drawback. It is nearly impossible to extract useful material from the spent fuel pebbles. Manufacturing these pebbles is not a trivial process, by the way.
Personally, I'd like to see more development of integral fast reactors. They are not modular in design, but these plants are designed with the entire fuel cycle in mind and can burn up nuclear fuel so efficiently that the waste degrades to background radiation in just 300 years.
Parent
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also impractical to extract useful materials from spent fuel rods of conventional reactors, unless you're running a weapons program and don't care about the cost. Pu from commercial reprocessed fuel is expensive to separate, and it has a negative value once you've separated it -- the extra hassle of designing your fuel fabrication plant to be able to handle Pu (which is much more radioactive than enriched uranium) dwarfs the cost of the uranium you save.
If you're concerned about uranium running out, the incremental approach will be to go to cycles with higher burnup and fuel efficiency. CANDU reactors are like this, particularly if used with thorium-uranium fuel elements.
Parent
More about integral fast reactors (Score:4, Interesting)
There is only one thing worries me about modern nuclear plants, and that is the access to cooling water. If you plan on using rivers or lakes, you need to be pretty sure that global warming will not dry them up.
Much as I like relatively low overhead technologies like wind, solar, bio-Diesel and bio-ethanol, I have to admit that I'm a convert to the idea of fast neutron sodium-cooled non-breeder plants. They even seem to be relatively terrorist-proof. And they would provide some well paid tech jobs that are not just in moving bits around.
Parent
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
First off, you're confusing nuke-happy France with the United States. They're continally building new nuclear power plants while I don't believe the United States has built a new one (outside of Newport News, at least) since the 1970's. We're the ones that want coal*.
Secondly, I was under the impression that the Germans had already devised the greenest option yet: buy electricity from France
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the face of a nuclear attack a nuclear power plant is way safer than say, a refinery.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait a sec. (Score:3, Informative)
China loses 6,000 coal miners per year at the jobsites (in the mineshafts).
http://www.google.com/search?q=china+mining+death
America (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:America (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, yes. They are going to build several monster coal plants at the Wyoming/Colorado border and IIRC, another by the Colorado/Utah border. In both cases, the emissions standards will be even more relaxed than they would have been just 5 years ago. This has been a big concern in Colorado as it is showing that it will probably bump the mercury in the lakes/stream up to being illegal (which is already considered way too high). In colorado, the vast majority of our drinking water
no mention of bio-diesel (Score:4, Informative)
Re:no mention of bio-diesel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no mention of bio-diesel (Score:3, Funny)
Re:no mention of bio-diesel (Score:3, Interesting)
To satisfy ultra-low sulfur requirements, Fischer-Tropsch diesel makes more sense. Converting stranded natural gas capacity around the world to FT diesel production would add 4 million barrels of oil per day equivalent liquid fuel production.
Re:why? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it would cause very large areas to be replaced with unnatural monocultures instead of natural ecosystems. The underlying cause is the great inefficiency of photosynthetic energy conversion.
Biodiesel is fine as a boutique-scale touchy-feely fashion statement for those who don't think too much about what they are actually proposing. As a real solution to the problem of producing significant amounts of liquid fuel, it's a ghastly crime against nature.
What's wrong with using some of the huge quantities of biowaste produced every year to make fuel?
Well, aside from the fact that if organic waste is not recycled into the soil it can cause the soil to degrade, the biggest problem is that even if all of it were converted to fuel, it would not produce more than a small faction of fuel demand. US refineries produced about 125 billion gallons of gasoline in 2003; using all US corn stover (for example) for cellulosic alcohol production would produce maybe 12 billion gallons. And that's just gasoline, which accounts for just a third of the output of an oil refinery.
Parent
Biodiesel & Algae (Score:3, Interesting)
The US Govt conducted studies on the cultivation of algae with high oil content, using open-raceway ponds. Greenfuel Technologies [greenfuelonline.com] have an enclosed
Until It Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. citizens must also get out of the "grid" mentality. Electricty on site, not relying on the grid is a shifting in thinking for most. Lori Ryker addresses this in her book, "Off the Grid" [amazon.com]
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:2)
I totally agree about the 'grid' mentality. But a grid can be a good thing. If systems were standardized and people had home generators (PV or hydro or something), then electricity could flow out of a house as easily as it flows into a house.
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:2)
Or at least as long as it takes the oil companies to figure out how to package and sell these new energy sources to the consumer.
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:4, Interesting)
I think markets are good things, but I remember learning about external costs and market failure in like week 3 of microeconomics class.
Energy markets have HUGE externalities (national security, environmental impacts, etc.), so government involvement is actually necessary to achieve the 'right' solutions. Of course, that leads to the topic of governments' track record at successfully correcting externalities and market failure...
Parent
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:5, Interesting)
The market is good at eventually seeking the best answers, however the market cannot handle very large shocks very quickly
Luckily, the oil is not going to disappear overnight. Even as we approach the end of the available reserves, the flow of oil will just slow, not stop. Long before that, as the easy-to-reach oil reserves are depleted, the price will rise as the needed oil is drawn from less and less accessible sources. At some point extracting oil from shale and tar sands will become cost-effective.
As the price gradually rises, more and more alternatives to oil will become cost-effective. As use of alternative sources increases, the investment into them will improve their efficiency, through process improvements and through mass production, making them even better competitors.
the problem is, oil is so ingrained in our current economy it's going to take the market a long while to find adequate substitutes for all its uses without an outside shove.
The transition from oil to other energy sources will occur naturally, through normal market forces, and without any extreme shocks. No "outside shove" is required to make the energy source transition. That said, I think there is value in governmental influence pushing toward cleaner energy sources, since market forces won't naturally push us in that direction. I think "pollution taxes" (or pollution credits, which are similar) are a good idea as they can both bring market forces to bear on keeping the environment clean and can also provide funding for alternative energy research.
Parent
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:4, Insightful)
It is one of the roles of the State to ensure the people who ought to bear a cost *do* bear a cost.
In this case, carbon taxes would be the solution.
However, this requires willpower on the part of the State.
When this is lacking, the people who ought to bear a cost do not and as such the fuel they are using is cheaper than it ought to be and so has a competitive advantage in the market.
Parent
Taxes... (Score:5, Insightful)
They never do it correctly. I'm sure if there were carbon taxes today, they'd manage to make you pay to burn renewable fuels like wood, ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel along with fossil fuels.
Tax revenue never goes to correct the problems it was meant to correct. In a democracy, politicians will always find a way to divert funds to pork projects or buy votes with dubious social programs.
In the long run, governments become dependent upon taxes from sources that they were originally meant to discourage. Taxes then become the perfect way for harmful industries to become legitimized in the eyes of their regulators. History is rife with examples of corrupt governments becoming one with those who profit from harming others.
What's really better, your neighbor spewing pollutants into the air and water, or him doing so with the backing of the government and military?
Parent
Re:Until It Hurts (Score:3, Interesting)
From another aspect, I recently had a conversation with consumer relations at Chrysler. I have decided my next vehicle purchase will be diesel. Chrysler manufactures a diesel Liberty annd they are considering the Commander, but not the Wrangler. Wrangler is all that interests me, I won't be buyin
Question for all greens (Score:4, Interesting)
How should we generate electricity until that happens? Let's assume that energy demand will not decline any time soon, but rather will continue to rise.
Coal?
Oil?
Natural gas?
Nuclear?
Which of these is the least-worst to you?
Re:Question for all greens (Score:5, Insightful)
Coal is too damed poluting
Nuclear is not that easy to set up and then switch off again, that is... the nuclear waste will always be there and after switching off the reactor it will stay hot for years.
If I had to use one of the current technologies that provides most of our power (by no means all, Aussieland has quite a bit of wind power and solar these days) I would use natural gas, there's more of it than there is oil and it burns cleaner than coal.
Oh and by the way, I think if we can't find renewable power in 50 years we are screwed. Saying "I don't think that will be the case" won't help.
Parent
Re:Question for all greens (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate Change (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. In fact, depending on where you are today, it's colder or warmer, wetter or dryer, brighter or darker, calmer or stormier than normal. Some places are even foggy. It's all evidence of climate change.
What else could it be? Can we afford to wait to find out?
Stop commerce now. Before the weather gets any less precisely normal.
+1 parent so funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Climate Change (Score:4, Informative)
CBS [cbsnews.com]: "The year 2005, the World Wildlife Fund said, is shaping up as the worst for extreme weather, with the hottest temperatures, most Arctic melting, worst Atlantic hurricane season and warmest Caribbean waters.
It's also been the driest year in decades in the Amazon, where a drought may surpass anything in the past century, said the report by international environmental group. "
BBC: "The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists. [bbc.co.uk]
They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.
The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible. "
Parent
Not this year (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no!
2006 will be the year that Linux takes over the desktop, 2007 will be the year that Duke Nukem Forever is released and 2008 will be the year that clean energy comes into vogue!
Also, I think somewhere in there they discover the cure to the common cold, but that part of my crystal ball is still a bit fuzzy (probably due to that cheap antenna from Walmart).
Oil became expensive, not wind became cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)
> are now competitive with traditional grid prices.
Incorrect.
The year 2005 saw oil come into a price range where it competes with wind.
Re:Oil became expensive, not wind became cheaper (Score:3, Informative)
Oil is not a dominant driver of the price of electricity. In 2004, the US got 3% of its electricity from oil, less than, say, conventional hydro, and not a whole lot more than non-hydro renewables (see here [doe.gov]). Natural gas, on the other hand, was responsible for 18% (coal was 50%).
The cost of wind power has been steadily declining. Depending on the data you look at, it can be very competitive with traditional sources of electricity. In fact, because the marginal cost of producing electricity fro
Re:Oil became expensive, not wind became cheaper (Score:3, Informative)
I looked into raising money and building a wind farm in the Western US over the last year, and I discovered a few things:
1. No utility is interested in buying "green power" unless they are mandated to by
Re:Oil became expensive, not wind became cheaper (Score:3, Informative)
The arguments were that the one wind turbine could produce the energy required to make them in 6.8 months, and then produced energy for a long time thereafter. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, the real analysis necessary is to factor the total cost of the wind turbine. Then, factor the amount of gas that money would otherwise buy. Then decide on what timetable a gas generator would beat the wind turbine if you had some money and needed some energy...
Just
Wind Farms (Score:5, Funny)
Beats me why so many people seem to keen to build wind farms [bwea.com].
Surely, there is too much wind in the world already (witness recent events) and farming more of the damn stuff seems like utter lunacy to me.
Anyhow, couldn't we just import some foreign wind from some windy place?
Sonofusion results are about neutron generation (Score:3, Interesting)
The big-news sonofusion results in 2005 were about neutron, not power, generation. There was some evidence that acoustically-driven cavitation could produce temperatures high enough to result in fusion-generated neutrons. This is quite exciting in terms of understanding the basic processes involved. However, in terms of the driving physics, this is hot fusion: a very small volume of material may be heated to extremely high temperatures for a very short time, resulting in a tiny amount of fusion occuring.
Due to fundamental physical constraints it is very unlikely that such a process is scalable in a way that will produce more power than is required to generate it. The bottom line for hot fusion is that the cross-sections for loss processes are orders of magnitude larger than those for the fusion process itself, and the losses scale as the surface area of the hot volume while power production scales with the volume. This means that the cube-square law strongly favours really big hot-fusion reactors (something the size of a star seems about optimal).
So while it is not impossible that one day we'll all drive cars powered by sonofusion, I don't think anyone working in the field is suggesting that.
Did anyone read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone read the article? (Score:4, Funny)
Plus, Katie on the Today show said pseudoscience is the new pop-psychology. And pop-psych made me feel so good about myself, you're not going to make me miss out on this new thing.
Chillax. It's all good.
Parent
This is Science..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Research goes a lot smoother when you decide ahead of time what the results will be.
What crap. A reality check follows. (Score:4, Interesting)
These things are big - the towers are 200 to 300 feet high. It takes 500 of them to equal one coal plant. And bigger wind turbines are coming. The latest General Electric 3MW turbines are so big they're only being considered for offshore installations. The Cape Cod Wind Farm project [capewind.org] has produced much grumbling: [capecodtoday.com] "A 24 square mile industrial park the size of the island of Manhattan, 40 story turbines permanently scarring our ocean horizon, 580 lights destroying our nightscape, 130 air and sea navigation hazards in the middle of some of the foggiest air and waters in the world..." This is a generic problem with wind and solar energy. Once it starts really working, the installations are huge, because the energy densities are so low.
The downside of wind power, of course, is that it's intermittent. Typically, average power is only 30% of rated power. Of course, you don't get to pick when you get power. So you either need energy storage (like a pumped storage plant) or excess capacity in non-wind generation. Which means building more plant.
Still, wind power is real. Unlike much of the other stuff mentioned, like the "magnet engines" (an entry-level bozo idea), the "neutron generator" (a misunderstanding of a well-understood device), and "blacklight power" (generally considered to be a scam).
Tidal power seems attractive, but there are only about 20 good sites worldwide [worldenergy.org].
The Athabasca Oil Sands projects [oilsands.cc] are already producing 1 million barrels of oil per day, and that should double by 2010. The scale of the operation is huge. It takes two tons of sand to yield one barrel of oil. That's one Panama Canal every ten months. Want a job as a heavy equipment operator? Move to Fort McMurray, Alberta. They're hiring. Rents have passed Silicon Valley levels, and the apartment vacancy rate is zero.
The future looks like coal. Too much coal. China is building about 50,000MW of coal-fired electric plants per year. US coal consumption has been roughly constant for a while, but will probably go up as oil prices increase.
Nuclear may make a comeback, probably when coal gets too ugly.
Oil dependency (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sadly, not in the UK (Score:2, Insightful)
But nuclear reactors are the only practical alternative to oil/natural gas-fired power stations. Which is the cleaner fuel, again? We made a mess because we didn't build enough reactors: we relied too heavily on dirty fossil fuels.
Re:A few grains of skepticism (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally speaking, consuming less requires no technology or additional cost. Sometimes it might cost something intangible, such as moving closer to work (think about it - if everyone who commuted 30 miles one way was willing to move to only commute 20 miles one way, or, if possible, 10 miles, the aggregate reduction in transportation energy consumption would be quite large).
The problem is the "consume less" mentality is not very popular, and, unfortunately, not a problem which is readily solvable through technological means. While more efficient devices are better, what typically happens is people just get more devices and use as much if not more resources than with the "less efficient" technologies. Ah, the wonderful ironies of life...
Parent