Are automakers clueless about the future?
The future, again?Clean diesel, ethanol, natural gas, biofuels, small cars, hybrid cars, plug-in cars and fuel cell vehicles: those are just a few of the technologies that could drive the automotive future.
At least that is all that can be determined from the varied solutions that automakers are developing these days to fight high oil prices and CO2 emissions. Yet, are any of these technologies THE future?
Why so many varied approaches? Is it simply the fact that all of these technologies will be required? Are all of these technologies potential game changers? Or, are automakers truly clueless about how the auto industry is going to evolve?
On the other hand, are automakers even in control of the automotive future, or does it all come down to energy policy?
Labels: energy independence, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:12 AM
42 Comments:
they know that we are pushing the technology envelope and that it's literally a crap shoot as to how it is going to play out.
are we expecting too much from them?
after all .. all they really do is make a product for which there is a demand...
looking downstream is not about doing what's right for society as much as it is about gaining a competitive edge on your competition.
if you get ahead of the bow wave and you offer technology before it's is mature or even before people are ready for it.. you're on the ragged edge and vulnerable to more threats than if you play it safe.
so, then it all really comes down to energy policy?
This article contains about 8 different technologies and vehicle types. It also raises about 5 different questions for us to discuss. The most important question however just might be the last one which is"
"or does it all come down to energy policy".
I believe we are going to see some really significant changes in our lives in the very near future. The near future to me means about 2-10 years. Why do I say this? Well for several reasons.
1. Our current consumption of carbon based fuels is unsustainable and we haven't agreed on any one single energy source for our future. Hence every manufacturer is keeping their options open.
2. Almost every vehicle manufacturer has at least one [or more] small cars in the works. Hence the recent [<2yrs.]large number of small and varied fuel type vehicles being proposed
3. Pending government legislation will encourage/promote/force us to change. Hence fuel costs will necessarily increase, and:
4. Our environment may or may not be changing [depending on your views] and it might not be for the better. As a personal note, I have not been fully convinced that some of the things we are doing are in the best interests of our planet.
This post raises some really very interesting concepts. Much like trying to predict the value of a stock 10 years from now. I will check back later.
Tom G.
tom-
that's the funny thing about predicting the future, it just isn't as easy as it seems.
still, being goal based could be an interesting way of running energy policy.
what if we simply asked, 'what would it take, for instance, to end foreign oil dependence in 10 years and all oil dependence within 15 years?'
i'd bet we could achieve those benchmarks. maybe, it's 15 and 20 years, but its definitely achievable far faster than is assumed. it's really about will and cost.
we have a massive deficit. only something big can get us out of it. ending foreign oil dependence, i believe, could be it, especially since the US auto industry - and its impact on credit markets - is too big to fail. why not turn this $80+ billion, and growing, investment into real results, into a real goal?
likewise, such a move would have a drastic impact on CO2 emissions without ever having to mention global warming, because this is about energy independence, not global warming. and that is a concept that can be sold to the people.
moreover, if you think 20 - 30 years out, this is an investment that more than pays for itself, while providing jobs and pushing the envelope of technology.
health care is important, but today, america's energy policy runs the world, but not for much longer.
its time to grab the bull by the horns.
FYI.
GM, as part of their bankruptcy restructing, just cancelled health care coverage for all retired employees who qualify for Medicare.
My Aunt received her letter in the mail yesterday....
smurf-
along with wrongful death responsibility, environmental clean up responsibility, etc.
it's sad without doubt.
i wonder how much all of that will add to the cost of the bankrutpcy?
still, what's the point?
we're here. perhaps a bold new energy policy built around using the American worker to end foreign oil dependency is finally conceivable? wouldn't that be the best way to recover our $80+ billion investment anyway?
The article made no mention about energy independence and to take it one further, all raw materials independence, including lithium. Aside from and along with the environmental issues, becoming less dependent on imported oil, lithium, etc. is morally, philisophically and economically the right thing to do. Thanks for touching on it Dahcredyns.
anon-
that "all raw materials independence" is a great issue. without doubt it brings up some very interesting issues.
is such independence possible?
a technologically advanced and peaceful world, one would imagine, will require world trade.
so, just ending foreign oil dependence isn't a resolution to the world's problems, but for the US, I think its a very positive benchmark that could hugely impact the world today.
besides, i think china and the rest of the developing world will easily pick up our slack in oil demand.
So lets take a look at the first paragraph and see what we have. Let's list the fuel type and technologies involved.
Clean Diesel - fossil fuel
Ethanol - renewable
Natural Gas - fossil
Biofuels - renewable
Let's look at the types of vehicle.
1. Small cars - any fuel
2. Hybrids - fossil & electric
3. Plug-in - electric
4. Fuel cell - fossil & electric
Looks like 3 out of the 4 types of vehicles we can expect to see are at least in part some type of electric vehicle.
So I guess what we can expect our cars to be is smaller, able to use any fuel or will be pure electric or some combination of fuels - you pick.
Sometimes what isn't said is more important than what is. Did anyone else notice that Hydrogen fuel wasn't mentioned?
Tom G.
Hydrogen is a fuel we are not ready for. It will be the future but frankly we don't have the technology and know-how with regards to making it work yet.
Once we do, it'll be an entirely different ballgame....if it's not too late...which to be honest I think it is.
regarding hydrogen and my list - it was just a rough list of what automakers are working on.
i could have added hydrogen, methanol, syn fuels, carbon fiber and probably a host of other things.
i guess the point i was trying to get at is that waiting for the perfect technology to create clean energy independence could be a fool's game.
even if we find that technology, it will still take decades for it to replace the current fleet, even if cost-effective immediately, which probably won't happen.
thus, i'd kind of like to turn CAFE into something that achieves a real goal, such as ending all foreign oil dependence by a certain date.
that might mean more oil drilling in the US, natural gas, corn-based ethanol, etc., at least in the short term.
ultimately, it seems to me that it's all about energy policy right now. the current idea is to build our energy policy around CO2 emissions, but even that plan will take decades to unfold, and it won't put significant pressure on automakers to change for another decade or so.
i'm asking, what are we waiting for?
america is heavily invested and levered to the US auto industry. business as usual is not going to provide a return on that 'investment'.
likewise, even the world's energy markets are nearing significant change. russia, china, brazil, india, france, and the gulf countries are putting together a plan to stop trading oil in the dollar.
this could make the cost of gasoline rise faster than the US has been expecting and preparing for - prime conditions for another automaker bailout.
taking bold action now, such as with natural-gas retrofitting on current vehicles, could provide jobs immediately while lessening oil dependence and co2 emissions and it could begin today.
likewise, i'm sure there are other innovations that could be pushed into the mainstream right now if scale were assured.
certainly, some of them won't be as revolutionary as batteries and fuel cells, yet they could still provide significant impact.
moreover, the US is in the process of handing out $50 billion in loans to help automakers retool towards the new CAFE requirements. yet, those requirements were achieved in europe and japan long ago. we should be thinking much bigger and much more aggressively if we have any hopes of leadership in the new energy revolution.
well .. how does THIS play into the discussion?
Not really cars, not really transit, what is it?
topic: Transportation System
I generally do not indulge in high-tech fantasizing, mostly because I believe that an expectation of technological salvation too often substitutes for doing the best with what we have right now. Traditional ideas and machines (bicycles, passive solar design, organic growing) have evolved specifically to be energy-efficient and they're cheap solutions. But I'm going to now break that rule.
The Boston Globe published a nice overview of the the resurgence of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), a concept that has floated in and out of vogue for the last fifty years.
...
http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot.com/
is this a hybrid car killer?
i think we're still a few decades from such a reality, but it is inevitably coming.
will it kill not just hybrids, but all cars?
hard to predict today, however, soon automobiles could be programmed to drive where ever one needs to be taken, and no driving is involved.
once things are broken down to just basic transportation, the need to own might not resonate any longer, especially if you can be transported around quite comfortably and cost-effectively.
a car-sharing taxi like service, in such a scenario, can easily be envisioned.
need transport to the airport, call your car-sharing/auto-pilot service and the car picks you up, drives you to your destination and then waits for its next trip - no driver needed, which should help keep costs down.
coupled with better public transportation, car ownership might just become unnecessary and inconvenient for most, at least for most urban/suburban folk.
and the winner is - natural gas
(or is it hydrogen)?
New Way to Tap Gas May Expand Global Supplies
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/energy-environment/10gas.html?_r=1&hp
They said they believed that gas reserves in many countries could increase over the next two decades, comparable with the 40 percent increase in the United States in recent years.
....
Larger gas reserves would encourage developing countries to convert more of their transportation fleets to use natural gas rather than gasoline.
" One recent study by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting group, calculated that the recoverable shale gas outside of North America could turn out to be equivalent to 211 years’ worth of natural gas consumption in the United States at the present level of demand, and maybe as much as 690 years. The low figure would represent a 50 percent increase in the world’s known gas reserves, and the high figure, a 160 percent increase."
Dahcredyns said..[in part]
regarding hydrogen and my list - it was just a rough list of what automakers are working on.
Tom G. responds, and yes I fully understand that you can't hit everything when you bring forward items for us to discuss and by the way - thank you very much for this wonderful Blog.
My only purpose was to show what I believe to be true which is we are heading for an electric society. That electric society can at least get started with our current generation capacity but sooner or later we will need more power.
I happen to believe that only renewable energy will get us moving in the right direction. Energy independence, a cleaner environment, and tolerable fuel prices could become a reality. There are of course other transition fuels like natural gas which can be a very inexpensive depending on where you live. Our buddy T.Boon Pickens thinks that compressed natural gas might be a better fuel than diesel for our heavy trucking fleet and I have to agree.
So how long will it be before we transition to a Hydrogen economy? I don't have the foggiest idea but maybe something like 20 years. Or at least until we find a more cost efficient way of splitting water.
Oh and yes I have both a 120volt 20 amp and 240volt 50 amp circuit in my garage. Like to plan ahead, ha ha.
" My only purpose was to show what I believe to be true which is we are heading for an electric society."
I too enjoy this blog although some tend to wear stronger rose-colored glasses than others...
I agree with the above - with some caveats....
and that is - how consumptive will our electric future be in terms of resources.
we all know now that renewable energy that is consumptive is different from "harvesting" solar, wind and tides.
we even know that "clean" hydro power is consumptive. we don't get it for free.. there is a big cost - the loss of productive land.
and in the same way - we need to better appreciate that fuels like ethanol and yes.. hydrogen are "consumptive" fuels.
they consume resources.
ethanol consumes land and energy - in fact, it appears that if you total up all the energy inputs to ethanol - they exceed the energy output.
why would we do such a thing?
it's a similar deal with hydrogen if it does not start it's life as sun/wind/tides.
hydrogen from NG - right now - appears to use more energy than it nets...
again..why would we do that?
about the only way to produce energy besides wind/solar/tides without creating GHG - appears to be nukes - and they don't come without problems either.
I'm like Tom. At some point, we're going to get hydrogen from wind/solar/tides and from that point on - this earth will be in much better shape - provided we make that transition before we kickoff an unstoppable climate change in the interim.
and if you buy the idea that the ultimate solution will be hydrogen from wind/solar/tides, the big discussion item is what do we do in the interim - and how sustainable is it.
Is coal-powered electricity as currently produced sustainable even as an interim bridge?
Right now, it's 50% of our electric grid (and nukes are 20%)
can we continue to generate 50% of our electricity with coal?
what do ya'll think ?
comparing energy sources with and without sequestration...and we ought to compare also in terms of net GHG for each method - from start to finish.
Toyota made a good run at it with their chart but it had some flaws.
they did not show net GHG per path....
and they did not clearly document how each stage of the source-to-use options works.
For instance, they show some efficiency factor for converting NG to Hydrogen but they do not explain why that number is that number and not a higher or lower number.
Comparing the "refining" of hydrogen verses gasoline - they show an efficiency percentage but they don't show where that number comes from nor how much GHG is emitted at that stage.
That's very important because there is a perception that hydrogen is not a contributor to GHG and that's simply not true unless we derive it from pure solar/wind/tides.
all methods to derive it from NG - result in GHG emissions and we need to know how much if we are going to compare ...and be able to make informed opinions about the choices.
Hi Larry G.
Your last post here brings up some very interesting and wonderful topics for discussion. I don't know if you have read the Scientific American article I will be referencing below but it is quite interesting and has technical merit. I hope you have the time to read and enjoy the article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Now about hydrogen - I feel the same way. It takes SOME form of energy to make hydrogen and it doesn't make any difference if it comes from natural gas or from water. While it does occur naturally in our environment, using hydrogen as a fuel for transportation takes more energy to produce than it provides. The result - a negative number something less than zero.
So I don't see it as a useful fuel until some future time. I mean it might be different if were were building and putting 500 new thorium molten salt reactors online and had billions and billions of kilowatt hours of energy to use - on second thought - no not even then would I consider it to be a good choice as a transportation fuel.
So my CURRENT preferences in order are photovoltaic [PV] solar and wind, and then after that it all becomes sort of a toss up depending on location and cost. Concentrating Solar Power [CSP] where water is available. Wind where available and of course Geothermal where we have the right geological formations.
Anyway, I liked you post. I think maybe it was yourself who coined the phase that it has 'never been about the lack of energy but rather the cost of energy.'
Tom G.
storing solar as compressed air... I like it...
I'd have to see the efficiency factors compare to using hydrogen or batteries to store.
but what did this mean?
" A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."
does this mean that even by 2050 - we'll still be using 1/3 fossil fuels?
so my question is - why not 100%.
what are the limiting factors?
Have you seen this:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/dow-unveils-solar-shingles/?em
Dow Unveils Solar Shingles
But Dave Parrillo, the senior research and development director for Dow Solar Solutions, said the solar shingles can offset between 40 percent and 80 percent of a home’s electricity consumption.
well that's a GOGGLE question...
... here's one:
12-17 6.9%
18-24 23.5%
25-34 29.4%
35-44 21.2%
45-64 16.5%
65+ 2.4%
this is likely something that varies according to location and type of transit I would imagine.
but we know one form that is HIGHLY used by young folks -
school buses!
Larry G. you are a good man; you read the article. And your question about if I had seen the article about the solar shingles, yup sure have, thank you. I have 3 automated Google searches that bring me the latest news every day about renewable energy stuff. But let me try and answer your following question.
"does this mean that even by 2050 - we'll still be using 1/3 fossil fuels? so my question is - why not 100%. what are the limiting factors?"
Yes this is probably true but I believe the number will be closer to 25% instead of 1/3 or 33%. We have learned a lot since the article was written in 2007 but the number will probable never be 100% for several reasons.
Anyway the best way to answer your question I guess might be to raise your awareness of all of the different TYPES and FORMS of energy we use.
We make electricity for lights. For heating. We make it to turn electric motors and compressor in our air conditioners and refrigerators. We use electricity to measure our heart rates, run our T.V.'s, make steam to cook food with and the list goes on and on.
However, there are some things electricity and/or solar can not do. It is not a raw material like oil or natural gas. We can't make tires, parts for batteries, some medications or even fertilizer for our farmers out of it. And it's also probably not very practical for large diesel trucks. And these are just a few of the literally hundreds of products we make or use that come from fossil fuels.
So I don't see any energy source in our near future that can replace ALL of the different types of energy sources we are currently using. Well at least not until we get around to developing warp drive, transporters, phasers and replicators that can change matter into anything we want LOL.
We can and should be building solar plants like crazy and WE ARE STARTING TO. There are 5 scheduled to be built within 100 miles of my home here in Arizona. There are many more currently being planned and built in California and Nevada.
And yes you can bet your bottom dollar that my resume is also up to date.
Here is a novel idea I read the other day. We have lots of Federal Land here in Arizona. Someone suggested that a few square miles be designated as a US Solar CO-OP. The CO-OP would build a solar power plant and you could buy your green power from that plant from anyplace in the United States. Not a bad idea; just someone doing so creative thinking on a rainy day back in the Midwest if I remember correctly. I think we need a few million more people like this don't you?
In closing I hope the 2050 date is totally WRONG. I am very concerned that we might not have that much time left to keep fiddling around while we cover our planet with greenhouse gasses and other toxins.
The bottom line for me is this. I don't know if global warming is true or not but it really doesn't make any difference to me. I am convinced that solar is and will be a major contributor to a much cleaner and healthier society and planet if we just get off our buns and get to work.
As our existing nuclear plants get older and are shut down one by one they will need to be replaced with something and I HOPE that something is some form of renewable energy. And yes this is also happening every so slowly but it will happen mark my words.
Some people are convinced that we can conserve and improve our efficiency enough to get us out of this mess. I have serous doubts about this as a long term solution or strategy.
How about cost, I frequently hear this as a reason to forget solar. Solar is already cheaper than nuclear and getting closer to the cost of coal. If you factor in the cost of 'clean coal with sequestration' we are probably already there. Geothermal is cost effective today and we are building them as well.
I sure hope this helps and I thank you very much for asking the question.
Tom G
tom - how much is your electricity per killowat hour and what is the predominate generation done from?
also are your power rates decoupled?
Larry G said...tom - how much is your electricity per kilowatt hour and what is the predominate generation done from?
Tom Responds - UniSource Energy is my utility which is a subsidiary of Tucson Electric Power. According to the UniSource website 80 percent of our energy comes from coal-fired generating plants.
Current cost per KW including all Federal, State and local taxes is about 10.2 cents per KW. If Cap and Trade passes we will probably all just lock our doors and head for somewhere that has a lot of hydro or solar power since we won't be able to live in this part of the country.
All kidding aside; if Cap and Trade does pass and is signed into law my roof will be covered with PV panels shortly thereafter.
Have never looked into the structuring of the utility so don't know if it is decoupled or not.
Tom G.
California (and I believe NY) are decoupled.
this is a rate structure where
.. well here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling
look for the utility regulation part
I'm with a rural co-opt - yes - Virginia still has rural areas - and urbanized areas still powered by rural co-opts.
our electricity if expensive because they do not generate their own and must buy it..
Dominion Power is the big kahuna - not decoupled - and actively building more coal plants and trying to get a new nuke adding to their existing herd...
I pay about what you pay.
i agree with you about cap & trade.
the right way to do the rates IMHO - is to decouple and then to use peak pricing and smart meters.
this will do two things.
people WILL use less electricity.
People in California, NY, and Europe use 1/2 per capita than other parts of the US.
solar will become more competitive - that's one way to make something more competitive - make whatever is competing against it more expensive HA!
people will start buying tankless water heaters, positioning their homes to optimize solar capture, etc.
ya'll have a TON of potential sites.. I've visited there several times and there is a WHOLE LOT of arid land not useful for much other than lizards and snakes.
the article you referenced.. it's a bit sketchy in places..especially the discussion about solar panel efficiency...
however if I believe them - we could power the country with one monolithic site approximately 175 miles square.
If you disaggregate that to 30 states their "share" would be a 30 mile square.
if you disaggregate that, into about 40 5 mile square sites - it's going to be tougher in some populous lower solar index states...
however, I think we have a LOT of existing potential sites beyond looking for new sites.
most every road with a median or significant right-of-way could be a site.
sounds walls could become "hybrid walls".
Bridges and other public infrastructure could be "clad" in panels.
many buildings could also.
many large parking lots could be used - and in the process contribute to less storm water problems.
but it will take bushels and bushels of money... and at the end of the day - there is no way that most people could afford to say .. double their monthly electric bill..
that would be a tough deal.
they have to find a way to do the investments by shifting resources from other things...
if we are going to make electricity more expensive (or for that matter fuel) - we need to also provide ways for people to avoid the increases.
I think this is critically important.
One practical example of how to do this would involve the use of tiered demand-hour pricing) for electricity that costs more to produce at peak hour.
so, in other words, price electricity at much higher rates when used during peak hour - because it actually does cost on the order of 7 times as much to provide it at peak hour because it is provided by what are known as 'dispatch' generation rather than base-load generation.
In other words, we should charge people for what it costs and not subsidize it.
But when we do this, we need to provide Smart Meters that allow people to know when the higher rates are in effect - and ways for them to not let their appliances like water heaters and other deferrable-use appliances run at these time periods.
So.. with a smart meter - you could defer the reheat on your water heater until 2 a.m. or even better.. buy a tankless water heater so that you only produce hot water on demand and don't store hot water at all or since we are in the hybrid blog - a hybrid unit that can provide a smaller amount of stored hot water or hot water kept at a lower temp - and use the tankless/on demand part to boost the temps to the desired use levels.
the big, big issue with plug-ins is that in theory they use "excess" power that is just wasted at night.
I need to see the data on this to be convinced as to why we have such excess power at night in the first place and if, in fact, we really do and there is no way to avoid this extra cost (there is).. and then finally.. how much "excess" power we really do have available - not in terms of some number than most of us do not understand but in terms of how many plug-in cars worth of excess power that is available.
because... then we have to deal with whatever comes AFTER we have exhausted the excess power.
what happens next after that?
and what happens next after that - should NOT be more coal plants.
at that point - we need to force the issue to use solar supplements to the base load during the day and NG at night for additional capacity - or some such arrangement
AND.. we need to charge what it actually costs.. along with the idea that cost-avoidance incentives and strategies are also part of the package.
finally, we need LEADERS who will tell the American people how this will work and sell the idea...
and it won't be easy.. it will be as bad or worse than the health care debate...
if we don't do this... we are just going to drift - into worse and worse circumstances that are going to be harder and harder to break the grip of very environmentally costly power generation.
Larry G said...[in part] I need to see the data on this to be convinced as to why we have such excess power at night in the first place
Tom G. comments:
Larry G. Go the the below link to look at how the load changes on a Southern California grid during a 24 hour period.
http://www.caiso.com/205f/205fe8ed591f0.pdf
I think the link got chopped, the last character was 'p'.
is there a cite that shows how much "excess" power that we have in terms of how many PHEVs it could serve - before we'd have to add plants?
In other words - if our entire fleet was PHEVs, it is very likely that we'd not have enough nighttime "left-over" power to charge all of them up.
But right now - it seems we do have excess power this is available.
where do the lines cross?
Larry - try to cut/copy the below link into your address bar and it should work. It should take you to a .pdf file on the net that shows the power curve for some California utilities. As you can see it's anywhere from 30% to 60% and the weather is one of the major factors.
http://www.caiso.com/205f/205fe8ed591f0.pdf
If this does not work send my your e-mail address and I will send you the document o.k.
As far as any site showing the info you want I don't know of one. However if you know the number of KW your plug-in needs overnight then just dividing the delta KW between daytime and evening hours should give you a rough number.
For example. One utility on one day in June had a max daytime MW peak of 23,100 and an evening low of 11,421 so in theory at least you would have 11,629 MW of power available on that day. However every day is different but in general if you were connected to that utility and you also factored in spinning reserves and safety margins you would probably have about 6-9 MW available.
Hope this helps.
Tom G.
Note MW & KW s/b hours.
a year or two ago i made a post about worries in the san francisco area about how too many EVs in a neighborhood could be too much for the grid, even with night-time charging - something to do with the substations if i recall correctly.
already just a large increase in plasma TVs was pushing the grid in the area, during non-peak times, to the limit.
so, ultimately, i think we have to talk about a smart grid to really make this a reality. that alone is a trillion dollars.
the power is there, just not the distribution.
I think I read somewhere that there is a 40% loss from powerline distribution of electricity.
I wonder if when it comes to on-site solar we know where the tipping point really is.
I also read in your SA article that the "footprint" for solar is no more than coal - if you include the coal mining areas.
by onsite solar are you referring to distributed solar on a households, for instance, rather than a huge solar farm?
yes... solar near the point of use....
if you think about it.. what do we not site coal electricity near the site of use?
pollution... no one wants a coal-plant in their back yard...
no coal-plant could get a site permit in an urban area because of it's impacts to air quality so we site them remotely...
which incurs a fairly substantial energy loss.
ideally - your "grid" would localize the power to minimize distribution losses and use the network for redundancy and backup functions for isolated outages.
i'm with you. i'm a fan of distributed, localized energy.
that doesn't mean i'm against some super solar farm connected to a super smart grid, but that approach is going to cost a crap load of money up front.
minimally, we should be focused on local solutions while we refine and perfect these technologies.
likewise, there is every reason to believe, in my opinion, that methanol, hydrogen, etc. could achieve some breakthrough in the next decade that could completely change the way we envision the future of both energy and transportation.
personally, i like the idea of a solar/plug-in combo tax credit for places like california in the short term.
let's take some rational, scalable baby steps before betting the farm on one solution (of course, i don't believe we should EVER bet the farm on ONE solution).
AMEN!
Wow we jumped 5 posts just since I went to the dentist this morning LOL.
Larry - transmission losses for most 400-500 KV power lines are about 3% for every 600 miles. Therefor from Arizona to New Jersey the losses would be about 9% [I'm guessing about 1800 miles on average]. Higher voltage lines and DC lines are even more efficient [less loss]. There is a good MIT lecture on the subject at the folloing link. The part about transmission losses starts about 20 minutes into the lecture if you are really interesting the science behind transmission.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Electricity-and-MagnetismSpring2002/VideoAndCaptions/detail/embed14.htm
Now if you are talking about the entire power generation cycle from input to delivery of the energy to your home you are close to right for say energy sources like nuclear, coal, oil and early natural gas plants.
Now to distributed generation; for example solar on every roof - you bet this will be a VERY VERY important part of our future strategy. Not only does this reduce the load on the grid but it also has a tendency to level out the load [the peaks and valleys].
Therefor the more solar we can get installed on homes and small businesses the less peak demand there will be at the utility level. So the end result is you reduce the overall need for energy production by the utilities and shift it to distributed locations.
However it is not possible to obtain enough solar energy in a high energy use area like say a blast furnace making steel or maybe a smelter close by producing aluminum ingots or major population zones. Therefor we will still need some power stations even if every home in American had solar panels.
Anyway that's why some or maybe most utilities are paying YOU, ME, and ANYONE else who installs solar on their roofs from $2.50-$3.50 per watt. It is cheaper for them to grid tie our solar systems than for them to build more power stations and by a long shot.
For example, a new 2 unit 1000MW nuclear generating staton in todays dollars is extimated to be somewhere in the range of $7-$25 billion dollars. Not only that it would take about 7-9 years to build each one AND I don't see anyone carring signs that say please put one in my backyard LOL.
Most utilities don't have that much capital laying around either.
If you consider that in just one small Southern California area we use about 23,000 MW of power on any given day you can see that if nuclear was your power of choice you would need about 24 new nuclear power plants just for that small area alone. That's why in one of my earlier post I said we would need to have 400-500 nuclear plants for the U.S. + other sources as well just to meet our energy needs.
Does it now make sense why utilities are willing to pay us to install solar? If you are saying the new SMART GRID is going to cost $1 trillion then that just might be a bargain. After all if utilities get tiered variable rates it's a win, win for them anyway.
In addition, most utilities are not getting completely out of the generation business but rather are beginning to focus more on the distribution side of the business; that's where the money is.
Here is another reason I like solar. You make a solar panel in the factory, sit it on some steel structure in the dessert in the sun and for 30 years it just quietly sits there making power. After 30 years we come back, recycle the panels and start all over again.
For coal we: Strip off the top soil [or mine it], dig up the coal, transport it to either the power station or a processing plant, grind it, add chemicals, put it in a boiler, treat the flue gases, clean the bag house and precipitators, treat the waste water, collect the fly ash, haul it away and in about 30 years come back and clean up the mess. And if you want to add in carbon capture and sequestration you tell me which one costs less.
Anyway this is way to long a post.
Tom G.
Tom-
Maybe it was long, but it was a great post.
I'm a big fan of solar power as well. I just don't think the technology is fully baked, in terms of going all or nothing for solar right now.
In the interim, I believe - especially considering my latest post, US on verge on energy independence, that natural gas could be a great interim fuel as we transition to a more aggressive solar plan.
Ditto.
but you know, we're still building coal plants in Virginia.
I have another question based on this:
" Botkins said the 585-megawatt plant, which could power 146,000 homes"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033101172.html
I keep hearing different numbers but I always thought that the average home used 1000KW per month and that one megawatt would serve about a 1000 homes.
This is my last post on this post subject - will be moving to the top/latest post on Natural Gas.
These gentlemen said in part:
Dahcredyns said...
I'm a big fan of solar power as well. I just don't think the technology is fully baked...
Tom G. responds: I am also a big supporter as well however I would never suggest we put all our energy eggs in one basket either. I see a very good future for all forms of renewable energy sources. Also natural gas is an excellent transition fuel.
Larry G said...
...but you know, we're still building coal plants in Virginia.
Tom G. responds: I am sorry to hear that (:-( Where I was born in Minnesota they just canceled two new coal plants due to projected operational costs after Cap and Trade legislation passes.
have another question based on this:
Tom G. responds:
Too many variables involved to give any kind of reasonable answer. For example, I use bunches of KW in our hot summers, but use almost nothing when you are heating your home. So region, number of residents per household, population density, area of country, age of population, time of year/season and on and on. Pick a number, almost any number - it will probably be right for some area of the country.
" Botkins said the 585-megawatt plant, which could power 146,000 homes" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033101172.html
I keep hearing different numbers but I always thought that the average home used 1000KW per month and that one megawatt would serve about a 1000 homes.
Too bad I was on vacation last week and missed most of this discussion.
I just got my 3rd Kilowatt added to my solar panels today...
In Arizona, residential solar is the ideal solution to deal with peak usage, which occurs in the summer, in the afternoon.
Residential solar systems take the load off of, and feed power into the grid when it is needed most....
Smurf - do ya'll still use swamp coolers ?
they always looked more 'green' than air conditioners but I never had one so I'm sure the folks that have or been near them have more info.
Larry,
Surprisingly, you'll find swamp coolers only on older homes in Arizona.
All new homes are AC only.
Additionally most HOA's do not allow the installation of swamp coolers.
In addition, a lot of older homes
(1970's & 1980's) had solar water heaters installed standard. These are very rare on newer homes.
Last year, when gas hit $4.00, going green became more popular and we started to hear more talk about this kind of stuff. This year that kind of talk has died down....
Go figure......
Post a Comment
<< Home