Renewable Energy & Technologies Of The Future

[TerryM]

Here in NJ PSE&G the electric company is putting up utility pole attached solar panels when completed it will produce 40MW state wide. Was wondering if this is only being done around my state or if anyone has seen it implemented in there town or state also.

Drove west from here (Toronto) last summer and didn't see any from here to the coast in Canada, and I think I would have noticed. Northern Ontario sported some modest arrays, but I don't know if they were wired into the system or were private.

Sounds like a great implementation - congrats to NJ.

[SVT450R]

Drove west from here (Toronto) last summer and didn't see any from here to the coast in Canada, and I think I would have noticed. Northern Ontario sported some modest arrays, but I don't know if they were wired into the system or were private.

Sounds like a great implementation - congrats to NJ.

Yea i though so to that's why i was looking to see if it's being done anywhere else. The plan for NJ is to have 22.5% of the state's energy coming from renewable sources by 2021.

[hazwoper]

Drove west from here (Toronto) last summer and didn't see any from here to the coast in Canada, and I think I would have noticed. Northern Ontario sported some modest arrays, but I don't know if they were wired into the system or were private.

Sounds like a great implementation - congrats to NJ.

Yeah, here is what they look like. You see them EVERYWHERE in NJ now.

untitled.bmp

[Vandy]

unless it's cloudy and/or not windy. The battery/storage issue is important.

Some great information and posts in this thread. The storage issue is definitely important. But the US has an intrinsic advantage when it comes to wind and solar that it is currently not (capable of) taking advantage of. A lot of research right now in wind is focused on grid balancing. Since the wavelengths of weather patterns are typically 1/2 to 1/3 the size of the continental US, if you connect many wind farms or solar plants over a large geographical area you can create a much more reliable resource. Of course, the problem is that our electricity grid is 1) horribly outdated and 2) designed for traditional point source energy generation instead of distributed energy. There isn't currently any national coordination to improve/update/replace the grid. What we really need is an interstate style program for the transmission grid.

And while blue sky was clearly just being antagonistic, it is true that with the current prices of natural gas renewables can't compete. Prices for gas have periodically dropped below $2 mmbtu this year, and for the cheapest renewables to be competitive that price needs to be at least $3-4mmbtu. The expiration of federal incentives is just making a bad situation worse. A lot of European wind companies who set up shop in the US in the past decade are letting go of much of their US personnel because they just don't see a market for wind here unless things drastically change.

[SVT450R]

I remember seeing this on TV i know it still has ways to go but would be very cool if implemented in the future.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111221211324.htm

[PhillipS]

A common theme we hear from the pseudo-skeptics and denialists is that there is no point is the US doing anything about CO2 emissions until China does something about their emissions. It's nonsense, of course, for reasons that have been documented on this and other forums, but the clearest, most easily verified refutation is that China is investing billions in renewable energy technologies and is positioning itself as the leader in the inevitable transition to a sustainable economy.

I came across a brief video which gives an overview of China's programs. It's one of the Earth - the Operator's Manual series created by glacier scientist Dr. Richard Alley Here's the

. It's only four minutes long and there are other thought-provoking videos in the series.

As an engineer with over thirty years of experience in developing and commercializing technology, what I find most frustating about US policy towards renewable energy is that we are, for the most part, sitting on our hands and passing up opportunities to make billions of dollars as a leader in the new technologies. Instead we continue to look backward to the days of cheap coal and cheap oil and to pretend that BAU can go on forever.

I'm sorry but subsidizing and promoting fossil fuels and BAU is like buying jewelry for your ex-wife - it may be what you're used to doing but it's expensive and what's the point?

[Msalgado]

One huge hurdle is the way the conversation is framed. It is my perception that most of the debates boil down to an all or nothing mindset. Renewables can't completely replace fossil fuels and are therefor not worth of our consideration. I think there should be a very realistic outlook that we're not going to wake up one day, flip a switch, and suddenly be rid of fossil fuels. Much as the bridge to electric vehicles is a hybrid, we should be looking for cost effective ways to supplement our current energy production methods with solar and wind.

The long term trends in solar show exponential growth in efficiency and an exponential drop in price. These two trends alone are a great predictor of where our future energy production will come from but when you combine it with the growth in price of fossil fuels over the long term I believe it is impossible to ignore that within decades solar will play a huge part of our power generation. While power storage would definitely make this transition much easier, there is no reason that power companies could not adapt to distributed generation from localized solar panels in the same ways they deal with current demand curves.

[Hambone]

Nuclear

[PhillipS]

Nuclear

I would tend to agree except that the nuclear industry has a track record of bing its own worst enemy. Look at Japan - when Fukishima was being planned years ago the planners decided to save some money by assuming unrealisticly low "worst-case" scenarios for earthquake and tidal waves, That decision sure bit them in the backside last year.

Similarly, here in the US the nuclear industry pushed for the passage of the Price-Anderson Act for a nuclear liability cap which was passed in 1957 and has been renewed several times (most recently in 2005). The Act limits liability in the event of a nuclear accident to $12.6 billion. For comparison, the total cost of the Three Mile Island accident was $2.4 billion. Attempts to raise the cap or repeal the Act have been vigorously and successfully opposed tby the nuclear industry. So the industry can claim all they want that modern nuclear plants are safe and that accidents can't happen - but their claims are meaningless so long as they insist on legislation to sheild them from liabilty. If nuclear accidents truly can't happen then they don't need the liability sheild - and if they insist they need the shield dont tell me that accidents can't happen. They know major accidents can happen, they know that cleanup could be enormously expensive, and they would prefer that the American taxpayer pay for the cleanup

And let's not forget the nuclear boo-boo at Chernobyl.

[Msalgado]

Where's the uranium going to come from?

[Vandy]

Nuclear

Nuclear is not renewable nor a technology of the future, but it should certainly be part of the national energy discussion. Fusion is sadly a pipe dream.

And China is absolutely poised to take over the renewables technology lead from the Europeans, who took it over from us in the 80s and 90s.

[Jonger]

Nuclear is not renewable nor a technology of the future, but it should certainly be part of the national energy discussion. Fusion is sadly a pipe dream.

And China is absolutely poised to take over the renewables technology lead from the Europeans, who took it over from us in the 80s and 90s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/business/global/chinas-once-hot-economy-is-turning-cold.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

China is beginning to falter already.

[Vandy]

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

China is beginning to falter already.

China's wind turbine manufacturers are heavily subsidized and are working on making international market inroads. Goldwind already has a few contracts in the US. I'm sure the story is similar in solar. I don't think their economic fluctuations will put much pressure on their renewables sector, at least in the short term, unless they experience radical changes in their government.

[PhillipS]

Two more points about nuclear power. The first is that most of the countries with the infrastructure and political stability to support a nuclear plant already have nuclear plants or have decided against them. Many developing nations are simply not viable candidates for nuclear plants. Can anybody realistically propose spending billions to build reactors in Rwanda, Uganda, Yemen, Libya, Myanmar, or Afganistan - to name just a few? Instead of centralized reactors with vulnerable transmission lines, wouldn't it make more sense to opt for distributed generation technology such as PV and wind?

My sencond point about nuclear energy is that reactors are water hogs. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a sobering paper on this entitled "Got Water?". An excerpt:

For example, the typical 1,000 Mwe nuclear power reactor with a 30ºF ΔT needs approximately 476,500

gallons per minute. If the temperature rise is limited to 20ºF, the cooling water need rises to 714,750

gallons per minute. Some of the new nuclear reactors being considered are rated at 1,600 Mwe. Such a

reactor, if built and operated, would need nearly 1,144,000 gallons per minute of once-through cooling for

a 20 degree temperature rise.

That's a lot of water. Here in the US, several reactors had to be shut down or throttled back during recent heat waves and droughts due to insufficient cooling water or overly high cooling water temps at the intake. Links to related news articles and a DOE report. The most advanced nuclear plants in the world will sit idle if there is insufficient cooling water. Ever heard of a wind farm or solar array having to shut down due to lack of cooling water? Me neither.

[radarman]

As long as renewables are viewed as a 'liberal' concept tied to other 'liberal' concepts such as 'global warming'/'climate change', there will continue to be little support from one side of the isle.

Whereas the right side is full of COIs, the other side of the aisle is hardly unified either.

There are major disagreements among self-identified environmentalists that cause stand-stills on local level initiatives. I've watched endless debates on the merits of hydro and wind.

Tear down the dam, it prevents salmon from spawning and warms the water... Don't tear down the dam, generations of turtles, beavers, etc. will lose their habitat....

Wind turbines are clean and renewable sources of power... Wind turbines kill eagles and bats, cause horrific noise pollution, and disturb local climate....

Not to mention that NIMBYism seems especially prevalent on the left. This area is about as liberal as it gets and we can't even get a solar panel installation on a landfill because it disturbs the view. If you think you could get a wind turbine up anywhere near here you're crazy. (fortunately there's no wind so it hasn't been broached)

And we all know who the primary opponents of the Cape Wind project were, and why. In the end, for all the rhetoric the spectre of reduced property values tends to change stories.

[tamarack]

Among renewables, biomass has no intermittency issues. It's a relatively small piece of renewable energy, though regionally important, and best suited as cogeneration, especially at a wood-processing facility that can use both the electricity and steam.

Tidal is intermittent, but can probably generate during 80%+ of the tide cycle, and the timing is precisely known. It could be balanced by any fast-start facility, but especially by hydro. That was the rationale for the 1930s 'Quoddy-Dickey idea in Maine, which fell apart for many reasons. (Tidal power engineering was uncertain back then, and the proposed dam location was a logistical nightmare for many reasons, not least the hundreds of feet of riverine deposits beneath the damsite that would need to be excavated and replaced with impervious material, to avoid a Teton Dam repeat.)

Nuclear involves some danger, though the recent pelletized fuel technology minimizes the chance of a meltdown. However, all energy sources, except perhaps solar, have inherent danger - refinery fires, coal mine accidents, construction accidents at turbine sites or logging jobs, etc. As well posted above, renewables won't provide all our energy needs tomorrow, but that's not a sane reason for opposing their research and implementation.

[Msalgado]

We couldn't power the world on nuclear even if we wanted to. There simply is not enough uranium.

[PhillipS]

We couldn't power the world on nuclear even if we wanted to. There simply is not enough uranium.

You are correct. According to Scientific American there is about 230 years supply at current consumption rates. So if the number of reactors is quadrupled then there would only be about a 60 year supply - about enough to refuel all of the reactors once.

The only way to stretch the supply is to switch to breeder reactors which convert non-fissile material into fissile material. For example, fast breeder reactors convert U-238 into plutonium. And we all know how safe and wonderful plutonium is - right? Seriously, nuclear is a solution in search of an application. Every step in the uranium lifecycle, from mining through processing to use to final disposal, is an environmental nightmare.

Even diehard nuclear proponents wouldn't want their own kids living next to a uranium processing plant, a nuclear reactor, or a nuclear waste site.

[FloridaJohn]

Ever heard of a wind farm or solar array having to shut down due to lack of cooling water?

No, but I have heard of solar arrays shutting down due to lack of sunlight (night, for example), and wind farms shutting down due to lack of wind (or too much wind). Both of those types of generators also suffer from seasonal problems. In the higher lattitudes, solar generates less power in the winter (when more energy is needed for heating). Wind farms generate most of their energy during the windy times of the year, which is spring and fall. Unfortunately, those happen to be the times of the year when energy consumption is the lowest (don't need to heat or cool in those seasons).

No alternate energy solution is perfect, so it will take a combination of lots of types of energy generation to replace what we are currently doing.

[Vergent]

Geothermal is perfect it is independent of weather and season. Iceland is almost entirely geothermal now.

[somethingfunny]

These things

should have wind turbines mounted on them.

Also, the government has recently developed a form of thorium which apparently deals with a lot of the problems currently associated with nuclear power: http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue2_2011/story6full.shtml

[Msalgado]

Geothermal is perfect it is independent of weather and season. Iceland is almost entirely geothermal now.

How many places have an active hotspot near them to provide them with this type of power? Not many, and I for one do not want to see Yellowstone turned into a power plant.

[salbers]

Quite a few more places beyond simply Yellowstone have heat below the surface. The whole planet does actually, though the vertical temperature gradients and related factors vary geographically:

http://blog.smu.edu/research/2011/10/25/vast-coast-to-coast-clean-energy-source-confirmed-by-first-google-org-funded-geothermal-mapping-report/

[salbers]

We couldn't power the world on nuclear even if we wanted to. There simply is not enough uranium.

Nuclear fusion though is another matter...

I agree Thorium is worth looking into for fission.

[Msalgado]

Quite a few more places beyond simply Yellowstone have heat below the surface. The whole planet does actually, though the vertical temperature gradients and related factors vary geographically:

http://blog.smu.edu/...mapping-report/

That is pretty damn neat! Thanks for the link.

[knitwx]

This may seem like a stupid idea,but, maybe it would work. Why can't someone make a small wind generator for the top of cars. I mean for when they are parked. It could fold down into a bump on the car roof. When you park you could raise the generator to recharge the electric battery. This might work on the high plains.

[SVT450R]

Last year $257 billion dollars was invested globally in renewable energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/257-billion-invested-renewable-energy-2011-145543107--finance.html

[hazwoper]

I was at the American Wind Energy Association WINDPOWER conference last week. Much smaller turnout when compared to the past few years, but still certainly more well attended then my first conference in 2005.

All the talk these days is extending the PTC. If we are going to continue to develop better turbine technology, we need subsidies. Heck, even oil and gas are subsidized. I have seen the typical turbine go from several hundred kW machines/1-1.5MW in the 2004/2005 time frame to 2.4 to now even 3-5MW machines for land based applications. The know how is there folks, we just need to keep up the investment. Not only are large turbine manufacturers making higher MW machines, they are also making them far more efficient even at class 3 wind speeds (oh, and they are also creating manufacturing jobs....dare I say....here in the US)

Call your senators!

[dabize]

If we are going to continue to develop better turbine technology, we need subsidies. Heck, even oil and gas are subsidized. I have seen the typical turbine go from several hundred kW machines/1-1.5MW in the 2004/2005 time frame to 2.4 to now even 3-5MW machines for land based applications. The know how is there folks, we just need to keep up the investment. Not only are large turbine manufacturers making higher MW machines, they are also making them far more efficient even at class 3 wind speeds (oh, and they are also creating manufacturing jobs....dare I say....here in the US)

Exactly right.....and it isn't that "even" oil and gas are subsidized, it's that they get MASSIVE subsidies that we can a) ill afford and that delay adoption of technologies that are ALREADY competitive if the true costs of fossil fuels are priced in.

Solar is the premier example of this, but I'll bet wind qualifies as well.

As for "bridge" technologies in transportation, we should be enabling hybrids (and to a lesser extent high MPG diesel) now in as many ways we can while bringing on less well developed alternatives (e.g. battery tech for EVs).

Unfortunately this is primarily a political problem, since opposition to the needed subsidies (and removal of fossil fuel corporate welfare) consists of a) yelling SOLYNDRA and pushing things (e.g. fuel cells) that require oodles of bucks and infrastructure, but don't actually save anything even when implemented.

Hybrids will be around for longer than some folks think, since they actually save carbon use directly. I'm getting 70 MPG this week (admittedly summer) in my Prius, which is a direct carbon savings over the 22 MPG beast I used to drive. But it does use gasoline, and so is only part of the answer.

EVs (Leaf, Tesla roadster, to some extent Volt and other plugins) save carbon only by relaying the costs of electricity production (up to 61% efficiency from base fuels) directly to the road, rather than burning the base inefficiently (typical ICE = 30% or less).

This saving is real, but like the hybrid (which bumps up the efficiency of the ICE to comparable levels to the EV, but only if you try hard and in the summer), is only part of the solution.

We're going to have to look at autodriving cars and alternative ways of making and distributing electricity (solar, wind) before we can really fix this.

[nflwxman]

I was at the American Wind Energy Association WINDPOWER conference last week. Much smaller turnout when compared to the past few years, but still certainly more well attended then my first conference in 2005.

All the talk these days is extending the PTC. If we are going to continue to develop better turbine technology, we need subsidies. Heck, even oil and gas are subsidized. I have seen the typical turbine go from several hundred kW machines/1-1.5MW in the 2004/2005 time frame to 2.4 to now even 3-5MW machines for land based applications. The know how is there folks, we just need to keep up the investment. Not only are large turbine manufacturers making higher MW machines, they are also making them far more efficient even at class 3 wind speeds (oh, and they are also creating manufacturing jobs....dare I say....here in the US)

Call your senators!

I also attended the AWEA conference in Atlanta. It was a shame to see the massive amounts of uncertainty the political atmosphere has caused in the renewables industry. I think Karl Rove actually had a few good points on his speech regarding the political nature of renewables (surprisingly).

Heck, oil/gas are subsidized permenently (or in 10-20 year chunks)! We need a long term extension to the PTC, or you will continue to see this boom/bust type trend in renewables in the US. Sustainable growth is how you foster new technology (though the wind industry has done quite well impoving efficiency and noise output despite the uncertainty). Please call your senators to put a stop to this madness called politics.