Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080306005986&newsLang=en

March 06, 2008 02:03 PM Eastern Time

Study: Solar Thermal Power Could Supply Over 90 percent of U.S. Grid Plus Auto Fleet

New scientific findings from Ausra show solar can affordably power our cars, homes, factories and economy

PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ausra Inc., the developer of utility-scale solar thermal power technology, has published a peer-reviewed study showing that over 90 percent of the U.S. electric grid and auto fleet’s energy needs could be met by solar thermal power.

Solar power is the nation’s largest primary renewable energy resource, offering many times total U.S. energy needs. Solar thermal power stations use fields of mirrors to capture the sun’s energy as heat to boil water and drive steam turbines. Solar thermal's low-cost, efficient heat storage makes solar thermal power uniquely able to provide a reliable energy supply from ever-varying sunshine.

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration projects over 70 percent total growth in the nation’s electricity demands by 2025, and analysts predict a further increase in electricity needs as plug-in electric hybrid vehicles come to the market.

“The U.S. could nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation, drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills, chief scientific officer and founder at Ausra. “This new study shows that our daily and annual energy needs closely match the energy production potential from solar thermal power plants with heat energy storage, and our models show solar thermal power will cost less than continuing to import oil.”

...

More information available here:
http://www.ausra.com/technology/

[Vincardog]

1. How many of the many billions in subsidies we give to oil and gas can we divert to solar wind and

geothermal?

[FogerRox]

2. Typical house electrical service would need to be on the order of 5000 amps

to recharge an electric car overnight. SO there is more work to be done.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Are partial solutions worthless?

Many people on this board seem to feel that unless a solution addresses every single aspect of the problem, there's no point in pursuing it.

I believe we are in desperate need of several partial solutions today so we will have the luxury of time to develop more complete solutions in the future.

[FogerRox]

4. "SO there is more work to be done." missed that part huh ?

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. No.

Perhaps I misunderstood it.

Perhaps if you explained what you meant by it...

[kristopher]

5. They all support nuclear as an answer

It is a simple, straightforward solution to climate change. That makes it extremely attractive.

The reason Marvin the depressed robot is do depressed is that Amory Lovins wrote a piece where he coined the terms "hard energy path" and "soft energy path". He rejected nuclear as being part of the hard path and promoted distributed generation as the soft path.

His arguments, as I recall, focused primarily on the socio-political effects of the two different energy infra-structures.


A more recent piece by Pacala & Socolow describes steps to take with available technology to stabilize our carbon emissions.
He gives 7 approaches and lays them out on a pie chart. They've gotten the name: stabilization wedges.
I think this is not a restricted access site:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5686/968?ijkey=K6cRPbiYRFwus&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

[FogerRox]

12. Well then lets start building the 2 or 300 hundred reactors we'll need

at 2o billion per.

Aint happnin.

World wide we will see no more than 12 new reactors started... tops, including research recators s. Likely 6 or 7. Then we'll be building Polywell fusion reactors so it wont matter.


Markets can be a wonderful thing, or the thing that cuts you off at
the knees.


When a market is headed in the wrong direction, with great momentum,
they can be very difficult to steer in the proper direction. IMHO
thats what we are facing now. The oil markets are rushing full tilt in
one direction, over the falls.

We need
-50 mpg gas cars, hybrids, electric cars/vehicles.
-Jobs to build new public transportation
-Fund multiple fusion research programs, ITER is likely dead.
-25% of electricity from Solar by 2025
-25% of electricity from Wind by 2025

The problem is to turn a petroleum based economy away from petroleum,
without yet having a proven sole energy source on the horizon. such as
fusion.

[FogerRox]

8. YOu have balance the cost of shiting from a liquids fuels economy

to whatever blend of energy supply is available in say..... 2050.

Turning the entire transportation sector and the coal fired electrical generation plants (52% of electrical capacity) is just an engineering exercise in fantasy. Unfortunately liquid fuels are not going away anytime soon. Markets can be a wonderful thing, or the thing that cuts you off at the knees.


When a market is headed in the wrong direction, with great momentum,
they can be very difficult to steer in the proper direction. IMHO
thats what we are facing now. The oil markets are rushing full tilt in
one direction, over the falls.

We need
-50 mpg gas cars, hybrids, electric cars/vehicles.
-Jobs to build new public transportation
-Fund multiple fusion research programs, ITER is likely dead.
-25% of electricity from Solar by 2025
-25% of electricity from Wind by 2025

The problem is to turn a petroleum based economy away from petroleum,
without yet having a proven sole energy source on the horizon. such as
fusion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. And what in your argument sugggests that we shouldn't start implementing solar now?

We don't need a "sole energy source on the horizon."

We don't really have a "sole energy source" today!

[FogerRox]

11. Definitly gotta try reading its fundamental

[DCKit]

16. I'm still waiting for one of (always the same names) Nnaysayers...

to publish their personal manifesto on a comprehensive energy strategy. Not sure if I'd laugh or cry, but something (anything) different from the constant lame and unimaginative excuses why we should do nothing until we have a guarantee of 100% energy independence from a single solution is getting old.

:yawn:

[NMDemDist2]

7. everytime I hear about these huge installations I wonder

how much could we produce if every little ticky tacky roof has panels on it, and the warehouses, and the malls

if we covered even half of the roofs, how far would that take us? then add wind where it would be useful (my area would be good)

then conserve, insulate and outlaw the old light bulbs

the problem I see is that the PTB are all looking for large centralized alternatives so they can keep their control over the industry

they wouldn't be able to make their obscene profits if every house was mostly independent

am I missing something?

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Here's your answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=132332&mesg_id=132435

[losthills]

14. I agree.

But solar thermal is the best engine for keeping the existing grid going, and I'm glad to see the utility companies moving in this direction.

[NNadir]

13. Fifty years of chanting in this way has produced zero reductions in carbon dioxide,

and has actually wasted vast amounts of energy on servers used to promote the solar faith.

In fact, what the solar faith has NOT had the courage or guts to do is to back up their words with even a fucking hint of reality.

Solar is a trivial form of energy and all the could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, could, talk in the world will not make solar electricity anything but the trivial form of energy that it has been through 50 years of such talk.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

In the meantime, we have indifferent yuppie brats telling we can have our cars at the same time we have a shred of ethics.

Bullshit. Denial at this point, which is paid for in the lung tissue of the innocent and the guilty alike is a lie

If the smug yuppie solar faith had a leg to stand on, it would have produced significant energy 30 years ago when the liar Amory Lovins - a scientific, moral, and economic fraud - starting bashing nuclear energy because of the "arriving solar dawn.

I quote the asshole in 1976:

Recent research suggests that a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic." Such a conceptual exercise does not require "exotic" methods such as sea-thermal, hot-dry-rock geothermal, cheap (perhaps organic) photovoltaic, or soIar-thcrmal electric systems. If developed, as some probably will be, these technologies could be convenient, but they are in no way essential for an industrial society operating solely on energy income.

Figure 2 shows a plausible and realistic growth pattern...

(Amory Lovins, "The Path Not Taken," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1976, page 83.

Note the use, in 1976 on the part of fraud "recent," and "plausible" and "now demonstrated."

Every fucking word was a lie.

Now if Amory Lovins was lying in 1976, distorting reality, constructing elaborate insupportable sand castles is there any reason, any reason whatsoever that any reasonable person would believe the same crap 30 years later?

If it were doable, it would have been done. Any talk about the future - particularly from those who have destroyed the future - is not merely contemptible. It is beyond contemptible. It is at the ethical level of religious vandalism of any period of history where ignorance triumphed at the expense of ethical polity.

Now. Maybe the anti-nuke sun worshipping cult thinks that people are dumb, that they have no memories, that reason and knowledge can be waved off with prayer and incantations.

Bullshit. Numbers do not lie. The Pope did not change the motions of the planets when he banned Galileo. On the contrary, he condemned himself and all of his ilk for all of history.

But let's come to more modern times. After presenting this lie, the fraud Amory Lovins went on to try to destroy what was then and is now the world's largest source of climate change gas free energy - the only form of energy that is capable of confining the bulk of its risk on plant grounds - nuclear energy. Why? Because he despised insight, despised balanced thinking, despised everything other than his own self-aggrandizement and material reward. He proved to be nothing more than a lazy, smirking, morally indifferent, self apologetic consumer, that's why. You can always make more money with bibles than you can with science.

(Later this fucking immoral and amoral fool went on claim he would put hydrogen hypercars on the road by 2005 and fucking fellow frauds posted his (unreferenced and undemonstrated) and now he makes money greenwashing dangerous fossil fuel companies, mining companies and oh yes, the Pentagon.)

Now we have the same lie repeated as if it were not to questioned, or better yet, not to be regarded with profound moral disgust.

There is NOT ONE "solar will save us" advocate who has the guts, integrity or quality of mind to confess that all that their crap is nothing more than wishful thinking and denial. There is NOT ONE "solar will save us" advocate who will commit to shut his or her mouth until the first exajoule of solar electricity is produced in a single year - just one out of the 500 exajoules humanity now consumes.

NOT ONE.

[kristopher]

15. Poor Marvin Did I mention the really bad EROI of nuclear?

I know this is wind, not solar, but solar is following the same declining cost/increasing installation curves as wind.

Sorry Marvin...

2006 Wind Installations Offset More Than 40 Million Tons of CO2
Worldwatch Institute – July 25, 2007 – 6:00pm

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The 15,200 megawatts of new wind turbines installed worldwide last year will generate enough clean electricity annually to offset the carbon dioxide emissions of 23 average-sized U.S. coal-fired power plants, according to a new Vital Signs Update from the Worldwatch Institute.<1> The 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced in 2006 is equivalent to the emissions of 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired power plants, or nearly 8 million passenger cars.

Global wind power capacity increased almost 26 percent in 2006, exceeding 74,200 megawatts by year’s end. Global investment in wind power was roughly $22 billion in 2006, and in Europe and North America, the power industry added more capacity in wind than it did in coal and nuclear combined. The global market for wind equipment has risen 74 percent in the past two years, leading to long backorders for wind turbine equipment in much of the world.

"Wind power is on track to soon play a major role in reducing fossil fuel dependence and slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," according to Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Sawin. "Already, the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind plants installed last year equaled more than 5 percent of the year’s growth in global emissions. If the wind market quadruples over the next nine years—a highly plausible scenario—wind power could be reducing global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015."

Today, Germany, Spain, and the United States generate nearly 60 percent of the world’s wind power. But the industry is shifting quickly from its European and North American roots to a new center of gravity in the booming energy markets of Asia.

In 2006, India was the third largest wind turbine installer and China took the fifth spot, thanks to a 170-percent increase in new wind power installations over the previous year. More than 50 nations now tap the wind to produce electricity, and 13 have more than 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity installed.

As efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions accelerate around the globe, dozens of countries are working to add or strengthen laws that support the development of wind power and other forms of renewable energy. Rapid growth is expected in the next few years in several countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, and Portugal.

“China and the United States will compete for leadership of the global wind industry in the years ahead,” says Sawin. “Although the U.S. industry got a 20-year head start, the Chinese are gaining ground rapidly. Whichever nation wins, it is encouraging to see the world’s top two coal burners fighting for the top spot in wind energy.”
<1>

Calculations are based on U.S. data: average capacity factor for new wind power capacity (34%, from American Wind Energy Association); average capacity factor for coal-fired power plants (72%, from North American Electric Reliability Corporation - NERC); average CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants (0.95 kg/kWh, from U.S. Energy Information Administration); and average coal-fired power plant capacity (318 megawatts, from NERC).

[Occulus]

17. "Solar is a trivial form of energy"

The trees and lawns vehemently disagree.