Here Comes the Sun

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html?_r=2

Op-Ed Columnist

Here Comes the Sun

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 6, 2011

For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.

Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.

But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.

If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.

…

[kristopher]

1. Sorry Paul, but you missed the target a bit.

You've conflated "fossil fuels" with "centralized power generation". While fossil fuel interests do fund a lot of the think tanks that specialize in producing plausible sounding lies about the potential of renewable energy sources, the method of disseminating that misinformations seems to be related to an extensive network of nuclear industry insiders/employees that was created by the nuclear industry to go into communities via all media and serve as "ambassadors" for that technology.

The future is not fossil fuels = and moving away from that resource is a question not of "if" but of "when". This has created a little recognized energy war between those interests attempting to preserve the present system of centralized power generation and distribution and those seeking to restructure that system into one based on distributed renewable energy sources.

[RC]

2. Or small neighborhood nuclear power generators feeding several hundred to a thousand homes. .

:evilgrin:

BTY, at 7 billion, our numbers are too great for renewables to be sufficient for our power needs and still allow us to grow enough food to feed us all. We are not the only life forms on this planet that deserves to live as they desire.
But we don't care, as we are killing them off by overrunning their habitats for our own use.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. “… our numbers are too great for renewables to be sufficient for our power needs …”

Interesting claim.

Here’s a contradictory claim:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/32529.pdf

Myths about Solar Electricity

Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1

Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.
Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.

…

(That document dates back to 2003.)

[RC]

4. When the sun is shining in a clear sky.

Yesterday it was so dark in Kansas city most of the day, because of the cloud cover, some of the street light never shut off.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Um… No

For example, utility scale solar farms can use thermal storage. This is not new technology. It’s being used today:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/thermal_storage.html

Thermal Storage Systems for Concentrating Solar Power

One challenge facing the widespread use of solar energy is reduced or curtailed energy production when the sun sets or is blocked by clouds. Thermal energy storage provides a workable solution to this challenge.

In a concentrating solar power (CSP) system, the sun's rays are reflected onto a receiver, which creates heat that is used to generate electricity. If the receiver contains oil or molten salt as the heat-transfer medium, then the thermal energy can be stored for later use. This enables CSP systems to be cost-competitive options for providing clean, renewable energy.

Several thermal energy storage technologies have been tested and implemented since 1985. These include the two-tank direct system, two-tank indirect system, and single-tank thermocline system.

…

More Information

For more detailed descriptions of thermal energy storage for parabolic trough systems, visit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/thermal_energy_storage.html">TroughNet Web site. Or learn about the latest http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/thermal_storage_rnd.html">thermal storage research and development from EERE's Solar Energy Technologies Program.

…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316320&mesg_id=316320


In any case, typically, when the weather is cloudy, winds are higher, meaning that wind turbines provide more electricity. (See how that works?)

[kristopher]

7. What do you do when nuclear plants shut down unexpectedly?

Unplanned outages or outages that aren't predicted are far more problematic to the grid than outages that are planned for. Take the case of a planned outage of a nuclear plant vs an unplanned outage. What does a city the size of KC do when a nearby nuclear plant has a fire and shuts down without warning? That is far more difficult to manage than a grid built around renewables where the operational characteristics of the generating sources can be relied upon to perform as planned far better than nuclear plants. It might be a lower capacity factor, but when that capacity factor is part of the fundamental design of a system, it isn't a problem.

And yes, we can design the system around low capacity factors.

No, it isn't more expensive since the cost we always hear about is a measure of electricity and therefore accounts for the capacity factor.

[kristopher]

6. By all means, let's look at the environmental footprint of the competing energy sources

This paper (results graphed above) compares and "ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. "

It ios a direct and compelling refutation of both points you've made. Apparently you've never read the paper or you would refrain from spreading the talking points of the coal/nuclear industry.


Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

Slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Published in Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

As originally published:

Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.