Photovoltaic power is a scam! For more than 30 years, researchers have been claiming that, if only efficiency could be improved another 15% or so, it would become economical to use solar power. After improvements of about 300%, they're saying the same thing. Enough, already!

I disagree with Engineer-Poet.

In Europe my costs are:

0.11 €/kWh for Wind energy

0.06 €/kWh for electricity produced from coal and combined cycle gas powered units, whose efficiency is far better

0.03 €/kWh for Nuclear Power Stations

(and around 0.60 €/kWh for Solar Electric Power)

The figure for wind energy is a regulated fixed price. The two following come from rough spot prices in the Energy market. How can compete that expensive energy? The government, on grounds of environment protection, forces the electricity distributors to buy as much as it is available and the grid is able to handle without becoming unstable, thus, the EPCO's and partners that have built all those windfarms have their production subsidized. Is it fair?

In a free market, only a few locations would be able to produce competitive wind power, and even then, it would be a risky business.

It may be a scam but it is usefull. I love the garden lamps which works on photovoltaic cells

Thermal depolymerization. So far none of the criticisms of this process have held up. It's not quite competitive with fossil oil, but it is more competitive that most of the alternative energies listed above, given that it disposes of difficult waste at the same time and powers itself.

Hey JOE!

Just wondering where you may be! Stay safe!

All this alternative stuff is great; even the pure science part of it. (Bell Labs, where are you when we need you?)

But we have to get realistic here. We, and by "we" I nean the NAFTA nations; need to revamp our entire infrastructure for the movement of electricity from low to high demand areas. We also need to start plugging in nuclear power plants. You want to add water too? OK, great. Lets do Solar as well. Methane generation, whatever... It doesn't matter.
The only important part is that energy is going to get very expensive in the next 50 years and how well your economy functions is going to be very dependant on how well you can power your grid.

Yehudit -

I saw a story on thermal depolymerization in Carthage, MO, some time ago and it was fascinating. Almost too good to be true. Light crude oil and industrial carbon black from garbage, with an attached refinery to produce naptha, kerosene and gasoline right on the spot. With less solid waste than a petroleum refinery.

Even if extraction is inefficient compared to naturally-occurring fossil fuel (which is the main criticism I'm aware of) this looks like a technology worth pursuing on whatever scale is practical.

The same principle can be used to refine coal, like coal has never been refined before.

Thermal depolymerization seems to be for real. They have run into problems that appear political rather than purely technical. They had anticipated getting the feedstock for free after the mad cow scare, but we still feed animals to animals, so that didn't work out. Also, they had anticipated tax credits for biofuels that didn't come to them for some reason.

Here are some details.

I spent a fair amount of effort a year ago trying to get them interested in a project where I live, but they already had too much on their plate.

IMO we will need all of these things.

Anyone have an opinion on the thermal tower ?

That super tall updraft chimney surrounded by a greenhouse style heat sink.

Solving these problems will require much non-conventional style thinking, also called lateral thinking by Bono. (not the singer)
Schools do not teach lateral thinking, so most human by-products of educational systems are worse than useless when it comes to problem solving.
Fewer than 5% support the other 95%+ in the area of innovative thinking. Governments support the non-innovative at the expense of the innovative. Not a surprise.
The problem with energy use in developed nations goes back to the failure to incorporate energy efficiency in the basic design of everyday machines and habitats. Bad habits multiplied by lack of imagination and native stupidity.

Zoe

If we could have houses insulted with areogel (has a nickname called frozen smoke, is the insulation on our mars rovers) just the body heat of the occupants would have them walking over to crack open an outside vent.

Course there is a problem if you dont have enough air exchange, but if you did that via an oversize low velocity heat exchanger .....

Todays desktop computers run at full clock even when idle ... they do generate less heat when idle, because the OS sends the CPU sleep halts.

However, the tech has been out there, and is already in laptops, to downclock the cpu when the cpu is idle.

This means downclocking the thing to less than 100 mhz like 25 mhz, and have this under control of the system task scheduler.

This means the thing will draw a fraction of the current, even the idle time inbetween key strokes would mean it still spends 98% of the time at low clock, and low power.

The only time it would use 90% more power than normal, is when you load up something that can actually keep it busy like a 3D action game.

Ever see what percentage of the US electric consumption was computers ? i dont remember what it is, but it was a really major part of the consumption, and that was perhaps 2 years ago.

The savings in this one really cheap fix would be massive.

You can buy compact floresents for what 12 dollars now ? Besides, russia has all the worlds tungsten, and did you know that is due to run out in the alarmingly near future ?

And using an electic hot water heater should be a capital offense ;=)

Welp, as the price goes up, these things will happen, but never the less your dead on target there.

Zoe -

All due respect, it doesn't require any sort of esoteric or unconventional thinking. And frankly, "The Man" doesn't actually care about brainwashing anyone into a certain way of thinking.
Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to point out that it's best if we demystify all this stuff; and that includes attempts to "think outide the box".

What this problem needs is common sense:

1) What is our problem?
A: Our demand for energy is is the process of rising permanently above available supply.

2) What do we have to work with that we can get started on right now, so it'll be ready when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator?
A: More efficient use and transmission of energy and nuclear power.

That's it. Breakthroughs are great and I'm hoping for some doozies in the next few years. But in the meantime, we need to proceeed as if they will never happen. I have tried many times in my life to ignore a problem into submission. I am still waiting for that strategy to work.

Raymond,
More than 50% of the electricity a computer uses is for the screen and simply going lcd saves much more. Also the claim that computers are a major source of electricity consumption is a fairy tale.

The gadolinium-nickel alloy is an answer to a non-problem.

It absorbs neutrons.

Neutrons are not a significant factor in nuclear waste. Even if they were water or polyethelyene could thermalize the neutrons making them for all practical purposes biologically inactive.

I must say that I'm glad to see much more skepticism in these energy reports.

Re: wind

It may cost too much in Europe but in North America it is competitive with natural gas electricity and will relieve pressure on natural gas supplies. In addition you are leaving out the learning curve. Even if wind is currently 2X the cost of other forms of electricity it will be cost competitive with nukes/coal with one or two more doublings of turbine size.

In any case in a less regulated energy market some people are willing to pay more for a percentage of their electricity if it is wind generated.

Also consider the cost to the consumer. The consumer pays not just for the cost of the energy, but also the cost of the grid. Let us say that the grid cost is 50% of your electric bill. If wind cost is 2X the cost of other electricity it would represent a 50% higher cost to the consumer.

It is worth investing in wind because we can get experience with it and the more units built the lower the cost (the learning curve).

In any case it is a good hedge against increased fuel prices.

re: home built plug in hybrids. The main value is not in the energy savings - if any. It is with the experience.

It also is a guage of market demand.

In any case the real value of the plug in hybrid in these days of uncertain fuel supplies is that it is essentially (for short trips) a dual fuel transport system.

eric,

The only way energy demand can permanently rise above supply is if prices to the consumer do not fluctuate with supply and demand.

For instance - peaking solar (air conditioning on hot days) is economically viable in cases where there is demand pricing. Why don't you see it on new homes in So Cal? Nevada? Ariz? - no demand pricing.

It wouldn't hurt either if house were engineered as a system rather than being built out of parts that are only nominally specced to integrate with each other.

For instance - suppose your solar cells were backed with a heat absorbing plate and the heat was used to heat a swimming pool. Cell efficiency goes up and you have a pool of stored energy that might be used to keep one room in a house warm in a power loss emergency.

There are a lot of things that can be done.

Better sealing of houses to save energy makes sense if you have a heat exchanger in the air system. Of course the heat exchanger makes much more economic sense if it is integrated into the floor of the house. If it covered the whole floor area you could make it out of very low cost sheet metal.

Even better - suppose we domed areas 1/2 mile in diameter. The energy collected could keep the area at a nice comfortable temperature year round (by control of air flows you would get heating in the winter and cooling in the summer) eliminating the need for all but minimal local heating and cooling.

Now in a community like that a plug in hybrid capable of 3-4 miles travel on stored energy makes sense. So you eliminate a lot of battery weight from the vehicle. An ounce of weight is a gallon of fuel over the life of the vehicle (not exactly, but you get the idea).

Did I mention electrical storage?

Lots of ideas for that on the drawing table. Some of them are good. Even.

We do not have an energy problem. Really.

Supply will meet demand at a price.

BTW for all you nuke fans (as a Naval Nuke in my seervice days I'm sort of a fan) - no nukes will be built in North America this year. One nukes equivalent (roughly) of wind will be installed.

Got a clue?

America is the Saudi Arabia of wind.

With suitable storage and transmission we could run the whole country on wind.

Simon -

I fear that you're talking theory when our problem exists in the practical universe.

As a PRACTICAL matter, and that is the only standpoint from which I argue; rising demand will outstrip supply capability by so much that it won't matter what the math does.

Sure, what will really happen is that prices will continue to rise as the supply/demand imbalance grows. But the PRACTICAL result of that is much simpler:
There isn't enough "energy" to go around if we keep doing the same thing we're doing now. If we want different results we must try different ways of doing things. This invariably means that some people will be unhappy. Such is life.

Enegy independence at this time is a chimera.

There is only one thing needed to have all the energy we need. Provided we have the patience to let the market do its work (one to three years due to systemic lags).

Pricing according to supply and demand.

Do not insulate consumers from the market.

Buying a hybrid may make sense now even if the fuel savings are not economic by substituting a fixed cost (capital) for a variable cost (fuel). Not to mention the psychic value of sticking it to the oil companies. The so called intangible part of the pricing equation.

eric,

We will not keep doing the same thing we are doing now if prices rise.

In addition higher prices will draw in capital to increase supply.

This is not theory.

It is practice. I saw gas shortages disappear after the '79 panics once prices of gasoline were deregulated.

Supply and demand converge at a price.

I wrote a piece about energy panics. You might find it amusing. A bit of history: there have been energy panics ever since I can remember (I'm 60). It is one of the things that made me become an energy engineer.

Energy Panics

Simon -

I watched the same gas crisis and the dynamics were completely different. The main issue is that demand isn't being driven by increased consumption among a stable consumer base, it's being driven by increased sonsumption among a rapidly expanding consumer base. (India & China in particular)

I'm sorry, but any ideas you have that do not take that reality into account are disingenuous at best.

This isn't about deregulating something and letting market forces fix the problem. You keep talking about how prices will rise with increased demand, but you don't address how HIGH those prices will go.

Finite Supply + Exponentially rising demand = What?