Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html

Quote:

Two photovoltaic solar power plants will be built in San Luis Obispo County in California, covering 12.5 square miles, that together will generate about 800 megawatts of power

800 MW is a lot of power!

And, just for everyone who constantly complains that solar power is useless at night?

https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1555&mode=2&featurestory=DA_144483

Quote:

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has announced that a team of researchers has developed a thin sheet of plastic containing billions of nano antennas that are able to collect solar energy even after the sun has gone down. The process is cheap and once collection and storage issues are perfected, will revolutionize the solar industry.

---

This technology is expected to be available within the next three to six years.

The antennas collect infrared energy, both from the sunlight and that which is emitted by any other source - an engine, a computer, even the ground after the sun has gone down.

You guys need to get with the program. There are very valid concerns that technologies need to improve in order to completely transition away from our current system; but they clearly are improving, and we need to get behind this instead of continually insisting that we rely on the way things have been traditionally done for the rest of the near future.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

[quorw="okie"]I don't know why it is so difficult for some people to acknowledge the obvious truth about the energy situation. Some people seem so idealogically blinded that they somehow want to cling to the mirage that we can actually become weaned off of oil in a few short years, a decade or two, and it simply isn't possible.

What is so troubling is the candidates seem also blinded to the reality of the situation. And the public is so ignorant, at least a large percentage of them, that it is easier to blame a scapegoat than it is to honestly assess the problem. And then the Congress is so absolutely ignorant, or good at demagoguery, or both, that they actually think they are being serious by dragging everybody up there to talk about oil speculators and blame it on them. It is embarrassing.[/quote]
I largely agree with you here. Hotly contended issues such as global warming tend to drive common sense out of the dialogue. Disputants unthinkingly insist that one come down on one side or the other in a debate that is generally conducted on a rather abstract plane, and with arguments too often based on unstated prejudgements on the part of the participants on both sides.

You were up against someone who sincerely wants us all to adopt a lifestyle more in accord with his "green" conceptions, and who is convinced that if we do so we will surely benefit. His conviction of this is so great that he is occasionally willing - in argument at least - to force others to act as he wishes, and imagines that practical solutions to issues such as efficient storage & retreival of electrical energy generated from wind & solar generators to meet diurnal cycles really exist, simply because they must if his theory is to prevail.

Now that we face the additional issue of the economic drain created by the rising price of petroleum and the reemergence of all the political issues surrounding suppliers & consumers, the subject has become less esoteric, mostly because the motivations of participants on all sides are now a good deal more complex - something that often tends to lower the abstraction index a bit and restore more practical thinking. I think we can see evidence of this in the professed attitudes of the American public and some of the strained position-changing going on among politicians.

Ultimately the problem here (and everywhere) is the defects of human nature. We seem to gravitate towards black vs white arguments on abstract issues whenever we can, and are forced to consider the practical issues only when complexity in the form of contradictory motivations forces us to adopt more pragmatic approaches.

Finally, it is a related truth that homely things like the practical engineering and economic tradeoffs that so easily dominate our thinking and choices in our daily lives, seem to take a holiday when the subject is politics.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,

I don't think that anyone in this discussion is in principle an opponent of solar or wind power. Rather some, myself included, are very aware of the very large relative cost differences between them and presently available sources. We fear political action on the part of zealous advocates of such "green" sources that would compel us to use them before practical, efficient applications are available, and thereby create seriously adverse economic consequences that will more than wipe awayany benefits realized.

Two solar plants covering 12.5 square miles (in a hot desert area) and yielding 800 MW total is not a particularly new or even interesting achievement (in fact it is no achievement at all since the plants haven't been built yet and many uncertainties yet remain). A typical pair of nuclear powerplants producing a total of 2,350 MW, even with a large surrounding security zone, takes up about 1/50th the area - coal plants even less. More importantly, both produce their power at about one-third the cost of this solar plant.

Similarly the development of a thin film able to absorb mid spectrum infrared radiant energy at night (but not on clear nights, according to the laws of physics) and convert it into a low temperature heat source - is most assuredly NOT a short-term precursor to a useful energy breakthrough. I read the paper you cited (Did you?). It notes that the technology still lacks any theoretical or practical means of converting the microcurrents so excited in the film into any useful form of electrical energy, even at low levels of power. We are then left with a low temperature heat source powered by a novel new device. This may one day (and that day is still far off) be a suitable means for heating your bath water (albeit expensively), but it offers no potential whatever for the efficient production of large quantities of useful power. Energy at low temperatures is simply not easily converted into work or useful power -- a little issue associated with The Second law of Thermodynamics gets in the way.

The "Idaho National Engineering Laboratory", by the way, is an enormous reservation in an empty stretch of southern Idaho that houses mostly empty & abandoned nuclear power research facilities; some Navy nuclear training reactors and fuel reprocessing facilities; and a large collection of environmental cleanup projects left over from the early days of the Atomic Energy Commission. While you may imagine that it is some kind of energy research institution, that most certainly is not the case. Government legislators and bureaucrats are much taken with assigning fancy uplifting names to the residue of their previous mismanagement, and this is but a prominent example.

I was once general manager of "The Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site" near Boulder CO. In fact it was a former plutonium bomb factory, caught up in a seemingly endless struggle between anti nuke and environmental zealots who wanted everything there, including the top two meters of soil, carted off to landfills in Nevada, and more practical types who wanted it simply cleaned up and closed. We finished the job about eight years ago and it was cleaned up and closed at reasonable cost. However, it was never "an environmental technology site" and no meaningful research was done there, though some ambitious engineers & physicists did publish papers.

I'm not sure just what is "the program" you want us to "get with". If your examples are an indicator - I am already well familiar with them, and know they are not the practical transforming solutions you claim them to be.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You guys need to get with the program. There are very valid concerns that technologies need to improve in order to completely transition away from our current system; but they clearly are improving, and we need to get behind this instead of continually insisting that we rely on the way things have been traditionally done for the rest of the near future.

I am with the program, however, the program needs to be realistic. If you can point out one post wherein I have ever claimed to want to keep doing anything the same way, without further technological advancement, be my guest. What I have always argued, and what I will continue to argue is a realistic approach, an approach that advocates and has faith in the ingenuity of man and further development of new ways to generate energy, however this must always be balanced with full utilization of what we know works right now. I have never argued that what works right now will always be the right way to go, but I merely point out that scrapping what we have now is a foolish thing to do, when the alternatives are not proven that they can replace all of what we have now anytime soon, not technologically and not economically.

1 Reply

@okie,

To sum up the above post, I am all for more solar and wind, build them, and continue to innovate, I love it, but in the meantime, I say drill, drill, and drill some more.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Similarly the development of a thin film able to absorb mid spectrum infrared radiant energy at night (but not on clear nights, according to the laws of physics) and convert it into a low temperature heat source - is most assuredly NOT a short-term precursor to a useful energy breakthrough. I read the paper you cited (Did you?). It notes that the technology still lacks any theoretical or practical means of converting the microcurrents so excited in the film into any useful form of electrical energy, even at low levels of power. We are then left with a low temperature heat source powered by a novel new device. This may one day (and that day is still far off) be a suitable means for heating your bath water (albeit expensively), but it offers no potential whatever for the efficient production of large quantities of useful power. Energy at low temperatures is simply not easily converted into work or useful power -- a little issue associated with The Second law of Thermodynamics gets in the way.

The article clearly stated the need to develop nano-rectifiers in order to accomplish that task, and also discussed a few other options available. This is why it won't be ready to go for 3-6 years. But it's an engineering problem, a matter of miniaturization, not a theoretical problem. We will solve it, for our track record on engineering problems is fabulous.

George, you know I'm a proponent of nukes. You don't need to use them to counter every example of new technologies that I post. I understand their utility and strength. I just think that they should be part of a mix, including many other technologies.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The article clearly stated the need to develop nano-rectifiers in order to accomplish that task, and also discussed a few other options available. This is why it won't be ready to go for 3-6 years. But it's an engineering problem, a matter of miniaturization, not a theoretical problem. We will solve it, for our track record on engineering problems is fabulous.

George, you know I'm a proponent of nukes. You don't need to use them to counter every example of new technologies that I post. I understand their utility and strength. I just think that they should be part of a mix, including many other technologies.

Cycloptichorn

I accept your criticism: there is some truth to it.

My persistent disagreements with you on these issues arises from a, perhaps unfounded, suspicion that you would also advocate government mandates or subsidies (direct or indirect) for the use of more expensive "green" technologies, based on the presumption that more extensive use will stimulate needed innovation to lower their realtive price.

Basically, I strongly disagree with that presumption. Mandates or subsidies will reduce, not add to, the incentive to lower cost & prices - almost everything we know about economics verifies that principle. Moreover, the cost differential of wind and solar power is so great that their mandated use could have crippling effects on the very economy that we are counting on to deliver the technological innovations that both of us agree we sorely need.

If I have unduly prejudged your intentions, then I apologize and will adjust my reactions accordingly.

Secondly, while I can understand your trust in institutions such as the Department of Energy and its Idaho National Engineering Laboratory -- you have a right to expect that this huge government bureaucracy is working effectively in our behalf, and that its institutions, such as INEL, are given names that accurately reflect the reality of what they do -- the unhappy fact in this instance is that both presumptions are false and your trust is misplaced. (I have a great deal of experience with DoE, INEL and its other laboratories. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore are indeed partly research institutions, but the others, including INE, are not. Moreover their output, compared to their cost, is minimal. Overall this is, at best, a very wasteful, self-serving bureaucracy that, since the early achievements of the Atomic Energy Commission, has achieved very little with the enormous funds it has been given.

Finally, while your confidence in the potential for technological innovation is largely justified, I don't agree that the transforming breakthroughs you suggest are really imminent. It will take time, hard work and powerful economic incentives to make it all happen. Microcurrents in hot materials are nothing new - that is part of the essential physical nature of heat. The creation of the needed nanorectifiers is not at all iminent and, if such a solution were found, it would enable us to transform all sources of the generation of electrical power, from coal to nuclear and gas, by eliminating the need for steam or gas turbines and rotating generators entirely. Thin film technologies would likely be the least significant application of such a breakthrough technology. That the author of the paper you cited didn't acknowledge that, is a telling indicator of the lack of serious technical and scientific review at LANL.

I've spent most of my professional life associated with practical applications of technology and engineering, involving things from aviation to nuclear power, ship design and operations, and environmental restoration. That I know something about it, and can detect things that involve more appearance than reality, is no particular credit to me - just a product of exposure to it. That you may have less insight in these areas is no particular fault of yours for the same reason.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That's a good post. Only one quibble -

Quote:

My persistent disagreements with you on these issues arises from a, perhaps unfounded, suspicion that you would also advocate government mandates or subsidies (direct or indirect) for the use of more expensive "green" technologies, based on the presumption that more extensive use will stimulate needed innovation to lower their realtive price.

While I do believe that increased monies spent on some of the fundamental research underpinning these technologies would help speed along advances, my interest is primarily in the investment in infrastructure, not in research, of these new technologies. It's difficult for me to understand why we can spend billions per month in Iraq, but not billions of dollars building these facilities - yes, including new and better nuke plants - which would help solve the underlying problems we face in the Middle East.

Government investment in infrastructure can help solve the chicken-egg problem with new technologies; for example, a hydrogen car won't be very popular until there are hydrogen refueling stations, but those refueling stations won't really be built until there are cars to support the demand; so we have a bottleneck. This is the sort of situation which investment in infrastructure can help solve, though I understand careful management would have to be applied. Actually, I'm not a giant fan of hydrogen cars, but electric-powered ones face the same problem...

To me, the point is not just to make energy cheaper, but cleaner and more local at the same time. At first it will not be as cheap as coal or gas, and not as cheap as nuclear. But over time they will, and increased emphasis on their use and research into further improvements will speed that process along. It's hard for me to believe, for example, that companies such as Nanosolar, who are pumping out some pretty cool thin-film solar arrays in San Jose, would have received the level of VC funding they have if the renewable tax credits weren't in place at the time.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree about the need for investment in infrastructure - and even for the occasional benefits of government subsidies in the form of tax credits and the like. My problem is that government programs, and the bureaucracies they almost always entail, tend to hang around long after the need for them has gone away. Moreover, many of them don't work at all -- but all end up creating a network of providers and beneficiaries who become an effecive lobby for their perpetual continuation, even in the face of their known bad direct and side effects. Our huge and unnecessary agricultural subsidies and the power of the farm lobby are an excellent example: there are others as well.

I also agree about the paradox of our spending for war in Iraq while needed domestic investments go unfunded.

Henry Ford and John Rockefeller had no great difficulty in creating the infrastructure needed for the mass manufacture and distribution of cheap automobiles and the parallel mass extraction of oil, refining of gasoline and its distribution in service stations all across the country -- even in the face of some serious government opposition. The economic benefits of a new technology -if they exist - are sufficient to drive the creation of needed infrastructure, without government assistance (all it needs to do is get out of the way). Moreover government's track record in managing its own research, innovation and investment in infrastructure, and even its record in protecting the environment in such activities, isn't particularly impressive - indeed in several areas it is far worse than the private sector.

The dilemma is that in some areas of life (urban mass transit is an example) government intervention is probably necessary.

I view government involvement in the capitalization and operation of infrastructure with some dread, but acknowledge it is necessary in some instances. I suspect you might generally agree, but would likely draw the line between government and the private sector differently. In the end these are judgement calls about which neither of us can be entirely certain.

My motivation for the needed transformation of our energy & transportation systems is primarily economic - we simply can't afford the sustained wealth transfers associated with our imports of petroleum. I believe the needed remedies for this will inevitably reduce our consumption of carbon-based fuels sufficiently to address the real environmental aspects of the problem. I also believe that cheap, abundant energy should be the primary goal - with it we can solve all the other problems; without it we can't do anything. We already produce more (in terms of GDP) per unit of energy consumed (or carbon emitted) than any other major country, and in this area are the needed model for developing nations, and not the chief villian that our envious European "friends" would like to see.

You may well see some aspects of these basic points differently. That is the real basis for our disagreements, to the extent they exist, and not the particular details about which we have been contending.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Spending billions on infrastructure, ahead of the point where the best designs have been perfected, could have very negative consequences, such as a huge waste of money. The process of new designs being built and used, brings about many adjustments.

For example, imagine if the government had artificially implemented the mass building of numerous nuclear plants when the designs were very initial and preliminary in terms of efficiency and safety? It is never a good idea to take a very preliminary design or technology, and pretend that it is the best, such as would it be wise to build enough edsels to supply the entire population back in the 50's?

I am firmly on the side of a reasonable process of time, as dictated by the market, and by the process of technological advancement and relative efficiencies. Some speed up may be reasonable and even wise, but too much could have very negative consequences on the economy. It may be wise to jump on bandwagons at some point in time, but only after the bandwagons are proven to be worthy in both technological and economic ways, longterm. The determination of whether to jump on a bandwagon and when to jump on a bandwagon is most efficiently done by the free market. I know you get tired of hearing that, but it is very true. I am willing to consider short circuiting that process slightly, simply because national security is a factor that has to be thrown into the mix as well. I am not in favor of short circuiting that process in an extremely serious way, because you will end up with too many unintended consequences.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Spending billions on infrastructure, ahead of the point where the best designs have been perfected, could have very negative consequences, such as a huge waste of money. The process of new designs being built and used, brings about many adjustments.

You raise a good point, Okie, to which I would respond:

Spending billions of dollars per week in Iraq, ahead of the point where we are sure we had a good reason to attack in the first place, or are completely sure that the place is going to be better then when we left it, could have very negative consequences, such as a huge waste of money (not to mention lives).

And yet, you and many others supported it, because you considered it the right thing to do and worth the cost. Even though we didn't have 100% of the information we needed to know if it was the right idea or not, people made a decision and went with it.

Same thing here. At some point we as a society have to make a decision as to the way we wish to go in the future. Once that decision is made, details fall in to line, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You are correct that enacting change is a gamble.

But my guess would be that each and every one of you Conservatives has taken gambles in your life in order to get ahead, when you had the information which led you to believe that the choice was the correct one. It is in fact the ONLY way to get ahead; the slow and steady path will get you slightly further down the same path, not on to a better one. We are where we are today because our forefathers were willing to gamble when it counted; we should not shy away from the same out of fear of failure, but rather identify ways to reduce the chances of failure.

All of us agree that the current model cannot stand; since we have that agreement, we can quibble back and forth over the details, but it is plain to see that greater focus and emphasis on our energy issue will not only benefit us here domestically, it will help the environment, help the economy, and increase national security. It's time to step up to the challenge of our age: to move past that which is easy and destructive, to that which is more difficult but better in the long run. With practice, that which was difficult becomes easy; I'm trying to increase the rate of practice.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I was told you could go blind doing that Cyclo.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

ANWR consists of almost 30,000 square miles (19.1 million acres / 640 acres per square mile) of pristine waste land.

Significant oil reserves have been discovered in less than 3 square miles (1910 acres / 640 acres per square mile) of pristine waste land in ANWR.

Those 3 square miles of pristine waste land consist of merely one-ten-thousandth of the area of ANWR.

Surely it’s worth drilling now in those 3 square miles of pristine waste land to help save our economy.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It will not save our economy in any fashion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Surely it’s worth drilling now in those 3 square miles of pristine waste land in ANWR to help save our economy.

Yes, it will do that.

What you don't know will hurt you!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You raise a good point, Okie, to which I would respond:

Spending billions of dollars per week in Iraq, ahead of the point where we are sure we had a good reason to attack in the first place, or are completely sure that the place is going to be better then when we left it, could have very negative consequences, such as a huge waste of money (not to mention lives).

And yet, you and many others supported it, because you considered it the right thing to do and worth the cost. Even though we didn't have 100% of the information we needed to know if it was the right idea or not, people made a decision and went with it.

Yes, to rehash history, I personally teetered on the wisdom of it, and once I decided to go with the president, based on available information at the time, I am staying with him on it, I am not going to stab him in the back, as a few congressmen have. Remember, we live in a representative democracy, wherein our duly elected representatives are supposed to educate themselves on the issues and make the wisest choices, and they did and it is history. All the spin about Bush making it all up, I don't buy it, okay. I think it is one of the biggest throwing your president under the bus cases in history, for political expediency. Presidents make decisions, Congress concur, thats how it works.

Now, if it is ever proven the president knew there was nothing there, then I would reconsider, but I don't see it, and I don't think it will ever be proven, because frankly, I think he like most other people thought Hussein needed to be removed from power. 20/20 hindsight proves nothing, and we still do not know the whole story.

Quote:

Same thing here. At some point we as a society have to make a decision as to the way we wish to go in the future. Once that decision is made, details fall in to line, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You are correct that enacting change is a gamble.

Not the same thing at all. Hussein was an issue of grave danger to millions of people around the world, while power plants are part of the economy. War is national defense, not a business decision.

Quote:

But my guess would be that each and every one of you Conservatives has taken gambles in your life in order to get ahead, when you had the information which led you to believe that the choice was the correct one. It is in fact the ONLY way to get ahead; the slow and steady path will get you slightly further down the same path, not on to a better one. We are where we are today because our forefathers were willing to gamble when it counted; we should not shy away from the same out of fear of failure, but rather identify ways to reduce the chances of failure.

All of us agree that the current model cannot stand; since we have that agreement, we can quibble back and forth over the details, but it is plain to see that greater focus and emphasis on our energy issue will not only benefit us here domestically, it will help the environment, help the economy, and increase national security. It's time to step up to the challenge of our age: to move past that which is easy and destructive, to that which is more difficult but better in the long run. With practice, that which was difficult becomes easy; I'm trying to increase the rate of practice.

I have in fact practiced business, and I have been successful, but not on a huge scale. My philosophy is pay as you go, and I am not a big risk taker. I have never extended my personal finances to the limit. For example, I buy far less expensive houses and cars than I am told I can afford, and thus I have money in the bank. I play it pretty close to the vest, and not to brag, but it has served me well, I have only one debt, a small one on my house. Everything else is in the black. My credit cards are paid off every month, like a checking account, I pay no interest.

There are many different ways to approach the energy problem, but my argument is simple and it is sound. Continue to strengthen what has proven to work in the past. Do not over extend yourself into new technologies prematurely, go into them in a smooth and measured fashion. Let the market work out the kinks. Do not put all your eggs in one basket. Encourage innovation, but do not force it prematurely.

Liken it to investments. It is unwise to invest 100% in high risk areas, and it is too conservative to stick the money in the mattress. We need a well diversified portfolio, with a strong presence in the areas that have proven to work in the past. High tech stocks in the 90's, internet stocks, 100% investment in those was not good.

All of this lends itself to just common sense, cyclops. I am fully in favor of aggressive development of alternatives, but totally quitting developing what we know has worked well is a very big mistake. Do not say you were not warned, as I think the handwriting is on the wall. Congress is beginning to see the light, but it may yet take a while longer for them to eat the crow they deserve to eat, and then do the right thing.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

All of this lends itself to just common sense, cyclops. I am fully in favor of aggressive development of alternatives, but totally quitting developing what we know has worked well is a very big mistake. Do not say you were not warned, as I think the handwriting is on the wall. Congress is beginning to see the light, but it may yet take a while longer for them to eat the crow they deserve to eat, and then do the right thing.

That was a good post, Okie.

If the Dems proposed a compromise plan, which allowed some drilling but sank more money into aggressively pursuing those renewable resources, would you be in favor of it? For your party has generally signalled that it would not be.

And this is the funny thing about compromise; I don't support offshore drilling and I don't think we should be expanding it. But I am willing to compromise on this issue. It doesn't mean that my opinion is changed. It just means that I realize my opinion is not the only one.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I could be in favor of a compromise, but it depends upon the details. The devil is in the details. I am afraid the Dems will want to punish "evil" oil companies, to make political hay, confiscate their profits, and begin to usurp the role of private business by trying to take over part of the energy business, and that I am not in favor of at all. Confiscating profits and too much government intervention will not help the situation in my opinion. The energy sector is the one sector of the stock market that is doing fairly well, thank goodness, and I would hate to see the Dems ruin that as well. If it is a matter of primarily offering larger tax breaks for alternative energy, perhaps much larger tax breaks, along with allowing more exploration offshore and Alaska, I could probably get behind some form of that. I would also like to see a speed up in nuclear licensing and permitting.

Unfortunately, special interest environmental extremist organizations will have a stable of lawyers to file lawsuits at every turn, in attempts to obstruct any and all progress on several fronts, such as drilling in Alaska, offshore, nuclear power plants, etc. Dems in Congress have been getting their marching orders from these elements, but as the rubber gets closer to meeting the road, they are beginning to listen to the voters, as voters become more engaged into this issue.

0 Replies

How about this idea, not a new one, but a newer version of an older idea, maybe this idea will one day prove to be a good one, with the right engineering? Imagine going in a straight line, not confined to roadways, so you can take advantage of the airways, as the crow flies, but no need for another vehicle at the airport, simply drive away after landing, and go to your destination.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3035468&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

1 Reply

@okie,

Well, you gotta remember that in a real compromise Okie, neither side is truly happy. Be ready to be unhappy in some ways.

As for the flying cars, anything that increases efficiency and decreases fuel usage for long trips is a winner for me.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know