Will Renewables Replace Fossil Fuels?

Fossil fuel replacement will only come when it produces enough profit to lure investors. Right now, the money is still in oil production.

And, let's face it. If we actually conserve energy instead of squandering it there's enough for centuries. Who really needs 250 a horsepower engine to drive back and forth to work?

I haven't done an actual count, but I'm willing to bet that there are at least 100 little indicator lights on the various electronic devices that consume energy 24/7/365 in my mostly typical home.

That it is all about money should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Wind seems like a good choice, however they cost more to keep them running than what they make in energy. It takes an entire Semi-diesil to transport a single blade of the propeller and there happens to be a lot of blades on the bottom of the great lakes from lost loads from those trucks. There's some of those windmills that have had to sit there for several years before they were used because the prices for power wasn't enough to support their operation.

The major failure mode for wind turbines appears to be the gear trains in the turbines- in Holland, the expected life of an offshore wind turbine appears to be 18 months. It is apparently cheaper to replace the entire wind turbine than to repair it in place- there are several companies flogging "slightly used" Vesta wind turbines here in Panama for this reason. Years ago, when I was still living in the States, I remember being impressed with the numbers of wind turbines in Livermore and Palm Springs that were NOT turning...a whole lot of investment for what? From what I understand, if one can realize 30% recovery of the installed capacity, one is doing really good. And, it takes about 50 hectares of land for 1 MW of wind capacity- that doesn't sound like a very good use of land to those of us in parts of the world where land availability for other applications is a significant concern...

You seem not up to date.

Enough research has been done on all aspects of wave, wind and the like to proove that these cannot compete with the conventional resources, at the most these will go along to some extent in the future era.

Breakthrough in supercondutivity and innovative ideas for example using water to run a vehicle engine is up the horizon.

Could yo please elaborate on the water use for vehicles.

Have you new informations ?

http://keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm

If you mean separating water into H₂ and O₂ and using that as fuel, you forgot to tells us how you will separate the gasses, and how much energy that process will consume.

Maybe you can generate enough energy with the motor to run a generater that would split the water into gas???????????????????????????? Surely not that over-unity thing again?

OH NO IT IS!!!!!BS BS BS BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just saw your last post. Hurry, run away.

Browns gas or HHO - a fools game but the suckers seem to be jumping on it!

I only hope no neighbor of mine decides to follow that fools path - there will be a tremendous explosion at the end of some.

This is even worse than the efueler ethanol generator that is being flogged about at present.

All I said is "innovative". Do remember that that when Edison had said 'a machine will talk' all his colleagues also said something like ...OH NO IT IS!!!!!BS BS BS BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry, run away... and today we have the tape recorder !!!

Get serious - don't compare something silly like this with Edison - that is a usual green tactic to support some perpetual motion scheme.

HHO innovative? No - been done for a long time with numerous variations - not new just dressed up in different clothes and with new spin and a new bunch of suckers to push and try to exploit it.

Safe - not at all - only a fool mixes a combustible gas with a strong oxidant outside of a burner, reformer, gasifier.

When I was in high school in the early 60's Popular Science had an article on this water as fuel thing.

That was 45 years ago. How can you call it innovative?

You'll not find too many allies here.

Good Luck.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/

This web site is a joke. Sorry.

That water for fuel deal has made it's run through CR4 and the general concensus is that it is a hoax.

Clearly one day renewable must replace fossil fuel. As the Tower of Power pointed out, There's only so much oil in the ground. So we will either use less power in the future, extract more power from renewable resources than we can now, or not be here on this planet. I do not see any of these three choices forced on us during my lifetime, but one day one of these will be true. I hope that we have enough time to make a smooth transition.

First I think you have to rethink the term fossil fuels. There are fossil fuels but most of the oil, methane, and anthracite coal is really abiotic in origin. Fossil fuels consist of peat, brown coals, and some natural gas but not all. Read a book by Thomas Gold: "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" and you will realize peak oil is not true. Gold presents a very plausible explanation of the origins of most hydrocarbons found on the earth being from astronomical sources. Our solar system was formed from the remnants of star remains. The gases that became the incubators of planetary and star systems are loaded with hydrocarbons. These hydrocarbons are a part of the accreted material to form our earth. The Russians had believed this long ago but western scientist were steadfast in following the theory of compressed swamps and dinosaurs as the origin of "fossil fuels". Gold had expanded on the Russian theory and even drilled a very deep well in non-sedimentary rock in Sweden to prove that oil exists in non traditional areas. This upwelling of oil does explain why wells continue to produce at later dates when abandoned because they were thought to be dry. The fact of finding this type of oil means it is sustainable to the chagrin of the climate doomsayers for many, many years. Not all western science has embraced Gold's theory but there is a new wave of thought rising about where oil really comes from. If as it appears Gold is right, we will have oil and lots of it for many years.

You said: "If as it appears Gold is right, we will have oil and lots of it for many years."

I hope this is correct. Where IS that oil? Is there some here in the USA where it is needed? Do we just need to drill deeper wells? It seems that most of our old wells are producing very little.

The only LARGE deposit of oil in the USA that I am aware of is the oil shale of Ut, Co, Wy - that is a 100 to 200 year supply from what I've read. (I don't consider ANWR to be large since it is only about a years supply of oil. The coastal areas have very little known reserves, and most of that is in the Gulf - per the USGS.) Problem with oil shale will be the environmental disaster required to get it, AND the water/energy it will take.

I believe that the Russian-Ukrainian theory (the theory Gold refers) claims most of the oil can be found in the 30 km zone and as deep as 300 km. You can find more info on the R-U theory here. Some of the articles are in Russian but there is a wealth of reading in the statistical and scientific articles. It does open the mind to rethinking the genesis of oil. FYI

I think the real problem is not running out of fuel. I think every time we use energy we influence our environment in ways we cannot imagine. You drive a car, and even if it is fuel efficient, you send dust into the atmosphere on dry days or aerosols on wet days. Why so much asthma? Much of it might be from this extra dust and junk in the air.

So there is thousands of tonnes of extra bacteria, clay and strange chemicals in the air that were not there ever before.

If you drive at night, your lights and those provided on highways must confuse the hell out of the night flying insects and many of them will never reach their destinations. (They use the moon and stars as a guide). Our energy use is causing chaos in the natural world. That is not going to change as we use more and more.

wise.

GA

I had not thought of the dust nor aerosols released by human activity that can impact our atmosphere. If you add into the mix agricultural activities, your problems may quadruple. Certainly the dust and aerosols from transportation and agriculture are laced with many chemicals we do not want to breath. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that controlled use of hydrocarbons may be our best short and medium terms for environmental abatement. Better use of agriculture consumption, better automobiles, and wise use of packaging are a few areas that could cut back or at least hold the line on hydrocarbon consumption. The current trend to try to implement long term solutions (windmills, solar arrays, innovative water power) are still a costly pipe dream based on today's economic environment. These projects seem to be playing an important political role but mostly not a wise engineering role. The long term solutions may well be forced on us one day when we realize the real cost (health and environmental abatement) of correcting some of the things we do to ourselves. On yesterday news a new prototypical car was touted as getting 100+ miles/USG or about 2.3L/100km. This car was using gas as a fuel. As an aside, I finally convinced my wife to ditch the gas guzzling 300M car for a 2.4 cylinder compact. A small step but at least it was something we could do today.

First we should be clear that the only "non-renewable" source of energy is nuclear. Burning coal and oil simply recycle the carbon back to the air where it came from and where it can be used by plants and algae to produce more carbon-based fuels - wood, charcoal, alcohol ...

When other sources of energy are capable of providing energy at a comparable price to coal and oil, they may come in to production. What is absurd is for governments with a socialist bent, like that in Australia, to mandate more expensive sources instead of coal and oil. This simply puts the cost of everything up and makes people poorer, especially those already not well off. It is a redistribution of wealth from ordinary people to governments, financiers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, opportunists ... (The idea that recycling carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere can cause dangerous global warming is against the second law of thermodynamics - put simply, it's nonsense. As one environmentalist said, "climate change" is a third world middle class guilt trip".)

"The idea that recycling carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere can cause dangerous global warming is against the second law of thermodynamics"

But, we have accelerated the, "recycling carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere" to astronomical rates.

This ain't rotting wood and moss.

_{Shakes head and walks away.}

"..governments with a socialist bent like Australia.." That's true, we have tax payer funded public roads, public schools, basic medical for poor people, etc. Most Aussies like the system (we don't go bankrupt when we get sick). We also kept our banks under control and now have an economy that's ticking along nicely.

Socialism isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a question of how much. In the USA you have a huge "defence" industry that sups from the public teat and it's been the driver for a lot of your technological prowess. It all depends on what the government does with the money, education and infrastructure are usually good investments, supporting inefficient industry usually isn't.

As for your ideas about climate change - well, they're interesting, but don't seem to agree with what the actual climatologists are saying. Ffej

John, I have to say that while mantras about "governments taking money" and "industry knowing best" have some truth, it is a truth that is vastly overstated by the Right of politics. GUEST in response to you made some relevant points.

It is absolutely the case that pure Communism and pure Capitalism are unworkable - so all arguments ultimately are about levels of Socialism. The US is right compared to Australia and Australia is right compared to the (old?) UK.

The big mistake in the view that, "industry should be left to tackle climate change (if it exists", is that the notion assumes, wrongly I would say, that commercial imperatives will give stable results when meeting the challenges of something as massive and with as much inertia as "world climate".

If you think I am wrong, then tell me why it can't happen when it did in the area of world banking. The difference with "world banking" is that this was a man made system and man could make new rules. With climate change, the god of physics will make the rules, and set the time frames, and man will have to dance to the tune it plays.

History is many fine examples of where societies were decimated (and worse) by the tune that the god of physics played for them.

John,

I am prepared to reply to almost every line in your (above) letter.

"First we should be clear that the only "non-renewable" source of energy is nuclear."

On the contrary. Nuclear (fission) energy is a non-renewable fuel in the same sense that all other fossil fuels are: the energy we extract is at a rate much much faster than it is created. It is accurate to say our consumption is non-sustainable. However thermonuclear fusion energy from the sun is just the opposite; we can only use an infinitesimal percent of it, and the supply will last for an essentially infinite amount of time.

"Burning coal and oil simply recycle the carbon back to the air where it came from and where it can be used by plants and algae to produce more carbon-based fuels - wood, charcoal, alcohol ..."

You are mixing analogies when you talk about fuels and molecules (or atoms). The carbon may go back into the biosphere, but the energy we used is gone. The biosphere is not creating fossil fuels as fast as we consume them. Nor is it converting carbon as fast as we release it.

"When other sources of energy are capable of providing energy at a comparable price to coal and oil, they may come in to production."

That is, indeed, a natural market response we could expect. But in fact the price of coal, oil and gas will only go up as the finite supply of oil, then gas and finally coal are outstripped by the increasing demands of our increasing population, our increasing consumption and our increasing economy. But all of these demands are about to hit the limits of our biosphere, unless we impose limits on ourselves.

"What is absurd is for governments with a socialist bent, like that in Australia, to mandate more expensive sources instead of coal and oil."

It is the responsibility of leaders to recognize societal problems that they must address. Capitalist corporations do not have inbuilt incentives to respond to long term societal goals. Only an ethical, sentient, responsible individual can do so. It is up to such a minority of our population to lead the rest towards such goals.

"This simply puts the cost of everything up and makes people poorer, especially those already not well off. It is a redistribution of wealth from ordinary people to governments, financiers, entrepreneurs, lawyers, opportunists ..."

I have no doubt that much is exactly as you said. But our species is about to have much larger problems.

"(The idea that recycling carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere can cause dangerous global warming is against the second law of thermodynamics - put simply, it's nonsense."

The second law of thermodynamics "does not permit entropy to decrease within a closed system", and has nothing to do with global warming. Earth is not a closed system but is part of a larger system including solar energy intake and thermal energy loss.

"As one environmentalist said, "climate change" is a third world middle class guilt trip".)"

The biosphere is not utilizing the carbon dioxide as fast as we provide it! Over the last billion years, various amounts of fossil fuels have been subsumed into the mantle due to continental drift and then released from volcanoes. This has created corresponding periods of excess co² emissions. But nothing like the rate we have been emitting. Our co² emission rates are at least 1000 times greater than any previous rate in the geological record EVER! And still increasing.

Every time the volcanoes have exceeded the biosphere's capacity, the earth's oceans have, in a real sense, DIED. We are rushing to that extinction event once again, but at an unprecedented rate. Right now. And we have only begun to ramp-up our coal consumption in response to "peak oil". This is not a guilt trip, but a dismaying race. Just how much Hell are we preparing to inflict on our descendants and our planet because we couldn't bear some inconvenient news now?

Scientist can interpolate between know data points quite well, but no one can confidently extrapolate into the unknown. With unprecedented increases in co^2, ocean acidification, polar ice melting and permafrost methane release, our climate models leave us less secure. Because our climate models cannot accurately predict the location of the tipping point of no return, we are postured to pass that tipping point before it is recognized as such.

To me, that is a call to action. We either retire to our cabin the way the Captain of the Titanic did, or we order the ship to slow to a sane speed. Oh, and please pass a pair of binoculars to the wary crew in the crows nest. After all, we are paying them to watch out for us.

-avid0g

"Our co² emission rates are at least 1000 times greater than any previous rate in the geological record EVER! And still increasing."

This, according to data published in the original UN report in the paleoclimate section is NOT consistent with the data available. Granted, data from 65,000,000 years ago may be a bit more spacious than more recent data; but there are several different metrics that suggest that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the increase, most likely exceeded anything being projected for the next 100 years by hefty margins. Evidence suggests that the "tipping point" everyone is concerned about could actually result in a new ice age, which sounds a whole lot more uncomfortable to me than a bit of warming. Over-reacting and wasting resources on schemes that have very little chance of success could actually cause more problems than they solve. The worst thing you can do to solve a problem, any problem is ask the government to solve it for you...

I have scanned the responses and am not impressed. The first thing to be aware of is that the worlds has been through several energy crises all ready (wood and whale oil for example) - that is not the same thing as "global warning" but it is related since massive change was needed in each case. The second thing is that references to "carbon cycles", "second law of thermodynamics" and "historic levels of Co2 or temperature being high" are not for the most part relevant. I won't detail why but its not rocket science - of course if you think these things are relevant then it will probably seem like rocket science!!

We have two options - use less energy and or produce energy in a different way, a way that is not carbon dependent. I am obviously not in the climate change denier camp.

First important fact here is that recyclables are able to produce base-load power, and probably for less than nuclear technology (though I don't claim to be an expert here).

A recent report by the University of Melbourne, as printed in Engineers Australia indicates that we (Australia) could go to 100% renewable power based on solar salt, with wind and biomass auxiliary power, for about 6.8c/kWh more than our present cost of power - that's about a 50% increase. Those who are old enough will remember when crude oil costs rose about (was it) 400% in something like 12 months, so a 50% in energy cost/s in real terms over (say) a few years should not be too difficult.

The above analysis was based only on what is essentially available now. In the near future there are likely to be other technologies, sliver solar, solar paint for roofs and hot rock geothermal, for example. Dare we hope that fusion power will be come a reality!

Quote, 'A recent report by the University of Melbourne, as printed in Engineers Australia indicates that we (Australia) could go to 100% renewable power based on solar salt, with wind and biomass auxiliary power, for about 6.8c/kWh more than our present cost of power'

OK except the technology - meaning storage - doesn't yet exist. A little bit of day dreaming on the professor's part maybe. Without storage it is fools paradise.

Quote "OK except the technology - meaning storage - doesn't yet exist. A little bit of day dreaming on the professor's part maybe. Without storage it is fools paradise"

If dreaming means that the science is well proven, that there have been pilot projects and that there are one or more "hundred megawatt" sites (of solar salt of substantially the same thing) built or being built, then that's dreaming.

What do you do for reality !

I might add too that the referenced report also checked out the allowable utilisation factors for intermittent sources like wind, and Australia's capacity to produce the required construction materials - not the sort of thing a narrowly focused laboratory researcher would do, and perhaps the sort of report you were thinking of.

A few hours of storage is next to meaningless - unless you plan to have 100% backup power using hydrocarbons or nuclear.

Pilot projects for 24 hours or longer storage that were practical I have yet to see.

What do I do for reality - I pay attention to what is happening in the real world and read a lot rather than troll some universities web site looking at dreams.

I have yet to read of a commercial site with more than about 6 hours of storage.

You couldn't find many to see at this early stage - however I would submit that if there is one full size plant in existence anywhere and I believe there is, then the rest is fairly simple mathematics and risk analysis - just as is required for sizing "coal delivery systems", investing in city water supplies and the like.

Certainly it is the case that the status of play is that doomsayers should have to show (they never do) rather than assert (they usually do) that renewables are not up to the task. To parody the film by a similar name, "show me the numbers".

PS the argument, "its only theory" is not really good enough any more when much of the technology is mature and modelling techniques are so sophisticated.

An old boss of mine would comment upon occasion, 'Wish in one hand and crap in the other - let us see which fills up first'.

Quote, 'however I would submit that if there is one full size plant in existence anywhere and I believe there is' - sounds like a wish to me.

Storage will happen - I do not question that at all - it is not here yet and until it is solar, wind and other intermittent power producers are only eye candy.

Wave power is really a pipe dream until someone comes up with a new concept. There are many schemes but every one of them ignores the corrosive and violent nature of the oceans.

Some interesting facts that can be explored on the Internet:

To get a handle on the potential for wave energy (which is, effectively another way of capturing wind energy, with many of the same issues), have a look at the facilities Pelamis is currently expanding off the coast of Portugal. Base line energy? Not likely, but some serious potential for supplemental energy (i.e., intermittent reduction in demand for fossil fuels).

No one has mentioned tidal energy. La Rance in France has been operating since 1964 (reportedly profitably without Government subsidy, although there may have been Government subsidy involved in the construction). I say "reportedly" because I do not have access to their financial records to verify this for sure...Tidal energy is a fundamentally different source, since it relies on gravitational attraction between heavenly bodies, rather than thermal input from the sun (which is what causes wind in the first place...)

Of course, neither of these options are ready to provide baseline energy supplies, and they are very, very dependent on proper site selection- not applicable everywhere. No, they will not replace fossil fuels any time in the foreseeable future...

I thought Pelamis died and they gave it a decent burial - as in scrap iron.

The one in France I haven't noticed.

It's been a few months since I've had cause to look at Pelamis, but the last report I had was that Portugal was sufficiently impressed with the first "commercial" installation of the Pelamis system, they were expanding it with more units...If Pelamis is dead, it is pretty recent, though. Guess I need to update my research...

About Pelamis - You are right - it seems to have gained a new life.

http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/pelamis_wave_power_powers_up_in_north_portugal/042829/

http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/scottish/3496-pelamis-energy-converter-makes-waves-in-leith.html

Still seems like a horrible environment to place a device like this in and expect it to work for extended periods. I suppose that is mainly a materials and coatings problem though.

Best of luck to them though skepticism seems to still be warranted.

Quote, "sounds like a wish" ? !!

If you barely take the time to look...

In the US...

"Parabolic trough concentrating solar power plants have been generating electricity for the California grid since the 1980s. Concentrating solar power is proven. In the Mohave Desert, 350 megawatts of capacity".

In Spain..

"Already it has built 24-hour base-load solar plants, using molten salt to store heat which is then used to create steam and turn turbines. It started with Andasol 1, a 50MW plant, and has now completed two similar projects. More than 1,800MW of projects are under construction and the government has just approved another 2,440MW for their feed-in tariff scheme for construction over the next three years"....

"Compared to the 10 years it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running, solar thermal plants with 24-hour base-load capacity have construction times as short as nine months,"

To repeat myself - the rest is maths and economics (which with a proper cost on carbon are probably already ahead).

The real issue is that it takes people with courage and vision to lead the way. Those who need to see the solution built before they will believe it are not a lot of use- but they will protest to the end while someone else saves them.

Quote, "Compared to the 10 years it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running, solar thermal plants with 24-hour base-load capacity have construction times as short as nine months,"

A nuke plant dose not take ten years if you don't have a bunch of fool greens playing in the courts. A solar plant can go up fast but what 24 hour storage - there ain't no such critter today. If you want to call intermittent power baseline then it will take enough storage to get through a severe storm - right? That is several days or a week?

Repeat yourself all you want - wrong is wrong and you have got it wrong!

Vision required my aching butt! Fuzzy headed ones that wish are the useless ones - I guess their vision id also fuzzy.

CSP plants have been operating, shut down, replaced and all. That is common knowledge. The concept is not in question.

Storage will come - no question. Molten salt that I have read of is 6 to 8 hours only.

What the solar pundits fail to acknowledge is that all solar farms take up a LOT of real estate- approximately 20 hectares per megawatt. When you put up a large collector field, nothing grows beneath the collectors. Have a look at some of the pictures available on the Internet to understand this impact. When plants don't grow, you have no critters...It is not as environmentally friendly as the pundits want you to believe. The California installations are mostly out in the dessert, and I believe the same is true of the installations in Spain and Israel- but the dessert, for the most part, is NOT barren land (well, maybe some of the Sahara could be classified as barren, but that part of the world is a long, long way from most of the markets for electricity). I would probably be more accepting of solar energy if the pundits were a bit more honest about the true environmental impact...

The answer to that question is yes. We have enough oil to go for several years and if we make more efficient engines it will last longer. In the mean time the technology is advancing in a fast speed that soon we are going to be able to run everything with vegetable oil or alga oil. People are wrong when they think electrical vehicles or hydrogen will solve the problem. This is not the solution they are only a media to transport energy and only engines that are efficient burning fuel are going to solve the problem of transportation, solar, win, waves, hydro electrical, geothermic energy, and several more are going to solve the energy for industry. In this moment is no possible because the infrastructure. But soon this is going to change.

Here is a link if you want to see something. This is true and is happening here in California.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/

None of the 'new' fuels you mention are yet practical except maybe the vegetable oil which is not at all economic.

The lack of infrastructure is not yet critical as the energy sources do not yet exist in a usable fashion.

Fossil fuels are renewable.

You might not like the timetable, but the only sources of energy that are not renewable are solar energy and nuclear energy.

Can you please expand on what you mean?

Organic matter on the earth's surface will be pushed deep underground as the land is subducted at the edges of tectonic plates. That matter will eventually be compressed and heated to create more oil, coal and natural gas hence fossil fuels.

Solar energy is not renewable. When Sol runs out of juice, we're screwed.

Nuclear power by its very nature is a one-way energy transfer. By the way, other than nuclear power (and it's closely related cousin, geothermal power), all other sources of energy on this earth are solar-based.

Don't think tides are solar powered? How much of a tide would we have if the oceans froze to the bottom?!

About old Sol - I got it on good authority that we are OK for the next couple of years anyway.

Phew !!

Bit of a flaw in that argument - "When Sol runs out of juice", where's the organic matter going to come from?

Old Sol is good for about another 2 billion years. Instead of pushing organic matter underground through plate subduction ( which is about a 60 million year cycle), we could just push it into the atmosphere. Oh, wait, we are doing that!

Sir Robin, I really enjoy your posts, because you remind me of Stephen Colbert. On first view, it's easy to think he is serious. It can make some people realize that they are looking at themselves, and it ain't pretty.

Subduction does not produce fossil fuels. It breaks them down and produces volcanic emissions.

Such a bold statement for a five year old thread. I would think such a bold statement would include at least something to support it.

What am I missing ?

Necessity is the mother of invention. We will build it as we need it. Need is heavily involved with cost justification. I would rather use coal to run my refrigerator for 1 month than to spend the same money on solar power to run it for a week. Now, if I can invest my money and see a positive return, I'm green all the way.

Welcome to CR4!

When a major ice storm, earthquake, terrorist attack, miners strike, economic collapse or other calamity shuts off the coal powered juice, solar will start to look real attractive to you. It'll happen about the time your ice cream starts oozing out under the door!

For your personal use you can eliminate fossil fuels starting today and your energy costs will go down drastically. For a very modest investment in solar electric, a small passive solar home, and solar hot water, and riding a bicycle instead of using a car you can be free of fossils right away (assuming you live where there is sun during the heating season). BUT that would require you to have the desire/willingness for a different style of living than most of us are used to. Many people live off-grid like this today so it is possible.

For industrial uses, sustainable power is a ways out into the future.

Some people do live off grid and live comfortable - I agree.

How many? Very few. You just have to be prepared to take care of the system and pay between 10 and 30 times as much for power.

In locations with high feed in tariffs like CA and with all the subsidies/tax credits etc in place a grid tie system sometimes makes sense.

Russ said: "How many? Very few. You just have to be prepared to take care of the system and pay between 10 and 30 times as much for power."

I said for a modest investment. The power, once the modest investment is made, will be very inexpensive on an annual basis and will consist of replacing an occasional battery, and a PV panel - you can use deep cycle marine batteries for small systems like I am thinking about - I don't think they are too expensive. I am talking about a life-style change that would use almost no power at all. Probably would need refrigeration for food and that would be the only significant electrical load - I think very efficient, well insulated off-grid refrigerators are available that could be run on a few solar electric panels. The only other electrical loads would be 12V water pumps for domestic water and for solar water heating, cell phone charging, a few fluorescent or LED lights, a radio, a 4" B&W TV (maybe), etc. You use very little water, you heat with south facing glass and have a wood stove for backup, you turn on only the one light in the room you are in, you go to bed when it gets dark. Perhaps use a solar powered DC well pump to fill a storage tank if no water connection is available.

Very few want to live this way, but for those who want to do it, it can be done and it is being done. Almost NOONE would choose to be without a car or truck, BUT it could be done if you wanted to do it.

Once the lifestyle change is made, the cost of power will be so small as to be insignificant.

If you happen to be loaded, you can install A LOT of PV panels, a lot of solar hot water panels, a lot of batteries, and live EXACTLY as the typical US citizen lives today: monster TV, monster house, monster electric bill, monster gas bill, monster water bill, monster Truck, monster debt, monster financial collapse coming..........

We've seen that movie before.

A cave with a fireplace is another option.

Batteries are replaced all at once - one at a time does not work. You mean deep cycle battery as compared to a marine battery - two different things.

Several guys on another blog I read live in the boonies off grid and really know their business. The 10 to 30 times cost comes from them as well as others. They know the low energy requirement equipment of all types.

All seem to have a small generator to back up the solar system.

For the solar hydronic heating system you might do some research - doesn't seem very practical. A solar thermal air system does seem like a real possibility though.

Best plan is to work hard enough and smart enough to get ahead and be able to pay for the goodies.

Only heating I'm thinking of is near 100% south-facing glass in the super insulated small house with wood stove for backup. The solar water I'm referring to is only for domestic water.

Yes, deep cycle batteries are what I'm thinking of - they look like large car batteries.

This type system would only appeal to people on a very limited budget.

Russ, I re-read your statement that "very few" choose to live this way. You are correct. But I stick to my claim that the power would be very inexpensive ONLY BECAUSE you would use very little power at all. On a per kWh basis, it would be expensive, but once you shell out a few thousand dollars for the system I'm talking about the maintenance costs would be very small. You do have to replace those 12 VDC RV pumps once in a while, and the solar domestic water heating system would have some maintenance, but electrical power would have few annual costs. For wood backup, I'd cheat and use fossil fuel in a chain saw!!! Maybe even use a truck to haul it!!!

My experience with solar suggests that "cheap" is an illusion...The major cost is, of course in the storage, and having enough storage to get you through the dark times. Trying to save money by buying cheap batteries is false economy. One generally needs a pretty good bank of batteries to have sufficient backup for any significant load (pumping water or running a computer or powering a single light can be done without battery backup- IF you are willing to limit your useage to times when the sun is available. Refrigeration is going to need battery backup). Good deep-cycle batteries will give you about 4 or 5 years of service (depending mostly on the number of charge cycles you subject them to), cheaper ones will give you maybe two years. As noted by others, when one battery goes, replace the entire bank- mixing batteries of different ages results in damage to all of the batteries. So far, no one has come up with a viable, universal storage system to replace batteries, and the cost of replacing batteries every 4 or 5 years can really eat up your apparent savings...

By the way- some of us prefer living without an automobile- unfortunately, for that to be practical, one must live in an urban environment with social resources (food stores, medical facilities, etc.) close to hand. There are trade-offs, no matter what your choices might be...

The cost of the batteries in a system like I am describing would be a small fraction of the cost of the panels. I'm talking about a VERY SMALL usage of power. Think 4 to 8 75 watt panels and a few heavy duty car batteries for storage. I'm talking about a lifestyle change. The only significant load I would need would be a refrigerator/freezer, but if you are willing to cheat, you can use propane or natural gas for that. In that case, your electrical power needs would be very small. I'm not talking about the big, expensive, high power systems most are used to - this would be the type of system that people who don't have a lot of money would want.

I was wondering if it might be possible to make a solar powered refrigerator that would work to cool continuously during sunny times and get the temperature very low - say to -50F or something. If it were very well insulated it would not need to run when the sun didn't shine - just let the temp creep up to say 20 degrees F - it's still freezing. Would something like that be possible? Maybe some Refrigeration gurus can shed some light on the subject.

Folks on a budget will replace one battery at a time, steal one from their car, etc. With the low power draw, they should last awhile. Not sophisticated, but that's not the idea with this type of system.

1. Car batteries are an inappropriate choice, because the plates in the batteries are designed to provide a quick surge over a short period of time. The will not last long when used for a slow, steady drain.

2. 3. Replacing one battery at a time is going to accelerate the aging of other batteries in the configuration. Batteries of different ages will have different electrical characteristics, and the old ones will also degrade the life expectancy of the new one. Replace all batteries at once. Trying to save money with cheap batteries is a false economy- generally speaking, the heavier the battery, the longer it will last (i.e., more lead). Unfortunately, the heavier the battery, the higher the price...

3. There are a number of solar powered refrigerator schemes on the web, but nothing of which I am aware that is commercially available (at least on a small scale).

4. The key to a successful project is to eliminate the batteries if you can- adjust your lifestyle (limit activities that require light or electricity) to hours when the sun is shining. Sleep when it gets dark.

A guy I know ordered nickel iron batteries from China for his solar pv system. He also uses them in a boat. (They do not manufacture them in the USA or Canada anymore.

I think one of the major battery companies took the US company over and closed it down.

He loves them. He reckons that for home power storage they are the ultimate battery.

Apparently you can let them go completely flat and they will still work fine at the next charge. And something like 40 year + life is a bonus too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-iron_battery There are some drawbacks specific to these batteries but they might be suitable for some of you.

2dl Gas cost $.25. It will drive a car about 2km with 4 people + air-cond. Would a donkey carriage take 4 people for a ride on a 2km distance for that much money ? And what about air-conditioning ? ;) Honestly, I don't think so. So, gas is CHEAP. Yes, it's not as cheap as used to be, but gas is cheaper than bread, beer, and milk. I'm mean if we're calculating the calorie value of it. Renewable energy cost too much at the front, and it will never return the investment. Most of the renewable companies are milking the government, that is all. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI The answer is there. Cheers !

This point of view is precisely the problem. You only look at the conditions as they are now. You will likely also be one of the people complaining the loudest that nothing was done soon enough once things change. Change is the only constant here. Things will always change. Now global warming and the large but limited quantity of available fossil fuel will cause our energy usage and climate to change here. How much, how soon and how inevitable are all up to debate right now. But change will happen.

I believe that it is foolish to wait for a crisis to do anything about fossil fuel consumption. I also believe that it is equally foolish to stagnate on any single energy usage plan now. If we get through this it will be by being flexible and responding to the changes before we are forced to respond.

Seems that facts and figures are not being taken into account altogether;

'Solar' not only is dependant on good weather but is also fully dependant on storage batteries - Do take into account that last year only China ordered in advance all the known stocks of Cobalt in the world to manufacture batteries for the present day diversified needs giving shudder to the rest of the world players.

Dependance on Fossil fuels is too optimistic, crunch is alrady being felt by most. Irrespective the area is overstreached already and mother nature has started giving warnings in the form of Hurricanes and devastating floods and destructions, if man kind is ready to act in its very own interest, it is time to step back.

From convectional ignition to electronic governed systems the efficiencies of existing systems have already reached its optimum.

For us, unwritten law depicts cyclic formations;

In the event of nuke-war-like-situations the few lucky survivors will have to find themselselves once again in the stone age but more appropriately and with all prominance there is going to be re-occourance of inventions era.

R&D is the only survival tactics, the future generations are to depend heavily on innovative technologies and ideas.

Nuclear is fossil fuel. What do you think powers the mining/refining/transporting/etc/etc/etc? OIL!

I really am getting the impression that some contributors have their anti-solar belief filters well and truly "up". A belief filter is the thing that causes people to ignore anything that does not fit their view - and most human beings are afflicted by it.

Some of the figures and assertions in this thread seem to be based on reports that might have been valid ten years ago, but not today - yes renewables are more expensive and they are not without other costs, but they are not so far away from the meeting the challenge as most seem to assert but do not justify. As I mentioned once before in this thread, a recent and very comprehensive study here (in Australia) indicates that our power (and its cheap here) could be replaced at less than the equivalent of about a 50% increase in cost (Engineers Australia Sept 2010). So lets call that 100% - and if you want to argue fine, but quote a solid current reference, or build a very strong detailed case, or stay out of the argument.

One can't claim to be informed and constructive then write that the "cost of solar power is 10 to 30 times the cost of fossil fuel based power" for example - that's a range of 300 percent! Which "end" of that range is correct ?

I could accept that maybe 10 times is about right for some small scale installation in "the boonies using solar PV" and maybe at retail prices. But this sort of argument is barely relevant to the cost of a large scale commercial installation today.

More importantly since this thread is about the future, one needs to mostly focus on a serious estimate of the likely cost of mature technology in the decades ahead - many argument/s in this thread do not seem to have got that far yet.

Almost any professional study would be more comprehensive and balanced than much of what is reported in this thread, and as I suggested, that if comfortably less than a 100% increase on current electricity costs is nearer the mark, unsupported statements about it being a 1000% or 3000% as have been claimed are pretty much a waste of space.

A constructive argument needs to refer to informed sources/detail. Argument of the "you are wrong", "some airy fairy professor...knows less than my mate up the road" and "solar installations have closed down (without supporting detail about the nature of that closure) etc. etc. do not cut it in a serious debate - unless its one of those crap high school debates where everyone pretends to talk about the same thing.

I am not aware of any large commercial site that would be using batteries as a storage mechanism for example (there are certainly other and better alternatives), and nor so far as I know, does the propensity for clouds to pop up from time to time constitute a "proof" that solar can't work - there are ways to address this latter issue at levels of risk that are acceptable to the power industry. The cloud problem is an issue, but only as a matter of additional cost. Perhaps I should quote a source, but so far as I know that's self evident - the difficult part is what factor to use.

Happy to be SHOWN BY RELEVANT FACT where the answer is on the future of renewables is but there's not been too much of that so far.

10 to 30 times refers to residential off grid installations - and the number is correct - depending on location, orientation etc. I don't know that anyone mentioned large commercial installations in that regard.

I have read where PV has achieved grid parity as well. You can assume any number you want and depending on what kind of credits you assign to solar the cost changes drastically.

So we should forget about today and dream of decades out in time? Your rose colored glasses seem to be tinted really well!

Your entire post is based on wishes - maybe you should join greenpeace, EWG or their ilk - maybe all of them - that is the way they function and think.

You seem confused on the storage matter? How do you propose to carry power forward for a day and a week? The cloud problem is an issue but only as a matter of cost? How do you say that when there is no storage available? You seem to indicate you have some top secret source but say it is self evident??

For someone demanding facts you have yet to show a single one -all green conjecture.

Well said and a GA from me.

Another point I'd like to add to this that really should be self evident. Solar power will not work everywhere. Wind power will not work everywhere. Fossil fuel will not work everywhere. No power source can work everywhere. So to dismiss a whole class of power source usage because it won't work somewhere shows more the bias of the one making the argument than anything else. Geothermal power is a foolish idea on the arctic ice cap, but nearby in Iceland it is regularly used. The idea of hydropower in a desert seems ludicrous, but Hoover dam is on the border between Arizona and Nevada.

If we wait for one single power source to appear that solves all of our problems, we will wither and die. We must work with the locally available power sources instead of fighting them.

Nobody is suggesting that RE is not needed or coming.

What I do argue is that at present, the only way solar or wind is economic is with massive subsidies - money that would better be used for nuclear possibly - possibly just not running up the federal red ink as is being done today.

As soon as the storage issue - be it using a phase change material, flow batteries or whatever else - is resolved both technologies will take off on their own.

Substantial funding should go to R&D for many RE concepts along with solar. That would be a good way to spend money.

Any attempt at quantification is perceived as opposition

I would agree that it is difficult to have a business model supporting longer range speculative R&D

Charlie's [CWarner711] bitching aside, the state of california mandating a certain percentage of electricity, forces pg&e to sign contracts with some of the more questionable projects, as investment....electricity is 12 cents per kwh baseline here

time of use rates are coming, which would favor grid connected solar, which can help mitigate peak loads across the grid

before enron we were in the 6-8 cent range. a crisis brought on by mock deregulation

theres lots of hydro doing double duty as water storage, which keeps the price low

It's more complex than NIMBY, lots of high level political shenanigans

A factory I worked at during this period, shifted production to off peak & saved $60k per month on a $300k electric bill, due to be the rate structure

the links provide some additional context

the renewables mandate will probably be reversed before it is actually implemented, just like the zero emission auto mandate from 2001-02

I voted off topic, as it wasn't a good answer in my view, somehow off topic is the opposite of GA here in the bizarro world of CR$

I also took the off topic check box off of this one, as this is relevant to this discussion.

California being at the bleeding edge of both the good & bad of this subject.....

TrevorM-

Someone marked you off-topic, but I don't think you deserve that. There is a whole lot of misinformation floating around on both sides of the solar issue, as you rightly point out. My own opinions are based on actual small-scale installations, and I am an active supporter of things like pumping or heating water with solar- generally recommending these over other options WHERE FEASIBLE- note that caveat. It has been proven time and again that solar energy can prove adequate for the small off-grid, remote site, but most advocates are not fully honest about the full cost.

Regarding large scale commercial installations, there is a lot of hype that ignores the realities. While northern Australia may offer some significant advantages that can mitigate some of the major issues with large-scale solar, it is not likely to be viable in major areas of the world where power demand is greatest. The primary issue is that it is intermittent. One needs either storage or some sort of backup power (i.e., conventional fossil fuel or nuclear) to keep the lights on when the sun doesn't shine. Another issue is the land area required to get significant power- one needs 20 hectares more or less to generate 1 MW of electricity (this, of course, varies, depending on location- closer to the equator would be better). This 20 hectares per MW not only cannot generally be used for other purposes, it is also quite environmentally unfriendly- nothing grows under solar collectors, and if you have no plants, you have no animals, no insects, no birds. Silent Spring, anyone? While this may be an acceptable trade-off for some, in some limited environments, these limitations will prevent the use of large-scale solar on any meaningful level for large areas of the world that represent the largest power demand. I have posted photographs on other threads illustrating the scale of the issues...

By the way, wind energy conversion generally requires about 50 hectares for 1 MW- again, using the real estate for anything other than energy generation is questionable (there are unsubstantiated claims that even cows don't like to graze around operating wind turbines). Again, the hype on both sides of the argument far exceeds the real information.

If the alternatives were truly economically viable, I am sure we would be pursuing them on a grand scale. Humans have relied on solar energy for 99.7% of the time they have existed on the face of the earth (depending, of course, on whose numbers you use for how long our ancestors have been around). If solar energy were sufficient, why would we have invested so much in infrastructure to capture the energy stored in fossil fuels...

Change will not happen without funding. Funding will not happen without people being prepared to pay. Apart from the 'excuse me, it's future generations resource we are wasting, so we don't care' , this is tosh.

Of course renewables will replace fossil. The latter is finite. Will renewables be 'good' ? Maybe in 20-30 years, but meantime ? Fill the gap with nuclear, and invest in developing alternative energy. Many of the possibilities might produce, but right now they do not. Stats about cost of wind energy, photovoltaic etc are bull clouded in stats.

Having probably p'sd people off one this one, I am out. Dolphins swimming merrily around a wind farm, with photovoltaic houses in the background will never happen.

Anybody want to take a bet on WW111 ? Energy. Do we share and pool resource ? See you all in 2012 then :(

It's all CW's fault, being fussy about the OT thing :D

There is nothing as powerful as fossil fuel but the waste problem (CO2 and ocean acidification, and plants needing a lot more water because there is more CO2 available to them) and problems created by getting fossil fuel out of the ground gets more serious day by day. "Fracking arsenic in the water again!" will be a battle cry in a few years. And "fracking radon seepage killed my family and my dog and now I have lung cancer too" will be the lost battle cry. So I think the future will involve using less power per person, whether we like it or not. Immature people cannot deal with this but boys never really grow up.

I got some pictures and video from back home on the farm back in Ireland. (I have not been back in 10 years)

They are still in a relatively low power place, no web link or social media, no annual holidays abroad. Lots of dreaded physical work, and daily chores, but running around feeding sheep and cattle and growing crops sure seems to make for happier people. My brother visited Holyhead wales once and my Da and (that brother too) never even went to all the provinces of Ireland! I met a dutch guy once who knew people who never left one of the Fresian islands. And they didn't die of boredom either. Our jetting around lifestyle is not necessary. Our commuting everywhere is not necessary. It is just a colossal waste of time and energy.