Slashdot Mirror

Our needs are more subtle than the constant chanting of "base load" would suggest. Most of new generation (natural gas) is for peak demand and sit unused most of the time. Utility scale energy storage for both renewable and peak demand is advancing very quickly including compressed air and pumped hydro. Google has a detailed report on how in the mid-term renewables will beat all other fuels for the simple reason the fuel is free. (note efficiency typically costs $5/MWH while coal costs $29/MWH). Google is putting their wallet where there mouth is and has/is investing almost $1B into solar. Investing in nuclear power plants and research is not now and will never be cost effective.

I'm pretty sure you've not thought that through.

That was purely the cost of the oil - which is only about 40% of the US energy usage, so assuming costs are roughly on par for the rest of the energy usage then it's over twice as much, so you could say that the energy costs we're spending over the next 40 years adds up to $240trillion, but then again you've ignore that 85 million barrels a day is crude oil consumption - for lots of different types of fuel, for plastics, for fertilisers etc. This might make the figures much more acceptable except that they're incorrect:

3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines ($19 trillion @ $5m each)
49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants ($59trillion @ $1.2billion each - http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-Solar-Tower/)
40,000 300 MW solar PV power plants ($44trillion @ $1.1billion each - http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/3845/300-mw-solar-plant-planned-in-ningxia)
1.7 billion 3 kWrooftop PV systems ($102trillion @ $60k each)
5350 100 MWgeothermal power plants, ($1.6trillion @$300million each - http://www.globalenergymagazine.com/?p=2438)
270 new 1300 MWhydroelectric power plants, ($135billion @ $500m each)
720,000 0.75 MWwave devices ($6.48trillion @$9million each - http://cleantech.com/news/4276/pelamis-sinks-portugal-wave-power-p)
490,000 1 MWtidal turbines ($3.92trillion @$8million each - http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/policy/i/3710/)

Giving a rough total of $236trillion... Of course not even close to counting the hydrogen infrastructure the electrolysis plants needed to make the hydrogen, nor the new global transmission infrastructure or the necessary energy storage.

And this was to handle the projected consumption of 2030, not 2050, so what it really works out to is something like $59trillion in oil costs up until 2030 - and this isn't just fuel at the pump, it's all oil, from fuel to plastic to fertiliser.

Which means it's not double, it's not triple it's 4 times as much as you're paying now - for all oil. And even of the oil that is burnt 72% of that is used for cars... Cars that won't magically convert to running on electricity and hydrogen, that's a lot of cars you need to replace, and filling stations, and human behaviour.

To be frank I think the cost will be an order of magnitude higher than it is now - 10 times as much as you're paying, not your double.

Finally, don't forget you'll have to pay it at the same time as everything is built, meaning it's oil AND these costs (in fact this will drive oil prices up massively as all the materials have to come from somewhere, there's transport, manufacture, installation etc - all using oil) which are really optimistic.

Oh yes, and the report mentions a new improved electricity grid, mainly because the power is never where (or when) you need it - no idea of the cost of that. It

And this ignores the fact that the world would be a very different place after this big change occurred, I mean who actually needs constant uninterrupted power? That's a luxury we can all do without. Not one of these studies has ever dealt with the variability of the energy source, the need to ship it half way around the world and the fact that roughly 20% of it (the solar) doesn't work at least 50% of the time, and that 73% of the energy generation comes from wind, wind known to have long periods when it's useless; from too windy to no wind, for weeks at a time.

Storage is hugely inefficient, transmission is very inefficient and I must have missed the part of the report that mentions it all. With costings..

My conclusion? Wow, they just don't bother looking at it seriously, after all who wants t

As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

As an omnivore who's also a hunter, I'm glad that they're finding a green use for what would otherwise be a waste product.

This is a kind-of 'old tech' come back in a new form. Animal fat used to be used to produce candles and lantern oil; so the idea of using it for power isn't a new one.

BTW, this is old news; I first heard about this factory several years ago.

MUCH better article
- Hmm... Looks like a new plant, and it'll also produce fuel for the B-52. Sweet.

Ah, here's what I was remembering - light crude from turkey fats and other waste via thermal-depolymerization .Article dates from 2003.

Yes, this article is somewhat misleading. First, it's talking about world wide subsidies, which considering most of the world's oil is owned produced by state owned companies is likely a very complicated calculation. This article puts US subsidies at between $15 and $35 billion, numbers that include some very dubious things in there, such as construction of the highway system, the strategic petroleum reserve etc.
What people don't seem to understand is the motivation for US subsidies. The US government wants to encourage as much domestic production as is reasonably possible, and they don't want a government entity to have to produce it (like countries with nationalized oil industries do). The only way to do this, therefore, is to make it more attractive for oil companies to extract oil that would otherwise be uneconomical. "Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid", as the link above calls it, is I believe the main way the US government supports the oil industry.
If these royalties reductions weren't in place, many of the wells in America would simply be uneconomical. The stripper wells mentioned by someone before wouldn't stand a chance, and collectively they account for 18% of US production (according to Wikipedia). Without deep water credits, much of the gulf production would be an economic non starter (and gulf production is about a third of US production). And the overriding thing that people ignore is that 50% of zero is less than 5% of something. If you force a stripper well producing 2 barrels a day to pay a regular royalty, you're not going to bring in more money for the government, you're going to force that well to be plugged and abandoned, and it's probably never going to be economical to redrill it. Both the government and the industry loses.
It is expensive to extract oil in America's increasingly depleted fields, particularly compared to the younger and much larger oil provinces of the middle east and elsewhere. Because of this, the US government grants the oil industry here better incentives than in those countries to try and keep them in America - simply put, they allow the companies to keep more of the oil they produce. Maybe Americans are no longer comfortable with that deal, but they must remember that hiking royalties will significantly lower US production and will necessitate greater imports from unsavory places.

Compare this to this.

The one place where nanotubes might be of the most benefit is boosting the storage in ultracapacitors. The technology is making advances towards the point where they might match or surpass batteries.

I have seen this straw man thrown out again and again, that existing infrastructure can't possibly support the widespread use of electric cars, but you never hear that from anyone in the electrical utility industry. Any reliable system in this country is designed to handle the maximum anticipated peak load that customers require on the worst day (think maximum AC load on the hottest day, maximum heating load on the coldest day) on top of the normal industrial load. Even this peak only occurs for a few hours, a few days of the year, and normal electrical load rises to a peak during business hours and falls off sharply after that. The rest of the time the capacity if the system is grossly underutilized.

Heck, some countries are already working on making it a reality. Right now cities are already putting electric vehicles and charging points in place, and the Netherlands is working towards having 10000 public charging points in place by 2012. (That's plenty to cover the entire country btw ;-))

Infrastructure in terms of the grid isn't too much of an issue, the ability to generate enough power is though...but there the increased demand should make it viable to put more power generation in place.

It took me under 30 seconds to find a methanol fuel cell at 75% efficiency. It's not the scale or form factor for residential use, but it's clear that you're not even up to date on the current performance of methanol fuel cells.

The theoretical max efficiency of fuel cell tech in general is over 85%. 60% from diesel is a reasonable goal, not "magical hope". What's certain is that ruling it out despite demonstrated progress towards it will ensure we never get it.

PetroSun? That's your example? A penny stock with questionable business practices leaking money like a sieve and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy?

Come on now.

The USA currently subsidizes the oil trade directly, and indirectly through foreign policies centered around oil. This includes military spending, a lot of it. If the free market were sane, and the costs were built in to the products that incur them, what do you suppose would happen? What if all spending for military intervention in the Middle East had to be paid for through gas taxes? The effects would be seismic.

We in the US only just now got $80 billion in subsidies for alternative energies in the last stimulus bill from Obama. That's a good start, but had we spent all the money we've spent on the bloody misadventure in Iraq on putting up solar panels, solar chimneys, and wind turbines or more innovative forms of wind power, the world would be a different place, and Shell would be singing a different tune.

Corporations go after the easiest money, quite reflexively. They have no other ethic. They're just not built for it. If you want a world where companies do what's right, change the rules, whether from the capitol or the grassroots.

Why not repeal the subsidies to oil companies? Some direct, some indirect. That would level the playing field, stop skewing the market and then we would see where alts to oil stand in terms of economics. Then a decision on what to do about alt energy and transport will be easier to make.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/6/122829/2907

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0401-12.htm

http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

In addition to the GP link (which is a good one) here is another. Or you could try googling "oil subsidies" and start from there.

Algae

The first coal plants couldn't even supply one modern home with power... They have plans to build 'em much bigger, such as 553MW for Mojave Solar Park: http://media.cleantech.com/1522/pg-e-solel-in-553-mw-solar-deal

Not true. http://media.cleantech.com/2253/concentrated-solar-gets-salty

Solar thermal plants can store energy over the course of a day to keep running all night, or on cloudy days. Photovoltaics don't work if the sun isn't shining, but they would be used, primarily, to offset power peaks - for example, air conditioners, which run the most when the sun is shining.