Congress was hard for me. Voting for Steny Hoyer was tough. In the end, my son persuaded me. I felt that it was good that he got out of the way on supporting renewable energy as part of the bailout, but the whole thing was like pulling teeth to get that stuff through, and we still have not seen real climate legislation.
You are correct that your reason is simpler, but it is not as important. When we have the freedom to worship as we see fit, imposing a particular version in a public school erodes that freedom because it provides a government sanction for that one version above all others. In order to protect the right of people to hold creationist views, it is important to keep them out of the public schools. The push to include creationism in the public classroom is deeply unamerican.
You are mistaken about the amount of faith that is mixed in science. But, the main reason not to teach creation myths as facts in publically funded schools is that you may miss some citizens' versions of the myths. For example, where is Vishnu is all of this? This is the is the basis for non-establishment.
FirstSolar, which makes CdTe cells, includes the price of collecting and recycling the panels in the sales price (or lease I guess since you don't get to keep the panels). So, there is no plan for these to enter a landfill. Silicon panels require only about one third the energy to refurbish as they do to make so used silicon is quite valuable. Again, the landfill does not seem a likely fate.
It'll be just in time for the whole peak-oil extravaganza, and damn useful to power all our new electric cars.
There was a post at The Oil Drum on how it takes so long for new discoveries to ger deployed: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4008#more
You can look at some of what has been going on in the subject for a while now here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
It is definitely taking a long time.
Seems to me that the nuclear industry has been its own biggest problem through inattention to safety. The reason greenpeace has better ideas is because they've been working on the problem longer. This is because they did not buy into the stuff that the fossil fuel industry was dishing out and so know global warming was a real problem. Greenpeace has taken the time to study the alternatives. For example, this 1999 report: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/reports/kpmg8.pdf shows exactly what is happening with solar power now as it heads below $1/watt, cheaper than coal. Once you've taken the time to study the subject, you'll come to agree with them.
In my opinion, a solid is much more compatible with storing carbon in the Earth than a gas, but even if we are to store a gas, it does not make a whole lot of sense to use up what capacity there may be on burning coal. Coal is already nicely sequestered.
If you build transmission and never use it, its cost per kWh delivered is infinite. If you can use it 100% of the time at full capacity, then its cost per kWh delivered is as low as it can get.
If you check out the map here: http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf you'll see that Rock Port isn't even in a moderately good wind location though it is not too far away. Since energy goes pretty much like velocity to the 4th power, going from sub-moderate to good increases the extractable energy by a factor of 2.44 and over 30 years you get a little less that $0.08/kWh. But, the price does seem high and I wonder if it includes the cost of money and land rent?
Well, not quite on the variability in the US at least. Connecting geographically spreadout wind farms yields at least one third of the power as steady and, if I recall, closer to 60% when most of the wind belt is connected. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html
This lowers the cost of transmission because the largest transmission lines can be used 100% of the time at full capacity.
Good thought. I'd guess that since the time for ocean circulation to bring the oceans vertical temperature distribution back into equilibrium after a instantaneous change in CO2 is a couple of centruries, most hydrogen is available to be evaporated or used by seaweed and plankton on that kind of timescale. A portion could be held as inactive archaic aquifers, but not the majority. Evidence of past inland seas suggests that icesheets do no persist on geological timescale and thus do not hold water all that long.
One way to estimate this is to look at the carbon respiration of the planet. It takes 4 or 5 years for the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere to equal the amplitude of the seasonal variation and the seasonal variation is a rough indicator of the amount of cycling that biomass does. If we assume equal molar quantities of water and carbon dioxide get cycled and note that we put about 7Gt of carbon into the air each year then at least 20Gt of water gets turned into hydrocarbons and turned back into water each year. The mass of the hydrosphere is about 1.4 billion Gt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Physical_properties so the biosphere ought to cycle that in about 700 million years. Less than a majority of water molecules are in their original (pre-solar) configuration.
That calculation was looking at reserve base rather than reserves so it was already anticipating increased costs for lithium. But it's author would undoubtibly agree with what you are saying. My point is that we will likely recycle batteries rather than discard them and we may keep them in service beyond there life in transportation.
I recently read a calculation that with the expected number of cars in 2050, the 13.4 MT reserve base of lithium will be pretty much depleted. So, I don't think that we will let all that much escape into the environment. That is for 4 billion cars each with a 55 mile all electric range. But, at that kind of scale, many other environmental impacts of driving may be a concern. In my opinion, we will likely have about 3 times as much lithium serving as stationary storage as that in vehicles just because when a battery is no longer transportation grade, it is still a pretty good battery so it won't be recycled until it is kaput. Based on this idea, I estimate that the US will be able to store about 0.5 days of its average electric power consumption with used batteries from cars if transportation is converted to mainly electic power. So, renewable energy gets some extra benefits from conversion of transportation to electriciy, namely the ability to get greater penetration without having to provide its own storage.
I would be interested to know if the storage tanks and engines from these vehicles might be used in a similar way once they are no longer transportation grade. Presumably the engines last a long time since they see much less heat stress than ICEs. The tanks might be used at lower pressure safely when they are older, though not on the road. If one used the heat from compressing air to heat water for home use, one might beat battery charging efficiency (about 86%) in overall system efficiency. And, use of the engine provides cooling, perhaps for refridgeration. The stored energy might even be greater if tanks and engines last longer than degraded batteries. About 2 days of storage is all we really need for a 100% renewable grid that includes both wind and solar. This is another interesting potential freebee for renewable energy. With the cost estimates for building new nuclear power plants coming in around $5 to $6 billion, the lower cost renewable alternatives look much better if they can overcome the intermittancy issues. A synergy between conversion of transportation from fossil fuels and a more general conversion through the storage made available from the transporation sector seems quite intriguing.
This is usually taken as delivering mechanical energy to the wheels. So, in the case of an electric car, from the plug to the wheels, for an ICE from the pump to the wheels and for just the air pressure driven portion of this vehicle, from the plug to the wheels.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress was hard for me. Voting for Steny Hoyer was tough. In the end, my son persuaded me. I felt that it was good that he got out of the way on supporting renewable energy as part of the bailout, but the whole thing was like pulling teeth to get that stuff through, and we still have not seen real climate legislation.
Voting for president was just a matter of habit.
You probably heard it here. It is mentioned in this article: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/08/01/100138830/index.htm
You are correct that your reason is simpler, but it is not as important. When we have the freedom to worship as we see fit, imposing a particular version in a public school erodes that freedom because it provides a government sanction for that one version above all others. In order to protect the right of people to hold creationist views, it is important to keep them out of the public schools. The push to include creationism in the public classroom is deeply unamerican.
You are mistaken about the amount of faith that is mixed in science. But, the main reason not to teach creation myths as facts in publically funded schools is that you may miss some citizens' versions of the myths. For example, where is Vishnu is all of this? This is the is the basis for non-establishment.
Yes, there is more here an Palin's views: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html not a good day for science....
Really - Is it "possible" or pretense?
That really is the question. Is it possible that the delivered price of Solar PV could drop 50% in a period of 18 months year after year?
That is not the question. Savings now are coming from scale, and that has also been a savings mechanism for chips. We only need to see one more factor of two drop from the current cost of solar to do better than coal: http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2008/JULY/FIRSTSOLAR_170708.htm
FirstSolar, which makes CdTe cells, includes the price of collecting and recycling the panels in the sales price (or lease I guess since you don't get to keep the panels). So, there is no plan for these to enter a landfill. Silicon panels require only about one third the energy to refurbish as they do to make so used silicon is quite valuable. Again, the landfill does not seem a likely fate.
Could this be a plea for more staffing?
The new cycle started back in February and is proceeding normally. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
You can view current solar activity here and there is at least one spot. http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest.html
There was a post at The Oil Drum on how it takes so long for new discoveries to ger deployed: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4008#more
You can look at some of what has been going on in the subject for a while now here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
It is definitely taking a long time.
Seems to me that the nuclear industry has been its own biggest problem through inattention to safety. The reason greenpeace has better ideas is because they've been working on the problem longer. This is because they did not buy into the stuff that the fossil fuel industry was dishing out and so know global warming was a real problem. Greenpeace has taken the time to study the alternatives. For example, this 1999 report: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/renewables/reports/kpmg8.pdf shows exactly what is happening with solar power now as it heads below $1/watt, cheaper than coal. Once you've taken the time to study the subject, you'll come to agree with them.
It looks as though we are going to need sequestration from the atmosphere based on what is becoming understood about the sensitivity of the climate to grenhouse gasses http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080317.pdf
In my opinion, a solid is much more compatible with storing carbon in the Earth than a gas, but even if we are to store a gas, it does not make a whole lot of sense to use up what capacity there may be on burning coal. Coal is already nicely sequestered.
HVDC transmission typically has 3% loss per 1000 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Advantages_of_HVDC_over_AC_transmission though this can be reduced at higher capacity: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/03/coast-to-coast.html
If you build transmission and never use it, its cost per kWh delivered is infinite. If you can use it 100% of the time at full capacity, then its cost per kWh delivered is as low as it can get.
If you check out the map here: http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf you'll see that Rock Port isn't even in a moderately good wind location though it is not too far away. Since energy goes pretty much like velocity to the 4th power, going from sub-moderate to good increases the extractable energy by a factor of 2.44 and over 30 years you get a little less that $0.08/kWh. But, the price does seem high and I wonder if it includes the cost of money and land rent?
The energy payback time is much shorter than 15 years, typically about 1 year. http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/utbildning/lca/projects%202006/Group%2007%20(Wind%20turbine).pdf
Well, not quite on the variability in the US at least. Connecting geographically spreadout wind farms yields at least one third of the power as steady and, if I recall, closer to 60% when most of the wind belt is connected. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html
This lowers the cost of transmission because the largest transmission lines can be used 100% of the time at full capacity.
Good thought. I'd guess that since the time for ocean circulation to bring the oceans vertical temperature distribution back into equilibrium after a instantaneous change in CO2 is a couple of centruries, most hydrogen is available to be evaporated or used by seaweed and plankton on that kind of timescale. A portion could be held as inactive archaic aquifers, but not the majority. Evidence of past inland seas suggests that icesheets do no persist on geological timescale and thus do not hold water all that long.
One way to estimate this is to look at the carbon respiration of the planet. It takes 4 or 5 years for the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere to equal the amplitude of the seasonal variation and the seasonal variation is a rough indicator of the amount of cycling that biomass does. If we assume equal molar quantities of water and carbon dioxide get cycled and note that we put about 7Gt of carbon into the air each year then at least 20Gt of water gets turned into hydrocarbons and turned back into water each year. The mass of the hydrosphere is about 1.4 billion Gt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Physical_properties so the biosphere ought to cycle that in about 700 million years. Less than a majority of water molecules are in their original (pre-solar) configuration.
I like this solution a lot. You are not using all the power yet but if you go into the black, it won't be important to do so.
I recently came across this letter about working with passive solar that has some good ideas in it. http://ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/cgi-bin/webview/senddoc.pgm?dispfmt=&itype=Q&authorization=&parm2=1AAAAA22260B&parm3=000123984
The USGS is reporting 3 to 4.3 billion barrels are technically recoverable: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911&from=rss_home
I think you mean we use more oil than coal?
There is a place to look at Leigh Price's unfinished work: http://www.undeerc.org/Price/
It is heavy going though so don't click unless you want to read geology.
That calculation was looking at reserve base rather than reserves so it was already anticipating increased costs for lithium. But it's author would undoubtibly agree with what you are saying. My point is that we will likely recycle batteries rather than discard them and we may keep them in service beyond there life in transportation.
I recently read a calculation that with the expected number of cars in 2050, the 13.4 MT reserve base of lithium will be pretty much depleted. So, I don't think that we will let all that much escape into the environment. That is for 4 billion cars each with a 55 mile all electric range. But, at that kind of scale, many other environmental impacts of driving may be a concern. In my opinion, we will likely have about 3 times as much lithium serving as stationary storage as that in vehicles just because when a battery is no longer transportation grade, it is still a pretty good battery so it won't be recycled until it is kaput. Based on this idea, I estimate that the US will be able to store about 0.5 days of its average electric power consumption with used batteries from cars if transportation is converted to mainly electic power. So, renewable energy gets some extra benefits from conversion of transportation to electriciy, namely the ability to get greater penetration without having to provide its own storage.
I would be interested to know if the storage tanks and engines from these vehicles might be used in a similar way once they are no longer transportation grade. Presumably the engines last a long time since they see much less heat stress than ICEs. The tanks might be used at lower pressure safely when they are older, though not on the road. If one used the heat from compressing air to heat water for home use, one might beat battery charging efficiency (about 86%) in overall system efficiency. And, use of the engine provides cooling, perhaps for refridgeration. The stored energy might even be greater if tanks and engines last longer than degraded batteries. About 2 days of storage is all we really need for a 100% renewable grid that includes both wind and solar. This is another interesting potential freebee for renewable energy. With the cost estimates for building new nuclear power plants coming in around $5 to $6 billion, the lower cost renewable alternatives look much better if they can overcome the intermittancy issues. A synergy between conversion of transportation from fossil fuels and a more general conversion through the storage made available from the transporation sector seems quite intriguing.
This is usually taken as delivering mechanical energy to the wheels. So, in the case of an electric car, from the plug to the wheels, for an ICE from the pump to the wheels and for just the air pressure driven portion of this vehicle, from the plug to the wheels.