The Solar Grand Scam

[xavier]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-s ... b_cnet2_q1

I only looked over the intro but that's about all I could take before the vomit reflex became too much to bear, and had to stop. I'll read through it again later -- the 38 pages of discussion that follow (which extensively include the article authors) are actually more interesting.

The parts that made me choke:

A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.

And what group of environmental lobbyists would you have to off in order to make that happen? They bitch and moan about the caribou in Alaska being slightly disoriented by the presence of a pipeline (that they can walk under when it's aboveground). They also have worked hardest the past 30 years to kill every opportunity to make progress on the cleanest non-natural power generation method possible -- nuclear -- to the point that no one seriously even brings it up as a debatable issue anymore. And these guys think that they are just going to cover some hundreds or thousands or millions of acres of previously untouched land with solar arrays? What exhibit from the Museum of Diseased Imaginings did this come from? (And my last shot at the environmentalists -- they have done such a bang-up job in the US of killing every actual beneficial initiative in the areas of clean power and mass transit, that they have virtually guaranteed the existence and relevance of the oil and coal industries for the foreseeable decades ahead -- well done, guys).

Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.

See above.

A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

See, this is what happens when you let the mentally challenged near a keyboard (yes I am sniping personal at the authors here). YOU CAN"T TRANSMIT DIRECT CURRENT OVER LONG DISTANCES YOU MORONS!!!! THAT'S WHY EDISON LOST OUT AND WE HAVE ALTERNATING CURRENT!!!! Ok, I'll stop shouting, but that's where I had to go for a short walk, or blow a fuse. If these are the sorts of people we have inventing energy altenatives, no wonder we are in the crisis we are...

And of course the kicker...

But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.

$10 billion per year to fund the largest government-owned energy system on the planet.

I'm sorry, but I won't pay for this boondoggle and will sue the pants off of any representative who thinks seriously of this, let alone supports it. The free market will (as it always has done when there is a need) produce inexpensive solar, wind and other forms of free energy production, in a time frame much sooner than 2050, likely by the *beginning* of these guys' timeframe.

I'm sure there will be many of you who say "well Xavier, at least they are trying to think of a solution". To that I reply: "sure, if you also believe that we should just all use cold fusion to power our homes". I mean, let's be honest -- there are ideas, and then there are stupid ideas. Having stupid ideas is just as bad as having no ideas -- and then people have to waste their time and energy *complaining* about the stupid ideas, lest others begin to think those ideas are valuable.

Like I said, this article gave me a migraine, and the discussion afterwards was far more useful IMO than the article itself. But, I'll let you all judge for yourselves...

[betajaen]

As much as I like Solar power; How simple it is and relativity cheap it is to set up. It's a pain in the neck. It requires a huge amount of space to generate some measurable amount of power and of course for half the day it's completely useless.

I would prefer if solar panels were given the localized treatment and use the concept of mini-power stations. Each house has solar panels which all go directly in the home. It won't be enough to power the entire house, but enough to power some small electronics and larger appliances in stand by mode.

I remember a recent episode of Top Gear; They featured a hydrogen powered car (not for sale - just a prototype), although hydrogen power is new and old. They remarked that a single on of theses car could generate enough power to power an entire street of houses. Of course remove the car out of the equation - install a very small box underground and you have a instant clean power, that requires a topping up of hydrogen now again. If I remember correctly the car used a method of binding hydrogen to metal to store it more safely and more compact. Which is easier to handle and easier to install by the general public.

So why bother with massive infrastructure, massive power facilities when you can have it separate clean, low-cost, mini-power stations for the home or for the street. I'd like to see the environmentalists reaction about that.

[haffax]

A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.

See, this is what happens when you let the mentally challenged near a keyboard (yes I am sniping personal at the authors here). YOU CAN"T TRANSMIT DIRECT CURRENT OVER LONG DISTANCES YOU MORONS!!!! THAT'S WHY EDISON LOST OUT AND WE HAVE ALTERNATING CURRENT!!!! Ok, I'll stop shouting, but that's where I had to go for a short walk, or blow a fuse. If these are the sorts of people we have inventing energy alternatives, no wonder we are in the crisis we are...

Actually high power direct current lines are more efficient than AC lines for very long distances, especially when connecting a remote place. While AC is better for the medium range, the longer the power line gets, the better DC gets in comparison. Click for more info.
Xavier, I wouldn't dismiss surprising statements by people who should know better than you as stupid. I mean there are all these scientists who know there field, who made a thorough plan and they should miss something this obvious? Can be, but unlikely, and before yelling one should investigate it a bit. Same as the bogus volcano claim really.
I am all for skepticism, but one fundamental rule should be to be skeptical about ones own knowledge too.

betajaen, I doubt there are "the environmentalists", they(we?) are a mixed bunch anyway. Actually there are many reservations against such big projects as described in the above post and localized projects are probably favoured by many. So a call for localization is preaching to the choir anyway.
In the end it is a question of overall costs and migration costs. With hydrogen there are still quite lot problems to be solved and there is no infrastructure for it yet. And hydrogen has to be produced too and preferably with a net energy gain in the whole reaction.
In the end I am optimistic that we will find a solution to the energy crisis, before it comes or gets out of hand. Just a feeling, can't back it up with something substantial.

[xavier]

Can be, but unlikely, and before yelling one should investigate it a bit. Same as the bogus volcano claim really.
I am all for skepticism, but one fundamental rule should be to be skeptical about ones own knowledge too.

Yeah, just venting, is all.

[pjcast]

I would prefer if solar panels were given the localized treatment and use the concept of mini-power stations. Each house has solar panels which all go directly in the home. It won't be enough to power the entire house, but enough to power some small electronics and larger appliances in stand by mode.

Actually, Solar Cell installs for homes can produce enough energy to power a house all day (with a combination of storage cells) also producing some excess which can be placed back on the grid for a small amount of rebate from power company. This is actually starting to be more common here in California. I think that it would be awesome if every house built would have such a system installed... and as production costs decrease, I think this will happen more often. Last I looked, a good solar system installation could cost between 10k - 20k US. Which would take roughly 10 years of running to finally break even. But, it is still good for environment and help reduce overall country energy costs in the meantime.

Though, there are times when the system will just suck (extended cloudy days, etc) when you would still need to draw power off the grid. Luckily (or unluckily as there are lots of fires), in Southern California where I am, we don't have that (and have lots of sun) and Solar makes a lot of sense here

[mr. iknoweverything]

Right now there's a shortage of silicon processing facilities, that's the main reason why the prices are through the roof, but we experienced the same with Flash memory, with TFT displays, with sdrams.....
ach, they never learn. shortages like those are always followed by crazy overproduction, which, of course, is good for us

[Kojack]

I've heard of various ways to store electrical power, but never pressurised caverns of air which are released, mixed with natural gas and ignited to power turbines.
How efficient is the pressurising process?

[mr. iknoweverything]

afaik compressors can be something around 90% efficient. dunno if they manage to store the heat that follows though. and i dont know how efficient the turbines can get

back of the hand i'd expect overall efficiencies around 50-60%

[xavier]

If you can make it through the 38 pages of discussion that follow, all of that is addressed ad nauseum, with full figures and references. My eyes started burning (from sheer tiredness) at page 25, tho...

[pjcast]

afaik compressors can be something around 90% efficient. dunno if they manage to store the heat that follows though. and i dont know how efficient the turbines can get

back of the hand i'd expect overall efficiencies around 50-60%

Article states on page 2 or 3 that turbines operate using some natural gas to help the process. So, with stored compressed air and gas used it is predicted the these turbines would use 40% (possibly getting down to 30%) of what a similar turbine using all natural gas would get. So, a savings of 60-70% of natural gas seems pretty good. Not to mention, this is only used when direct power cannot be used from the system (i.e. at night and during extended cloud periods).

Sounds plausible, but I think production costs of solar cells will have to go down and efficiency will have to increase some more (which they have been doing for the last couple decades). Not too mention, even as something like this was being built, and/or operated, the cells could be replaced (and recycled) with more efficient cells as they are developed.

As for the amount of land required, there is a lot of desert here in the South West and a lot of sunlight, so solar cells make sense here. There are not that many wild animals in the desert for buildings such as this to harm. I don't see any environment issues caused by such a collection area. Though, would probably best to not have one large collection center in one spot, which would put the energy supply vulnerable (natural and unnatural disasters).

In terms of money, it is not a rare thing for the US government (or any government) to subsidize endeavors such as this. Anyway, 10 Billion is a drop in the bucket for an almost 3 Trillion dollar budget... Shoot, California pays over 200 Billion dollars of the federal tax revenue (~13% of all taxes coming into the government) and only gets back around 72 cents for everyone of those dollars from federal spending coming into this state. By simply getting a little bit more back, or financing it locally (kind of hard with current economy and budgets anyway) it wouldn't be very hard.

Waiting for the free market to help with energy concerns / issues is like waiting to get shot in the face in my opinion. One only has to cite California Energy deregulation which caused rolling blackouts, high electricity costs, and other problems (plant production is still very low). Also, one doesn't have to look to far for other bad problems with corporations managing energy (Enron, I'm looking at you!).

[mr. iknoweverything]

afaik compressors can be something around 90% efficient. dunno if they manage to store the heat that follows though. and i dont know how efficient the turbines can get

back of the hand i'd expect overall efficiencies around 50-60%

Article states on page 2 or 3 that turbines operate using some natural gas to help the process.

probably to compensate for the adiabatic cooling?

[Minthos]

See, this is what happens when you let the mentally challenged near a keyboard (yes I am sniping personal at the authors here). YOU CAN"T TRANSMIT DIRECT CURRENT OVER LONG DISTANCES YOU MORONS!!!! THAT'S WHY EDISON LOST OUT AND WE HAVE ALTERNATING CURRENT!!!! Ok, I'll stop shouting, but that's where I had to go for a short walk, or blow a fuse. If these are the sorts of people we have inventing energy alternatives, no wonder we are in the crisis we are...

Allow me to bash this outrageous claim too.

From what I vaguely recall having read somewhere a long time ago, the whole AC vs DC thing wasn't a decision made on technical merits at all, it was simple politics and power play just like microsoft/ibm/sun/sco/at&t and so on and so on, and the clever move that won edison the dominance in the market was by recommending DC for use in electric chairs, then later to bash and flame DC as being more dangerous than AC. Which is just as far fetched as the idea that AC is better suited to long-distance transmission :)

edit: It's been pointed out to me the glaring wrongness of what I just wrote here. Edison and DC lost, and that Tesla and AC won. I'll leave my original text for posterity :)

Also, let me quote some stuff from that other thread that derailed by about 5 pages:

Nowadays, though, we do hit certain limits. Oil and uranium are the most perceptible, I suppose

That strikes me as a strikingly american and uninformed (not implying that one implies the other) view. Oil is certainly and thankfully a limit we're already feeling the effects of. Uranium not at all. Not because there are unlimited amounts of uranium, but because 1, we produce enough to keep the price low and we can easily increase production if needed, and 2, current nuclear reactors only use about 2% of the potential energy in the uranium. Breeder reactors currently in development (and these aren't a perpetual pipe dream like fusion reactors, these are actual designs based on well-understood principles) can use nearly all of it. Meaning that if current reserves with current reactors would last for 50 years, current reserves with new reactors would last for 2500 years (assuming constant energy need, but you get the idea..). Not to mention they could also use thorium with comparable efficiency, and thorium is a lot more abundant than uranium. So developing and mass producing these reactors would be a safe (they would be much safer than most current reactors by design), clean (using up nearly all the fuel in the reactor has the nice side effect of not leaving 98% of it as highly radioactive waste) and cheap (if mass-produced they would be competitive with just about anything) way of providing electricity and heat for a growing industrialized world long enough for us to develop a more permanent solution (be it fusion, solar, geothermal or something else) and probably colonize other planets and solar systems (which would provide us with more uranium and thorium should all else fail).

Claiming "environmentalist" is synonymous with "nutjob" is pretty massive flame war bait. C'mon - not a good way to have a reasonable discussion of global warming.

I too see environmentalists as nutjobs. Nothing wrong with caring for the environment, I do that myself, but if they really cared they would advocate increased research in nuclear power since currently that's the only option we have other than massive reduction of the human population, if we want to make our cities fairly safe to breathe in. If we want to save the whales and all the other endangered species, there are two options, one is to DNA sample them all and file away for later reconstruction (when we find another planet they can inhabit), the other is culling the human population. Not very attractive options I admit..

[CABAListic]

That strikes me as a strikingly american and uninformed (not implying that one implies the other) view. Oil is certainly and thankfully a limit we're already feeling the effects of. Uranium not at all. Not because there are unlimited amounts of uranium, but because 1, we produce enough to keep the price low and we can easily increase production if needed, and 2, current nuclear reactors only use about 2% of the potential energy in the uranium. Breeder reactors currently in development (and these aren't a perpetual pipe dream like fusion reactors, these are actual designs based on well-understood principles) can use nearly all of it. Meaning that if current reserves with current reactors would last for 50 years, current reserves with new reactors would last for 2500 years (assuming constant energy need, but you get the idea..). Not to mention they could also use thorium with comparable efficiency, and thorium is a lot more abundant than uranium.

Yeah, you're right, it was uniformed in that it was outdated; I didn't keep up with younger developments (though, how you linked that with "American" is beyond me). Might be because I just don't like the principle in itself, to have to have measures in place to shut down the process in case of an emergency (and that, besides all the progress and safety guards in modern nuclear power plants, they can still come pretty close to failure was shown recently enough in Sweden). Though yeah, more recent designs did address this problem so that I would consider them reasonably safe.

But there are still a couple of things we do not understand about nuclear power. For example, a study published in Germany last year proved (yet again) increased cancer rates in the neighbourhood of nuclear power plants. And this study was not done by experimentalists, mind you, several expert groups verified it. The problem is that the cause for the increase is not understood; it's not by radiation since radiative measurements in the areas are well within the usual range. So where does it come from? So long as this is not uncovered, I'd rather not expand them too much.

[mr. iknoweverything]

ach, studies. we all know that publishing a study doesnt exclude the possiblity of its creators being intellectual retards.
Now, let's not doubt the possibility of this being one of the better studies, but recently i had enough of the amounts of handwaving and BS conclusions involved in studies.

Im not taking positions here. Just being a referee

[CABAListic]

ach, studies. we all know that publishing a study doesnt exclude the possiblity of its creators being intellectual retards.
Now, let's not doubt the possibility of this being one of the better studies, but recently i had enough of the amounts of handwaving and BS conclusions involved in studies.

Nah, this one is quite solid. Especially since you can place a safe bet that Vattenfall etc. as owners of the plants checked that study, too. Had they found any weaknesses in it, they would hardly have held it back

[Minthos]

how you linked that with "American" is beyond me).

I didn't. It struck me as american because I've only ever heard any worries about a uranium shortage from american media, never european ones, and it struck me as uninformed since it was plain wrong.

But there are still a couple of things we do not understand about nuclear power.

That there are, but from what we already understand about coal, oil and gas, the unknowns regarding nuclear power would have to be pretty damn severe to measure up in overall badness. Worrying that proximity to a nuclear plant might increase the risk of cancer is like worrying that the microwaves from cell phones might be harmful - there might be something do it, but it's not serious enough to make us do anything drastic about it. Why? Because the benefits seem to outweigh the unknowns.

Besides.. Living near a coal plant is much more harmful than living near a nuclear plant..

[Game_Ender]

Thank you for mentioning the Uranium issue Minthos, I remember reading about that in Scientific American. The main issue from the US standpoint is that the reactors must not leave the fuel in a state (during any stage of the process) where you could use it to make bombs. This is what is slowing adoption here in the US (along with the current nuclear power phobias), but I think the new reactor designs address these issues.

Also, the solar plan is a decent one, even if night stowage is doesn't work out. Think about it, we have hundreds of square miles of desert in southwest. Why not harness that energy? Maybe government subsidization is not the answer, but solar is the only inexhaustible source of energy on the solar system (wind and hydro are sun based to ).