If Obama were serious about moving the U.S. to safe renewable fuel sources

[Tom Rinaldo]

...he could show us his sincerity easily enough. He could declare the ongoing developing energy crisis we face as a nation an issue of the highest national security priority and implore American citizens to mobilize now to fight it.

During World War II all Americans sacrificed for the war effort, because we understood that it was a war effort, and because Americans saw it as their patriotic duty to sacrifice by contributing. During World War II Americans started victory gardens on their roofs. During this crisis Americans should be asked to install solar panels on their roofs, and to mount windmills in their fields. Americans should be implored to invest in more efficient appliances, and to spend a weekend further insulating their doors and windows.

This is far beyond any question of tax incentives, the incentive should be patriotism. Americans would respond as they always have in the past during a time of national crisis when their President asked them to make a sacrifice for their nation. The President can easily explain that he knows that a home investment in solar and wind technologies may well not be cost effective in the short term for Americans to make, but if they can afford the cost they should do it for our nation and our children's future. And by so doing, we can all contribute toward driving those costs down as scale of industry kicks in.

People weren't calculating their tax savings when they mobilized during World War Two. They did what they knew was right and they did all that they could do. Obama could call on us to make that type of sacrifice now, to cut our reliance on dangerous nuclear and fossil fuels and end the wars we must fight to secure them . He can implore us to act now to assure a clean energy future and an 21st century economically competitive American economy.

But he won't. He won't because the rich oligarchs who control 19th and 20th century energy sources would oppose it. They will drag their feet and pull their political strings until such time as they are confident that the energy Americans consume tomorrow will remain as firmly beneath their thumbs as the energy we consume today.

[Yo_Mama]

1. Try to run a modern economy on wind and solar

It can't be done.

The president is facing reality constraints, and harassing him because he can't change the laws of physics is unfair.

The other option is to greatly expand coal power plants. That has problems of its own.

[ixion]

2. A socio-economic model built around cheap oil cannot, however with some re-tooling

it's very possible to do.

[Yo_Mama]

9. Who has done it?

Nobody.

It's not so much the cost of the power, although it is expensive. It is the intermittency of the power and the lack of stoarge solutions.

Solar is more consistent than wind, but necessarily limited by sunlight durations and intensity. Wind power, no matter how much you build of it, is so intermittent that a modern grid can't even survive the pulse effect. The more you build the more likely you are to have some wind power coming into the grid at any one time, but due to the huge fluctuations, once you build in too much capacity your grid can get flooded and you get power outages from that. So you end up blocking a lot of the wind power that comes in at certain times, or rerouting it across special lines.

Read about the actual experience of Germany. The info has been somewhat censored, but I finally found E.on's 2005 wind report:
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/EON_Netz.report_2005_e_eng.pdf

"What they experienced was that as wind capacity grew past a certain point, the net contribution dropped, and despite major investments in the grid, the projection was that they would have to keep building traditional plants. Here I post an excerpt:
In 2004 two major German studies investigated the size of contribution that wind farms make
towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies separately came to virtually identical conclusions,
that wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by
providing 8% of its installed capacity.

As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability
of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of
traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.'

As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply
system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7).
In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over
48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by
these wind farms."

[ixion]

15. Well, you could make the same claim about oil when it was 'discovered'

the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing stopping us from going completely renewable is a model based on cheap oil. With better (more energy efficient) construction techniques and city planning, it is possible, despite all the nay-saying.

Big Oil thanks you for your support.

Oh, by the way: I'm writing this to you on a network powered by solar power.

[Yo_Mama]

22. No, that's not right

We can't go completely renewable yet because we use very little oil for electricity. We use it for transport, industrial greases and inputs for manufacture of stuff like chemicals, fertilizer and plastics.

The problem with going renewable for the grid is that we have a sharp limitation on the reliable sources (hydropower mostly), and there is a huge problem with running a grid on highly variable power inputs. I'll post this link again. See the author's qualifications. This person is not hostile to renewable power.
(The part about the only thing stopping us from going completely renewable being cheap oil)

The problem is grid integration with highly variable sources of power. I'll post this link again in answer to your statement:

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46977/impact...

And please read down and look at the author's qualifications. He is not hostile to renewable power.

Also, you lose net power on wind when you convert it into stored energy such as pumped hydro. So the net output drops, but you can store some for when you need it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. A paradigm shift requires new thinking consistent with the degree of change

It usually takes more than mere grind them out improvements on current models of technology. Which means that the answers may not be obvious at the start of a transformative journey. But human history continually shows that we are capable of surpassing seemingly impossible technological barriers once we free our thinking sufficiently to believe that the future requires us to meet that challenge. Once there weren't vacuum tubes, then there weren't transistors, then there weren't silicon based chips etc.

People are experimenting with magnets, with flywheels, with improved battery storage etc. And with things I haven't even heard of yet. But until the energy model is opened up to make those technologies feasible to develop, they for the most part won't be.

Meanwhile to return to my original point, we can make significant contributions to change now even with the technology currently available, if Americans become motivated to do so.

[ixion]

32. the grid IS the problem. You need to think in terms of Distributed Energy Systems

but you're correct in that renewable power and the grid don't mix too well.

While the author may not be hostile, I find the skepticism ill-founded for the reasons I've mentioned above. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, and I'm not saying nothing would have to change. Our entire way-of-life would have to change, and I fully understand that's a big enchilada for some people to swallow. The fact is, though, relying on a finite fuel source as a primary source of power is not a sustainable model.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. If by "modern" you mean more or less "state of the art"

America has had a modern economy for the last 150 years, and during that it time it has continually transformed in ways that few beyond some imaginative science fiction writers could foresee. As has been pointed out, we were industrial before petroleum became widely available. The Amish still travel the way we used to, with horse and buggies and trains. Morse code was considered a communications break through. No one could remotely envision cell phones or email well into the 20th century. Suburbs were conventionally near impossible the way our "modern economy" once was organized. The entire concept of urban centers has changed, and changed again over the last century.

On a short time scale, prior to Pearl Harbor , the U.S. did not have nor support a massive military machine. Yet at almost the drop of a hat we were turning out planes and ships at a clip that staggers the imagination, even now. GPS systems and satellite TV etc. were inconceivable prior to the cold war space race, a decade that moved us forward by eons in some ways.

Time and time again it continually is shown; "Without a will, there is no way."

[ixion]

33. "Without a will, there is no way."

Spot on, that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I suspect you are either willfully or intentionally missing my point

Tax credits in the past have furthered the development of solar and wind power for example. They spurt foward with them and fall back when they lapse. Increased demand for anything causes increased competition to provide it and ultimately lower prices if the market is not rigged by monopolies.

We do lots of things now around the margins, mostly under Democrats. Mandating ethenol in gas, raising fleet fuel economies etc. We do these things because they have some impact. Go back to American history. When the American people are truly mobilized they can accomplish great things, even things that noone in their right mind would have thought them capable of achieving. There would be no harm to the interests of the vast majority of American citizens to call on them to mobilize now. Only good could come from it in regards to lessoning our dependency on nuclear and fossil fuels, and it could greatly speed up the point at which renewables become more economically competitive.

Over a generation even a modern economy can be restructured, but it can't happen without a sustained effort being called for and made.

[former9thward]

8. Ethanol which you seem to support is a fraud.

It has no impact on fuel and has led to food being diverted into fuel raising the cost of food in developing countries. Al Gore has admitted there is no science behind ethanol. He just supported it because of votes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40317079/ns/us_news-environment/

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I agree that it has been the least desirable renewable alternative

I mentioned it as an example of how government policy changes can bring about real changes in our national energy use picture. I have some hope still that non food sources of ethanol production may yet have a positive contribution. Algae some fast growing weeds and woods etc. perhaps.

[ladjf]

23. I am opposed to the use of Ethanol for the same reasons that

you stated. I was referring to wind,solar, geo-thermal,tidal, wave and bio-mass as the primary ones.

[obxhead]

5. How many new nuclear, oil, and coal plants could we avoid

building by expanding wind and solar?

Effective expansions in wind and solar could supplement a stressed system significantly.

[Yo_Mama]

18. Read the E.on Report

What happens is that as you build more wind, you get less net usable on-grid power, even with significant grid upgrades.

Solar works much better as a grid feed-in plus local usage, but of course it does not take care of 15 hours of dark, freezing cold in a Massachusetts winter.

Germany is building a jackload of new coal plants. They actually shifted more into solar due to their experience with wind.
Try this blog post for some background:
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/26-new-coal-plants-in-germany/

Why do you think that the head of the UK power grid just stated in an interview that power supply to households in the UK will no longer be available on demand 2020-2030?

Here is a very nice collation of the situation, experience, projections and planning for use of intermittent sources. Somehow you have to have the baseload capacity from non-intermittent sources to smooth it out, even with hefty grid upgrades:
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46977/impacts-variable-intermittent-power-grids

Note the author's qualifications. He is not hostile to alternative power AT ALL.

However one topic not covered in that article is that when you go the DC route to channel wind overshoots to pumped hydrostorage (a way of storing power), you raise the cost of the wind power and lower the net usable power. It is a basic law of physics that converting power from one type to another will cause loss of power. Also, we would need to build a lot of pumped hydrostorage, and there are balancing issues with that as well. Right now EPA rules on hydropower are not favorable to such projects.

[Kennah]

6. So it's all or nothing, eh?

[ladjf]

17. It's not necessary to "run the economy" on wind and solar.

If renewables accounted for as much as 25% of the energy needs,the price of oil and coal would drop to levels that would greatly enhance the economy and allow the fossil fuel reserves to be available for a longer time.

[Yo_Mama]

20. You are completely wrong about oil

Because we use almost no oil for electricity generation, and in fact if you have intermittent grid power, as India does, your total consumption of oil for the use of electricity production goes way UP. Anyone who can afford it in many cities in India has their own generator in their apartment, and most businesses have their own generators.

Coal is already pretty cheap, but it is hardly the cleanest source of power around.

Oil we use for transport, industrial greases and inputs (chemicals, fertilizer, plastics). But not for electricity much. With cheaper natural gas even oil used for heating keeps dropping.

(edited to replace "energy" with "electricity". Cause I'm a doofus.)

[ItNerd4life]

19. Would love your thoughts on Geothermal and wave action

and how they would impact the grid. Reading some of your other posts I would like
to hear what other solutions might work outside of coal, NG, oil, and nuclear.

[Yo_Mama]

29. I recognize a kindred spirit

Bay of Fundy type tidal works quite well and has been exploited for over 45 years now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

But there are only a few places in the world that have tides high enough to produce tidal electricity the traditional way. That's because hydropower turbines require a certain fall to generate power (velocity of water running over turbine necessary to produce electricity).

All over the world there are experiments with newer types of tidal turbines which basically aim to capture stream-type power.
http://www.wave-tidal-energy.com/home/news-archive/34-tidal-projects/229-bay-of-fundy-tidal-turbine-unveiled

The only stream flow project I am following so far that actually worked is SeaGen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaGen
(PS: if you look at that entry, read about tide mills!!!)

This is periodic, and there is some difference with the natural tidal changes, but overall notice the highly favorable generation feed-in of over 16 hours.

Of course, this is a small-scale project. At 1.2 MW, it would take a whole lot of these things to replace the power from one small traditional energy plant. SeaGen interests me because of how it works. It is sort of a wind turbine turned on its side. As tides flow in they push the blades very similarly to the way that wind pushes turbine blades. There is quite a learning curve, and this is a pretty expensive project. Also it is a large thing, and the environmental impact will be studied. The more of those things you put out there, the more environmental impact they will have.

There are very different designs being tested for stream flow turbines. The more complex ones haven't worked well yet. A lot of broken blades/clogged inlets and so forth.

One of the other ideas I am watching is the wave flex concept:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydro/wave-power/

Some info and diagrams there, plus a Sea Snake video.

My guess is that wave flex can really work, and that overall it might be the most environmentally friendly. Wave flex harnesses the up-and-down cranking of waves to create electricity.

And one thing you always know we will have is waves!!!! Twenty-four hours a day!! 365 days a year!!!!

I do have to admit that despite my enthusiasm for this concept tsunamis could potentially destroy these things, so some development is necessary. They would need to be well offshore.

[defendandprotect]

28. Try to keep the planet -- it can't be done with any more burning of fossil fuels ....

and from what we've just seen in Japan -- the compounding of the effects

of Global Warming can't be missed!

Nuclear is too dangerous -- and unhealthy in the short run -- deadly in the long run.

And costly --

Only someone uninformed re Global Warming would suggest any further burning of fossil fuels!




:nuke:




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Hmm sorry but we are not even close to deploying solar in an aggressive way

using distributive technologies,. Yes that means in plain English solar panels on every fucking roof...

Look germany is doing it, with great results and they get 100 days less than we do.

We keep poopooing all this at our peril.

[Gravel Democrat]

4. calci e raccomandare

Sarnia Photovoltaic Power Plant near Sarnia, Ontario in Canada, is as of September 2010 the world's largest photovoltaic plant with 80 MW

10 Sarnias = 1 average nuclear reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnia_Photovoltaic_Power_Plant

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Large scale, certainly, with tax incentives and all the rest...

But individuals can/shoulde be called on to contribute also, for the good of our country. The output of one victory garden during World War II paled beside the output of one corporate farm, but when we began to have millions of victory gardens sprouting, THAT made a real difference. It our political leaders came out and asked Americans to go solor in their homes if at all possible, mounting solor water heating systems if nothing else, that would help us fight this crisis in TWO ways. Every unit of power gained from solar and wind etc is a unit of coal or gas or nuclear power not needed. But on top of that, we can collectively change the economics of renewable energy. in a profoundly positive way through our individual decisions.

Millions of Victory gardens did not have a long tern economic effect on the price of food, but millions of Soloar gardens WOULD have that effect on renewable energy. They would drive down the manufacturing costs of that industry and spur further R&D in those fields.

[EFerrari]

7. I'm thinking were it a serious goal, Van Jones would still have a job. n/t

[kirby]

12. You lost me at 'If Obama were serious'...

He isn't. If he were he would be using the disaster in Japan to compare and contrast the environmental disaster caused by a nuclear plant vs a solar/wind farm being hit by a tsunami/tornado/earthquake.

[Blue Owl]

13. Unfortunately, CEO's money trumps safety, peace, education, healthcare, and basic human rights

The real question is ARE THE CORPORATIONS SAFE FROM TAXES???

[vi5]

14. Hint: He's not serious (n/t)

[Ignis]

16. K&R. Great idea, but ...

Can you imagine trying to encourage the modern equivalent of "victory gardens" in this political climate?

:shrug:

Hell, we have a large segment of the population who consider it a moral failing to pay their taxes.

Patriotism means a yellow ribbon on their SUVs and hand over their hearts during the national anthem--but they're happy to shout "NIMBY" all day long, no matter how much it costs our country as a whole.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. America will continue to go down the drain if those attitudes are not challenged and changed

I agree with you but we can't afford let that stand. This seems like as good a time as any to call out false patriotism and promote real involvement, and yes even sacrifice, for the good of the nation (and the world). We might be surprised by how many people would find that type of truth telling refreshing.

[Ignis]

34. Couldn't agree more; THIS is where we need to use the bully pulpit.

I mean, it's not like there's a very real, contemporary example of the risks of nuclear power staring us all right in the face at the moment or anything, right?

[Politicalboi]

21. But how would PG&E

Make any money? If he were serious, he would allow the production of Hemp. And here's these videos about using garbage.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/17/londons-garbage-will-soon-fuel-some-british-airways-flights/

[taught_me_patience]

24. He's not serious because Americans are not serious

and we won't be until there are repeated "crisis" due to dwindling oil. Any solution will require higher prices and much more conservation.... both are completely political dead ends right now.

[dkofos]

26. But what's in it for him??

[killbotfactory]

35. Obama can't just decree a massive alternative energy initiative

If you are serious about transitioning to alternative energy, do everything in your power to vote out the republicans in Congress, and support pro-alternative energy democrats in the primaries and general election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Yes yes, of course. But...

I'm not writing about a decree. I'm writing about a call to the American people to mobilize. Throught the Bush years we (and even the mainstream media at times) frequently took note of how no one was being asked to make any personal sacrifices to support the wars that we were in. There was virtually no sense of sacrifice asked of Americans beyond those who served in the military. Bush put the bill on the national credit card and gave his backers cash back rebates in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Americans were insolated from the direct cost of the military adventures we were engaged in and urged to go out and shop at the mall as their own contribution to fighting terrorism.

So of coures I agree with you on what you suggest. But someone I suspect FDR would be having a fireside chat with Americans right about now if he were President today, and he would likely have a few things to ask of us as citizens.

[Lorien]

37. Kennedy drove the Apollo project forward

we need a leader, not a right wing corporate yes man.