November 2009 pg. 58

Key Concepts

* Supplies of Wind and Solar Energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.

* The author's plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.

* The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.

* Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.


Possible Drawbacks

*Material Shortages for the photovoltalic cells. It's a hurdle. Not a wall.





Overall

You can mix geothermal, wind, solar and hydro to have a functioning grid 24/7 as cheap as coal. We just need the political will to overcome fossil fuel lobbyists and unions tied to jobs in the carbon industry. (coal miners)

Political will? You mean like Feinstein blocking solar thermal being installed in CA?

I'm not going to play the blame game. We have to convince people that it's in our nation's best interest to move away from fossil fuels. I'll try to find the article online.

Here's the article online. Read the comments below. Some great commentary!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...gy-by-2030

I'm all for less dependency on foreign oil....and even eventually no oil...sounds great. The unfortunate thing that I see, as one of the comments online pointed out, is that the capital costs of implementing all of this would be tremendous. If coal were more scarce, then obviously, by necessity companies would move away from fossil fuel towards this newer technology. You need an environmental pressure to spark evolution. As long as we can still get coal and oil fairly cheaply...there is no incentive to move away from it....

They say that in order to effeciently utilize wind power as a viable souce of power for the USA, you would need to cover land the size of the State of South Dakota.



How in any way, shape or form is that remotely possible? And the wind doesn't even blow 24/7 in South Dakota

Mach, almost all the comments in the comments section YOU POINTED US TO destroy the very premise of the article.

This is not a path, it's a goal. There's very little about a path that would actually get us there without destroying our economy.

The problem with articles like this, and the same with "drill here, drill now" articles from the other side, is that they are written by people who had their mind made up before they did their research.

If I consider only the best case for alternatives, and only the worst case for conventional, I can easily conclude that we need to forget conventional and go purely with alternatives. Reverse that process and I easily reach the opposite conclusion.

The almost certain outcome is that neither the best case nor the worst case will be realized for either. In that environment each has a significant contribution to make, and the only solutions big enough to address the magnitude of the problem involve all hands on deck.

Some specific issues that I see here.
1. A grid based solely on wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro is not workable with present technology. What happens when it's night (or cloudy) and the wind's not blowing and you get a spike in demand (like people plugging in their electric cars to charge overnight)? What if there's a drought and reservoirs are down? Relying on variable sources to meet firm demand does not work unless you have much more efficient ways to store electricity than current technology provides. I would put battery technology at the top of the list of energy improvements, but that doesn't guarantee we'll get it anytime soon, and until we do this won't work. The other major problem is transmission--both capacity and technology. All of these sources--solar perhaps less than the others--are restricted to specific generating locations. The difficulties in getting power from there to users are vastly underrated. So far, that's what's killing T Boone with the Pickens Plan, for one thing.
2. The only way this scheme saves any meaningful amount of oil is if we move en masse to electric cars. Again, battery technology is a huge limiting factor. So is the transmission and delivery infrastructure. And for many reasons, no energy plan that fails to address oil in a major way is viable.
3. The cost estimates are unreasonably optimistic on one side and pessimistic on the other (the best-case, worst-case phenomenon). I'm guessing they omit amortization of the front-end infrastructure requirements. There is a reason we use so much oil and coal. They are still way cheaper than alternatives. Alternatives are not going to become cheap until they are in widespread use (if then). We cannot get there without raising the price of conventional sources. We can control the path to getting there with energy taxes, or we can let OPEC control the path to getting there with price spikes and disruptions.
4. The reason political will is missing is because the conversion will be neither cheap nor easy. Republicans don't like this because they depend on the votes of people who still think good energy policy means 30 cents a gallon for gasoline. Democrats don't like this because they depend on the votes of people looking for handouts and freebies, and there's no way to do this one free. This has been the problem with American energy policy since Jimmy Carter tried to make cheap energy for those on the dole his primary objective. As long as we are looking for a cheap solution, there will be no viable energy policy.

There ain't no free lunch, certainly not on this issue.

Estimates currently run at $2,500 to install an electic car charging station.

So what company is the first to pony up the $7.5 million dollars to build 3,000 charging stations in their parking lot for their 3,000 employees?

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

He's really got that "do as I say, not as I do" down pat.

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

Actually, you don't like it because you don't believe in science but believe there is a big man in the sky who creates everything is waiting for you.

(04-08-2010 10:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

Actually, you don't like it because you don't believe in science but believe there is a big man in the sky who creates everything is waiting for you.

Don't believe in science? Are you kidding?

(04-08-2010 10:33 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

Actually, you don't like it because you don't believe in science but believe there is a big man in the sky who creates everything is waiting for you.

Don't believe in science? Are you kidding?

No.

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

They did. See my post above and several of the comments on the blog to understand what they left out.

I can't believe these scientists think you can take that much wind and solar energy out of the biosphere without an impact. You can't. Everything has a consequence, and if we take that much energy out of play, the earth and environment will react.

And by the way, as of today, oil is still a sustainable energy source. It still hasn't run out. Any year now. I know. Any year now.

(04-08-2010 11:12 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:33 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

Actually, you don't like it because you don't believe in science but believe there is a big man in the sky who creates everything is waiting for you.

Don't believe in science? Are you kidding?

No.

Ignorance is bliss.

(04-08-2010 11:45 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 11:12 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:33 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 10:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 09:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-08-2010 08:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not going to play the blame game.

Except when it suits you.

At any rate, I'll try to get access to this article. I'll be frank, I haven't liked SciAm for 10 years. My suspicion is that these guys left out lots of details.

Actually, you don't like it because you don't believe in science but believe there is a big man in the sky who creates everything is waiting for you.

Don't believe in science? Are you kidding?

No.

Ignorance is bliss.

Torchy knows that very well.