Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

She's bright, but not technical.

You don't need to be an engineer to be well-informed on energy issues.

Even the Germans, who are way ahead on this, know that solar is still a cottage industry.

I don't think they call it that.

Solar cells have a lot of nasty stuff in them. Waiting is not an option. Cadmium and Selenium are particularly concerning.

It's an issue; I've read before that options are being developed. But I don't have sources at the moment for my contention on that. Workers will need to be protected, and waste properly disposed.

We've done this a hundred times. To use the desert, you need the most advanced smart grid you can get ... which is still theoretical at this point. Add to that, there is no baseload. The sun doesn't shine at night, and batteries are a non-starter.

100 times and you're still not up to speed. Read more. You haven't yet, apparently, on this.

Batteries are already being used. There's some talk that it's not ready for full-scale use, but that doesn't make them a non-starter.

I don't understand the need for a better grid. We are placing one source of electrical energy with another. Same grid, then, unless you're talking about increased energy needs per se. But that's about our failure to reduce our use. We may need more solar plants and more computers and such to balance the needs of different areas at different times to make it base load. But batteries may take care of that need as quickly as a new grid. And solar on buildings reduces the load also. No new grid needed there.

The Interstate system was begun in 1956 and declared finished in 1992 - though some routes had to be abandoned to get to the point. That's 36 years.

OK, I stand corrected. I remember it was finished in our area in 1969.

"Renewable energy technologies are far further advanced than many may believe: solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind have a track record of successful deployment, and costs have fallen dramatically in the past few years," Alex Thursby, chief executive of the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD), said in a report published this month. "In many parts of the world, indeed, they are now competitive with hydrocarbon energy sources."

Over the past few years, more than 50 percent of new investment in electricity generation capacity has been from renewable sources, with around $260 billion a year invested in renewable-energy technology over the past five years, said the report, which was prepared for NBAD by the University of Cambridge and PwC.
The cost of solar PV is down more than 80 percent since 2008 and modern wind turbines produce around 15 times more electricity than in the 1990s, it said......

Grid parity

Indeed, low fossil fuel prices haven't kept around 50 percent of 60 countries under review from likely already reaching "grid parity" or better on the cost of solar generation, Deutsche Bank said.

It estimates unsubsidized costs for rooftop solar electricity at around $0.08-$0.13 per kilowatt hour, or around 30-40 percent below the retail in many markets globally. In places dependent on coal to generate electricity, the ratio of the costs of coal-based electricity to solar has fallen to less than two to one from seven to one four years ago and could hit parity within 18 months, the bank said. It expects solar-system costs will fall another 40 percent over the next 4-5 years.

The development of cost efficient electricity-storage technology may be the missing link on wider adoption, Deutsche Bank said.

"Solar plus storage is the next killer app that could significantly accelerate global solar penetration," it said, adding it expects "significant progress" on improving the cost within five years.

—By CNBC.Com's Leslie Shaffer; Follow her on Twitter @LeslieShaffer1
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/17/is-re...sil-fuels.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You don't need to be an engineer to be well-informed on energy issues.

No, but you do have to understand the issues themselves.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I don't think they call it that (i.e. cottage industry)

When they get to the point that they are being built in factories the size of an automobile plant, then they' we can consider the industry mature.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

It's an issue; I've read before that options are being developed. But I don't have sources at the moment for my contention on that. Workers will need to be protected, and waste properly disposed.

This waste is nasty enough that we can't just put it off, like we did for nuclear and toxic industrial waste.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

100 times and you're still not up to speed. Read more. You haven't yet, apparently, on this. Batteries are already being used. There's some talk that it's not ready for full-scale use, but that doesn't make them a non-starter.

There isn't enough recoverable lithium on the planet to build a battery backup for the grid. Yes, I've seen the optimistic ideas about load sharing and surge backup too, but no one in the know thinks this is in any way adequate. Assume a substantial number of batteries the size of your local WalMart Superstore to get the job done. That won't happen, so viable alternatives are needed. Super-capacitors have a similar problem, and would need to be even larger.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I don't understand the need for a better grid. We are placing one source of electrical energy with another. Same grid, then, unless you're talking about increased energy needs per se. But that's about our failure to reduce our use. We may need more solar plants and more computers and such to balance the needs of different areas at different times to make it base load. But batteries may take care of that need as quickly as a new grid. And solar on buildings reduces the load also. No new grid needed there.

No, you are not replacing one form with another. You are replacing baseload with variable load, and concentrating it in the Southwest, away from most of the population. Managing that will be a colossal nightmare, and, more to the point, it will require a massive transfer of power to the east. Let's assume that the draw peaks at 5 Gigawatts, and we can construct 500kV distribution to send it east. That's 10,000 amps of current that has to be dispersed over many trunks or it's unworkable. So reducing it to 10 amps per trunk, we'll need 1,000 trunks, or 350 3-phase distribution systems. All have to be managed, and allowed to share loading. The loads have to routed as independently as possible to prevent common source failures, and that's just the start of it.

I'm not a power guy, so I'm pressing against my knowledge limit here, but suffice it say its the most non-trivial power system ever devised.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Renewable energy technologies are far further advanced than many may believe: solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind have a track record of successful deployment, and costs have fallen dramatically in the past few years," Alex Thursby, chief executive of the National Bank of Abu Dhabi (NBAD), said in a report published this month. "In many parts of the world, indeed, they are now competitive with hydrocarbon energy sources."

Over the past few years, more than 50 percent of new investment in electricity generation capacity has been from renewable sources, with around $260 billion a year invested in renewable-energy technology over the past five years, said the report, which was prepared for NBAD by the University of Cambridge and PwC.
The cost of solar PV is down more than 80 percent since 2008 and modern wind turbines produce around 15 times more electricity than in the 1990s, it said......

Grid parity

Indeed, low fossil fuel prices haven't kept around 50 percent of 60 countries under review from likely already reaching "grid parity" or better on the cost of solar generation, Deutsche Bank said.

It estimates unsubsidized costs for rooftop solar electricity at around $0.08-$0.13 per kilowatt hour, or around 30-40 percent below the retail in many markets globally. In places dependent on coal to generate electricity, the ratio of the costs of coal-based electricity to solar has fallen to less than two to one from seven to one four years ago and could hit parity within 18 months, the bank said. It expects solar-system costs will fall another 40 percent over the next 4-5 years.

The development of cost efficient electricity-storage technology may be the missing link on wider adoption, Deutsche Bank said.

"Solar plus storage is the next killer app that could significantly accelerate global solar penetration," it said, adding it expects "significant progress" on improving the cost within five years.

—By CNBC.Com's Leslie Shaffer; Follow her on Twitter @LeslieShaffer1
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/17/is-re...sil-fuels.html

I didn't say it doesn't work. I said we can't deploy enough of it fast enough, and we still have the baseload problem to solve.

Here's a good article that explores the environmental problems of solar and what's being done about them:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/...n-as-you-think

The baseload problem will be solved fairly soon. We can certainly deploy green energy faster, although we need to do it in a non-toxic way. It's growth today is already explosive. Batteries are improving; that will be the main solution. Solar panels on roofs reduces the need for the smart grid. But a smarter grid is being built that will be able to send energy where it's needed when it's needed more often; it already does that. Energy conservation is still going slow in many red states or those not friendly to environmentalism. There's still much to do there to make our buildings energy efficient.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, but you do have to understand the issues themselves.

Which she does.

When they get to the point that they are being built in factories the size of an automobile plant, then they' we can consider the industry mature.

Solar plants are already large and there are many companies. It may not be a mature industry yet, but it won't be if we keep resisting it and think it can't mature quickly. Considering how far it has already come in so short a time, you can't underestimate that.

There isn't enough recoverable lithium on the planet to build a battery backup for the grid. Yes, I've seen the optimistic ideas about load sharing and surge backup too, but no one in the know thinks this is in any way adequate. Assume a substantial number of batteries the size of your local WalMart Superstore to get the job done. That won't happen, so viable alternatives are needed. Super-capacitors have a similar problem, and would need to be even larger.

Battery technology at solar plants deploy salt rather than lithium.

No, you are not replacing one form with another. You are replacing baseload with variable load, and concentrating it in the Southwest, away from most of the population. Managing that will be a colossal nightmare, and, more to the point, it will require a massive transfer of power to the east. Let's assume that the draw peaks at 5 Gigawatts, and we can construct 500kV distribution to send it east. That's 10,000 amps of current that has to be dispersed over many trunks or it's unworkable. So reducing it to 10 amps per trunk, we'll need 1,000 trunks, or 350 3-phase distribution systems. All have to be managed, and allowed to share loading. The loads have to routed as independently as possible to prevent common source failures, and that's just the start of it.

I'm not a power guy, so I'm pressing against my knowledge limit here, but suffice it say its the most non-trivial power system ever devised.

There is lots of solar and wind energy being deployed across the country, on rooftops and in yards as well as at large solar generating plants and wind farms. Different states use various methods. It doesn't all have to come from Arizona.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here's a good article that explores the environmental problems of solar and what's being done about them:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/...n-as-you-think

The baseload problem will be solved fairly soon. We can certainly deploy green energy faster, although we need to do it in a non-toxic way. It's growth today is already explosive. Batteries are improving; that will be the main solution. Solar panels on roofs reduces the need for the smart grid. But a smarter grid is being built that will be able to send energy where it's needed when it's needed more often; it already does that. Energy conservation is still going slow in many red states or those not friendly to environmentalism. There's still much to do there to make our buildings energy efficient.

Since you actually took the time to find an IEEE article, I'll reciprocate with one as well. This one is more generic, but also more to the point.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Since you actually took the time to find an IEEE article, I'll reciprocate with one as well. This one is more generic, but also more to the point.

Evidently google gave up, but Tesla did not. He built a better battery, and better ones will come along. Meanwhile with or without google, solar thermal plants continue to get built, and CA is setting targets for switching to them.

Reforestation will be an essential part of dealing with AGW.

Things are going well now at Ivanpah:
http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17...p-170-in-2015/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

And new PV plants are even bigger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert...ght_Solar_Farm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

So why did google give up? I guess they aren't always right!

I looked at this one before:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/14/...d-but-will-it/

If solar power can be transmitted to Europe from Africa, why not from western US to eastern US?

It's not happening yet, but the interest is there and companies are being formed. Some of these thermal plants are like hybrid cars though; they still use a limited amount of natural gas to keep the process going at night and such. So, we may still need some natural gas to make it "base load" for a while. How long no-one knows.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Evidently google gave up, but Tesla did not. He built a better battery, and better ones will come along. Meanwhile with or without google, solar thermal plants continue to get built, and CA is setting targets for switching to them.

Reforestation will be an essential part of dealing with AGW.

Things are going well now at Ivanpah:
http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17...p-170-in-2015/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

And new PV plants are even bigger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert...ght_Solar_Farm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations

So why did google give up? I guess they aren't always right!

Without arguing about any of this, you still miss the point. This is a huge undertaking. That it is already way behind schedule only makes it that much worse, but it doesn't make it easier to resolve. Motivation can't overcome the hard work needed to get a solution. The work needs to happen, and much of it can't be hurried. If you need a 5-year study, you need five years. Neither wishful thinking nor high enthusiasm can alter that a minute.

We're not going to win this battle, but we can survive it. In a century or two, the solution will be achieved, assuming the desire exists. If not, then we have doomed our own progeny.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I looked at this one before:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/14/...d-but-will-it/

If solar power can be transmitted to Europe from Africa, why not from western US to eastern US?

It's not happening yet, but the interest is there and companies are being formed. Some of these thermal plants are like hybrid cars though; they still use a limited amount of natural gas to keep the process going at night and such. So, we may still need some natural gas to make it "base load" for a while. How long no-one knows.

Yes, electrical power can be moved from place to place. We do it now, but not to the extent it will be needed in the future. More to the point, we need power that is available on demand, and solar isn't that kind of power.

So this is all good, but it's far from adequate.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, electrical power can be moved from place to place. We do it now, but not to the extent it will be needed in the future. More to the point, we need power that is available on demand, and solar isn't that kind of power.

So this is all good, but it's far from adequate.

I don't see that you have demonstrated your points on this, or refuted mine. If the Africa to Europe lines can be handled in the near future, with very little loss of energy, then so can a west-east line in America, to supplement local sources. And with batteries, solar becomes "that kind of power." Build enough solar and wind, with batteries, and lots of local as well as international sources, and then sources, times and destinations can be adjusted in the grid system, which already performs that role.

It will be a while before we get to 100% renewable, green energy. But we need to get most of the way there in a decade, or the consequences will be too stiff and many more species will be lost. We have no right to kill them off, with either climate science denial or with pessimism about how long the transition will take. At the least, we need to demand that it be done in a decade, if we want most of it done in 2 or 3.

Some kind of geo-engineering, if we can get it right, and certainly reforestation, may well be needed also in future decades and centuries. And new sources of energy will come along. We can't wait to build what we can now until we have 5-year studies; the studies must accompany the build-out. With safeguards developed against toxicity too, of course.

The links above to articles on solar plants show how fast the transition is already getting ramped up. A new record for the largest solar plant is set every few months now! Wikipedia can't even keep up with it!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I don't understand the need for a better grid. ...

Jesus Christ, Eric! Have you EVER driven through the Rocky Mountain West???

There are millions of square miles of PERFECT wind farm prospects that are nowhere near a power line!! Same thing with solar. Same thing with wind farms in the ocean. You have to build infrastructure to make the energy. Then you have to build infrastructure to distribute it and use it.

To say nothing about the NIMBY-ism and other political obstacles that have to be overcome before we can even start.

Originally Posted by TnT

Jesus Christ, Eric! Have you EVER driven through the Rocky Mountain West???

There are millions of square miles of PERFECT wind farm prospects that are nowhere near a power line!! Same thing with solar. Same thing with wind farms in the ocean. You have to build infrastructure to make the energy. Then you have to build infrastructure to distribute it and use it.

Jesus Christ, eh? Now there's a guy who knew how to use energy!

There are no energy power lines in the Rockies?

The Danes are making lots of ocean wind farms. They don't seem to be bankrupting themselves.

Originally Posted by TnT

To say nothing about the NIMBY-ism and other political obstacles that have to be overcome before we can even start.

They are being overcome as we go. We don't wait for all problems to be solved before we start. We deal with problems as they come up for each project, silly. Look again at my post that links to the huge lists of solar power plants already built. We are doing it; we just need to do more.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I recently came across this book again in the public library. To elaborate:

Option 1-Austerity. Essentially the government does little to stop a death spiral of the economy.

Option 2-Propping up the economy. Eventually you get to the point where kicking the can down the road is no longer feasible, the means to do so are exhausted.

Option 3-Government invests in productive new endeavors.

Been thinking about Option 3. One possibility would be to start the transition away from fossil fuels. This would require a huge effort over several decades. Not a quick or easy fix. But in the short run it would put many people to work; in the long run it would help to alleviate multiple problems, from pollution to foreign policy. It could have a multiplier effects in the economy, in which employment by an energy industry would tend to result in jobs in other fields, that is, people in other fields providing goods and services for those employed in the energy industry. There are possibilities in which the "wastes" (such as waste heat) become feedstock for other industries.

Another possibility would be fixing up the old infrastructure. The basic infrastructure that under pins the economy, such as roads, bridges, sewers. These are wearing out, and must be addressed soon.

Also, I can imagine a revived Civilian Conservation Corps. Might do some long term good.

Variant would be, the government does not overtly invest in any particular source of energy or set of them beyond maintaining the Strategic Reserve. Government invests in infrastructure most especially within metropolitan areas - major focus on improving mass transit and fomenting development and redevelopment meant to get us back to the old "web" pattern of center cities and street car suburbs. Also, need to harden the grids (both power and internet). As you note we also need to focus on "Muda" / wastes in all aspects of activity.

Meanwhile, government takes a page from the last 1T, investing like hell in space / aerospace / defense. That is the single best way to spur a new technology surge (a real one, not iShits and junk to distract people from productive lives).

Imagine the knock on effects of these simple efforts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If we actually do option 3, it will only take a decade for the transition. If we do option 1, then it will take 3 decades. But it will happen regardless. It just depends on how many humans and how many species we'd like to wipe out.

We're currently doing Option 2 whilst doing a few half hearted attempts to move into Option 3. We need to dive into Option 3.

Just a little friendly nudge from the people who will have to live with our dilly-dallying. Why not NOW?

If I understand correctly, the measures to fend off another Great Depression steered us into another Long Depression.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

If I understand correctly, the measures to fend off another Great Depression steered us into another Long Depression.

I don't think that whole period was a depression. In the early 1880s things were going along OK, and lots of capital was accumulated and invested in growing industries.

Interest rates are going to start up again this month.

In some sense, we are today in a long depression in The West, because a boom is not likely until probably the mid-2020s. Perhaps low interest rates are helping to keep things tight now.

The approximate peak year for the number of farms in the US was 6.4 million farms, in 1910. The "Long Depression" (from the article) was 1873-1896. I think the extremely small % of the population currently involved in farm work could make the current (what will eventually be called a Depression), worse than previous ones. The dependency mindset is much stronger now, due to the rise of the liberal/socialist mindset of the masses. People just want the government to take care of them and give them "free stuff". Self-responsibility has become an alien concept. This learned helplessness will magnify the social crisis caused by economic Depression.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

If I understand correctly, the measures to fend off another Great Depression steered us into another Long Depression.

"Unlike the Great Depression, social crisis will eventually eclipse economic crisis in the U.S. That is to say, our society today is so unequipped to deal with a financial collapse that the event will inevitably trigger cultural upheaval and violent internal conflict. In the 1930s, nearly 50% of the American population was rural. Farmers made up 21% of the labor force. Today, only 20% of the population is rural. Less than 2% work in farming and agriculture. That’s a rather dramatic shift from a more independent and knowledgeable land-utilizing society to a far more helpless and hapless consumer-based system.

What’s the bottom line? About 80% of the current population in the U.S. is more than likely inexperienced in any meaningful form of food production and self-reliance."

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2787-the-us-is-at-the-center-of-the-global-economic-meltdown

Originally Posted by Dboy

The approximate peak year for the number of farms in the US was 6.4 million farms, in 1910. The "Long Depression" (from the article) was 1873-1896. I think the extremely small % of the population currently involved in farm work could make the current (what will eventually be called a Depression), worse than previous ones. The dependency mindset is much stronger now, due to the rise of the liberal/socialist mindset of the masses. People just want the government to take care of them and give them "free stuff". Self-responsibility has become an alien concept. This learned helplessness will magnify the social crisis caused by economic Depression.




"Unlike the Great Depression, social crisis will eventually eclipse economic crisis in the U.S. That is to say, our society today is so unequipped to deal with a financial collapse that the event will inevitably trigger cultural upheaval and violent internal conflict. In the 1930s, nearly 50% of the American population was rural. Farmers made up 21% of the labor force. Today, only 20% of the population is rural. Less than 2% work in farming and agriculture. That’s a rather dramatic shift from a more independent and knowledgeable land-utilizing society to a far more helpless and hapless consumer-based system.

What’s the bottom line? About 80% of the current population in the U.S. is more than likely inexperienced in any meaningful form of food production and self-reliance."

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2787-the-us-is-at-the-center-of-the-global-economic-meltdown

Sounds to me like you're saying that those who will become most valuable are those who know how to hunt, fish and grow crops. Good thing I took the time to listen to my GI great uncles and learned how to garden. It would be a matter of expansion for me.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Sounds to me like you're saying that those who will become most valuable are those who know how to hunt, fish and grow crops. Good thing I took the time to listen to my GI great uncles and learned how to garden. It would be a matter of expansion for me.

I'm just naturally drawn to apocalyptic scenarios - I suppose it's a personality flaw or something. However ...

If a big time Great Depression came along, a lot would depend on how fast it hit us. "Gardening" isn't easy and it doesn't ramp up very quickly. Let's say the GD hit in, say, September or October. In a climate where there's winter, you're looking at almost a year before substantial crops can be harvested, and that assumes that one knows what they are doing, AND has sufficient fertile ground available.

The hunting and fishing thing? The "survival boys" are all into that as a way to get by. Can you imagine if a large percentage of the population hit the boondocks looking for meat? There would be nothing left to hunt or fish within months, if that long.

It strikes me that staying in the city might be the best counter-intuitive thing to do. As people leave, one could adopt their ground and plant it. Foraging for hidden valuable stuff would be more productive. There would, however, be the bandit problem. One would need a goodly number of kindred souls to band together, get a defensible neighborhood with water, and be ready to kill to defend one's compound.