Next Generation Energy

"For example, let's say a particular city can meet it's electricity needs with 50% solar, 25% wind, and 25% coal..."

I just wonder if we're living in the real world here. 50% solar might work in a desert climate, most of the time, but anywhere else? Especially in the winter? And winter load is likely to increase as fossil fuels are depleted/discouraged. And at all times of the year, most of us will still want electricity at night.

And 25% wind? What happens when the wind isn't blowing? Will we have to accept electricity when our utility happens to have it available, not whenever we want it? I can just imagine a hot, still, sweltering August night... when 75% of our electricity generation is unavailable!

None of this is going to be easy, but I think that we're living in a fantasy land if we expect that all our energy problems - or even most of them - will be solved with wind and solar, at least anytime soon. But nuclear power still seems to be off the table with most of us. Anti-nuclear activists are just too adamant, and ordinary citizens have been persuaded to irrational fears (that's easily done, apparently, as we've all seen since 9/11).

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with nuclear power, but there are problems with everything. But this is one way we CAN wean ourselves from fossil fuels and save the planet. It may be only a temporary solution (unless we can figure out fusion power), but it IS a solution - a relatively-quick solution which requires no technological breakthroughs. Or will we just continue to rely on wishful-thinking?

Posted by: WCG | July 23, 2008 8:02 AM

I would still say that the only long-term viable solutions to fossil fuels are fusion nuclear reactors and solar power stations. The problem with traditional solar thermal power is that the best places to generate it are in the middle of nowhere, I mean, the Sahara pretty much epitomizes the word "wasteland". The challenge would be to pump all that juice through high capacity DC lines, which would make the whole system unbelievably vulnerable. If something where to happen to one of those lines, running through thousands of kilometres of desert and under water, Europe would lose a *substantial* amount of energy. This is assuming that power losses across such a vast distance are acceptable to begin with.

Wind and tide power have the same problem: long, long DC lines which, if they where to fail, would be very problematic to fix, and if you depend on those sources for a good chunk of your electricity needs, woah, you can imagine.

Fusion and space solar can be distributed close to the places that need them most, and the same distribution gives you the security that if something where to go wrong with a region you would still have intact power sources elsewhere, i.e. you don't have all your eggs in one basket.

Fusion and space solar are ridiculously expensive, I know, and decades away, which is why I say that all current solutions to the energy crisis should be treated as stop-gap measures until at least fusion power can come online to save our bacon.

Posted by: Santiago | July 23, 2008 2:07 PM

WCG:

"But this is one way we CAN wean ourselves from fossil fuels and save the planet."

Firstly there are many who would probably suggest that any form of nuclear production has more potential to destroy rather than save the planet. You may find a tough battle there no matter whether you are right or wrong.

Secondly the planet, unless one envisages some sort of enormous nuclear explosion or similar, is not going to be destroyed by humankind's choice of energy distribution.

Humans might be destroyed, eventually. And they might take some flora and fauna with them unless the flora and fauna get the humans first.

So, in an age that creates and obsoletes technology in less than half a generation (sometimes much less) and 'discovers' things today that no one had even guessed at 10 or 20 years ago, we sit around here pontificating about how to 'save the planet' in 100 or 200 years from now, all the while meaning in reality 'how to formulate the way people will live their lives 2 or 3 generations into the future.

No doubt people at 3 generation points back - say circa 1975, 1940 and 1905 respectively - thought much the same and made some predictions that we might discover.

How close were those predictions?

Is it likely that current predictions and ideas will be any more accurate?

How good are we at long term strategic and economic planning (be honest!).

If people cannot decide whether their primary strategy is to 'save the planet' (presumably primarily by fighting climate change by constraining CO2 output) or 'saving humanity' (presumably by identifying other means of energy production and distribution to replace apparently dwindling supplies of what has been useful for the past 100 years or so), then we will continue to be as confused in our approach to the requirement (and especially the current knee-jerk decisions) as the discussions here suggest we currently are.

On the other hand such confusion as I suggest currently exists is the core requirement for anyone seeking to re-engineer the social structure of the people over whom they seek influence and control. So is this really just a political discussion?

There is almost zero chance of a 'one size fits all' solution here. For example the options available for the USA to develop a 'local' solution are very different to the options available for Europe. This is especially so when considering energy supply 'security'.

The critical issues here are likely to be not so much related to medium and long term concerns about CO2 levels or the point of 'peak' oil, gas and coal. Rather they are much shorter term political matters.

Does the USA wish to retain its independence and predominant position in the world order by seeking greater self sufficiency in the immediate future in order to avoid the risk of importing?

Will Europe succumb to the will of the Russians who are becoming dominant suppliers of both oil and gas (with plenty of reserves it would seem, partly thanks to historic lack of economic success) now that the northern EU countries have exploited their small resources in less than a generation?

The less pleasant prospect is that such matters of command and control may turn into serious disputes resulting in worldwide unpleasantness.

Such an event or series of events might just solve the problem of course, at least for a few decades, by delivering population reductions amongst other changes.

Clearly, in such a scenario, people living in North America would have more resource based options available to them than people living in Europe. If the North Americans can utilise those options well enough they will have a much better chance of surviving with their society more intact than people elsewhere in the world. Always providing they have not previously committed economic suicide.

All in my humble opinion of course.

What global bearing this may have on the question of future energy sources remains to be seen.

Posted by: Grant | July 23, 2008 5:36 PM

WCG,

You wrote:

"I don't understand your distinction between 'saving the planet' and 'saving living things on the planet.' Why would anyone worry about preserving a chunk of rock?"

Quite. You do understand. It's just that you use the common terminology that makes the entire process seem more catastrophic than it might if you merely referred to 'saving humanity'.

Things come and things go. Most people live in the here and now and maybe have some backup plan they would like to see enacted if necessary should they discover a form of afterlife.

They may also wonder if by some miracle they might still be alive 2 generations from now, but I don't believe they really expect it. Hence the need to stress what things might be like for their grandchildren, always assuming they ever have any. Which of course, if they are truly of the opinion that there are too many humans or that current levels are quite sufficient, means that most probably won't have any grandchildren, at least not without feeling very guilty about it.

I too would like to think that civilization can be maintained, though history suggests that such social constructs can come and go quite rapidly. Indeed their going can be extremely rapid and catastrophic. Mostly self inflicted too, one way or another. One could argue that whatever they were trying to achieve back then they clearly failed and lost their comfort and most of their knowledge in the process.

On the basis of the concept of 'Do no harm' the argument in your final paragraph could apply from any viewpoint.

Right now the only proven technology with a measurable history and efficacy pretty much involves fossil fuels (or future fossil fuels in the form of burning wood for example) or nuclear power.

Most proposals being pushed with an ethical angle automatically rule out both of those. So currently the proposed baskets of eggs seems rather empty and the few put aside to incubate may never hatch in time.

Strategic thinking is indeed most interesting but ultimately is not enough to see changes effected. Having a lot of options is great - unless you are looking to change the world in which case it is that last thing you want. Causes for too much discussion and little action, especially in a democratic society.

Given that strong action most likely requires direct targets and specific unswerving leadership over 20 or more years the Western Democratic model does not seem a great way to go.

The downside of the alternatives is usually that they don't work for the benefit of the majority, only the few. So one might imagine that 10 years in and no apparent progress an even 'stronger' leadership may appear and resort to plan B. Which in this case could well be population reduction in order to buy more time with the fossil solution or to eke out the 'renewable' sources that do exist among fewer people. Think Mugabe running the UN as a model to aspire to. Or maybe Saddam keeping the lid on Iraq's internal issues for a couple of decades.

I would really like to see your preferred approach working but I very much doubt the real world will allow it to prosper - just as previous civilizations were over run when they became weak and lost sight of their primary reason for existing as they were.

Having ideas is great. But remember that almost all ideas, no matter how good they may be at the time, come to nothing.

You can have a whole chicken coop of idea eggs that will not produce a viable result. That would put severe strain on any comfort and knowledge matters. Drastic population reduction would be an easy fall-back for whoever was in charge by then. It would not surprise me, thinking strategically, to see such a thing cause severe unpleasantness about 20 years from now if the more aggressive anti-fossil plans are adopted. Still, maybe that is better than waiting 100 years for a similar effect to come about naturally?

Posted by: Grant | July 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Santiago illustrates another misunderstanding people seem to be getting tripped up on.

Yeah, a big solar installation would be more efficient in the Sahara than in the UK... but that does not mean that it would not be efficient enough to use solar power in the UK! Power generated from a solar would be more expensive in London than Timbuktu, but so what. If you are in London, you care about the relative costs of the different energy sources available.

Posted by: travc | July 26, 2008 7:11 AM

Santiago,

Space based solar collection really is a non-starter on grounds other that cost, although Scientific American reports that the Japanese are putting money into it. The problem is that it has exactly the same effect on the earth's thermal budget as an increase in the sun's output. It might be useful to alter a climate regime headed towards Northern Hemisphere ice sheet formation.

travc,

How does adding variability to a power grid result in your "the variability problem is actually lessened" statement? To satisfy peak grid demand, there needs to be an equal supply. Lacking sufficent supply, the grid has to shead demand. You may better understand the later when it's called a black-out. To avoid that condition you need standby supply capacity, so adding variable supply to increase or replace capacity also means adding or retaining dependable standby supply. Wind and solar reduce the fuel requirement of the overall grid, so that's a gain. But, the generating capacity, both from fuel replacing "renewables" and the standby capacity for any expansion of peak supply capacity is expensive - quite expensive - in money, materials, and energy used to put them in place.

I'd say few are arguing that Nukes are THE answer, but that they are prefered to coal with carbon capture and shale oil, which have poorer energy return on energy invested (EROEI, EREI) ratios, among a number of other problems. Coal and shale do have some added utility that most other alternatives lack. They are better able to match the varying demand for electricity and can produce fuels for the transport system now in place. Nukes provide that utility about as well.

The biggest obsticle to more widspread deployment, which is starting to occure in the US (and carries non trivial issues with it), is you and so many others seem to mistake movies for reality.

Posted by: WhiteBeard | July 27, 2008 8:46 PM