Redesign the Paradigm

In order for widespread Photovoltaic (PV) use to become an economically viable alternative to fossil fuel electricity production three components are required by the world governments: Research and development funding increases and additional R&D subsidies provided to the private sector to increase PV conversion efficiencies (converting the sun’s diffused solar rays into electricity). Subsidization and private sector incentives for expensive infrastructure development and for establishing economies of scale in critical production areas. Continue support for programs such as feed in tariffs, rebates and refunds, power purchase agreements will also be necessary to reduce installation costs to end users. There are many reasons that the United States and other governments, businesses and citizens need to increase funding for R&D, PV based infrastructure, and end user subsidies.

PV installations once installed can operate for years with little in the way of maintenance and operation costs. There are no long term mining, drilling, refining, processing, and transporting costs such as those associated with petroleum, coal, and natural gas fossil fuels. Commodity traders cannot influence or run up regional pricing. PV solar energy reduces the reliance on obtaining fossil fuel commodities from geopolitically unstable countries and contributes towards energy independence. It represents a good long term investment considering electricity costs have continued to rise every year for the past 20 years.

PV systems are outstanding sources of power in very rural areas where grid access is limited. It is also an excellent source of supplemental electricity within the grid since it can offset peak demand periods and is readily available in many of the Earth’s climate zones. Finally, there has been relatively little research done in both the PV and Solar Thermal sectors meaning that there is still considerable room for R&D improvements.

When considering electricity generation in general, PV provided electricity is the fastest growing global power generation technology averaging growth rates over the past 5 years of 40 – 60% per year. This growth has resulted in providing 21GW of world wide power, which is still miniscule when compared to world wide generation capacity which is at 4800GW. Global PV installation jumped 110% in 2008 to 5.95GW. Germany, Spain, Japan, and the United States represent almost 90% of total worldwide PV installation capacity. Germany installed 3800 MW of PV in 2009 creating 10,000 jobs contrasted to the U.S. at 500 MW. The vast majority of these installations are tied to the grid and not off-grid stand alone installations.

The U.S., the largest consumer of electricity and one of the countries best suited to propel PV into the mainstream, is reluctant to seriously move beyond fossil fuels and is playing catch-up having only installed 500 MW last year. More importantly, it is far behind in terms of R&D funding, net metering guidelines, feed in tariffs, and subsidy programs for commercial and residential PV installations.

Research & Development

New technologies and advancements on existing systems are critical to reach grid parity with fossil fuel generated electricity and to meet installation cost expectations necessary to ensure PV are a viable economic substitute. Grid parity is where PV electricity becomes equal to or greater than grid electricity which is dominated by coal and natural gas.

Government funding for research and development needs to be ramped up to ensure higher efficiencies can be achieved without increasing production costs. Advances in efficiencies generally come at higher module costs due to the use of more expensive materials and manufacturing processes. R&D expenditures can be utilized to discover alternatives to solar cell like non-semiconductor polymer cells and biomimetics, utilizing tandem/multi-junction cells, quantum dot technology, or development of  intermediate band or hot-carrier solar cells. R&D should also focus on improving the existing semiconductor materials Crystalline Silicon, Amorphous Silicon, Gallium Arsenide and providing additional advancements in thin film and polymer paint cell efficiencies. 

Due to current efficiency levels of solar cells and PV modules in general, concentrating efforts into new technology advances and development represent the most beneficial lines of investment at this point. Solar panel efficiency, as measured by the energy conversion ratio, is currently peaking at approximately 24% for production; market average is hovering between 12 – 18%. Solar conversion efficiencies are critical to economically reaching grid parity and reducing infrastructure costs and is one of the arenas R&D dollars should be concentrated.

There are high efficiency technologies being tested by some manufactures that claim to reach as high as 42% which should easily equate to grid parity. However, most of these have yet to provide prototypes for grid testing and research allocations are nowhere near comparable to other existing energy sources. Even promising applications such as light concentration approaches onto multilayer PV modules that have been around a while have yet to be put into wide-scale production.

PV systems are also intermittent energy sources that are dependent on available sunlight. While this is beneficial to utility companies who prefer to operate with less excess capacity and who can thus offer net metering. Net metering allows excess electricity from residential and commercial PV systems to be sold back to the grid offsetting daytime peak loads requirements and reducing the end users electricity bill. However, for off grid applications or those who desire energy independence, expensive and even less efficient batteries are required. This is another area where R&D funding needs to be significantly increased and the development of more efficient battery technology, high capacitance systems, and other type of electricity storage mediums made a priority.

Infrastructure and installation costs

PV produced electricity is still considered expensive for both end use installation and utility companies.  There is no guarantee on investment return if the commercial business sells the facility or homeowner sells the house. State or local tax assessments that are passed onto the new buyer are being considered in some States to offset this potential loss. For utility or solar companies intending to provide electricity to utility companies there are large infrastructure outlays required for initial buildup. Currently these costs for PV and especially solar thermal can be more than traditional coal fired or natural gas plants.

The cost of developing PV modules currently varies for a single PV device at $4.00 to $4.50 watts peak (Wp) and can be doubled initially with installation, wiring, and system costs until the system pays for initial infrastructure costs. Current capital costs for a commercial PV system range from $5.50 per watt to $6.60 per watt dependant on size and scaling of installations. The WP prices have dropped over 22% in the past 9 years but are no where near 2015 expectation levels of $1.25 WP. The reasons for such high prices are associated with the production costs of crystalline silicon panels which are increasing due to limited amounts of silicon and expensive clean-room manufacturing. These costs can be brought down some by government subsidization of large silicon production and increases in scaling and deployment.

However, additional economies of scale in silicon production and increased deployment may not be enough to drop costs to $1.25 Wp by 2015 and $1.15 by 2030 to meet the Solar American Initiative and industry and government targets. This is where the aforementioned research and development advances in new technology will be necessary to achieve these cost goals.  Economies of scale are a crucial element to drive and production costs down but even when combined with government infrastructure subsidies more actions will be required to meet grid parity, at least until new technology advances in efficiencies are ready for mass production. This brings us to the third component individual incentives and subsidies.

Financing, Subsidies & Incentives

Government and regional subsidies and incentives for the end users are a vital part of solar electricity equation. The following processes have proven beneficial in a number of countries:  Direct subsidization of PV systems by Federal, State, regional, and local governments to utility companies or to companies that build arrays for utility companies can be provided for infrastructure development. For end users, refunds, rebates, and tax incentive programs can offset PV system purchases and installation costs.

Another powerful program is the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) which grants free PV installations in return for 25 year contracts. These programs require the customer to purchase the electricity generated from independently owned PV system at a determined price usually at or just below current electricity rates for that region. Currently the majority of tied-to-grid installed PV systems are being done through PPA’s. There are a number of new PPA agreements under consideration to reduce or remove the significant upfront costs which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars to the consumers in exchange for a 20 – 25 year contract.

Two beneficial programs that encourage the adoption of solar electricity are Feed in Tariffs (FIT) and Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SREC). FIT’s are where electricity providers agree to purchase electricity generated from PV systems instead of traditional fossil fuel plants. The producers provide PV electricity at a guaranteed rate, usually for a set number of years.  Pricing can be subsidized initially to keep prices comparable to traditional grid pricing. SREC’s can require or  provide individuals and companies an incentive to invest in PV electricity that will guarantee PV electricity purchases and are designed to improve the distribution of electricity sources in the grid.

The purpose of R&D investment, scaling, and subsidies are not to only provide costs savings to utility companies and end users to encourage the adoption of solar electricity but to also reduce reliance on fossil fuels securing greater energy independence, create home grown high tech jobs, and reduce CO2 emissions.

Solar PV systems are beneficial in all regions with adequate sunlight but are most beneficial when concentrated in regions with the highest sources of available daylight which means a massive scale up in the southwestern United States and similar such geographic zones.

The real value of PV use over the next 25 years will be to supplement existing utility power generation during peak daytime use. This will offset the need to construct additional power plants to meet increasing demand from growing population centers. PV are also modular by design which allows for easy installation of additional units very suitable for commercial building and residential home expansion.

New applications building integrated PV should be more widespread in new and retrofit construction; other innovative technologies will be feasible as R&D increases yield new products. One such application might be solar roadways, thin film PV on skyscraper windows / grid panels, and paint on applications for irregular surfaces.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is another critical component to support PV build up. Lifecycle GHG emissions for PV systems will approach 15g/KWh (grams emitted per kilo watt hour of use) by 2015. Only wind generation produces less GHG at 11g/KWh. The remaining sources are as follows

• Nuclear – 40g/KWh, this figure is debated to be considerably more
• Combined gas fired facility – Traditional natural gas – 400 to 599 g/KWh
• Oil fired plant – 893g/KWh
• Coal fired power plant – 915-945 g/KWh, drops to 200g/KWh if carbon capture and storage is utilized.

Solar power integration will increase as solar efficiencies increase and costs come down. This effort must be driven at the government level with proper subsidies and funding allocated intelligently and barriers to entry removed through proper legislation. Initial profitability for companies will be gained through continuous improvements in efficiencies and from government/private funding and subsidization. PV combined with solar thermal facilities can supplement fossil fuel electricity production significantly within the next 15 years for a third of the world population and potentially replace it after that.

http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/1787/

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/PV/future.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-07-11/business/17380048_1_nanosys-fossil-fuels-energy-foundation/2

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/02/20_solarpanels.shtml

http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1501

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/03/03/will-solar-prices-fall-into-grid-parity/

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

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

In the previous blog, A Call For The Transition To Renewable Energy  it was discussed that industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. Fossil fuels alone will not be able to meet demand. The easier to extract surface sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs of energy and potential shortages can create more geopolitical stresses between countries as they scramble to meet their energy demands. It is beyond time to ramp up existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) to supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035.

The liquid fuel transportation sector is dominated by petroleum which is refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The transition process in this sector would involve escalating biofuels production in order to supplement future petroleum demand. Cellulosic ethanol can be economically derived from gasification processes and will represent the most cost effective and efficient production means of ethanol production. It also doesn’t compete against food crops, requires much less water, and can be attained from a multitude of carbon based sources including the unusable residue from crops, natural fast growing grasses and plants, disposable wood from logging, and even human waste. Increasing the additive rates of ethanol in gasoline up to E30 (30% ethanol / 70% gasoline) and providing government subsidies for fuel line conversions will contribute significantly to mitigating demand and reduce the chance of rampant  price increases due to regional gas shortages.

Diesel fuel necessary for commercial transportation (large trucks and ships) can also be supplemented by biofuels, in this case utilizing bio-algae, jatropha, and halophytes to create bio-diesel.  Microbial organisms can be used during the processing to increase yield and refinement efficiencies and reduce costs. Diesel blends up to B30 (30% biodiesel / 70% petroldiesel) can be attained without major modification in fuel lines. World governments can then provide similar subsides for fuel line conversions to trucking and shipping fleets. Jet fuel blends can be supplemented with bio-algae; the U.S. military and some commercial airlines have already taken keen interest and developed prototypes for this application.  The goal is to supplement petroleum based diesel and jet fuels with biodiesel which will mitigate demand and reduce the chance of price increases in commercial transportation which adversely affects consumer goods pricing and airline ticket prices.

In addition, supplementing petroleum based fuels should be done in unison with the generation of new hybrid (gasoline/battery) or completely battery based automobiles and light truck production over the next 25 years. Battery technology and high capacitance systems need to be elevated in importance and additional government funding for research and development put in place to provide economically viable batteries and ultra capacitors with greater yields and longer life capabilities. If necessary the patents held by the fossil fuel and aerospace defense industries need to be made available for public use instead of being put on ice as a potential threat of substitution to petroleum, or classified for military uses. Suitable battery technology may very well already exist but the public sector does not have access to it. Utilization of hybrid, battery, or high capacitance system will further reduce future demand for liquid petroleum fuels but will require increased demand in electricity production. Heavy trucks, trains, and ships used for commercial transportation require considerable power to move heavy loads. Battery and high capacitor systems are not currently able to provide adequate power to solely meet commercial transportation needs. They will be more reliant on hybrid systems and will require more energy from the biodiesel / petroldiesel blends than are required for cars and light trucks.

The unspoken and long term strategic goal of many developed countries appears to be to use up the petroleum resources of other countries while saving their own reserves for emergency or to sustain their countries liquid fuel needs decades from now.  This strategy needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new 25 year goal that includes drilling and refining the readily available global petroleum resources in combination with increases in cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production, government subsidization for replacing fuel lines on existing personal and commercial vehicles,  and creating high efficiency hybrid, battery and high capacitance electric cars and light trucks for personal transportation, and hybrid biodiesel large trucks, trains and boats for commercial uses. Then by 2035, begin the process of transitioning into hydrogen fuel based transportation models for developed countries, while allowing undeveloped countries additional time to become petroleum independent. This means limiting expensive and risky deep water drilling rigs, shale extraction, and production of more oil refineries limited only to petroleum. All government subsidization for the petroleum sector should cease and be transferred to companies generating second (cellulosic ethanol), third (bioalgae), and fourth (high yield genetically modified plants combined with microbial catalysts) generation biofuels, and for the development of biofuel infrastructure. This would include refineries that can be utilized for both petroleum and biofuels.

Resistance from the very profitable petroleum sector will be considerable and OPEC nations will put up a strong fight even going so far as to temporarily drop oil prices in order to draw attention away from the need to transition to renewables and to save the petroleum industry’s future profitability. Excuses for why renewables are a panacea will flourish and will need to be set aside. Our next generation of automobiles may not run as fast, or have the same mileage capability, but they will be clean and reduce our reliance on a polluting fuel source that has created enough geo-political instabilities and wars already. This 100 year old technology is past its prime and the world is certainly capable of doing better. The reason fossil fuels have been held in place this long as our dominate source of energy is because of the massive profitability and wealth generation it provides for a small percentage of the world’s population and not for its current benefit to humanity.

The other half of the fossil fuel equation is electricity production which is provided by coal and natural gas. Electricity production actually requires more fossil fuels than the transportation sector and demand is projected to outpace petroleum and will be further increased by the need for hybrids, electric, and high capacitance vehicles all of which will draw additional power from the grid. The transition of this sector, over the next 25 years, should be a move towards the existing renewable energy sources of solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, geothermal, and biomass facilities. Biomass which uses carbon based refuse (forestry, crop, animal, and industrial) and wastes (sewage and municipal solid) will be the only source that requires commodity based replenishment that could be subject to price fluctuations, but this resource will be derived from throw away material.  The transition process itself can begin with the removal of coal and natural gas subsidies and strict limitations on future coal or natural gas power plant production. One such limitation could require no more coal fired plants built without adjacent bio-algae photo bioreactors for algae based biodiesel production and CO2 sequestration. Instead, funds could be allocated to infrastructure development of large solar thermal, geothermal, tidal and wind generation systems. Subsidies should also be provided to business and homeowners to put photovoltaic arrays on their premises.  If regional electricity service providers heavily vested in coal and natural gas production want to continue as public electricity providers they will need to be required to build an increasing number of energy facilities that are completely renewable in nature. Some renewable energy plants are more expensive to construct than traditional coal and natural gas facilities, certainly the case for large solar thermal operations. However, over the 25 year life span of the facility the infrastructure costs become offset within a few years since there are no ongoing requirements for expensive and environmentally damaging drilling, mining, refining, and distribution expenses associated with acquiring oil, coal, and natural gas.  Renewable energy power plants will be cheaper for developed and developing countries in the long run, providing clean energy, and not require purchasing or extracting fossil fuel commodities from potential hostile countries.

Synergies exist between complimentary renewable energy sources and with existing fossil fuel sources. Large megawatt solar thermal facilities can be designed to provide power for cities, or smaller solar thermal power plants can be utilized for neighborhood or suburb electricity generation.  Residential and commercial photovoltaic arrays with government subsidies to assist business and resident affordability can be utilized in conjunction with solar thermal (or other renewable energy sources) to help reduce the regions demand. Solar thermal, geothermal, and wind farms can share space with bio-algae photo bioreactors (PBR’s) to reduce land costs and reduce space requirements.  Biofuels can be generated from sewage, waste material, food crop residue, and wood residues creating fuel sources from material that would otherwise be burned or sent to landfills. Fast growing and drought resistant plants requiring little irrigation can be grown and harvested on lands unsuitable for crops and utilize husks, stovers, and other discardable material from traditional crop harvesting.  All existing coal fire and natural gas plants could have bio-algae PBR’s in place to absorb the CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. In developed countries all new power plants should be renewable where possible and only natural gas if not. Coal plants should only be considered for poorer developing countries with large coal reserves.  

A new paradigm for worldwide renewable energy production can be implemented where profitability expectations are removed from future State owned and privately held renewable energy companies.  In countries with a private sector, existing renewable energy companies could be incentivized by their governments to switch to a strictly non-profit model. Another option is the creation of new private non-profit renewable energy companies with infrastructure development and scaling subsidies provided by their governments that would allow them to provide energy at lower costs to consumers and compete directly against for-profit renewable energy (and fossil fuel).  If full government subsidization is not possible then 0% infrastructure and scaling loans could be made available with repayment plans established that assure competitive energy pricing remains available to the public.  State owned energy companies with little incentive to eliminate their profit structure will still be able to provide energy indigenously and to the developing nations but in time will be hard press to remain competitive outside their own borders.

The goal of the non-profit renewable energy provider is to be able to produce and distribute electricity in the most efficient and low cost manner possible and to pass those savings onto their customers. It is also to provide energy sector jobs to replace those jobs lost from the fossil fuel industries.  Favorable government legislation and subsidization for private sector non-profits will be essential to ensure political barriers to entry are removed and to meet infrastructure costs and to develop economies of scale.  Subsidization can come from removing subsidies provided to very profitable oil, coal and natural gas companies and from tax revenues associated with providing clean energy. A non-profit model focused on efficiency and removing unnecessary expenses associated with pay for performance executive compensations, investor ROI expectations, profits for mining and drilling operations, costs related to exporting of fossil fuels, and short sighted profit maximizing decision making will be removed from the future energy equation.  I am not advocating government takeover of the western energy industry, but the establishment of true non-profit private companies in the free market economies. For already established state owned companies heavily vested in fossil fuels my hope is they will eventually operate under the same non-profit guidelines as they to transition towards renewable.  This should also decrease geo-political instability in certain regions of the world that use energy profits to sponsor terrorism or as funds to support military buildup and wars.

It is time for world governments especially those in developed countries with free market to start acting responsibly and considering its citizens. Energy is a basic requirement for all societies and the world has been limited to technology and policies that are outdated and no longer in its best interests. The question of how to pay for the transition to renewable energy is legitimate. Whether governments should increase taxes or use existing tax dollars to subsidize renewable energy infrastructure and provide assistance for companies to scale up production will be debate and heavily resisted from many channels. Interestingly enough, funding didn’t appear to difficult to acquire when it was necessary for bailing out irresponsible financial companies or providing massive subsidies to the ridiculously profitable fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuel based companies know they will eventually have to venture into the renewable market as oil, coal, and natural gas become to scarce or expensive. Why should the world wait until governments are near financial collapse due to high energy costs affecting nearly every sector of their economies, or countries are on the brink of war due to scarcity and conflicts over meeting demand?

Prior to 2035, world governments, academia, and even private sector labs should have been be utilized to search out the most promising energy sources with the greatest efficiencies that will meet the world’s long term energy needs. The push should be to develop free or extremely low cost energy systems such as fusion or kinetic systems for electricity production, and a hydrogen based fuel source for vehicles. We must begin this researching process and planning for this process now.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

How is it that our scientists and technologies have created exponential growth in computing, super colliders, nano-technology, particle weaponry, world-wide satellite coverage, etc. and yet for energy production we are limiting ourselves to a polluting, 100+ year old technology that creates geo-political instability around the world and has most recently become subject to the whims of commodities traders?

Industrialized nations of the world will soon have to address that a world energy crisis driven by demand from developing countries is looming within the next 25 years. The bulk of the energy industry’s production motives which are dominated by fossil fuels and its obsession with profitability are not going to provide the solution for our upcoming energy problems. World energy producers have become very efficient at extracting, processing, refining, and distributing petroleum for transportation liquid fuels, and coal / natural gas for electricity production. However, production will not be able to keep pace with the growing world wide demand expected to rise almost 50% by 2035, much of that coming from the developing countries of China, India and in Southeast Asia. This is not a matter of peak oil or how much fossil fuel remains in the ground, but an issue of simple supply versus demand.

Fossil fuels have served our world’s growing energy needs extremely well, despite the fact that oil and coal use has been around since the turn of the 20^th century, but we are fast approaching the limits in improvements that can be expected from production capabilities. In addition, the easier to extract surface fossil fuel sources are rapidly becoming exhausted requiring more difficult and environmentally damaging drilling and mining procedures that are both more time intensive and expensive. The increased costs will be passed on to end users and when combined with potential shortages will create stresses between countries scrambling to meet their own energy demands,  this may even include going to war to guarantee energy  stability. This scenario can be further complicated by fossil fuel commodities traders who take advantage of regional problems to run up prices. This is an excellent formula for State owned or privately held oil companies interested in ensuring ongoing profits for decades, but not for the rest of the world.

There is also the matter that the regions containing fossil fuels are not only proving to be environmentally difficult to work in but geo-politically hostile as well. Many countries rich in fossil fuels (ie. Middle East and African countries) also divert funds to groups and organizations that sponsor regional unrest and acts of terrorism or can use earnings to build up military capacity and develop weapons of mass destruction.

We are fast running out of time to seriously implement existing renewable energy sources (biofuels, solar thermal, photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, tidal, and biomass) as a supplement to fossil fuels over the next 25 years while actively searching for long term, highly efficient energy systems to transition into beyond 2035. The industrialized countries of the world and their private or state owned energy companies are going to have to set aside their fossil fuel based profitability expectations for energy production and begin thinking in terms of transitioning. This will not be done willingly, these companies and their holdings represent significant infrastructure investments and they are cash cows, in many cases representing the only significant source of income for the region. In countries with capitalism based economies the lobbying stranglehold the fossil fuel industry holds over energy legislation will need to be removed, and campaign contributions that help elect sympathetic representatives curtailed if there is to be any significant infrastructure support from those governments.

This process will have to be driven from the free market economies since State owned companies with large oil reserves will have little incentive to transition on their own since they can meet their domestic demand, and fossil fuels represents a substantial income source for the country and they will profit off of the projected 84% expected increase in demand from developing countries over the next 25 years. This sharp increase in demand will be buffered by developing countries themselves as S. America, China and India are currently taking their own measures to implement renewable energy sources realizing their own vulnerabilities. Even if these developing countries begin the transition process to renewable energy sources, State owned companies will be needed to fill the remaining projected demand. Privately held companies in the U.S., Canada and Europe can then be utilized to meet remaining 16% growth expectation from the developed countries with fossil fuels and renewables.

Existing renewable energy processes need to become more efficient and costs brought down through economies of scale. The purpose for expansion of these renewable sources is to increasingly supplement fossil fuels over the next 25 years.  This must become mandated. In addition, new technologies and system improvements investigated and existing patents that have been shelved to protect fossil fuels from competition should be re-evaluated. Their feasibility and economic viability analyzed, and those with satisfactory efficiencies implemented. World governments cannot immediately dump existing fossil fuel systems since renewable capacity falls far short of meeting demand. In addition, current levels of debt among industrialized countries are already to burdensome due to the irresponsible behaviors of governments and their financial leaders to sufficiently generate new infrastructure in a timely enough manner. We can however begin to aggressively supplement fossil fuels consumption with renewable energy sources in the industrialized worlds. This will allow the poorer developing countries to continue to use predominately fossil fuel sources while they implement renewable energy infrastructure themselves. This may require years of transitioning so it must begin now.

World energy demand can become as significant an issue as the 2008 world wide collapse of the financial markets and generate long term recessions. I would like to emphasize this point once again; regardless of how world fossil fuel producers try to ramp up production they cannot meet global demand. For the transition period over the next 25 years we must utilize all sources of energy and start the process of relinquishing the political stranglehold that the fossil fuel industry holds in the political arenas.

By 2035 renewable energy sources should play significant role supplementing fossil fuels and contributing towards global demand. During this transition period research and development initiatives from world government’s, academia’s, and even government funded and private sector laboratories’ should be utilized to search for new energy sources and refine existing systems for still greater efficiencies. Possibilities for new energy systems include hydrogen, advance fuel cells, new battery or high efficiency capacitors for transportation requirements, and fusion reactors and kinetic energy systems combined with advancements in solar, geothermal, wind and tidal power for electricity generation. 

The goal after 2035 is not to supplement fossil fuels but replace them. The motivation to look for energy systems that provide ongoing streams of company profits and investor return will have to be put aside and a new generation of non-profit energy providers created. Profit maximization will then be replaced with production efficiency and providing free or extremely low cost energy to end users. Research for these next generations of renewable energy systems must begin now with long term plans designed for the transition.

My next blog will discuss procedures necessary to implement the transition process to renewable energy sources in both the transportation and electricity production sectors.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

Solar thermal may represent a viable way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, but what will the cost be to implement the required infrastructure for the power facilities and grid connections, some of which may be required in isolated areas?

The U.S. produced 4,119,388,000 megawatts and consumed approximately 3,978,000,000 megawatts of electricity in 2008.  Production of electricity breaks down as follows:

• 1445 Coal generation plants represented 48.2% of electricity production providing 1,985,801,000 megawatts.  
• 3768 Natural gas processing plants represented 21.4% of electricity production providing 882,891,000 megawatts.
• 104 Nuclear power plants represented 19.6% of production of electricity production providing 806,208,000 Megawatts.
• 3966 hydro electric plants represented 6% of production of electricity production providing 254,351,000 megawatts.
• 2576 Renewable energy plants represented 3% of electricity production providing 126,212,000 megawatts.  (Renewable sources included biomass, wind, wood derived, geothermal, and solar thermal / photovoltaic)
• 3768 petroleum power plants represented 1% of electricity and 46,243,000 megawatts.
• Other gases and their power facilities represented .25% of electricity production providing 11,707,000 megawatts.

Solar thermal even when combined with photovoltaics produces less than 1/20^th of one percent of U.S. electricity production.

Solar thermal energy (STE) systems utilize high temperature collectors that reflect concentrated sunlight collected from mirrors or lenses. The resulting solar radiation (heat) is focused to specific collection points. A liquid medium is passed through collection points where it is heated. This heated fluid can be used to produce steam necessary to drive a turbine used to produce electricity. 

Most of the electricity today is still provided by steam turbines. STE systems are no exception. Traditional steam turbines have efficiencies approaching 40% with temperature conversions below 600 degrees. Above 600 degrees gas turbines can be utilized with even better efficiencies, but the highest temperature conversions are possible with liquid fluoride salts, molten salts, or synthetic oils and are approaching 800 degrees providing up to 50% efficiencies.

There are a number of STE design systems. Parabolic trough designs are currently the most common type  utilizing curved mirrors to reflect solar radiation into a pipe which contains the fluid and runs the length of the trough usually just above the collectors. Other designs include Power Tower designs or heliostat designs have arrays of flattened movable mirrors that focus solar radiation on a collection tower.  Dish systems implements a large parabolic dish that focuses sunlight on a collector positioned just above the dish. Linear Fresnel reflector designs use a series of slightly curved mirrors to focus light onto linear receivers located just above the mirrors.

STE plants need to be able to produce electricity in overcast conditions and in periods of darkness. This is possible via thermal storage mediums which store heat in an underground basin for later use. These mediums include molten salt storage commonly called saltpeter, graphite heat storage which use purified graphite, and organic or inorganic phase change materials.

There are a variety of proposed plants set for construction in the next few years. The world’s largest single planned solar thermal plant, a 340 MW facility, will be started in Arizona by the end of 2010. It will utilize parabolic trough design reflecting concentrated sunlight to a narrow tube containing synthetic oil that will be heated to 800 degrees before being pumped back to a central power block where steam will be produced to drive a turbine.

Molten salt will be the storage medium that will be heated and stored for night time use; allowing the facility to continue generating power when the sun is not shining. This will also help reduce water requirements in the arid desert environment.

A 340MW power plant regardless of type (coal, natural gas, hydro-electric, or solar) could in optimum conditions produce 340 x 24 x 365= 2,978,000 MW per year of electricity. This is contingent on the power plant running 24 hours per day, all year, without down time. For the proposed Arizona plant it means the heat retained in the molten salt must provide the same levels of steam for electricity generation in periods without direct sunlight as the heated synthetic oil during daylight hours.

The cost of comparable coal fired power plant can easily exceed one billion dollars while similar natural gas plants are pushing 700 Million. Costs for both types of power plants have been increasing significantly over the past decade.

If the United States were to be solely converted to solar thermal it would require 1383 of the 340MW plants schedule for construction in Arizona. Those STE systems would cost approximately $2.76 trillion dollars at current levels and require years to build.  Building the power plants would not be the only expenditure involved, electrical grid infrastructure will be necessary to connect the facilities to end users since most of the facilities may be in the  isolated areas of the southwest. Above ground power lines run approximately $10 per foot and up to 10 to 15 times that amount is buried.

This cost might seem ridiculous initially and from a short term position it probably is.  However, projected over 25 years the costs to build coal fired or natural gas plants are projected to continue to rise substantially while solar thermal facilities have yet to enjoy lower construction costs associated with the mass production of components. In addition operation costs for coal and natural gas are projected to increase further reducing the initial infrastructure costs.  STE designs will require ongoing maintenance and repairs as with all forms of power plants maintenance but will not require ongoing exploration costs, mining / drilling expenditures, and require distribution networks / pipelines to move the raw material to processing facilities.  These additional costs over time will overshadow initial infrastructure savings.

STE is also a completely clean source of energy releasing no pollutants and has a net zero carbon footprint. Coal and natural gas release considerable amounts of CO2 and a number of pollutants. Energy demand in the U.S. and especially worldwide will continue to grow and the more traditional fossil fuel plants built will contribute ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and pollutants.

The U.S. has other renewable non polluting options available so a 100% conversion will not be necessary. Combinations of renewable systems such as STE’s combined with bio-algae photobioreactors can be used in the same isolated areas and in close proximity, reducing land costs and the expense of running electrical power lines to separate facilities. Smaller STE plants can be positioned close to urban areas allocating power to sections of a city or suburbs.

STE may be initially expensive but remains one of the few truly clean power supply’s available.  Its current infrastructure development costs are on par with nuclear power plants but without the nuclear radiation storage issues or having to purchase uranium from volatile countries. These prices, as previously mentioned, will drop as more cost efficient technology and mass production takes hold. Once the facilities are built they will provide clean power for decades with only maintenance costs. If we cease building fossil fuel and nuclear power plants in favor of STE’s, geothermal, wind, and tidal facilities and start to slowly phase out older fossil fuel plants the U.S. can begin a slow but deliberate move towards sustainable energy.

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

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/why-dont-we-bury-more-power-lines

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarthermal/solarthermal.html

http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/05/13/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-340mw-planned-for-arizona/

The global warming debate rages on, and despite spending way too much of my time reading articles about it I am not convinced about either side’s conclusions. My main questions still remain: to what level is global warming or climate change occurring? are human’s contributing to it with green house gas (GHG) emissions and if so to what level? If we are contributing to it can we fix the problem preferably without devastating our economy? How dangerous will temperature increases be to our cities and population, and how soon will they occur? It appears that my much of my confusion exists because of two opposing groups themselves. 

The group supporting global warming is called the consensus but seem to be made up largely of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is a large group of scientists (2500 from the IPCC alone), many of whom have been engaged in climate research for many years. They propose that man-made GHG emissions driven mostly by carbon dioxide (CO2) are heating the surface of the planet. The second group is referred to as dissenters or skeptics of global warming. They do not believer man-made GHG contributions are having any significant impact on temperature change and in some cases doubt whether it is occurring at all. 

The consensus believes that from data collected from climate research, ice core analysis, and computer modeling that certain conclusions can be determined: 

• Human activity has changed the composition of the lower atmosphere (troposphere). The composition has been changed through the emissions of GHG’s
• Changing the composition of the troposphere is warming the planet. Increasing GHG’s increases the amount of reflected IR heat that is absorbed in the troposphere; this in turn heats the troposphere which causes more evaporation and leads to increased amounts of water vapor. It is water vapor that has the greatest impact on temperature increase.
• Human activity driven by GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and ozone) has been making significant changes to atmospheric conditions that have been increasing over the past 100 years. These changes are now becoming evident by increasing surface temperatures, increasing water temperatures, and glacial melting
• If man-made GHG emissions from fossil fuel consumption (oil, coal, and natural gas) continue it will becoming increasingly difficult to stop or slow the heating process. Human activity has changed the climate in a few hundred years what it takes natural events 10 million years.
• Changes may occur more rapidly or become more severe. We will see the effects within our lifetimes. Disappearing glaciers and melting ice sheets at the north pole both resulting large fresh water losses, sea water levels rise flooding coastal regions, climate tier shifting i.e. the northern states will have temperature similar to the mid level states and so on.
• To slow global warming down will require decades of dramatic action. We will need to use less fossil fuel while increasing renewable energy sources. It doesn’t mean economies have to loose jobs and services but to realign them into new renewable industry.

Source: Listen to the Scientists: Global Warming & the I.P.C.C.              

The consensus has determined that man-made emissions are affecting our climate. They want to continue research to better understand the problem and the behaviors (burning of fossil fuel for power, transportation, and industry use) that perpetrate the problem. They want to stop what they call the false debate. They claim the science has already been agreed upon and dissenting opinions addressed numerous times. They want to begin to look for methods to deal with the basic problem of fossil fuel consumption and get renewable fuels established. Their goal is to have policy make the economy especially the energy and transportation sectors more efficient. Finally, most have come to some form of conclusion that temperature increases probably cant be stopped at this point, we will not be going back to where we were, but it can slowed down enough to provide governments a better chance to adapt and possibly avoid the worst case scenarios such as tipping point where positive feed back effects might lead to rapid warming. 

The dissenters or skeptics believe the data collected from climate research is inconclusive, ice core samples illustrate the irrelevancy of CO2’s contribution towards temperature increases, and that data and variables plugged into the sophisticated climate models are inaccurate or of little significance to predicting temperature change. They present a litany of errors found in the global warming theory and site numerous factors they believe are considerably more important causes of surface heating. Some examples Include: 

• Water vapor is the most significant GHG and the primary driver of surface heating. CO2 concentrations and its atmospheric heating capabilities are insignificant by many magnitudes compared to water vapor.
• The GHG effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has occurred multitudes of times in our past and will occur again in the future. It is driven by the sun which goes through its own heating and cooling cycles and it is the heat from the sun that warms the ocean which in turn creates precipitation and water vapor. IR radiation or heat reflected from the surface of the Earth becomes trapped by the water vapor and this increases the troposphere’s temperature.
• Ice core readings from Vostok and EPICA Antarctica demonstrate CO2 level increases that lag temperature increases by hundreds of years and therefore could not be the contributing factor for heating.
• The oceans release and absorb between 100 – 115 giga tons of CO2 each year. That’s a variance of approximately 15 giga tons. Ocean temperatures have increased 1 degree since 1960. As the ocean warms it absorbs less CO2 which causes a potentially greater variance. Trees exhale CO2 at night when not conducting photosynthesis at a rate of 40 to 50 giga tons each year. The variance there is approximately10 giga tons of CO2. Man-made GHG emissions constitute 3 giga tons per year. Skeptics claim that man-made CO2 contributions are insignificant compared to the natural carbon cycles of the ocean or all the trees on the planet. Plus GHG’s don’t warm the oceans, the sun does.
• Trees have a greater effect than CO2 in raising temperature. The northern hemisphere has experienced increased forest growth due to fire prevention. Also boreal trees do not act as the carbon sinks the same way tropical rainforests do and actually contribute more precipitation and hence water vapor into the atmosphere. When considering surface temperature increases, the increases are from the northern half of the hemisphere. The southern half is actually cooling probably due to the ongoing thinning of the Amazon and central African rainforests.
• Some site that heat and even CO2 may actually be good. It will create a warmer climate extending the growing seasons and food production. It will also reduce severe weather pointing out the middle ages between 1000 and 1500 as a period with relatively milder storm activity

There is also growing agreement among skeptics that as future fossil fuel production begins to decrease and oil, coal, and natural gas prices increase, the market will support the introduction of new alternative energy sources. This does not need to be prematurely forced onto the country at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lost jobs. 

There has definitely been mudslinging from both parties. Consensus believers argue that global warming or climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy including the science academies from every major industrial country. The final holdout – the American Assoc of Petroleum Geologists even revised their statement in 2007. The consensus scientists believe that  there is an attempt to replace the  scientific analysis conducted over that past two decades with politically motivated ideologies developed under the Bush administration and carried out today by overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, media commentators, and think tanks. The goal is an organized attempt to confuse public opinion with seemingly unrelated controversies or provide the public with an endless stream of seemingly important but irrelevant facts and questions. The real motivations are to preserve the status quo and big oil and coal profits while avoiding the economic hardships required to address the issues. They believe the actions of oil companies in their attempts to pay scientists to make dissenting comments or create / fund organizations whose main function is promoting global warming skepticism is both immoral and employs the same subversive tactics used by the tobacco companies to hide nicotine addiction. ExxonMobile alone they claim created a massively successful disinformation campaign between 1998 and 2005 where $16 million dollars was channeled to a sophisticated network of ideological organizations whose sole function was to generate uncertainty. 

The Skeptics site leftist political motivations and agendas as the driving force behind the consensus, and that the concensus scientists are altering science to create the appearance of something that either doesn’t exist or is not within the power of mankind to change. The IPCC they claim does not contain 2500 senior scientists and that global warming was created to ensure a continual stream of funding and research grants. They question why the same individuals doing the research are then allowed to lead the assessment committees assigned to evaluate the research. The IPCC they warn have used intimidation and censorship to limit any dissenting scientist’s ability to speak against any part of the global warming theory. They charge that any eminent scientist who wants to get grants and needs grad students to help with research will have to say yes to CO2 as the cause for global warming if they want to see the funding. They site numerous scientists who have complained about being placed under considerable pressure to distort or with hold research data that does not support human activity as the cause for global warming. They also claim that other more accurate hypothesis are not given the same level attention and that the so called consensus is not correct at all. Septics also claim that the IPCC stands to make a fortune if carbon becomes taxed or from a cap and trade system, and this is what is really motivates their actions. Finally, they warn that if global warming is occurring we should be looking for ways to predict and adapt to changes from the natural warming cycle as they occur and not engage in measures that drain 3 – 5% of our nation’s GDP away for something that cannot be controlled. 

There are at least a few things that the majority from both sides agrees on: 

• The Earth is showing signs of some type of climate change
• Since 1880 average temperatures have increased1.4 degrees Fahrenheit
• The rate of warming appears to be increasing
• The northern hemisphere artic is feeling a greater effect than the world at large
• Glaciers and mountain ice are melting
• Artic ice is showing signs of thinning and in some cases disappearing

Getting back to my original question, I would like to see information that is not tainted by political ideology and funding from either the left or the right. Tainted meaning information coming from scientists that have received financial compensation or are reliant on research funding from either the fossil fuel industry and their supporters or from the IPCC and those who stand to profit from cap and trade. I also don’t want to see or hear any more information from scientists / engineers who are not directly involved in climate research. This means scientists in other fields, think tank personnel, and media spokesman’s. If there is anything I have learned from the articles I have read,  it is that data can be manipulated to fit any agenda, and if the public is repetitively presented with even the most outlandish representation of the facts often enough from different sources many will come to believe it. There is certainly enough of this going on. 

Could some of the scientist’s actually conducting the climate research from both sides of the spectrum come together in a forum and discuss what is actually going on?  We need valid members from all sides, including the consensus, dissenting or skeptic scientists, and any neutral climate researchers to check their biases at the door and gather in the spirit of working together. This group could then go on to address the concerns of those who don’t agree that human activity is the cause of climate change. They could identify relevant data for analysis and determine what level if any the contribution of man-made GHG’s (mainly CO2) is having on the atmosphere.  Then if necessary decide what measures would be required to reduce the warming affect on the planet. The conclusions could then be presented through multiple channels to the public. If action is required the conclusions could be turned over to economic and professional councils to determine best potential solutions, courses of action to take, and economic costs associated with those actions. These recommendations could then be provided to the world governments and if necessary discussed at global summits or forums. What I am definitively not talking about, is any council or entity given authority to override a country’s sovereignty or introduce coercive tactics like economic sanctions to influence a country to its will. 

We are going no where with the constant back and forth bickering. It only sustains doubt and confusion and ensures that nothing meaningful will get done, which is probably the goal of some. I am not a scientist or researcher, so please provide corrections, comments, and constructive suggestions.   I only ask that you refrain from pointing out that these things have already been discussed since they have yet to be resolved despite the discussion. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.htmvl 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ 

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/ 

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

http://science.howstuffworks.com/global-warming7.htm 

The United States consumed 99.3 Quadrillion total btu’s of energy in 2008 (British thermal unit (Btu) is a unit of energy needed to heat 1 lb. of water 1 degree F). The breakdown follows below. What I found to be of interest is that for all the talk over the past several years regarding renewable energy we don’t produce or consume much of it. Solar is only one tenth of one percent of total consumption and it’s been around for 30 years. All the private equity money going into wind generation represents one half of one percent, and the bio fuels hope about replacing gasoline with ethanol and diesel with bio diesel appear to have stalled at about one half of one percent. I realize there are efficiency concerns and infrastructure costs related to establishing these sectors but for all the media discussion and political wrangling we have actually moved little.

When considering consumption by sector (table below), petroleum is primarily used for transportation (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel). Natural gas usage breaks down to 29% for electricity production, 29% for industrial uses and is utilized for building steel, glass, brick, etc. and 34% is for heating residential homes and commercial buildings. Coal has always been used for electric power generation and equates to almost half of the energy sources used to generate electricity. Nuclear is also almost exclusively for electricity generation as well and represents 20% of the energy sources used to generate electricity. All of these are considered non-renewable forms of energy.

U.S. Energy Consumption by sector for 2008:

• Petroleum                                      37.4%     36.7 Quadrillion Btu
• Natural Gas                                   24.0%     23.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Coal                                              22.6%     22.8 Quadrillion Btu
• Nuclear (Uranium)                           8.5%       8.9 Quadrillion Btu
• Renewable Energy                          7.0%       7.3 Quadrillion Btu

Breakdown of Renewable Energy sector for 2008

• Biomass                                        53%        3.9% of total sources of energy
• Hydroelectric                                 34%        2.5% of total sources of energy
• Wind                                               7%          .5% of total sources of energy
• Geothermal                                     5%          .4% of total sources of energy
• Solar                                               1%          .1% of total sources of energy

Breakdown of Biomass sub-sector for 2008

• Wood and wood waste                 64.5%     2.5% of total sources of energy
• Biofuels (ethanol & biodiesel)        23.5%       .9% of total sources of energy
• Garbage & Landfill gases               12.0%       .5% of total sources of energy

Although the total number for renewable energy comes in at 7% of consumption it is largely made up of wood burning in the biomass sub-sector and hydroelectric power generation both of which have been in use for years. The newer technologies of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and bio fuels barely scratch 1.5% of total U.S. energy consumption. Total energy consumed from all sources indicates that traditional non renewable sources still dominate and will likely continue to dominate U.S. energy supply side.

When considering our nation’s demand for energy and how we use it, demand for transportation and electrical power generation make up more than half of that demand. Transportation represents 29% of energy demand. Electricity represents a 21.6% of energy demand. When considering electricity demand.  Industries and all their associated production facilities require 31% and electricity demand from industrial uses is 4.3%. The construction / maintenance of our commercial sector require 19% and electricity demands from commercial development are 7.8%. Residential construction represents requires 22%, and electricity demand for residential housing is 9.5%. The two most important energy demands regarding renewable energy is also for transportation and electrical power. 

Transportation needs are met through either importing petroleum/oil or domestically producing it. The United States produces 10% of the world’s petroleum and consumes 24%. We import 57% of our demand and, we produce 43% domestically. Of the 57% of our imports about half come from North and South America, including Venezuela. The Persian Gulf represents only 16% of our total imports, with 12% of that amount supplied by our ally Saudi Arabia. I am now wondering why there is so much diplomatic, military, and economic emphasis placed on a region that provides only 16% of the total imports of oil for our transportation needs.

More than half of U.S. Petroleum Imports Come from the Western Hemisphere

• Canada            19%
• Mexico              10%
• Venezuela          9%
• Others              10%

Remaining U.S. Petroleum imports come from the rest of the world

• Africa                   21%       (Nigeria              8%)
• Persian Gulf         16%       (Saudi Arabia   12%)
• Others                 14%

70% of all oil produced domestically or imported goes towards transportation, 24% towards industrial production, and 5% for residential / commercial heating oil. If we look at the transportation sector closely, oil constitutes 96% of the demand. The remaining 4% is made up of natural gas and biofuels. Even that is a bit misleading since the vast majority of the 2% from biofuels is ecorn based ethanol that is supposed to be used to supplement gasoline. Ethanol production has certainly seen its share of difficulties but remains the supplement of choice since it increases octane levels, and providing a safe alternative for oxygenation , and helps meet stricter emission guidelines.

62% of our oil imports are used for gasoline. Why is only 2% of ethanol being used with gasoline or as a replacement for gasoline? Ethanol is probably not going to be the sole replacement as an automobile energy source. It doesn’t have the high BTU/energy efficiency ratio that gasoline has, but it is a great supplement to our gasoline and we could be using it in greater concentrations. Current mixtures now range from 100% gasoline / 0% ethanol to 90% gasoline / 10% ethanol (E10). The E10 mixtures have had minimal negative effect on gas lines, but even E10 isn’t used throughout the country.

Second generation cellulosic ethanol can be a reality quickly. There are already cellulosic ethanol companies that have completed the prototype generation stage and are ready for full production. An additional bonus for cellulosic production is that it will not strain food crops or require thousands of gallons of water to produce one plant. We need to be stretching the use of existing oil/gas inventories and that can be done by integrating cellulosic ethanol. I don’t accept the arguments about it always costing $1000 to change fuel lines, injectors, etc. Once a mixture system for E15 or above is mandated, company’s will compete as they always do and drive prices down. So, why is this not being done immediately to relieve the pressure from all the imports? Maybe there are too many hands in the pot? Is big agribusiness trying to generate more demand from its biggest commodity cash crop, corn? Maybe big oil doesn’t like to have to share the profits with some upstart potential substitute? Maybe there is no rush to get the U.S. off of the imports from the Middle East because we really aren’t importing much from that region since 12% comes from our stable ally Saudia Arabia, leaving only 4% to come from other areas within the Middle East (essentially from Iraq). I certainly hope we end up with more oil from Iraq and that oil drilling rights do not end up in Russia’s hands for all that we have invested in the area.

Diesel and jet fuel make up another 31% of our oil imports. Both can be made from biodiesel. Biodiesel consumption currently represents less than one half of 1%. This technology has been around for a while and bio algae represents one of the greatest potentials in this field. Algae are the fastest growing organisms on the planet able to replicate themselves in a few days and some varieties can produce yields up to 50% oil. Why did all government funding get pulled from this potentially useful technology? Why is it that when a university has a breakthrough, a military defense contractor steps in and overtakes the project? Not that I don’t agree with running our fighters and transports off of biodiesel generated onsite via bio algae production, I would just like to see it fueling our semi-tractor trailers domestically as well. Trucking compannies could also benefit from access to simple inexpensive conversion processes that don’t void warranties. Perhaps federal tax incentives could be provided to trucking companies to help fund the conversion process for at least some trucks that are no longer under warranty. At the minimum the U.S. should be significantly funding research to try to increase the efficiencies of bio algae/bio diesel production.

The following breaks down the transportation sector:

Transportation    96% of all transportation needs are met by petroleum

• Gasoline              62%   Cars, Motorcycles, Light Trucks
• Diesel                  22%   Heavier Trucks, Buses, Trains
• Jet Fuel                 9%    Airplane
• Other                    5%    Cars, Light Trucks, Heavier trucks (2% from renewable energy)
• Natural Gas          2%    City fleet Cars & Light duty trucks

Energy consumption by vehicle type

• Cars & Trucks          60% of total energy used for transportation       – Gasoline
• Large Trucks            16% of total energy used for transportation       – Diesel
• Aircraft                      9% of total energy used for transportation        – Jet Fuel
• Boats                        5% of total energy used for transportation        – Gasoline & Diesel
• Agriculture                4% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel
• Trains & Buses          3% of total energy used for transportation        –  Diesel

In electric power generation, we clearly use non-renewable energy sources as well, and this constitute s almost 90% of electricity production. Renewable energy, when hydro-electric is taken out, is 2.5% and half of that is old style wood burning.

Electric Power – Used for electrical energy accessed through the grid

• Coal                                 48.5%
• Natural Gas                      21.6%
• Nuclear                            19.4%
• Hydroelectric                     5.8%
• Renewable Energy            2.5%
• Petroleum                         1.6%

Sources of the 2.5% Renewable Energy used for electric power generation

• Biomass                    1.3%
• Wind                           .8%
• Geothermal                 .3%
• Solar                           .02%

Percentage breakdown of the Biomass sources in electric power generation

• Wood and wood waste             70.2%
• Biofuels                                       3.7%
• Garbage & Landfill gases          26.0%

I am sorry, but these numbers seem ridiculous. I have heard all of the arguments about the inefficiencies of photo-voltaics, the poor birds hitting the wind turbines, and how geothermal is too expensive and can only be placed deep under water in volcanic rifts. But unless I’m mistaken, aren’t we one of the most advanced countries in the world? I cannot believe that we cannot come up with better electricity generation solutions than burning coal. Wasn’t this technology being used in the…1800’s?  Maybe in promoting our energy crisis we are simply guaranteeing that everyone stays in “crisis mode” and allows business as usual to continue. I do not think that there have been any serious attempts to do anything but keep the major players in place while throwing a few token renewable energy gestures out to the public. 

I wonder if oil and coal had to deal with the same litany of excuses of why things can’t be done as renewable energy has faced. How were they ever able to start production in the … early 1900’s? Personally, I am grateful that we have oil and coal, they have gotten our country to where it is today, but they are polluting our environment and they are technology from our grandparent’s day. (I know, they have made amazing incremental advances in production over the years). Maybe 100 years ago we didn’t tell each other how we couldn’t do something and instead we set out to do it no matter what. Well, I think we are passed that stage. Let’s pull our heads out of our proverbial oil tanks and set to work to provide an economically viable solution for renewable energy integration.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/

http://www.planetforward.org/pages/energy-consumption-by-sector

http://www.need.org/needpdf/infobook_activities/IntInfo/BiomassI.pdf

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence