Solar Power Prospects Dim

According to an article in Scinetific American, harvesting the sun’s rays for electricity production holds the promise of producing 2/3 our current and projected energy needs by 2050.  “Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation (that falls on the USA) into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

“ The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.”

Unfortunately, that doesn’t include the costs to improve the technology.  For this magic to work means a 50% increase in efficiencies:  the article assumes 14 percent efficiency, but current state of the art is barely 10%, and efficiencies have been improving only slowly.

It also doesn’t account for the economic incentive to install that systems.  The current break-even point means that the solar generators would have to cost no more than $1.20 per watt, and the current cost is $4 per watt.  That means that when the article says it will cost $400B, the real cost is more than a trillion.

And you’d have to cover vast tracts of land, around <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays. I know there’s a lot of open land in the southwest USA (the area around the Grand Canyon is pretty empty).  But you’d also have to solve transmission problems.

In short, despite the opportunities for solar power, the prospects aren’t near as bright as shat they’s have you belive.

Oregon Wind Farm Gets Go-Ahead

The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council has approved construction of what will be one of the world’s largest wind energy generation plants.

The Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm, which stretches into both Gilliam and Morrow counties in north-central Oregon, is planning 303 wind turbines.  At peak capacity, the new plant will be capable of generating 909 megawatts, more than all other wind-generated plants operating in Oregon today (889 megawatts).  Until it is finished, the Horse Hollow wind farm will hold the title of largest operating wind farm in the United States, operating at 736 MW.  (Texas oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens has plans to build a wind farm in Texas by 2014 that would reach 4,000 MW.)

The project is being developed by Caithness Shepherds Flat, LLC of Sacramento, Calif.

(This report from the Portland Business Journal, 28 Jul 08)

Energy alternatives for Africa

“Africa is fast becoming an important player in cleaner energy sources. If only 0.3% of sunlight falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts can potentially provide all of Europe’s energy needs because of its intensity, how about everything else?”

With these words, Sam Aolo Ooko (a writer for Green Options), introduced a bold idea - switch Africa from eco-costly investments into planting and developing biofuels, but instead jump-start more developed continents by developing alternative energy sources and innovating conservation measures. He continues:

“How much wind blows from Nouakchott to Natal, and how much of this is ever utilized as an alternative energy source? How much water flowing in the Zambezi is used to power villages in Zambia and Zimbabwe; and how much more of the great Nile waters that flow into the Mediterranean can sustainably be harnessed to run corn mills in Nakuru and cotton ginneries in Jinja and Khartoum or fisheries in Cairo?”

Ooko quotes Ester Nyiru, a respected African economist, as saying “African countries are not using alternative power supplies since international combines do not encourage the switch; indeed, the use of such technologies may damage their business.”

Ooko is on to something. There are vast deserts with abundant sun and wind. In those regions, there is little reason to use oil and coal to generate electricity. Africa has vast coastlines and many rivers capable of producing hydro- and tidal generation.

Ooko’s future is hopeful: “Every single village in Africa can have cheaper, cleaner, sustainable energy and we can re-write every book that proclaims the end of poverty. Forget oil, alternative energy is the way to go for Africa.”

150 gigawatts of wind power by 2020

A recent report from Emerging Energy Research says that, given current trends in the rate we are building wind plants in the US, we could be generating 150 gigawatts of wind power by 2020.

By comparison, the average coal plant generates 800 megawatts of power.   That means that if the report is true, by 2020, wind could do the work of 180 coal-fired generating plants.

There’s a lot of ifs between now and then.  You’ve read my posts on the problems with siting.  In most cases, where the power is needed (cities) is not good for wind-based power plants, and there is always some loss in transmission.  Then there’s the loss of the energy tax credits, which makes the cost of construction that much more expensive.

And then there are the production delays over at General Electric.  According to EcoGeek, the backlog is up to two years for the generation turbines.  (Note that these are the large turbine blades, with a spinning diameter larger than the wingspan of a 747.

To make the EER report valid, GE’s 40% growth in the rate of production has to continue (not likely sustainable).  But we will see.

Small Wind Machines help solve a national energy problem

“In theory, small-scale wind energy has the potential to generate 41.3 TWh of electricity and save 17.8 MtCO2 in the UK annually.”

Thus begins an informative report on the use of small wind turbines at individual home sites to address the national energy problem in the UK. And although the focus, and the examples, are British, the solutions offered are universal. This is no puff piece with cliche answers. The solutions are realistic enough to adequately discuss the needs and options in laymen’s terms.

For example, in discussing methodology of calculating savings, it suggests that the biggest cost driver is the costs of turbine installations. “Since the costs of maintaining turbines tend to be low, upfront capital costs are the primary drivers of costs of energy, and capital cost reductions are most likely to lead to cost of energy reductions.”

The report helps with siting considerations. Turbines work best when they are out by themselves, or upwind of a single building. There is a good description of the effects of building spacing on wind turbulence and how the buildings slow the strength of the wind forces - a good thing in the city, but bad for generating electricity efficiently. This is one reason why there are nine times more wind turbines in rural areas than in cities. The study found that “small turbines in rural locations may achieve capacity factors of around 15-20%, but urban turbines are likely to have significantly lower factors, with less than 10% being common.”

The report also describes the carbon savings potential with implementing small turbines throughout England. Imagine the savings if this were implemented in the USA, if worldwide!

Read this report and you can pretend to be an expert. It is well-written with substantive research and solid recommendations. Find it here.

Predictions for Wind Energy

A new report from the Department of Energy suggests that Wind Energy has the potential for being a major factor in meeting our nation’s energy needs.

The report is called “20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030” and suggests that use of this clean and readily available source of energy.  Wind energy, they say, could also avoid 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 by 2030; it could save 825 million metric tons in 2030 - and every year thereafter.

Today, the US produces 16.8 gigawatts (GW) with wind energy.  Not shabby, but nowhere near the estimated 304 GW the DOE thinks we will be generating by 2030.

The U.S. wind energy industry invested approximately $9 billion in new generating capacity in 2007.  This has helped the industry grow with a 30 percent annual growth rate over the last 5 years.

But for the US to reach this 20% goal, several things must happen.  The US transmission infrastructure will need to be upgraded, to limit transmission losses from wind-prone areas to areas where the energy is needed.

And there will need to be more wind farms.  The number of generating facilities must increase from approximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017.  OF course, that means process improvements are needed to streamline siting and permitting for new transmission lines.

The goal will also require improvements in reliability and operability of wind systems.

This report presents an in-depth analysis of the potential for wind in the United States.  It identifies opportunities to bring the US to produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity mix by 2030.

To write the report the DOE drew on the expertise of the American Wind Energy Association and Black and Veatch engineering consultants, and the report reflects input from more than 50 energy organizations and corporations.

The pdf of the report is available from the DOE website.

Make your Fortune in Wind Power

The Department of Energy has a great little publication for download on its website that you can use to set up your own green energy generation company.

The report is called “How to Build a Small Wind Energy Business: Lessons from California.”

The goal of the DOE is to have small businesses across the country - but especially in wind-prone areas - setting up capacity tied to the national energy grid. The energy producer listed in the report, Joe Guasti, owned two wind turbines as an adjunct to his construction company.

He chose the 10 kW generator from Bergey Windpower Company, and qualified for California energy tax credits - as soon as he got past the local regulatory officials! In Riverside County, for example, the process may take a year or longer and cost upwards of $6,000. Small wonder there are few turbines there.

But where the local officials are amenible, the processes are fairly well defined, and easy to negotiate. And in areas where electricity is expensive (such as parts of California), single turbine installations can reduce home electricity bills from as much as $400 down to less than $50 a month.

And for Guasti, the business is not just in energy savings. His construction company will put up the tower and connect it to the house for energy usage, and to the local electrical grid to sell back the excess power.

Advent Solar Shuts Manfacturing Plant

Solar is hot, right?  Then why aren’t solar companies selling products hand over fist?  That brings us to the story of Advent Solar.

In February, Advent Solar won a marketing award.  Advent is a leading manufacturer of innovative solar cells and modules. Its unique, exclusive EWT cell technology was originally developed at Sandia National Laboratories and is in a class of solar cells referred to as back-contact cells. This technology is the basis for Advent’s high performance products with the potential for dramatically lower cost than conventional solar photovoltaic technology.

So, fresh off such prestigious press, with notice to the world that this company produces some of the best solar cells available, Advent Solar decided it wasn’t enough.  Less than 3 weeks after the award was announced, Advent has closed up manufacturing.   Rather than produce solar cells for sale, they laid off all 68 manufacturing staff (but not the marketing staff).

They say they want to retool for new technology.  The CEO, on the job less than a single fiscal quarter, announced he wanted to retool the whole plant for a new kind of solar cell.  Rather than continue manufacturing, providing collaboration between R&D and those who actually produce the results, he sent his workforce packing.

“Once the technology solution is perfected and put into place, this company has excellent long-term prospects,” said CEO Peter Green. “We will be looking to hire back any of our employees who are interested in returning. There’s not a one I wouldn’t hire back.”

They freely admit that “The industry is growing at 30% to 40% per year, and with the cost of oil going through the roof, demand will remain strong.”

All I have to say is, it better be a huge improvement, at an appropriate price point, or Green will have just closed the company.  And unless he can offer significant incentives to the employees who trust he has just destroyed, it’s gonna take more than a year to get them back.

Look for solar to take off in the market place.  Just be careful putting too many bets on Advent.

Biofuel from Sawdust

ABC News is reporting on a breakthru from China to turn waste woodchips into a petroleum substitute.

They report that “Peking University (Beijing, China) scientist Yuan Kou and his team have come up with a lignin breakdown reaction that more reliably produces the alkanes and alcohols needed for biofuels. Lignin contains carbon-oxygen-carbon bonds that link together smaller hydrocarbon chains. Breaking down those C-O-C bonds is key to unlocking the smaller hydrocarbons, which can then be further treated to produce alkanes and alcohol.”

Unlike other attempts, that use bacteria to create the starting material, or simply liquify a suable hydrocarbon, Kou’s method involves heating water above 300 °C at high pressures, using a platinum-carbon catalyst and organic additives such as dioxane to create monomers and dimers in the solution.  Then the water is cooled and the fuel sources separate by themselves.

The monomers and dimers can then be refined into gasoline, diesel and methanol.

This is exciting research, but don’t count on it to solve the world fuel problem any time soon.  this process has only so far been done in the lab, in small quantities.

Source:  abc news online

The Problem of the Power Amplifier

We’re getting pretty good at efficient appliances plugged into the wall.  But wireless devices are tough.  Reception isn’t too bad, but sending (transmitting) is a real challenge.

Radio transmitters push signals through the air based on the amount of energy released by the power amplifier. But they only go so far.  And the power fades as distance increases.  (That’s why radio signals fade as you drive down the highway.)  If you need a strong signal over a long distance, you need to start out with more power than you will have at the receiver.

State of the art for some of the medium frequency power amplifiers is around 10%.  That means, for every 10 watts in, you only get 1 watt out.  5 watts of signal only goes a couple of miles.  If you need to receive 5 watts from 25 miles away, it takes 50 watts output power.   And that means, for one military data freqency (the “common” data link - 14.5 to 15.35 GHz), you need to push almost 700 watts in to get that 50 watts out!  Over 90% of the energy is wasted. because the state of the art of power amplifiers is so inefficent.

And what happens to the other 600+ watts?  It becomes wasted heat.  That’s a problem for electronics in small spaces.  You need extra cooling, which takes its own power, to get that heat away from the active electronics, or the circuits of the radio become really innefficient, and eventually quit working.

What we need is more research into newer methods of manufacturing radio power amplifiers.  Because we can’t afford to operate these critical devices at current efficiencies.