Do we need a massive government program to generate breakthroughs to make solar energy cost-competitive?

Concentrated solar power is already doing great; no breakthroughs needed

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:56 AM on 11 Apr 2008

Almost certainly not and absolutely not. I give two answers here because there are two very different types of solar energy:

Solar photovoltaics, PV, which is direct conversion of sunlight to electricity. It is well known, high-tech, uneconomically expensive in most parts of this country (but poised to resume dropping sharply in price), and intermittent (power only when the sun shines).
Solar thermal electric or concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses mirrors to focus sunlight to heat a fluid to run a turbine or engine to make electricity. It is, as I've blogged, "The solar power you don't hear about." It is relatively low-tech, competitive today (and poised to drop sharply in price), and can be made load-following (matching the demand curve during the day and evening) and possibly baseload (round-the-clock).

Absent major subsidies, solar PV is simply not a big-time winner (in terms of kWh delivered cost-effectively) in rich countries with built-out electric grids in the near term. It is, however, a big winner in the medium-term (post-2020). I don't agree with the Scientific American article that calls for a massive $400 billion 40-year plan for solar. I have been meaning to blog that it has many weaknesses, in my mind. No energy efficiency. No wind. Heck, nothing but PV and CSP, and it looks to be mostly PV, which needs expensive storage.

That said, I used to be far less bullish on PV, until I heard a number of presentations earlier this year from the PV industry, the Department of Energy office I once helped run, solar financing experts, and academics. Now I think it might make a major contribution post-2020, maybe even more than 1,000,000 MW (peak), which is a half a wedge, by 2050.

The good news: Massive amounts of private sector money -- through the stock market, big companies, and venture capital funds -- as well as big government subsidies (not R&D) and/or mandates -- have juiced up the technology development process as well as the manufacturing learning curve. The SciAm article claims we need a big government program because:

To provide electricity at six cents per kWh by 2020, cadmium telluride modules would have to convert electricity with 14 percent efficiency, and systems would have to be installed at $1.20 per watt of capacity. Current modules have 10 percent efficiency and an installed system cost of about $4 per watt.

Let me tell you what the experts say. First, DOE itself acknowledged that

market viability [is] eclipsing 'science' results
private funding now available for R&D
cost trajectories are increasingly secure

Because of that, DOE now wants to focus on R&D partnerships, technology validation, and market creation/preparation, including improving the regulatory environment for distributed energy.

(You can see a detailed 2008 DOE presentation on solar, mostly PV, here [PDF]. It is well worth a look if you are interested in PV.)

The industry experts said they will deliver installed PV electricity below ten cents per kWh by 2020 from multiple advanced technologies if we just keep going down in the projected manufacturing learning curve and keep getting better economies of scale from steadily growing demand. Mostly what is needed is demand pull from more state renewable standards and, ideally, a federal renewable standard. Continuing the 30 percent solar investment tax credit (ITC) would help (and not cost a lot of money). As would a serious price for carbon dioxide -- but nowhere near an outrageous one like $220/ton. Even $14/ton of CO2 would make a difference. The European price, ~$36/ton would be even better, adding over 3 cents per kwh to coal, which is already getting very pricey (see below)

And we don't need to be in a hurry to cram overly large amounts of PV into the U.S. economy because ...

CSP is a huge winner in the short-term (now!)

CSP is already in much better shape than PV, with half the costs, no production bottlenecks, cheap storage, and near-baseload power -- and also massive amounts of private sector money flowing in. So if the PV folks don't need a big government-funded push for breakthroughs, you can be sure the CSP folks don't.

I will be blogging at length about concentrated solar power in a couple of days. None of the industry executives I spoke to believe they need breakthroughs -- and they certainly don't want massive government-funded research and development efforts. They would like the solar ITC renewed this year for eight years (not a lot of money) and a serious price for carbon dioxide as soon as possible. A federal renewable standard would also help.

CSP is competitive with new gas-fired plants now at current gas prices. It should beat new coal by 2015, even without a carbon price, but certainly $30/ton of CO2 would more than do the trick. CSP could provide more than one wedge, if the nation and the world get serious about beating 450 ppm.

Coal is very expensive

Conventional power plants have risen in price "130 percent since 2000, and 27 percent in the 12 months to October 2007 alone." New coal plants are going "north of $2,500 per kilowatt" fully installed (see also here). (You would have to add another $2,000 per kw [PDF] for carbon capture and storage, assuming that even proves toll on a wide scale.) And, of course, coal prices have soared. Finally, financing costs are sure to rise as Wall Street increasingly sees the risk of backing coal that doesn't capture and store carbon dioxide emissions.

"Fast, Clean, & Cheap," [PDF] by Shellenberger et al. says that in 2010 the price for pulverized coal will be 4.84 cents per kWh. They say that cost (and the costs of PV and CSP) come from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2007. I couldn't find that number, but I did find the EIA's assumptions [PDF], which seem to suggest they were using a capital cost for coal of $1290/kw -- maybe half the current cost. I don't know what coal price they were using, but it was a lot lower than today's cost.

I think it would be hard to finance, build, and deliver fully installed new coal plants for significantly less than 10 cents per kWh today, even with no carbon dioxide charge.

Conclusion

So, it looks like CSP currently is -- and PV soon will be -- in very good shape. They certainly don't need a a big government spending program aimed at generating breakthroughs in order to make them cost-competitive in time to play a very large role in beating 450 ppm.

One final note: In the DOE presentation I link to above, they describe the "Solar America Initiative," launched in fiscal year 2007, whose goal is to "accelerate supply growth & adoption of PV/CSP technologies." It looks to be well funded as of this year thanks in large part to the new Congress. It is obviously a terrific idea. Steady increases in the future are certainly welcome, but I don't see the need for some new multi-billion program. Certainly more R&D funds aren't needed.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Do we need a massive government program to generate breakthroughs to make solar energy cost-competitive?
48 Comments | Post a Comment

Large in Scale but guard for waste

Manhattan Project to build a bomb, Kennedy's man on the moon program. You would think saving the earth would warrant some kind of program on a massive scale by all the worlds governments.

I bet they keep bailing out wall street and the large lender banks that created the sub-prime mortgage mess.

You will have to watch the fraud and waste, anytime the government does anything the charlatans and shysters come out of the woodwoork.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 12:10 PM on 11 Apr 2008

How about PV on all government buildings?

Wouldn't that provide the economies of scale and the stability of demand to get us down the cost curve very quickly? And, decrease coal and natural gas use a fair amount? That would certainly justify a multi-100 billion dollar program, it would seem to me.

by Jon Rynn at 12:12 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Storage

Last I heard thermal storage was about $35 per kWh hour thermal equivalent, but with a bit of R&D could drop to $10 per kWh of thermal equivalent. Has this changed?

by Gar Lipow at 12:18 PM on 11 Apr 2008

n

Pompey Road wrote: You would think saving the earth would warrant some kind of program on a massive scale

What would solar power have to do with saving the earth?

by Nucbuddy at 12:45 PM on 11 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Gar

Well, nothing particularly new.
But I do have an older source showing $3900/KW for parabolic solar thermal with 6 hours of storage included.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energypolicy/documents/2007 ...

This figure probably doesn't factor in the fact that the DOE is finally offering some financing for CSP.
http://www.aer-online.com/e107_plugins/content/content.ph ...

by GreyFlcn at 12:53 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Woaa, don't go overboard Mr. Bush!

How many libraries can a city cover for $200,000?

http://www.solaramericacities.org/

Solar America Cities are chosen for their commitment and comprehensive approach to overcoming barriers to and developing infrastructure that supports increased deployment of solar technologies in their municipalities. The cities' solar projects further President Bush's Solar America Initiative (SAI), which aims to make solar electricity from photovoltaics cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity from the utility grid by 2015.
Cities designated as 2008 Solar America Cities will each receive up to $200,000 from DOE to help support their solar efforts. The 2008 Solar America Cities are:
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
Knoxville, TN
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis - St. Paul, MN
Orlando, FL
Philadelphia, PA
Sacramento, CA
San Antonio, TX
San Jose, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Seattle, WA

by Colin Wright at 1:33 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Nucbuddy

Nucbuddy wrote,

"What would solar power have to do with saving the earth?"

In this case, the popular use of "save the earth" is not literal but means,

Saving "the relatively stable range of climate on planet Earth where agricultural based societies came into being and flourished".

How bout that, smart-alec?

-Christopher

by christophersj at 1:50 PM on 11 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Joe's eggs all in one basket?

I think Joe is using the wrong number -- 450 ppm. As James Hansen's new paper says 425 ppm is the new ceiling. This may account for Joe's somewhat anemic take on the use of direct government funding to short-circuit the feasibility of new coal plants.

Further, Mr. Hansen writes: "We must be on a new path within the next several years, or, our paper shows, it becomes implausible to reduce CO2 below the dangerous level this century". So even if CSP is already competitive, we will need the infrastructure to pipe in that clean energy to the East Coast cities. So we need subsidized PV, wind and geothermal to replace out new coal plants on the books in the next few years!

Joe writes:

So, it looks like CSP currently is -- and PV soon will be -- in very good shape. They certainly don't need a a big government spending program aimed at generating breakthroughs in order to make them cost-competitive in time to play a very large role in beating 450 ppm.

I wonder how Joe will feel if we fail to use all the resources at our disposal, including government direct investment, if we pass the 425 ppm threshold, given what is at stake. Why take the gamble that the market (or radicalized youth, for that matter) will save the day?

by Colin Wright at 2:24 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Joe's not considering direct investment...

...since he's been aiming his ire at what he sees as the shell game of pushing R&D as a replacement for actual mitigation. So big government spending, apparently, only means spending on R&D. He hasn't addressed the idea of big government direct spending on renewables, although he is talking about subsidizing wind, etc., which is...well...medium-sized government spending.

by Jon Rynn at 2:34 PM on 11 Apr 2008

It depends on what you mean by programs.

More money for stuff like basic material research would be very helpful. Also further development of advanced Nuclear reactors -aimed at improving the efficiency of fuel usage, and reduction of the waste streams is also urgently needed. Some development money for energy storage is probably justified, as this will become important, but is not receiving a lot of private investment. Sufficient money to allow utilities to build a couple of large scale CCS plants without incurring great financial risk would also be useful.

But we don't need massive subsidies, such as the current ethanol program, or the German PV subsidies.

by bigTom at 2:45 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Huh?

Nukes already get billions in R&D, and have been getting that for decades -- and I'm not even counting Europe and Japan. CCS has been explored here at Grist plenty, nuf said.

Ethanol has also been explored here, and let's assume that's a total loser. But PV? The Germans are doing a very good job. They work.

But there are some interesting research problems: deep geothermal (a much better use of money than ccs plants), even a little fusion research, storage as you say, bigTom, even the stuff the Breakthrough types want . There's nothing wrong with R&D -- as long as it doesn't get in the way of actually deploying current technologies.

by Jon Rynn at 2:50 PM on 11 Apr 2008

good, so no government land!

Whew! I guess that means we won't need to kill off the roughly 1 million acres of Taxpayer-Owned Wilderness currently in the BLM permitting process in the Mojave alone! Since you don't need Guv'ment Cheese, that is.

Yeah, that's the dirty little "Cost" that you people never factor in - TOTAL, PERMANENT ECOSYSTEM DESTRUCTION! What kind of "environmentalist" advocates killing off that huge amount of wilderness to "save the earth?" What kind of capitalist EXTERNALIZES huge amounts of their costs then calls it "free markets?" Right, sounds just like our friends in the fossil fuel world!

As long as your CSP and PV and Wind and Geothermal and Biogas are all sited on previously developed land near existing transmission, I am thrilled with any and all. Once you start trying to dynamite, bulldoze, deplete the groundwater and otherwise obliterate our precious open spaces, you are just as bad as coal.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

by stopgreenpath at 9:02 PM on 11 Apr 2008

stopgreenpath --

I've been inspired by your arguments (not the insults), in part, to try to think more deeply about decentralizing energy production as much as possible, and to see if we can't generate most of our renewable energy either on buildings or close in to cities/towns, as I tried to show here and here.

On the other hand, there have been a number of studies of late showing how massive centralized solar and wind systems would "solve our problems". It seems to be easier to tackle the question of how one huge system would take care of energy needs instead of the "in the weeds" work of dealing with a very decentralized system.

But I think things may be trending more toward the decentralized -- particularly the work going on concerning buildings, as you commented on -- but there needs to be more work in the decentralized direction, imho.

Decentralized energy also has enormous implications for the distribution of power, as environmentalists used to argue in the 1970s (I don't know if that's still brought up). It's also more resilient. But as I said, a comprehensive argument needs to be constructed.

by Jon Rynn at 10:19 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Nope absolutely not

Right arm Joe! No breakthrough needed, just mass production. Solar cogeneration is already here, it cuts the payback for solar in half. 39% efficient concentrating solar PV is already here too, tested and verified by NREL.

Just 10 cents per kwh subsidy direct to folks who invest in solar for their homes, farms, and businesses, that is needed. Wisconsin Electric pays 23 cents per kwh for solar to boost it's buildout. That's 11 cents, the retail cost of power here, plus another 12 cents per kwh.

They are doing just fine with this approach. The federal government should heed their example.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:39 PM on 11 Apr 2008

Ausra reckons 450ppm is impossible

On Youtube David Mills from Ausra seems to think that it is already too late to stop the atmosphere reaching 450 ppm of CO2!

He says something weird like it is going to go over and then come back down...Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Basically, we have lived in a dreamworld for too long and those that told us, "you can't stop progress" are going to look very foolish when we remind them that the phrase actually pertains to the progress of natures course.

But they don't care! (They're rich!)

Face it: they pulled the wool over our eyes.

We are simpletons if we allow this to continue.

Ask, today, where your tax dollars are going.

Are you mad yet?!!?

by Deathridesahorse at 12:17 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Jon-

You write:

Decentralized energy also has enormous implications for the distribution of power, as environmentalists used to argue in the 1970s (I don't know if that's still brought up).

I have brought that up several times here, though nobody seems interested in it. It's my main reason for rejecting nuclear expansion and ccs. Centralization and size itself, once these reach certain tipping points, become evils in themselves, and every problem we have is created or exacerbated by them.

The problem is, once people internalize the fascistic "growth" ideology, whether through brainwashing or innate greed, they become incapable of seeing any alternative to the death march of everything getting ever bigger, ever more concentrated, and at the same time ever more ramified, ever more entangled and interdependent.

by Russ at 12:19 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Good point Jon

The ball park figure I have heard on this is a factor of five.

With a decentralized, distributed renwable smart grid we would only need one fifth of the present grid's transmission capacity.

The othet 4/5ths of capacity, surplus wires, poles, and switching capacity could be devoted to hooking up industrial scale wind power, wind farms with huge 10 to 20 mw machines; and industrial scale solar furnce cogeneration installed at factory sites.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:35 AM on 12 Apr 2008

This is the AUSRA youtube clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IMRLi8HdY

by Deathridesahorse at 12:46 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Distributed Grid

The distributed grid concept works only under the assumption that you have a tremendous spinning reserve capability. When we had a less connected grid, utilities typically aimed for 25 or 30% overcapacity. Today 10 to 15% is adequate because of the greater connectivity. Adding in intermittent renewables (absent an efficient storage technology that does not currently exist) increases reserve requirements. Right now the only technology that can economically provide low capacity spinning reserves is natural gas fired simple cycle plants.

To beat my dead horse, until a viable storage technology exists renewables are not economic or practical. If we want to talk about increased R&D investment, it should be in the enabling technologies (storage and load management) instead of the generation technologies.

by KenG at 7:34 AM on 12 Apr 2008

CSP at 1/4 the cost of PV available now

Although there are many advantages of PV due to its portability and low maintenance, there is an alternative solar technology that is emerging, that is CSP (Concentrated Solar Power). Usually CSP vendors serve utility sized projects however now some of new entrants are serving projects anywhere from 30KW to 20MW. The Solar Thermal Electric costs when combined with biomass without having to store have shown ONE FORTH the cost of PV. Greentech Media and The Prometheus Institute believe that Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) and Concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV) could become a $200 billion market through 2020. Stay tuned!

Energy-Guru.com Enable global adoption of clean energy. Get free cost estimates and expert advice.

by EnergyGuruDOTCom at 8:20 AM on 12 Apr 2008

decentralized energy

Dr. X - directionally, you're right, but you overstate the benefit. In terms of the amount of generation we need in a decentralized grid, it falls by a factor of ~15 - 20%. This is a function of reserve margins and network effects (e.g., the more nodes you have in a system, the less surplus capacity you need to maintain the same levels of reliability, since you have a statistically smaller chance of large scale outages.) For example, if all of our grid was served by one, massive power plant, it's pretty clear that that power plant would have to be infinitely oversized to ensure that we never had a blackout. (Since one trip on that system would black out the grid). Thus, each additional independent generator we add to that system lowers the need to overbuild. And since local generation is - by definition - smaller, per installation, than a big generator, it is tantamount to more nodes, hence relying less overbuild.

In our current system, we have a "reserve margin" of about 22%. Thus, our ~800 GW peak demand is met by the installation of 1000 GW of total generation. Carnegie Mellon has looked at the benefits that would accrue from a distributed system and done a pretty rigorous analytical job showing that in a decentralized grid, you can meet today's reliability levels with a reserve margin on the order of 5%. Thus, big savings in generation capital.

Added to that is a savings in wires, which are about 50% of the present capital cost of the grid, on a $/kW basis. However, you don't get to eliminate all these, since you still clearly want a grid. (A fully independent generator may be appealing to a survivalist, but is pretty lousy from a reliability perspective.) However, you clearly don't need as many wires if the power is primarily serving local loads. Most of the estimates I've seen drop the need for new wires by ~90% or so. Thus, with our current transmission and distribution system costing about $1400/kW to serve a new kW of load, this would fall to ~$140/kW.

The big savings from decentralized energy though is in fossil energy use (as compared to capital costs). The cheapest and cleanest fuels for power generation typically don't transport very well. (Solar & wind most obviously, but also landfill gas, sawmill waste, blast furnace gas, waste heat and any number of other local wastes.) Local generation can run on these fuels, but you can't easily carry them to a big plant - and so the big plants end up relying on a very small subset of fuels that can be easily transported in volume (oil, gas, coal and nuke). And on the other side of the generator, you can't carry thermal energy waste very far either. Thus, a local generator is amenable to CHP but a central generator is not.

Apropos of the initial post here from Joe (and I think agreeing with Jon), we should clearly get incentives in place to build more local generation. Whether that generation is solar, wind, CHP or any other technology is neither irrelevant nor productive from a policy perspective. Incentivize the local stuff, and the right technologies will come along. Incentivize a given technology and you'll get that technology.

by Sean Casten at 8:39 AM on 12 Apr 2008

KenG - not true

Ken,

You're confusing a couple points. It's not at all true that decentralized generation requires more spinning reserve. It is true that a grid using intermittent sources of power (whether local or centrally sited) requires more spinning reserve, but this is not the same as decentralization. Indeed, this isn't even true for all grid architectures that use intermittent sources: putting solar on a home sized to serve behind-the-meter loads doesn't require any additional construction on the grid. Whether that installation defers central assets is a function of the degree to which the solar output is coincident with peak load, but that is no different from investments in energy efficiency. (Consider: if intermittency is the only test of spinning reserve requirements than more efficient lightbulbs would have the same effect, since I have no way of knowing a priori when CFL-installers are going to turn their lights on and off - or when they are going to replace the CFL with the old incandescent they have in their garage, creating intermittent changes in load shape that are largely indistinguishable from the behind-the-fence solar panel.)

However, the vast majority of the decentralized generation in the world isn't intermittent renewables - it's CHP and opportunity fuels, which runs on a near 24/7 basis. And those generators, even if they are exporting onto the grid, don't require any additional spinning reserve. Quite the opposite, they displace the need for generation and wires, in addition to lowering line losses and - in some cases - providing power factor correction as well.

Final point: today's grid doesn't run at lower reserve margins because we've figured out how to run it better. It runs at lower reserve margins because we've under-invested in the grid for the last 30 years. The consequences are becoming apparent, but not widely discussed. Blackouts are increasing in frequency and size. Line losses (the difference between the amount of power produced by central generators and sold at retail) went from 5% in 1975 to almost 10% today. Those are not signs of a more robust grid, but rather of Peter going broke to keep Paul happy, and it's not sustainable.

by Sean Casten at 8:51 AM on 12 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

And of course

It is very possible for SolarThermal to use a lot less water.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/dersch_dry_co ...

by GreyFlcn at 9:49 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Thanks Sean

This is good news indeed:

"In terms of the amount of generation we need in a decentralized grid, it falls by a factor of ~15 - 20%."

But the figure I heard about was not for generation capacity, it was for transmission capacity. I don't know if it was exagerated. I wish I could remember the source.

The reasoning was that with distributed generation less one way transmission from centralized power plant to individual user would be needed. That is: A biogas power plant at a farm, sewage plant, or landfill a few miles away would backup the local loop of a distributed grid, when there was no solar or wind coming onto that local loop. Instead of having a central power plant supply the backup power from 100 miles or more away.

On the question of reserve power, consider this model. Most of the load on the grid, excluding factory/industrial load, is from building heating/cooling. If that load is met mainly with geo heat exchange heating/cooling and solar cogeneration (heat and electricity from the same installation) with storage of the heat/cold in building mass and appliances like water heaters and freezers (augmented with phase change heat storage media), that store enough energy to go 24 hours or more with no lack of functionality.

Then not only is the amount of power used cut signifigantly, but the amount of reserve power can then be limited to lower power uses, such as lights and communications devices, phones, tvs, computers. Around 300 watts per home would be sufficient reserve as backup.

Supplying the 300 watts per home (bigger buildings would require more of course) with distributed backup power from local biogas power plants would make each local loop of say 1000 homes independent from the larger grid in emergencies. Or in a simultaneous low wind, no solar situation.

Another reserve source could be solar furnace powered factories where the waste heat is used to generate power for the grid through the night as the industrial products, like recycled glass or metal, or silicon fab ingots cool down.

The way a smart grid could switch on load sequentially to shave peaks can manage the supply/demand equation to give greater predictability with much less reserve. How much less? that's the question. Would the equivalent of 300 watts per home be enough?

Not now or next week,for the grid as a whole, but maybe it could be attained gradually over the next couple of decades as a distributed renewable smart grid takes over from the centralized fossil and nuclear powered grid. Starting home to home, and growing into local loops, then connecting to regional loops, and so forth. Excel has a 1000 home smart grid they are building in Colorado.

The results from that effort should be helpfull in estimating the best path forward. At any rate, i think direct subsidy to home owners, farmers, and small business is the best step to take. Spending subsidy in prioportion to GHG free kwh generated and kwh saved with conservation, let the real free market decide.

Consumers will pick the technologies that get them the biggest subsidy checks. The NREL can specify the amount of GHG free power generated and saved by a given system. Regulators can do random spot checks to make sure the subsidy system isn't cheated.

Right now most subsidy money is going to corn ethanol, which doubles GHG over gasoline use. The government chose to incentivise the wrong technology. meanwhile plugin hybrid technology languishes in mass media and public anonymity. Mass production always promised, never realized, by auto companies in favor of gas guzzling liquid fuels.

Anyway, always good to hear your perspective from the real world of utility wrangling.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:34 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Sean --

Your explanation of the difference between decentralization and intermittency was clear and illuminating. You might want to do a whole post on the subject (and also, you might want to point to a good electric industry glossary in your posts, sometimes I'm not familiar with the terms you're using).

I tried to show that if you let buildings heat and cool themselves you could shut down all coal-powered generating plants. About half of that was from less need for electricity, and about half was from redirecting the natural gas from heating and cooling to electricity generation. Now I'm thinking that if you redirect the natural gas generation from big centralized plants to only localized chp plants, you could bring down the need for natural gas considerably, no?

by Jon Rynn at 10:52 AM on 12 Apr 2008

and what about distributed storage?

What if every building had their own storage in the form of sodium sulfur batteries? (I agree with KenG that R&D in storage at this point is more important than R&D in generation)

by Jon Rynn at 11:06 AM on 12 Apr 2008

Storage

Your article pointed to the storage solution. The lowest cost, most effective kind Jon. Heat/cold storage in buildings and appliances.

But batteries are alright too. In each home and building to supply emergency power.

Biogas/natural gas cogeneration of heat and electricity in individual buildings is great too. A 3 kw biogas powered generator in homes with big gardens and manure from chickens, for instance. Not quite farm scale biogas, but enough to support 10 neighbors in a power emergency.

A smart grid could use the biogas as it is produced with enough in reserve for emergencies. There is a skyscraper project I read about recently that uses the waste stream from the building to generate biogas electricity. That's the larger scale.

And several breweries that use waste stream biogas in solid oxide fuel cells to generate grid power and cogenerate heat for the plant.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:27 AM on 12 Apr 2008

question about natural gas

Amazin, about 20 years ago Barry Commoner argued that we should move to a natural gas economy because it is much cleaner than oil/coal. It looked then that there was a much larger supply of natural gas than it looks now (notwithstanding arguments from the natural gas industry, of course). But even then he was calling for natural gas as a fuel to "bridge" us to a renewable economy.

That still sounds like a good piece of advice, if we combine it with buildings heating and cooling themselves, etc. But I have 2 questions about biogas:

if you take it from the building waste stream, is that material that could be better used recycled, or composted? Currently, of course, most of it goes into landfill, so that's a question for a more perfect future where there is real recycling going on.
doesn't biogas add GHGs? or are you thinking about this also as a bridging technology.

by Jon Rynn at 12:12 PM on 12 Apr 2008

Good questions Jon

1. Waste stream elements turned to biogas yield organic fertilizer mixed with partially digested cellulose, a perfect fertilizer/soil ammendment. It is in use in farm biogas operations.

Even human waste, biodigested, can be added to non-food producing land to restore the natural carbon sink activity of soil.

2. The GHG beauty of biogas is that it uses manure and other waste, that would normally run off into waterways. This run off produces huge amounts of methane, releasing it into the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times worse as a GHG than CO2.

So every kwh generated with biogas saves 20 times the effective amount of GHG being emitted into the atmosphere. A huge GHG cancelation. Furthermore the much better growth rate of plants in live soil soaks up GHG from the air a lot faster.

And the biogas can be used in a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine system at 70% efficiency. And it is easily stored to enable the grid to use mainly solar and wind, the really huge GHG savings.

This all more than offsets the cO2 from the biogas use, but as an added benefit. The biogas can be safely channeled into greenhouse operations to boost plant growth, with much of it absorbed by the plants. Or it is perfect for algae energy/CO2 absorbing systems as well.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:33 PM on 12 Apr 2008

whoops

"The biogas can be safely channeled into greenhouse operations"

Correction: The CO2 from the biogas power generation can be safely channeled into greenhouse operations...

It's like the exhaust from a natural gas range or stove, it poses a low risk in normally ventlilated homes. it's actually good for plants, boosting their growth rate signifigantly.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:38 PM on 12 Apr 2008

Thanks, amazin',

and in reference to your comment about enjoying the Wisconsin snow, at least somebody is enjoying this long cold Midwestern winter!

by Jon Rynn at 12:45 PM on 12 Apr 2008

Dr. X - transmission

If you're not exporting to the grid, the transmission needs fall by about a factor of 10, in the sense that just about any local generator has an unplanned outage rate of under 5%. Which means that statistically, there is a <5% chance that your generator will be off during system peak, and so on a going-forward basis, one can conservatively assume that a grid with local generation slows the rate of new T&D investment by a factor of 10 or so. Note though that these two impacts are not concurrent: a grid with many local generators needs much less transmission & distribution, but the incremental decision to build a local generator will not necessarily cause this benefit. (One of the many ways in which local generation creates value that is not fully captured in our regulatory model.)

Note also that this implicitly assumes that a local generator is not exporting to the grid, but only serving local, behind-the-meter loads. This is not always accurate, since the optimal amount of power one can generate from a given opportunistic fuel supply may be in excess of the local demand. If there is a need for export, one would clearly need more wires investment to move that power around - but still, not nearly so much as in the central model. (A central power plant needs many miles of wires to bring the power out to where the people are. But power generated where the people are only needs a short wire to move it from your location to your neighbor.)

by Sean Casten at 12:58 PM on 12 Apr 2008
[ Parent ]

Don't get too far ahead of yourself

It's like the exhaust from a natural gas range or stove, it poses a low risk in normally ventilated homes. it's actually good for plants, boosting their growth rate significantly.

DrX, there's diminishing/negative returns on carbon enhancing plant growth.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/CO2-ferti ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/kansas-lawmaker-claims-coal-pla ...
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jas ...
http://www-pubcomm.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?i ...

(And I could swear I've seen better sources on this)

by GreyFlcn at 12:58 PM on 12 Apr 2008

More sources

"Sensitivity of photosynthesis and carbon sink tropical rainforests to projected atmospheric CO2 and climate change"
The measurements indicate furthermore that the sensitivity of photosynthesis decreases with increasing CO2 concentration and biological organization level. To explore the significance of different photosynthetic response functions for the development of the carbon sink, we simulated the carbon content of the global tropical rain forest using a simple one-box model. The model simulations based on our experimental data indicate that the carbon sink in world tropical rainforests will reach its maximum within the next few decades, then decrease and eventually become a carbon emissions source, even with moderate assumptions about turnover time of the biosphere and climate sensitivity to increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

But arg.
I still know I've seen better.

by GreyFlcn at 1:16 PM on 12 Apr 2008

Digging

C3 versus C4 Photosynthesis
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication ...

by GreyFlcn at 2:31 PM on 12 Apr 2008

The biogas can be safely channeled into greenhouse operations to boost plant growth, with much of it absorbed by the plants.

Well I guess that makes a little difference.

by GreyFlcn at 2:34 PM on 12 Apr 2008

Justification flcn

The main justification for the CO2 emission from using the biogas is the savings of methane emission from manure run off.

Secondarily, the biogas backs up the grid so it can mainly use wind and solar, GHG-free sources. How much GHG does a renewable distributed smart grid save? That powers plugin hybrids and geo heat exchange heating/cooling?

Biogas is an economical well understood storage media as well. Wrangling with pumped hydro, compressed air, utility scale batteries, or other problematic, expensive systems puts a crimp in the roll out of a distributed renewable smart grid.

Additionally, the organic fertilizer produced as a byproduct replaces the huge GHG releases from fossil fuel and mined fertilizer. Ammonia is being brought over from Russia on supertankers right now. That's a huge waste of fuel and huge extra load of GHG.

And it restores dead agrichem soil back to carbon sink activity. Storing as much CO2 in the soil as is released by using the biogas for electric power.

It's hard to estimate, but I guess about 25 times the GHG released (in actual biogas power generation)is curtailed and sequestered by the entire process of biogas grid backup and organic ag.

It's difficult to imagine any GHG free system that fits together so completely. And has all it's elements already developed and tested. What have you, bring it on! Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 12:24 AM on 13 Apr 2008

DOE AEO Report

I read that report too, with an eye toward petroleum, and it's pretty generous with its estimates in that regard as well.

They project US crude production will increase substantially in the short term (improved recovery from old wells and increased production from the Gulf) and then decline slightly but still show an overall increase through 2030. This despite the fact that the lower 48 peaked in the 70's and Alaska peaked in the 80's and there are substantial technological, financial, and political obstacles to achieving what they project.
Their price estimates are also bunk for petroleum. Over the course of the study (2005-2030) they project that prices will peak at ~$75 in 2010, then decline and resume growth to ~$70 in 2030 (prices in 2006 adjusted dollars). Obviously, if you're paying attention to the oil markets, we're currently at $110 and there are few signs it's gonna let up any time soon.
They arbitrarily state that OPEC will continue to supply ~40% of world supply for the duration of the study. OPEC will continue to meet this supply even with projected increases in production from Canadian tar sands, Brazil, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. Believing OPEC can continue to supply the world at that level is nice, but completely unfounded. Of the OPEC members, only Iraq has any serious growth potential for traditional oil. Venezuela has some with heavy oil, but that's harder to get at than Canada's tar sands and certainly not cheap. This all overlooking the possibility that Saudi Arabia may have just peaked.

by sean nyc aa at 7:49 PM on 13 Apr 2008

The technology that will save humanity

Joseph Romm,

Yesterday, a retired investment banker with very deep pockets paid me a visit to talk about concentrated solar energy. This morning an MIT concentrator solar energy engineer volunteered your article in Salon about CSP.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/04/14/solar_electr ...

The banker was very antagonistic towards the government. They tax him millions every year. He hates subsidies and wants to capitalize solar that does not need subsidies, none at all, ever. They are concerned for futures of their children, and did not know about James Hansen and the conclusions that global warming mitigation is centered on shutting down coal. They understood that solar can not scale fast enough but that natural gas cogeneration would fill the void left by shuttered coal power plants. Further, subsidizing concentrator solar delivers the misinformation that solar energy is expensive and cost prohibitive.

The game in play is to shut down coal, expand gas cogeneration, and displace gas in both sunny and cloudy climates with (among other things) locally concentrated solar that does not need subsidies to be profitable, starting with the low temperature applications. The near-term market is hundreds of billions of dollars.

The advocacy should be to subsidize carbon mitigation, which is very expensive, like a war for our future.

by sunflower at 10:01 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Sunflower --

When you say "natural gas cogeneration would fill the void left by shuttered coal power plants", do you mean small natural gas plants that would be built close to end-use? or just the normal centralized plants, but using the heat to produce more electricity?

by Jon Rynn at 11:00 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Gas used to make soup also makes power

by sunflower at 11:07 AM on 14 Apr 2008

yes, so can buildings use the gas...

...to generate their own electricity, using microturbines?

by Jon Rynn at 11:20 AM on 14 Apr 2008

The "Green" CEO

Speaking of subsidizing solar, T.J. Rodgers (the CEO of the company which owns solar-power manufacturer SunPower) argues in the following interview that government should get out of the business of subsidizing any kind of energy.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YW ...

by thankfultobefree at 11:35 AM on 14 Apr 2008

It's true

100s of billions in business sunflower. With even a few 10s of billions per year in subsidy diversion, directly to home owners. That cash will flow privately as a boom develops to supply the solar panels and so forth, to the consumers.

Cogeneration, especially with biogas, and as you say Jon. With microturbines, fed hot gases from solid oxide fuel cells. 70% efficient electricity. On demand. Distrinuted, to heat building and domestic hot water with the waste heat. pretty close to 100%.

Saving lots of gas!! And electricity. And eventually backing up a whole renewable grid.

Modular mass produced mechanical core units to manage it all at the building level. That's what adaptive productive innovative manufacturers can profit from. customers pay them with government subsidy checks. in a few years the systems pay off.

This is the analog of the personal computer. Central computing managed tax collection and so forth. Personal computing spawned an interactive internet of distrinuted computing.

A home energy core system like this makes the power grid interactive. The power flows smoothly from wherever it's generated to wherever it's needed. instead of flowing one way from a centralized power plant to the home.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:36 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Merging techology

Distributed internet computing with distributed renewable smart grid power generation and storage. Carrying all information and energy exchange.

Hehey. "Hotcakes prefferred!"

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:46 AM on 14 Apr 2008

Do we need a government program for PV.

I feel that we do need to improve solar power concepts without a doubt, I know the technology works and has been improved, I also see how to make the necessary improvements needed to enable a surprising change to further prove it's worthyness toward power production standards, it's design is based on the methods of it's original purpose but thats where it has a downside, I found that I had to start with a blank sheet and came up with a very surprising thought, what can I do to make this product work toward a 24/7 power generation capacity, guess what I figured out a way to do it, even in a dark basement setting. I have to be honest I applyed a rather creative approach to this matter, no one has come up with the idea.
The current approach does work but not to the degree I believe it can be utilize, ( yes even to the point of reaching gigawatts ).
Well this is where I have to stop don't want to give any hints about what I've figured out, but I will say this, I will be taking steps very soon to put a prototype together and see if it works the way I expect it too.
Wish me luck as well.

by darkstar4d at 7:29 PM on 09 May 2008

regarding your point

When it comes to applying solar as part of such a massive power generation application it has too many risks in it's current form, my concern it is repect to the battery storage system its not reliable espeacially with it reaches it's limits.
As I mentioned in my response there is a way to enable photovoltaic technology to generate much higher voltage output with out batteries.
You see the concept is what I catagorize as untested ground, this is only in theory, basically I have made a very careful design modification that should enable this technology to generate 3k to 5k in straight voltage, no storage is required as well, by design it should be continuous power flow as long as the configuration is intacted.
I know this may sound off in wonder land, ( considering the fact I do spend my fair share of time lobbying there anyway ) but putting the kidding aside this is very possible and took a considerable amount of creativity to pull this design together.
I'm not a degree holder not am I an expert in regards to how this technology it made, the one thing I do know is that it works, that all I need to do what is in the works.
I recently linked with an outfit at this end that is very interested in what I have to offer.
Hopefully once the first prototype is completed the news will reach everyone in the short term.

by darkstar4d at 10:25 PM on 11 May 2008
[ Parent ]

There is a need to improve solar energy

Greetings Mr. Romm
After reading your views regarding the current stage that solar energy based systems have reached, I can only say I find your conclusion that there is no need for further advancements based on government funding to be incorrect to the max.

I would like to say there is a need for continued research regarding photovoltaic power generation concepts, the reason I feel this is valid is because of my recent conclusion that this technology can be more of a benefit then where it is currently designed for the consumers.

I realize the direction I am heading in this regard may seem too amazing considering it's untested ground, but I can say it will prove to be the next step in advancing this technology to where it will benefit us to a higher degree.

You see I found there is the potential to generate higher levels of voltage via photovoltaics. It's just a matter of knowing what steps to take to achieve this process.

The advancement stands the potential to generate energy, (clean energy with zero emissions)with one difference it will generate power within a near perfect 24 hour cycle, as well to such a higher voltage level increasing the potential of reaching the gigawatt range without the current system of having batteries to store reserve power.

I know for a fact this change is on the way, I am shortly going to take the appropriate steps to test this theory.

If it works the way I predict it will change the use of photovoltaics in a surprising way.

I'm certain all you see is a blank sheet when it comes to this regard, that's good, it makes it easier for me.

So keep an eye out for news of a coming surprise with photovoltaic energy generation.

by darkstar4d at 7:46 PM on 12 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.