The problem becomes, what do you do at night and when the wind drops below a few mph? We need new storage technologies in order to rely on inconsistent power sources. We want to store up the juice when it’s available and release it again when needed.

I’d like to see an additional emphasis on solar space and water heating. Increased emphasis on that should cut fuel oil use (although, at current Natural Gas prices, it’s just as useful to reduce NG use) and there should be reasonably low barriers to entry for new suppliers/contractors, creating a fair amount of good, reasonably skilled jobs. Very little new construction gets any solar consideration at all (although new construction is generally more energy efficient than my 1963 house, even though I added insulation).

It’s a pity we don’t move more aggressively on these things… 75% of the homes in my town are new since 1985, perhaps 50% new since about 1995. If they had been engineered and built for the best combination of passive solar gain, active solar space and water heating, the reduction in NG use would be very impressive. As it is, higher energy efficiency standards just started to phase in at that time and there’s almost zero use of solar power in any form. And plenty of these are half million dollar homes. Diverting 10% of the purchase price of one of those into advanced solar tech would probably yield a house with amazing solar potential.

Landcrusher, what factors do you think would cause the oil bubble to burst?

I know they are now planning two more reactors at the South Texas Nuclear Project. The locals there are all for it. The no nukes have a lot less ammo since there already is a reactor there. The regulatory environment here is better than average, so it’s just the Fed’s and the economics that have to work out. We have lots of natural gas here, and, unless I am mistaken, diesel generators as well.

All of that tells me that it may indeed be the marginal costs of legal/PR hassles that are the real enemy to nuke plants.

Lastly, there is much more talk around town that the oil bubble may burst. Good for the rest of the economy, bad for us. Yours truly will likely lose money in lost business and falling real estate. My loss, ya’lls gain. Don’t cancel your Viper order just yet.

We tax the bejeezus out of it!

You didn’t realize that? Did you learn nothing during the Clinton years? :-)

My experience with a power company and my understanding of nukes was that the legal bills were not the major problem. However, uncertainty, and the impact of greens is a part of that, is.

For the most part, power companies have been able to manage to meet load with smaller-scale projects, plant rebuilds (the Allen S. King just got overhauled near me and now produces more with less) and conservation initiatives.

In the ’80’s, power companies said this was impossible… turned out not to be so.

This greenie is not entirely adverse to new nukes but I’d like to see better technology implemented (there appear to be some available) and a way of manaaging them that puts safety first. We also have to find a way to store the waste and get on the stick about safe transport of same. And I’d like to see breeders as part of the system, so as to ensure fuel indefinitely. Another risk to be managed. I’d put the Navy in charge. Their record, under adverse circumstances, is very good.

Nuclear power from a fully depreciated plant (usually operating beyond its initial estimated life) is about the cheapest power there is. I think we can still get inexpenstive electricity from new nukes but we also need new ways to use that electricity to enable a CO2 emissions-free energy infrastructure or I won’t think it’s worthwhile to support those new nukes. Well… ways exist but it could be that they must be subsidized.

Oh… and we do use a fair amount of oil in an important non-transportation use; as home heating oil. Shifting that to clean-sourced electric or solar would have a major impact on both CO2 and the price of oil.

The thing about finances preventing nukes is somewhat true, but also misleading. One of the large costs of putting in a nuke site is legal bills from every green and NIMBY. I don’t know the actual cost of nuclear generation per kW, and I doubt anyone else does. At some price point or desire to eliminate carbon production nuclear WILL make sense.

I also wonder about solar panels being cost efficient WITHOUT subsidy. Perhaps the subsidy should require a certain efficiency level?

Overall, I am a supporter of the many solutions approach. Also, I haven’t seen any discussion about what happens if you subsidize alternates to the point that you are actually reducing the cost of gasoline (through reduced demand), thus raising the necessary subsidy.

Of course, even at good prices, solar power will only phase in slowly, so the impact on OPEC will be minimal.

The greens aren’t preventing nukes, it’s the financing that prevents nukes.

Solar or Nuclear, don’t matter. Neither wil affect OPEC much.

The US uses very little oil for electrical generation. Nuclear replaces cheap coal, and natural gas. Might help global warming, but again – no affect on OPEC.

UNLESS – there is another break through in storing energy for transportation.

We already have comestic energy much cheaper than oil, coal. Electricity from domestic fuel is much cheaper energy source. Making solar cost competitive with coal would be amazing news, and would greatly cut carbon – BUT – would have zilch effect on OPEC.

Aside from a little heating oil petro is used for transportation, plastics etc. Solar electricity – or any electricity – can’t work without huge advances in EV technology.

Liquid fossil fuel is unique: energy dense, and easy to carry (how’d you like to carry a huge methane tank or have to shovel coal in your SUV?)

The break through needed to give OPEC the boot is *not* solar electricity, we already have electricity (esp off peak). The break through is vastly improved energy storage (battery, fly-wheels, rubber bands).

It is not possible to double the efficiency of solar collection panels once per two years forever.

True: this doubling of efficiency every other year isn’t possible forever. Of course, this isn’t what he said. The qualifier “forever” was tacked on by you. We are at the very cusp of solar technology (as well as battery technology) and there’s quite a bit of room for growth. The proposition that we’ll be within the that window of improvement over the next twenty years is very real from a materials engineering perspective.

mjjacobs :

Mid-East like Israel only use home solar panels to heat water because the energy is difficult to transmit over distances.

Not because it’s difficult to transmit. Solar water heating is popular because it’s effective, i.e. a reasonably sized/priced panel can heat a decent chunk of the hot water. It’s a naturally efficient process and the energy is stored in the hotwater cylinder. Solar power generation is both less efficient (i.e. you’ll need large panels to power a house) and less useful as the energy isn’t naturally stored as with hot water.

mjjacobs :

Its kind of the same thing with wind. It just doesn’t produce that much power and they are hard to transmit.

It’s not hard to transmit. Once you turn it into electrical energy it travels exactly the same as that from any other source.

Wind power is modular and a small farm can be connected to the local 6.6 kV, 11 kV, 33 kV or whatever network. Conventional power generation needs to be much larger to cost effective and therefore takes longer to plan and build and they can only be connected to the high voltage transmission network.

How many billions have gone to Iraq ? I would have loved to have seen a modern day , goverment subsidized ” Manhattan Project” that tackled
alternative fuels with all our best brains and dollars.

I don’t care to do the math, but that link lists many of his predictions. One could calculate the accuracy of the predictions whose time has passed…

I hope this is not an off color question but does anyone see a particular solar company who is on the leading edge of this development. A microsoft-to-be type of company that would make a worthy investment?

@frontline

My suggestion above was very brief, but where the google founders have gone with their investment money is a fair bet.

http://www.nanosolar.com

Realistic? Maybe not. But 100 square miles of solar panels set up more regionally, according to demand, IS realistic. And becoming more and more affordable and efficient every day.

Evergreen Solar (NASDAQ: ESLR; USA) claims they are within a couple years of grid parity (pricing same as the grid), and will have a ~gigawatt of production capacity by 2011. FWIW.

As far as automobiles, they’d probably be battery-powered. The gearheads of our children’s generation will be popping the hood to look at quite a different engine, I wager.

Interesting stuff. I wouldn’t be too surprised if it took a little longer than that, though.

The energy density usage of large metropolitan areas cannot be met by panels on rooftops.

The solution to human pollution is dilution. Yay, suburbs and 1 to 2 story low density housing. Some of the greenies will treat this observation like the environmentalist Teddy K treated the news that Cape Cod’s energy needs could largely be met in his favorite yachting grounds.

Solar panel generated electricity will become a significant contributor but will never be able to provide all of our electricity.