Alternative Energy: Viable?

Z & Harv,
Thanks for posting the video, I usually don't watch 60 Minutes. I think I have spouted off about this particularly when the discussion has come around to Tahawus where there is thought to be a considerable supply of rare earths to be had in all that "gravel" at the old NL mine. What is not mentioned in this video is that these materials are in the tailings of many of the old abandoned mines in the rockies as well. Not in super high concentrations but sitting on the surface in rock that has already been crushed. We have the material, but just like our energy reserves - it just costs too much to produce it when someone else is willing to produce it cheaper. Given the timing of the IP rail deal, I think this issue is what made that happen and that just like it was in WW2 - that rail line is really considered to be a national defense issue. It will sit in a relatively usable state in case it is ever needed.

Let's discuss natural gas for a second though. This is where Z and I part ways. Natural gas is not clean energy. Natural gas usage produces the same green house gasses as burning gasoline and with the pollution controls we have on our vehicles and the tier 4 diesel emission standards, our cars & trucks are operating at a level that is as good as a fuel burner can be, minimizing NoX, CO and products of incomplete combustion. To minimize CO2 they need to be thermally more efficient or used less. Methane (Natural gas) is a green house gas as well, it is not so clean - we just have a lot of it so we advertise it as being clean, Z drank that coolaid. Natural gas, for anything but a fixed asset is a looser and Fraking is an environmental disaster just waiting to happen. Look at the wasted energy used to liquefy it, and it's low heat content (compared to gasoline) are the issues. For cars, trucks and planes, stable liquid fuels with high heat content are what is required and the best we have is diesel or jet fuel with gasoline being a close second. Yes - we should run our power plants, factories and heat our homes with it, but that's about it.

So this takes us back to Solar and all its forms (I include wind and hydro as two of it's forms). We should maximize our use of solar, but let's be smart about it. Silicon based PV in it's current form is a looser. But there are a lot of other ways to get energy from the sun - I have mentioned several earlier. I am a firm believer that biology & organic chemistry as well as some interesting research in quantum physics will create the answers here - organic based solar cells are being developed with low pollution footprints but at present very inefficient (as were Si based ones many years ago), genetically engineered algaes that can mix solar energy with CO2 and produce fuels.

One needs to ask the question - can Solar meet all our energy needs? The answer to this is yes. At about a 20% conversion efficiency it would take approximately 200,000 square miles of land set aside (about the size of Spain) to meet the total energy demands of the world.  There is enough non-usable land (deserts and roof tops) to do this. What we need is a technology that will work well and not cause more problems than it is solving.

End of Ultra right wing politically motivated fox news mind numbing rant...

Pee & Z, I appreciate all the info you've posted here.  Seriously.
I got the impression from the link PTex posted yesterday that much of the silicon used in PV production is a by-product of chip manufacturing.    So isn't it at least partly unfair to assign solar cell production with all of the negative attributes (emissions, energy consumption) when it is using something that would have been a throw-away?  Isn't it  the chip fab business that should take the hit for that?
If we manufactured silicon specifically for solar, aren't the energy requirements and emissions significantly less?
Regarding the emissions (greenhouse and other), isn't that problem at least partially solveable with technology and money?
I get the problem with China and the rare earth minerals (solveable with money - put tarrifs on the Chinese production), but I didn't see (or maybe I just missed) where rare earths were critical to the solar cell manf process.
I'd really like to see some efficiency chart that showed how much energy is produced for every unit of energy put in for a range of conventional and alternative energy sources, fully accounting for production, transportation, etc. over the energy source's lifespan (again, maybe you already posted but I missed). Solar, wind, hydro, nat gas, nuke, coal, etc.

These topics you can see are actively also being discussed and thought about in the engineering and design world.  When US based engineers start working on a problem good things result long term.

One issue that this article raises that PT or I didn't bring up is that eventually these batteries need to be disposed of which the article indicates a good technology does not currently exist though they think remanufacturing could be a possibility.  I suspect that technology advancement may not make that as feasible as they think.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=278535&cid=nl.dn14.20150909&dfpPParams=ind_182,industry_auto,industry_alt,kw_36,aid_278535&dfpLayout=blog

The technology already exists to remanufacture / recycle electric vehicle batteries, no?

Tesla's Closed Loop Battery Recycling Program

Granted, this ^^ is Tesla writing on their own blog, but it sounds like the technology's already here.

Sort of

They are still working on it and to be closed loop you have to assume that other industries like construction is going to buy the recycled by product.  When you are charging $80 to $100 grand for a electric car you can afford to do this feel good type stuff.  I doubt the other car mfr are doing this because it just us not economicaly possible.

Re: Alternative Energy: Viable?

That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.

- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909

If you note above I said that American engineering prowess can always be counted on to improve things.  Battery technology has some inherent issues to overcome.  I believe it will be solved but most likely with a different technology and material which then obsoletes the recycling of the existing gen batteries.

another interesting article

as I have stated for a electrical vehicle to truly become cost and performance effective its all about the battery technology advancing performance and lowering costs

interesting combo mentioned of a lead acid battery and nat gas.  I would not think Li-Ion could be used with Nat Gas due to the heating issues in Li-Ion

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1366&doc_id=278680&cid=nl.dn14.20150917&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,bid_318,aid_278680&dfpLayout=blog

This is a very interesting idea.  Higher voltage allows for lower current which allows for smaller gauge wire which lowers cost and weight and can be more tightly packed.  The disadvantage is that the insulation has to be enhanced but plastic or epoxy is lower cost and weight than copper.

This is a electric car I would like to drive.  No cost mentioned but I'm guessing we are talking 100 grand.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1366&doc_id=278718&cid=nl.dn14.20150918&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_auto,kw_motors,bid_318,aid_278718&dfpLayout=blog

Harvey wrote

Just got our bill, looks like we are paying .12 cents per kwh for supply and .06 cents for delivery.

Paying our North Country bill: looks like we are paying .05 cents per kwh for supply and .05 cents for delivery.

Not sure how that is affected by our extremely low use - only 73 kwh last month.  It also includes an extra .015 cents for choosing renewables.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1395&doc_id=279457&cid=nl.x.dn14.edt.aud.dn.20151230&dfpPParams=ind_184,industry_alt,bid_22,aid_279457&dfpLayout=blog

very interesting - might be an industry to look at investing in

I've posted this several times that storage is the big issue with Solar and Wind.  Hydro storage is one solution but it has limits and wont work every where particularly in the Western US that have water issues to start with.

Battery farms could work but what are the environmental impacts or making large volumes of batteries - its a very non green industry.

There also is safety considerations.  A mishap via lightning strike or some other issue in a large battery farm could be like a refinery explosion and would create a toxic cloud.  Batteries also degrade with use and then need to be disposed of or recycled again not a green task in any way.

 I Duh article. Yes, we need energy storage - we have known that for centuries.
Batteries are not the solution for bulk storage, the energy density is low.
Go back to nature, nature has used solar combined with chemical to store energy and IMHO this is what we must emulate, the only other alternative is going all the way back to physics and figure out how to store energy at the sub-atomic level, but once we go there we are at a point where there is enough energy already stored to meet every conceivable need.

Here is a new / old spin on how to store cold to save energy.  Makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1386&doc_id=281209&cid=nl.x.dn14.edt.aud.dn.20160812.tst004t

This is a reasonable approach - thermal batteries. I once proposed a heating system that used waxes which solidified at high temperature, you liquefy it with waste heat from heat during the day, extract the heat which solidifies it at night. Same concept.

Interesting idea.  What is the thermal storage property of wax?

This paper will introduce you to phase change materials: http://120.114.52.149/~T093000115/repository/fetch/1-s2.0-S0196890403001316.pdf

It's not a new concept.

Sounds like a great idea for passive heating but you could not turn it off in the summer.

Science and technology is where we will make big improvement in our energy use.

Govt can encourage that but unfortunately the liberal way is to use the stick as they ultimately don't trust the free market system.

This is a case in point.  Consumers left to make their own choices are choosing trucks and SUV's 65 /35 over cars now which will make it nearly impossible to meet the 54 mpg fleet averages mandated by 2025.  If they don't relax this standard the car companies will be fined.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1366&doc_id=281232&cid=nl.x.dn14.edt.aud.dn.20160815.tst004t

Consumers will either end up paying huge amounts for the added technology or if liberals run POTUS and Congress they will just greatly increase gas taxes to force people to drive smaller cars like they do in Europe.  Most Voters are sheep and don't understand that who they vote for will pass laws greatly raising their energy costs and be forced to make what Liberals think are the right choices.

They use both carrots and sticks, but if they make a bad loan (say, to a company like Solyndra), that's all their political enemies focus on (instead of focusing on the fact that the program that gave out these loans turned a profit for the government).

Getting attacked for trying to encourage investment in green technology is the exact reason governments are reluctant to encourage investment in green technology.

You're participating in destroying the system that you're trying to advocate for.

coach cracks me up.    and then Im all