frflyer

The Future Shape of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

John Loundsbury

" Do you see any possible development of facilities that combine photovoltaic and thermal solar? It seems to me looking at each source separately involves wasting some of the incident energy available and also not taking full advantage of using all the peripheral facilities (and grid feeds)."

Israili company Zenith Solar is doing something akin to what you are asking about. Concetrating PV solar cells get too hot and need to be cooled, otherwise they lose efficiency and can be damaged. Zenith turns this into an asset by collecting the heated cooling water, thus providing electricity and hot water from CPV.

from their website:

"In conventional CPV systems, the excess heat generated in the solar cell needs to be removed to avoid damaging the cell and to maintain high efficiency of electricity conversion. ZenithSolar utilizes the heat generated at the solar cell receiver to provide usable hot water heating, improving overall solar power conversion efficiency to 75% ."
and
"An ordinary photovoltaic cell, which is 10 by 10 centimeters, normally produces one watt of electricity. We managed to extract more than a thousand times more - 1,500 watts. In this way, the cost of a cell is 1,500 less, becoming almost nothing."

www.businessweek.com/g...

Although not quite what you are asking about, it's conceivable that wind and PV solar could co-exist on the same land, since the wind turbines have so much space between them. This could make better use of the transmission lines. Of course wind farms may co-exist with agriculture too.

CSP can also be combined heat and power, or used for desalinization exclusively or combined with power generation. I've been wondering if this might be used to alleviate the water shortages in Southern California.
I'm guessing that it would depend on the logistics of pumping sea water to the solar plants, and fresh water back to LA and San Diego. Whether that's practical or feasable, I'm not sure. There's little doubt that Southern California will need desalinization.

Another interesting idea is to use wave action and buoys to drive pumps that force sea water through a reverse osmosis membrane for desalinization. There is one company working on this.

The Future Shape of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Solar's BTUs come from directly from the sun and are free.
Coal's BTUs involve massive environmental damage, blowing the tops off thousands of mountains, contaminating streams and rivers, amassing billions of gallons of toxic fly ash sludge, spewing mercury, arsenic etc and requiring about 25% of our rail freight capacity to deliver.

At this next link you will learn how oil and coal industry money is funneled through different foundations to bury the money trail, and "wipe the oil" off of it.
They set up organizations like Policy Communications, The Western Business Roundtable, Partnership for America, and Americans for American Energy, to make it seem like there is this groundswell of grassroots organizations opposing the scientific theory of man made climate change and opposing the move to sustainable energy. These are actually all the same people from the fossil fuel industry and mining industry. They are all staffed by the same executives.

"It's called 'astroturfing' - the setting up of fake grassroots organizations and it's one of the oldest tricks in the books.
Policy Communications
An energy industry-backed astro-turf network concocted by a single PR/Lobbying firm that is working to undermine the efforts of environmental groups and organizations like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). that are pushing for solutions to climate change."

www.desmogblog.com/pol...

ABEC
"Formed in 2000 to develop astroturf support for coal-based electricity, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) promotes the interests of mining companies, coal transporters, and electricity producers. A domain name search reveals that ABEC's website is registered to the coal industry trade organization Center for Energy and Economic Development. (ABEC originally used the balancedenergy.org domain but later switched to a website titled America's Power)." Sourcewatch

from the ABEC website:
"Because they recognize the essential role that electricity from coal plays in protecting the environment while providing over half of the electricity used each day in the U.S., America's coal-based electricity industry (producers, transporters, and electricity generators) have provided the primary initial funding for this worthwhile project."

"..the essential role that electricity from coal plays in protecting the environment... "

And I though coal was dirty. Silly me

"These organizations purport to represent one agenda while in reality they serve some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which has a lengthy entry in SourceWatch, claims its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for agribusiness and the tobacco, restaurant, and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide most of its funding. "

"This sort of manipulation doesn't necessarily entail outright lies of commission, but it typically entails lies of omission that disguise the identity of the message's sponsor. The use of the third party technique tends to corrupt journalism, science and the other institutions that it touches. Moreover, using lies of omission rather than commission enables the people who participate in front groups to rationalize that they aren't really doing anything wrong. The logic of the third party technique implies that when PR firms set out to manufacture news, they often want to keep their clients (and themselves) out of the story." Sourcewatch

And they choose names and make statements that make it sound like they're just looking out for all our best interest.
Like "..the essential role that electricity from coal plays in protecting the environment..."

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

Optionsgirl

I said nothing about cap and trade. I actually think a carbon tax is a better idea. The reason being, that it actually has a better chance of lowering emissions. And it places the responsibility on those who create the emissions. The cap and trade idea currently being debated allows big polluters off the hook for far too much emissions.
Again, you are just repeating the conservative talking point, that it's an attempt to tax the public. That's hogwash.
It's an attempt to finally fix a price on the dumping of pollution into the environment. There are real costs to all of us from pollution, whether CO2 or otherwise. We already pay those costs indirectly. And it's an attempt to level the playing field. If we were serious about leveling the playing field, all subsidies to the highly profitable fossil fuel industry would end tomorrow. They are about 3 times as much as the $15 billion a year Obama wants to spend promoting clean energy renewables.

Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, SC, addressing the Nationwide Town Hall on Energy
Interesting ideas about carbon tax and wage tax break offsetting each other.

watthead.blogspot.com/...

Republicans speak out against deceitful tax scare by their party.
getenergysmartnow.com/.../

Republican Rep. Boehner and Sen. McConnel grossly exaggerate costs to taxpayers of cap and trade, by at least an order of magnitude.

www.desmogblog.com/rep...

Did you attend one of the tea bag parties to protest against Obama's tax cuts for 95% of Americans?

"Nuclear energy, drilling on our own lands, utilizing the fuels we have in abundance are the keys to our future strength."

You are kidding right? Drill baby drill? Is that what you think will solve the probelm? That's one reason why Obama won the election. The same thinking that got us into this mess will not get us out of it. And if that is all Republicans have to offer, it will be a long long time before they hold power again.

If we pumped out all the estimated oil reserves off the coast of California, we would end up with 16 months supply of oil at current consumption rates. It might help a little, but not much.

Nuclear power can lead to nuclear weapons. Don't we want to work toward non proliferation? And lets not spread nuclear waste worldwide where terrorists can get all they want.

The thorium technology that fireofenergy is talking about might be a future energy solution, but it's no reason to jetison the proven solar and wind technology that is ready to build right now. There are about 15 companies lined up to build solar thermal plants. The pilot plant stage already happened in the late 80s. The molten salt heat storage is relatively new, but plants are already being built with it.
While it adds another cost, that cost is offset by higher electricity prices, because of the more valuable dispatchable power.

NREL
"Thermal storage, along with an enlarged solar field, also allows the CSP plant to operate at a higher annual capacity factor, about 40 percent with 6 hours of storage versus 28 percent for no storage. This gives the plant the ability
to generate higher revenues to off-set the additional cost of the storage system. The levelized costs in Table 6-2 reveal this, as the trough plant with 6 hours of storage and
without storage have roughly the same cost of energy ($157/MWh vs. $154/MWh)"
(up to 70% capacity factor with enough heat storage)

more here
www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp...
Desert Trec CSP COSTS
also has cost analysis of HVDC transmission lines

www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp...
"CSP Around The World" Worldwide CSP solar potential.

Why CSP should not try to be coal, and why it's dispatchable power is better than base load.
www.altenergystocks.co...

climateprogress.org/20.../

We can use whatever works without too much risk, and that can be done sustainably. Maybe you don't like that word sustainable.
The earth doesn't care whether you like it or not. We are already beyond the carrying capacity of the planet we live on. We cannot continue to do the same things if we want to continue living here. It's that simple.

Peak uranium will guarantee that conventional nuclear will not be a long term solution. We import most of our uranium now 90%+, with Russia lined up to supply 20% of it in the future. Energy independence?

New nuclear technology is not ready, solar and wind are.
They are 2-3 times faster to build, cheaper, safer, cleaner, and will never need any fuel. They are not fantasies. Solar thermal plants in the Mojave have been providing power for 20 years.


That's funny about the CFLs. The mercury is an issue, but is also sometimes overblown.
"In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 tons) that year." Wikipedia

LEDs will handle much lighting in the future. Incandescent bulbs are basically heat generating devices that also happen to make light.


Take another look at the numbers in my first comment, comparing power prices for new nuclear, solar and wind.
They are not fantasies. Right now, clean coal and new nuclear are expensive experimental stage tech, with no track record. There is a huge shortage of key components to build new nukes.

And I am not ruling out nuclear. It just isn't a near term solution. And it is certainly not a silver bullet. Many experts, including scientists who did a study at MIT, think nuclear will play no more than 20% role in future energy.
And we can't wait ten years minimum for the first plant to be completed.

Water scarcity is predicted to be a major worldwide problem in the future. Other than oceanside reactors, we can't be sure of supplies of cooling water for nukes.
One plant in Alabama was briefly shut down last year because of the drought there. That could be a precurser of things to come.

Building wind and solar create far more jobs than building coal or nuclear plants. The NREL says the economic benefits to California from solar thermal are far better than from building new gas plants, even though the CSP plants are more expensive to build. They expect power prices from CSP to fall rapidly with economy of scale and experience.

www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...

billp37
"Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology"

That doesn't make sense. The NREL says the exact opposite for CSP and economy of scale. What you are saying is just not true. The line of reasoning you are using doesn't add up.

The amount of average sunlight doesn't change, I'll give you that. But the ability to convert it into useful energy does change.
PV keeps getting more efficient.
And economies of scale have to do with manufacturing and installation, not how much sunlight there is.

"As shown in Table ES-2, CSP plants installed in 2015 are projected to exhibit a delivered LCOE of $115/MWh,2
compared with $168/MWh for the simple cycle combustion turbine and $104/MWh for combined cycle plants. At a natural gas price of about $8 per MMBtu, the LCOE of CSP
and the combined cycle plants at 40 percent capacity factor are equal." from NREL

The pace of CSP development has already surpassed what the NREL estimated. The installed capacity they saw for 2015, should happen about 2012-2013. Of course we now have the drag of the economy to contend with.
But, follow the money. Look at where the most venture capital is going. Clean energy and clean tech.

An Israili company says they can get 75% solar conversion efficiency by collecting the hot water from the cooling of concentrated PV solar cells, thus providing both power and hot water.
That's about 3- 4 times what is considered high conversion efficency in standard PV now. I'd like to see independent verification of that claim, but they are definitely on to something. Concentrated PV solar, or CPV, could have bigger potential than previously thought, as combined heat and power.

The Future Shape of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)

Alan Young

While PV solar's role as distributed energy is important, we need both that and the centralized power of CSP. In fact, it's the dispatchability of CSP power that will help facilitate the ability to balance the other various sources like wind and PV and integrate them into the grid.

www.altenergystocks.co...

The above article discusses why CSP's dispatchable power is actually more valuable than the base load power we now get from coal and nuclear. And he argues that a grid with less base load power would actually be easier to balance.
He's criticizing Joe Romm at Climate Progress for calling CSP baseload solar, but only because he agrees with him, that it's better than baseload.

Wait; I just noticed that Tom Konrad already commented on this, and he is the author of the article.

Regarding the cost of heat storage for CSP, the article left out the conclusion by NREL that heat storage will not adversely effect the economics of CSP.

"Thermal storage, along with an enlarged solar field, also allows the CSP plant to operate at a higher annual capacity factor, about 40 percent with 6 hours of storage versus 28 percent for no storage. This gives the plant the ability
to generate higher revenues to off-set the additional cost of the storage system. The levelized costs in Table 6-2 reveal this, as the trough plant with 6 hours of storage and
without storage have roughly the same cost of energy ($157/MWh vs. $154/MWh)"

For what it's worth, there is another method of heat storage, which is claimed to be superior to molten salt. It uses a bed of alumina pebbles with CO2 as a heat transfer medium. It's claimed to allow much higher operating temperatures, and without the high melting point of the salts.
As a result, there is a bigger differential between the high temp and the low temp, making it more efficient.
I have no idea what others think of it, or whether NREL has done any research on it.

www.trec-uk.org.uk/res...

There is also the option of coupling CSP with natural gas.

NREL
"All of the SEGS plants (the 9 pilot plants in the Mojave, built between 1985 & 1991 ) are “hybrids,” using fossil fuel to supplement the solar output during periods of low solar
radiation. Each plant is allowed to generate 25 percent of its energy annually using fossil fuel. With the use of the fossil hybrid capability, the SEGS plants, during Southern
California Edison (SCE) on-peak hours, have exceeded 100 percent capacity factor for more than a decade, with greater than 85 percent from solar operation."

billp37
"Let's hope the stockholders don't get stung with any bad solar electric energy ideas.""

While this may not answer your question for your stockholders, it makes it clear that it is not a bad solar electric energy idea.

www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...

"A comparison of the levelized cost of energy
(LCOE) revealed that the LCOE of $148 per MWh for the first CSP plants installed in 2009 is competitive with the simple cycle combustion turbine at an LCOE of $168 per
MWh, assuming that the temporary 30 percent Investment Tax Credit is extended. The LCOE for the CSP plant is higher than the $104 per MWh LCOE of the combined
cycle combustion turbine plant."

"As shown in Table ES-2, CSP plants installed in 2015 are projected to exhibit a delivered LCOE of $115/MWh, compared with $168/MWh for the simple cycle combustion turbine and $104/MWh for combined cycle plants. At a natural gas price of about $8 per MMBtu, the LCOE of CSP and the combined cycle plants at 40 percent capacity factor are equal."

and

"Investment in CSP power plants delivers greater return to California in both economic activity and employment than
corresponding investment in natural gas equipment:
- Each dollar spent on CSP contributes approximately $1.40 to California’s Gross State Product; each dollar spent
on natural gas plants contributes about $0.90 - $1.00 to Gross State Product."

"Operations period expenditures on operations and maintenance for CSP create more permanent jobs than alternative natural gas fueled generation. For each 100 MW of generating capacity, CSP was estimated to generate
94 permanent jobs compared to 56 jobs and 13 jobs for combined cycle and simple cycle plants, respectively."

The NREL states clearly that the first CSP plants will be expensive, but that the costs should fall rapidly as economy of scale and experience come into play.

I believe your number for Wind at 1.2 watts/ sq meter is for the total land area where turbines are sited. Since a 2-3 megawatt turbine has the actual footprint of about a parking space, and uses only about 2 1/2% of the land where it's sited, your number seems way off. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Axion and Exide: I Love It When a Plan Comes Together

Great news. I wish I could say I got in Axion stock before now, though I imagine there will be much more upside. Exide should do nicely as well.
Maybe this will spark more interest in other advanced PbC battery companies as well.

"somebody pointed out last week that I shouldn't be disclosing positions in companies I don't discuss because of the risk that irrelevant articles show up as recent blogs"

I have to agree with that, as anyone who has clicked on the frequent meaningless articles at the Motley Fool knows. You think there is something relevent to a stock you follow, only to find out it's nothing more than an advertisement for the site.
Actually, the Motley Fool was a good site back when it was completely free, maybe 8 years ago.

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

And by the way, whatever the WSJ has to say on climate change and renewable energy isn't worth the paper it's printed on. They are notorious for printing complete quack science, and declaring in bold headlines that "The Science is In, Global Warming is a Myth", based on a non peer reviewed paper that was complete rubbish, and which was widely debunked in the scientific community. The same Arthur Robinson who launched the phony Oregon Petition was behind the article at the WSJ.
This is a guy who believes that industrialization increases biodiversity. Complete claptrap.

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

Optionsgirl

Thank God enough Americans are wiser than you and realize that what you call a climate agenda, is the appropriate response to a global danger that is upon us now, not in some hypothetical future. It is barely enough response. If we had any sense, we'd make an effort, on a scale like preparations for WW2.
Or don't you follow the actual science? The one that at least 97% of climate scientists agree is real, caused largely by man, and needs immediate action to prevent catastophic events. Predictions made by the IPCC in the 2006 report were far too conservative as evidenced by the most current research and data.
www.sciam.com/article....

Emissions as usual scenario will bring 4-5 C temperature increase by the end of the century (from pre industrial). Drought in 30% of the world, including the U.S. southwest for up to 1,000 years, with soil moisture content decreasing 20-50%. A dustbowl from California to Kansas. Ten degree farenheit hotter in the midwest. At least a meter of sea level rise and maybe two meters by 2100.

Read "The Carbon Age" by Eric Roston, and come back and explain how this is a natural cycle and not caused by our carbon emissions. You'll learn that what we are doing to the short term carbon cycle is unprecedented for millions and millions of years.

What you say about renewable energy is mostly nonsense, a bunch of typical talking points, that are just plain false. If wind energy were only to grow by the 8.3 GW rate, that it did last year, for the next decade, that would be 100 GW. The growth is just getting started and that rate should
increase over that time, exceeding the 100 GW number.
20% wind power by 2030 can be done.

Nuclear can't be built anywhere near that fast, or inexpensively. If nuclear plays a substantial part in the energy solution, it will be later and much smaller than you imagine. Carbon capture and sequestration for coal is experimental at this point, and will make coal uncompetitive with solar and wind, by the time it's ready.

Solar PV is quickly falling in cost and gaining efficiency and is already competitive during peak demand in the more expensive electric markets.

Solar thermal power is already priced where new nuclear power will be in a decade, when the first nuclear plant is completed, 12-17 cents/kWh. And that's the low estimate for nuclear from new plants.

By then solar thermal will be 4-8 cents/kWh. It can provide steady dispatchable power, which is vital to the grid, day and night, using heat storage. It doesn't require exotic materials or technology. And solar thermal can be built three times as fast as nuclear.

According to the NREL, California deserts have the capacity for 641 GW of solar thermal, minimum. Minimum, because that only includes land of 1% slope or less, and avoiding environmentaly sensitive areas. Up to 3% slope is considered good enough. California's present total generating capacity from all sources is 58 GW.
Arizona and New Mexico have even bigger potential. Nevada, Colorado, Utah and maybe far west Texas, southeast of El Paso, all have large potential.

The author mentioned biomass, but not the option of burning biomass in coal plants, either by itself or co-firing with coal. With proper planning, this could be done sustainably. This avoids shutting down all the coal plants, as coal is phased out. Get over it. The estimates of 250 years of coal reserves are looking more like 60 years or so now, anyway. The sun and the wind won't run out, for all practical purposes. Why depend on a fuel that someone controls the source of, with it's price fluctuations, and wars, polution etc, and that's going to run out anyway? Do we burn every last drop of oil till there is nothing to make synthetic products from? No lubricants, solvents, chemicals of all kinds, drugs, textiles, etc?

$200 Oil Is Coming While We Waste a Perfectly Good Crisis (Part 3)

@TexasER

You object to Obama spending $15 billion on green energy? Why?

I object to giving the highly profitable oil companies $39 billion every year, after 90 years of subsidies. And giving the coal companies $8 billion a year, plus what was just added.

If we ended the fossil fuel subsidies and applied the same money to renewable energy, wind and solar would be built 2- 3 times faster than nuclear or coal plants. Far more jobs would be created. They never need any fuel, ever. No fuel for anyone to control. Solar prices are falling at a rate that will make them cheaper than "clean coal" and any new nuclear power. They are more proven technology than carbon capture for coal. Decades ahead.
California has the solar resources to generate 10-12 times it's current electricity generation, just with solar thermal plants in the desert. That's the low estimate, limiting development to land with 1% slope, while anything up to 3% slope will do.
And that excludes sensitive environmental areas.
641 GW at 1% slope compared with todays 58 GW total generating capacity from all sources in California.

But the myth that solar can't power much of the country is repeated endlessly.

Photovoltaics and wind can also contribute huge amount of power. Wind is already cheap and PV will be in a few to several years, depending on location.
Solar thermal is already half the cost of PV and going much lower. It will be 4-8 cents/kWh by the time the first coal plant with CCS or the first new generation nuclear plant comes online, with the prices for both at least 12-17 cents kWh. It will be under 10 cents in about 4 years. An NREL study found that CSP solar development would benefit the economy much more than building gas plants. CSP can produce dispatchable power which is valuable power. Better than baseload. Day and night. The NREL estimates that CSP with heat storage will have a capacity factor up to 70%.

www.altenergystocks.co...

www.desertec.org/

climateprogress.org/20.../

Ethanol was never a good idea, especially from corn. It's proponents were mainly large corporate interests.

Some of our coal plants can be converted to biomass. It's a renewable.

Oil is not a renewable, as one comment said. When you burn oil or coal, you are releasing carbon (in CO2) into the atmosphere, and thus onto the short term carbon cycle. In the case of coal, it took 65 million years of carbon coming out of the short term carbon cycle, and accumulating as coal deposits. We are now putting that 65 million years of accumulated carbon back into the short term cycle in a few hundred years. In a blink of an eye. What's wrong with this picture?
This is unprecedented in the last tens if not hundreds of millions of years, maybe in the history of the earth.
Oh yeah, it's a natural cycle, right?

The real illusion is the belief that renewables can't replace fossil fuels in the grid. They are by far the fastest way to solve both the energy and environmental problems. Along with serious efficiency improvements in power plants, buildings, transmission, vehicles etc.

Energy Storage: Chrysler - A123 Alliance Likely to Spark Interest in Sector

John

You're right., Regarding the SUV that Raser is supplying the drivetrain for. They are talking about 40 mile a day commuting on the battery. The 100 mpg is a clever way of stating that it gets 40 miles in electric mode.
My previous comment attempted to explain this,
but should have been worded differently.

"Note: the 100 mpg is for local driving, with overall higway mileage in the high 20s"

At least those who buy a large SUV, and then mosly use it for commuting and shopping, will be doing so in electric mode.

Are We More Like 1932 - or 1923?

But what makes this similar to 1932 as opposed to 1923 is the wild west days on Wall St. like in the 1920s, wild speculation, and concentration of wealth in few hands.
With wage earners not having a raise in buying power since 1973, is it any wonder that most can't afford to own a home and pay their mortgage? The wealthy controlled about 20% of wealth in the early 70s and now control 35%

Corporate taxes as percent of GDP is 2% now, as opposed to 3% in the early 70s and 4%-5% in the 50s and 60s. The mean net worth of the top 20% is up 75% since the early 80s, while real wages are down 12% since 1978.
Workers have compensated by going into debt and having two earners per household to make do on what one earner could manage with in the 50 and 60s. The two earner household has higher cost of living, canceling out some of the benefits of having mom and dad work. Now you need two cars, childcare, etc., so both can work, and most are still in debt.

Comparisons of the 20s or 30s with today are probably not completely accurate.

Energy Storage: Chrysler - A123 Alliance Likely to Spark Interest in Sector

Did anyone notice the news from Raser Technology this morning?

"Raser Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:RZ - News) announced today it will unveil a 100+ mpg SUV at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress in Detroit, Michigan April 20-23, 2009. The Vehicle is powered by Raser’s E-REV powertrain and was developed in conjunction with Raser’s integration partner, FEV and a global automaker. "

finance.yahoo.com/news...

I only recently put Raser on my list of alt energy stocks to pay attention to, based on their geothermal business, but hadn't done any research on.
Surprise; they also develop electric drive trains and high efficiency electric motors.
Note: the 100 mpg is for local driving, with overall higway mileage in the high 20s. Interestingly, the overall range is more than for standard ICE model.
One thing I noticed, is that the SUV is heavier than a conventional one, which is not surprising with 30 Kw of batteries on board. Seems like weight reduction is something that needs more attention in overall vehicle design.

Lithium-ion Batteries: 9 Years of Price Stagnation

MichaelH
You say the government did everything in it's power to kill hybrids. I think you are referring to the Bush administration, which had a different agenda than the current one.

Five Top Solar Power Stocks

Mauiwalt

I understand what you are saying, but it sounds like you are talking about living off the grid entirely. Grid tied solar has none of the problems you refer to.

PeteK

Nobody will put money into solar? Tell that to the venture capitalists who are putting more money into green tech than anywhere else.

you say- "Anything that has to depend on the gov won't have a future. Period"

You mean like the railroads, biotech, the internet, nuclear energy, oil coal, natural gas......?
Oil has been subsidized since 1918. Continuously.

Dirk
The correlation of the sun with warming is not disputed. In fact, it's what proves it can't be the cause over the last 50 years or so,
Tim Ball spent most of his career as a geographer, not a climate scientist.

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

Sorry for the redundancy. I wish the window for typing these comments was bigger, so you can see what you're doing.

H.R. 1835: Legislation for Natural Gas Transportation

Some things to consider, and everything should be considered.

The point has been made by some, that it is much more efficient to use NG in power plants than in cars. Is this an efficient use of our natural gas suppies? NG power plants can be made more efficient than they are now, by coupling them with renewables, with fuel cells, capturing waste heat etc.
T. Boone Pickens plan, to replace gas plants with wind farms and then run cars on the NG, doesn't quite add up.
His investment in wind energy is a good thing, but wind with it's intermittency isn't a good match for replacing NG, which can be fired up when needed. Also, I'd rather see coal plants closed than gas plants, which are much cleaner.

The personal transportation issue is a thorny one. I'm not ruling anything out. We obviously need some kind of near term solutions that will help transition to whatever comes next in vehicles.

Renewables, which some of you object to, are ready to build right now, and can be built much quicker than nuclear. Coal with CCS is still experimental. Solar and wind can be built on a large scale, long before CCS will become a reality. In the ten years it would take for the first new nuclear plant to go online, or the first CCS coal, hundreds of gigawatts of renewables could be built. And by then, they will be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, or new nuclear. CCS won't be cheap. Estimates for building new nuclear plants and for the price of their power have skyrocketed. Renewables will only go down in price over the next 10-20 years.
Silicon for PV cells fell off a cliff this year. Grid parity PV is already a reality in expensive energy markets and will be nationwide in a short time.

Look at NRELs report on CPS solar. Look at their estimates for it's potential just in the deserts of California.
Up to ten times as much power as all electricity generated in California now. Their estimates for how many plants would be built by 2015 are already too conservative, based on how many CSP plants are already being built or are approved.

www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...

These can be built from conception to completion in three years.
And look at NRELs study on the economics benefits of CSP which are far greater than from comparable gas plants. (all the reports are in the pdf above)

CSP commercial development isn't as far along as wind, but could have similar growth rates. With heat storage, it's dispatchable steady power even at night. Estimates for power prices are under 10 cents/kWh in 5 years, or more likely at current growth rate, less than 5 years; and 4-8 cents/kWh when industry economy of scale is reached. And like I said, they're ready to build now.

Wind energy in the U.S. grew by 8.3 GW last year, and that is just the beginning of the growth. Even considering winds capacity factor, that's the equivalent of building close to three 1GW nuclear or coal plants in one year.
Even at that rate, 100 GW could be built by 2020. The rate will be much higher going forward, although the current economic situation will likely slow it for the next year.
Wind energy is cheap already.

Why not choose energy sources that don't need fuels. None ever, to prospect for, mine, refine, transport, store, burn, clean up the mess from, pay health costs from, fight wars over, live with wild price flutuations from.

Some things to consider, and everything should be considered.

The point has been made by some, that it is much more efficient to use NG in power plants than in cars. Is this an efficient use of our natural gas suppies? NG power plants can be made more efficient than they are now, by coupling them with renewables, with fuel cells, capturing waste heat etc.
T. Boone Pickens plan, to replace gas plants with wind farms and then run cars on the NG, doesn't quite add up. His investment in wind energy is a good thing, but wind with it's intermittency isn't a good match for replacing NG, which can be fired up when needed. Also, I'd rather see coal plants closed than gas plants, which are much cleaner.

The personal transportation issue is a thorny one. I'm not ruling anything out. We obviously need some kind of near term solutions that will help transition to whatever comes next.

Renewables, which some of you object to, are ready to build right now, and can be built much quicker than nuclear. Coal with CCS is still experimental. Solar and wind can be built on a large scale, long before CCS will become a reality. In the ten years it would take for the first new nuclear plant to go online, or the first CCS coal, hundreds of gigawatts of renewables could be built. And by then, they will be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, or new nuclear. CCS won't be cheap. Estimates for building new nuclear plants and for the price of their power have skyrocketed. Renewables will only go down in price over the next 10-20 years.

Look at NRELs report on CPS solar. Look at their estimates for it's potential just in the deserts of California.
Up to ten times as much power as all electricity generated in California now. Their
estimates for how many plants would be built by 2015 are already too conservative, based on how many CSP plants are already being built or are approved.

www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/...

These can be built from conception to completion in three years.
And look at NRELs study on the economics benefits of CSP which are far greater than from comparable gas plants. Water deslinization, and combined heat and power can be had from solar thermal plants. Some are being built just for the heat, for industrial and agricultural processes.

CSP commercial development isn't as far along as wind, but could have similar growth rates. With heat storage, it's dispatchable steady power even at night. Estimates for power prices are under 10 cents/kWh in 5 years, or more likely at current growth rate, less than 5 years; and 4-8 cents/kWh when industry economy of scale is reached. And like I said, they're ready to build now.

Wind energy in the U.S. grew by 8.3 GW last year, and that is just the beginning of the growth. Even considering winds capacity factor, that's the equivalent of building close to three 1GW nuclear or coal plants in one year.
Even at that rate, 100 GW could be built by 2020. The rate will be much higher going forward, although the current economic situation will likely slow it for the next year.
Wind energy is cheap already.

We import most of our uranium. How does that give us energy independence?

Why not choose energy sources that don't need fuels. None ever, to prospect for, mine, refine, transport, store, burn, clean up the mess from, pay health costs from, fight wars over, live with wild price flutuations from.