frflyer

Cleantech 'Power 10' Ranking for 2009 (Vol II)

James Levy

Since you seem to dislike subsidies so much, why haven't you mentioned the $500 billion that nuclear has received just in the U.S. over the past 50 years.
And why don't you mention the $200 billion plus annually that fossil fuels receive worldwide, or the $49 billion annually in the U.S. alone?
I'm sure that is also the fault of those damn socialist liberals, right?
How do you rationalize $39 billion in annual subsidies in the U.S. to the most profitable industry in the history of the world, big oil? Not to mention two wars fought for their benefit, jut in the past two decades, killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Yeah I know, it's those damn socialist liberals at it again. Ideological labels are handy, when thinking takes so much effort. Easier than admitting that the fossil fuel industry has had a stranglehold on U.S. govt policy for most of a century. If Spain really wanted to go bankrupt, they would invest in expensive new nuclear technology that would take 3 times as long to build.


The author says no solar thermal on the list, but has two on the watch list, Abengoa and Acciona

On monday, China announced the intention to have 100 GW of wind energy by 2020.
That should be the minimum goal for the U.S. At the rate of 8.3 GW growth in the U.S. last year, we will have 100 GW wind energy by 2020. I would expect that growth to accelerate, which is why I said minimum 100 GW. The equivalent of 30 or more nuclear plants, using a 30% capacity factor for wind. And by 2020, wind energy will be about half the cost of energy from new nuclear plants. So will all forms of solar. Wind is actually already there.

Green Investments: Lots of Alternatives, with Big Names for Safety

The funny thing is, that Socialism Can't Compete probably doesn't consider himself an extremist, yet people like him have no problem branding the entire world scientific community as in some vast dark conspiracy to bring about world socialism. Get real.

They'll trot out their lists of hundreds or thousands of skeptical scientists, (which lists are all phony, every one of them), thinking this is evidence of a lack of consensus on climate change.
It might help if they went to the websites of actual climate scientists like realclimate, skepticalscience,logic... science, grist,climate progress etc. The only reason they ever go to these sites is to repeat arguments, in the comments section, that have long been disproven, some as long as 20 years ago. But they repeat this drivel endlessly. Some still cling to some wacko theory that the whole greenhouse effect is wrong because of a law of thermodynamics, even though real scientists have pointed out endlessly that this is a wrong application of that law.
Many of the deniers are just blinded by their ideology and are largely beyond hope.

Next he'll tell us about the Oregon Petition with it's supposed 19,000 skeptic scientists. It was a hoax perpetrated by a group in Oregon that contains ZERO climate scientists. They basically forged National Academy of Science stationary to make it seem it was a document from NAS that fooled some scienitsts into signing.
Their founder believes that the industrial revolution has brought increased biodiverstiy to earth and the more CO2 we pump into the atmoshphere, the more lush and eden like earth will become.
OK right.

www.sourcewatch.org/in...

Here's Sen Inhofe's list of 413 "prominent scientists" who disagree with the IPCC.
20 economists
44 television weathermen
70 scientists with no expertise in climate study
84 scientists who are either connected with the oil industry or are paid by it.
Scientists who were included against their will, and who agree with the IPCC

Inhofe and Morano misinterpreted a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
They claimed that it showed proof that the sun was responsible for the warming that's been observed in the last 100 years. The paper they quote says exactly the opposite from what they claim. This has been verified by the author of the paper.

climateprogress.org/20...

There have been several instances of deniers misusing or using out of context the words of climate scientists to make it seem they are disagreeing with the IPCC.

Heartland Institute, a leading oil funded denier propaganda mill, issued their list of skeptical scientists in Texas. There are dozens if not hundreds of climate scientists in Texas. Are you ready? Here's the list.
Robert Bradley, energy expert.
H.Sterling Burnett, policy analyst
Dr. John Dale Dunn, emergency physician
Michael Economides, petroleum engineer

NOT ONE CLIMATE SCIENTIST

These are not isolated cases. All their lists and their gatherings of skeptics which are advertised as scientific conferences(which they are not) are like this. It's all complete BS
These conferences are the ones where they basically offer bribes to give speeches ($1,000) or write papers ($10,000) denying man made global warming, all paid for by the oil and coal industries.
These are all expense paid propaganda events and nothing more.

And this is what they hang their hat on as proof against the overwhelming body of evidence and overwhelming scientific consensus.

They offer up these totally implausible conspiracy theories about the world scientific community scamming us or hoaxing us to raise taxes, create a one world socialist govt., take away your SUV, make you buy green products, and on and on. And then they call the scientists alarmists.
Is the dumbing down of America ever going to stop? I sure hope so.

10 Solid, Clean Companies Ready for Stimulus, And 5 That Aren't

The comments about footing the bill are misleading.
The Google plan shows an overall economic gain .

Another study showed a slight loss in GDP. The equivalant of reaching $23 trillion GDP in April rather than in January, of some year in the 2020s.

It's ok to give $40 billion a year to oil companies though, right?
That's a conservative estimate. One estimate is $84 billion/year.
Coal gets $3 billion a year.
nuclear is subsidised at 4-8Cents /kWh

Six Reasons for Cloudy Skies on the Solar Energy Industry

Nuclear plants the size of a garden shed spread all over the world.
Yeah, I want a few of those in my back yard. Let's spread the availability of fissionable materials and nuclear waste around the world where everyone who wants some can get their hands on it.
Will we have curbside pick up of the radioactive waste too?
Are you nuts?

Nuclear power does NOT have a small carbon footprint. The only time that is true is after the fuel rods are in place and producing power. Every single step in the process is carbon intensive.

Read the Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy.
www.theleaneconomyconn...
and this:
www.cleanwisconsin.org...

It isn't sustainable in any way. How about peak uranium in ten years or so.
Nuclear power requires enormous amounts of water for cooling. In a world facing water problems in the future, we don't need that.

Nuclear power doesn't give us energy independence. We import 65% of our oil and 90% of our uranium. And now Russia is being lined up as a future source of 20% of our uranium.

Nuclear power is not safe. According to Argonne National Laboratory, an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised. Think the twin towers disaster was bad?

The transportation of radioactive waste from all over the country to Yucca Mt. is potentially dangerous, as well as expensive

There is no accountability with nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act places most of the liability for nuclear accidents on the backs of taxpayers, not the nuclear power industry.

A nuclear power plant costs about $4,000 per kilowatt hour to build, compared with $1,400 per KWH for wind energy.

Wind and solar are much quicker to get up and running than nuclear or coal. And both can start generating power before large wind or solar farms are completed, because they are modular in design

Nuclear power is heavily subsidized. According to Earthtrack, Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized).

Every nuclear power plant will require at least $500 million to dismantlet, when it has outlived it's useful life. This adds to the nuclear waste disposal problem.

from the Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy
""The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste."
"Shortages of uranium – and the lack of realistic alternatives –leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter."
"Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise."

"Nuclear energy certainly has disadvantages, quite apart from the clincher problem of the depletion of its fuel. It is a source of low-level radiation which may be more dangerous than was previously thought. It is a source of high-level waste which has to be sequestered. Every stage in the process produces lethal waste, including the mining and leaching processes, the milling, the enrichment and the decommissioning. It is very expensive. It is a terrorist target and its enrichment processes are stepping stones to the production of nuclear weapons."

And the more we use up the low hanging fruit, the more radioactive tailings there will be as we try to squeeze a few ounces out of more and more tons of earth.

Now they tell us we can get uranium from sea water. sounds good until you find out we would have to filter 40,000 cubic miles of sea water every year to supply 200 reactors. How much energy would that take, if it were possible?

And nowhere do you mention solar thermal power plants which should be the kingpin of a clean energy grid. They can operate day and night and be used as base load, follow on, or peaker plants, exactly fitting their output to the daily energy demand cycle.
We could power the whole country with these, using less land than we now use for coal plants and coal mines. And they will compete head on with fossil fuel plants cost wise.
www.salon.com/news/fea...
Excellent article on solar thermal.

Cleantech "Power 10" Ranking (Vol. I)

I meant ESLR is a year away from production, not FSLR

Cleantech "Power 10" Ranking (Vol. I)

The lowest cost producer looks more like Nanosolar, which is still private.

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.
With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.
According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."
from www.grinzo.com/energy/.../

Wind verses solar?

"The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol, 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year." www.ecogeek.org/conten.../

They both have their place. Since wind is generally stronger at night, solar and wind go hand in hand.

Solar thermal plants can store heat to generate electricity at night, thus eliminating much or their intermittency.
And intermittency is an overblown argument against both wind and solar. It doesn't seem to be a problem in these countries.

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.'"

User 126360 They all have potential. FSLR is a year or so away from full production, but their stock is low right now.
I've been looking to do a little bottom fishing. The chart is showing bearish signs still, so looking for a bottom.


In fuel cells, I think Fuel Cell Technology is interesting. Utility scale fuel cells that run on natural gas or methane. They just got a fairly big order from a Korean company.


"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"
from Scientific American Article
Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

Solar thermal, which I would emphasize more than the concentrating PV that the above proposal does, has less environmental impact than PV, is lower tech and can store heat. PV is better for distributed energy, and over a larger geographical area. Solar thermal really needs to be in very sunny climes and works best in fairly large utility scale projects.

like these

"Abengoa Solar's 280 MW parabolic trough project with 6-hour molten salt storage for the investor-owned utility Arizona Public Service will be designed to supply the late afternoon and evening electric load of the Arizona summer."

"In recent months, PG&E has signed deals for more than a gigawatt of electricity — enough to light more than 750,000 homes — with solar power plant developers."

"The solar thermal industry is in its infancy but utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) have signed several contracts for solar power plants and negotiations for gigawatts more of solar electricity are ongoing."

Green Wombat has several articles about solar thermal plants in California and Arizona. California has 9 small pilot plants that were built in the 80s and 90s. They produce 355 megawatts. Two larger plants have been approved for the Mojave Desert at 355 and 500 megawatts. Another is to be built near San Luis Obispo at 175 megawatts.

"Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. [NYSE: UTX], and US Renewables Group have formed a new entity, SolarReserve, to commercialize the concentrated solar power tower technology and corresponding molten salt storage system developed by Rocketdyne. This renewable technology will enable utility-scale solar power generation. It is designed to meet a utility's needs with a single installation capable of producing up to 500 MW of peak power."
From CNET:

Read more at Green Wombat
blogs.business2.com/gr.../

Not All Is Green in Alt. Energy ETF Land

I just went to Cree's website and it looks like they are moving rapidly into general lighting with their LEDs. And colors are not limited, in fact LEDs can provide all kinds of colors. Their lamps have the warmth of tone of incandescents without the heat or glare.

off topic
Tao your mother must be related to Lao Tzu, who you are quoting. The most wisdom in the fewest words ever written, IMO. I'm referring to the Tao te Ching of course. Good choice to quote from.

Contradictions in the Solar Market

I don't understand the argument, that solar is still expensive because is needs subsidies. Oil and gas company subsidies are in excess of $80 billion annually, coal is subsidized and nuclear is subsidized. Some estimates of the hidden costs of oil are over $800 billion annually just in the U.S. That includes subsidies, cost of military protection of shipments, health and environmental and other costs from pollution.
The idea that the market will fix everything is not realistic when the market is already rigged in favor of existing entrenched industries. If anything, we should be subsidizing renewable energy at a much higher rate than current proposals. It currently is a small fraction of other energy subsidies.

Oil Prices, Electric Cars and the Wisdom of Carlos Ghosn

Perhaps you've seen this story about a solar grand plan for the U.S.
www.sciam.com/article....

It's encouraging, but I think we can do even better. It speaks of investing $400 billion over 20 years or so to develop concentrating solar, both PV and thermal, in our southwest, and building a new DC distribution network.
Given the amount of money now subsidizing oil and other fossil fuels, a dramatic change in these policies could finance such projects even faster than projected in the article.
If I'm not mistaken, we are now subsidizing the fossil fuel industries at about $80 billion a year. That's $400 billion in five years. Or at $50 billion a year, you're looking at 8 years. We could scale up these solar and grid projects faster than the 40 years described in the article referred to above. It really is about our mindset as much as anything else. We can do anything if we change our thinking. After 40 years or so of us environmentalists warning that the earth is in critical condition, which is now confirmed by the majority of the world's scientists, many Americans still percieve environmentalists as misguided wierdos. Even without global warming, the statement is true that earth is in critical condition.
The fact that the Republicans were able to strip the alt energy tax credits from the recent energy bill, and the proposals to take $21 billion in tax credits from the highly profitable oil industry, to be applied to alternative energy, speaks volumes about how far we have to go in changing our thinking. Vote for the earth this year. It's the environment stupid! What could possibly be as important?
The difference in importance approaches infinity. I say this because, compared with whether the earth will be able to support life in the coming centuries is infinitely more important than any other issue. Will we continue to be distracted into believing that other issues are even worth mentioning in comparison? The thinking currently goes something like this. "Sure we can save the environment, as long as it doesn't cost too much." That is considered sane reasonable thinking among many of us. And those self interests who promote such thinking will continue to try and frighten the populace into rejecting any progressive ideas for fear of their pocketbook. I believe that alternative energy offers one of the best oppurtunities for envigorating our enonomy. It's about the future, and the future isn't oil.

The situation in China and India means that we in the developed world have to do that much more to offset this increased demand for oil. The new mantra of the anti environmentalists is that China is now the culprit in global warming; so why should the U.S. change it's ways? This of course is pretzel logic and dishonest. It is the west that has been filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases for 150 years and that is largely reponsible for the current CO2 levels.
And we have 1 quarter of China's population in the U.S., which means we are four times as dirty per capita.
And being the leading country in the world, according to our own assesment, shouldn't we be the ones setting an example? We can cut back on our oil use in many ways, one of which is by switching to bioplastics, ala Metabolix and others. We use 10% of our oil to make plastics. And these plastics are a huge pollution problem. This is a better use of biomass than ethanol. And we can switch from tree based paper making to hemp based paper, which is more sustainable and could save us from destroying the great boreal forests of Canada, as well as our own forests. I know, that's not directly related to oil use but is also of great importance to the oxygon/CO2 balance. And trees are vital to the earth's health in many more ways.