A Gust of Energy

I find this a good discussion on the need for an aggressive government program to expand and also rationalize energy production and transmission.  Beyond that I want to repeat a couple of comments of mine on the subject.  The first item is that most of the various issues disappear the moment we have some energy storage put in place.  For starters, Calcium hydride with thermal solar is a natural industrial grade energy storage system that could easily be used instead of having a power plant on standby for fifty hours of usage per year. 

The second issue is that the advent of the true electric car is imminent in some form or the other.  Each car becomes an energy storage device in its own right.  However the demand for all forms of energy production can be expected to sky rocket.

The USA should be gearing up to provide loan guarantees and sales contracts to accommodate this rapid build out that will compare to the headlong expansion taking place in China.  We could use three years of that.

The absolute best policy that the USA and Canada can enact is fund an aggressive replacement of all imported non North American oil.  We have more than enough internally if we swiftly displace transportation energy into electricity.  We will likely become net exporters of oil once we fully transition to wind, solar and geothermal through a national grid.

This is a huge job and a massive retooling of the North American economy comparable to declaring war and going to full mobilization.  Yet it is all naturally pays out through internal cash flow.

A gust of energy

22 JAN 2010 1:53 PM

BY TODD WOODY

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-22-a-gust-of-energy

http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/windmill_flickr_obrien26382_400.jpg&w=307

The great hope for powering a sustainable world is renewable energy. The great barrier to powering a sustainable world is the cost and complexity of building a new national transmission grid that will transmit the carbon-free electricity generated by remote wind farms and solar power plants to population centers.

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy released a report that concluded the United States could obtain 20 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2030. This week the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory issued a study that shows how the eastern half of the U.S. could obtain as much as 30 percent of its electricity from wind by 2024. The study focused on what transmission geeks call the Eastern Interconnection, six linked regional power grids that run from the Great Plains to the Eastern Seaboard and from the Canadian border to the tip of Florida.

“Although significant costs, challenges, and impacts are associated with a 20 percent wind scenario, substantial benefits can be shown to overcome the costs,” the report’s authors wrote. “Such a scenario is unlikely to be realized with a business-as-usual approach, and that a major national commitment to clean, domestic energy sources with desirable environmental attributes would be required.”

Essentially, all we need to do is come up with at least $93 billion for new power lines and infrastructure and get myriad transmission operators and local agencies to cooperate on the design of a new high-voltage grid.

Sounds daunting. But let’s put the numbers in context. The $93 billion is roughly what the U.S. spends in eight months on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Or to use another metric, a little more than what Joe Taxpayer forked over to bail out AIG.

The payback to build a transmission grid, however, is likely to be far more productive.  Such an expansion of transmission capacity (and the resulting increase ) in wind power—and one assumes, other renewable energy—would displace coal-fired power plants, according to the NREL.

It would also solve one of the biggest problems with wind—its intermittency, which plays havoc with keeping electricity flowing smoothly. To greatly simplify, the wind is usually blowing somewhere. By multiplying the number of wind farms that feed into a single transmission grid from a broad swath of the country, transmission operators can rely less on fossil fuel power plants—read coal—as a backup when the wind dies, say, in South Dakota.

That will lower not only the price of renewable energy but utilities’ capital costs, which are, of course, passed on to their customers.

In California, for instance, utilities like PG&E spend billions on natural gas-fired power plants in order to provide emergency power for those few days each year when the grid is overloaded—hot summer afternoons when everyone cranks up their air conditioners at the same time.

“About 10 percent of our generation capacity sits idle for all but 50 hours a year,” Andrew Tang, a senior director at PG&E, tells me. “This industry is predicated on the premise that you always prepare for the worst day. It’s hugely expensive.”

Left unsaid in the NREL report is that the massive expansion of wind power needed to supply 20 to 30 percent of the nation’s electricity would be a green jobs machine.

At the beginning of 2009, according to the report, the U.S. had 25,000 megawatts of wind capacity installed and added another 4,500 megawatts during the first half of that year, despite the recession. To reach the 20 percent target, NREL estimates that 225,000 megawatts of new wind capacity must come online. Add another 105,000 megawatts to hit 30 percent.

The researchers offered different scenarios on how to achieve those goals, relying on varying mixes of wind from the Great Plains, the East and offshore. The 30 percent target relies heavily on developing wind farms off the East Coast, a capital-intensive undertaking that so far has run into huge political problems.

The NREL report, which was prepared by the consulting firm EnerNex, offers a highly technical discussion on how to reconfigure the grid to accommodate all that wind. But the bottom line is that between 8,352 and 11,102 miles of 800-volt direct current transmission lines, as well as thousands of miles of lower-voltage power lines, must be built. All in all, as many as 22,697 miles of new transmission lines would need to be installed, along with all the supporting infrastructure.

But the key takeaway is that NREL has concluded that there are no overriding technological hurdles or insurmountable financial obstacles to be overcome on the way to achieving the 20 percent target. It is basically a political problem—just imagine the NIMBY nightmare all those power lines would create.

Well, a political solution has been offered up by, of all people, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who previously advised President George W. Bush on how to neutralize demands that the government take action on global warming.

Luntz has apparently undergone a climate change conversion. In a poll he released on Thursday, Luntz found that there is broad support among both Republicans and Democrats for climate change legislation when the issue is couched in terms of national security and energy independence.

“National security tops every other reason to support cap-and-trade,” Luntz concluded. “It’s about freeing the U.S. from foreign oil—and opening the door to greater security and prosperity.”

And as green energy advocates press to translate the NREL report into action, it’s worth remembering how a 20th century president managed to persuade Congress to fund a similarly ambitious infrastructure project, the interstate highway system.

Eisenhower did not argue that we needed to spend billions of dollars on a vast road system so we could develop the suburbs or drive coast-to-coast with ease. In the fearful fifties, he said building such a transportation network was all about creating the ability to move troops around the country in a national emergency. In other words, a national security argument secured what would become the driver of American prosperity in the coming decades.

Obama Administration Going Nuclear

I have it on good intelligence that the Obama administration is preparing to aggressively promote a major expansion of America’s nuclear energy capacity as the quickest way to fast track the huge amounts of fresh grid energy needed to supply the rapidly advancing conversion to the electric car. We certainly need the energy. The one technology that can handle a crash building program is nuclear. No other technology can provide pure grid energy as ideally suited to the automobile demand profile.

Recall that a plant cranks out the same energy whatever the time of day. This provides a massive surplus during the off hours. These are the same hours that a car needs to recharge. In other words we have a match almost made in heaven. Far more importantly, it can be delivered now. All other energy options will also participate but as occasional displacement options.

In the event, Obama, a president most sensitive to optics than any for a very long time accepted campaign funds from industry players for the past five years. He certainly made up his mind on this issue a long time ago.

There may be another option that I would also pursue actively but that is not what matters today. Nuclear power can deliver today provided the regulatory process is fast tracked. We are after all merely building out multiple clones of long established designs.

Because of the urgency of pending energy demand, we can announcements on this sooner than later.



Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

Tata Nano

It is not pretty, but neither was the Volkswagen. Recall that the selling price for Volkswagen in the late sixties was just under $2,000. That is now forty years ago and a major inflation ago. Recall also that the majority of the major brands were created by entering the market with the cheapest solution. Who can forget the early Toyota?

The new vehicle standard is going to be light and electric because they are going to be range sensitive from now on. Everyone will be conscious that their personal weight and passenger weight is a major fraction of total load. This was rarely the case before.

Since we will be so directly conscious of total load, just like in an airplane, we will begin making our choices accordingly. At least until the third generation super capacitor power pack comes out with enough juice to carry a ton or so a thousand miles.

I see real merit in a short two seater vehicle not dissimilar to this. Getting rid of the unloved and barely used rear seat is a great weight saver. Right now, such a design would lengthen the effective range from current battery technology.

Manufacturing technology has clearly evolved and this is a massive shift into a brand new automotive market that is many time larger than the present market in terms of vehicle volume.

World's cheapest car is launched

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7957671.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44347000/jpg/_44347595_tata_car_416.jpg

The Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car, has been launched in India.
Costing just 100,000 rupees ($1,979; £1,366), the Nano will now go on sale across India next month, with deliveries starting in July.

Tata hopes the 10-foot (3-metre) long, five-seater car will be cheap enough to encourage millions of Indians to trade up from their motorcycles.

Tata owner Ratan Tata has described the Nano as a "milestone". Analysts say it will not make a profit for six years.

Tata's managing director Ravi Kant said that from the first orders, a ballot would then select the initial 100,000 people to get their Nano.

"I think we are at the gates of offering a new form of transport to the people of India and later, I hope, other markets elsewhere in the world," Mr Tata added.

"I hope it will provide safe, affordable four-wheel transportation to families who till now have not been able to own a car."

Environmentalists are warning that the Nano will add to India's already clogged up roads, and pollution levels will soar. Tata says the Nano will be the least polluting car in India.

Factory row

The four-door Nano has a 33bhp, 624cc engine at the rear.

The basic model has no airbags, air conditioning, radio, or power steering.

However, more luxurious versions will be available.

Biofuel Buzz

There has been a persistent increase in the number of stories on the development of so called bio fuel derived as a byproduct of the pyrolysis of bio waste. I posted extensively on this subject in the early days of this blog. Regrettably, it is tracking the same way as the enthusiasm for corn based ethanol. Lots of folks are piling onto the apparent governmental gravy train rolling up to the station and this is a technology that everyone can jump onto. It is easy to present and the real thing that makes it all appear creditable is the simple fact that a fluid is produced that appears to look like crude oil. Except that it is not.

It is a brew of complex organics, principally acids with poor energy output characteristics.

The production process gives us two product streams. One is char, whether charcoal or biochar and the so called biofuel. The most energetic components, the volatiles are typically burned in the actual production process. Advanced processes can apply pressure and additional heat to improve the output by reforming the complex organics into better grade fuels like hopefully methane. All this consumes a lot of the available energy.
It all likely ends up as slightly superior to coal gasification but that is faint praise. It remains an option that is used because you have no choice and someone is prepared to subsidize it.

What it has going for it is that there is little patent protection possible, so you and I can waltz into a funding source and ask for gobs of money to build a plant. There will be a lot of such folks, just as in the ethanol boom, who will round up the necessary funds on this tale of joy and build away. They will all lose money, just as ethanol is doing today.

The point that I need to make is that even if it can be made to operate profitably, which is not totally unreasonable, the capital is unlikely to ever be recovered. Otherwise, there would already be thousands around the country long since paid of.

My real regret is that this is a diversion of capital from projects that deserve every penny of support.

I would far rather see a drive on creating cattail paddies that produce massive amounts of starch as ethanol feedstock. It would also employ thousands and not interfere with food production.

More importantly, the electric car is now imminent. We need a massive increase in base grid power on top of the rapidly expanding solar and wind sources.

We need to hugely expand geothermal energy production in the state of Nevada. Power plants can be built there readily and as often as necessary. What is most important, there is nothing to invent. Of course, we can expect some meathead to redo Icelandic history by using cheap steel inappropriately. The rest will not.

Very shortly someone will be asking why nothing was done for the past several years to prepare for the looming energy crunch.

EEStor Patent Released

Here is the link to the EEStor patent released December 16th or two days ago. It clarifies a great deal and demonstrates a developing practice that fits the powdered and coated barium titanite protocol. The descriptions are also detailed enough to give one confidence in the numbers they are reporting.

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7466536.pdf

It appears that they have actually made this device and it is working at the levels advertised. They may even have the manufacturing process settled down enough to make a bunch and to expect some reliability. It appears robust enough to handle vibration easily.

Folks have been responding to the claim that there are over 30,000 parts, but this sounds more like 30,000 micron sized barium titanite particles. Silk screening layers of such, multiple times, is hardly onerous.

This clearly describes what one would expect as the manufacturing system. It all depends totally on the capacity of each particle to absorb and to also discharge energy. Everyone wants to see that demonstration. It the protocol works, this patent convinces me that they can deliver sooner or later. After this we will see incremental improvements that moderately improve the system over the years likely by decreasing the size of the particle and sharply increasing the particle density. Yes, it can get better.

Take your time to read the patent and I don’t mean just the abstract. There is a lot of useful detail laid out in the description of the manufacturing process. I scanned the initial summary on the history of battery development but you may find it useful.

The energy separation caused by the use of coated particles makes this device safe so long as discharge is as easily controlled. One would hate to find a molten electric wheel in your parked car.

If this technology comes through, and from reading the patent and simply accepting the work clearly indicated, it has come through, then we have a real practical and compact energy storage device to work with from now on that clearly facilitates the electric car.