Discussion on:

Why baseload power is doomed

Chris, I always enjoy your articles; you do a good job of serving up interesting topics to think about.

One thing that is missing from your piece is a discussion of reliability. For example, considering Diesendorf's comment that "if demand were more efficient and intelligent," he is wishing that consumers would adapt to a new reliability standard (something other than flipping the light switch and expecting something to happen). As it stands, consumers expect power delivered when they want it. Without a means to store electricity directly (we only have indirect means at present; think the water impounded behind a dam or a coal pile), we do not have a feasible way to hold electricity produced from non-dispatchable renewable resources for use at a later time.

To that point, while Texas has over 10,000 MW of wind resources, it does a poor job of producing during periods of peak demand. This article from the National Review says it all: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce

We performed a study for a large PUD in the Northwest to forecast production of wind power at times coincident with that utility's system peak. The conclusion: 10% coincidence. Our results tie very closely to the experience of Texas.

It seems that all energy discussions are about all-or-nothing choices. No coal. No nuclear. Everything must be gas-fired based on a bogus argument that we have 100-year supply availability. No base load. It seems to me that we need an integrated solution that depends on access to EVERYTHING, but with appropriate science-based environmental and reliability standards setting the bar.

Again, thanks for your writing, you've made me think.

"if grid operators were able to predict reliably when and where the sun would be shining and the wind would be blowing, accommodating any amount of power from renewables would be no problem."

Completely wrong. Let's assume we could reliably predict when and where the wind blows and the sun shines. This does not necessarily lead to cheap power. Why? As a simple example, assume the wind blows first in the northern plains, then switches to Texas. Even if we could predict this exactly, we still have to have windmills where the wind blows. Not only that, the windmills *at each location* would have to have enough capacity to carry the whole load. But this means half your capacity would be idle at any time, increasing the cost of production.

Of course, in reality the wind blows at many different places at many different times. But you must have enough capacity over the entire system to cover it where ever it chooses to blow -- all the time. This will require massive overbuilding of windmill capacity for wind to take the place of baseload power plants. My own utility, Xcel, which is a major supporter of wind, believes that once you get past 20% or so from wind, you start to have problems.

Solar is a bit more predictable, in that you know when the sun sets and rises. But it's also subject to clouds. A worst case scenario is when a band of storm clouds covering a huge north-south swath of the country moves from west to east (it just happened a couple of weeks ago -- remember the recent spate of tornadoes going from the Gulf to Ohio -- and is not uncommon in the fall, winter, and spring). Worse, often the winds are so strong and gusty as these storms pass that you also have to shut down windmills. Even though these don't last for long, can the country survive power brownouts for even a few hours as a band of clouds rolls across the country? Once again, the only solution is massive overbuilding of capacity, this time for events which are relatively rare but which could result in major temporary disruptions.

Finally, natural gas has become so cheap that it's dominating all new power installations. It's pushing out nuclear (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577281490129153610.html ). On top of that the EPA is set to introduce rules that all but require shutting down coal plants (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577306472837955502.html ) and the only viable option left is natural gas. The only reason renewables are even being installed is because of a just-ended federal tax credit and states with renewable mandates of 15% to 33% that result in more expensive electricity.

As for smart grids, I live in Boulder, CO, the site of Xcel's first in the nation "Smart Grid City". Xcel spent over $45 million installing a smart grid in Boulder (a town of just 100,000 people), but after bureaucratic snafus, cost overruns, and lack of technical standards, it is now abandoning the project and trying to get ratepayers to cover its losses (see http://www.intelligentutility.com/article/11/12/smartgridcity-did-xcel-get-results ). Smart grid looks good on paper, but we're decades away from a viable smart grid system on a national level.

then they wouldn't need government interference. They would just happen.

You are absolutely spot on!

...of an open market of ideas. As stated, existing market players have a vested interest to deny, confuse and lie, for self-profiting motives. Nedler shows that Texas, ironically, has proven that renewable energy is a good idea that works.

you don't believe the environmental lobby has an interest in lying? How about producers of solar cells and windmills? I guess you think their motives arev pure.

Having been a consumer in Texas for 30 years - the mandated renewable energy % has driven up prices and reduced reliability. Anytime you have mandates and try to pick winners the consumer loses - stick to what made America great - the free enterprise system!

Most Public Utilities are now just monopolies that benefit their share holders instead of the rate payers they were designed to serve because of GREED...

Oh, you mean like all fossil fuels and nuclear power ($8.1 billion federal loan guarantee and still not sure the thing will get built).

I'd say 8.1 billion is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly trillion dropped on fiascos such as Solyndra and some of the Eastern solar firms that even the GAO said it was not a good thing to do. So, exactly who is it that's getting the massive loan guarantees on the back of the tax payer?

1) Storage of power.
One of the big problems we have is the efficient storage of power after its generated. What we have now does not work all that well, though if the
power source is cheap and plentiful enough it is not as a big a problem.

2) Nuclear power.
Current versions of nuclear power have waste and potential hazards as
witnessed recently in Japan. We need to explore safer versions. It's
possible to have a reactor that shuts itself down when coolant is
removed, but the designs are not yet proven to work. Any future
development should be concentrated on designs that do not
produce waste products, are safe as reasonably possible, and
do not create fissionable materials that can be used in weapons.

3) Solar Power.
I believe that in time you will see a solar set up on most new homes
in those regions where the sunny days are common. Still, even in
overcast whether its possible to generate power, if less efficiently.
If we get to the point where localized long term storage of the power
generated is practical then we can make homes that are fully off
the grid. Right now the deals with the electric companies are
somewhat lop sided where you end up losing credit for power
generated much in the way you can lose minutes on a cell plan.
Since the power is generally generated during the peak power
time period it should be valued at a higher rate and should
actually result in the generator getting a check if sufficient over
generation occurs. If this happened, I can see people building
private solar "farms" rather than having to have the power
companies make them or having the public sector doing it.
Turning the tops of malls and other private businesses into
solar farms should offset their power needs and allow them
to avoid some levels of disruption if there is damage to the
gird (provided local storage is available).

Oil, coal and natural gas are stores of power. Uranium and Thorium are stores of power. They are the most compact, reliable stores of power we have on the planet.

The discussion comments have touched on much of the magical thinking in Mr. Nelder's arguments. His article is so preposterous that I now suspect the veracity of his previous posts on the false industry estimates of natural gas reserves.

" that I now suspect the veracity of his previous posts on the false industry estimates of natural gas reserves."

You're just now catching on? I read Chris Nelder for laughs. Like watching a dog trying to lick all the peanut butter out of the jar, even though his tounge can't quite reach the end.

The shale gas revolution is going to steamroll coal, nukes and renewables (especially renewables) for the next 5 years minimum. Maybe 10.

If only ... there were storage for the wind power generated at night, when the wind mostly blows, and when the coal and nuclear plants sell spinning reserve power cheap into low demand. If only ... there were no resistive loss in the power transmission lines, so the sun from California could power New York, and the fantasy of the widespread smart grid could become reality. If only ... new transmission lines to connect distant sorces didn't cost $2 million a mile -- if you get past the environmental litigation and local shakedowns that stall any new construction. If only ... like Joshua, President Obama could command the sun not to set. Bullfeathers, indeed.

Renewable portfolio standards and feed-in tariffs are artificial pressures trying to achieve an outcome not grounded in reality. When the water problems of natural gas production are frankly acknowledged, that baseload fantasy will die too. Ignoring the real limitations of wind, solar, and gas might have crippling results to the economy. Which raises the possibility that the renewable baseload argument is a bad faith attempt to shut down the coal and nuclear plants, recklessly or deliberately sabotaging the national economy. Not just technical ignorance, but worse.

Wind should be used for grinding and pumping things, in high-torque applications where variability does not matter. Solar, presently a midget compared to wind, seems destined for niche markets because night happens every day, and sometimes it snows when you need power.

Germay's plan to create many thousands of 'Green Jobs' is unfolding as we see them planning to add to renewables: battery storage, pumped storage, solar thermal and smart grids. It sounds very expensive.

Maybe this is why the UK will follow the lead of an American expert, who gave evidence only yesterday, to the Committee on Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/millions-of-green-jobs-lets-dig-ditches.html

The most recent large nation to go down this road was Spain. Spain started toward a green economy around 2005/2006. Before the great global recession hit they were already deep in a recession by mid 2007.

Draconian regulations put on carbon emissions shuttered factories for businesses that were very clean by all other EU standards. The number of green jobs created by green industries has been far below the rosy numbers projected.

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/06/according-to-spanish-government-its-green-energy-initiative-is-responsible-for-spains-economic-distress/

While much of Europe is starting to pull out of the recession Spain is right there with Greece dragging link an anchor on the entire European economy.

Please do not blow smoke at me about the magic of green jobs. It has proven to be an illusion for every nation that has tried it.

This wasn't reported in English as far as I could find, but nuclear "minicenters" being developed in Argentina could potentially keep nuclear as an option on the grid http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120308_argentina_minireactor_nuclear_vs.shtml (view with Chrome browser for a translation if needed)

Dear Mr. Nelder:

The world is currently using ~16TW of energy, expected to double to 32TW in 20 years. NO AMOUNT OF RENEWABLE SOURCES CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS ELECTRIFICATION DEMAND.

The only chance we have to manage this need is with 'lifter's' Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's)....

I'm afraid your optimism is misguided!!!!

I'll go over this again in simple terms for those who missed the point.
Right now, we have 3 kinds of generators, base-load, load-following, and peaking.
Base-load generators provide only the base load. They cannot increase or decrease their output. So if the load drops below the supplied base-load, you're screwed. If load increases above the base-load, you need another power source. Load-following generators can change their output at a moment's notice to follow the load. My favourite examples are hydro plants. Need more power, drop more water through those turbines. Need less, divert more over the spillway. A large hydro dam can go from 90% capacity to 10% capacity and back again in less than 5 minutes. But it takes them 20 minutes to go from 0% to 10% capacity so you never turn them off. Peaking generators are brought online when the previous two systems are insufficient for the load. Think of a gas turbine. It can go from 0% output to 80% output in under 1 minute. In this system, everything is adjusted based on the load, with out regard to the supply.

So let's say we own a building and it requires 20kW just when it's sitting there doing nothing (likely because the lights inside need to be on all the time or some such thing). That's a base-load. We can provide that power using a bunch of nuclear fuel cells. They'll provide the same power, no more and no less, 24/7. Assume our building is in Minnesota. During the winter, the heating system will come on, on average, once every hour and draw 10kW for 15 minutes. But the base-load supply can't supply that. Therefore, we need additional supply. This is where the load-following generator comes in. We get 15kW base-load and between 5kW and 15kW load-following. But see! The requirements for the base-load generator decreased because we added a load-following generator. On very cold days, the heating system will draw a higher load, say 13kW for 5 minutes. So we need to add an additional 3kW above what the load-following generator can provide. This is what the peaking generator is for.

Now, let's say we add a wind turbine outside our building and add a bunch of PV panels onto the roof. When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, we generate 10kW. So on a sunny windy day summer day, we get 10kW from the renewables, and 5kW from our load-following generator. But we need another 5kW. We could get that from the load-following generator, but then we wouldn't have capacity for the 30kW for those still cloudy winter nights when the heater comes on. We could keep a base-load generator but reduce it to 5kW, but it makes more sense to replace the base-load generator with a second 5kW to 15kW load-following generator. So now, on a windy sunny summer day, we get 10kW from the renewables, 5kW from the first load-follower and 5kW from the second load-follower. On a a still cloudy winter night, we get 0kW from the renewables, 15kW from the first load-follower, and 5kW from the second load-follower to fulfill our base-load requirements. When the heating system comes on, the second load follower spins up to 15kW, thus giving us additional 10kW the heater requires. And of course, we still have that peaking generator for that extra 3kW needed for those really cold cloudy nights.

So as we increase renewable energy sources, we also need to increase load-following and in some cases, peaking generator capacity, to compensate for the renewable energy's unevenness or "unreliability". (Chris suggested other ways we might do that, but everyone seems to be taking that the wrong way, so we'll just leave it out for now.) But as we increase load-following capacity, we subsequently need to decrease base-load capacity to compensate. The increased minimum load-following capacity replaces the previous base-load capacity. And this kind of system of using more load-following generators instead of base-load generators, is even more reliable and more adaptable than the current system.

And if Chris had left it at that, the column would be 1/3 the length and everyone would have wondered what the big deal was about.

I think the real thrust of the article isn't about the technical problems of bringing in renewables because, that's actually the "easy" part. The real thrust of the article is about the human issues in trying to do it. If you sell nukes, you want the country to buy base-load generators because that's what you sell. If you're a utility, you want to stick with what you know, and that's base-load generators. And if you're Ontario Power Generating, you're building new nukes to increase base-load capacity, but wondering why because you also have a history of having too much base-load capacity twice a year. And there's the rub.

...by throttling demand to match supply. That's the "smart" part that they're trying to peddle. Theoretically workable, but inevitably not popular with a society that has grown up with power on demand, and rightly views places in the world where power regularly is throttled as "backwards".

Again, thanks Marie for expanding upon the idea with a good real-world example. This is obviously a complex and multi-faceted topic, as the comment thread here shows. You honed in on the point that I was actually making, which is that technology isn't really the issue here. The claim that there is some fundamental technological reason why renewables can't make up a much larger part of the grid power supply, and that baseload power cannot be replaced to some extent by renewables, is simply wrong.

Getting renewables up to 100% would be an incredible feat and would probably take the better part of a century, as someone else noted. But that's a story for another day.

I did not say that reconfiguring the human side of the grid (policy, regulation, siting and permitting, cost allocation, dispatching requirements, etc.) would be easy, or quick, or cheap, particularly in the U.S. There are a lot of thorny issues there. But it's important to understand that these are human, not technological, issues.

1) cost of renewables is much higher than natural gas so major increase would flow through the economy as a huge drag
2) best storage available technology for industrial levels is Vanadium Redux
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317141418.htm
3) a really smart GRID is an absolute requirement to integrate renewables (except concentrating solar which can be used as base load)
4) reduction of standard generators from near capacity results in such a large increase in production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that the entire production of renewables thus far has NOT reduced greenhouse gases at all. I can provide citations. Given their higher costs, what is the point without a smart grid?
5) Other than the immediate write-off for tax purposes of drilling costs which only results in a timing change, what specific tax breaks does oil or gas enjoy which other businesses do not? Renewables have HUGE government support and still are a multiple of cost of hydrocarbons.
6) I support huge government support for RESEARCH in renewables but even our current level of support for immediate incorporation is not smart without first changing the GRID which is a nightmare. We will need very smart governmental support for changing the permitting rules like we did for national highways to get it done in 20 years. Checkout the issues of implementation in the national smart grid government strategic document.

There may be a point at some future date that renewables will become cost-efficient but not now and not with a tanked economy.

We need much more of what works- coal, nuclear and natural gas -not of the pie in the sky renewables. Put money into R&D of renewables and other alternative sources but concentrate on what works not what we 'hope' will work.

We need a smarter, better managed grid not because of any sources of power generation but to improve delivery efficiencies because the use of power is going up, up, up. Quit using your politics to strangle the economy.

China and India are buying most of the coal we produce and are firing up a new, extremely dirty, coal-fired power plant every WEEK!! We have reduced coal-generated emmissions by 85% over the last several decades and the last 15% can be technically solved if we aren't too smug about what is feasible and in what time frame.

If we were to adopt the 'European' model each state would have its own regulatory system - their countries are roughly equivalent to our 'state' entities. We need a national energy policy that every politician running for president has promised but not delivered. Current administration wants $10 a gallon gas to 'force' consumers to other choices rather than a more natural, realistic adoption of alternatives that aren't ready for prime time.

"As renewables gradually replace conventional baseload capacity, only more flexible gas generators that can operate at under 50 percent of their capacity will still have a role to play."

Flexible gas generators can be replaced with storage. Gas peakers are a very expensive way to fill in the gaps. Gas prices are unlikely to get lower than they are now. Most likely the price of NG will rise. (The futures market thinks so.) Battery prices are falling. At some point we reach the "Hi/Bye" crossover.

Then there's this...

"(Dr. Alexander MacDonald, Director of the Earth System Research Lab at the) U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was in Vancouver on Friday for the American Association for the Advancement of Science???s annual convention and mentioned in a talk there that clean, renewable energy (not even including hydroelectric) could cheaply supply 48 states of the continental U.S. with 70% of its electricity demand by 2030. The other 30% would be half from fossil fuels and half from nuclear and hydro.

???NOAA embarked on the renewables project three years ago, collating 16 billion pieces of weather data derived from satellite observations and airplane observations and weather station reports,??? Scott Simpson of the Vancouver Sun writes.

???Then it designed a program to filter the information to remove unlikely venues for wind or solar power arrays ??? such as national parks and urban areas ??? and came up with a map showing robust wind resources in the middle of the continent and decent ones in the northeast Atlantic states, as well as strong solar production areas in the desert southwest.???

But here???s where the NOAA researchers stepped beyond the good to the great, research-wise: they balanced potential power production and electricity demand to determine, how, where, when, and to what extent clean energy could produce the electricity we need. The end result ??? 70% of electricity demand...."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=clean-energy-could-supply-us-with-7-2012-02

16 billion piece of data. 70% from renewables. Cheaper.

And we will almost certainly be able to substitute storage for the 22.5% fossil fuel and nuclear inputs as time goes along. Simple financial considerations are likely to stop us from replacing nuclear and fossil fuel plants once the price of storage falls.

Thanks for the tip, Wallace Bob. I'll have a look at that paper.

In case you haven't been on there lately,

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Really promising battery technology!!

Joe,

I was aware of the technology, but hadn't seen the TED talk, which goes beyond batteries to the nature of learning and invention. Super Inspirational! Thanks!

And yeah, anyone thinking of off grid could use a coffee table or two in the shed.

Chris,

Like you, I have become fascinated by the results of the quick and heavy switching to renewables in Northern Europe and the claims by their proponents of what is possible on the grid, if all the tech is forward and renewable looking. If the comments to this article are any indication, the fossil fool nabobs of negativity have done their jobs well in blunting any suggestion that baseload will be unnecessary in the future. Surely it's still an experiment in progress with lots of obvious hurdles to be leaped.

But just as surely you can't jump the hurdles without first acknowledging that they will be there, like it or not, as fossil fuel outputs diminish inexorably. Visioning is critical and the Germans and other Northern Europeans are doing just that. We're just languishing in the last century here, with understanding that's little more than conventional twittering.

Hardly a week goes by without 2 or 3 new possibilities for storage of energy from the peak output of renewables, whether it's portable or stationary battery developments, new and cheaper ways to create and store hydrogen or methane or whatever, yet most all that you get in response to this article is, "You make too many assumptions," "Your vision is progressive twaddle," or "It can't be done."

Well, it must be done. The Germans think that they can do it in a less than ideal environment and if they are only half right, half is far better than watching one after another of current fossil fuel and uranium plants go off line because the dirty fuel isn't there or is too expensive. If it takes 2, 3 or 4 times the nameplate numbers of renewables to get the job done, that's all to the better. I'll bet we'll find ways to make very good use of the extra energy when the sun shines like Hell and the wind and waves roll to the max. Intermittent industry can roll with the punch better than no industry. We can adjust, because if we don't we will be in a World of hurt.

Chris,

I've read and recommended your articles to others for some time, but this one embarrasses me for you. You ignore several very basic premises. First, it's a simple fact that a mature complex ecology cannot survive transplant from the environment within which it developed and evolved, and a civilization that evolved as western society has, dependent upon exponential growth in supply of ultra compact energy density sources that provide underlying power on demand 24/7/365, simply will not be transplanted to far more costly, intermittent, diffuse sources without vast dislocations, die-offs and other negative lifestyle consequences for most people. Second, you ignore the fact that the USA baseload electric system is 100% dependent on cheap and reliable oil production for the mining and maintenance of its energy sources and ongoing maintenance, and that electricity not used at any significant level is overland transportation - an app that uses about 66% of the total daily energy input in the ecology we live within. Third, you dismiss the financing of a complete overhaul of the entire nation's energy supply as a human problem, not a technical issue, in the face of a globally-collapsing financial system that, right now, is increasingly fed by central bank inflation of fiat money supplies as real economic growth is constrained by a flat oil supply.

I live and work off-grid using a 2hp pico hydro power turbine and 2kW of solar PV with a battery-inverter-based "flywheel" that provides a completely modern electrical lifestyle - though the batteries are nearing end-of-life after almost 10 years and will have to be replaced at a cost of some $4000.00 within a year or two. Unfortunately, while I could recharge one, there's no electric alternative to my occasional transportation need, since sites that can produce hydro power are typically rural and today's glorified golfcarts only deliver a 30-40 mile range. While I teach and fully support localism in resource generation, there are thousands of "grids" at work within the USA daily - all of which depend upon a baseload supply of diesel, gasoline, natural gas and coal.

To publish Pollyanna Press Releases such as the above, "where our wind powered car will take us the the solar powered Starbucks drive through" (with credit to JH Kunstler for that phrase), using constructs like "smart grid" - which as others have pointed out doesn't exist and, if it does ever come about will mean "sorry, you can't do that right now," is a disservice to your readers and to the truth.

@solar_teacher, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Yes, we live in a complex world with many difficult interdependencies, but all I have done here is to review research and data from the real world showing that renewables can achieve significant penetration into grid power supply, and that there is no technical obstacle to doing so. How does that qualify as a "Pollyanna Press Release?"

The smart(er) grid does exist in places like Germany and Texas and Denmark and China, albeit at a fairly nascent stage. It is not a pipe dream. The global smart grid market was $23 billion in 2011, and is expected to be over $80 billion by 2016 .

I did not say that we'll run our entire society on renewables alone, as you imply. I did say that renewably generated electricity can grow substantially from where it is today, and might, in the distant future, rely almost entirely on renewables.

You seem to have confused my discussion of grid power with some much bigger notions on energy transition for society as a whole, which I have written about previously.

Baseload power is doomed due to increasing regulations and increasing costs, and the subsidizing of competitive renewable energies.

The new EPA regulations announced yesterday could either derail or jump-start plans for 15 new coal-fired power plants in 10 states, depending on when they start construction. The loss of coal-fired plants points towards reduced energy output and higher energy prices.

This is no surprise. Barack Obama stated that his energy policy would cause energy prices to skyrocket. This is one campaign promise he intends to keep.

Basic input output model however there are accumulation terms pumped hydroelectric can store energy and release on demand. there is much much more that can be done with the rejected heat than the utilities imagine.

I know a company in TX with a technology to extract hydrogen hydrogen at a fraction of the current cost. But they need capital. Does anyone know a potential investor?

Until viable energy storage methods are developed so renewable sources can generate power when conditions are best, sunny or windy, and use it when the power is needed, to keep the discussion simple lets just say windless nights, they cannot reliably replace the current baseload scheme.

I like some of the ideas being floated about using excess power from coastal wind farms to break down sea water into hydrogen, or some form like ammonia, that can be stored and used to power gas turbines when there is no wind. Of course this means you have to build the wind farm with excess capacity to allow for at least modest hydrogen production on days when the plant operates at less than peak because of poor wind conditions.

It gets complex to manage, but it can be done if the excess wind power is stored and not used as an excess to expand local development.

The same can be said for solar farms. Once a storage method is produced you have to ensure you always have the excess power generation available to store the energy.

Even after 40 years of the Department of Energy dumping billions into them, the technology is not quite there. Renewable sources will have their day in the sun as the lead dog, but it is not today. Give it time.

Some solar thermal farms already have the ability to store heat (in molten salts and the like) overnight and run 24x7. The main reason why that technology hasn't become more commonplace is because financiers are less familiar with it than they should be, and are risk-averse. Again, it's a human problem, not a technological one.

Investors look at the bottom line on solar and do not like what they see. It is that simple.

The cost is so high that in many cases it cannot be ignored that the designed life expectancy of a solar plant using molten salt storage might be 30 years and the ROI is 25. That is a long time to wait to get your money back.

There is also a long line of alternative energy projects that have grossly under estimated the startup costs and over estimated actual output. To make a bad pun, many investors have been burned by solar.

Artificially driving up the cost of fossil fuels, an admitted goal of the Obama administration (think cap and tax and now higher user taxes and strict regulations) is not the answer if you want the US economy to ever recover. You cannot make the ROI of something look better by hurting the American people.

Like it or not the technology your promote is not yet ready for prime time.

It???s close, but then again many experts, as yourself, have been saying it is ready for the big time for 30 years.

The cost of fossil fuels on the market is too low. As a result, taxing fossil fuel use is a correction to the market to move the price toward its true cost. It is unlikely the taxes will ever be high enough to get up to the true cost. What is the cost of destroying the planet for all future generations? This is not just about a few polar bears dying, this is about billions of people dying. I recommend the book "Storms of Our Grandchildren" by James Hansen for an honest assessment of the dangers of global warming.

I am far more afraid of the unregulated pollution being pumped from hundreds if not thousands of coal power plants being used in China and India than I am of CO2 from the 6 or 8 much cleaner burning US coal plants being shutdown because of the global warming zealots in the EPA.

Our grandchildren will be suffering the long term effects of the toxic poisons from those plants in China and India long before the seas rise from the alleged warming of the planet from CO2.

There is renewable energy that works in a baseload system. Take a look at Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). It creates constant power from the constant temperature difference in shallow and deep water. It is a baseload power source, and is emission free. It's a game changer for tropical regions who pay enormously high fossil fuel costs compared to the rest of the world, and have aging, unreliable plants. Plus, every OTEC system produces clean drinking water as a byproduct. So while grids need updating to adjust to mass solar, and wind production, some parts of the world can be saved today with baseload OTEC power.

So far the Bahamas is leading the way in OTEC generation, lots more news and info at The On Project.
http://www.theonproject.org/?utm_source=smartplanet&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment

Since water is one of the most precious comodities on the planet, why are we not concidering ways of storing it for consumtion and power generation. Millions of gallons of water are pumped to every home and workplace. Why is this water not turning small turbines in the system to return power to the grid. 1% of the world water is drinkable, more work on increasing this statistic would reap dividends.

NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

In short, if there is more that 12 Billion in damages, we are SOL!
BTW: This is only a tiny fraction of what it will cost in Fukushima, which is about a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster!

Where would the US Government get the REST, Social Security and or Medicare? This question needs answering ASAP, from both Congress and the Nuclear Industry, then Americans can determine if Nuclear is worth the RISK!

#1 Nuclear is not only RISKY to the Planet but also has huge potential problems, so promoting for the use of land based nuclear reactors and or the building of new land based reactors makes no sense at all to me; either financially or safety-wise since Solar (of all flavors) is now about the same or less costly and much faster to build!

#2 I think that "dirty" coal can be used in modern plants to generate Energy so it is less damaging to the Planet but it should be phased out as Solar (of all flavors) is installed. I fully expect Germany to development a state of the art coal fired plant that is several magnitudes of order cleaner than what we think of now when we think of Coal and or Gas fired plants. The Japanese are in the process of planning to install mega solar in Argentina (and many believe in Australia) then use the Energy to produce Hydrogen which they will ship to Japan and or sell on the market. This is a great example of planning ahead by not just building more nuclear...

#3 We should use oil for transportation until we can develop engines that will run off something cleaner without affecting our food supplies! Heavy trucks require the "power" contained in diesel fuel and all Countries, especially the US depend upon diesel powered trains, farm equipment and trucks to transport food stuffs from A to B... Electric mag-lev types of replacements are not being installed because money is being used elsewhere!

#4 Energy from Space will transform our Planet and the sooner we begin the sooner we will stop the global resource race which leads to ever more wasteful wars and possible the end of life as we know it because of nuclear radiation and or pollution!

Solar (of all flavors) is now less costly and far SAFER than nuclear; here are the links
(The hand writing is on the wall):
10 strikes: http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
Energy Options: http://wp.me/P1YIeo-fi
Nuclear Down despite connections: http://is.gd/wGsIWS
The End of the Nuclear Renaissance: http://is.gd/61Z8KF
Nuclear power plants too expensive for Croatia: http://is.gd/FYyldW
Gambling on nuclear power: http://is.gd/4qMpgK

The industry is pushing "New Nuclear" but it is like the ice men telling folks to buy new ice boxes instead of the new fangled refrigerators that put the ice men out of business! If people have a real choice and are not made to swallow Nuclear Baloney (NB) by the Industry and or their powerful lobbyists then America and the world will be a much safer place by starting to Shift to Solar (of all flavors) ASAP!

Remember America cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster...

I just finished reading "Japan's Tipping Point*" by Mark Pendergras??t which is now available as either a paperback or as an ebook! He won an Abe Fellowship for Journalist??s, (an annual grant given to selected writers who then spend six weeks in Japan); he arrived two months after 3/11 visiting their Eco-Model Cities and interviewe??d many of Japan's Eco "Leaders" both in Government and in the private sector.

===>One thing I learned is that Japan's utilities own their electrical GRID and therefore are the only ones that can "approve" of any forms of energy accessing it! If Japan is to "kick" their Nuclear reactor habit, the Utilities will have to OK that decision, which means a reduction in both Control and Market share for them!
snip
"I discovered??, however, that the real power in Japan lies with bureaucrat??s who have strong ties to big business. They outlast the politician??s. The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) is the most powerful bureaucrac??y, with a large budget at its disposal."

==> Another thing I learned is that Northern Japan has a different form of alternatin??g current than Southern Japan so that Energy cannot be easily shared Nationwide??! This is yet another roadblock to low cost energy that the Utilities promote to protect their market share in Japan!
snip
"Each of the regional utilities jealously guards its borders, so that there is limited cooperatio??n between them. Transmissi??on lines are not large enough to allow power to flow easily between regions. Worse still, the northeaste??rn half of Japan uses a 50 hertz frequency, while the southwest operates at 60 hertz, making it impossible to share power between them without huge transforme??rs."

This to me, is the real "Tipping Point", since without a "up to date" modern (Think SMART) grid, energy cannot flow to where it is needed, when it is needed, at a fair price from where it is generated! Imagine installing new solar panels and the Energy produced is not allowed to be added to the grid because the Utility wants to only sell it's own energy!

* http://is.gd/W3Jcuo

Buy Cheap ******** For Louis Vuitton ******** ***** ******** Burberry ******** Juicy ********,

Wholesale Louis Vuitton Bags ***** Bags Burberry Bags Juicy Bags For Sale.

http://www.2louisvuittonhandbags.com

There have a been a couple of recent breakthroughs in battery technology, both of which could be game changers for renewables and plug in cars - EVs and PHEVs.

DOE-funded battery breakthrough to halve cost, triple range

"A new breakthrough from California-based Envia Systems will yield lithium-ion batteries that are less than half the cost of current cells, while also having three times the energy density. And guess who funded it? The Department of Energy. That???s right: Sometimes, when the government invests in innovation, it pays off moon launch-big."

"Envia???s announcement said that its packs would deliver cell energy of 400 watt-hours per kilogram at a cost of $150 per kilowatt-hour. Though it doesn???t disclose a cost breakdown, Tesla Motors rates the energy density of its Roadster???s pack at 121 watt-hours per kilogram. Envia said its energy-density performance was verified in testing of prototype cells at the Naval Service Warfare Center???s Crane evaluation division."

{read it at Grist}

This will mean electric cars that are inexpensive, and have a 300 mile range
-----------------
and batteries for the grid

The Weekend Wonk: Liquid Metal Batteries
TED talk video 15 minutes

{watch it at Climate Crocks -3/31/2012}

While I agree that more distributed power is a good thing, I'm a big fan of solar thermal power plants with molten salt heat storage.

Solar thermal power plants with molten salt heat storage are being built now.

Here's how a CSP plant with 3.5 hours heat storage on typical summer day in Nevada would run.

The plant would start saving heat at sunrise. A few hours later, it would start generating electricity and continue storing heat in the salt. By 1pm when the sun peaks, it would be at full rated power, say 1250 MW. It would continue to put out at least it's full rated power, while increasing output and peaking at about 3,000 MW at 5pm, exactly when demand in the grid peaks in the southwest. It would continue putting out steady but declining power until midnight. No fluctuation when clouds pass by.
Cloudy periods, which are rare in the southwest can be planned for by the plant manager and utility, from weather forecasts. In the daytime in what the NREL calls Premium Solar Resource areas, there is sunshine all but about 4% of the time.

3.5 hours heat storage means enough to provide 3.5 hours at full rated power, without any input from the sun.

The first plant with molten salt heat storage in the U.S. is being built in Arizona. It will have 6 hours heat storage.

In the winter there is less solar resource due to the angle of the sun mostly, but demand falls even faster than output in non summer months. Air conditioning is the biggest demand, in the southwest. A plant would run about the same as described ,though at lower output.

HVDC tranmission lines would enable solar thermal in this area to feed power into other regions.

The above is just one scenario. Another utility company might choose something a little different, like not generating power all the way till midnight, but instead saving the heat to power up earlier in the morning.

The plants can also have more hours of heat storage than in my example

First Large Scale 24/7 Solar Power Plant to be Constructed in U.S
May 22, 2011

The Obama administration provided a loan guarantee of $737 million to SolarReserve on Thursday to construct the first large-scale solar power plant that stores energy and provides electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The solar power project will be constructed in Nevada. (Note that BrightSource Energy is at a similar stage in the development of a larger solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert, receiving a DOE loan guarantee of $1.37 billion in February 2010 and $168 million from Google this April.)

This solar technology is a genuine alternative to baseload coal, nuclear or natural gas burning electricity generation facilities, Kevin Smith, SolarReserves chief executive, said in a statement

Source: Clean Technica

----------------------------------------------------------------

Solar Power at Night Developed by Torresol at Plant in Southern Spain

Torresol Energy SA began operating the worlds first solar-thermal tower with heat storage, allowing it to sustain generating power through the night near Seville in southern Spain.

The 19.9-megawatt Gemasolar plant will produce power 24 hours a day during the sunnier parts of the year by stockpiling heat in molten salt to power turbines after sundown, can generate temperatures of up to 900 degrees centigrade (1,652 degrees Fahrenheit) in the receptor mounted on a central tower while its salt-based storage system will exceed 500 degrees; produces hotter steam than rival installations, making it more efficient, the company said.

Torresol plans to commission two more plants with 50 megawatts of capacity each in the southern region of Andalucia later this year. Those plants will use rows of parabolic mirrors to focus the suns energy on pipes of oil rather than a central tower.

{from Bloomberg}

Solar thermal and heat storage

"Profit Maximization
Energy storage allows the plant operator to maximize profits. During periods of low hourly power prices, the operator can forgo generation and dump heat into storage; and at times of high prices, the plant can run at full capacity even without sun.

Peak Shaving
Solar generating capacity with heat storage can make other capacity in the
market unnecessary. With heat storage the solar plant is able to 'shave' the
peak load.

Reducing Intermittence
The ability of thermal solar plants to use heat energy storage to keep electric
output constant: (1) reduces the cost associated with uncertainty surrounding
power production; and (2) relieves concerns regarding electrical interconnection fees, regulation service charges, and transmission tariffs.

Increasing Plant Utilization
Solar plants equipped with heat storage have the ability to increase overall
annual generation levels by 'spreading out' solar radiation to better match
plant capacity."

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/owens_storage_value.pdf