If you are involved in Management or Customer Service and are responsible for communicating the value of smart meters to your utility customers, you don’t want to miss this online discussion - Communicating Smart Meter Value. more...
Join social media mavens Matthew Burks and Amanda Shewmake as they provide an insider's perspective on how HR, communications and marketing professionals in energy companies can harness the power of social media to be more effective and productive. more...
The convergence of power and information technologies in the smart grid has created opportunities for finer grained and broader controls of energy flows. These opportunities can improve electric service in multiple dimensions: lower cost, greater reliability, greater customer satisfaction, and more...
Significant cost over runs. Changing business requirements. A well thought out plan is essential. Attend this free webcast discussion to hear inside hear three experts in utility operations discuss what utilities need to evaluate when they are considering upgrading or more...
The smart grid is shifting the playing field for utilities. And when the game changes, it pays to be prepared. A nimble solutions partner can help you design the solutions that keep operations on track, even as new challenges come more...
Deliver a profitable, productive and commercially successful large scale CSP business in India. Building on the success of past events in USA, Europe & MENA, CSP Today brings to New Delhi the most relevant international experience for the concentrated solar more...
Two day conference that tackles the most important challenges. A blend of European knowledge from the companies who have been installing offshore wind turbines for the last decade alongside local state governing bodies and leading project developers. Permitting, securing long more...
Autovation 2010 is a not-to-miss educational forum that will attract utility executives from around the world looking for new ways to optimize their operations through automation technologies. more...
The North American convention provides a remarkable opportunity to play a part in guiding renewable energy policy for the 21st century. Attendees will create a resolution that, along with similar resolutions already drafted on four other continents, will help set more...
Hosted by the GridWise(R) Alliance and the U.S. Department of Energy, the GridWise Global Forum will convene thought leaders from the highest levels of government, business, NGOS, and academia from around the world to discuss the ultimate enabling potential of more...
Introduction to Natural Gas Trading & Hedging - This program provides a comprehensive understanding of the structures that underlie Natural Gas trading. Beyond Essentials: Option Applications in Energy - This course provides a solid practical and conceptual (non-quantitative) understanding of more...
Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the electric industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the electric business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate this more...
Electric Market Dynamics offers participants an in-depth understanding of North American electric markets and how they function. Enhance your career by furthering your knowledge of market structures, pricing mechanisms, services offered in markets, and how various participants use the markets more...
Gas and Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas and electric industries. Position yourself for career success by gaining a solid understanding of how each business works, including key physical, market and regulatory aspects, as well more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
When, at the turn of this century, the climate change issue began to be taken seriously, the large body of engineers, scientists and industrial managers who had responsibility and the experience in the related fields addressed the obvious question; in the plethora of nature's energy gifts, were adequate amounts of CO2-free energy available to replace the "easier" carbon-containing sources mostly in use at that time? The answer was, of course, -- yes ! Unfortunately, a tidal wave of demagogues, green-ascetics and vote-chasing politicians has taken control, and advanced humanity went into a tail-spin. A myriad half measures -- or more accurately, one-hundredth-of-one-percent measures -- have been pushed into centre stage to save those polar bears from drowning. Predictably, world CO2 emissions continue to increase relentlessly. This article outlines an effective program to deal with the problem if it is judged to be necessary.
A considerable number of recent articles in the financial pages of newspapers have referred to immense quantities of oil off the coast of South America, to an agreement to develop Newfoundland's Hebron oil field, to British Columbia's sale of natural gas drilling rights, and to continued expansion of coal production. These are only a few of hundreds of items concerned with energy security and economics which never make reference to the fact that such projects would ultimately bring about the emission of hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2, with the obvious financial risk that the projects might be prohibited and any investment wasted. The fact that there is not the slightest possibility of such prohibition coming about conveys a clear message. The vast CO2 producing industries, many of which are under the close financial management and proprietorship of governments, are in very good health, thank you.
Similarly muddled is British Columbia's blocking of the Peace River C project, offering 1000 megaWatts of CO2-free hydroelectricity, on the grounds that "the extra energy is not needed". Political decision-makers are apparently unaware that any surplus energy could be sold to Alberta to reduce CO2 emissions by displacing coal-fired energy. Ontario's contribution to the muddle is to plan for "conservation", which, since its electricity expansion will be nuclear, amounts to vetoing the profitable and beneficial sale of 6,000 megaWatts of CO2-free energy.
The International Energy Agency presently estimates that total world energy use in 2030 will be 23% more than in 2008 with a similar mix of sources, so that CO2 emissions will be about 35 billion tonnes per year as against the present 29 billion. [All these figures are rough]. Climate change is not being taken seriously.
As if all this were not bad enough, it is also apparent that few people understand how the advanced world's highly successful system of technological industry works. It is most certainly not under any kind of central planning, Marxist, UN or otherwise. It is much more successfully motivated by a myriad of individual investors, seeking profits but regulated by the decentralized governments of separate nations, states and international organizations. Its great benefits to mankind are thus mostly those of Adam Smith's "hidden hand" -- the entrepreneurs' search for profit brings immense energy benefits to the whole society. This is true even though many industries are partly or wholly government owned. Now that the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere from the production of the vast amounts of energy that are needed for human advancement is recognized as needing study, it can easily be managed -- virtually eliminated if necessary -- by changes of regulation.
A useful precedent in several respects was the management of sewage. This was almost non-existent until about 1850 but is now universal, under rigid decentralized legislation, in the advanced world and much of the middle world. In the well-known case of London, an immense and expensive civil engineering project was successfully completed in a remarkably short time in a fully democratic political system. Legislation was needed to ensure that all existing and new sewage sources were connected into the new system -- taxation could obviously not achieve this. Legislation, management and technology advanced together in a system almost unnoticed by the public. The same can and should happen with CO2 emissions. In such cases, the public and its political leaders must initiate and support legislation, but no exhortation or handwringing is necessary thereafter. Human life is essential; sewage is an unavoidable side product. Energy is virtually synonymous with wealth and advancement, but CO2 emission is avoidable. There could be no thought of exhorting people to produce less sewage. It is even more silly to unnecessarily urge restriction of the use of the energy that is so beneficial to everybody.
Whatever the outcome of the debate in climate science, a large school of thought believes that effective measures to reduce CO2 emissions should be devised. It is muddleheadedness that has so far blocked even this degree of study and planning. Apart from an earlier article by this author, no comprehensive plan to reduce world emissions even to 50 % appears to have been published. Kyoto and Bari do not go nearly so far as that modest aim even if they were to succeed, which they clearly are not doing. And even a reduction of emissions to 50% in any feasible time would still leave the atmospheric content well above what may come to be an acceptable level.
An effective first step in switching to CO2-free energy would be to change over the whole of the supply of grid electricity over perhaps half century. It is baffling that this has not been seriously put forward in any important forum, and this is even more impossible to comprehend when it is realized that this step is already being explored on the largest possible scale in two large advanced nations, Germany and France. They are neighbours in the European Union, with a combined population of 145 million. At present, Germany emits about 840 million tonnes of CO2 per year from its 70,000 megaWatts of coal-fired power stations but virtually nothing from 20,000 megaWatts of nuclear, 6,000 of hydroelectric or from its 24,000 nominal [6,000 usable] megaWatts of windmills.
If a low-CO2 world is to come, France is far ahead of Germany in that there is virtually no CO2 emission from its grid electricity generation -- 88,000 megaWatts of nuclear and hydroelectric. The neighbouring citizens of Germany and France do not notice the slightest difference when they switch on the lights. In France at least there is no possible justification for "conserving" [that is, doing without] electricity.
Inexplicably, Germany, at present, also proposes to phase out its excellent CO2-free nuclear plants even while it is opening a large new coal mine. It is among the richest of nations and it will hardly notice the wastage of a few tens of billions of dollars shutting down viable nuclear stations but its "greens" ought to be concerned about CO2 emissions that should be avoided. Will Germany have the wisdom to change its mind, as has already happened in Sweden?.
If it is decided that further CO2 emissions must be further reduced, the greatly increased production of grid electricity needed in the advancing world economy could be produced by the existing fully established nuclear technology, supplemented by maximized hydro, windmills and solar. Using batteries, trolley wires and hydrogen, all mobile applications could be grid-supplied. Hydrogen would also permit CO2-free iron smelting and cement production and its inherent energy storage has great potential value. Depletion of uranium ore may necessitate the development of breeder reactors for almost unlimited further energy supply, though deuterium-lithium fusion could possibly come sooner. Legislation should be such that production and sale of CO2-free energy is profitable -- the western Adam Smith-Thatcher system of industrial enterprise will do the rest.
Since the economic life of almost all hardware associated with energy use lies in the range from about 10 years for half-a-billion automobiles to 60 years for a power station, it is not clear that the measures outlined would in effect "cost" anything if they were achieved mainly by replacing the old with the new over the half-century mentioned. A large fleet of ocean liners was replaced by piston engined aircraft, which were then replaced by at least 2 separate generations of jets and, additionally, a fleet of cruise ships larger than the original liner fleet.. The coal-fired steam locomotive was totally replaced world-wide by diesels and electrics in about a decade. Town gas was entirely displaced in a few decades. All these great changes and many more were achieved with, in one important sense, no cost; the new technology was more profitable than the old.
Specifically, the right course of action is to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions [1] to the degree found from experience to be necessary and [2] over a period of time that is the best compromise between achieving the reduction and interfering with wealth production. This reduction will be achieved [3] by legislation, regulation and licensing chosen to be the the best compromise between achieving the reduction and interfering with wealth production.
Any proposed action should be accompanied by an estimate of how many millions of tonnes per year of reduction of CO2 emissions that it is expected will result. If it does not get into that ball park, it is not worth consideration.
The CO2 problem as a complication of human use of energy is a consequence of the physics and chemistry of the world we live in, which decide between what is possible and impossible and what is easy and what is difficult. Coping with the problem is subject to the same natural laws and restraints. Fortunately, it happens that "nature" is sufficiently benign that a series of measures within our broad system of advancement through wealth creation by technical industry is entirely feasible.
In conclusion, this article, whatever its faults, seems to stand alone as an outline of what could be done to virtually eliminate CO2 emissions without impeding human advancement and with little impact on ordinary people.
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact Tim Tobeck ttobeck@energycentral.com. Copyright 2010 CyberTech, Inc.
Completely agree. If the religionists of both sides of the ridiculous arguments over GHG's would simply take their fights elsewhere, the simple and obvious solutions proposed in your article would deal with the poblems in reasonably short order. I'm becomng convinced that at least 3/4 of the present proposals to reduce GHG's have really nothing to do with climte change mitigation, and everything to do with a "back to pre-industrial society" reactionary mentality. And probably the same proportion of opposition to GHG mitigation is all about opposing anything proposed by the first group, and nothing to do with reality.
Fred Linn 4.10.09
------" I'm becomng convinced that at least 3/4 of the present proposals to reduce GHG's have really nothing to do with climte change mitigation, and everything to do with a "back to pre-industrial society" reactionary mentality. "---------
Maybe, but I don't think so. Ethanol for instance. We can do all of the same things we do now using ethanol to replace gasoline. We can even double the thermal efficiency of our current internal combustion engines getting twice the mileage and power from the same size engines we use now. Not even remotely possible with gasoline---ethanol is a better fuel, with an octane rating of 115 compared to gasoline at around 85-87. To see what ethanol as a fuel can do, watch the Indianapolis 500 on Memorial Day, the Indy race cars are the fastest and most advanced race cars in the world, and they all run on 100% ethanol.
I think it has more to do with lobbyists controlling the flow of $$$ to vested interests than it does with religion.
John K. Sutherland 4.11.09
Fred Linn, Please tell me where the ethanol 'fields' are, to supply the ethanol you seem to love. This is like preaching the hydrogen economy without realising there are no hydrogen mines either. It takes energy to make ethanol. To produce one litre of ethanol you need to consume the energy in about a litre of oil. In other words your litre of ethanol didn't save any energy at all, it sometimes causes more to be consumed. It also ties up massive farmland acreage to a useless but politically correct idea that people like ADM love, puts food prices up, and is a monumental green scam with not an ounce of sense to it.
This is almost as bright as Lovins idea to use electricity to produce hydrogen to produce electricity with losses all along the way. Chop out the middle step, and use the electricity directly and it makes sense.
Forget ethanol. It's a stupid idea.
Jack Ellis 4.14.09
The author's suggestions are very sensible, but for some strange reason discussions about energy inevitably ignore how the rest of our economy works.
Mr. Linn, I believe race cars use methanol rather than ethanol (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question202.htm)
If our aim is to reduce carbon emissions, there is no silver bullet. We will need a variety of technologies, each matched to specific applications. Nuclear is fine for baseload electricity but even the French are embracing windmills. We will need a more controllable source to handle peak period usage.
For personal transportation, I've become convinced that assuming they can be produced economically, most consumers will prefer hybrid vehicles that run on batteries for short trips and have an internal combustion powered by something other than petroleum-based gasoline for longer trips.
We're never going to get there so long as the price consumers pay for energy is below its marginal cost of production, including an allowance for capital.
Richard Vesel 4.14.09
Good article, as far as it goes - but what are the SPECIFIC steps to force the conversion from combustion-based to carbon-free energy? Carbon-based energy will dominate in a generally free market because it is still, and will remain, CHEAP to mine/drill it, transport it, and ultimately burn it.
The only solution is to, by regulation, either: A - phase out the legitimate use of fossil-carbon fuels by gradual prohibition of their use -or- B- make their use NOT cheap, thru the imposition of CO2 costs / taxes, which will gradually become more and more expensive to the point of prohibitive.
The Europeans fund their conversion by having to pay 21 Eurocents per kwh for their juice, anywhere from double to quadruple what we pay in the US. Investors in green generation technologies are rewarded by their governments by being paid double THAT rate via feed-in tariffs.
Governmental insight and incentivization, of both varieties, will do what several billion free market thinkers cannot bring themselves to do out of altruism. Without those insights and incentives, nothing will happen, except for hundreds of billions more tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere. The current atmospheric load is about 2.2 trillion tons, and we are dumping 1.2% more into it each year. Put that into your compound interest calculator and see where it goes in 50 years...
As far as generating hydrogen with electricity being a bad idea? hmmmm.... The point is to create a high-energy fuel which is both portable & TRANS-portable. I would prefer creating methane from electricity, water, and bio-carbon. No major new infrastructure to build for transportation, and we know how to use it efficiently in vehicles and power production already. It also liquifies nicely, for high-density storage.
The main requirement is for those methane makers to co-locate with high density renewable energy sources. Even in the solar-rich deserts, trainloads of water can be shipped in on the cheap to create a relatively high value fuel that is economically viable. Manmade methane at $10-15 per mcf is affordable to consume, profitable to produce, and carbon neutral. If government guaranteed that as a minimum price, for fuel produced in that way (and pay for it by taxing fossil-carbon fuels or emissions), a new industry would spawn in a matter of only a decade.
RWV
Ernest Siddall 4.14.09
Fred Linn's first paragraph is so right! Hence my reference to "green-ascetics" - the successors to monks who take vows of eternal poverty. Conservation is for the birds - except that that would be cruelty to animals! Ernest Siddall April 14
Ferdinand E. Banks 4.15.09
"I think it has more to do with lobbyists controlling the flow of $$$..." (Fred Linn)
Why didn't I say that? Probably because my brain slows down when my tennis club opens.
In any event, the boss of the Swedish 'Naturvård (nature-protection) organization published an article this morning calling for this country to spend miliions doing this-and-that with regard to the climate and tidying up the environment. What that _____ evidently doesn't know is that Sweden is in the top three or four in the world in that respect. In addition, two of his stooges have been publishing articles saying that the people in this country want wind instead of nuclear. If this was a plea for more wind I could ignore it, but they want more wind and nuclear shut down. They want nuclear shut down and the two of them plus their ignorant honcho in Brussels or Strasborg in a high salaried non-job.
I don't think that it has to do with the flow of $$$. I KNOW that it has to do with the flow of $$$. (Fred Banks)
Len Gould 4.15.09
Fred Linn "using ethanol to replace gasoline" -- One only needs to do a very simple calculation to show that ethanol from ANY vegetable matter by ANY means is a dumb idea. Nature's method of converting solar energy to plant matter, photosynthesis, is at best 1% efficient at converting insolation to carbohydrates and cellulose, in growing season at equator with plentiful water and optimal fertility. Farmland in the midwest, considering dryer soils, 6 mos winter, imperfect fertility, lower sun angle due to latitude, carbs wasted producing un-harvestable roots, use 1/4%. Compare the useful net output of a decent sq. km. of land, say in a high-productivity area of Iowa with a 15% efficient solar-thermal electrical generating installation at the same location. For each hour of decent sunlight, the solar-thermal station will produce 50 MWHr electricity, the vegetable grower will produce less than 1 MWHr gross potential energy as carbohydrate/cellulose matter. Burn all that in an optimal generating station, 33% effic., you get 0.33 MWHr BEFORE paying back the energy inputs to planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Convert the vegetable matter to ethanol, you might get 0.10 MWHr at best.
On physorg.com today, an article noted that EVERY GALLON of ethanol now produced from corn in California (all irrigated) requires 2,100 gallons of water to produce. In midwest, ot irrigated, drops to about 100 gallons. That alone is unsustainable, much less the fertilizer inputs. World reserves of potash fertilizer at PRESENT usage rates is less than 100 years.
barry hanson 4.18.09
Regarding Len's comments above:
Generally I agree with his assessment but with an important exception if we are serious about alternatives. If one recalculates with different assumptions regarding yields the conclusions may be different.
Fifty tons per acre X 16 M BTUs per ton = 800 M = 30%, (not <1%) 25 TPA X 16 M = 15% Obviously we mean dry TPA. and the 30% is calc based on 600,000 BTU per acre, one could use a more realistic 690,000 and derate the efficiency number by multiplying by .87 but still in the ballpark given the high yields being reported.
The work being done by Arturo Velez in Mexico (agaveproject2@gmail.com) suggests that this is realistic. Other unrelated operations also suggest that this is realistic with Moringa spp., Leucaena, even Miscanthus giganteus approaches 25 TPA. In the case of Agave tequiliana weber and A. angustifolia >25 TPA is achieved with no irrigation and no agricultural chemicals. Otherwise wetlands with cattail , loosestrife or water hyacinth would be in the same range, Arunda donax would also be in this range.
What all of this suggests is that semi arid regions with highly degraded land could produce large amounts of end use energy. I think that torrefaction/pelletization would be a reasonable route to go, some people feel that we need certain amounts of liquid fuels. The conversion to liquid fuels is still on the order of 70% with cellulosic ethanol more like 50% but that is a different question once a source of primary energy (biomass in this case) is identified.
barry hanson 4.18.09
Please insert 600,000 BTUs PER SQUARE FOOOT, not per acre; 26 billion BTUs per acre,ls change the 30% to 3% and 15% to 1.5%..still big numbers. sorry for the quick calculation without checking the numbers.
Fred Linn 4.18.09
John Sutherland, Len Gould-----the claim that ethanol is inefficient is not true. Ethanol can be produced from any type of plant material at all, including wood. This uses the Fischer-Tropsch process for one method. F-T process was first developed in 1924 and was used widely in Germany during WW2 to power the German economy and war machine during after the loss of North Africa and the Allied bombing of Ploesti virtually shut off petroleum supply to Germany. F-T process can produce everything from alcohols to long chain hydrocarbons for diesel fuels by adjustments to temperature, synthgas feed in, and catalyst beds. Fuels produced from F-T process powered everything from Panzer tanks, submarines, to V1 and V2 rockets, and even the Me-262, the worlds first operational jet fighter. The Scholler process can produce ethanol from wood and was used over 100 years ago to produce ethanol in both the US and Germany in commercial quantities until after WW1. The Scholler process uses heat and dilute sulphuric acid to decompose cellulose to "black liquor" which chemically frees the hydrocarbons in the cellulose. This process was used by the US in WW2 to produce ethanol used as a base component to manufacture butadiene, artificial rubber to make tires from. This process is also mentioned in the letter to the war production board as having been identified as the process used in at least 20 German, 3 Italian, and 3 Japanese plants that were known of.
Today, Range Fuels is just finishing up construction of a plant slated to produce 100 million gals/yr of ethanol from wood waste from logging and milling operations using F-T process in Soperton GA. Between 200 and 250 mill operations produce black liquor as a by product of paper pulp production.
Even the ethanol in corn, which is seems relatively inefficient is much more efficient when viewed in a comprehensive way. The energy derived is 100% solar energy, saved in chemical form by plant photosynthesis. Solar energy in a mason jar. To claim that it "takes more energy to produce than it produces" is extremely misleading. All energy produced comes from the sun, we are simply not making the best use of the energy. Using coal or petroleum produced energy to distill ethanol from the fermented mash of coarse means an input that reduces the net energy achieved from the ethanol. We should be using the energy contained in the cobs and stover---the non grain plant parts. This can be dried and burned(pelletized), making use of solar energy the plant uses to produce cellulose. We've distilled ethanol for hundreds of years using wood or plant waste. There is no reason we can't do it again. It is already being done in Brazil where bagasse, the plant waste after the production of sugar cane syrup is burned to distill the fermented cane sugars. If we use biofuels in our farm machinery instead of petroleum, there is no need of petroleum. The main product of ethanol from corn is DDG, high protein animal feed---the ethanol is a by product that must be removed to keep from having herds of drunk cattle and swine. When DDG is feed to animals it becomes waste also. Waste that can be converted to methane and compost---compost is excellent fertilizer and methane is the the same methane that is in natural gas.
Nature has been using plants to capture the energy of the sun to feed the carbon lifecycle of energy exchange for over 4 billion years. It is completely renewable and sustainable. Plants use photosynthesis to capture solar energy in chemical form. Plants take in carbon dioxide, store energy and give off oxygen. Animals take in oxygen, use the energy, and give off carbon dioxide.
John K. Sutherland 4.20.09
Fred Linn, What is doo-able at the lab. scale of things, or according to wartime economics is not necessarily proof of sense in a normal society. Collecting and moving low energy density organic material any distance to produce energy also makes no sense. There is a local wood chip burner near me which provides steam to the local hospital and university. the wood chips are trucked in from as far away as 150 km. No-one dares show me the figures on economics of the process, and for a very good reason - they stink. Society moves forward only by the use of surplus energy. If the energy OUT of a system is less than the energy IN, society fails. If it is a small net positive, society can move forward in proportion to that excess. If it is a large excess, as with coal, oil, gas, hydro; or a massive excess as with Nuclear, then society can thrive in proportion, provided politics and irrational environmentalist dreams are kept out of the picture. Your post is useful, but misleadingly over simple, and obscures the issue by not providing the necessary perspective and social reality.
Len Gould 4.20.09
barry and fred: You both miss the basic point i was making, which was that it is far smarter to cover 1 hectare with solar-thermal collection mirrors / turbines (15% solar efficient insolation --> useful energy) than 60 hectares with corn or grass etc. (1/4% efficient insolation --> useful energy). Solar thermal only needs planting once every 20+ years, uses 1/60th the area, no fertilizers, etc. etc.
Len Gould 4.20.09
"Nature has been using plants to capture the energy of the sun to feed the carbon lifecycle of energy exchange for over 4 billion years." -- Nature's also been building structures on earth for that long, but the Himalayas or Rocky mts. may not meet everyone's criteria as ideal structures.
"It is completely renewable and sustainable. " -- So are solar thermal plants, and they use far less area.
barry hanson 4.20.09
Len You are not taking into account the comparative capital cost of the conversion technologies.
A...With 15% conversion one Ha would produce 9 billion BTUs as electricity. B...With 1.5% conversion it would produce 900 million BTUs as biomass pellets.
But Plan A requires a conversion technology that costs about $4 million. Plan B comes with a free conversion technology (photosynthesis) except for the pelletizer at $7500 per ton per day of biomass processed, and labor, assuming the land is paid for.
Production cost of energy for plan A is $15 per million BTUs over the 30 year life of the CT just to cover the capital cost., production cost of energy for plan B, including the pelletizer and labor, is less than $3 per million BTUs and the pellets will retail for $15 per million BTUs.
Plan A gives you electricity at 5 cents, plan B would give you electricity, if you chose to convert the pellets using ORC heat recovery or an external combustion engine/gen set, for 4.4 cents ($3 per million BTUs fuel cost, <1 cent per kWh capital cost, 30% efficiency to electricity). Using this method would also allow for heat recovery at the point of use which would effectively lower the cost of electricity by 40% if the cost of heat is the same as the cost of the input fuel to the engine/gen set and you counted that against the cost of the fuel to make the electricity. With heat recovery then the cost of electricity would be about 3 cents.
Granted, you would get far more electricity per Ha with Plan A but in this case the degraded land could be considered an unlimited resource, especially if the process itself upgrades it.
As I mentioned in a previous post 1.5% conversion of sunlight to biomass is realistic on degraded land....of which there is about 200 million acres (80 million Ha) in the US.
On a practical note Plan B would allow poorly funded local communities to make $2000 per acre ($5000 per Ha) on degraded land in semi arid regions while upgrading the soil, without irrigation or ag chemicals.
I do agree with you that there is large role for CSP/thermal storage to play as base load power since the total production cost of it will be at 6 cents or so in the future if it is properly subsidized.
Fred Linn 4.21.09
Len--- "The photosynthetic efficiency is the fraction of light energy converted into chemical energy during photosynthesis in plants and algae. Photosynthesis can be described by the simplified chemical reaction
H2O + CO2 + energy --> CH2O + O2, where CH2O represents carbohydrates such as sugars, cellulose, and lignin. The value of the photosynthetic efficiency is dependent on how light energy is defined. On a molecular level, the theoretical limit in efficiency is 25 percent[1] for photosynthetically active radiation (wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometer). For actual sunlight, where only 45 percent of the light is photosynthetically active, the molecular efficiency is 11 percent. However, in practical situations, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight, and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overal efficiency of 6 to 8 percent.[1]"
I for one would far prefer taking a walk in a forest or meadow than a field full of solar reflectors. You really need to get out into nature.
Len Gould 4.22.09
Fred: I know nature very well, better than most, at many levels. I too prefer a walk in a forest or meadow, which is why I prefer solar thermal as an energy source. For an eg. 300,000 sq mile area, I'll enjoy the 299,000 sq miles of virgin forest and meadow and avoid the 1,000 sq miles of solar collectors, over covering the entire 300,000 sq miles with farmed bio-mass of any sort.
Len Gould 4.22.09
Also notable: I'll stick with my "1% or less optimal" efficiency. Other references I've seen suggest that 1% is the maximum achievable in optimal conditions with 365 day growing season.
The actual percentage of solar energy stored by plants is much less than the maximum energy efficiency of photosynthesis. An agricultural crop in which the biomass (total dry weight) stores as much as 1 percent of total solar energy received on an annual area-wide basis is exceptional, although a few cases of higher yields (perhaps as much as 3.5 percent in sugarcane) are reported. There are several reasons for this difference between the predicted maximum efficiency of photosynthesis and the actual energy stored in biomass. First, more than half of the incident sunlight is composed of wavelengths too long to be absorbed, while some of the remainder is reflected or lost to the leaves. Consequently, plants can at best absorb only about 34 percent of the incident sunlight. Second, plants must carry out a variety of physiological processes in such nonphotosynthetic tissues as roots and stems; these processes, as well as cellular respiration in all parts of the plant, use up stored energy. Third, rates of photosynthesis in bright sunlight sometimes exceed the needs of the plants, resulting in the formation of excess sugars and starch. When this happens, the regulatory mechanisms of the plant slow down the process of photosynthesis, allowing more absorbed sunlight to go unused. Fourth, in many plants, energy is wasted by the process of photorespiration. Finally, the growing season may last only a few months of the year; sunlight received during other seasons is not used. Furthermore, it should be noted that if only agricultural products (e.g., seeds, fruits, and tubers, rather than total biomass) are considered as the end product of the energy conversion process of photosynthesis, the efficiency falls even further.
Len Gould 4.22.09
eg. even sugar cane in the tropics cannot convert the sunlight lost in the several months after harvesting when is must re-grow its canes and leaves. Few if any biomass harvesting systems recovers the biomass of both the above-ground growth and the root system of an energy crop. In order to compete with solar-thermal-electric, a biomass system must a) pay off it's fertilization, irrigation (if used), cultivation, harvest and mass transport to processing inputs. b) accept the further penalty of 33% conversion efficiency of biomass to electricity in a steam Rankine cycle generating plant (or far wose, the efficency of conversion to alcohol). The one-time energy cost of constructing the solar collector farm is entirely masked by decimal rounding of the system efficiency figures.
Fred Linn 4.25.09
Len, you neglect some points in your comparison.
Plants continue photosynthesis in a two stage process, light and dark. Biomass or biofuels is the result of energy storage. You neglect to figure this into your comparison to solar PV cells. In order to make an accurate input and output comparison, you need to find what the efficiency of conversion and storage of energy is with PV cells. Energy is of no use whatever unless it is available when and where it is needed. With biomass or biofuels made from plants it is, with energy from PV cells it is not, it still needs to be stored and moved by some means. Plants are self replicating and cheap to produce. PV cells are not. Plants that are selected by adaptation to their environment do not need to be fertilized or irrigated. Trying to grow corn in a desert does not work, growing agave cactus in a desert does. When you make ethanol from corn, it is called whiskey, when you make ethanol from agave cactus, it is called tequila. They are both still ethanol, and they are both stored solar energy.
