Interesting things from treehugger.com

[unixronin]

Found by cymrullewes, Treehugger posts teasers on:

• Multipurpose broad-spectrum OLED panels -- It's a window!  It's a light panel!  It's a HD TV!  The article -- or the USC researcher quoted in the article -- tosses around a claim of "100 percent efficiency out of a single, broad spectrum light source."  I'll believe THAT when I see it.
• "Zero footprint energy" in Ontario -- or, lease-to-own your own ground-source heating/cooling plant.  US power utilities would probably hate it enough to buy a Congressman or six to pass a law making it illegal.

Comments

marketing efficiency

[koyote.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that 100 percent efficiency in this case is marketer speak for 'it does everything you do with flat glasslike thingies, and is thus 100 percent product efficient'

Re: marketing efficiency

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have a feeling it translates to something like that.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

So how long _does_ it take to pay back a ground-source plant? And what maintenance does it require? Centralized energy production is actually supremely efficient for dense distributions grids, which is certainly the case for southern Ontario.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

*twitch* central production is only supremely efficient if you lose efficiency in method of production when distributing.

You can't seriously claim that 50,000 250 watt solar cells located 75 miles from me is more efficient than having those same cells distributed on the roofs of houses closer to me (assuming similar solar access)....

unless line loss is 100% solved, of course.

(please ntoe that this is not a specific case of binary replacement of all energy from power plants with only distributed power. binary all or nothing solutions are generally pretty suspect- this applies to the central plant idea as much as anything else)

I think Bucky was the first to propose the 'infinitely malleable and expandable endlessly growing" decentralized global grid system, and while the writing is pretty old, it's still VERY much worth reading. I just with more ecofreaks would read the stuff so they could make more intelligent suggestions...

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Obviously, the competition is between efficiencies of scale versus inefficiencies of distribution.

Your example of solar cells is a red herring. Indeed, sticking equivalent solar cells at a central power plant is not more energy efficient than sticking them on your roof. However, the whole point of having a central plant is to use more difficult technologies that perform better than solar cells on large scales: coal, nuclear, etc.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

Yet, the statement "Centralized energy production is actually supremely efficient for dense distributions grids," is a red herring, the whole point to distributed generation systems is to make use of methods that ARE efficient on a small scale in a distributed manner to lessen distribution losses and increase reliability.

The whole point of having a central plant seems to have to do with preservation of power (and not electric power).

Some types of generation are best done in large scales- though even then, one can question what specific scale is best. Nuclear plants come in different sizes, too.

Wind and solar power in a connected global grid are *very* good distributed systems, coal isn't, but coal isn't something we need to be planning to continue to expand or even use long term.

It's possible that nuclear counts as a more difficult technology than assorted distributed solar systems (though it would be prudent to not make the assumption that photovoltaic is the only method being discussed in the class 'solar') but I'm not sure the coal, large scale hydro, natural gas, or 'etc' technologies are necessarily more difficult and thus worth more as a central system.

Performing better is... a very dangerous ground to tread. Perfom better measured on what scale? greenhouse gas emissions? environmental impact? energy efficiency in translating chemically stored energy into heat? (you know, solar TOTALLY loses on that one, but.... well, it doesn't USE chemically stored energy fuels in most forms)...

Hydro power is probably the second easiest one to demonstrate adventages of multiple scales with (wind being the easiest) but I'll hit some LJ limit if I just produce and exposition of the differences between small and mid range hydro versus 'soviet class' megaplants that require terraforming. Or if I discuss distributed networks, global grids, and millions of small scale wind turbines.


I'll leave with one entertaining thought, though. if 700,000 homes in the LA region poppped up 350 watt panels and fed them into their wall sockets (ots tech, safe, easy, works) and got 40% of rated efficiency on a hot summer day, you would produce 1.1 MW of power to offset the airconditioningblackoutomgemergency effect. Not as much *fun* as spinning up another plant in Arizona and manipulating the grid and all that, but pretty elegant. Central 'efficiency' can't duplicate that.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Yet, the statement "Centralized energy production is actually supremely efficient for dense distributions grids," is a red herring, the whole point to distributed generation systems is to make use of methods that ARE efficient on a small scale in a distributed manner to lessen distribution losses and increase reliability.

Distributed generation is more fault-tolerant (which contributes to cost efficiency), but certainly isn't more fuel/thermodynamically efficient or environmentally friendly. I agree that low-impact technologies (waste steam cogen, solar) that work well to small scales can be complementary. However, high-impact technologies (nuclear, fossil) are much more efficient in large, centralized plants.

Performing better is... a very dangerous ground to tread. [...]

There are a few key measures: availability, $/kilowatt hour at the door, and environmental and strategic impact, i.e. externalities not necessarily factored into the cost.

Nuclear and fossil rock on the first two when deployed at large scales, and at these large scales externalities are mitigated through scale-efficiency. It's worth the trouble because nuclear and fossil fuel are so energy rich, and can easily be transported to the central generation facility.

At the other extreme, solar power is not as available (requiring storage technology we don't have yet), more expensive (land and solar panel costs must be ammortized, and the energy density of sunshine is low), and while less polluting is more demanding industrially (consider all the semiconductor plants and their impacts).

Don't get me wrong -- I love the idea of sticking a solar panel on my roof and having all my needs met. I could be hooked up in a grid with my neighbors or have batteries for when I need to run the hair dryer. However, this isn't feasible. Solar energy rains on us at only 1 kW/m^2 in bright, sunny weather -- it would take several for each household, plus batteries that actually work. Furthermore, a 2 m^2 solar panel (panels run at ~50% efficiency) costs $4000. To ammortize its cost compared to grid electricity at $0.01/kW-hr would take 400,000 hours of operation or 45 years running non-stop. Do they even last that long? And, you must not forget the environmental impact of producing and disposing of the solar cells and batteries.

Things to work on:

* Improve storage tech so we can do away with inefficient, small power plants like car engines in favor or efficient large power plants. Everyone is holding out for fuel cells, and if they are mass produced hoping their environmental impact is much less than fossil-burning emissions.

* Find new resources that are energy rich but not as risky as nuclear and fossil. To me, fusion is the only game in town. Solar and window would require enormous tracts of land, and tidal generators might affect watershed ecosystems. Many environmentalists are getting over their prejudices and are returning to fission nuclear as a lesser of evils -- perhaps the dream of electricity too cheap to meter is still in our grasp.

* Work on clean resources that scale down cheaply. I don't think anything is close right now -- micromachines?

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that's $0.10/kw-hr on the grid, so 40000 hours of use (4.5 years of continuous operation). Film panels last several years and crystalline panels last decades. So, my pessimism is reduced. However, there's still the availability issue (peak usage, night-day), and $0.01/kw-hr is still possible through nuclear.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

$0.01/kw-hr is still possible through nuclear.

So they keep on telling us, anyway. Remember the early claims ofnuclear power yielding "electricity too cheap to meter"? There isn't a nuclear power utility in the world that's delivered on that prmise yet, nor one that looks likely to. In fact, now that a number of nuclear plants have completed their entire design lifecycles, some experience seems to indicate that the costs of fully decommissioning a nuclear plant and dealing with the radioactive waste it produces may exceed the sum of the cost of building the plant in the first place and all the revenues generated from it during its lifetime.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

The costs you cite are largely independent of the amount of electricity being produced by a nuclear plant. In fossil plants, fuel accounts for a clear majority of all operating costs.

If the US had grown up with nuclear instead of fossil, we might see a different, flat-rate pricing model. Or, since distribution networks are tied to neighborhoods like water and sewage, handled entirely at community level.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

But they're still toxic as all get out.

-Ogre

[smandal.livejournal.com]

True. The question is, does it bother you more than the carbon output from fossil power, or the impact on the landscape from hydropower?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

I think Nuclear is the way to go. The problem is, as part of arms limitations treaties, we're forbidden from reprocessing fuel rods. Fuel rods go in at 100% capacity, and come out and get thrown away (realistically: stored forever) at 95% capacity. And we can't recycle them because Carter signed away our right to do so.

-Ogre

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I imagine that this is of strategic importance -- have some moral authority over other countries who want nuclear power, to keep them from making the step to weapons processing.

This, I think, is the most important criticism of nuclear power.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Except for the fact that fuel rods are 5% pure enriched uranium, and weapons grade is 95% pure. And the techniques involved aren't really the same.

We're the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons against another nation. We have no moral authority, at all.

Wind and solar cannot provide enough power. Fossil fuels will choke us out, even if global warming turns out to be a scam. Unless someone pulls off fusion, our choices are nuclear, or a massive reduction in capacity. I like the SCA, but I don't really want to live in the middle ages.

-Ogre

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Except for the fact that fuel rods are 5% pure enriched uranium, and weapons grade is 95% pure. And the techniques involved aren't really the same.
So is it possible to reprocess fuel-grade uranium into weapons-grade uranium? Otherwise, why would one sign away reprocessing liberties?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It is perfectly possible to reprocess fuel-grade into weapons-grade uranium, and you can make a perfectly viable bomb using nothing but U-235. Little Boy, one of the only two nuclear weapons used in anger¹, was a uranium bomb. It's even easier to reprocess weapons-grade plutonium out of "spent" fuel rods.

Unfortunately, we are cursed in this regard with a gaggle of stupid politicians who stubbornly and defiantly persist in believing, against all reason and evidence, that it's possible to put the genie back into the bottle. One more case of inability to learn from the lessons of history.







[1] Though it may not stay that way long if the Prophet Dubya gets his way.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

The logic here being that once nuclear weapons became commonplace, there's no sense putting restrictions on reprocessing spent rods? Hmmm ... well, doesn't reprocessing afford states with less industrial capacity than the US a shortcut to getting weapons-grade uranium? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter either way?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that it's foolish of them to think they can put the genie back in the bottle; knowledge of the basics of nuclear technology is sufficiently widespread, and enough nuclear material is known "mislaid" or unaccounted for, that any government that wants badly enough to develop some kind of minimal nuclear capability is going to be able to do so sooner or later.
Hell, you can build a quite functional single-stage atomic bomb given nothing more than a three-meter chunk of 12" drain pipe, some epoxy resin or bolts, a piece of light rope and access to a metal-turning lathe, if you can get your hands on the nuclear material. It'll be crude, it'll be inefficient, it'll be low-yield and dirty, but it'll work and probably deliver in the 10KT range. And some of the "unaccounted for" losses of nuclear material are measured in tons.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Right, but i'm talking about strategic capabilities, like producing many megaton warheads.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was just citing the drainpipe bomb as an example of something virtually ANYONE could build. Even the most incompetent government ought to be able to manage something much more professional and effective.

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Ic.

Thanks for letting me pick your brain -- nuclear weapons are a weak spot in my education.

[koyote.livejournal.com]

.01 cents (in 1950 dollars, 2006 dollars?) per is a good goal, but this is one of those areas where the arbutrary money measurement may not be a good indicator of actual value....

Storage isn't a huge deal here- with a truly global distributed grid (and we're 85 to 95% there depending on who you talk to) you can move power around. Also, solar isn't a single answer- and isn't meant to be.

Leaving aside the continuous PV bias of most people (if yoou've ever used a propane powered fridge, you can see how solar AC would be of some use), combined with *distributed* wind generation (it has to be distributed to work in a large scale - multicontinental- grid) combined with solar, mid scale hydro, and nuclear for major energy density sites would kick us off fossil fuels for power generation in a couple years. not a couple decades. And the nuclear is almost a bone to the old school centralisation memeset, bucky's math never really indicated a need for it.

There are a lot of silly politics and general distrust for large money making organizations that have a history of lying to the public in the way of growth of central nuclear ppower generation. Unless I find a realistic answer to this, I'll continue to support the fulleresque distributed global grid using wind/solar/hydro/geothermal and whatever else we find suited to a local site :)

[smandal.livejournal.com]

I like the vision, but I'm skeptical that you can avoid centralized, high-energy-density tech for population-dense areas (which is most of the United States). And nuclear is a good option. It is true that the nuclear industry in the US has been rather byzantine, with competing interests between hawks who want to elevate our general nuclear tech, environmentalists who want to run it into the ground, and bureaucrats who like being in the middle of the whole mess.

Three Mile Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island) and Shoreham Nuclear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_nuclear) are wonderful examples of this brain-clog -- working technology with bad PR and opportunistic regulation.