The Age of Renewable Energy

[Humodour]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/0...r-in-the-us.ars

 

Plunging prices and booming investments are beginning to reshape the energy market, according to a couple of reports that were released this week. A report produced on behalf of Bloomberg says that investments in renewable energy have gone up by roughly a third over the last year, to $211 billion. Led by China's renewable push, the world is now on a trajectory that will see its investments in renewable electricity surpass those in fossil fuels within a year or two. As a result of these investments, the US is now producing more renewable energy than nuclear power.

 

(the article continues in the link above)

 

Renewable energy WORKS.

[Morgoth]

The term "renewable energy" is nonsense and physically not correct. Energy can neither be "produced" nor is it "renweable". Energy can only be converted from one form/state into another.

 

It's the η we're really interested in.

[Asol]

http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/classroom/

[Kaftan Barlast]

We've had "renewable energy" as our main source of power for +50 years here. Hydroelectrics is the shiznitz.

[Humodour]

The term "renewable energy" is nonsense and physically not correct. Energy can neither be "produced" nor is it "renweable". Energy can only be converted from one form/state into another.

 

It's the η we're really interested in.

 

Thanks for an irrelevent lesson in thermodynamics. Would you like a lesson on human language and jargon in return? Both of these things are off-topic.

 

Although kudos for the reference to enthalpy.

 

Anyway, I just want people to understand that the future is bright and things are changing. Fossil fuels and the ills associated with them are a slowly dying breed.

[Morgoth]

Fossil fuels and the ills associated with them are a slowly dying breed.

No. Fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon. Or how do you want to lift a Boeing 747 into the air?

[Blarghagh]

And by not going away soon, do you mean we will rely on it for a long time, or we have plenty left?

[Hurlshort]

Krezack = Positive Energy

 

Morgoth = Negative Energy

 

Which one will triumph? Place your bets now!

[Nightshape]

Krezack = Positive Energy

 

Morgoth = Negative Energy

 

Which one will triumph? Place your bets now!

 

True Neutral

[Humodour]

Fossil fuels and the ills associated with them are a slowly dying breed.

No. Fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon. Or how do you want to lift a Boeing 747 into the air?

 

I know you have this huge aversion to ever admitting anything might be good or be fun, but please take that cynicism elsewhere because you're just downright wrong here mate.

 

Let's see:

Solar-powered plane: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-swiss-...t-brussels.html

Ethanol-powered planes (Boeing 747 to be exact!): http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/...ed-flights.html

Proposed ethanol-powered space plane: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/...E75J01G20110620

[Walsingham]

I thought bio-ethanol had been dropped by the green movement because it promotes agribusinesses and land seizures from peasants and so forth?

[Humodour]

I thought bio-ethanol had been dropped by the green movement because it promotes agribusinesses and land seizures from peasants and so forth?

 

That's pretty much correct. But in the case of an industry like aviation, it makes perfect sense to use it because energy storage is an issue. Until fuel cell or battery technology improves in a decade or two (and it will), ethanol is what we should be aiming for in planes.

 

But extending ethanol use to all industries is a bad idea because, unless it is produced from organic waste fermentation, then when production gets large enough it starts to significantly compete with food crops. That's the worst bloody idea imaginable in an age when there are already severe poverty problems around the globe, with predictions of worse to come.

[Guard Dog]

I thought bio-ethanol had been dropped by the green movement because it promotes agribusinesses and land seizures from peasants and so forth?

 

That's pretty much correct. But in the case of an industry like aviation, it makes perfect sense to use it because energy storage is an issue. Until fuel cell or battery technology improves in a decade or two (and it will), ethanol is what we should be aiming for in planes.

 

But extending ethanol use to all industries is a bad idea because, unless it is produced from organic waste fermentation, then when production gets large enough it starts to significantly compete with food crops. That's the worst bloody idea imaginable in an age when there are already severe poverty problems around the globe, with predictions of worse to come.

You are right on this one. Ethanol production and demand in the US has already led to increases in food prices. Couple that with increase in gas prices driving up tranport costs and it is making a dent in the avearge folks budgets.

[Morgoth]

We should just shoot down an Alien craft and reverse-engineer it.

 

Chances are, we alreay did, but haven't figured out anything at all and thus keep everything under wraps fearing to admit we're too stupid to figure out anything on our own.

 

Anybody with me?

[Gorgon]

While we are at it, farming is C02 emission intensive. so if we get a bunch of more land cultivated to grow fuel that's one step forward and x amount of steps back.

[Malcador]

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_5.pdf

 

Seems just hydro and biomass doing the work. But still good.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Malcador

[Humodour]

For now, Malcador. But there is every indication that's about to change in a big way.

 

Google is now one of the world's biggest investors in renewable energy. This year Google has invested over $700 million into mainly solar and wind power, and they intend to continue this behaviour for the foreseeable future. Given they have some $25 BILLION in cash reserves, I'm inclined to believe them.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/...799646120110614

Edited July 10, 2011 by Krezack

[Malcador]

Long term sure, not necessarily "about to" time range. Not sure what they refer to as biomass though, will have to re-read the report when I get a chance, if it's ethanol and others, odd to compare it with nuclear. Anyway, 3% of Google's cash doesn't strike me as kind of all in investment

 

Here, well, I guess we're mostly aiming for wind, hydro and nuclear. Solar might not work as well with the winter and all. Pie in the sky though, heh, way things are run here

Edited July 10, 2011 by Malcador

[Humodour]

Long term sure, not necessarily "about to" time range. Not sure what they refer to as biomass though, will have to re-read the report when I get a chance, if it's ethanol and others, odd to compare it with nuclear. Anyway, 3% of Google's cash doesn't strike me as kind of all in investment

 

But the point was that Google doesn't need to go all in to make a huge dent in the renewable energy sector since it has such large cash reserves. It's already one of the biggest players in the industry.

 

And what makes you think it is long-term? Manufacturing costs fall at a steady rate just as efficiencies increase at a steady rate. This is because the underpinning advances in nanotechnology and materials science in general are occurring at such a steady rate that grid parity is now a short-term goal for techs like wind and solar.

 

Here, well, I guess we're mostly aiming for wind, hydro and nuclear. Solar might not work as well with the winter and all. Pie in the sky though, heh, way things are run here

 

Here in Australia we're aiming for huge amounts of solar and wind. Our government is investing over $1 billion in renewables each year now. I am very keen to see what we can do with a large solar energy sector and huge amounts of insolation.

 

Frankly I don't see the point in pumping any more money into nuclear energy unless it is thorium and not uranium.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Krezack

[Malcador]

Think it'll be long term, just a hunch on people and their workings. Not going to get excited about a "new age" starting anytime soon though.

[Gorth]

They may have funny locale names, but...

 

Wales' first solar park powers up in Pembrokeshire

 

Wales may not have as many sunshine days as Australia, but:

 

"There are 10,000 panels here. They are very cutting edge from the States. They are thin film, particularly suited to our climate here of largely cloudy skies."

 

Doesn't sound like other people had much faith in his project:

 

"There was no bank financing available. I then had to take a total act of faith and said 'okay, we will halve the scheme, we will do one megawatt initially' and I basically raided my pension fund. The development would be enough to power 300 homes."

 

Best of luck

[Gorgon]

It's because part of the profit from solar installations comes through subsidies, and those are a bit more fickle than just dealing with the fluctuations in the energy market.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Krez... I feel like I'm punching a puppy here, but you need to hear this.

 

$700 million is absolute peanuts in energy terms. It's not even that dust you get at the bottom of a packet of peanuts when you've eaten all the peanuts.

 

25 billion is not peanuts, but its just slightly above what the UK needs to invest in energy infrastructure just to stay at current demand levels, if we aren't going to have serious power shortages in a five years. Replacing systems like for like. I've a report to that effect on my desk at this precise minute.

 

If - and I stress IF - we are going to wind up in a climate change crash due to current energy practice, then I politely suggest you brace for impact rather than proposing outlandish sky castles. Technology is not going to magically alter the entire global energy network and all subordinate technologies in under ten years. Which is the time frame - as I understand it - for change. And even if it did, just think about the phenomenal economic activity required to deliver that change. Activity carried out using old technologies and energy!

 

You consistently list and report all these innovations and investment. But you can't kid a kidder. I used to work in venture capital, and I recognise a hot smoke screen when I hear one. The numbers, the size of the players you're quoting... I'm not saying you're doing it deliberately, but take a deep breath, slap yourself in the face, and ask yourself honestly if what you're saying makes real cold steel sense.

[Humodour]

It makes sense to the people that matter in business, science, insurance, tourism and government, Wals, and that's what matters to me. You've dug in as a cynic, I get that. I make no attempt to try and convince you any more and am more concerned with countering your misinformation and cynicism, because every Australian has seen first-hand the damage such inaction is causing in our own country.

 

It's not a question of 'if' climate change is happening, it's a question of by how much. One day soon you'll come to realise that (because can I please put this as plainly as possible: the science was settled a long time ago). And once you've done so the question won't be "should we move to renewables", it will be "what can we do to ensure we're moving to renewables and other cleaner technologies as fast as possible". One of the (best) ways of doing that is lots of "peanuts" investment in the materials science underpinning the sector by LOTS of private companies like Google. I don't even pretend to think that Google, CitiGroup, etc are going to finance the whole world's renewable energy needs. I cite it merely as an example in the beginning of a long-term trend of huge structural change in every economy around the world which gathers pace every year.

 

You really don't understand the pace or ability of modern materials science nor the science of our atmosphere and so I'm going to respectfully put your ignorance on the viability of renewable energy down to that and not bother searching for some more malevolent cause for your cynicism.

[Humodour]

Oh, and Wals, have you been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the direction of energy in China?