How much surface does it take to supply solar energy? The image accompanying this article shows how much surface needs to be covered in theory by solar power facilities to generate enough electricity to meet the entire demand of respectively the World, Europe (EU-25) and Germany. For more details, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fullneed.jpg
Once you've had a closer look at this image, you'll agree that my above sentence needs rephrasing from "how much surface" into "how little surface". In fact, solar power can well provide enough energy for both our current electricity needs and can supply the additional energy needs to run our cars as well. Indeed, cars need not be bad from an environmental perspective. In fact, the combination can be a winner for both.
Electricity can be stored in car batteries during the day, when cars are parked under roofs that are covered with solar panels that recharge the batteries. That could easily recharge the car battery enough for the owners to drive home and still leave sufficient power in the battery for other use. Note that 70% of Americans drive less than 33 miles per day. Late afternoon, when most people return home, they can plug their cars in at home for their own power use at home in the evening. Many will even have sufficient energy left to feed power back into the grid, selling electricity at top rates due to peak demand for power in the evening. Even if the battery became fully discharged in the evening, this still makes economic sense, as one can recharge later from the grid (during the night or early in the morning) when rates should be cheaper.
Sounds far-fetched? I'm very impressed with the Tesla Roadster, which has specs that many don't expect from electric cars:
- Acceleration : 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds
- Top Speed : Over 130 mph
- Range : up to 250 miles on one single charge
- Recharge cost: as little a $2.50 in electricity for a full recharge
- Full Charge : As short as 3.5 hours with an EVSE system installed (operating at 70 amps)
You can recharge the battery at night in your garage and then drive more than 200 miles on that charge the next day. After a 100-mile trip you can fully recharge it from an EVSE system, but it also comes with a mobile-charging kit that lets you charge from any standard electrical outlet, e.g. in case you get stranded with an empty battery. Of course, it would be great if that power came from solar panels installled on the roofs under which you park.
With the Tesla, you'll be able to drive up to 250 miles on one single charge. This radius is achieved partly with regenerative braking that stores energy produced when braking. Recharging an empty battery with an EVSE takes as little as 3.5 hours for the Tesla, so it makes economic sense to feed power back into the grid in the evening and recharge at night or early in the morning when rates are low.
Such a car also requires less maintenance, since there are very few moving parts; you don't need to change engine oil, filters, gaskets, hoses, plugs, belts, there's no catalytic converter or exhaust pipe to replace. Cost is an issue, the Tesla Roadster 2008 model has a pricetag of $92,000 and the battery pack warrenty is limited (I think it's only warrented for 100,000 miles, while it does cost thousands of dollars to replace). But battery cost is expected to come down in future, while at the same time battery capacity and performance is expected to increase over time.
http://teslamotors.com
Also have a look at Google's initiative on plug-in cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDjSbWTJbdo
Google still uses plug-in hybrids, but it sets a trend away from using fossil fuel. There are also ethanol-electric hybrid cars; more than a year ago, Saab (General Motors Swedish car unit) already showcased such a car, combining an electric motor with an E85 Ethanol engine.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/23/afx2616065.html
But electric cars definitely look most promising. Why hasn't anyone come up with this before? Well, General Motors did introduce an electric car back in the 1990s, but killed it off. Why? Have a look at the following two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/16/
The electric car dates back to between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), when Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage. Between 1899 and 1900, electric cars outsold all other types of cars in America. Why? Because they did not have the vibration, smell and noise of gasoline cars and did not require neither gear changes nor much manual effort to start (as with the hand crank on gasoline cars). The only good roads in those days were in town, so most travel was local, which was perfect for electric vehicles with their limited range. It's time to reinvent the electric car, for its convenience and for the positive contribution it can make in terms of the environment and global warming.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/14
http://earthissues.multiply.com/video/item/15
Keep writing!
I'm a huge supporter of alternative energies, but at this point in time there is no known fuel source that can take the place of fossil fuels.
Solar and wind are much to erratic, the wind dies and the clouds move in….No energy. Biomass simply can not produce the volumes of energy we need.
Sorry Sam I had to smile at your comment;
"You can recharge the battery at night in your garage and then drive more than 200 miles on that charge the next day."
Are we charging our cars at night with solar panels that produce no electricity at night?
Banks of batteries? That should be the most common solution to the erratic nature of solar and wind power.
I used to live in the Puget sound area of the Pacific Northwest and the last year I lived there we set a record of 45 straight days of precipitation (very little sun) the battery bank required to hold that reserve would need to be unreasonably massive in both cost and size.
Solar and wind power needs to be backed up with a reliable source capable of generating 100% of the power in case it is needed.
There may be an alternative energy capable of producing the required back up to wind and solar but research of it is in it's infancy.
Producing biofuel from algae grown off the C02 expelled from the manufacturing plants seems promising, several companies are researching and trying to develop a successful process.
A side note on today's use of biofuels.
The enormous demand for biofuels in today's market due to primarily European requirements, it is estimated that approximately 6 million acres of forests annually are being cut down and planted with crops to meet the demand. NOT a good trade off.
Right now, today, there is only one fuel source available to begin replacing fossil fuels and that fuel is nuclear.
It is estimated that the nuclear fuel we have available if used in fast breeder reactors would last the planet for thousands of years.
Nuclear fueled power plants have a history of being safe and reliable.
IMHO It's the only way to go.
Mining uranium is a nasty business that contaminates the mining area with the tailings piles, and we still have not found a storage proposal that does not condemn our children to thousands of years of babysitting extremely hazardous waste, not to the mention the problems of shipping said wastes around a crowded country in a terrorist-threatened environment.
I do not see power companies stepping up to the plate to encourage home solar systems with reverse meters that feed into the grid. As far as I can tell, power companies here in Missouri are actively trying to discourage such generation in favor of large generation plants and huge transmission grids. They have a right to be concerned about the presence of power in the grid, but the technology to do automatic shutoffs (and protect linemen) is here and I'm frustrated by the hurdles placed in the way of people who would invest in solar power if they could work with power companies.
My understanding is that uranium used in a breeder reactor has a dangerous radiation level for about 500 years, substantial but much less than the 1000s of years after use in our current reactors and that the spent fuel from our current reactor can be reused in breeder reactors.
"Mining uranium is a nasty business that contaminates the mining area with the tailings piles"
The mining of the metals to make batteries is no less hazardous to our environment and considering the number of batteries needed without a backup source of power the harm to the environment would be greater than with the mining of uranium.
"I do not see power companies stepping up to the plate to encourage home solar systems with reverse meters that feed into the grid."
Makes perfect business sense to me!
You and I see such things as a benefit to society and protecting the environment but the utilities see it as giving away money. The utilities are very supportive of alternative energies as long as they are the ones selling the power.
We have/had a bill before the senate that would require a 1% net metering rate nation wide which is a step in the right direction.
Not sure what happened to it though.
First of all, I agreed with you above about the need for a backup power source/grid. If we went to batteries for everything, that would be a horrendous amount of battery power and associated mining. But to my knowledge there are no radioactive materials used in batteries and I don't think that we're looking at lead as a primary metal for new generation batteries. Do you know what specific metals are involved and what particular hazards their mining involves? Certainly whatever technology we adopt needs to be looked at carefully all the way through the process, something we rarely do, unfortunately.
I had not heard about that bill. Is "net metering" the current term for meters that flow both ways?
Also here:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49007
Electric cars are definitely a great option for breaking our addiction to oil. Amory Lovins @ the Rocky Mountain Institute has also suggested a "Hypercar," made of ultralight, super-strong, carbon composite material, which is 12x as strong as steel on impact. Manufacturing cars and trucks using these materials would dramatically increast the range of electrical cars.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
http://www.fiberforge.com/
Hydrogen is also promising in expanding the range of cars that run on electrical engines.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/U02-02_CleanerGreener.pdf
That may be the line from the fossil fuel industries, but it's not true. Thanks for the opportunity to once again point to Amory Lovins' (Rocky Mountain Institute) strategy to transfer our economy to hydrogen by 2050 - profitably:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T99-07_StrategyH2Trans.pdf
That's the strength of hydrogen. Solar and wind can be store as hydrogen - no bank of batteries needed. No doubt, there is plenty of wind and solar energy to meet the world's needs, as Sam's article indicates.
Dan: "...there is only one fuel source available to begin replacing fossil fuels and that fuel is nuclear."
No. Hydrogen is much less expensive, and it is already produced in mass quantities, half of which is used in refining oil.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E03-07_H2EconNotDiff.pdf
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/
story;jsessionid=FC91202377E3F451FA25ECBADB1C9A2A?id=49897
(If this link doesn't work, it is avalialble here - 4th paragraph)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977114036
I would urge you to study Amory Lovins' work at the Rocky Mountain Institute. He has been at this for 40 years. The video interview by Charlie Rose is a good place to start.
https://www.rmi.org/
Yes, wind and sun power has ups and downs and it's precisely for this reason that car batteries can help out, by storing electricity at times of high supply, to feed electricity back into the grid when supply is low. I can well imagine car batteries both drawing and feeding power to/from the grid at night. Intelligent metring will assist with this.
Imagine there's a lot of wind during one part of the night. The meter will indicate that this is a good time for empty batteries to recharge. Conversely, when there is no wind in the evening, one will be able to get top dollars for feeding electricity back into the grid, pre-setting the battery to keep enough charge to get to work in the morning. As discussed, the car can then fully recharge from the solar panels on the roof of the parking place at work.
Just like we shouldn't rely on any single source of power (we should use wind, hydro, solar power and more), we shouldn't rely on a single way of storing power either. Apart from using car batteries for storage, we could use the Great Lakes as a reservoir not only of water, but also of power. At times of peak supply of wind and solar power, surplus power could be used to pump water back from a lower to a higher lake, in order to use hydro-power at times when supply of other types of power is low.
As Steve points out very well, hydrogen is another way to store energy. Free markets are good in sorting out which technology works best where and when. I have no doubts that the nuclear alternative will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc).
For free markets to work, they have to actually be free. Lovins has suggested that ALL energy subsidies be terminated. He is confident that your statement is exactly true.
Sam: "I have no doubts that the nuclear alternative will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc)."
Nuclear proponents deny these risk factors, and will say that you are exaggerating. Then they will say that nuclear is so expensive because it is heavily regulated. I'm certain they would love to see a "deregulated" nuclear industry. Then we can have the Enron of nuclear energy. No thanks. BTW, did you hear about the near nuclear disaster in Japan recently? There was an earthquake for which a nuclear plant was, admittedly, not prepared. Don't be fooled by claims that nuclear is safe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501680.html
I can support the tax, gladly! Lovins doesn't support a tax that is called a tax. What he proposes is "feebates," which is a kind of Robin Hood approach of assessing a fee on polluters (e.g., hummers), and awarding a rebate on efficiency (e.g., Priuses). In other words, polluters would end up paying for the premium that hybrid purchasers pay for the technology. I like that as well. Lovins has many other strategies for getting off of oil, which he wrote about in "Winning the Oil Endgame."
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Oil-Endgame-Amory-Lovins/dp/1881071103/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-3356701-2486530?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189792540&sr=1-2
Here's some further interesting political news. You'll remember that the EPA refused to regulate car emissions with the argument that carbon emissions didn't constitute pollution. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases do constitute pollution:
http://tinyurl.com/2pzngg
The EPA still hasn't come up with much of substance and by the way, as discussed, a good combination of taxes and subsidies is also preferable n my view to EPA standards.
Meanwhile, various states has enacted laws, but car manufacturers started lawsuits against such states, arguing that such standards were Draconian and that the federal government had some exclusive right to set such standards. The Bush administration has until now opposed implementation of such state laws with the argument that states needed a waiver to set standards tougher than federal standards.
Anyway, here's the news. Just recently (on 12 September), a federal judge in Vermont ruled that states do have the legal right to impose tailpipe emissions standards to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070913-9999-1n13cars.html
As discussed earlier, there are several bills under discussion in the Senate, but they all look set to introduce stricter federal standards, perhaps complemented by international trade in carbon credits. In my view, the most effective way to deal with global warming is to tax emissions in order to subsidize local supply of clean alternatives. Accordingly, the Senate should encourage the states to implement such laws. California's Proposition 87 looked promising, but it didn't make it, partly because much of the proceeds would fund education and research. Instead, people should be given more direct and tangible benefits. Proposition 87 should be changed so that the proceeds of such a tax will be passed on as quickly as possible to the cleanest working alternative suppliers of energy.
Yes, I was aware of the supreme court's decision in April and the Vermont court's recent decision. And yes, I agree that standards and regs are not the best policy course to pursue.
I think Dingell is going to introduce a bill (or may have already) that taxes carbon. I forget the details, but it's not a serious bill from what I've read. He's trying to protect the auto industry (into oblivion), but also trying to make a political point - a carbon tax won't fly, politically.
Thanks for the information on Prop 87 in CA. I agree that the revenue should be strictly targeted to help home and business owners procure renewable energy technology or supply. I don't know why that is such a difficult concept for the legislature to grasp.
On that note, you may have noticed this on my article re: solar energy developments:
Mass Marketing Solar to Colorado Residents
Metropolitan Denver and Boulder Home Depot's to offer complete, installed solar electric home power systems.
The link is too long for this space, so I'll give you the link to my article. You'll find the link there:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977114036
Most of my information on this matter comes from one source but he has convinced me.
"Nobody's fuel by H. Douglas Lightfoot
www.nobodysfuel.com
A retired Mechanical Engineer, H. Douglas Lightfoot graduated from UBC in Applied Science in 1952, and received an MBA from Concordia University in 1976. He spent eighteen years with Domtar Inc. at the Research Centre in Senneville, Quebec, working on research, engineering and economic studies of alternate energies as well as a wide variety of projects for the pulp and paper, chemicals and construction materials businesses. Prior to joining Domtar, he spent five years designing, building and starting up chemical plants at Dupont of Canada, and 12 years of project engineering at Standard Chemical Limited.
He is a retired member of the Order of Engineers of Quebec and the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and a Life Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He continues to have an active interest in energy and energy related subjects and is a member of the Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (GEC3) at McGill University.
Publications
Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet. Science, 1 November 2002, Volume 298, pp. 981-987. Martin I. Hoffert, Ken Caldeira, Gregory Benford, David R. Criswell, Christopher Green, Howard Herzog, Atul K. Jain, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Klaus S. Lackner, John S. Lewis, H. Douglas Lightfoot, Wallace Manheimer, John C. Mankins, Michael E. Mauel, l. John Perkins, Michael E. Schlesinger, Tyler Volk, Tom M. L. Wigley
A Strategy for Future World Energy Supply and Carbon Emission Control, Lightfoot, H. D. EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006 IEEE, May 2006, pages: 1-10, IEEE web site: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp
Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible, Lightfoot, H. D.; Manheimer, W.; Meneley, D. A.; Pendergast, D.; Stanford, G. S.; EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006 IEEE, May 2006, pages 1-8, IEEE web site: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp
Understand the three different scales for measuring primary energy and avoid errors, Lightfoot, H. D., doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.10.009
I purchased his DVD and suggest everyone do the same, he makes a valid correlation in the amount of energy we produce and our prosperity, he suggests we need to drastically increase our energy supply and use, to save the planet from climatic hazards, I'll give you an example, the vast majority of people don't have access to enough energy so they must use wood as a fuel source, mass deforestation is taking place because of this lack of energy, in Bancock Thailand where energy sources are not very stable several times a week diesel generators kick in to produce the energy needed to office buildings producing much dirtier power than if it was available through the grid.
2 billion people in the world do not have electricity."
Yes Gerry net metering is the terminology of hooking up to the grid and transferring electricity both ways
Here are some links.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/maps/netmetering_map.shtml
http://www.dsireusa.org/index.cfm?EE=0&RE=1
Steve,
"That may be the line from the fossil fuel industries, but it's not true."
It certainly is true, Hydrogen and the suggested fuel remedies offered by RMI are not available wide spread today which makes them NOT available today as a fuel source. They can however have an impact in the future.
"No. Hydrogen is much less expensive, and it is already produced in mass quantities, half of which is used in refining oil."
Hydrogen production(from wikippidia)
Electrolysis
Hydrogen from renewable resources
Main article: Electrolysis of water
When the energy supply is chemical, it will always be more efficient to produce hydrogen through a direct chemical path. But when the energy supply is mechanical (hydropower or wind turbines), hydrogen can be made via electrolysis of water. Usually, the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced, which is why only a tiny fraction of hydrogen is currently produced this way.
Fact; in 2005 we used 388 EJs of fossils fuels. Of the total 457 EJs energy used in that year Hydrogen supplied virtually none of that fuel. How log will it take to develop hydrogen to a usable fuel source?
Answer much longer than we have.
Sam,
I don't discount any of the solutions you suggest I just don't think they are enough.
Heck I remember listening to a caller on a radio show that suggested we line the interstate with wind turbines to capture the wind produced by the vehicles traveling on the freeway, my thought was that it was a great idea! But again not enough.
What do you do when you drive your electric car to town and there is a cloud cover so you can't fuel your batteries? What happens if the cloud cover lasts for weeks?
Hydrogen production:
Today hydrogen mostly is produced using natural gas at a rate of 1.5 units of energy in to 1 unit energy out. So if the hydrogen production by electrolysis is less efficient, then the energy cost to produce hydrogen by using solar or wind is much more.
To produce the hydrogen required to supply 5-6 days of U.S. transportation fuel would require a facility larger than 500 football fields, the average water consumption of this plant would be 217 million liters a day and that water needs to be purified water close to distilled water. The power required to produce this hydrogen would consume 1/5 of the energy produced by hydroelectric every year.
To produce the 65 EJ of fossil fuels used annually for transportation with hydrogen would require approximately 3000 power plants producing 1000 MW each (approx. 300'000 MW) that is approximately twice the total world production today.
If the power to produce hydrogen is wind concerning it's intermittency the amout of electricity required would be approximately 9,000,000 MW.
The land required for windmills to produce this amount of energy would be 1,200,000 kilometers or about twenty% smaller than the state of Alaska.
The energy requirement of solar to produce this amount of hydrogen is approximately
12'000'000 MW and the land requirement of about the size of N.Y. State.
To produce 1000 MW year it takes 3,000,000 Tonnes of coal.
Current thermal nuclear reactors would expend 160 tonnes of uranium to produce the same electricity.
But in the vastly more efficient (fast) breeder reactor it would take only 1.6 Tonnes of uranium to product the same amount of energy.
Seems to me nuclear should be a environmentalists favorite!
I agree we need to develop all of the many energy sources available to us as long as they are economically viable.
Currently alternatives including hydro comprise about 9% of our energy supply and that level has stayed static for the last few years, even though there is much more energy produced by alternative sources the over all increase in energy demand has kept the percentage at that level.
"That's why I suggested to introduce a tax on fossil fuel that could raise funding for local supply of clean and renewable energy."
"I pointed out that free markets are good in sorting out which technology works best where and when. Free markets work better with more realistic pricing (without ideological bias) and with choice, i.e. a market offering a multitude of power sources including wind, hydro, solar power and more."
Sam if your taxing fossil fuels in order to allow alternatives to be able to compete in the marketplace then it's NOT the free market working. Besides the best way to reach a clean environment is to make sure as many people are as prosperous as they can be so they can make the choice to live a cleaner life style.
Which requires a growing economy, taxing fossil fuels will not lead to a growing economy.
I am not an energy expert. I don't know if you are. But it seems to me that Lovins is, and I think he disputes your claims about hydrogen.
I don't think anyone is saying that hydrogen is ready TODAY to take the place of oil, but Lovins presents a very good case for tranferring the energy base of our economy to hydrogen by 2050, and being well underway by 2025. This does not involve "sacrifice," because he says it can be done profitably, driven mainly by markets and business interests. I don't know why that wouldn't be given very serious consideration (and I think it is being give very serious consideration).
Two papers on hydrogen by Lovins:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T99-07_StrategyH2Trans.pdf
They are fairly lengthy, and I don't expect you will read them, but they offer a different view of hydrogen than you present above.
I don't think so!!! I think I'm going to have to write an article about this, but the basic problems with nuclear are:
1. It's too expensive, and cannot exist without subsidies. Do away with the subsidies, and nuclear folds. As a taxpayer, I don't want fund it.
2. It's too dangerous. I know nuclear proponents claim that there are virtually no risks, but articles like this one leave me too uncertain about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700130.html?hpid=moreheadlines
3. Storage of nuclear waste is not nearly a scientifically resolved matter.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/
special/2005/mar/18/518472054.html
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/state01.htm
4. 4. nuclear power plants are centralized targets that present a security risk
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/
bw-exec/2006/feb/22/022209236.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0404/p03s03-uspo.html
5. nuclear power plants present a proliferation problem - another security risk, and a foreign relations risk
http://www.nci.org/conf/miller/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/
nuclear_terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spent-fuel.html
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n5/nuclear.htm
And for further reading:
http://www.sric.org/voices/2001/v2n1/yuccaproblems.html
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/
nevada/2002/nov/24/112410627.html
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04460.pdf
In short, nuclear is far more controversial than proponents are willing to acknowledge, and also far more controversial than hydrogen. I'll go with hydrogen, thanks!
From http://www.uic.com.au/neweconomics.pdf
Taken as a group, this and previous studies illustrate how sensitive the numerical conclusions of such analyses are to the particular assumptions and local conditions on which they are based. Despite these variations, a common theme emerges from this report and the studies that preceded it: The economic case favouring new nuclear build is now virtually universal. Nuclear energy today represents an affordable, economically competitive means to meet the world's growing demand for electricity.
"It's too expensive, and cannot exist without subsidies"
Average US nuclear production costs, 1981-2003, 2003 cents per kWh
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003
O&M costs 1.41 1.93 2.07 1.73 1.37 1.28
Fuel costs 1.06 1.28 1.01 0.69 0.52 0.44
Total 2.47 3.21 3.08 2.42 1.89 1.72
Subsidies?
From: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/03/disputing-nuclear-subsidies-myth.html
The 2006 Department of Energy research and development budget provides $1.2 billion for renewables and conservation, $800 million for clean coal, and $510 million for nuclear. These levels reflect the growing awareness that the United States will need a diverse generation portfolio to meet increasing demand, to reduce emissions, and to move closer to energy independence.
Some technologies also receive production tax credits. For example, the current tax credit for wind power is $18 per megawatt-hour produced. Currently, no such production tax incentive exists for the nuclear industry.
Yes Steve write your article, but please don't rely solely on anti-nuclear groups to get your information.
"WASHINGTON, July 30 — A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate's recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion.
http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html
The proposed tax would merely mitigate to some extent the existing subsidies that fossil fuel receives from politicians, from police and military forces that secure supply against accidents, nationalization, terrorism, etc. It doesn't even begin to pay for the environmental damage or to compensate victims of future global warming caused by burning of fossil fuel now. If you want markets that operate free from political intervention, then the proposed tax goes only a little way towards mitigating for the many subsidies, political favors and protection that fossil fuel and nuclear power receive.
Ironically, if any political intervention was ever justified, it would be now, in the light of global warming. A tax on fossil would be doubly effective when proceeds go to local supply of clean alternatives, which are currently disadvantaged by politics that favor fossil fuel. The proposed combination of tax and subsidies will lead to greater prosperity, as it will boost local job opportunities, give us greater independence from imports, it will help bring our boys back from Iraq and will save us unimaginable amounts of money, time and effort in terms of looking environmental disasters.
OK then, let me add just a few words. Nuclear requires an army of well-educated specialists to operate the facilities, to check for leaks, to monitor waste, to draft legislation and standards, etc. This in turn requires entire departments of universities to devote all their energy and attention to educating such people, to do the necessary research, etc. Such universities will in turn support the nuclear alternative simply to obtain further educational funding. All this creates a world that depends entirely on politicians supporting the choice for nuclear. Nuclear plants cannot be built a little bit, they require a long-term decision to commit huge amounts of resources and long-term funding, staffing, supervision and policing of everything associated with it, including risks of terrorism, proliferation of nuclear technology, cleaning things up, etc. As a result, nuclear power goes hand in hand with centralisation, favoratism, corruption and making political deals, producing a society that nobody wants, but that is purely the result of the (wrong) choice for nuclear.
Even if we (quite rightly) abolished nuclear plants today, we'd be looking after decommisioning plants, storing waste and terrorists seeking to get their hands on radi-active material for decades, which is a cost that is typically and conveniently left out of the picture by those supporting the nuclear alternative.
By contrast, people can hook up their hot-water-systems to solar power in theior backyards or put up a wind turbine themselves with little need for specialist training and with little risk to society at large. Honest people can do their own thing without having to bribe politicians or require special papers. As this article points out, solar power alone could well support the energy needs of the entire world. Add wind, hydro-power and further technologies to the mix, and the picture looks even brighter and better, pricesely because this mix can well cater for the ups and downs of each of the different technologies. But once you say yes to nuclear power, the light goes out everywhere else.
I am going to write an article about why nuclear energy is not the solution to global warming. I will submit it to the "Global Warming" group, and I'd appreciate any comments you may have to support (or critique) the reasons I give. Thanks.
It's good to discuss things with someone who actually does some research.
I have no vested interest in the nuclear field except I think it makes sense and I see a future need for abundant clean fuel in order to help our planet be a better place to live.
Your numbers come from the year 2003 where mine are reported from 2006, nonetheless it's valuable information.
"The problem is, Dan, that nuclear has no wiggle room for mistakes."
There are a great number of safeguards built in to nuclear plants so they never get close to needing that "wiggle room", in the three mile island incident no people nor was the environment affected by the accident. It was a great testament to the safety built into these power plants.
Here's a page that shows power generation related accidents since 1977. http://www.uic.com.au/nip14app.htm
Sam,
Take a look at Steve's information, the 2003 cost /benefit mismatch shows how alternatives get a much larger share of incentives compared to their power creation than fossil fuels, and we can be assured their incentives have been increased since then.
I don't see guaranteed loans for the construction of nuclear power plants as being a bad thing and as the information I posted (links) shows the profitability of nuclear compared to any other energy source has improved greatly in the last few years. The chance of these organizations defaulting (other than being blocked by the environmental groups and NYMBY's) is very low.
Now the following is strictly my opinion and NOT meant to suggest that either one of you have this motivation.
I believe the goal of most environmental groups is to restrict the use of fossil fuels and hurt the oil industries, I think their misguided thinking, that if we restrict petroleum fuel usage by placing substantial taxes on them then naturally alternatives will be more able to fill the need is exactly that misguided. Their claim of taxing fossil fuels to benefit alternatives is secondary benefit to their main goal of stopping people from using fossil fuels.
The average item in your grocery store traveled 2500 miles to get there, and it traveled on some mode of transportation the consumes fossil fuel How much will a tax on fossil fuel or carbon tax raise prices and slow the economy?
My thinking is (I realize non-conventional) to keep the economy as strong as we can so people can afford to live cleaner.
Steve, the hydrogen technology you describe will come about but in its infancy it will cost a lot and we need people to be able to afford to pay for it when it does get here. To have the disposable income to be able to afford that $10'000.00 fuel cell when it comes out or to invest in companies that are creating the fuels of the future.
The McDonalds worker can't afford a hybrid, we hope they bought a small compact car that gets good gas mileage but more likely than not they could only afford that aged gas guzzler the dealer was just trying to get off his lot or the cheapest thing (which happened to have a V-6 or 8) at the auction.
I wonder, if the environmental groups would fund low income people in getting more fuel efficient vehicle how much of an impact would that have?
And then to expand even further the people in rural Africa who are now burning wood (deforestation) to cook their meals how much benefit to the environment if the environmental group had not blocked that hydro electric project would that have had? (and the health consequences due to cooking with wood?)
I think nuclear makes no sense - here's why:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977118748
Dan: "...and I see a future need for abundant clean fuel in order to help our planet be a better place to live."
I would agree with that, but I think that hydrogen is the best and safest bet. And it is much more amenable to relatively quick deployment than nuclear. If that's your motivation, you should really look seriously at Lovins' work - seriously!
Dan: "...There are a great number of safeguards built in to nuclear plants so they never get close to needing that 'wiggle room'."
Actually, recent accidents in Japan and Germany tell a different story. I've posted links on this before.
Dan: "...alternatives get a much larger share of incentives compared to their power creation than fossil fuels...."
Look at the total $ subsidy to both. Fossils far surpass renewables, and fossils have been getting subsidies for decades. Even so, Lovins proposes that all energy subsidies should be terminated, and (for once) really let markets work.
Dan: "I believe the goal of most environmental groups is to restrict the use of fossil fuels and hurt the oil industries...."
I know you're not attributing this motivation to Sam or me, but I'll say this much. You can't make this statement and this one: "...and I see a future need for abundant clean fuel in order to help our planet be a better place to live." Use of fossils is "hurting" climate, and it is not my intent to "hurt" fossil industries. Some are even beginning to adapt, e.g., BP. And as Lovins says, it doesn't make sense to pay fossils to find deposits, use the Pentagon to protect them, and give tax breaks to businesses for Hummers, which waste fuel. Besides, Dan, BP and Shell have pressed the federal government for a federal policy to deal with carbon emissions.
Dan: "The average item in your grocery store traveled 2500 miles to get there, and it traveled on some mode of transportation the consumes fossil fuel How much will a tax on fossil fuel or carbon tax raise prices and slow the economy?"
Actually, I wish I could buy groceries that are grown/produced closer to home, and when I find them, I do buy them. A carbon tax would likely spur more local production, and, in that sense, would likely help (not hurt) the economy.
Dan: "...the hydrogen technology you describe will come about but in its infancy it will cost a lot and we need people to be able to afford to pay for it when it does get here."
That's the myth. Lovins states clearly and repeatedly that the hydrogen transition is already taking place, profitably, driven by business interests. The only issue is how quickly that transition will happen. It can be sped along by favorable policies, or slowed by distractions, like nuclear. You should read, "Winning the Oil Endgame." I found it to be enlightening in the extreme, and I seriously think you would too.
Dan: "I wonder, if the environmental groups would fund low income people in getting more fuel efficient vehicle how much of an impact would that have?"
Lovins addresses that here (p.3):
"A scrap-and-replace program can lease or sell super-efficient cars to low-income
Americans—on terms and with fuel bills they can afford—while scrapping clunkers.
This makes personal mobility affordable to all, creates a new million-car-a-year market
for the new efficiency technologies, and helps clean our cities' air."
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/WtOEg_ExecSummary.pdf
Dan: "And then to expand even further the people in rural Africa...."
Got a link? You must be aware of the many renewable energy projects in developing countries. For example:
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/267
http://www.uneptie.org/energy/act/regions/roa/roa.htm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zOVASYxKzdM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm
If you use the calculator, you'll see that nuclear and fossil fuel alternatives are somewhat cheaper, but would still amount to increased costs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/electricity_calc/html/1.stm
I don't think that this calculator does sufficiently take into account the points that Sam raises above, nor a rise of the cost of oil that I foresee.
Anyway, this doubling of electricity cost in the case of renewables seems an acceptable price to pay for greater independence from oil imports without the risk that comes with nuclear plants, as well as the environmental benefits, of course. The extra £157 per year for renewables compared to nuclear may well be less than what each household would have to pay for extra insurance, police cost, etc, if 45 new nuclear reactors had to be built in the UK, not to mention the decrease in values of their houses, etc.
Let me repeat what I already said, Dan. Will the proposed tax make fossil fuel more expensive? Yes, and very appropriately so, since the proposed tax would merely mitigate to some extent the existing subsidies that fossil fuel receives from politicians, from police and military forces that secure supply against accidents, nationalization, terrorism, etc. It doesn't even begin to pay for the environmental damage or to compensate victims of future global warming caused by burning of fossil fuel now. The proposed tax will go only a little way towards mitigating for the many subsidies, political favors and protection that fossil fuel and nuclear power receive.
But will it make life more expensive? The proposal is that the proceeds of this tax on fossil fule will go to local supply of clean alternatives, which will thus become cheaper. The combination of tax and subsidies will make clean alternatives more competitive in two ways, by raising the price of fossil fuel and by lowering the price of clean alternatives. So, it will be doubly effective in making one type of energy more expensive and another type of energy cheaper. The end result? The proposed combination of tax and subsidies will lead to greater prosperity, as it will boost local job opportunities, give us greater independence from imports, it will help bring our boys back from Iraq and will save us unimaginable amounts of money, time and effort in terms of looking environmental disasters.
As I also said before, I remain convinced that nuclear power will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc).
We have reached the point in this discussions where our positions have been stated and facts have been posted I will not convince you that nuclear is reasonable and you will not convince me that hydrogen is feasable or that taxing fossil fuels is the answer.
Been a good discusion
Thanks for standing firm on the nuclear issue. "There's always some risk"- let's tell that to the residents of Chernobyl. In fact, no community wants to allow nuclear waste to be shipped anywhere near it in the US, and in France the army has to force "the people" to submit to nuclear waste shipments. So, even people in the US who like nuclear power only, for the most part, like it as long as the power plants and waste are in someone else's back yard. I don't see anyone volunteering to bury the waste out by their doghouse or garage, or even anywhere in their State, no matter how many billions they want to subsidize the nuclear industry with.
Best wishes.