Such mills powered all kinds of industrial activity, such as processing of corn, cotton, soap, and metals, hence the names cotton mill, sugar mill, lumber mill and sawmill. In the Netherlands, windmills are an iconic part of the landscape. For centuries, windmills were essential in draining the land, much of which is below sealevel. The Dutch sailed the world in ships such as the Batavia (replica shown on the left). Before 1900, horses were used to carry people and to draw wagons and carts. The photo of the woman with the bicycle dates back to the 1890s.
The photo of the Zeppelin was taken in 1900. At the end of the 19th century, an electric vehicle held the world speed record (61 mph) and there were more electric cars in the United States than gasoline cars. An electric tram system started operating in 1886 in Appleton, Wisconsin, and was powered by a hydro electric power station, which began operating in 1882. By 1895 almost 900 electric street railways and nearly 11,000 miles of track had been built in the United States, and in a little over a decade the horse-drawn railways had largely vanished.
It is amazing how much was possible in the year 1900 with technologies such as hydrogen, electricity, wind and hydro power. One wonders what the world would have looked like, had we not started to burn fossil fuel in a massive way. Instead of ignoring the impact of emissions on the environment, we could have continued developing such technologies more. Sometimes, it seems a good idea to look back into the past, to find alternative pathways. 
In France in 1860, Augustin Mouchot, professor of mathematics, built a parabolic
trough (image left), used to cook food, produce brandy and drive engines in order to replace coal, which was in short supply in France in those days. Mouchot further built a solar pump in 1861 and a solar pasteuriser in 1876. In 1880, Mouchot's assistant Abel Pifre demonstrated a solar-powered printing press. Sunlight, captured by a 2.2-m (7-ft) parabolic mirror, heats up water in a small boiler placed at its center, to produce steam that drives a steam engine, which powers a press printing 500 copies per hour of Pifre's newspaper, named Soleil-Journal (images right and below).
In Nevada, the Nevada Solar One, a 64MW station near Boulder City, became operational in June 2007, producing enough electricity for 14,000 households, at a cost of 9-13 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). Using concentrated solar thermal power (CSTP), facilities to power the entire US grid – day and night - could fit in a 92 mile-sided square piece of desert land, at a price of about $0.10/kwh. This corresponds to less than 10% of the Federal land in the state of Nevada, land that could be made available without taking away land used for farming.
Wind power is sold to the grid at an average price of under $0.05/kwh, while the average price paid by consumers to the grid is $0.10/kwh. Six wind farms provide wholesale power at under $0.03/kwh. Wind power could be stored in the batteries of electric cars overnight and be fed back into the grid to assist with peak demand during the day and in the evening. Excess wind power could also be stored in the form of hydrogen, e.g. to power ships using fuel cells.
Electricity from solar facilities and wind farms could be transported nationwide over high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, with line losses of about 3% per 1000 kilometers (620 miles), adding $0.01 - $0.02/kwh to the local price of electricity.
Such solar facilities and wind turbines can easily be manufactured locally around the world, without need for highly-trained staff, without need for precious materials, without causing dangerous waste products and without making countries dependent on assistance with training, security and protection, health care, fuel imports, waste storage, etc. There is no need for huge tracks of land to be made available for farming of biofuel, which comes at the expense of rainforests and food, while requiring huge amounts of water and fertilizers. There is no need for huge tracks of land to be made available for mining, for storage of waste and for transport of waste and fuel by rail or by ship. Most importantly, there's no need for pollution!
There's no need to reinvent the wheel . . .
All it takes is for people to wake up and vote!
All it takes is for people to wake up and vote!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
I helped another family member set up a self sustaining homestead with solar and wind generation due to economics. Even though it might be a bit more work than flipping a switch; the pay off to the environment, as we are seeing now, far out weighs the inconvenience of cleaning and maintaining batteries.
Great essay! Thank you for doing your part!
Excellent article.
We need to redefine patriotism!
...sounds like a profit to me! Now that the secret is out, financiers will move to these newer technologies - although it might be a slow move.
Great article, Sam Carana.
The photo that is in your Article of Appleton, Wisconsin is CLASSIC! And that pen & ink drawing . . . I'm in an artist mode Sam. {wink}. Fantastic visual art here Sam.
In your research, Sam ~ Have you happened to find any other U.S. innovative photos along the lines of the Appleton, Wisconsin photo? I truly enjoy the photography that you have in your Article Sam.
This will be FEATURED. Give me a second. I'll message you back.
Blessings ~
Rene
Great article, Sam. You might have to specify that renewables will do much better with a democratic senate, one that is filibuster proof, as the most recent energy bill demonstrates.
Interesting excursion through the pages of time! Two things of interest, one was the salt storage for electricity. How did that work, do you know? The other i is how does one get the electricity from the battery back into the grid considering it's difference of potential is insufficient to feed the the power back. A fully charged battery holds about 12.6 volts unloaded. It requires about 14.2 volts to slowly feed the charge to another battery with a potential of say, 11.7 volts. To feed it back into the grid is going to require an inverter intended to develop perhaps 17 volts or more with the attendant loss in the process.
Excellent article!
In reply to Scott's comment on alternative ways to store energy - Scott, you're absolutely right that there are further storage technologies than the hydrogen, molten salt and car batteries mentioned in the article. There are flywheels, compressed air, pumped-up water, etc. I didn't want the article to become too long (it already has 900 words), but there's another reason why I specifically mentioned hydrogen and car batteries: they are needed anyway to power ships and car without releasing emissions. So, assuming that we'll do the right thing and implement those technologies in transportation, those storage facilities will be there anyway, ready to be used. In Denmark, the entire national fleet of vehicles could be powered by the amount of electricity that is generated there now by wind turbines. On a windy night, when there's little or no demand for electricity, surplus electricity from wind turbines (which would otherwise remain unused) could recharge car batteries and be used to produce hydrogen, without putting extra pressure on the grid or taking away capacity for other usage. Apart from cleaning up transportation in a big way, this would also allow us to feed unused electricity back into the grid at times of peak demand, to help cope with those peaks and to lower peak prices for electricity which can well reach double the current consumer average of $0.10/kwh.
The technology has been around for decades, e.g. see this study dating back to 1977 Molten salt can be used as a heat store to retain heat collected by a concentrated solar facility, so that it can produce electricity in bad weather or at night. The molten salt is a mixture of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium-nitrate, commonly called saltpetre. It is non-flammable and nontoxic, and has already been used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with such systems exists in non-solar applications.
The salt melts at 430 F (221 degrees Celsius). It is kept liquid at 550 F (288 degrees Celsius) in an insulated "cold" storage tank. The liquid salt is pumped through panels in a solar collector where the focussed sun heats it to 1050 F (566 degrees Celsius). It is then sent to a hot storage tank. This is so well insulated that the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week.
When electricity is needed, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generator to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator as used in any conventional coal, oil or nuclear power plant. A 100-megawatt turbine would need tanks of about 30 feet (9m) tall and 80 feet (24m) in diameter to drive it for four hours by this design.
Have a look at the picture at:
http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm
The kind of batteries I mean are for use in electric cars. Some of these battery packs can power a number of houses and can be recharged in a matter of minutes with high capacity connections.
I fully agree, Steve, in fact I am convinced that renewables and the more distributed grid that I envisage go hand in hand with a more democratic society.
Here's some more artwork displaying devices developed by Mouchot, both dating back to 1878, the top one showing the parabolic concentrator at the banks of the Seine at the 1878 Universal Exposition in Paris.
Appreciate the information on salt storage! On the transfer of electricity, I still am in the dark as the precise type of battery does not change the logistics in energy transfer. And any that can "charge in minutes" would require such a tremendous amperage that great heat would be developed unless you're talking about say 700 to 1000 minutes!
Where did you get this information concerning storage in automobile batteries and return to houses at night? It sounds to me like you've been sold a bill of goods on this one! Look at the science concerning energy transfers, voltages, amperages and temperature increases as well as loss of energy in the transfer.
A123 Systems
Altairnano
What is your background on the "science of energy", James?
This is a really important artcle. Obama often asks his audience to join him in hope and in changes that will save the world. This is just such a change. I wish Obama would read this article, and incorporate the ideas presented here as specific ways that America could become energy independent, and by reducing emissions into the atmosphere perhaps save our environment.
Appreciate the links! One of them seemed to be mostly how great we are but the other had a little interesting info. The battery can accept charge very rapidly but when you talk about enough current (amps) to function in a house all night, you are still going to have to deal with the logistics of transferring large amounts of energy and development of heat. The laws of physics don't change for a super efficient battery.
My background is not much, frankly. I've worked with electricity and the transfer of energy all my adult life and have studied electronics but I claim no actual expertise beyond what experience provides.
The one link that told about the one minute recharge made no claims about changing the laws of physics or of making transfers of energy in a different manner. I found no claims made regarding this, leaving one to extrapolate what they will from the information given. Obviously, one must ask what size battery is being recharged in one minute. I use lithium ion batteries in certain applications but they are all small and still take up to four hours to recharge.
The batteries I started buying for the Police and Fire department radios that were lithium were great but had one small disadvantage from lead/acid, they gradually loose their charge over time and after three weeks of setting unused, they had to be recharged. The link did not address this problem or even mention it.
Thanks again!
Very interesting article & well written. I hope you & James will follow your discussion to a conclusion regarding recharging batteries. I'm a chemical engineer, but understand enough about thermodynamics to follow what James is saying and I'm curious. I'm also aware, thru working with electrical engineers throughout my career, that fluid flow (which I understand well) and electricity flow (which I don't) are quite analogous. I fear that claims of strides in battery technology often don't quite match the reality.
I agree with comments above that diffusion of electricity generation should figure in our long term plans. Giant generating plants, whatever their principle of operation, put the public at the mercy of a handful of people, and make us vulnerable to transmission failures from terrorism, poor maintenance, etc.
This is hardly new information, James. New Scientist described this more than three years ago in an article called Charge a battery in just six minutes. Here are some technical details, from a Altairnano presentation dating back to 2006.
So, how do we charge such batteries? As long as you're not in a hurry, you can charge them overnight in a matter of hours from a standard wall socket. Dennis Berube charges the Nanosafe battery in his electric powered dragster at the racecourse in less than 15 minutes with a modified welding generator. According to this podcast with Altairnano's with Bob Geobel, the battery could be charged in four to five minutes using a 250 volt (rapid) charger.
Altairnano envisages 440V to 480V rapid charging stations (1000A), at locations such as service stations and parking meters. To cope with rapid recharging, some suggest that utilities build batteries into the grid, to act as buffers. Altairnano is working with AES to apply energy storage systems at strategic points in the electric grid and recently completed the manufacturing of battery packs to be used in a two megawatt (2MW) energy storage system ordered by AES, I believe at a cost of $1 million.
Personally, I believe that the electricity for such rapid recharging could be better supplied by numerous grid-connected cars selling surplus electricity that they got from the grid earlier, at cheaper rates and over a period of several hours during the night, using standard household connections.
I do see a bright future for huge solar farms in the desert, precisely because they are scalable. You can add parts in order to generate more electricity, but it isn't one single building that breaks down when one part fails, such as in the case of nuclear or coal-fired plants. You can spread those solar facilities out widely if you like, but theoretically a mere 92 mile-sided square piece of desert land covered with concentrated solar thermal power facilities could provide enough electricity to power the entire US grid – day and night - at a price of about $0.10/kwh.
So, the argument is that solar is a better alternative, but we do not have to put all facilities in that single piece of land, and neither do we need to rely on one single technology. Within concentrated solar power, there are different technologies such as solar trough, parabolic concentrated power, power tower. Furthermore, there is photo-voltaic solar power and there's wind power, geothermal power, etc.
The point is that we can change to clean and safe technologies, in the confidence that it wouldn't come at a huge cost, in fact it will be cheaper, especially in the long run and as solar panels get produced in mass volumes and get installed on the roofs of buildings, car parks, etc. That would lead to the distributed grid as I envisage it. We need to demand that politicians stop supporting polluting technologies and instead encourage clean and safe solutions. Market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where.
Thanks, I understand the charge if one can hook up a welding generator. However, you are still dealing with a great deal of heat and also there will be loss due to the conversion from AC to DC and back. These things are just fundamental laws of physics. A 12 volt lead/acid battery on a fast charger, and that is fast like in an hour and a half, will develop a fantastic amount of heat. It is not the composition of the battery, it is the actual transfer of energy.
The link to charge a battery in six minutes was interesting. They said it was still experimental and they are working to increase anode surface in order to allow for more rapid transfer. Once they can transfer from the battery that quickly, they will have to devise a means to handle the wiring resistance so it doesn't burn up. It sounds like they are recognizing the limitations fo lithium batteries and are working on cures as well as alternative technologies.
I don't know how old you are but unless you are under thirty, and possibly even then, I don't think you have to worry about sucking power off the grid and sticking it back in from your car in the middle of the night in your lifetime, if ever. It doesn't sound like a very feasible idea to me considering the logistics and the cautions and risks.
I don't think that the lithium battery is necessarily the savior of all things as it does have the tendency to bleed of if unused. However, they are working on new battery compositions all the time. By the way, few homes and few business even have 440 power available. It is on the pole or line but it is costly to put in if you don't need it.
I'd like to see large solar farms on the desert and wind farms on the high desert. These could be pretty massive in some areas. But I'm still convinced that nuclear is a critical part of the solution as well and I know you disagree. However, there are many scientists who feel the same. Perhaps they are all wrong but more likely it will be a matter of chance and politics which technologies manage to pull through!
Thanks Sam!
The A123 Systems batteries are meant to keep working for 10 years or more. It's a bit hard to find the details, but if you explore the site, you'll find a chart like the one below:
As I wrote in the article Electric Lighting last year, Altairnano is working on an expanded battery pack that will allow a 200-mile range, still permitting a 10-minute charge and to be available this year. That car has been on the market for a while now, James.
If the battery could merely be charged to 50% in a few minutes, that would give an extra 100-mile range, which would be more than enough for most people to drive home and let the battery recharge overnight from a standard household 110V wall socket.
I do have no problem with this technology, James, but I do have huge problems with nuclear. As you say, politics may well decide which technologies will make it, but the reality is that nuclear cannot survive in a market driven environment, hence the call from the nuclear industry for loan guarantees and further government support. Let's face it, James, we do not need dangerous or polluting technologies.
There have been calls from the alternative power industry for subsidies as well. Nuclear is not a generally polluting source of power, is well established and keeps its contribution to green house gasses to a minimum. Also, nuclear won't have the uphill battle in congress that others will. But, like I said, it is going to boil down to politics.
I have no problem with the electric technology either, Sam. I'm all for development of batteries or whatever is necessary to make it work. I believe it is reasonably viable and capable of solving some of the energy problems. To make totally electric cars viable, they need to have at a minimum a 300 mile range. 400 would be better. And that is a factor of battery development. Until they increase that range, they will remain mostly a novelty with some being used around town.
Just from what you have posted and the links, I am encouraged that the battery development is progressing. I question that the lithium battery is the end game. I believe they have more promising batteries in research right now. I'm still a big believer in the hybrid at this time.
The way battery developments are headed, that should be possible within a few years. Purchase cost of electric cars is still high, partly due to battery cost, but all that could change rapidly with mass production. Manufacturing electric cars should be cheaper, because they have less parts; the motors can be in the wheels. so there's no need for a differential, axle, or shaft. There is no need for a gearbox. There's no need for the starter motor, alternator and traditional battery of gasoline cars. This also means there's no need for maintenance on those items. Apart from the purchase price, cost of driving a car is an important consideration.
With an electric car, you don't need to change engine oil, filters, gaskets, hoses, plugs, belts, there's no catalytic converter or exhaust pipe to replace. There's not the heat and vibration of gasoline cars causing wear and tear, and there's no need for a radiator to cool things down (some battery packs still need cooling, but that may no longer be needed with future batteries). Driving a car on electricity can cost only a fraction of driving a car on gasoline, so it makes sense for a lot of people to get an electric car now, given that most people only make short trips anyway.
Many countries are small, so people rarely drive long distances anyway. In a bid to reduce its dependency on oil and reduce emissions, Israel recently told car companies that the government would be willing to provide grants and tax benefits for the construction of factories, specifically of batteries. As reported in Israel National News, the government is also considering encouraging Israelis to replace their gas-powered cars with electric ones. Subsidies would be provided for the purpose.
Sure, but you happen to travel over long distances a lot, James. The average car buyer will question the need for an internal combustion engine, if they can make all their daily trips using the electricity in the battery that can be recharged either overnight at home, or when parked in the office building during work. If, in the rare case that one does run out of power, one could easily recharge at service stations in a matter of minutes at a cost less than gasoline, then why carry an internal combustion engine and all the other items mentioned above? It would be just like carrying dead weight, which also comes with extra maintenance. As all-electric cars will be sold in larger quantities, the numbers for internal combustion engines and all the parts they come with will go down, which will sooner or later price the latter out of the market.
I agree with most everything you've said and appreciate the graphs and information! There are a few things the electric car will need such as some source of heat for a heater, and air conditioning system and an alternator if one is to recover electricity from braking and going down hill.
The problem is that although the average trip for individuals is, say, 25 miles, they will still want to be able to take the only car they can afford to own on that trip to visit aunt Edith who lives three hundred miles away. If one can afford to own and insure two cars and electric is a wonderful choice for the second car for all the reasons you've mentioned. Just don't think they will take the state of Idaho by storm! Some people won't go far and would elect for electric, but they are far in the minority. This could change if public transportation were improved but that is on long term hold because of cost here.
I agree that future battery technology is the key to the entire matter. But in the meantime, for those who can afford one, the hybrid is a really viable choice and a plug in hybrid would increase the benefits!
" Using concentrated solar thermal power (CSTP), facilities to power the entire US grid – day and night - could fit in a 92 mile-sided square piece of desert land,"
I have read several articles referencing this facility and none of them make the "day and night" power generation assertion that you have made.
Sure, an airconditioning system is a nice option and air conditioners can have a "reverse cycle" allowing them to be used as heaters as well. It doesn't cost much more than air conditioners that are cooling only and once made in volumes, there will be little or no extra cost.
James: [the electric car will need] an alternator...
The idea is, rather than to add alternators in electric cars, to use the electric motors that are used to drive the car. The motors can also act as generators, charging the battery pack when the car brakes or runs downhill (regenerative braking).
James: "Some people won't go far and would elect for electric, but they are far in the minority. This could change if public transportation were improved but that is on long term hold because of cost here."
Yes, there is a catch22 and that's why government support is needed. I agree that it will take some time and effort to bring down battery prices and further increase their performance, in order to make electric cars more attractive to a wider group of buyers. This can be achieved with economies of scale, so there's a role for government to support this, e.g. by means of a feebate policy with a fee on new gasoline cars that funds rebates on zero-emission cars. I have also proposed to deregulate taxi licensing to make it easier for car owners to take paying passengers along.
The article contains a link to a document by Ausra, who makes and supplies such facilities. The document says: "The Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) solar collector and steam generation system, was originally conceived in the early 1990s by Ausra's founders in Australia. .. Using Ausra's CLFR technology, power plants occupying a total area of land 92 miles on a side could provide all US electric power – the entire US grid – day and night." As far as I know, a CLFR facility has been operational in Australia for years and it appears to work well.
There are other systems that could perhaps achieve even higher efficiency in terms of land requirements, but the Ausra system is quite simple and could easily be manufactured and maintained locally in places in Australia, Africa and Asia, without much need for technical assistance.
We were doing great on the issues until your last two statements! The "feebate" and I've no idea where you came up with this bizarre idea, but it ain't agonna fly! And the idea of deregulation of taxicabs would subject potential clients to a world of unnecessary risks. Other than that we are in agreement.
James: "We were doing great on the issues until your last two statements! The "feebate" and I've no idea where you came up with this bizarre idea, but it ain't agonna fly! And the idea of deregulation of taxicabs would subject potential clients to a world of unnecessary risks. Other than that we are in agreement."
Good to hear that we're in agreement regarding the situation, James. Regarding ways to improve things, I envisage that governments agree at national level to meet targets for reductions of emissions, but how exactly those targets should be reached is something that should be decided at local levels. While I believe that a FeeBate policy is the most effective way, with market mechanisms sorting out what works best in a given area, I can well foresee that some places will take a more dictatorial approach, while some other places will take insufficient action and face trade sanctions (such as tariffs on what they export) as a consequence.
As to allowing car owners to take paying passengers along, there are indeed risks for both drivers and passengers, similar to the risks that are there now with cabs. However, mobile phones, GPS and mobile Internet access have opened up new ways of scheduling trips, of finding people, working out costs and making payments, navigation, etc, while improving safety and security. Just look at how places like Amazon, eBay and Gather are working on ways of rating quality of service. Furthermore, the more people will be involved in taxi services, the more people will watch out for bad apples. Try calling the police when you feel unsafe. Imagine that you could instead just dial a preprogrammed number and get someone to drive you somewhere else within minutes, at a fair price. Wouldn't that be a huge improvement in security as well? Again, each area should decide how it works things out, but if you look at the savings in emissions if drivers could take paying passengers along, that alone would make it worthwhile. Furthermore, it would allow more people who rarely travel long distances to buy one of those short-range electric cars that become available at reasonable prices.
Just calling someone to take you where you wanted to go would increase the risk of that person not having been checked out for criminal background or of his vehicle being safe to ride in. That scarcely comes under the heading of "a huge improvement in security" in my book. Does it yours? I wouldn't want to get a ride from someone I found on the internet! There are good reasons that we regulate cabs in most cities and I can assure you from personal experience that these regulations were not put in place because the authorities desired it, but rather because the citizens demanded it!
And when you are discussing the "savings in emissions making it worthwhile", that would depend some on the vehicle driven as cab. Or would you be requiring that the right to transport people would depend on the driver having an electric vehicle?
Also, how many cab drivers do you desire to put out of business by competition from unlicensed and unknown drivers? There are often negative ramifications to many otherwise great ideas. Drive the conventional cab drivers out of business and what will you do on the first snow day and everyone wants to take a cab, and there are none to be taken. Those internet cabbies are going to serve you under these adverse conditions?
If you have "feebate" in place, don't expect the normal market mechanisms to do much good as you've just executed them with "feebate!"
Many decent people regularly drive intercity alone and they wouldn't mind taking one or more paying passengers along, but they are now prohibited from doing so by law. Deregulation would allow them to charge a fee smaller than what one would now pay a cab or even a coach or train. Those who want the extra level of safety will make bookings through a reputable company that has both passengers, drivers and cars thoroughly checked out. Deposits and insurance may also help weed out bad apples, while passengers are far more empowered these days due to mobile phones with GPS, video cameras and Internet access, enabling emergency calls, online ratings and background checks, notification, etc.
James: "the "savings in emissions making it worthwhile", that would depend some on the vehicle driven as cab."
Picture four people who all drive alone in their gasoline cars daily - they don't switch to electric cars, as they each have to drive intercity once a month. If three of them take electric cars, while the fourth one drives all four of them to their shared intercity destination and back, once a month, then everyone is better off. The three persons with electric cars save money as they don't need gasoline, while the fourth one gets a payment from the other three when taking them along. The environment is better off, as car emissions would be divided by four, even if the car providing the service was a gasoline car.
James: "how many cab drivers do you desire to put out of business by competition from unlicensed and unknown drivers?"
In the above example, existing cab drivers will lose no business. Few people can afford an intercity cab drive anyway. Note also that city councils have received huge amounts of money over the years selling permits. Some may decide to buy permits back at market prices, i.e. what permits were sold for before deregulation. As I said, such details should be decided locally.
James: "If you have "feebate" in place, don't expect the normal market mechanisms to do much good as you've just executed them with "feebate!"
A FeeBate policy is meant to correct a situation, such as when politicians or dominant companies have distorted the market over the years. A FeeBate policy corrects this by discouraging, e.g., polluting activities, while encouraging better alternatives. The FeeBate policy merely sets the corrective framework - market mechanisms further sort out what works best where. As the policy takes effect, over time, the undesirable activities will decline, so both fees and rebates will decline accordingly. Thus, a FeeBate policy will phase itself out as the target is reached - over time, things will be increasingly handled by market mechanisms alone. Thus, such a FeeBate policy is both effective in achieving the desired change and in letting market mechanisms increasingly handle things.
We can argue what was "normal", as in your suggestion that we currently had "normal market mechanisms". In my view, the cost of securing oil supplies from the Middle East, both in terms of money and lives are high and they are hardly incorporated in the price of oil. Similarly, the security requirements for nuclear energy are huge and are to a large extent paid for with public money. The harm done by fossil fuel to the environment and to public health is huge and it's hardly incorporated in the price of fossil fuel. The 10% fee that I propose is a small price by comparison and by using the proceeds to fund better alternatives, the market would be corrected to a more "normal" situation. As said, that's my political view and each area should work out what policy framework they won't locally, as long as we can agree on targets to be reached for countries to reduce emissions.
I thought you were refering to the the Nevada Solar One site as providing energy "night and day" after rereading I see you were not.
I've been directly involved with two different cities and their cab licensing processes and can assure you that neither of them actually profited from the sale of licenses. They merely recovered their own costs. The cab business is marginal, at best. Take any business away from the cab companies and they will be out of business. Both cities I've been involved with would have quite happily given up the cab licensing business if they could.
As far as "ride sharing" that is a time honored tradition. However, it works best if the persons involved simply take turns driving and no money changes hands. They can do that with no modification to any law of which I am aware.
But when you set out to make some kind of registry of available "rides" or pseudo-taxis, you are truly setting out to bankrupt the cabbies because they haven't far to go. And you are, without a doubt, putting much more risk into the situation.
I've ridden with drivers who I didn't want to ride with again! And there are many decent people traveling back and forth and the most of these decent people are not going to be interested in going commercial. But how do you separate the decent people from the true criminals without a control of some kind.
Let me assure you that in my opinion we do not have "normal market mechanisms" working! I was driving from your comments that you thought we did or that you wanted to remove government controls, with which I would disagree. Most controls are the response to a problem and therefore, necessary. There are some, no doubt, that we could live without quite well.
I'm a strong believer in technology as a means to curbing our fossil fuel appetite and providing alternative resources. However, I still believe that, realistically, nuclear will be a part of the solution.
I see by this mornings paper that the EU is pressuring for commitments from US and China on the climate controls. Interesting to see where that leads!
As you know from my earlier responses to your concern that renewables did not provide continuous power, Dan, I see an important role for car batteries as storage facilities, as much of the electricity from the increasing numbers of wind turbines will be produced at night and early in the morning, when there's little demand. As more electric cars appear that can store this surplus energy in their batteries, feeding electricity they don't need back into the grid at times of high demand, there will be less need to add molten salt storage to concentrated thermal solar facilities, so this could reduce the cost of such facilities even further.
The batteries in electric cars can also store energy from solar panels during the day, in order to power houses during the evening, thus making it more attractive for households and businesses to install solar panels on the roofs of houses, offices, retail complexes and parking facilities. Eventually, I envisage a more distributed grid obtaining power from a mix of sources, including solar, wind and geothermal energy.
The main point where I do seem to disagree with you (and with Dan) is on the role of nuclear energy in the mix. As this article shows, a mix of renewables combined with electric cars can jointly provide a clean and safe global solution and I cannot say the same for nuclear energy. We should act sooner rather than later to make this work and rather than being a contributing part of the mix, nuclear would only hold back the developments we need to achieve dramatic global reductions in emissions.
I guess another area in which we differ is the idea of storing electricity for the grid, in automobile batteries. Tain't agonna happen. The logistics are exorbitant and the plain nuisance factor overwhelming. If we can just get better automotive batteries that can propel an automobile for four hundred miles with the air conditioner running, that is enough to expect from car batteries, don't you think?
I don't think you are understanding what I say about nuclear. Attempts to cut nuclear out of the picture is going to slow or stop altogether much of the positive effort along this line. It will be in the mix whether you or I either one, want it. For my part I'm good with it and believe it to be a part of a responsible energy solution in the twenty first century. But that matter little because it is going to happen! I'm a realist more than a dreamer and this is reality.
A family now spends $2,000 a year on electricity and gas bills. Using such a battery, they could switch use off-peak electricity only. If they can get off-peak electriciy at half price, they would save $1,000 a year. Over 20 years, that represents $20,000 in savings, so such an Altairnano battery would pay for itself.
Imagine you use this as battery in your electric car. The car would pay for itself from savings on gasoline and service costs. People spend almost half as much on gasoline, as they spend on car purchase cost, while they also will spend less on maintenance with electric cars.
Many people drive only a few hundred miles a week - they would only need to recharge such a car battery once or twice a week. But the battery can actually be fully charged and discharged more than three times daily over that span of 20 years with little impact on performance. If they feed what power they don't need back into the grid at a higher price than what they paid for it during the night, they can pocket the difference as profit. It's a win-win situation, as it also helps the grid with meeting peak demand.
You are implying that there would be no energy costs if one drove the electric car and fed the current back into the grid every night. This is incorrect as there would be a significant cost remaining. Actually unless the battery was oversize for this purpose, the auto battery would probably not be sufficient to serve the owners house for a full night! Current batteries would last about fifteen minutes in my house! I'll acknowledge that an electric car would have a greater capacity, probably some form of deep cycle battery. Do you have the information to know how much energy can be stored in one of these? They might be able to carry the owners home through the night but I'd have to seen the energy storage capability and know how much would be lost in making the conversions.
The new batteries you mention that are good for 20 years aren't on the market just yet. I think we'd better wait until they are and we know the costs, advantages, capabilities, capacities and drawbacks of them before we assign them additional work. Right now we are still using the old lead acid battery for most applications. The lithium ion batter doesn't meet the qualifications as it's capabilities are similar to the lead acid, with the clear advantage in select applications of not forming memory.
I've tried to get into the web site for the Altairnano battery but have been unsuccessful at this time. I appreciate the information on it but if you go to your auto parts supplier and ask for one they are going to ask what you've been smoking!
No one is going to want to come home and hook their car up to the grid each evening and disconnect each morning to go to work. This is the nuisance factor I mentioned. Also, their would be the costs for inverters and transformers to boost the voltage back up to a rigid 60Htz, sine wave, supply as is required for the grid.
You mention how little many people drive their cars and cite that as a good motive for buying an electric. I agree, as long as one can afford two cars. But that would negate the ability of those vehicles to acquire the necessary charge driving to have anything left to sell. Electricity here is not charged according to when it is purchased. Some meters on commercial installations have a demand factor but that is not time sensitive, only amperage.
Peak demand on the grid will be in the daytime when the cars are out taking their owners to work. That will not help the grid at peak times unless they work nights.
It's an interesting field and there will be many more advances in technology to assist. What will not change is human nature and their desire to leave everything alone once they are home.
Let's use the Phoenix calculator. You can order a Phoenix SUT now for $47,500. That may be more than you planned to spend on a car, but look at the savings. If you drove a gasoline car 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg, at $3.23 per gallon (US price at March 10th), you'll spend $1,550.40 a year in gas alone, while the price of gas isn't likely to come down. At the average price of $0.10 per kwh electricity, you'll pay just $323.10 to drive the Phoenix, so you'll save $1,227.30 a year in energy cost. If you can recharge at lower rates overnight, you'll save even more. Those kind of savings go a long way towards the higher cost of an electric car, but over time and with economies of scale electric cars should become cheaper, even cheaper than gasoline cars.
James: "Actually unless the battery was oversize for this purpose, the auto battery would probably not be sufficient to serve the owners house for a full night! Current batteries would last about fifteen minutes in my house!"
The Nanosafe battery is similar in size to a standard car battery, so you can end up with more room in the car, if the motors are in the wheels, etc. The phoenix comes with a 35 kwh battery that gives the Phoenix a 100+ miles range. In 2006, the average monthly residential electricity consumption was 920 kilowatt hours (kWh), or about 30 kwh a day, so the battery can also power your entire home for a day. Antairnano also supplies a 70 kwh version, which could extend the range to well over 200 miles, but Phoenix does not accept such orders yet.
James: "I'll acknowledge that an electric car would have a greater capacity, probably some form of deep cycle battery. Do you have the information to know how much energy can be stored in one of these? They might be able to carry the owners home through the night but I'd have to seen the energy storage capability and know how much would be lost in making the conversions."
There will be some losses when storing power in the battery, rather than drawing it straight from the grid, but the difference between off-peak and peak rate prices for electricity should more than make up for this and make it attractive to feed unused electricity back into the grid at times of peak demand.
James: "The new batteries you mention that are good for 20 years aren't on the market just yet."
They are. Phoenix has received batteries and is installing them in their cars as we speak. Altairnano has also received an order of $5 million to put batteries in U.S. Navy ships.
James: "No one is going to want to come home and hook their car up to the grid each evening and disconnect each morning to go to work. This is the nuisance factor I mentioned."
If you don't drive much, you don't need to recharge every night, if that's to much of a nuisance. Also, you don't need to fill up your car with gas every week or so, which arguably is a greater nuisance. I also expect less maintenance problems with electric cars.
James: "Also, their would be the costs for inverters and transformers to boost the voltage back up to a rigid 60Htz, sine wave, supply as is required for the grid."
Sure, I expect more and more people to get solar panels around and on top of buildings, which come with all that equipment. Using the car battery could save some costs on such installations. A larger solar installation could well power both the house and the car.
James: "You mention how little many people drive their cars and cite that as a good motive for buying an electric. I agree, as long as one can afford two cars. But that would negate the ability of those vehicles to acquire the necessary charge driving to have anything left to sell."
I don't see your point. The nanosafe battery can be recharged in less than ten minutes at a service station with the necessary charger, so even if you work in another city, you can get there by electric car. There already are many recharging points in California. Most people live closer to their work. At the office during the day, they can recharge the car at work, so that - after driving home - they still have enough electricity in the battery to power their home in the evening, and to perhaps sell some electricity to the grid as well. Then, they recharge it once more overnight, to be ready for the next day. Many families do actually have two cars - if both cars are away from home, the house can be powered from the grid, but as soon as one car returns, the home can be powered by that car again.
James: "Electricity here is not charged according to when it is purchased. Some meters on commercial installations have a demand factor but that is not time sensitive, only amperage."
Yes, I do support the calls for a smarter grid, net-metering, etc. In some cases, utilities can install two power cables to a home, each with a meter, with one providing power only at night, at a lower price. The lower rate is typically used to heat up hot water systems.
James: "Peak demand on the grid will be in the daytime when the cars are out taking their owners to work. That will not help the grid at peak times unless they work nights."
They can plug their car in at work to feed power back into the grid and/or perhaps also supply electricity to power the office. Some offices will reward staff for that. Other offices will have company cars and they may install solar panels to the roof of the office to recharge those cars during the day. Staff can then drive home and power their house from them during the evening, and recharge them overnight (at low rates), enough to drive back to work the next day.
I don't know about you but $47,000 for an automobile is incomprehensible to me! I couldn't make the payments on the darn thing, regardless of how much potential savings was there. this is simply not an affordable vehicle at this time. Not for normal people in the state of Idaho. For $47,000 I expect something to have at least two bathrooms!
Bky the time you get through with all of this you're going to dedicate your life to installing inverters, installing and servicing solar panels, plugging in and unplugging cars to the grid or the homes and calculating just what to do, that you aren't going to have to worry about working or actually driving the darned thing! For anything to be adopted, in the United States, it has to reek of simplicity!
I'm with you on the goals but the logistics are staggering! Employers are not going to have places for all their employees to plug in. And they are not going to want to install such. Just the nature of people and businesses. The nanosafe batter may be chargeable in ten minutes but if they are using converted welders to accomplish this, bear in mind that they may well be charging at a rate in excess of 500 amperes, enough to fry most anything you want to use to conduct the charge.
Solar panels will first be used for such things not requiring a conversion, such as heating and water heating. Then, if one has capacity to do these things, one might look at converters and powering other things. Selling power out of our car is not a feasible prospect in this country at this time. In fact, the first time you mentioned it on Gather, I thought you were joking. I am now convinced that you actually believe in this prospect!
My whole contention is, lets get electricity to successfully powering our automobiles before we worry about doing any other things with them. And lets develop the other technologies such as wind and solar for whatever they might be able to provide. Solar is doing a lot of tasks in our nation today but is still recognized as only feasible for low power consumption applications. The average roof would not hold enough solar panels to actually provide all the energy for that home, let alone any extra. That effort has been and is being tried in Idaho and we simply don't have the ability as yet.
The investment in inverters, converters, charging equipment capable of massive flows of electricity to recharge a battery in a short time, etc., are superfluous diversions at this time and serve only to confuse the issue, IMHO.
Remember Sam, Rube Goldberg is not the average citizen in the United States. Perhaps you live in an area of tinkerers who will eagerly follow such complex practices for the satisfaction of proving they can, but that is not the case here! Lets back up the boat and concentrate on the reasonably doable and marketable, or we might well not accomplish anything!
As described in the article, we are at the crossroads again. For more than a century we have had electric cars, wind energy, solar technology, etc. We chose for fossil fuel. A century ago, few people worried about oil imports and global warming, but it's now obvious that we need to change our ways. In response to global warming, countries should globally commit to reduce emissions and, where necessary, apply trade sanctions to countries that fail to cooperate.
What's the best way to reach such targets? I propose a framework of feebates, including fees on gasoline cars, funding local rebates on zero emission vehicles, and fees on fossil fuel, funding local facilities that produce electricity in clean and safe ways. Market mechanisms can further sort out what works best in each respective area.
I do acknowledge that there are other approaches. Generally, I believe it should be left up to local areas to decide how to reach those targets. But I'm unconvinced that a carbon trading scheme will work, in fact I believe that in many respects it will be counterproductive. I'm also unconvinced that nuclear and "clean coal" were clean and safe. Moreover, these other approaches are in many ways incompatible with the shift towards a more distributed grid with zero emission cars and solar and wind energy. In many respects, these other approaches cannot coexist with and even come at the expense of clean and safe solutions. It's not that electric cars and solar power didn't work, it's because fossil fuel and nuclear have received so much political support in the past that the market share for electric cars and solar power is so small. To change that requires a political change.
Unfortunately, to the common person, carbon trading is nothing but smoke and mirrors to allow the Al Gores of this country to continue their lavish life style that the common person cannot afford! So we are in full agreement there.
Yes, political change will be required. But the politicians must be made aware that the majority of the electorate actually will support such efforts in the final analysis. I've no reason to believe that we are close to that as yet. People give it great lip service, but when the many inconveniences and costs start hitting home, we'll sell out those politicians in a New York minute to get our life style back!
An 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
I live in Vermont, Green but rural. Transportation is our biggest carbon footprint, and hard to change with the commutes required by the distribution of jobs and affordable homes. We have park-and-rides, but if I am an occasional user, there is no easy way to find out who is going my way. A web-based system for ride sharing would really work well here. For now, there is just the commuter rideshare for daily commutes, and of course the college ride boards for ridesharing home on weekends. Again, they are good local solutions. Our airport is 20 mile of interstate highway from my house; I would never have paid for a taxi to bring me home if my company did not reimburse!
Using GPS tracking and cell tower triangulation, friends can share location data, allowing them to work out who is moving in what direction, in order to selectively approach some of them and ask them if one could share a ride. What holds back such development is that only public transport and cab drivers are allowed to take paying passengers on board. If payments could make more people share cars, especially over long distances, then more people would be able to buy a cheap electric car for the shorter distances.
Actually, we need far less molten salt storage. The sun shines pretty reliably in the desert and, according to this Ausra study, we need only 16 hours of molten salt storage. Moreover, as more wind turbines are added, producing more electricity at off-peak hours such as early in the morning and during the night, the only 'bottleneck' will be the evening peak, which extends just a few hours after sunset. If you further take storage in car batteries into account, there's even less need for molten salt storage. We'll have a surplus at night anyway, as more wind turbines are added, so we might as well use it to recharge car batteries, or turn it into hydrogen. In order to clean up shipping, we need to look at hydrogen anyway. This will facilitate the shift towards zero emission vehicles, which in turn will facilitate more solar panels on top of houses, offices, car covers, etc.
The old way of doing off-peak was two meters, but now with microprocessor control and powerline communications, little additional hardware will be required to regulate the off-peak charging. And though I see your point that pure electric cars are more efficient than hybrids, there are situations where the flexibility is still needed. Both need to be part of the picture, especially as our society is still transitioning to lowering the need for travel and building sustainable infrastructure.
It doesn't take much effort to recharge a car battery. Most people drive less than 26 miles a day. So, if you have a battery with a capacity for 100 miles, you would only need to recharge it every four days or so, i.e. arguably less effort than it takes to drive to a service station to fill up your gasoline tank. BTW, it's well possible to transmit electricity without cables, in the form of microwaves. The technology has also been known for a long time. Nicola Tesla already transmitted electromagnetic energy without wires. The photo below shows Nicola Tesla quietly reading a book while conducting his experiments at his lab in Colorado Springs. It was taken on December 31, 1899, and is a double exposure to picture the extent of the electrical discharge. A device doing this in your garage would of course not be this sparky. As electric cars become more popular, there could well develop more demand for this method of recharging batteries.
Losses are small enough to make it attractive to store surplus electricity in car batteries at off-peak times, to feed it back what you don't need into grid to help the grid meet demand at peak times. We need more time-of-use pricing (TOU - see further down this post) as part of a smarter grid. Market mechanisms can then further sort out what works best where. Hydrogen may well be attractive too and while prices are coming down, it still is expensive to add a fuel cell to what is otherwise identical to an all-electric car.
Ed: "when I was a Navy electrician many years ago, the sub's battery created lots of heat while charging and discharging, and a lot more energy was needed to charge than could be called upon. I haven't had time to research what the losses are in charge-discharge cycles for the new batteries, but this information will be critical in determining the viability of that portion of your plan."
The Altairnano NanoSafe battery cells have been tested to achieve over 9,000 charge and discharge cycles at charge and discharge rates up to 40 times greater than are typical of common batteries, and they still retain up to 85% charge capacity. Even when charged and discharged every day, they are projected to last 25 years. Altairnano has performed "hot box" exercises on its batteries at temperatures up to 240°C with zero explosions or safety concerns. Altairnano has also demonstrated that the NanoSafe batteries can be changed to 90% of their room temperature charge even at -30°C. The battery is thermally stable, it doesn't exhibit thermal runaway. By using nano-titanate materials as the negative electrode material, no interaction takes place with the electrolyte in the Altairnano batteries. In testing, Altairnano performed high-rate overcharging, puncturing, crushing, dropping of the batteries, all without problems.
Ed: "Also, I would need to be assured each morning that my car was at full charge, or there would be no sense of reliability, one of the key arguments for going electric. The old way of doing off-peak was two meters, but now with microprocessor control and powerline communications, little additional hardware will be required to regulate the off-peak charging."
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has off-peak rates (in summer, midnight to 7.00 am) as low as $0.05/kwh, while peak rates are as high as $0.28/kwh. To be applicable for this "E-9 rate" you'll have to get a time-of-use meter installed at your premises. You don't have to get out of bed to start things, you can simple set a timer to start charging at midnight. Most electric vehicles have indicators showing how full the battery is and, unlike gasoline cars, you don't need to start the motor first, before you can read the meters on the dashboard.
Ed: "..though I see your point that pure electric cars are more efficient than hybrids, there are situations where the flexibility is still needed. Both need to be part of the picture, especially as our society is still transitioning to lowering the need for travel and building sustainable infrastructure."
I suggest a feebate policy that includes a 10% fees on gasoline cars funding local rebates on zero emission vehicles, but such details should be decided by each area. It's fine, as long as they do meet their targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. If they don't, they should adjust percentages of the fees, the cars that are applicable for rebates, etc.
"A recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory study, featured in the current issue of the ORNL Review examined how an expected increase in ownership of hybrid electric cars and trucks will affect the power grid depending on what time of day or night the vehicles are charged."
"if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power—up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region's system."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20080312-02
If we are going to laud the benefits of plugin E.V.s, we must also ackowledge the challenges they create.
What would your solution to this challenge Sam?
As I said above, Pacific Gas and Electric Company has off-peak rates (in summer, midnight to 7.00 am) as low as $0.05/kwh, while peak rates are as high as $0.28/kwh. Such Time of Use (TOU) rates are a great incentive for owners of electric vehicles to recharge at off-peak hours.
A shift to electric vehicles also goes hand in hand with more solar panels. Owners of electric cars are more likely than other car owners to add solar panels and wind turbines on their premises. The battery in their electric car can double as a battery for such facilities.
Also, there's an opportunity for business to provide extra service to customers and staff that have electric vehicles, by installing solar panels on the roofs of business premises and car covers, thus allowing electric vehicles to recharge during the day. Such recharging from solar panels can take place without putting stress on the grid. Once they return home, owners of electric vehicles could then sell their surplus electricity to the grid, thus helping the grid cope with the evening peak.
In conclusion, rather than being a burden to the grid, electric vehicles can help the grid better cope with demand. Furthermore, we need to shift away from coal-fired power plants anyway, so this discussion is rather academic. Instead of conventional power plants, we need to look at clean and safe technologies, such as solar and wind energy.
Your response does not adequately address the problem.
When these EV drivers get home they are going to want to plug their vehicles in to recharge them and no matter that the power system had enought total capacity in the previous 24 hours it is going to have to come up with enough energy at that time to charge these vehicles.
As we speak there are utility companies across out country that employ "cutoffs" of major household energy using appliances during peak load demand. And I think the charging of an EV would be considered a major draw on the power resource.
A partial solution could be to have the utility to remotely control the charging process as energy demand later in the night reduces.
If you environmentalists continue to challenge the building of convential energy sources and nuclear there will not be the power available to even begin to charge a large fleet of EVs.
If the car battery can hold enough energy to drive 200 miles, then most people would need to recharge only once a week, because on average people drive less than 200 miles a week. Even if they do recharge four or five times a week, they're likely to do so at night, given the cheaper rates. Those who like to make further savings can also use the car battery to power the house. A family now spends $2,000 a