Obama's 85 Percent "clean" By 2035

Quantum_Conundrum

26th January 2011 - 03:56 AM

See as how we all know the rough approximate price of the bare minimum Solar and Wind plants that would be needed is many tens of trillions of dollars, at least $50 trillion or so, where are anyone supposed to get this money to do this?

The rivers are all damed up already, and so only short term solution that leaves is nuclear power,a nd we still haven't even started on a practical "clean" solution for automobiles and trucking industry...

Nuclear is like 3 times cheaper than peak solar, or maybe 6 or 7 times cheaper than "average" solar at current panel costs and efficiencies.

This project would cost at least $2 trillion per year every year for the next 25 years, and that is, I believe, a most conservative estimate.

GDP is like 14 trillion, and we are spending almost half of GDP on government and energy combined as it is.

If things keep going the way they have the past 10 years, then in ten years from now we are going to be paying 2/3rds to 3/4 of GDP to government and energy costs alone...

flyingbuttressman

26th January 2011 - 04:13 AM

Private industry should be in charge of building nuclear power plants. If the government clears the path to building more plants and gets Yucca mountain operational, then we should be fine.

Quantum Chaos

26th January 2011 - 08:05 AM

2035 is a long time when measuring what will be possible by then. We could fuel and feed our civilization on sun light alone for well into the future. Growing biomass could become a booming business.

Capracus

29th March 2011 - 06:49 AM

Is this what Obama was referring to?

QUOTE

With a single gallon of water, Nocera says, the chip could produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing country for an entire day. Provide every house on the planet with an artificial leaf and we could satisfy our 14-terrawatt need with just one gallon of water a day.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/artificial-leaf/

adoucette

30th March 2011 - 01:12 PM

QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 29 2011, 02:49 AM)

Is this what Obama was referring to?

Don't think so.

That was in the State of the Union Address:

He said:

QUOTE

By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

So apprently he is including Wind, Solar, Nuclear and Natural Gas as a CLEAN energy source.

More importantly, he is including Clean Coal.

And so with that kind of accounting we already produce a bit over 50% of our energy with CLEAN sources.

SO:

Continue to subsidize Wind and Solar, mandate that new coal plants coming online starting about 5 years from now to be Clean Coal and continue to encourage more Nuclear plants via loan grants and regulatory methods (maybe more difficult since he gave his speach) and 80% is probably doable.

Arthur

El_Machinae

30th March 2011 - 02:22 PM

I just don't see the price of nuclear coming down, unless there's some type of mass production initiative. The regulations are only going to get more onerous. While it theoretically should be possible to streamline regulations with superior regulations (i.e., more effective in their intent, but cheaper to implement), that happens rarely.

I'm a fan of nuclear. I can see why major cities would want one close-by for their grid. But to create a system of mass-production is going to require an amazing amount of lobbying, and lobbying rarely results in 'good things' for the consumer.

I think clean coal has more potential, since what's required is an output metric. Innovations can get to that metric, and then improve on it.

adoucette

30th March 2011 - 03:38 PM

QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 30 2011, 10:22 AM)

I just don't see the price of nuclear coming down, unless there's some type of mass production initiative.

The price of building nuclear in the US should be a lot lower because the Gov combined the building permit with the operating permit. Thus once the lawsuits are over, then you start building, thus your costs are manageable.

Prior to this legal delays preventing the operating permit from being issued would be raised after the plant was built, thus driving the cost up significantly.

Of course there is a LOT of disagreement over the cost of electricity by source.

Here's a whole lot of different ways of looking at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Arthur

enord

31st March 2011 - 06:59 PM

maine recently removed hydroelectric plants so the salmon could swim upstream. prof sez " u dont pay for electricity, u pay for the privilege of turning the switch on when u need it"

penswrite

13th April 2011 - 12:33 AM

According to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the inflation-adjusted system cost of installed photovoltaic solar systems in the United States has dropped from approximately $1.20 per kWh in 1980 to $0.60 per kWh in 1990 to $0.40 in 2000 to $0.30 in 2005. Today's number is something like $0.20. Parity with the average grid cost of U.S. power is widely expected to begin in about 2015. In some locations in the U.S., and elsewhere, installed P.V. costs have already fallen below those of available grid electricity.

Given the likelihood that historical declines in the cost of photovoltaic modules will continue beyond the parity point, and especially considering that homemade P.V. electricity will also become increasingly attractive as a clean and cheap automobile power source, it seems to me that a significantly large fraction of US electricity demand, in 2035, will be met with P.V.

Quantum_Conundrum

13th April 2011 - 01:29 AM

QUOTE (penswrite+Apr 12 2011, 07:33 PM)

According to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the inflation-adjusted system cost of installed photovoltaic solar systems in the United States has dropped from approximately $1.20 per kWh in 1980 to $0.60 per kWh in 1990 to $0.40 in 2000 to $0.30 in 2005. Today's number is something like $0.20. Parity with the average grid cost of U.S. power is widely expected to begin in about 2015. In some locations in the U.S., and elsewhere, installed P.V. costs have already fallen below those of available grid electricity.

Given the likelihood that historical declines in the cost of photovoltaic modules will continue beyond the parity point, and especially considering that homemade P.V. electricity will also become increasingly attractive as a clean and cheap automobile power source, it seems to me that a significantly large fraction of US electricity demand, in 2035, will be met with P.V.

Why?

Solar parabolic trough boilers and solar tower boilers are twice as efficient and a fraction of the cost, on average.

Unless you can come up with a 30% efficient solar panel that costs half as much as existing 15% panels, the panels simply can't compete with the boiler technology...

penswrite

13th April 2011 - 02:55 AM

Decentralized rooftop power production has potential benefits, and grids/mains have costs. For now, in most places, the grid is still the cheapest way to "store" homemade photovoltaic power-- but the grid adds charges for overhead, profit, and taxes of between 30% to 100%--and sometimes more. (The difference between utilities' wholesale cost of power, and the price they charge for it.) This overhead, plus the various capital costs of grid connections, together with grid transmission losses, plus the necessity of power overproduction to meet demand peaks, all adds up.

As batteries and other methods of decentralized power storage get cheaper, as modules and inverters get more efficient/practical/cheap, and as electricity starts to fuel more automobiles, I predict photovoltaics will capture an increasing share of the market. Because of the pace of technological development and competition, I also expect that prices for pv modules will decline further/faster than thermal solar plant grid/mains power.

Although there is no Moore's law for photovoltaics, the 30-year sharply downward trend of prices, plus the upward trend of efficiency, for pv is inescapable--if not inevitable.

My crystal ball isn't working perfectly, but I predict a lot of roofing, siding, and maybe windows will produce electricity by 2035.

penswrite

14th April 2011 - 12:53 AM

QC,

An illustrative example of grid load/supply timing problems arising from centralized power production and grid distribution, similar to what we can expect from large thermal solar installations, is predicted for the NW United States this spring. There, according to the local newspaper, large-scale wind power producers are threatened with involuntary shutdowns during periods of peak hydro production.

QUOTE

Pacific Northwest wind-power producers are battling a proposal that could force them to periodically shut down their plants in the months ahead, potentially costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue...

When the winds are fierce, the Northwest farms are capable of producing up to 3,500 megawatts of power. That's more than triple the energy of the Northwest's sole nuclear-power plant.

Total wind-power capacity could double by 2015. (http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014756586_windpower13m.html)

Decentralized rooftop photovoltaics are probably not giving energy company financial officers sleepless nights just yet, but pv's combination of declining prices, flexible scaling potential, and technological up-side-prospects, should make anybody nervous about projecting inflation-adjusted pricing of >US$0.12 kWh (the 2009 US average) beyond ~2020. Any utility talking to bankers today about financing a new 100 MW thermal solar plant would probably be required to supply pro-forma projections to 2025, and beyond.

The same considerations should give pause to nuclear plant advocates, as well.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.