Why Boulder Has to Buy Out Electric Utility for a Clean Energy Future

None of the above that you mentioned. I have invented a new way to make this conversion to mechanical energy. This is not something I'm going to discuss on a blog but if you are seriously interested in what we are doing shoot me an email and we'll consider an NDA arrangement where I'll demonstrate it for you. Nothing like just seeing it work.

No, that is not what i'm looking for.
Instead, i'm looking for what technology you are capitalizing on to exploit this thermal variance?
Stored heat/cold driving a sterling cycle piston via direct mechanical or hydraulic pump to mechanical storage?
A bladder filled with helium actuating a gear as it both expands and contracts?

The power source is the change in daily temperatures. About 23 degrees F on the front range of Colorado today. Every day the sun shines on our planet, regardless of loud cover, and the result of this is black body radiation which creates the effect we call "warming". We capture some of this daily thermal energy and convert it to mechanical energy, which can be converted to electricity on demand.

@mike
I see the use of gravity storage but nothing on power source.

Bob, you can find us at www.gravatonenergyresources.com . We are also competing to pitch at the ARPA-E energy innovation summit next month; you can get more info on that at http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/792 - Mike

Mike, one of the cool things about this industry is that new stuff is coming online all the time! Do you have a website? I'd love to learn more about your system.

Bob

Bob,

I too am all about what works that is clean, I just don't want to see us rush to conclusions and down a path without thinking of all the ramifications, short term and long term.

Burning anything is the most destructive thing you can do to the environment and the most inefficient way of releasing energy. At the end of the day our Sun provides all of our energy; either long term through the carbon decomposition chain(i.e. Creation of coal and oil), or more immediate by sunlight either direct or indirect through the creation of weather that we perceive as temperature swings and the wind blowing. The closer we can get to the Sun's direct energy production the better off we are. I just happen to be partial to thermal changes because I have built a system that harnesses these changes, stores that energy mechanically, and then releases it on demand to create electricity. Our system solves energy creation, storage, and transmission all in one device.

Mike: Great question! As I pointed out, even solar has it's environmental costs. Some of the chemicals and how those chemicals are manufactured involves some pretty nasty stuff. China in particular hasn't been the best at enforcing responsible manufacturing processes, but they are starting to see that not doing so presents problems and seem to be moving towards becoming more responsible.

That said, if you compare the environmental costs of burning coal on it's best day to generating electricity via solar on it's worst day, there is still no competition; solar wins hands down!

In 25 or 30 years, when the life span of most solar panels is over, they can then be recycled. Some company's have even established trusts to ensure that even if they are out of business at this time, that their panels are still able to be recycled.

As far as what materials required to make a solar panel, it depends upon what kind of panel we're talking. Solar panels,for the most part don't use rare earth metals (except sometimes in coatings for the glass)and while they are used in battery systems and magnets, that are components in other renewable energy systems, most of these rare earth materials aren't really that rare (they are just not deposited in economically practical amounts to mine). With the increased demand for these materials, we will need to figure out how to supply our needs in an environmentally responsible way and this means that they will probably be more expensive as time goes on, but again, if you compare these costs to the true cost of burning coal, there is no comparison; solar wins again!

Regarding solar vs. thermal, I'm kind of an "all of the above except fossil fuels" kind of guy. It all depends upon which technology works best for which application. I'm also confident that efficiencies will get better with time, as well as people will start using energy more efficiently as time goes on too!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Bob,
What happens in twenty years when those solar panels are spent and have to be replaced? What exactly are in solar panels in regards to rare earths and chemicals anyway? Not calling you out just curious.

Solar is a great source, just not efficient in a PV form for converting and storing energy. Thermal is much more efficient and a lot closer to reality than you think.

Mike, one of the beauties of solar energy is that it can be placed on rooftops and while not completely environmentally innocuous, when compared to the environmental costs of burning coal, there is no comparison!

Regarding your point about taking advantage of those temperature swings, I'm sure that it's possible, but as of right now solar and wind are the most readily available forms of renewable energy and if implemented right, along with geothermal and advances in electrical storage, will be able to shoulder more and more of the load as time goes on.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Being from Colorado, a state loaded with renewable natural resources, it only makes sense to leverage those on a more localized basis. Now whether or not Boulder chooses the right path remains to be seen. 10,000 acres of solar panels does not exactly fit with the Boulder image of environmental friendliness so what their findings are will be interesting. If there was another renewable energy source that was not impactful and they worked that in from the beginning things might be different. What if that other source was in fact energy pulled from the environment as thermal energy converted to electricity. The average temperature change in Colorado is around 25 degrees everyday; looking at that 3 dimensionally you see a nearly infinite source of energy everyday to draw from. And as the temperature changes everywhere everyday you don't need to transmit it as you create the power where you need it.

I agree with everything you both said and also work (personally and professionally) to better understand the pathways to alternative energy supply. Just felt this post was a bit misleading about the perceived polarity of the Boulder populace. Cheers.

@Charlie,

No, it's true that the vote was contentious and so is the ongoing process. But I think it's important to note (from the story you linked to) that Xcel is only willing to deal when the city stop exploring its options. They want a captive audience, which is why I think the city has to keep contemplating giving them the boot, even if they haven't officially yet.

Charlie: I imagine that it must have been a very contentious vote! It's always nerve racking when changing the status quo, especially when making the change might actually end up costing the citizens of your city more for electrical service (not that it will, just that it could).

That said, the only reason that dirty energy is even close to the cost of clean energy is because the external costs of dirty energy aren't included in the price of a ton of coal.

While some of these costs, such as the pre-mature deaths and illnesses of those who live downwind of coal plants, might be borne by the citizens of Boulder under the status quo (if the coal plants are within it's city limits), the vast majority of these costs are actually hoisted upon the people who mine the coal and who live where it is mined. Coal ash also can have some pretty serious ill effects!

This makes the actions of the people of Boulder even braver and worthy of praise!

At some point, these external costs need to be addressed so that the "real" costs of dirty energy is out in the open and known to all!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

John...I've appreciated your coverage of this issue on ILSR and other forums, as it's a huge step for Boulder and the potential democratization of power supply.

However, as a Boulder resident, I must say that this latest post greatly mischaracterizes and exaggerates what the citizens of Boulder voted for and the process we're following.

1) We did not "vote to boot" the incumbent utility. We voted to a) explore the costs and feasibility of municipalizing and b) approve the City to bond finance the utility if it decided it was the best course forward.

2) "City leaders and citizens agreed?" Not really. As you state in the ILSR article to which you link, the vote was "razor thin" (a <1% margin), and has been an extremely divisive issue in our community.

3) "That the only credible option...was to go it alone." Again, the vote was to explore the feasibility and cost. Recent coverage reveals the degree to which other options are very much under consideration (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_22173819/boulder-officials-debate-xcel-partnership-ideas).

I'm happy to see this happen because way too many utilities seem to view themselves as being sufficiently isolated from their customers to have much to fear from them!

Maybe they'll see this as a crack in that shield of invincibility?

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell