Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Can the U.S. Reach 100 Percent Renewable Electricity in 10 Years?

By Paul Gipe, Wind Expert
July 17, 2008   |   62 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

62 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 62
July 17, 2008
One significant new source of large-scale generated electricity with essentially zero carbon emissions that no one seems to be mentioning is GEOVOLTAIC, or large-scale geothermal generation. To achieve 100% renewable electric generation it will require large geovoltaic installations to be part of the mix.

Companies like Atlantic Geothermal and others are now working on this technology and exploring sites for installations in cooperation with government officials. This is a major emerging trend that seems to be flying almost completely under the radar, but will be essential to any future national renewable energy strategy.
Comment
2 of 62
July 18, 2008
A typo: Electric cars use 0.25 kWh/km. The math was done with this correct value, so the typo was just a typo, the conclusion of the number of turbines needed is correct. (Note: that is a full size car. The EV1 used 0.1 kWh/km)

We also need to replace the gas and oil heaters with electric heat pumps, so still more turbines are needed. Then there are the trains, trucks, airplanes, ships.... With all those oil users even if we replaced all cars with electric right now we would still be importing oil.
Comment
3 of 62
July 18, 2008
In order to supplant fossil fuel generation with RE generation, the issue of dispatchable power must be addressed. I do not believe that it is practical to try to provide 24 hour energy availability from wind by erecting such an enormous surplus of wind generators and high tension power lines so that somewhere the wind can be tapped. While this may be statistically possible, there are too many risks to this strategy. Tornadoes and hurricanes destroy wind turbines and power lines. Long distance transmission is too easy to disrupt.

What is required is distributed energy storage. This can utilize batteries in EVs, homes and businesses, pumped hydro, compressed air, etc. Once we understand that energy is stored in all processed materials, we can utilize renewables, as available, to process materials. We can divert time variant renewables to industrial processes that are not overly time sensitive.

We also need to remember that renewables such as tidal generators are as reliable as combustion generators and move quickly to identify and harness every viable marine and river resource. We don't need dams to have hydro power!

There are battery technologies that are now in early production whose lifetime cost per kwHr of storage is ~$0.03. This is before these products are even in mass production. This technology must be supported with whatever resources are necessary to make it even cheaper.

Renewable energy generators? No problem. Its the storage that is being overlooked. In order to have the dependable energy supplies we have become accustomed to and get them from renewables other than tidal or biofuels, we must throw all available resources to mass production of advanced energy storage modalities. Any thing else is tilting at windmills, so to speak.

http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
Comment
4 of 62
July 18, 2008
One comment: part of the reason that Europeans use so much less energy than Americans (or Canadians or Australians) is their very mild climate. So to get the same level of "comfort", we will have to use more energy than them. Additionally, they have "exported" a larger portion of their dirty industries to China, India etc than we have. They aren't quite as green as they think they are.
Comment
5 of 62
July 18, 2008
The bulk of the power might have to come from thin film solar. One thing to keep in mind is that the price per watt of CIGS and related technologies is increasing at a rate faster than linear, whereas wind or solar thermal is not able to keep up. I think a Nanosolar type distributed generation has a great chance of success, and solar thermal has the best chance where energy storage is critical.

Stephen
Comment
6 of 62
July 21, 2008
I am not a big Al Gore fan [its a personal thing] however, he does make a valid point and that point is - it can be done. Of course lots of other people are also saying it can be done. Should it be done; of course it should and by using wind, solar [photovoltaic and concentrating], geothermal, nuclear, and everything else we can throw at the problem we can become energy independent. We can not continue to send 700 billion dollars every year overseas for oil. And yes, there will be a need for some oil and coal w/ sequestration well into the future for some applications and/or for the manufacture of some products. And of course conservation and the implementation of high efficiency heat pumps, refrigeration systems and appliances will be necessary. Building better more energy efficient homes will help. If you don't have R-40 insulation in your attic now why not?

Society will look different in the future. Long haul trucks will be replaced with a more efficient rail system. The drivers can be re-trained as solar, wind, geothermal, installers or operators. Thousands of new businesses will be needed. Millions of new manufacturing jobs will be created and might be filled by displaced oil and coal mine workers. Rapid transit will hopefully become rapid. For me a trip from Arizona to L.A. might look something like this. I would drive my electric car to a local station [about 60 miles]. Ride an electric train to L.A. and rent an electric car at the station when I arrive. With such a system, owing a car will a 300 mile range would be unnecessary - and the trip would be much less stressful. Will these things ever happen? Maybe some will while other may never happen - but we can do this. Will I live long enough to see $1.00/watt solar - you bet I will. Would I love to train the thousands of new solar installers needed in the very near future - sign me up

tomgarven@hotmail.com
Comment
7 of 62
July 22, 2008
I have been involved with many alt energy projects over the last 25 years. With the lowering of solar cell costs and the rapid increase of electric costs, is it feasible for someone, when they approach retirement and have maybe $500,000 to invest and own an acre or two with good number of sunny days exposure, to install a grid tie system on a small scale and get a reliable return on investment or a fair retirement income from it? I remember in Calif that PG&E had to buy power at avoided cost figures back in the 80's but they sued the state and it was overturned, killing all the mom and pop power companies. Have things changed for the bertter? Is it feasible
Comment
8 of 62
July 22, 2008
One interesting perspective using maps of wind, solar, biomass. Also looks at Germany's efforts (video)
www.blog.thesietch.org/2008/07/22/how-to-power-the-entire-country-with-renewable-energy-fun-with-maps-edition/
Comment
9 of 62
July 22, 2008
I am always amazed at the number of people who adamantly claim to be able to predict the future based on the present. They throw their array of statistics t you and hint in no small way that if you don't agree with them you are living in a fantasy. I don't know the future any more than Al Gore does or anyone else here. What I have discovered so far in life is that the best chance for achieving goals is to create them and then give them the best possible effort to achieve them. If we set our goals high , give the best effort and still come up short, we will probably have achieved something highly significant. If we set our goals high and achieve them, we can look back and say that this was one of the greatest periods of our history. Yet, on the other hand, if we make our goals vague and equivocal or set our goals low, we will most likely achieve significantly less. If energy independence through renewable sources is a worthwhile goal then I believe we should set our goals high, go for them and see what is possible. The future belongs to those who create it.
Comment
10 of 62
July 22, 2008
Stephen Boulet: writes above "The bulk of the power might have to come from thin film solar."

It is hard to see how solar power could affordably provide the bulk of our power. For much of the country, solar insolation levels vary markedly by month. December production could easily be a factor of five lower than July production, and energy storage schemes that could hold months worth of needed energy are totally unfeasible. At modest levels solar generation tracks well with peaking power needs, but for the bulk of our energy needs there are vast problems associated with matching production to demand.
Comment
11 of 62
July 22, 2008
Gore's proposal is arrant nonsense so it will have zero influence on anyone making rational plans for the electricity grid. Rather than attempting to have influence among the sensible center he has chosen to pander to a small fringe. Power plants are long term investments and builders reasonably expect to operate them for their entire rated lifetimes. Gore would have us prematurely shut down all non-renewable energy--even nuclear energy although it does not contribute to global warming--on a very short time horizon. Is he going to compensate the owners for the trillions of dollars (that "T" is NOT a typo) is losses? Furthermore, there isn't enough production capacity in the world to get the US up to 100% renewables in a 10 year time frame--but even if there was, the equipment would cost trillions of dollars more.

There are serious flaws in the author's analysis presented here. First, there is no way that US electricity needs can be reduced by a factor of two simply by conservation. Secondly, providing the energy we need at the time we need it is much harder than being able to provide the mean amount of energy we need. Currently we have huge quantities of methane generation capability (this exceeds that of coal generation capacity) that is only infrequently used in order to meet peaking power demands. To replace all of that with intermittent renewables such as wind and solar would require much larger capacity that the author's analysis suggests. Third, much of the country, such as the south east, has only modest wind generation potential so a reliance on wind production would require a vast extension of our distribution network, which is no small undertaking. Renewables, while promising, are not yet ready for a massive buildout and their advocates need to temper their enthusiasm with a little economics.
Comment
12 of 62
July 23, 2008
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/07/is-al-gore-nuts.html
Comment
13 of 62
July 23, 2008
I think it is sad that a great technical site like this , has been invaded by naysayers and trolls for the oil and coal industrys. Some of the negative comments seem to have been picked right from industry web sites. People here have always talked about possibilities and since Mr. Gore has been 'into' this for thirty years or so, I would think he would get more respect. Some of the comments are just hideous, and seem to lack knowledgeable thinking. All the traditional energy sources, have been for many years been subsidized, and still are[ 8 billion to oil cos.] Clean coal should be developed, not so much for here, but to sell to China. Oil should be saved any way possible, for a futyre that makes will find better ways to use it then to burn it. Nukes supporters never want to count the costs of taking a plant out of commission after it's useful life. There are costs to everythng, but if you don't realize that we must start now, then you have been sleeping at the wheel. There's more at stake here then economics, even if you are a person that will not agree with the global climate change theory, you have to see that this is a turning point for America. should we try to charge into the future,or are we to become a sleepy nation of Luddites? I say it is better to try, since the things that develope as sidebars to the new way of energy production, could be more valuable then the energy itself.
Comment
14 of 62
July 23, 2008
In reply to comment #14

"Intermittancy is not the big issue people make it out to be, the load is already variable and the network deals with it. Geographical dispersion helps enormously, here"

Andrew,

A lot of this depends on the percentage of energy penetration an intermittent renewable has in the grid.

Al levels of around 10%, yes, you can use several factors such as reserve, frequency control and the grid infrastructure to support wind's volatility.

All without storage.

Once wind penetration levels reach around 15%, volatility becomes an issue.

Utilities can't "inventory" electricity, so wind in significant quantities has had to be backed up with traditional firm power to meet peak demand requirements. That's a cost and that's why discounts of up to 35% have been applied to the buying rates for intermittent wind.

Storage is needed if wind energy is to become "firm." The SEI Irish study has shown that wind, coupled storage, puts costs in the 8 - 9 cents/kWh range. Importantly with a 90% firmness. And it allows wind farms to sell their product at levels in line with traditional technologies.

Some pundits point to Denmark which has successfully integrated large amounts of wind energy without having to install additional amounts of storage.

True, but 40% of Danish wind power is exported FREE to Germany which acts as a big battery. But something may be starting to rot in Denmark. Their link to Germany has become overloaded and they will be charged for this "balancing" from next year.

Yes a robust electric grid with strong interconnections between neighboring regions makes it significantly easier to integrate wind energy.

That's why upgrading our grid is a top priority of Gore, Pickens and the American Wind Energy Association.

Intermittancy no big deal? You might want to read this article on a Lux Research report that tagged storage as "the next big thing' (http://www.citywire.co.uk/Adviser/-/news/green/content.aspx?ID=305471)
Comment
15 of 62
July 23, 2008
To Kevin Cullen, regarding his comment 12:
"I assume you're talking about PV solar. Photovoltaic is what almost everyone visualizes when they think about solar power.
You might want to familiarize yourself with CSP... "

Actually I used "Solar" in my comment 8 to apply to both PV and solar thermal. Note CSP isn't the best name for solar thermal because concentration schemes can also be used with PV, especially when expensive but high efficiency cells are used (perhaps one day a system will even be designed to "double dip" by taking ~40% with a high-efficiency concentrating PV cell and using the 60% of the energy released as heat to run a turbine--which would pick up ~35% of the heat losses(a typical steam turbine efficiency rate)--for a total of ~60% efficiency, I suppose there are technical reasons why that isn't possible now...).

In any event, the amount of solar insolation, which varies significantly by month especially at high latitudes, will determine the amount of energy that can be obtained at any given time. In some solar thermal system designs the turbine size may be chosen to be smaller than what would be required to use all the energy available during peak summer months (a smaller turbine reduces costs) which partially levels out seasonal fluctuations in production. At present, costs for solar thermal are pretty high, but economies of scale and technical improvements may make it more competitive in the near future. One complication is that it is really only appropriate for desert regions at modest latitudes. Not all countries have ready access to such regions and even the ones that do would require major investments in their distribution network for this to be a major contributor. It would be nice to see some solid economic projections on this tech....
Comment
16 of 62
July 23, 2008
Consider all of the real estate, public land, that is used for transmitting electricity across the country. What if the area of ground directly below the power lines could be used for PV, Geothermal or other renewable systems and connected directly to grid. How much electricity would this vast network of renewable energy provide?
Comment
17 of 62
July 23, 2008
@ Chad:

I disagree - the residential level provides a enormous potential of savings. For Example Southern California. Most houses have one layer windows, poor insulation and a Gas heater which heats up only air for winter times. It is much more efficient to heat up water, which should be distributed by insulated pipes to radiators. It would also open the possibility to heat only one room. Another way of heating is floor heating via a "electrical web". Would the electricity come from a renweable source, it would be also a great saving.

Thinking about cooling: Most houses don't have a basement. It helps significantly to cool a house. I also miss the intensive use of cooler air at night, provided by nature to cool a house.

In my opinion it is not a question of the climate, is a question of energy efficient building. The problem are higher initial cost for construction - which is not in the interest of large scale developers.

It is also a question of mentality. Not only what innovation can provide us with. Looking at a lot of homes rises in my opinion the question, if the home has to be so big. Indeed, this problem is regulated in countries like Germany or Holland by the land price. One simply cant effort a huge house.

Back to the topic: We need the political will to change things. Without the problem will be tackled but not in a speed we would like to see. A lot of people praise Germany for its effort. Many forget, that a Green party influenced the legislature a lot over the past 15 years. Not everybody was happy with that. But now, as we see the outcome and the need for energy conversation and sustainable creation, people are starting to be fine with it. Protecting the environment is not anymore an issue some "alternatives" have in the their mind - it is an issue everybody has to care.

Once gas prices reach 10 Dollars/gal. this process will be accelerated.
Comment
18 of 62
July 23, 2008
If each nuclear uses about 1-1.5 million gallons of water a minute to cool the reactors, and the water heats up, then how can that not contribute to global warming. there are 104 reactors in the US. that means 104-156 million gallons of water are being heated every minute of every day.

Maybe a question for a future article.
Comment
19 of 62
July 23, 2008
In order to fund the rapid development of renewable energy, we propose the sale of Eagle Power Peace Bonds. This capital would be used to fund all aspects of renewable energy, very much the way war bonds were used in WWII, when the US economy was in much worse condition than now. Renewable energy is mostly a capital investment. In the US economy, capital investments are traditionally funded by bonds or long term loans.

For more information, contact Chuck Nolan @ chucknln@sbcglobal
www.modular-e.com
Comment
20 of 62
July 23, 2008
I would also like to endorse CSP but on a much smaller scale than the big south western sites. The 92 mile square is a metaphor for the relative size of the necessary area to be controlled. I believe it actually represents an area smaller that the current us road system...

I would also like to encourage readers to take a look at my Push Pickens Plan site at http://push.pickensplan.com/profile/Solar44

Or http://www.solarandthermal/com/ for more info about the products

The Light is Green!
Comment
21 of 62
July 23, 2008
Mr. Gore- It should be 100% US Energy in 7-10 years! Achieving 100% electricy production equals only 10% of the US' ENERGY needs. Most energy is consumed in transportation, heating, lighting, agriculture, concrete/ aluminum manufacture… 5 TWh/yr makes 20 million tons of aluminum at 12,500 kWh/ MT globally. My company, Sannerprojects Inc (SANNERWIND@gmail.com) is intent on commercializing Next Generation (NG), more cost efficient wind turbines to build 10 GW wind farms. If you take too many small steps you just tread water. India is building 1 GW wind farms! Thus, your heralded one million megawatts (MW) effort reduces to 100, ten-GW NG wind farms within US territory. You can build this capacity in 18 months, at $350/KW, probably less. Progressive TWh farms get cheaper and installs within a year. If you do the math, one million MW would cost $350 Billion dollars. However, it generates $40 Billion revenue at $.04/kWh, which would make the US electricity as cheap as Icelands; re-invigorate and jump start the entire US economy. It also would generate a 3% ROI for the government if they provided a 10 year loan. Further, given 5.8 Million BTU/barrel of oil, each TWh/yr oil powered electricity saves 588 Million barrels, worth $82 billion or 8% of our total oil consumption of 7.3 barrels annually.

100% US energy sufficiency within 7 to 10 years renewable sources can be done solely with Wind, but, several other here-now technologies have sufficient vibrancy, if they get it right, such as high temperature Solar Thermal, for $.05/kWh electricity.

Because, there is so much profit in renewable systems, they are running on inertia and economic inebriation. Further, the stove-piping and not invented here, is "a way of rife". Tiny Iceland passed the US, from a poor nation of 400,000 to the 4th richest. The US is being by passed with GW scale renewable plants coming from "developing nations!" SANNERWIND@gmail.com
Comment
22 of 62
July 23, 2008
Continuation of Regarding some of the remarks by Michael Kaelin in comment #25:

Michael also states: "You also disagreed with the author that efficiency could reduce our energy usage by half" and he then goes on to recount his residential energy conservation measures.

However, I note that residential electricity demand is less than 40% of total demand. Industrial and commercial use splits the rest roughly equally. IF the country was populated entirely by "eco-saints" you might be able to get a 50% reduction in residential usage but not in the other two sectors. Absent enormous price increases, demand is going to continue to increase or be roughly stable because radical conservation is more painful that increased costs. I'm willing to use CFL lights (and do for 100% of my lighting) but I'll let the ice caps melt before I turn down by A/C. If you are going to make a reasonable plan, you need to account for energy demand as it is rather than as it would be if everyone lived as you think they should.

Michael also writes: "Yes, the days in the north are short for solar, but the summer days are long. The yearly average solar insolation across the country varies because of cloud cover, not because of latitude. We can use those long summer days to generate power for the south, and let the south supply electricity to the north in the winter. "

Even in the South, solar insolation varies significantly by month. It does not vary by a factor of 10 as it would in Dublin or London (where people might not care to buy electricity from further south because that would involve dependency on other nations) but the variability is still significant and any reasonable plan should account for this.
Comment
23 of 62
July 23, 2008
To Mike Kaelin, obviously you don't keep up with your hero, Mr. Gore. My reference was a swipe at his travel arrangements to his Washington speech. Apparently you only read media accounts from sources which you know will report the side of the story you want to hear.
Comment
24 of 62
July 23, 2008
Regarding some of the remarks by Michael Kaelin in comment #25:

He states "You accuse the author of underestimating his numbers - do the math before you criticize: 500,000MW x 365d x 8h/d = 1460TW-h/y. He was actually pretty conservative."

The author is estimating the amount of wind turbines we would need based on our average yearly energy usage. That is not too bad if you want to replace base load generation such as coal or nuclear in this way. However, to replace ALL our non-renewable energy with turbines you have to be able to match the energy demand curve, in particular the peak energy needs. To do this (sans major storage capabilities) you have to match the current generation capacity. This is a much larger value--a rough estimate is you would need a factor of 2 times as many turbines to do this. We have a huge amount of methane generation capacity that is only used a small fraction of the year, but much of it is needed at the same time. I note that Pickens, in his new plan, fails to account for this when he suggests (in a plan vastly more detailed and reasonable than Gore's--although still flawed) that we could replace all our methane usage (about 22% of electricity generation) by upping wind generation to 20+%. The DOE plan for 20% wind by 2030 shows roughly a 50% reduction (I am estimating by eye from graphical rather than tabular data) in methane generation when wind is increased by this much.
Comment
25 of 62
July 23, 2008
10Y100%RE is a lofty, probably unattainable and financially prohibitve goal. A more reasonable goal would be 2/3 RE for the western 2/3 of the country. This would be achieved with a COMBINATION of CSP, PV and wind. Why? Because it does not make sense to focus on one technology only and most of the solar and wind resources are located here and this would require the least amount of transmission infrastructure to support. The existing coal plants would be mothballed as they became obsolete. The
existing nukes would provide baseline power.

Is a 50% reduction in consumption realistic? Problably not without very drastic measures. With massive increases in price people would be FORCED to conserve. There could also be massive incentives for higher efficiency everything, CFB, SEER 18 heat pumps, etc. The final approach is massive mandates, LEED Premium building code, only energy star appliances no incandensant bulbs. The best approach is probably a combination of each that imposes the least overall pain. You might get 25% reduction this way.

The big question is how do you pay for this? Gore and Pickens plans are silent on this topic. I propose an import tax on non north american oil. Would provide incentives for HEV, EV's and production as well as transmission.
Comment
26 of 62
July 23, 2008
Obviously the goal of 100% renewable energy in 10 years in unrealistic, but we shouldn't be discouraged. I would really like to see Al Gore soapboxing in front of the Capitol right now for the much more immediate goal of getting the Production Tax Credit renewed, for a longer period of time. Al...hello? If we can't even manage that, then everything else is just a waste of breath.
Comment
27 of 62
July 23, 2008
To Steve:

You accuse the author of underestimating his numbers - do the math before you criticize: 500,000MW x 365d x 8h/d = 1460TW-h/y. He was actually pretty conservative.

You also disagreed with the author that efficiency could reduce our energy usage by half:

My house is solar powered, and I get by with about 2KW-h per day. That's about a quarter the state average, and yet I have lights, computers, TV, fridge, and all the normal conveniences.

Yes, the days in the north are short for solar, but the summer days are long. The yearly average solar insolation across the country varies because of cloud cover, not because of latitude. We can use those long summer days to generate power for the south, and let the south supply electricity to the north in the winter. That's why we have a national electric grid, and why we need to continue to invest in all renewable forms of energy. Wind complements solar – wind tends to blow when the sun is not shining.

I heat my house in the winter with about 3-4 cords of wood. My house is well insulated, and probably needs about half or less of the energy to heat a normal house.

European cars have a fleet average of 35 MPG. American cars get about half that. American car manufacturers ignored efficiency (because of lax government standards, caused by oil-company lobbying), and are now getting killed by foriegn manufacturers.

We can continue to send 700 billion dollars to the mid-east countries every year, spend a trillion dollars every few years on yet another mid-east war, send hundreds billions of dollars to foriegn companies who take our technology and sell it back to us whle americans are losing jobs... or we can invest that money in new energy sources and infrastructure. We actually can't afford NOT to, and it will take a brave and progressive government to do it. You can kvetch all you want, and continue to spend your money on expensive energy, but the rest of us will leave you behind.
Comment
28 of 62
July 23, 2008
The issue here is not can we do it or not. The issue is changing the coarse of the ship. It takes a long time to change the coarse of the ship. We need to start.

From my observation the biggest source of converting our electrical grid to renewables is energy conservation. The nanowatt. Americans have no idea how many watts they use daily that result in no useful work. The simple power strip witht he off button does wonders. I have installed them on my cable TV boxes and Two computer stations. I have noticed my home consumption down 20% this year. I metered my cable box and it uses 40 Watt/hour it it is on or off. The plug needs to be pulled to stop the energy consumption. Many of our computer and monitors do the same. The 100,000,000 cable TV boxes use 4,000,000 kWh per hour. We do not watch TV 24/7.

I survey commercial office building after building that have tenants with the standard 60 hour office schedule that run thier equipment 24/7. Tune it off.

We need to educate our population to improve the habits.
Comment
29 of 62
July 23, 2008
Paul Gipe literally wrote the book on renewables (actually six of them). I was actually planning to read one of these books until I saw this dribble about 100% renewables in 12 to 20 years. When AWEA is talking about the much more achievable and sensible goal of 20% wind by 2030, it doesn't really help the industry when Gore and Gipe go running their mouths like this. The costs of building enough wind power, transmission capacity, and other grid upgrades would be PHENOMENAL. There is no way taxpayers/ratepayers will be willing to pay for this, nor should they. Aim high, but don't make us all look ridiculous!
Comment
30 of 62
July 23, 2008
to Rick, commenting about air conditioned limosines:

Obviously, you're not involved with renewable energy... I'm a state legislator, and speak for local groups. We drive ourselves (biking in not an option in rural areas, unless you've got several hours to get there), and we drive the most efficient cars we can afford. You're confusing the renewable energy folks with the oil energy folks...
Comment
31 of 62
July 23, 2008
In addition to the vast solar, wind, and geothermal resources Mr. Gore endorses, I would like to cite another potentially large-scale form of renewable energy available to us: wild algae.
The hundreds of thousands of tons of algae recently cleared from Chinese coastal waters slated for Olympic sailing events, while truly impressive in scope, represent only a small fraction of the total Qingdao bloom; which is itself, in turn, only one of many such worldwide. "Intentional" algae blooms created at pollution source points could, besides serving to clean tainted waters, be harvested and dried for burning in solid fuel power plants as a carbon neutral alternative to coal.
Comment
32 of 62
July 23, 2008
The corporations and politicians like Al Gore have become old and fat.
A huge, new refinery is going in near Beaumont, Texas. Peabody just commissioned a new coal mine in New Mexico. They are putting their money in the same old fossil fuels that we have had for a hundred years.
Gore wants to open a new commodity on carbon credits, because he does not really expect much to change. He just wants to make money from it.

While the magic 92 square miles of solar collectors is a nice trinket to wear on your bracelet, the more usable system for transportation at least, would be a linear system that followed along the open interstates and railroads
providing power near where it is being consumed, mostly in the southwest.

One of the advantages to wind power is that it is often located where people do not live, but that requires transmission lines to where they do live, doesn't it. Picken's wind kingdom in the sky near Borger, Texas has been piggybacked on his former idea to corner the market on the vast, vast amounts of underground water of that area, which he plans to sell to the cities of Texas as their water shortages become more acute.

The power lines to tie into Dallas have yet to be built.

Food and water could become a crisis for us whether or not we have
created our utopian renewable energy systems.
Comment
33 of 62
July 23, 2008
So Paul, when you went to give your speech, did you travel with three big limousines, one of which idled outside with the air conditioner running waiting to whisk you off to your chartered jet?
Comment
34 of 62
July 23, 2008
As exciting as the prospect of 100% of electricity from RE is to me, I have this nagging inner voice that keeps saying "What are the unintended consequences of massive deployment of these technologies?" If energy is taken from the wind, or tides, or sun, etc, that means that there are reductions of that energy in those sources, and by-product types of energy being produced as well. What are the effecdts of such conversions? At one time in human history, the oceans and rivers and atmosphere looked like infinite resources that could absorb all sorts of waste dumping, but we are now reaping the harvest of that type of thinking. We need to temper our enthusiasm over RE potentials with some sound science there as well.
Comment
35 of 62
July 23, 2008
It is strange that to achieve 100% renewable ressources for electricity
production , wind power only is considered.
Wind power is random and not permanent : 2 to 3000h a year ( a year is 8760 h)
Wind power needs back up and a srtonger grid to transfer energy accross
continent from where the wind is blowing if..so .
Wind mills plus back up plus grid adds to an investment 2 or 3 times the
capital cost of a nuclear plant .
Nuclear plants remains the major permanent reliable carbon free ressource
for electricity production.

Transportation through the use of hydrocarbon fuels is also a major contributor to carbon emission.
Hydrogen is acknowledged as the best substitute, But hydrogen has yo be
produced , one of the best way is OTEC ( Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion ) an unlimited ressource available 24 h a day all year round .
Comment
36 of 62
July 23, 2008
Of course anything can be done if people agree and support efforts. But America is such a divided country on many issues with the energy debate being one of them. I think wind can work full time, but T.Boone Pickens puts his money in landbase windfarms, instead of Kite Air windfarms.

We can make large kites that can stay afloat indefinitely while being at higher elevations, and have the electric lined back to the earth. Also Photovoltaic can adopt the same principle with photovoltaic kites. Our Air is not as cluttered as our ground spaces, and we can achieve unlimited amouts of energy if we take the Kite route. Go tell AL Gore to go fly a kite... and it is a darn good idea to do.
Comment
37 of 62
July 23, 2008
Al Gore's inspirational vision needs to be combined with other measures to cut CO2. Probably the cheapest and easiest way to start cutting CO2 emissions is a massive programme to renovate buildings to bring them as close as possible to the German "passivhaus" standard (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/renewable_energy/ecorenovation.htm).
Comment
38 of 62
July 23, 2008
Intermittancy is not the big issue people make it out to be, the load is already variable and the network deals with it. Geographical dispersion helps enormously, here. Big wind will have a huge part to play, as will rooftop PV and concentrated solar power CSP). CSP has a significant storage capability (google Dr David Mills) and as such, will actually aid wind, not compete with it - why is it that major CSP players in Spain (with it's high and limited feed in tariff) appear to be leading wind farm developers?

Electric vehicles are also a bit of a dark horse, the storage capability here could revolutionise how networks are operated, again, this will help renewables (and system operators).

It is a matter of culture, old ingrained industry resistance and politics not technical capability. As for efficiency, people want comfort, hot showers, lighting, refrigeration, etc, not kWhs of electricity or MJ of gas. If the focus went from unit prices of commodities to services people actually want and use, massive savings are possible.
Comment
39 of 62
July 23, 2008
In terms of "carbon free" electrical generation don't we have a significant head start today given how 30% of our power is currently being generated?

Looking at some round numbers, as of 2006, some 10% of energy was renewable. Over 7% of that was hydropower.

And the US gets some 20% from nuclear. While this isn't a renewable per se, it is carbon neutral. That's supports the objective of Gore's goal and the PickensPlan of energy independence as well.

So we're really looking at replacing a bit more than 2/3's of hydrocarbon and coal based electricity with renewable power. In Gore's eyes, dirty coal, which half of our current fuel source, is enemy number one.

Wind could be a big part of that answer.

But the Achilles heel about renewable power sources like wind and solar is its intermittency.

But storage technologies are now on the market that, for the first time, store mass quantities of renewable power. (Detail here: http://outsidetheboxinvesting.blogspot.com/)

To see how "storage" + renewables really changes the game, it might be a good idea to look at the world's most successful renewable: hydropower. It been around for nearly a century and, in 2006, it accounted for more than 19% of global electricity generation capacity -- more than nuclear power.

All the water backed up in a reservoir is storage. Not electrical but energy storage as you can control the amount of power generation by increasing or decreasing the water flowing through a dam's turbines. You couldn't do that if you only took the "flow" from a river where you would have a more variable power source. Like wind is today.

Storage protects against mistakes in forecasting, shifts demand peaks by storing off-peak energy to sell back to the grid during peak times, and provides frequency regulation and deters expensive grid upgrades.

In short, storage provides the basis for a complete change in the thinking surrounding power generation and use.

And its here today.
Comment
40 of 62
July 23, 2008
Regarding Comment # 8

Steven,

I assume you're talking about PV solar. Photovoltaic is what almost everyone visualizes when they think about solar power.

You might want to familiarize yourself with CSP (Concentrated Solar Power). Solar power yes, but a completly different approach. It uses no PV cells and it takes diffuse sunlight and focuses over 70 times.

While there are variations in CSP technology, the basic concept is pretty simple.

You have a long line of parabolic trough mirrors that track the sun east to west. These reflectors concentrate normal diffuse sunlight and reflect a 70 times concentrated sunlight on to a small pipe that boils a heat transfer fluid to over 700 degrees F. Enough to produce steam, which spins a steam generator that makes electricity.

If you want to see what this looks like, you can find a short video here called "The Future in Reflection" (http://www.nevadasolarone.net/newsroom/videos.)

CSP has one big advantage over PV Solar: energy storage. It's very easy and inexpensive to store heat. Like the water behind a dam, CSP generated heat can be turn into electricity on a 24/7 basis. Even at night, when the sun isn't shinning. Kool. That's why CSP is also known as thermal solar energy.

CSP does hold a lot of promise.

A 92 square mile location in the US southwest could supply ALL of America's electrical needs today.

And 4% of the Sahara desert could supply the ENTIRE planet. And this is technology that's here...right now...today.

Maybe that's why career Democrat Al Gore and life long Republican T. Boone Pickens are both calling for a new US transmission grid?

This technology does have its limitations. It needs more than just bright sunny locations; it also needs that relatively cloud free conditions.

That's why the future of alternative energy will be many alternatives. But my bet is that CSP will be one of them.
Comment
41 of 62
July 24, 2008
Someone asked "how can we pay for all this?'. I think the answer is easy - the oil in the gulf and ANWR. There is no reason we should sell these oil rights cheap...if oil companies were profitably drilling in Prudhoe and the avaiable areas of the gulf when oil was 20 bucks a barrel, there is no reason that they can't do it now. So how about 20 bucks for them, 5 to the relevant state and the remaining hundred bucks to the federal government? Multiply tens of billions of barrels times a hundred bucks a pop, and you just found your money for the transformation we all know we need.

I propose opening up drilling, putting the screws to the oil companies we hire to drill OUR oil, and using 100% of the money to build, develop, and research the mass transit and renewable energy infrastructure we need in the long term.
Comment
42 of 62
July 24, 2008
Has there been any analysis as to the potential environmental/climatic impact of erecting this many wind turbines? It seems logical to suggest that if we are taking energy out of the prevailing winds to make electricity; that weather patterns could be impacted.....
Comment
43 of 62
July 24, 2008
Ok lets do this by the numbers.

Can we get enough moeny invested into this idea to get the job done?
Doubtful.

Do we have enough material resources to get the job done?
Doubtful

How much of the materials will we have to import?
I'm betting lots of the material will be needed.

Will the power companies share their wealth with us?

The rest of the plan will fail to show any progress because of congress.

But i have one nagging question, can we afford not to do this?
D~W
Comment
44 of 62
July 25, 2008
Steven,
As you say Coal investors manage to pass on the costs of bad investments in polluting industries - I see no reason to permit this. The investors in pollution should rightly see their investment right-valued when the public becomes aware of the impact of pollution.

Eastern Europe has been cleaning the coal dust off its infrastructure for the last two decades. We've all know coal is the dirtiest fuel for several generations - playing dumb - really won't fly in 2008. Get real. grow up.

As for Solar - most coal plants are in the south (the poor-ignorant belt). While the south is not the best solar resource, every inch of the south is a better solar resource than Germany which leads the world in solar utilization. I live in the south, and we've got tons of Solar energy.

Who knows, if you turn off the Coal plants - you might see the sun again...
Comment
45 of 62
July 25, 2008
I note with interest how simple it is to take simple ideas and recount a thousand technical reasons why they cannot possibly work. I think Al Gore has made a mistake in the approach he is taking to the problems facing the world. He is under-reaching.

By closely coupling the crisis to global warming, he gives critics an easy target for slander. The fact is that the natural workings of the climate are so complex, that greenhouse gases in combination with fewer sunspots, more or less particulate matter in the atmosphere, melting ice, changing currents, etc., can push the climate toward warming or cooling under different circumstances and in different time frames.

However, the crisis of the widespread contamination of the natural world is not simply an issue of climate change. The unintended consequences of the combustion-based industrial revolution are a cauldron of unintended chemistry in the land, sea and air. The rapid rate of this change makes it difficult for many biological organisms to adapt and thus we are in an age of mass extinction caused in large part by the way we provide for our standard of living. There is some reason to suspect that human beings may not be exempt from this extinction trend.

So while some people like to show how smart they are by tearing down people like Al Gore, I suggest that, instead we work together to insure the survival of a habitable planet and a decent standard of living. With non-combustion renewable energy, elimination of waste, increase of efficiency and a more responsible attitude toward stewardship of the planet, we may yet make it through this serious crisis and come out stronger, richer, healthier and happier than if we stick our heads in the sand of denial.
Comment
46 of 62
July 25, 2008
In comment 46 Ben Gatti writes:
"One doesn't have to "Idle Coal Plants" in order to stop burning coal.

Concentrated Solar can generate heat and operate the same turbines and generators."

Unfortunately, there are very few places where this could possibly work. Solar thermal needs to be sited in regions that get lots of sun--typically deserts--but most coal plants are not located in such sites.

I would also remark that when power plants are shut down prematurely it isn't "coal tycoons" who end up losing money--an extra charge appears on your next electricity bill (it is called the "environmental improvement rider" on my most recent bill and covers the cost of transforming 1 coal plant). These are not small costs....
Comment
47 of 62
July 25, 2008
One doesn't have to "Idle Coal Plants" in order to stop burning coal.

Concentrated Solar can generate heat and operate the same turbines and generators.

Pollution is a business risk, companies should not build polluting plants if less polluting technologies exist, and if they do, and they later become uneconomic due to public expectation of a clean environment, than their investors duly deserve to lose their shirts.

If we have to choose between a child getting asthma, and a coal tycoon having fewer yachts and smaller personal jets, why I guess I'll go with the child not getting asthma - what would you do?

Ben
Comment
48 of 62
July 25, 2008
The profit margins of business reflected multi-fold by all banking institutions are making your higher costs for oil and all commodities and the reason you will not see cheap oil.(or bread).
The comfort of any society is a mixed benefit if over half of them are obese and out of shape and projecting of ills and blame.
The horse and buggy and plow established much of the countries wealth and continue to do so. That may well be the "fall back position" if the voters of the fed don't clean house.
If any RE generated electricity is used to heat water or living space the production is underpriced, at best. Solar Thermal, both concentrating and diverse smaller instances, must be brought on line to lay off the bulk of use for electricity. It is now at a "buck a watt" for collectors.
Comment
49 of 62
July 26, 2008
RE: Comment 43 of 53 ... by Mr. Jones

Good question Mr. Jones ... does anyone have an answer to this question ... ie: what is the maximum extractable wind power from the resource that will not entail weather pattern or other ecological impacts from wind energy harvest?

I am interested in this value particularly because of the method I have invented for fluid current energy extraction which I anticipate shall utilize the energy content of wind, river, tidal and ocean current cross sections more efficiently, and I am interested in baseline data for this sort of information.

As a comparison, EPRI recommends that (for tidal turbines) to minimize the effect on downstream and upstream environments, the mean annual power extracted by turbines should be no more than 15% of the naturally available physical energy flux.

Gord.
Comment
50 of 62
July 26, 2008
In regard to Jonathan Cole's comments on combustion (comment 51):

Burning coal tends to be "dirty," at least as it is currently done (although clean schemes are possible), but biofuels are much cleaner. Biomethane, for instance, could be used to power our already extant base of combine cycle methane combustion plants (roughly 60% efficiency). Contrary to Jonathan's statement that combustion generators cannot be easily turned off, these plants have very rapid response times so they provide dispatchable power, something that would be quite valuable amid a generation mix consisting primarily of intermittent sources.

Global warming is a serious concern so we do need to push for improvements in the electricity generation sector, but there is no need for a pell mell rush toward utopian and vastly more expensive technologies--economics is a critical component of any decision process. As for the "collapsing biosphere" worries I just don't see these are imminent threats.

Regarding the last paragraph of comment 51, it is hard to see this as an either/or situation. Only advocates of flawed plans need to fear scrutiny. I only wish the scrutiny of the use of bioethanol derived from corn had been more aggressive before that was implemented....
Comment
51 of 62
July 26, 2008
Once the DOE ocean thermal energy R&D program gets advanced by putting it onto a fast track, electricity could be cabled to shore and into the U.S. electrical grid from ocean thermal plants located in the Gulf of Mexico, thus providing significant sources of baseload electricity. For example, into Tampa, New Orleans, and Brownsville from distances of 60 to 100 miles. Please see my comments in this regard on the PickensPlan Web site at http://push.pickensplan.com/forum/topic/show?id=2187034%3ATopic%3A201120 and at http://push.pickensplan.com/group/oceanthermalenergy
Comment
52 of 62
July 26, 2008
In response to Steve:
Powering anything by combustion is a very inefficient use of energy. Not only because the equipment used is inefficient (that can be rectified to
some degree by co-generation) but also because
combustion power on a large scale cannot be turned off, because it takes too long to turn it back on. So the off peak times end up burning a substantial portion of the fuel required for peak demand times although very little of the energy is used. That is like idling a car motor. The engine runs but you go nowhere.

Combustion, no matter what the fuel, is a creator of large quantities of new chemicals being sent into the atmosphere which then wash out into the land and marine environment. It is not simply a matter of CO2. Compounds of nitrogen, mercury, hydrocarbons, trace heavy metals - the range of chemical pollutants is directly tied to the molecular components of the fuel.

A mass spectrometer readout of any combustion process shows a wide range of pollutants that no one is even talking about, but which are building up in the biosphere. In earlier times, say 50 years ago, the global population and demand for our energy lifestyle did not yet threaten our continued existence. But it does now. And certainly our standard of living will be impossible to sustain in a collapsing biosphere.

So, we can cleverly flaunt our brilliance at the mastery of technological jargon, or we can get to the task of actually solving these problems. For the sake of my children and yours I hope we choose the latter.
Comment
53 of 62
July 26, 2008
In regards to Jonathan Cole's comments from comment #48:
"So while some people like to show how smart they are by tearing down people like Al Gore, I suggest that, instead we work together to insure the survival of a habitable planet and a decent standard of living. With non-combustion renewable energy, elimination of waste, increase of efficiency and a more responsible attitude toward stewardship of the planet, we may yet make it through this serious crisis..."

Any plan that proposes to spend trillions of dollars to rapidly transform a major sector of our economy deserves a degree of scrutiny. Gore's plan is so obviously impossible, so poorly motivated, and so devoid of details that it invites ridicule. It has only served to make advocates of renewable energy seem like a crackpot fringe group. Furthermore, his timing just at the release of the Pickens plan--which at least merited discussion--was especially distracting. Here is another interesting take on Gore's plan:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/gores_climate_claptrap.html

I note that Jonathan not only wants to restrict power to renewables but he apparently wants to restrict it to "non-combustion" renewables. This would leave out the promising area of biofuels. These are carbon neutral (and if you sequester some of the CO2 after combustion they would actually be carbon negative) so they don't contribute to damaging climate change. One can only wonder what rationale he could offer for excluding these possibilities from consideration....
Comment
54 of 62
July 27, 2008
Ben, (regarding comment 55)
I am not a huge fan of the Pickens' plan--for instance, it overestimates the amount of methane generation that could be saved. However, it is a credible plan; it suggests adoption of a mature technology at an achievable rate and it gives cost estimates (1.2 Trillion dollars) that are not obvious wrong. It also has an explicit rationale for why we should seek such a rapid change (he wants to use compressed natural gas as an alternative transportation fuel--another mature technology). By comparison, Gore's pronouncement sounded like the ravings of a crackpot. He had no explicit rationale (if he is aiming to stop global warming, he needs renewable technology that could change the world's energy mix and the fastest and cheapest route to that goal surely does not involve pushing the US up to 100% renewables at breakneck speed) no cost projections and his stated goal was obviously impossible.

Pickens does not include solar energy in his plan for the simple reason that solar is not yet cost effective and PV production isn't capable of the scale up needed to contribute large generation amounts within a short time horizon. R&D on solar technologies is proceeding at a rapid pace and this situation will hopefully change. At that point one could rationally propose that solar get a significant slice of the other 80% of our generation needs.

Pickens may be wrong on the details, but he is contributing to a logical discussion; Gore is a distraction.
Comment
55 of 62
July 27, 2008
Steven,
It strikes me odd that you appear to embrace the Pickens plan as a serious idea - while arguing for rational scrutiny. Clearly he's serious about wind and that's great, but I can't find any details of Solar energy in that plan, and the NG component got a serious drubbing on Capital Hill.

If a plan is merely intended as a piece of performance art - get people talking and thinking - then I suppose all plans are equal. But a rational plan should specify the technology and location for its major components eh? Wind isn't enough by any measure - it can't be stored. Solar would seem an important complement - so I axe you - where is the Solar in Pickens plan?


B
Comment
56 of 62
July 28, 2008
Steven wrote:
I'm willing to use CFL lights (and do for 100% of my lighting) but I'll let the ice caps melt before I turn down by A/C. If you are going to make a reasonable plan, you need to account for energy demand as it is rather than as it would be if everyone lived as you think they should.

As for the "collapsing biosphere" worries I just don't see these are imminent threats.

I suggest you start paying more attention.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125100314.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080702132238.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070416160715.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220426.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040422222835.htm
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Largest_mass_extinction_in_65_million_years_underway,_scientists_say
Comment
57 of 62
July 31, 2008
Steven(56),
You make two good points:

1. US Oil independence and Global Warming are strange bedfellows, and do not produce the same strategy.

2. PV isn't worth a crap.

Let's take those in order.

1. PickensPlan is for the US to quit Oil cold turkey - while the rest of the World continues apace. This is a low probability event. A far more achievable goal would be to introduce a product on the market which reduces the role of oil in the global market to that of a fungible energy commodity. Were China to adopt this product (call it X) along with the US, that would reduce the price and the consumption of Oil everywhere, including the US.

2. PVs contribution isn't even noise. True, and we should stop pretending. So what is Product X?

a. Nuclear? Nuclear was expensive before the price of metals had doubled. Uranium is limited, making it safe is even more expensive, and mixed with radicals and porous borders, it is a messy trifecta.

b. Wind? Cheaper than nuclear, but tricky to match with demand in both time and space.

c. Big Solar (CSP). Brightsource (Luz) has already built and operated large scale Solar which uses mirrors and steam to replace PV. Costs are comparable to wind, Supply matches demand much better and energy storage is free (actually better than free as it reduces the cost of energy).

Both China and India could utilize CSP to reduce their dependence on Oil. Vehicle are shifting to electricity faster than they are going to Natural Gas already. Electric vehicles (Scooters generally) are quite popular in China already.

Ben
Comment
58 of 62
July 31, 2008
I suppose it is only natural that most/all proposed energy systems involve large Ute's or Corp's doing this "FOR US". Large companies making huge amounts of money equal political contributions and politics in the US of A is for sale and ought to be going out of business. Most politicians in Washington DC spend most of their time raising money instead of representing their constituencies. Few are capable of simply doing what is right for the people.
Comment
59 of 62
July 31, 2008
If the meaning of conservative is keeping things as they are, then, those we hear from who "pooh-but" new ideas are making themselves known.
Little consideration is given in this whole column to home and business solar thermal using on-site storage of current sunshine in hot water. One does NOT have to be located in a southwestern state to utilize this in practical ways. Here in central WI, I use two twenty tube CVT collectors to generate all my hot water with a general surplus of heat. I am installing 144 tubes and a 600G tank for space heating. Our back-up electric element has been used a measured total of two hours since March.
There are no mega-corps ($) pushing this basic and simple method of energy production, so it gets little press coverage. The nay-sayers may say that everyone cannot do this. It was/is easy and merely not usual. Most homeowners could do this as well, if they are willing to change the expected appearances of their yards and roof lines to embrace the most efficient renewable energy resource of current sunshine. Looking to large ute's to provide everything electrical will play into their game and political plans, which, of course equals $$$$$$.
In northern states, a great deal of energy is used for heating. Using purchased energy or burning stuff, except as a back-up provision is just plain unnecessary and demonstrates our helpless mindset. It can be vastly different with moderate changes made by each of us, and not doing with less. I have a surplus of hot water thru the summer and higher temps in winter with a few drop-outs for long cloudy periods. The atmosphere is generally clearer and the sun is 3 to 4 million miles closer in the winter, to bare this out.
Comment
60 of 62
August 1, 2008
I have novel idea to produce cheaper electricity with out fuel.

I AM IN SEARCH OF INTERESTED COMPANIES/ PERSONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN MY PROJECT.

PL LET ME KNOW THE E MAIL ADDRESS.
REGARDS.
N.C.GUPTA
Comment
61 of 62
August 3, 2008
I don't understand the requirement of perfection. While I wish everyone could live on 2kWhr a day and walk to work, the reality is quite different than that. There is no magic bullet that will instantly solve all of our energy problems. You would think that any progress towards a more sustainable economy would be welcomed. However, I read a lot of posts that are extremely idealistic, expecting perfection.

This perfectionism even exists in the renewable energy business. I have a house with great east facing roof and a small south facing section. Several PV contracts turned me away because the east roof was considered less than perfect. As it turns out, the east facing panels have produced 98% of the power of the south facing panels (on a per panel basis).

I support any market based approach that can lower our consumption of energy, lower our consumption of foreign fuels, lower our consumption of non renewalbe resources or lower our emmissions. I also support interim (temporary) measures to encourage renewables and the growth of the renewable industry even if the measures aren't 100% perfect.
Comment
62 of 62
August 6, 2008
Greg,
The Hippocratic oath is "First do no harm".
I suggest that what you describe as a "requirement of perfection" could also be viewed as a credo to "do no harm."

A shift of land, sun, and water resources from food crops to bio-hummer crops clearly harms the environment and disproportionately impacts the poor and the taxpayer while making millionaire farmers wealthy.

It should also be pointed out that spending our limited time, effort, and attention on solutions such as your PV panels, which do so little to help, and so much to placate - actually harms any hope of securing a hospitable environment for our children.

So in a nutshell. anything which pretends to be helpful and isn't - is a placebo, and not merely imperfect - but quantitatively unhelpful.

Ben
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

paul gipe

View paul gipe's Profile
About: Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize it... more »

Advertise With Us

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Brightergy Apricus, Inc. HelioSage Solar FlexRack Alpha Technologies
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters