Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Exotics and the March of Technology

By Tam Hunt, Renewable Energy Consultant
January 27, 2010   |   19 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.

19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
January 27, 2010
"Newer turbines also have pitch control, which means they can rotate the individual blades to maximize power production under different wind regimes."

I believe blade technology can be upgraded to store power in the form of increased angular momentum if a fluid could be moved internally between the inside (point of attachment) and outside (tip) of the blade. As the velocity of the wind increased, fluid would be moved outwardly to slow the blade down and then the process would be reversed as the wind velocity decreased. Design and testing of this type of technology would have to insure that the structural strength of the blade would not be at risk since greater amounts of blade momentum would accrue as the fluid moved outward. This type of design might cut down on the need for change in pitch of the blades which would then translate into energy increases in wind fluctuations.

The problem is the cost factor of such a blade. Could it be manufactured economically? What mechaism might be used to move the fluid back and forth and what energy source might be employed to move the fluid. It may be a challenge for engineers.

I believe that by making the blade effectively heavier in angular mass, a greater amount of energy could be extracted from winds of higher velocity.
Comment
2 of 19
January 27, 2010
An interesting idea but I think the amount of the mass that would have to be variable in relation to the base mass of the blade itself would produce more of a resistance to quick changes in velocity for the blades than any decent percentage of "storage" as such. The structural increases as well in the blades couples with practical issues might outweigh the benefits. You could simply use long compression springs coupled with shock absorbers, like a Mcpherson strut and a "lead" weight that would move in and out with the blade velocity along a long rod. This would at least eliminate the "liquid" issue, pumping etc..

.....Bill
Comment
3 of 19
January 29, 2010
If someone were to place 100 people spaced evenly around a single large mountain and then ask each of those people what they saw, each person would have a different perspective of the same mountain.
From my perspective of the "mountain" that is the utilization of all the modern day energy technologies and the large scale utilization of energy itself, I am reminded of a story I once heard of two people, each of whom built a house. One person built a house on sand and the other a house on rock. The story goes that the house built on sand was destroyed and washed away when a violent storm came but the house built on rock survived the violent storm. (This is were I would expect a pointless arguement based on the semnatics of structural enginerring so please, just go with me on this?)
My perspective of the entire global energy infrastruture with regard to the 7 billion people on Earth is synonmous with the house built on sand in the story I related above. I never get tired of writting this:
For well over 7,000 years mankind had lived on Earth with no need for all of the energies we utilize today and it took those thousands of years for global human population to reach an estimated 2 billion. (Up to the year 1900 AD.) It was along about this time (1900's) that these energies started to become common place in its usage to the mass's of people; with electricity in our homes, gasoline in our cars, various fuels for all transportation, mechanization, industrialization, etc., etc. and, from that time (1900 give our take a few decades) up to today, a period of about 100 years, global human population has increased by 5 billion people.
Over 7,000 years, without it, netted 2 billion people.
Only a little more than 100 years, with it, has netted 5 billion.
I not professing to know the answers for the future of the human race's survival, I could say just turn it off, but then billions of people would die and millions more would be poor. All I am saying is, Pity about Earth.
Comment
4 of 19
January 29, 2010
let the good times roll
let them knock you around
let the good times roll
let them make you a clown

let them leave you up in the air
let them brush your rock and roll hair

let the good times roll
let the good times roll
let the good times roll

let the stories be told
let them say what they want
let the photos be BOLD
let them show what they want

let them leave you up in the air
let them brush your rock and roll hair
let the good times roll
let the good times roll-oll
won't you let the good times roll

good times roll

if the illusion is real
let them give you a ride
if they got thunder appeal
let them be on your side

let them leave you up in the air
let them brush your rock and roll hair
let the good times roll
won't you let the good times roll-oll
let the good times roll

let the good times roll
won't you let the good times roll
well let the good times roll
let 'em roll (good times roll)

let the good times roll
oo let the good times roll
oo let the good times roll
let 'em roll (good times roll)

well, let the good times roll
(let the good times roll)
well let the good times roll
good times roll
(let the good times roll)
let the good times roll
let 'em roll
Comment
5 of 19
January 29, 2010
And don't forget that the long term experience curve for solar PV is 18 %. i.e. each doubling of installed capacity brings with it a price drop of 18 %. So, price parity is upon us soon even w/o govt subsidies.

Grid tie momentum exists now but only as a transitional conduit to standalone in the future. I really don't need a 'utility' to provide watts and BTUs if I can make them myself. The short term problems of batteries/fuel cells/hybrids will be solved, and with it the need for more centralized power production.

As an Obama fan, I think the tax credits/state incentives/going green etc aren't nearly as important as keeping citizens 'focused' on alternative energy. We should all remember that he's the lynchpin for this effort when we vote again 3 years from now.
Comment
6 of 19
January 29, 2010
Tam is giving false hope that innovation will improve renewable energy technologies enough to significantly penetrate future energy markets. Innovation requires venture capital markets, which require the promise of huge markets (with something like fair feed-in tariffs). There are no venture capital markets in Europe anyway and won't be any in the US while most markets are still controlled by utility monopolies. Most innovation is now coming from China, so maybe there is some hope there. But I think the most likely future outcome of current trends is nuclear power with some token renewables.
Comment
7 of 19
January 29, 2010
True that, Thomas ... a scourge to all other lifeforms but we all know that already. What we want are solutions. I strongly suspect that the combination of renewable with nuclear base load and natural gas peaking is the answer. That combination has a reasonable chance of displacing coal.
Comment
8 of 19
January 29, 2010
More's law will never be violated; Sixth Sence Tech is just a preview;

What a Leap toward Kurzwelt's Singularity!!
WITH OFF THE SHELF TECHNOLOGY!
The environment replaces the graphic interface.

Sixth Sence Technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzKmGTVmqJs&feature=related



" GIVE ME LiBERTY or GIVE ME Half-Life "

My Dad, a cold warrior, Viet Nam battalion commander, gave this short answer when asked about Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD defense policy,

I envision an offensive policy of Mutually Assured Sustainability. Based on carbon accountancy, the rules are simple; Who ever moves more Carbon from the air to the Soil wins, but so does second place, as third and so on.

I'm a major Soil Carbon Sequestration advocate, Working on Soil Carbon Standards with the USDA.

Since we have filled the air , filling the seas to full, Soil is the Only Beneficial place left.

Large Biochar / Biofuels systems are the most powerful tools to convert CO2 to soil carbon.

One aspect is small Biomass cook stoves, that produce Biochar, is removal of respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing "Three Stone" stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria.

For the woman & Children BECAUSE in Africa Men don't Cook.

The Biochar Fund : http://biocharfund.org/

Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all ( that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
http://biocharfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=75


Haiti:
WorldStove is on the ground with a major biochar stove relief project. Donate: 501c3 account for WorldStove's Haitian Stove Project at International Lifeline fund: International Lifeline Fund
http://www.lifelinefund.org/

WorldStove got this effort moving on Jan 14, just 2 days after the quake. You can follow them on Twitter: WorldStove (WorldStove) on Twitter; http://twitter.com/WorldStove
Comment
9 of 19
January 29, 2010
Biochar may be another convenient distraction that cannot possibly succeed.. Why not use biomass directly returned into the soil, as natural systems have dictated for millenia. Use our technology for solar oven manufacture.
Realize that only the use of current sunshine for energy will sustain development without depletion. Only that.. Weighing all natural systems makes this a very simple equation, tho the ego will exaserbate all solutions before accepting it. Like Tam, I am a tinkerer of gadgets, and the solar collector is the most fastenating device to be refined I have ever seen. Our current practices of burning everything we can is only dimming the solar energy reaching the earth surface, while denuding it of biomass is allowing it to heat up more rapidly.
The destruction of food growing capable topsoil is the emerging devastation of the future, but in truth is here now, all around us. Rapid deforestation is still going on in the guise of "managed forestry". Topsoil is depleted by "modern" intensive farming practices and rampant meat eating.

Illusions cannot be made true by your denial, tho you will think so. If the outcome of your thinking is not sustainable, it is not really thinking at all, but dreaming of something that is not true. Illusions and dreams are not the truth. It is really that simple, and taking responsibility for ones thinking is the only way to freedom. Part of that freedom is choosing what you see.
Comment
10 of 19
January 31, 2010
Hi:

TS in post four, that is exactly what happens in the remake of, "The Day The Earth Stood Still". One large EMP at the end of the movie to stop GORT and save mankind and the earth, results in everything being turned off. As Klatu put it, "there will be a price to pay... things will not be as they were"... in short billions will die...

.....Bill
Comment
11 of 19
February 1, 2010
WOW, Tam appears to be trying to hide it, but I just noticed the US Energy Information Administration is predicting essentially only biomass (and not other renewables like wind, solar and geothermal) will meet about 40% of all new electricity demand after 2012 and until 2035. If you look at the third graph that Tam fails to adaquately describe or even assign a fiqure #, you can see biomass has been blocked since 1990 and will continue to be blocked until 2012 or 2013. (Note: According to the most recent issue of Power Engineering, even though cogeneration fueled by biomass wastes is economic without subsidies, it is blocked by government policy and utility monopolies.) What policy changes does the US EIA expect to create this huge new growth industry ??? I hope it is fair feed-in tariffs for independents and not just renewable portfolio standards for utility monopolies !!!
Comment
12 of 19
February 2, 2010
Mike, EIA models only existing policies (that is, laws) in its forecasts, not any hypothetical policies. As I mention also, EIA is notoriously inaccurate in their forecosts, which is why I downplay that chart. The other two charts are historical - actual fact. The EIA chart is a projection. Hence it's far less certain and not worth focusing on overly much.
Comment
13 of 19
February 3, 2010
The renewable energy industry and your article is and should be more concerned about the future (projections) than the past (historical). Government bureaucratic (EIA) projections should be examined. But you just presented them without any examination. Then, you dismiss them by discrediting them as inaccurate. The EIA should not be blamed for past inaccuracies, especially since the industry is controlled by utility monopolies and politician policies.

Specifically, the renewable energy industry should want to know why the EIA projects that, after 2012, biomass will grow rapidly after being blocked since 1990, while wind, solar and geothermal will grow much more slowly. Since you say they model only existing policies in its forecasts, the EIA must expect utility monopolies to greatly increase their current trend of focusing on building biomass themselves, while now largely ignoring the other renewables and all power from independents.

Focusing only on biomass would not be surprising since biomass and geothermal are the only base-load renewables and geothermal is too geographically restricted. But it should be greatly disconcerting because it would essentially mean the end of the independent renewable energy industry (which I have been predicting for some time). The renewable energy industry should be demanding feed-in tariffs for independents using all renewables, instead of just renewable portfolio standards for utility monopolies.
Comment
14 of 19
February 3, 2010
Moreover, if existing policies are assumed, your premise of hypergrowth for wind and solar will run into the constraint of limited need for new capacity.
Comment
15 of 19
February 3, 2010
Mike Holly:

Please refrain from statements like "Tam is giving false hope that innovation will improve renewable energy technologies enough to significantly penetrate future energy markets." Innovation (supported by feed-in tariffs) is *already* doing that in Europe (particularly Germany) and you, as a fan of feed-in tariffs, should well know that. Germany just passed 16% renewable contribution to their electricity mix, driven largely by wind power.

Ten years ago, wind power made up one percent of Germany's electricity mix. At the end of 2009 it was 7.8%....and solar power just passed 1% (and accelerating), tracking the penetration curve of wind quite closely, albeit with a 10-year delay. At the same time, data from EuPD Research show that solar power has sustained price decreases of over 12% per year for the last three years. The 1% penetration hurdle represents "critical" mass, at least in Germany. We can now look forward to solar joining wind power as a significant contributor to Germany's energy mix.

I'm not too worried about an independent renewable energy industry in the USA being gobbled up by entrenched utilities. They already purchase a significant portion of their power from independent power producers. Now the IPPs are starting to build solar and wind parks, not to mention geothermal, biomass, etc. The utilities still get their electrons and still don't want to spend huge amounts of cash building their own plants, especially when they have so much expensive work to do overhauling the grid.

And focussing only on biomass (or any other type of renewable) is counter productive. All renewable generation forms have their advantages. Some dispatchable, others track the demand curve on hot day, still others are cost-leaders. To see how they all can (and should) work together, have a look at:
http://www.kombikraftwerk.de/index.php?id=27
Comment
16 of 19
February 3, 2010
Brian:

I already explained that Europe has essentially no venture capital industry - for any technologies. Europe simply copied the wind and solar industries that were developed through huge tax credits provided by the US and state of California. The US will not form a venture capital industry for renewable energies without domestic feed-in tariffs because there is not enough cross investing to think it will form to provide new technologies for Europe.

Most of what little new biomass is being built in this country has already been monopolized by utilities and their affiliates and friends. Utilities also show favoritism during bidding for wind and solar, but appear more willing to purchase from independent power producers, likely because they don't believe there is a future for these intermittent energy sources. I will never share your faith in monopolies because I have seen first hand the rigging of utility bids. That is why our company is leaving this monopolistic nation.
Comment
17 of 19
February 5, 2010
Mike, California's utilities have signed hundreds of contracts for wind, solar, biomass, small hydro and geothermal over the last decade with 3rd parties. The PUC just approved a 44 MW biomass contract with PG&E for a retrofitted coal plant in Bakersfield. I'm not sure your general pessimism is warranted, even if your own experience has not been good in this regard. I would agree with you entirely that California has failed miserably in the last ten years to make real progress in actually constructing renewable energy facilities (for a variety of reasons, and see my next piece on this issue). But we seem to be on a major cusp for rapid buildout of numerous large wind and solar projects, and hopefully even more "community-scale" wind and solar projects, which is my market niche.
Comment
18 of 19
February 6, 2010
Tam, your recent comments don't address my concerns that the US EIA projections indicate biomass will be the primary renewable energy source from 2013 to 2035 for the entire US and the utilities and their affiliates and friends will monopolize these opportunities without nation-wide feed-in tariffs (especially since our technology is not very compatible with California).

But even more importantly, I am really disappointed in the American sense of fairness compared to the 45 countries that offer feed-in tariffs. The EU provides all projects of all renewable energy companies with feed-in tariffs, guaranteed fair prices for all generation. All independent companies get opportunities. The US forces renewable energy companies to bid for projects and prices from utility monopolies that favor themselves, their affiliates and friends during bidding. Most independent companies get no opportunities.

My lawyer said it best: America is about who you know and not what you know. After I complained to a state legislative committee that utility monopolies were favoring their influential friends during bidding, one member made sure I knew that was acceptable by then referring to utilities as their friends (that politician later got embarrassed in an influence peddling conspiracy). This country as a whole will pay because when monopolies are allowed to select higher cost bids there is much less reason to control costs and innovate. I am so out of this corrupt country, where people vote for politicians whose campaigns are financed by special interests. Thanks for nothing soon-to-be-bankrupt America!
Comment
19 of 19
February 7, 2010
The dirty little truth about America is that there are virtually no free markets as advertised, only monopolies.
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

Tam Hunt

View Tam Hunt's Profile
About: Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and sol... more »

Advertise With Us

Magnum Energy Inc. Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems AltaTerra Research Solar Electric Power Association Upsolar Hydrogen Education Foundation Natural Power
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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