Weekly News

solutions that aren’t capable of solving much of anything; at least with our current technology.

Wind receives an inordinate amount of attention, possibly because the 450 foot high wind towers have caught the attention of the public. First there was the Cape Wind proposal objected to by Senator Kennedy and then there are the many local organizations that are fighting wind turbines for a variety of reasons; noise, appearance and environmental.

The sole reason for promoting wind energy is global warming. Coal is the cheapest way to produce huge amounts of electricity, and we have a 200 year supply of coal. We are “electricity independent”.

Wind is an intermittent source of electricity that can’t be used for base load. By any objective analysis it’s more expensive than electricity produced by coal. It requires back-up (which adds to the cost in an objective analysis) so that replacement electricity is quickly available when the wind stops blowing. It requires new, dedicated transmission lines (often not included in the evaluation of cost) when wind turbines are installed in remote locations. (See 1) And it is an ineffective way to generate electricity.

Wind turbines only work when the wind blows and the wind blows at an appropriate speed only thirty percent of the time. For this reason, a wind turbine rated 1.5 MW (about the size of recent average installations) only has the generating capability of a 0.5 MW nuclear plant. (2)

It would take 200,000 wind turbines rated 1.6 MW to generate 20% of our electricity.

The most wind turbines ever installed in one year in the United States was 1,533: And the industry was working at capacity.

Solar only produces electricity when the sun shines. This limits the usefulness of solar as a base load source of electricity. Concentrating solar (where sunlight is concentrated using mirrors) has some potential in the Southwest. Photovoltaic solar also can be useful in the Southwest, but is extremely expensive and lacks’ consistency in Northern states.

Geothermal sources are found in the Western U.S. There are futuristic geothermal sources (hot dry rocks, for example, where wells are drilled over 10,000 feet to reach rocks at elevated temperatures, with water injected into the well to create steam) but these can best be described as experimental.

These alternatives lack sufficient scale to have any meaningful effect on the generation of electricity.

Wind currently produces less than 1% of our electricity.
Solar currently produces 0.01% of our electricity.
Geothermal produces less than one half of one percent (<0.5%) of our electricity.

These are feel-good non-solutions touted by people who have an agenda other than resolving our need for increased electricity.

The greatest source of wind is in the Western states far away from existing transmission lines and off-shore where there are no transmission lines.
Nuclear plants don’t come this small, but the analogy is valid when determining the kilowatt hours that can be generated by each method.

TSAugust

July 6, 2008

For first, second and third in Series See Commentaries.


Home	About Us	Contact Us
News stories continued. PHEV’s to the Rescue This projection resulted in our having to wait until the mid 2050’s to cut oil consumption to around 3 million barrels per day (mb/d). The same projections showed that without PHEV’s, gasoline consumption would grow from around 8.5 (mb/d) to over 11 mb/d by 2040. GM recently announced its plan to produce 20,000 PHEV’s (the Volt) in 2010 and increasing production to 100,000 PHEV’s in 2011. This is an aggressive plan and can have a significant impact on our oil consumption, depending on how quickly the market accepts the PHEV. We made two new projections based on 100,000 units in 2011. Sales of PHEV’s increase from 100,000 vehicles in 2011 by 30% annually until 80% of cars sold each year are PHEV’s. Sales of PHEV’s increase from 100,000 vehicles in 2011 by 50% annually until 80% of cars sold each year are PHEV’s. The projections assumed there would be a continuing need for gasoline powered, non-electric vehicles amounting to 20% of annual sales. This assumption kicked-in in 2035 for scenario “A” and 2026 for scenario “B”. Under scenario “A” it is in 2041 that PHEV’s reach 75% of all cars on the road and oil consumption for gasoline is cut to 3.6 mb/d. Under scenario “B” it is in 2036 that PHEV’s reach 75% of all cars on the road and oil consumption for gasoline is cut to 3.5 mb/d. The amounts of oil could be reduced slightly by using ethanol. Current corn ethanol production is around 0.5 mb/d and the projected maximum is around 0.8 mb/d (if production is limited to 1/3 the size of the corn crop). The two wild cards in projecting ethanol usage is whether cellulosic ethanol will ever become viable and the extent to which we might be able to import sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. At the most, cellulosic ethanol production could be around 1.2 mb/d assuming we use all 30 million acres of unused farm land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve to grow switchgrass and other cellulosic materials. These projections suggest we should be aggressively developing PHEV’s. Cutting our usage of oil to 3 mb/day would have a profound effect on oil imports and also help to put downward pressure on the price of gasoline. While it might take 20 years to reach this goal it should be a part of our energy strategy. If it’s possible to retrofit existing vehicles so they become PHEV’s, it could advance the point at which gasoline consumption is reduced to 3 mb/d. A123Systems has developed a retrofit package for Prius’s, and if it proves successful, could lead to the development of retrofit packages for other models. A huge hurdle to increasing sales of PHEV’s is the high first cost of PHEV’s caused by the high cost of Li-ion batteries. TSAugust proposed a leasing program for Lithium-ion batteries three years ago. Utilities would benefit from off peak recharging of batteries and have the capital available to initiate a leasing program. Whether this would help accelerate the sale of PHEV’s or whether some form of government tax rebates could help is worth investigating. PHEV’s combined with drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of oil shale will go a long way toward achieving a substantial degree of independence from foreign oil. Note: It is assumed that the number of vehicles on the road and sold each year, increases in proportion with the increase in population. TSAugust July 13, 2008 Make a tax exempt contribution to TSAugust and receive either print copies of the projections or disk containing the projections: For a $25 dollar contribution we will mail you a printed copy of projections “A” and “B”. For a $100 contribution we will mail you a disk containing the spreadsheets for projections “A” and “B”. Mail your check made payable to TSAugust, with the note “FOR PROJECTIONS” to; 1760Reston Parkway, suite 515, Reston, VA 20190.
Second news story, continued.
Renewables and Electricity
solutions that aren’t capable of solving much of anything; at least with our current technology. Wind receives an inordinate amount of attention, possibly because the 450 foot high wind towers have caught the attention of the public. First there was the Cape Wind proposal objected to by Senator Kennedy and then there are the many local organizations that are fighting wind turbines for a variety of reasons; noise, appearance and environmental. The sole reason for promoting wind energy is global warming. Coal is the cheapest way to produce huge amounts of electricity, and we have a 200 year supply of coal. We are “electricity independent”. Wind is an intermittent source of electricity that can’t be used for base load. By any objective analysis it’s more expensive than electricity produced by coal. It requires back-up (which adds to the cost in an objective analysis) so that replacement electricity is quickly available when the wind stops blowing. It requires new, dedicated transmission lines (often not included in the evaluation of cost) when wind turbines are installed in remote locations. (See 1) And it is an ineffective way to generate electricity. Wind turbines only work when the wind blows and the wind blows at an appropriate speed only thirty percent of the time. For this reason, a wind turbine rated 1.5 MW (about the size of recent average installations) only has the generating capability of a 0.5 MW nuclear plant. (2) It would take 200,000 wind turbines rated 1.6 MW to generate 20% of our electricity. The most wind turbines ever installed in one year in the United States was 1,533: And the industry was working at capacity. Solar only produces electricity when the sun shines. This limits the usefulness of solar as a base load source of electricity. Concentrating solar (where sunlight is concentrated using mirrors) has some potential in the Southwest. Photovoltaic solar also can be useful in the Southwest, but is extremely expensive and lacks’ consistency in Northern states. Geothermal sources are found in the Western U.S. There are futuristic geothermal sources (hot dry rocks, for example, where wells are drilled over 10,000 feet to reach rocks at elevated temperatures, with water injected into the well to create steam) but these can best be described as experimental. These alternatives lack sufficient scale to have any meaningful effect on the generation of electricity. Wind currently produces less than 1% of our electricity. Solar currently produces 0.01% of our electricity. Geothermal produces less than one half of one percent (<0.5%) of our electricity. These are feel-good non-solutions touted by people who have an agenda other than resolving our need for increased electricity. The greatest source of wind is in the Western states far away from existing transmission lines and off-shore where there are no transmission lines. Nuclear plants don’t come this small, but the analogy is valid when determining the kilowatt hours that can be generated by each method. TSAugust July 6, 2008 For first, second and third in Series See Commentaries.




Copyright © 2002 - 2008 TSAugust