T. Boone Pickens chose the presidential election season to push a revolutionary idea surrounding America's energy supply, energy independence, and green technology. The Picken's Plan was to begin with a $60 Million privately funded turbine wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, consisting of a MASSIVE 2700 turbine first phase. Texas law prohibits energy export to other states, so the intent was to become the sole energy supplier to the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area - creating a completely green city.
This plan created a buzz through the internet - drawing support from bloggers, YouTubers, and grassroots activists alike... that is, when the cost of oil was too much for Americans to bear.
Now, oil has fallen below $60/barrel, and Pickens has announced that his Pickens Plan is going to be put on hold. Though there is a hint that when oil pushes over $100/barrel in the future, the plan may be resurrected.
Was it all a publicity stunt? Perhaps it was some sort of distraction or strategy for the campaigns. Or perhaps the halt is due to uncertainties surrounding an Obama tax/spend policy, or his own energy policy? Speculation, of course...
However, the idea was brilliant. A private businessman challenging the government for fixing the problem of energy independence. Selling the idea of green energy investment at a private level, pulling in the support of the people, and providing a base for the infrastructure of the future - wind farms along the wind corridor of the Eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and the Eastern Plains. One could only imagine that the second phase would be a push for private solar plants on the rooftops of each homeowner, as suggested by me in a previous post.
Imagine if a state could build the private infrastructure to make the idea of energy independence a reality - a solar / wind combo punch that would flood the market with private energy - creating a possibility for an energy trade system between households, the private energy stock market, or energy eBay. It is a private enterprise dream...
Unfortunately, the Federal Government is squatting on private enterprise, selling the lie to the public that private enterprise is bad and immoral - and that government welfare is our only hope in this country. What a sham.
What Pickens' motive for holding his plan may be, I can only speculate... but one thing is for sure - such innovation, motivation, and foresight is needed!
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin Clear: Energy Independence GOP VP Focus
Sarah Palin cleared the muddied air about her ability and role as the next Vice President of the United States - she is there to take on the hurdle of ensuring energy independence in the Untied States. As the Vice President, she will ensure that the policy of "All of the Above" will bring about true energy independence in the United States!
The plan that she will enforce is a plan that will make the United States dependent on no one other than ourselves for energy. That includes a phased set of milestones, not a complete and immediate withdrawal from carbon based products (immediate withdrawal seems to be a common trend to Obama/Biden)
The plan will play out thusly:
1. Increase production of America's oil reserves - including shale. This will allow the current infrastructure to survive the transition to alternative energy. Obama/Biden see the need for alternative energy, but they refuse to admit that their policy will be grossly ineffective if they do not sustain the current infrastructure as we build the bridge to the future.
2. Invest in the capital of America's Future - Alternative Energy. Begin a process to incentivize car companies to steer away from Gasoline engines, tending towards Natural Gas or Electric. Establish an incentive program to encourage households to install solar panels - enough to reduce the need for residential power by a large percentage across America. Then begin to convert power usage from coal and oil to wind, solar, and the remaining nuclear plants built to initially sustain the energy system.
Palin is undoubtedly and undeniably the perfect candidate to take on energy independence. McCain giving her full reign in this arena was the best move for America's energy future.
In contrast, and as a side note, Biden's role as VP would be to council Obama, but let him be President... what kind of an answer is that?
Regardless - it is clear that Palin will be the leader in Energy Independence starting on day one as Vice President of these United States.
The plan that she will enforce is a plan that will make the United States dependent on no one other than ourselves for energy. That includes a phased set of milestones, not a complete and immediate withdrawal from carbon based products (immediate withdrawal seems to be a common trend to Obama/Biden)
The plan will play out thusly:
1. Increase production of America's oil reserves - including shale. This will allow the current infrastructure to survive the transition to alternative energy. Obama/Biden see the need for alternative energy, but they refuse to admit that their policy will be grossly ineffective if they do not sustain the current infrastructure as we build the bridge to the future.
2. Invest in the capital of America's Future - Alternative Energy. Begin a process to incentivize car companies to steer away from Gasoline engines, tending towards Natural Gas or Electric. Establish an incentive program to encourage households to install solar panels - enough to reduce the need for residential power by a large percentage across America. Then begin to convert power usage from coal and oil to wind, solar, and the remaining nuclear plants built to initially sustain the energy system.
Palin is undoubtedly and undeniably the perfect candidate to take on energy independence. McCain giving her full reign in this arena was the best move for America's energy future.
In contrast, and as a side note, Biden's role as VP would be to council Obama, but let him be President... what kind of an answer is that?
Regardless - it is clear that Palin will be the leader in Energy Independence starting on day one as Vice President of these United States.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
It is going to be a Long Cold (war) Winter
During the cold war, Soviet and US planes routinely escorted one another along the outskirts of one another's airspace, with the pilot's fingers surely on the trigger. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cold War was considered over, and the Russian planes ceased their flights around US territory.
That was 1992 - This is now.
Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.
Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.
Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.
As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:
With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.
From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.
That was 1992 - This is now.
Russian bombers began flying off the coast of Alaska last year - a direct threat to US oil supply. This was the first real show of force from Russia towards the United States in nearly two decades. It adds to the increased tensions between the two nations, and may be pushing a direct threat in the face of the Georgian conflict.
Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, warned Moscow that they are playing a dangerous game by pushing the US into Cold War relations with the country.
Russia's resurgence has been made possible by the income gained from energy resources and their respective high prices. Europe's dependence on Russia for energy has given Moscow influence over the continent that the Soviets could have only dreamed of. And now that the once broken Russian government is being strengthened with Cold Hard Cash, and they sense an air of anti-Americanism throughout the world, Russia is looking beyond the Soviet era and into the beginnings of a new Russian Empire.
As this BBC report states, Russia is clearly back after the chaos from the Soviet collapse:
With the war coming to a general close in Iraq, tensions are rising as the US and Russia assert their influence - Cold War style. China is not yet a major player, militarily, though they have been a nuisance to US naval operations - shadowing US fleets and interrupting training exercises in deep waters. The US is faced with Georgia's situation, Iran's Russian backed Nuke plan, tensions due to Polish missile defense systems, Ukrainian pleas for help after Russia's claim to their territory (similar to Georgia), Russia's announcement that it plans to use a 1960's style tactic of placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, China's relationship with Taiwan and Japan, and the list goes on.
From where I stand, the 21st century is shaping up to look a lot like the 20th century. It would appear that we may have been witness to a false spring... and the Bitterly Cold Winter of War between Russia and the US is still simmering.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Nuclear Saudi Arabia?
The IAEA and Saudi Arabia are moving forward with approving civilian nuclear power plants in the Kingdom. This plan outlines Saudi Arabia's plans for oil needs in the future, suggesting that they will be nuclear for all internal energy needs, and use oil strictly as an export.The increased needs for power around the world are showing a resurgence of pro-nuclear supporters worldwide - often without consideration of waste or weaponizing.
Iran, for instance, is building their first nuclear power plant, but are researching nuclear weapons in parallel, with the voiced purpose of annihilating Israel.
Can Saudi Arabia, a country whose population vehemently hates Western influence (a majority of the attackers on 9/11 were from the Kingdom), move forward with a peaceful nuclear program - or are we left to wonder if a weapons program will also be in the future for the Arab peninsula?
What is more disturbing is that the United States supports the nuclearization of the Arabian Kingdom. On one hand we pressure Iran to cease nuclear ambitions for fear that it would drive further nuclear development in the greater middle east, while on the other hand we are supporting (and most likely sharing technology) the Saudi nuclear ambition. The following map shows the status of all countries around the world regarding their nuclear ambitions:
The problem that the United States is failing to recognize is that the spread of nuclear technology is the forbidden fruit. Once you get the taste, it is natural progression to push the limits - with weapons. Don't believe me? Consider India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
Can the world move forward in a nuclear future of peace? Or does this latest spread of nuclear technology suggest another wrong turn for safety worldwide?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Oil - Who's to Blame? Who's to Fix?
The topic being discussed (or is it disgust?) all around the world is the price of oil. $40 a barrel just a few short years ago, the price of oil was fastly approaching $150 a barrel - until an unexpected drop this week (Nearly 10% fall-off in 3 days).
I hear daily reports of democrats calling for alternative energy as the only means to end this crisis. I hear daily reports of republicans calling for increased drilling as the only means to end this crisis. This has turned into the ultimate political battle, each side blaming the other, but neither side fully stating to the American people what the cause is and the true implications it has on our society.
Let's begin by answering the question: Who's to blame?
Anyone in the know understands that crude oil is sold as futures on the Merchant Exchange, NYMEX. NYMEX is similar to the stock market, only instead of stocks, you are able to buy items at a price you expect to see at some future time. For instance, you can buy/sell a barrel of oil in August 2008, or August 2013. Depending on world events, the price of your future will fluctuate based on a market response to how that item will sell in the future. So who is to blame? The merchants, naturally. In a free market we have only ourselves to blame. It is we, the people who choose to buy and sell oil and gas (even at the pumps), who drive the market prices. Are we alone? Of course not. There is analysis of oil supply versus oil demand that drives the input into the sell of the futures...
What else drives the futures of sweet crude up? Congressional recognition of fables, such as human caused Global Warming - alarmists... This adds uncertainty into the future of the supply, and regulation of the use of the product. When carbon taxes are proposed, carbon based products (and carbon emitting products) are expected to increase in price, showing an offset. This forecast of gloom and doom drives the price up.
What drives the price down? The promise to ease restriction on the oil companies to explore oil reserves freely in the waters off the US. The oil may take some time to hit the market, but it is the prospect of increased supply that will add speculators to drive oil futures down, thus driving fuel costs down.
But will drilling for oil ease the cost in America? Possibly, but not by much. This is because of the higher oil demand around the world. American oil will be sold freely on a world market, so as demand increases in other regions, the increased supply will not add to a surplus, and futures will remain high. Who profits from this? The oil companies, of course. Is this a bad thing? No... it is the free market at work.
Inasmuch, there are two additional options in addition to increasing supply to meet the immediate demands. The first is nationalizing the oil fields in US territory. Pass a bill in congress and ram it down the throat of the president stating that all oil drilled in the US must be released to US markets only, and sold only as fuel for the United States. Am I advocating for this? Absolutely NOT. But this is the mentality of the American People who believe that Congress can fix the problem, or that the Presidential Candidates have some solution that will control the oil markets. The oil market is a private enterprise. Love it or not, you are not entitled to cheap gas... it is the will of the people that drives the market. Which brings me to my second option - lifestyle changes. The oil industry is not responsible for funding alternative energy, nor are they obligated. They are in the market for oil... not in the market for creating a technology that will put them out of business - where is the sense in that? Lifestyle changes will drive a need for alternative means of energy. An increase in consumer demand for Fuel Cells, Solar Panels on the Rooftops, heck- even rocket packs, will drive the market to innovation and creation in these areas of research. We need to be pro-active about what we want to see on the market. If we don't see something that will drastically change our lives, we should invent it. Turn off American Idol, and turn on the tool box... put together a prototype Electric Hummer, or solar powered scooter... then market it as a means of alternative transportation or energy... Be the change that you want to see!
We are to blame for the mess we are in. Not Congress. Not the oil industry.
We are the solution. Not regulation of the industry by the government - Socialism is never the correct answer. Free markets drive innovation... and this is a problem that we can only innovate our way out of. We need to... I hear we are running out of oil anyway... (let's see how the futures like hearing THAT!)
I hear daily reports of democrats calling for alternative energy as the only means to end this crisis. I hear daily reports of republicans calling for increased drilling as the only means to end this crisis. This has turned into the ultimate political battle, each side blaming the other, but neither side fully stating to the American people what the cause is and the true implications it has on our society.
Let's begin by answering the question: Who's to blame?
Anyone in the know understands that crude oil is sold as futures on the Merchant Exchange, NYMEX. NYMEX is similar to the stock market, only instead of stocks, you are able to buy items at a price you expect to see at some future time. For instance, you can buy/sell a barrel of oil in August 2008, or August 2013. Depending on world events, the price of your future will fluctuate based on a market response to how that item will sell in the future. So who is to blame? The merchants, naturally. In a free market we have only ourselves to blame. It is we, the people who choose to buy and sell oil and gas (even at the pumps), who drive the market prices. Are we alone? Of course not. There is analysis of oil supply versus oil demand that drives the input into the sell of the futures...
What else drives the futures of sweet crude up? Congressional recognition of fables, such as human caused Global Warming - alarmists... This adds uncertainty into the future of the supply, and regulation of the use of the product. When carbon taxes are proposed, carbon based products (and carbon emitting products) are expected to increase in price, showing an offset. This forecast of gloom and doom drives the price up.
What drives the price down? The promise to ease restriction on the oil companies to explore oil reserves freely in the waters off the US. The oil may take some time to hit the market, but it is the prospect of increased supply that will add speculators to drive oil futures down, thus driving fuel costs down.
But will drilling for oil ease the cost in America? Possibly, but not by much. This is because of the higher oil demand around the world. American oil will be sold freely on a world market, so as demand increases in other regions, the increased supply will not add to a surplus, and futures will remain high. Who profits from this? The oil companies, of course. Is this a bad thing? No... it is the free market at work.
Inasmuch, there are two additional options in addition to increasing supply to meet the immediate demands. The first is nationalizing the oil fields in US territory. Pass a bill in congress and ram it down the throat of the president stating that all oil drilled in the US must be released to US markets only, and sold only as fuel for the United States. Am I advocating for this? Absolutely NOT. But this is the mentality of the American People who believe that Congress can fix the problem, or that the Presidential Candidates have some solution that will control the oil markets. The oil market is a private enterprise. Love it or not, you are not entitled to cheap gas... it is the will of the people that drives the market. Which brings me to my second option - lifestyle changes. The oil industry is not responsible for funding alternative energy, nor are they obligated. They are in the market for oil... not in the market for creating a technology that will put them out of business - where is the sense in that? Lifestyle changes will drive a need for alternative means of energy. An increase in consumer demand for Fuel Cells, Solar Panels on the Rooftops, heck- even rocket packs, will drive the market to innovation and creation in these areas of research. We need to be pro-active about what we want to see on the market. If we don't see something that will drastically change our lives, we should invent it. Turn off American Idol, and turn on the tool box... put together a prototype Electric Hummer, or solar powered scooter... then market it as a means of alternative transportation or energy... Be the change that you want to see!
We are to blame for the mess we are in. Not Congress. Not the oil industry.
We are the solution. Not regulation of the industry by the government - Socialism is never the correct answer. Free markets drive innovation... and this is a problem that we can only innovate our way out of. We need to... I hear we are running out of oil anyway... (let's see how the futures like hearing THAT!)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Energy Independence - Science Fact or Science Fiction?
Sitting through a lecture last week on the increase cost of oil, and listening to the blame on China's demand, increased US demand, and the inability to produce more due to Big Energy's inability to explore or tap more wells... I was struck by a comment from the Oil Company Spokesman: "Energy Independence is unattainable and illogical".
Not a shocking comment coming from one of the largest Natural Gas and Oil companies in the greater Rocky Mountain area.
And when further pressed with a question: "If you were king for a day, what would it take to achieve energy independence?"
The response was, of course "Energy Independence is a nonsense concept, so I don't accept the premise of the question". In fact, he stated that the best course of action was inaction... do nothing and the problem fixes itself!
So I asked myself... Is Energy Independence Science-Fact or Science-Fiction?
Let's first explore the energy consumption and production in the US.
The US consumed roughly 3.35 TW of power in 2004... that is 3.35x10^12 Watts. That is a little more than 1/5th of the worlds entire energy consumption. That consumption can be further broken down into four sub categories: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation uses.
Those uses, across the board, can be broken down into the source of the energy.
Fossil Fuels make up about 80% of our total consumption... That is Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. A recent study, shown in a new commercial advertisement, states that the US has enough petroleum and natural gas to run 60 million cars and heat 100 million homes for 60 years... So what happens on the 61st year? This does not sound like a problem fixing itself! It sounds like assured chaos! (but I digress... for now)
Transportation, in it's current form, does not seem to able or willing to part ways with petroleum. We currently import 30% of our petrol from outside the US. This is the main focus of our Energy Independence... how can we reduce consumption of petroleum? Fuel cell technology is a great place to start. Alternative combustibles is another great avenue to explore.
What about home heating and electricity costs? We have huge Natural gas reserves in the US, but we also import large amounts of NG from Canada. Most homes in the South Denver area are heated by gas... and I can assume that the same is true across most of the Midwest where the gas is readily available and easily distributed. (Sorry for all you folks on the west coast... you get your hydro-electric and coal based energy). 21% of all energy consumption goes into housing... and from a source that is being advertised as being 100% used up within 60 years.
I began looking into a plan that would help build an infrastructure for the future energy needs of Americans... and there is always one constant: The sun.
The sun can be the solution to all our energy needs here in the US. Let me explain.
Photovoltaics, also known as Solar Power, is becoming so advanced that the space sector (of which I am a part of) is beginning to use solar arrays with energy absorption efficiencies breaking the 40% range. The use of Triple Junction Gallium Arsenide arrays has set a new standard for the level of efficiencies, and this standard is being flown into the public market. For a reasonable priced solar array available to the public, we can assume a panel with the efficiency of 22% - 25%. As well, solar panels have a working life on the order of 30 years.
The argument is often made that solar power stations are inefficient because of their small energy output for the amount of land required to build a power generating facility. In fact, large power companies have created these large solar farms in areas like the Mojave Desert, where the sun is always shining and the impact seen by the public is often minimal (not seen because, honestly, who goes to the Mojave?).
But I would argue that the infrastructure for the smartest, widest reaching, and privately owned power grid is already in existence... There is no need for massive solar farms hidden away in the desert. It is the roof top of every homeowner in the United States... especially those in "Sunshine Regions".
Using existing rooftops is the only zero impact to the environment. Using rooftops will allow the homeowner to generate his/her own power, and sell the rest back to the power grid. It will be a truly free market of energy trade.
The question is often brought up about the ability for homes to run completely on solar... In 2006, the average household consumption was 10,656 kWh. Based on the chart below, over half of the United States is blessed with an average daily solar energy exposure of 5.0 kWh per metere squared or more. 95% of the country (excluding Alaska) has exposure of 4.0 kWh or more.
With the efficiencies discussed above (23% efficiency), and assuming the availability of 5.0 kWh of daily exposure, and the energy consumption of 10656 kWh per year of the average household, we can crunch some numbers to determine that each rooftop would need 273.25 square feet of panels to accommodate their consumption entirely. This, of course, does not take into account power conversion or storage.
Power storage is also currently inefficient. The advancement in fuel cells and batteries is also making this future power source a fact over fiction. However, current technology requires a 10% power loss in transferring from DC power (collected) to AC power (used by the appliances in the house), and any unused power sent to the batteries would see additional loss due to inefficiency in power transfer and storage.
273 square feet of solar panels, per roof, as a minimum... If we expand that to 500 square feet to account for power loss and less than peak power days (clouds), we can replace our current coal and gas system for a purely solar power supply.
Utopian, sure... unrealistic, not at all!
Excess power sources can then be transferred to fill the need for transportation. Remember, all we need to do is to supplement 30% of the transportation energy requirements to eliminate the need to import oil from our enemies. If we offered a retrofit to vehicles, replacing their combustion engines with an electric motor and battery storage (assuming we can make an electric motor with similar vehicular performance properties), we could eliminate our need for oil on a large scale.
Keep the power plants running, sending out electricity, and use that electricity to provide overnight charges for our vehicles, or quick charge stations (instead of gas stations).
The fact of the matter is that Energy Independence is not a scientific absurdity. It is achievable, and imminent. The ability for our way of life to continue is in jeopardy, should we "stay the course" for 60 more years without planning a smart infrastructure built around "free" energy.
We need outside of the box ideas from our political leaders. We need an education of the masses on the inevitability of the need for alternative energy sources. We need to stop the "stay the course" mentality being pushed by the big oil and big energy companies.
Of course Solar is one leg in the stool of future energy... and I am focusing on solar because it is the best option to put the "power" of power in the hands of the individual. Imagine being able to share or trade power with your neighbors... perhaps in exchange for giving your tools back :) It is free market trade at it's best.
The closing point is that Energy Independence is achievable. With the right decisions made, the right resources made available, and the right education, the US is a prime candidate for reaching the unreachable. This has the potential to be a classic case!
Not a shocking comment coming from one of the largest Natural Gas and Oil companies in the greater Rocky Mountain area.
And when further pressed with a question: "If you were king for a day, what would it take to achieve energy independence?"
The response was, of course "Energy Independence is a nonsense concept, so I don't accept the premise of the question". In fact, he stated that the best course of action was inaction... do nothing and the problem fixes itself!
So I asked myself... Is Energy Independence Science-Fact or Science-Fiction?
Let's first explore the energy consumption and production in the US.The US consumed roughly 3.35 TW of power in 2004... that is 3.35x10^12 Watts. That is a little more than 1/5th of the worlds entire energy consumption. That consumption can be further broken down into four sub categories: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation uses.
Those uses, across the board, can be broken down into the source of the energy.
Fossil Fuels make up about 80% of our total consumption... That is Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas. A recent study, shown in a new commercial advertisement, states that the US has enough petroleum and natural gas to run 60 million cars and heat 100 million homes for 60 years... So what happens on the 61st year? This does not sound like a problem fixing itself! It sounds like assured chaos! (but I digress... for now)
Transportation, in it's current form, does not seem to able or willing to part ways with petroleum. We currently import 30% of our petrol from outside the US. This is the main focus of our Energy Independence... how can we reduce consumption of petroleum? Fuel cell technology is a great place to start. Alternative combustibles is another great avenue to explore.
What about home heating and electricity costs? We have huge Natural gas reserves in the US, but we also import large amounts of NG from Canada. Most homes in the South Denver area are heated by gas... and I can assume that the same is true across most of the Midwest where the gas is readily available and easily distributed. (Sorry for all you folks on the west coast... you get your hydro-electric and coal based energy). 21% of all energy consumption goes into housing... and from a source that is being advertised as being 100% used up within 60 years.
I began looking into a plan that would help build an infrastructure for the future energy needs of Americans... and there is always one constant: The sun.
The sun can be the solution to all our energy needs here in the US. Let me explain.
Photovoltaics, also known as Solar Power, is becoming so advanced that the space sector (of which I am a part of) is beginning to use solar arrays with energy absorption efficiencies breaking the 40% range. The use of Triple Junction Gallium Arsenide arrays has set a new standard for the level of efficiencies, and this standard is being flown into the public market. For a reasonable priced solar array available to the public, we can assume a panel with the efficiency of 22% - 25%. As well, solar panels have a working life on the order of 30 years.
The argument is often made that solar power stations are inefficient because of their small energy output for the amount of land required to build a power generating facility. In fact, large power companies have created these large solar farms in areas like the Mojave Desert, where the sun is always shining and the impact seen by the public is often minimal (not seen because, honestly, who goes to the Mojave?).But I would argue that the infrastructure for the smartest, widest reaching, and privately owned power grid is already in existence... There is no need for massive solar farms hidden away in the desert. It is the roof top of every homeowner in the United States... especially those in "Sunshine Regions".
Using existing rooftops is the only zero impact to the environment. Using rooftops will allow the homeowner to generate his/her own power, and sell the rest back to the power grid. It will be a truly free market of energy trade.The question is often brought up about the ability for homes to run completely on solar... In 2006, the average household consumption was 10,656 kWh. Based on the chart below, over half of the United States is blessed with an average daily solar energy exposure of 5.0 kWh per metere squared or more. 95% of the country (excluding Alaska) has exposure of 4.0 kWh or more.
With the efficiencies discussed above (23% efficiency), and assuming the availability of 5.0 kWh of daily exposure, and the energy consumption of 10656 kWh per year of the average household, we can crunch some numbers to determine that each rooftop would need 273.25 square feet of panels to accommodate their consumption entirely. This, of course, does not take into account power conversion or storage.Power storage is also currently inefficient. The advancement in fuel cells and batteries is also making this future power source a fact over fiction. However, current technology requires a 10% power loss in transferring from DC power (collected) to AC power (used by the appliances in the house), and any unused power sent to the batteries would see additional loss due to inefficiency in power transfer and storage.
273 square feet of solar panels, per roof, as a minimum... If we expand that to 500 square feet to account for power loss and less than peak power days (clouds), we can replace our current coal and gas system for a purely solar power supply.
Utopian, sure... unrealistic, not at all!
Excess power sources can then be transferred to fill the need for transportation. Remember, all we need to do is to supplement 30% of the transportation energy requirements to eliminate the need to import oil from our enemies. If we offered a retrofit to vehicles, replacing their combustion engines with an electric motor and battery storage (assuming we can make an electric motor with similar vehicular performance properties), we could eliminate our need for oil on a large scale.
Keep the power plants running, sending out electricity, and use that electricity to provide overnight charges for our vehicles, or quick charge stations (instead of gas stations).
The fact of the matter is that Energy Independence is not a scientific absurdity. It is achievable, and imminent. The ability for our way of life to continue is in jeopardy, should we "stay the course" for 60 more years without planning a smart infrastructure built around "free" energy.
We need outside of the box ideas from our political leaders. We need an education of the masses on the inevitability of the need for alternative energy sources. We need to stop the "stay the course" mentality being pushed by the big oil and big energy companies.
Of course Solar is one leg in the stool of future energy... and I am focusing on solar because it is the best option to put the "power" of power in the hands of the individual. Imagine being able to share or trade power with your neighbors... perhaps in exchange for giving your tools back :) It is free market trade at it's best.
The closing point is that Energy Independence is achievable. With the right decisions made, the right resources made available, and the right education, the US is a prime candidate for reaching the unreachable. This has the potential to be a classic case!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)