The 10 Big Energy Myths c/o The Guardian UK
Real quick like, from The Guardian UK:
Myth 1: solar power is too expensive to be of much use
In reality, today’s bulky and expensive solar panels capture only 10% or so of the sun’s energy, but rapid innovation in the US means that the next generation of panels will be much thinner, capture far more of the energy in the sun’s light and cost a fraction of what they do today. They may not even be made of silicon. First Solar, the largest manufacturer of thin panels, claims that its products will generate electricity in sunny countries as cheaply as large power stations by 2012.
Other companies are investigating even more efficient ways of capturing the sun’s energy, for example the use of long parabolic mirrors to focus light on to a thin tube carrying a liquid, which gets hot enough to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. Spanish and German companies are installing large-scale solar power plants of this type in North Africa, Spain and the south-west of America; on hot summer afternoons in California, solar power stations are probably already financially competitive with coal. Europe, meanwhile, could get most of its electricity from plants in the Sahara desert. We would need new long-distance power transmission but the technology for providing this is advancing fast, and the countries of North Africa would get a valuable new source of income.
Solar power is also particularly useful in passive accumulation and storage, as well as mobile and small-scale applications. Aside from the lower costs involved in increased energy efficiency, small solar allows for a greater number of devices or applications to be run off the grid. Think solar freezers in the rain jungles of Costa Rica that allow you produce off-grid chocolate from indigenous trees with a smaller footprint, to take an example close to my heart.
What this excerpt fails to mention is that solar will become more ubiquitous as photovoltaics are tied into more and more devices. This will increase advances, expand and diversify applications and lower costs. It may also lead more and more people to become decoupled from the grid and at least partially reliant on solar tech for their day-to-day activities.
Myth 4: nuclear power is cheaper than other low-carbon sources of electricity
If we believe that the world energy and environmental crises are as severe as is said, nuclear power stations must be considered as a possible option. But although the disposal of waste and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are profoundly important issues, the most severe problem may be the high and unpredictable cost of nuclear plants.
The new nuclear power station on the island of Olkiluoto in western Finland is a clear example. Electricity production was originally supposed to start this year, but the latest news is that the power station will not start generating until 2012. The impact on the cost of the project has been dramatic. When the contracts were signed, the plant was supposed to cost €3bn (£2.5bn). The final cost is likely to be more than twice this figure and the construction process is fast turning into a nightmare. A second new plant in Normandy appears to be experiencing similar problems. In the US, power companies are backing away from nuclear because of fears over uncontrollable costs.
Unless we can find a new way to build nuclear power stations, it looks as though CO2 capture at coal-fired plants will be a cheaper way of producing low-carbon electricity. A sustained research effort around the world might also mean that cost-effective carbon capture is available before the next generation of nuclear plants is ready, and that it will be possible to fit carbon-capture equipment on existing coal-fired power stations. Finding a way to roll out CO2 capture is the single most important research challenge the world faces today. The current leader, the Swedish power company Vattenfall, is using an innovative technology that burns the coal in pure oxygen rather than air, producing pure carbon dioxide from its chimneys, rather than expensively separating the CO2 from other exhaust gases. It hopes to be operating huge coal-fired power stations with minimal CO2 emissions by 2020.
Apart from coming in late and over cost, nuclear power stations also use an ungodly amount of fresh water. Think hundreds of millions of gallons a day per plant. After the water is processed and purified it is used to drive steam turbines and cool the reactors. This heats the water and alters its molecular makeup so that it is ionically unstable. This ’spent’ water is then dumped into streams and lakes, often to the detriment of downstream ecosystems.
The last few summers down south have demonstrated the effects that drought can have on both rural and urban communities. This lack of available fresh water will only be exacerbated when existing aquifers are consumed by nuclear power plants that cannot run at any degree of efficiency or safety without a constant supply.
Myth 6: biofuels are always destructive to the environment
Making some of our motor fuel from food has been an almost unmitigated disaster. It has caused hunger and increased the rate of forest loss, as farmers have sought extra land on which to grow their crops. However the failure of the first generation of biofuels should not mean that we should reject the use of biological materials forever. Within a few years we will be able to turn agricultural wastes into liquid fuels by splitting cellulose, the most abundant molecule in plants and trees, into simple hydrocarbons. Chemists have struggled to find a way of breaking down this tough compound cheaply, but huge amounts of new capital have flowed into US companies that are working on making a petrol substitute from low-value agricultural wastes. In the lead is Range Fuels, a business funded by the venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, which is now building its first commercial cellulose cracking plant in Georgia using waste wood from managed forests as its feedstock.
We shouldn’t be under any illusion that making petrol from cellulose is a solution to all the problems of the first generation of biofuels. Although cellulose is abundant, our voracious needs for liquid fuel mean we will have to devote a significant fraction of the world’s land to growing the grasses and wood we need for cellulose refineries. Managing cellulose production so that it doesn’t reduce the amount of food produced is one of the most important issues we face.
I don’t know that cellulose is the best example of non-destructive biofuels, but is an interesting one. Though cellulose is promising in its abundance, it requires a fair amount of processing, mechanical, biological or chemical to extract and manipulate as a feedstock. There are less convoluted feedstocks, such as jatropha, sorghum, algae and, yes, hemp that can be grown and processed organically, sustainably and economically with current technologies without harming soil conditions.
From these fuels we can eventually depart from hydrocarbons. In truth, we shouldn’t be looking to replicate the hydrocarbon structure for our future fuels. We should look to design our future fuels to dovetail with new or advanced engine technology that is not tethered to hydrocarbons nor our engineered synthetic and biological analogs. However, relief is readily at hand in the form of biobutanol, syngas fuel cells and sustainable small-scale biodiesel. Which leads us to myth 9.
Myth 9: the most efficient power stations are big
Large, modern gas-fired power stations can turn about 60% of the energy in fuel into electricity. The rest is lost as waste heat.
Even though 5-10% of the electricity will be lost in transmission to the user, efficiency has still been far better than small-scale local generation of power. This is changing fast.
New types of tiny combined heat and power plants are able to turn about half the energy in fuel into electricity, almost matching the efficiency of huge generators. These are now small enough to be easily installed in ordinary homes. Not only will they generate electricity but the surplus heat can be used to heat the house, meaning that all the energy in gas is productively used. Some types of air conditioning can even use the heat to power their chillers in summer.
We think that microgeneration means wind turbines or solar panels on the roof, but efficient combined heat and power plants are a far better prospect for the UK and elsewhere. Within a few years, we will see these small power plants, perhaps using cellulose-based renewable fuels and not just gas, in many buildings. Korea is leading the way by heavily subsidising the early installation of fuel cells at office buildings and other large electricity users.
Distributed power systems for the win! Be it office buildings, family farms or combined small-scale systems, distributed energy generation is the key to stabilizing our energy future. Removing our reliance from the grid, be it in rural homesteads or urban dwellings, will bring about true energy security. A measure of personal responsibility will be required, which for some will be a difficult pill to swallow, but can you imagine the possibilities!? It will be like cloud computing for local energy. In fact, I see the two concepts dovetailing nicely in the years to come…
Now an NYC refugee, Curtiss P. Martin serves as a contributing editor of all things clean and green at ScribeMedia. When he isn't out on the road or in the field researching and reporting on controversial science and tech topics, Curtiss can be found communing with the creative kids at the Elsewhere artist collaborative in Greensboro, NC.
I like your comments. You are very knowledgeable on a lot of issues. I have all the solar refrigerators and freezers on my site for all that off-grid chocolate lol.
Ben C.
http://www.BensDiscountSupply.com