Replacing Every Watt of Earth’s Power Consumption with Renewable Energy
Frequent commenter Peter Buck asks, “Craig – when you say the sun supplies 6000 times what we use, does that mean “if the entire surface of the world were covered with solar cells”? If so, I despair. If not, exactly what is meant and where does that figure come from?”
Yes, that’s essentially what it means. (It’s a bit more complicated than that due to the reflection of energy back into space from the atmosphere and from the Earth’s surface, the absorption rates of different wavelengths, etc.) Taking all this scientific stuff into account, we’re receiving 23,000 terawatts, though that’s still about 1500 times more than all seven billion of us are using (16 TW).
But think about that for a second. Who wants to generate a thousand times more energy than we need? A solar farm in the southwestern U.S. desert in the shape of a square, 100 miles on a side, would generate more than enough energy for the entire continent of North America. The same is true about putting such an array in the Northern Sahara to power Europe.
Even that’s unnecessary, when you think that the wind farms that already exist are generating about 5% of the electricity used in the U.S. At the same time, there are other forms of solar energy available, e.g., biomass, biofuels, hydro, ocean current, wave, and ocean thermal. On top of that, there are other forms of renewable energy that are independent of the sun, e.g., geothermal and tidal.
And, let’s not forget nuclear. The rabidly anti-nuke people are misinformed about the dangers of nuclear energy, even given the designs of the 1950s, not to mention the “advanced nuclear” under development today.
In practical terms, all of this needs to be phased in over time, at the same time we’re phasing out fossil fuels. The real gating issues are political, not technological.
What’s most needed is a concerted effort in the right direction. Is that in the offing? I actually believe it is. The fundamental question: Can the will of the people stand up against the wealthiest most powerful interest in the history of humankind (i.e., the oil companies)? I believe it can—and will.
Sure, there is room for pessimism, as I wrote here, paraphrasing legendary environmentalist Bill McKibben:
The oil companies say that there is five times more carbon accessible to their drilling than scientists say can safely be emitted into our atmosphere. Yet ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and the rest have each assured their shareholders and banks that this is precisely their business plan for the next few years, i.e., extracting and burning that fuel. If they are successful, there remains no mystery as to how or when our civilization will end; if they are free to implement their strategy, our planet will be ruined in very short order.
Yet I see this starting to swing in the right direction, largely due to a trend that is quickly reducing the cost of renewables, and a significant upwelling of pressure from people like you and me; last week, even Shell Oil began making noise to the effect that renewable energy is “indispensible.”
Not to appear immodest, but this is covered nicely in my latest book: “Bullish on Renewable Energy.”
I have come to a slightly different size requirement for a “solar only” powered world – I’ll paste (some of it) from my site which is also pro nuclear.
The most practical solar solutions are passive in nature. Designing all buildings for optimal solar entry and heating, for optimal shading and for utilizing thermal mass for both cooling and heating through the seasons is actually the most efficient way to let the sun (and shade) work for us. Cooling and heating needs account for a large percentage of both the residential and commercial sectors.
Obviously, solar will not power the future all by itself, neither will any other single source. However, we need to figure approximately what it would take if we had no other energy options.
We will assume 17% efficient solar PV, and that the efficiency loss by inverters and line losses will be countered by further improvements in solar panels.
That the storage medium will have an 80% round trip efficiency.
That the capacity factor is about 20%
And that 10 billion people will need 50,000 kWh per year. Which is about 5.7 kW of power continuously, on average.
A square meter of direct sunlight is rated at 1,000 watts. Usually, it is less, but in higher altitudes and when it is cooler, a solar panel might actually deliver more than it’s rating which is currently about 170 watts/sq meter (17%) for commercial PV.
We will have to include a third of the land for shadow/access space (which brings it down to about 110 watts per square meter.
5,700 (watts continuous) / 110 (watts per square meter) = 52 square meters are required to generate the electricity required on average.
However, the capacity factor is only about 20%, meaning that this amount is only generated about 1/5th of the time.
We will need 5x more panels plus the additional required to make up for the efficiency loss of storage (which is 20% in this case). This adds up to over 300 square meters per person.
300 x 10 billion people = 3 million square kilometers or over 1.1 million square miles! This is actually over 2% of the Earth’s land space.
Vast amounts of land, materials extraction, storage and recycling is required for solar energy to power a substantial portion of humanity’s future.
I will add that it is the low CF which causes problems. If solar gets an Eroei of 10 and we need to build 5 multiples and then build extra for the inefficiency of storage, we’ll be up to about 6/10th of its positive Eroei. Of course, This “one only” approach is just an example which points to the absolute necessity to incorporate wind and hydro (in a non nuclear world) in order to get better overall EROEI of total collection/storage system as the object of the EROEI game is to have the highest overall capacity factors so that less overbuild is needed to store.
Like many back of the envelope calculations if there is a flaw somewhere in the assumptions the calculations can seem far more “accurate” than is the case. You correctly point out that solar thermal is presently far more efficient than trying to make electricity directly from the sun. We can also store heat more efficiently. But you abandoned this thinking when making calculations based upon strictly on solar PV.
Economies of scale and some technology are pushing the price of solar PV (downward.) But from a position of what is needed Solar thermal power stations can make electricity more efficiently (30% to 40% vs 15% to 20%.) Solar thermal can store heat for use 24/7 which brings their capacity factor up to around 60% and much closer to what coal gives us. With storage at the power plant we will have less need for probably unavailable pumped hydro storage cutting out even more transmission losses.
I might also suggest you limit the use of the term “Obviously…” It is a derogatory way of trying to silence objections and tends to be a red flag that the argument will not stand on its own merits. In this case above using coal, and more recently nuclear as a “one power plant fits all situations” was once the way everybody was thinking. Such thinking is fundamentally tied to an aspect of human nature. We tend to stop thinking when we feel we have a solution. The statement fails if you examine solar energy as the primary source for all the energy we use except nuclear, some geothermal and some tidal energy then solar energy could very well be a one stop solution… in its various forms. Not so obvious.
I should consider my own use of “obviously.” I’m reminded of Jeopardy host Alex Trebek who, when a certain question stumps all three contestants, often provides the solution and includes the words “the famous,” as in “the famous George Mifflin Dallas (Millard Fillmore’s vice president).” If he were “famous,” isn’t it likely that one of these trivia freaks would have known his name?
Did I say “obviously”? I guess I meant “I’m going to do the solar only thing just for fun” but I want everyone to understand that I already know that “solar only” is just for fun, so I said obviously in order to best explain that I already know that it’s not going to be “solar only”. Now, I wasted too much time, go to work now.
BTW, I use “obviously” not to shut down argument, but to avoid appearing to be condescending to the reader when presenting something that it indisputable. E.g., I might throw in an “obviously” in a sentence like “Western Civilization benefited greatly from living through the Age of Reason,” or “Plasma arc gasifiers operate at high temperatures than pyrolyzers.” It’s an attempt to give the reader credit for knowing this in advance.
That is “I have to go to work”, sorry
BOTW, also (without saying obviously) I want to add that was a good suggestion about solar thermal, like for heating water. Concentrated solar thermal and cpv requires even more land than flat panel. Look at the pictures, they’ll prove that a bunch of heliostats only occupy about a quarter of the land.
What’s more, if we have to seriously consider a almost solar only scenario, we have to outlaw the fences and heading off the deserts. I say “almost solar only” because that it’s the one with the most potential. Note that potential does not necessarily mean workable within the constants of cost (remember capacity factor. Nuclear is the only other source that can actually prevent fossil fueled depletion into hot planet. Oviciously, most people won’t go for that.
“Oviciously.” LOL! 🙂
This is really weird because I just meant to say “obviously”. Credit the swype function on the phone for the harsh humor (and teaching me a new word) 😉
When proponents speak of land use they point to how little room a Nuclear Reactor takes to operate.
When those less than enthusiast about this power source look at the same land they point to what the law requires for the legal safe setback, and the far larger land use that is required by mining the fuel. Land use is a much better argument for geothermal than it is for nuclear (or coal or gas) because these renewables don’t use a fuel that must be mined. What you see is what you get.
I am a strong advocate of Solar Energy based on my following understanding:
Rising level of green house gases due to human activities such as energy use, transportation & agriculture are already changing the climate. Significant impact on global environment, economy & society is likely to hit worse than expected.
Rapid urbanization & alleviation of poverty in thick populated developing country will further aggravate the crises for water, food, energy & waste management.
Waiting for the developed & major pollutant emitting country for any action may be too late to respond. Our National Leaders & their companion with exception of few are least bother for the crises of our future generation. Their vision is self centered & localized.
Nature has provided each individual to realize facts & act. Have we had the following realization?
• Industrialization in particular use of fossil fuel is the major cause of climate change.
• How many years we may rely on fossil fuel for Energy & Power?
• Is Fossil fuel can be utilized in more efficient way other than Energy & Power?
• What will be the next source of Energy/Power?
• Is Energy can cater the need for water, food & waste management?
• Is the Renewable source of Energy is the ultimate choice?
• If yes, which one?
– Fusion Reaction.
– Solar Energy.
– Hydro Potential Energy.
– Bio-mass
– Wind Power.
– Tidal Power.
– Geo-Thermal
– Any Other.
• From the above list, it is evident that to meet the future requirement of Energy & Power the abundant source will be either Fusion based Nuclear Reaction ( Had we succeed to developed small star on Earth)or Solar Energy.
• If Solar is the ONLY viable source of abundant Energy, why not every individual & organization shall advocate for the promotion of Solar Energy as minimum social responsibility?
Hi Craig, I see the trend here in South Africa. There is talk of a major solar farm in the northwest, that will be built in what is known as “the sunniest part of the Planet”. We get more juice here than most from lady Ra! Reg Wessels, Founder, Earth Corporation
There’s a completely proven technology – up and running here and across the world – that’s harvesting clean and safe modern sunshine to make electricity for homes and businesses.
It’s called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). It uses fields of mirrors that focus sunlight onto a tower that’s near the middle of each mirror field. A heat exchanger brings that heat from the tower to make steam to drive generators. The sun only shines during the day, but several other proven technologies can store that energy – like molten salt (to store for hours), or pumped hydro (to store for years) – and modern battery tech is already fairly capable and advancing rapidly.
To make all the electricity that we now use everywhere across our country using CSP, the total area needed is less than 1/3 of 1% (0.003) of the lower 48 states, (That’s an area only about the size of the little northeastern state of Vermont).
Imagine a red dotted line from southern California to Georgia. It has about 80 little squares. Each of those dots represents a square of land about eleven miles on a side. These squares represent the scale of the areas to be used for CSP, and they can be placed anywhere in our sprawling Sunbelt region. High Voltage Direct Current power lines can take that sun energy all over our entire country. Those proven storage technologies will bank and stabilize that clean, safe sunshine electricity for all of us to use at any hour, rain or shine.
How much for the whole nationwide system from plant to plug? About $167 a month, for every man, woman and child in the US, for 10 years. (That’s about equal to the billions we’re now paying to other countries to get that dirty and dangerous prehistoric sunshine we call crude oil.)
Concentrated solar power has been around for a long time. One technique is to use it to generate heat which is then used to drive turbines. Another technique is to use it to get more power from PV cells. However, concentrated solar power is not without problems. It requires very accurate tracking, which of course is possible. It’s most serious problem is that it will not work in cloudy weather whereas non-concentrating systems will work in cloudy weather, although with reduced output. In areas where clouds are rare, concentrated solar power can make sense.
Unfortunately, although it is practical to store modest amounts of power generated from solar sources, there is no practical way to store the huge amounts of power necessary to overcome the intermittent nature of solar (or wind) power except where geography makes pumped storage practical. That could change with more R & D, but it would be unwise to depend on it.
Here in the U.S., we have paid little attention to using solar power for heat, i.e., for domestic hot water and heating buildings. When used for heating, solar power efficiency can exceed 60% whereas when used to generate electricity, the efficiency is far lower. Since the early 20th century, it has been possible to use solar power for heat. In California, before natural gas became available, solar water heaters were common.
The technology for DC high tension lines is well proven and has been in use for several decades. Because of the cost of efficiently converting from AC to DC and back again is high, using current technology it makes sense only when power must be transmitted for long distances. It is likely that costs will drop as the technology improves. The basic problem is that the solid state switching devices will not operate at the high voltages needed, so many have to be strung in series and perfectly synchronized so that the voltage across each will be about equal, but it does work.
Nuclear power will do the job, but I hope that more economical and less problematic nuclear power systems will soon be developed so that our current nuclear power technology can soon be phased out. Probably we’d have such technology in operation now if we had not foolishly discontinued nuclear R & D several decades ago. Nuclear power can be expanded much more quickly than many people realize. France, in about 17 years, went from no nuclear power to generating 75% of its electricity with nuclear power. But again, I would feel much more comfortable with nuclear power if we had a better nuclear technology ready to go.
Thermal storage is generally cheaper and more widely applicable than pumped storage and it can be used for very large scale applications. However, one of the assumptions that is widely made is that systems that store electricity must return the energy in the form of electricity rather than in an alternative form like mechanical energy or heat energy. All large scale systems for storing electricity first convert the electricity to a more storable form of energy like heat or mechanical energy (like pumped storage), but where that alternative stored energy is itself useful it is not necessary to convert it back to the electrical form. In the case of thermal storage the important physical parameter is the exergy . An exergy store in a power grid can shift the power demand from a high-demand period to a low-demand period. It is barely distinguishable from having a huge battery in the power loop but it avoids the complexity and the energy losses that would be inherent in trying to convert the heat back into electricity.
“Unfortunately, although it is practical to store modest amounts of power generated from solar sources, there is no practical way to store the huge amounts of power necessary to overcome the intermittent nature of solar…”
There is now being build in Nevada a power station that by itself overcomes any intermittency question by storing 10 to 15 hours of heat to operate 24/7 from the sun: http://www.multivu.com/mnr/54637-solarreserve-world-s-largest-molten-salt-solar-tower-plant-zero-emission
Fabulous. Storing energy as heat is a wonderful approach. I predict it will catch on in a big way.
Frank,
My thoughts too!
It seems to me that conserving energy is going to be like wearing seatbelts – at first, obvious as prices rise and alternatives become more accessible and “easy”, then mandated. The first adopters will be those who like the “cool” factor – my lights are on when a winter storm takes down the wires in my neighbourhood.
The second (and much larger group) are those who get frustrated by the increasing cost vis a vis the cost of conservation and distributed renewable generation – I get to irritate my co-workers by bragging about how much I DIDN’T pay for energy, either because I got more insulation or more efficient appliances or my own panels or whatever.
The third group will be those whom society helps because they couldn’t afford to be in the second group.
The fourth and final group (I call them the “dinosaurs”) will be those who insist ’till the end in their inalienable right to burn expensive, smelly and increasingly scarce fossil fuels. They’ll keep Exxon afloat for a bit – but in the dark of night, they already know they’re doomed. So is Exxon.
If I were an Exxon shareholder, I’d be screaming for the company to diversify into renewables and conservation – it’s the only hope for long-term profitability. Too bad Exxon management isn’t into planning for the long term. (But not surprising – their bonuses come from this quarter’s figures, not this decade’s.)
(NB – by “Exxon”, I of course mean all the fossil fuel suppliers…)
I look foreward to wearing a very smug look when talking to even more of my neighbours .
In Europe, standards for energy efficiency are already mandated and are regularly being tightened – especially for new buildings, light bulbs, and vehicles. The standards for other appliances are also under review and or being tightened.
For older buildings, there is a legal requirement for anyone selling or renting out property (residential or commercial) to have an energy performance assessment carried out and report the outcome to the buyer or renter. Measures under discussion would require landlords to bring properties up to a standard of energy efficiency in order to legally rent out the property.
Our homes are surrounded by four sources of energy that is presently just going to waste (ground heat, heat from the air, solar heat and AC rejected heat). In northern areas they are capable of meeting all of the home’s needs for thermal energy (for both heating and cooling) and the system that employs them can also store electricity, which indirectly boosts the output from renewable energy sources. Thermal energy efficiency is NOT a significant objective, and it has a drawback in that an energy efficient home will have a lower capacity for storing electricity, which is usually the most economically important capability.
One of the problems with paying for improving energy efficiency is that the cost is not likely to be recovered on resale. That should change. If property buyers could easily and accurately take energy efficiency into consideration, then the cost of improving energy efficiency could be recovered on resale and there would be a greater incentive to improve energy efficiency.
Rental properties are another problem. Way back in the late 1960s, the most popular air conditioner for apartments was the least efficient and cheapest model (and the noisiest). That was because neither the building contractor nor landlord had any reason to care about the efficiency of the air conditioners, so the tenants were stuck with high power bills. Also, most tenants were unaware of the differences in efficiency of different air conditioners. And, air conditioners were absolutely essential for apartments, even in northern climates, because there was no cross ventilation.
CraIg
Why do you not accept the potential for simply storing heat and cold so that in most of the northern hemisphere we can meet most of our needs for energy by simply shuffling it back and forth between the seasons? The electricity that is used for driving the heat pumps for such storage systems can be consumed at night so its exergy is also stored, making it possible to level the power demand both seasonally and diurnally. In most northern areas we are currently using generation facilities that have about twice the capacity that we would need if we employed storage to meet the peak power demands. Stored energy is much cheaper than either nuclear or fossil fuel energy. Storage also makes it possible to boost the output of existing generation facilities, particularly hydro stations.
Ron Tolmie
http://sustainability-lournal.ca
Correction:
http://sustainability-journal.ca
Moving around terawatts of power and thousands of terawatt-hours of energy? Holy smokes. We’re a very long way from being about to do that cost-effectively, and there is no reason that we would ever get there, given the trajectory for renewables.
Most of the big buildings in downtown Toronto currently use seasonal storage of cold and there are examples of communities that employ seasonal storage of heat as well. The system described in http://sustainability-journal.ca provides heating, cooling and domestic hot water and it also stores electricity as well, which makes intermittent sources of electricity like hydro and wind power much more efficient. A cost comparison with existing technologies was provided in the September issue. It showed that the cost of such systems would be cheaper by tens of billions of dollars.in Ontario. If you are a homeowner living near an exergy store all you need for your house are heat exchangers and an air handler (no furnace or air conditioner). If you are an electricity supplier (hydro or wind) then you can distribute exergy stores close to the consumers that will match the electricity supply and demand, greatly increasing the productivity of the supply source. Both parties reduce both their capital and operating costs. Systems that attempt to provide a real-time match between the generation and consumption (i.e. what is currently considered “normal”) are absurdly expensive.
There are in fact communities already built on just this idea. Heat is collected in the summer and stored underground and then used in the winter. The system is known as seasonal thermal energy storage: http://thermalbatterysystems.com/2013/03/22/seasonal-thermal-energy-storage/
Actually, in northern climates, ice could be made during winter to be used for cooling during summer. Of course huge tanks would be required to do that. Making the ice would require no power since natural processes could be used to transfer the heat from the water to the atmosphere. It would take a careful study to determine whether the cost could be justified.
Ice is widely used for diurnal storage (for example for cooling buildings via ice made using cheap nighttime power) and there are examples of its use for seasonal storage. When I was a kid stored ice from ice houses provided the normal means for providing refrigeration. There is an IKEA in Denver that uses both forms of storage and that saves considerable amounts of money via reductions in daytime power consumption.
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. The overall concept isn’t totally unfeasible.
But I don’t understand what you mean by “boosting the output of existing generation facilities, particularly hydro stations.” If you mean hydro-electric dams, they offer dispatchable power; that’s the attraction, i.e., turning them on only when we need the power.
I suspect that when we talk about hydro power most people imagine something like the Hoover dam, which can store large amounts of potential energy for a long time because of its height and water volume, but most hydro stations are actually run-of-the-river generators that are usually designed with only enough storage capacity to handle daily fluctuations in demand. During high water flow periods such generators lose the extra energy potential because they cannot store it. However, if there is a means of storing the electricity then the full energy potential can be achieved so the station will deliver a lot more power. The river flow is the same but the number of turbines will need to be increased to take advantage of the higher flow rates. With an exergy store that increased output is “magnified” because the exergy store gets most of its energy from the four local sources of energy at the store’s site.
So, the oligarch, which owns and controls the government making the laws also owns the means of production, for the most part…. How is this a not a form of communism by another name??? Corporate government is also the same as how the third reich in Nazi Germany ruled with. Now the USA is in the same straights because it allowed it’s constitution and tax laws to be changed and thwarted by the oligarchy. How can this evolve into anything but another great world war of imperialist insanity. ………..This is the real pollution and subversion of the USA’s founding principals…………. Nuclear power plants are a significant part of the central control monopoly and corporate control of government. The irony is, we don’t really need them!! Only those who would believe in an “elitist investor class government” embrace the concept, because it is what they taught themselves as profitable for themselves, even tho they have proven far to costly on many levels for earthly reality. What the corporate controlled government really fears is that our society and world could actually be powered by a decentralized energy paradigm and program that allows everyone to partake and profit by simply providing the conventionally deferred costs to be reallocated to solar produced energy and funded by a broadly based carbon tax. I am seeing the largest oligarch yet to mine the value of our world is moving rapidly to ensure this idea will NOT be among the choices examined in truth for the greatest benefit of all.
There are signs that Saudi Arabia is seeing the writing on the wall, and knows that “The Feast” is coming to an end.
The current Saudi policy of refusing to reduce output to support prices implies that they may be concerned that much of their oil may become a “stranded asset” as we approach the point at which further extraction will result in disastrous levels of climate change.
If this is indeed their thinking, then it makes sense to extract their oil which has among the lowest extraction and refining costs in the world now so as to get as much share as possible of the remaining pie rather than leaving it in the ground and possibly not having a market in 40 to 50 years time.
What’s more, from their point of view, price volatility exposes the financial risk taken on by companies extracting high cost reserves like oil shale and fracked oil making future investment less likely and more expensive to finance. This of course forces other parties to slow their extraction or at the very least their exploration resulting in prices once again rising with less competition to produce.
Craig I am noticing among many of the comments and in the energy field in general a fairly rigid way of thinking. People are afraid of the unknown and the four related areas of pollution, global climate change, population and energy present many unknowns. Because the scale seems so vast it can even appear to be “unknowable.” The reaction is too often one of saying what “can’t” be done when the technology not only exists but is being implemented somewhere on the globe. The point I take from your article is that the renewable energy exists to satisfy all our present and anticipated needs. I would add that we seem to be mostly blind to the potential and specific applications.
We could make our homes and businesses energy self sufficient but we also have a long history of companies offering relatively cheap energy products that have pushed us away from such a goal. Now we are finding that those cheap energy products come with a massive pollution balloon payment.
I am concerned the same situation may exist for nuclear energy. Although nuclear energy seems to be a natural part of the Earth’s heat and environment this alone does not make it safe. While there may be some who would like to see a nuclear reactor in every home my reaction is mostly … why bother. We have the renewable energy. Let us see, truly see, what we can do with it.
I see your point. The pro-nuke people, at least the credible ones, argue that a) the rate at which the global climate is warming doesn’t allow us the time to build all this solar, wind, and storage–and b) that nuclear, even in its current incarnation, is far safer than most people understand.
I’m not convinced on point “b,” but I certainly am hoping that liquid fluoride thorium reactors can be built cost-effectively–and soon. LFTRs eliminate all the concerns: operation safety, waste disposal, and weapons proliferation.
We have already exceeded the Earth’s capacity to absorb GHG’s in the atmosphere. It is mandatory to stop using fossil fuels ASAP. In some places there may not be a practical alternative to nuclear power in spite of its cost and social warts but where the option is available a switch to renewable energy is more attractive. Exergy stores, which enhance the performance of renewable energy sources and produce their own energy as well, are particularly attractive because they are immediately viable, can be built in a matter of weeks, and can often provide a “one-stop solution” for both thermal and electricity needs. However, the first step is to divest ourselves of false assumptions like “the world is running out of energy”, “renewable energy needs laws and subsidies to compete”, “we need to employ all of the above”, etc.
It is entirely too easy to say something will take too long. In the US, nuclear is 20% of the energy mix with just over 100 reactors. Coal is presently just under 40%. A quick and dirty calculation tells us we would have to build about 200 reactors to eliminate coal. Reactors were taking 10 years to permit and build. I doubt we have the national resources to build 200 at the same time. 20 to 30 years sounds optimistic. If we want to change technologies 40 to 50 years+ is probably more realistic. Wind has captured 5% of the grid in less than 10 years and we have not presently harnessed any offshore wind generation. (4 times the potential of our entire usage.) The argument that renewable energy takes too long seems to lack substance be self-serving.
If I look at an admittedly overly simple stat: We have just over 400 power reactors worldwide. Two of them have had major meltdowns. Using the same stats above, I would not be surprised with at least one major meltdown in the US if we increased the grid percentage of Nuclear to even 60%. Thorium Reactors promise to be the answer to all the problems, but the the fact that we haven’t had them for the last 55 years reminds us that we were never told that the civilian nuclear program avoided them because of the military need to create weapons grade nuclear products. That leaves a bit of distrust and there is a lot to go around. I wonder what we don’t know.
Yet I am surprisingly curious about the possibility of using a (lifetime) nuclear battery in an otherwise electric car. Perhaps because it is not being “sold” by the same people.
.
Thinking of my own personal situation (based here in Central Ontario), 70 years ago my family would cut ice out of the lake and store it burried in sawdust. (Hmm, just occurs to me to wonder if the sawdust dried over the summer as the ice was used, then the sawdust reused…)
This ice was used for refrigeration for the rest of the year. My grandfather also built a 4×4 pit under the kitchen with a trapdoor in the kitchen floor. Food was stored there all year round – a sort of counterbalanced dumbwaiter lifted the trays up into the kitchen for easy access. (Ok, “easy” is a relative term…)
The point is that society got used to the “one size fits all” solution – electrically-powered refrigeration. I suspect that there are a lot of alternatives available, many used by earlier generations, which could be made far more efficient and effective. For example, I think the ground here stays about 8 or 9 degrees C all year round once you get down about 5 feet.
so why not have the 5 foot tall refrigerator sitting 5 -10 feet in the ground with the only electricity used for a winch to raise the food up to convenient height. If we need to add some additional “coolth” during the summer, use some of that ice burried in the sawdust.
Yes, there is a problem for those living on the 20th floor of an apartment block – but my guess is that there is some other low energy solution (evaporative cooling?) that might be useful there. We just need to get away from the idea that everyone has to use the same solution.
We all realize that time is crucial.
In my humble opinion making it do-able means being cost-effective, excellent marketing skills, and a living real model. That’s what our project proposes.
In Israel we are developing clear solar panels that will serve as windows or other surfaces allowing efficiently planned buildings to be off grid. They are more expensive than regular windows but allow the building to be off grid, therefore saving considerable amounts in energy costs.
Our home grown BEMS systems are presently marketed in 60 countries.
Ford and maybe others have created a solar family car that will also compete with the price of other fueled cars. Youtube had a short clip from over a year ago about Ford’s solar car, but for some reason the same staff was diverted to electric cars….
What GB proposes is to make it a “done-deal” by building a green off grid neighborhood and producing both the off grid buildings and solar vehicles with a model combination of a variety of sustainable energy options. As the Hamurabi Stockholm project, we strive to be a world learning –resource center for builders, citizens, leaders. This will ,Bs”d, be a place to see, experience ,get technical support, and soft & hardware for similar ventures around the world.
We are very close.
This is the time to invest in our future worldwide, please any one that can direct us to seed funding contact as soon as possible.
Thank you
Florine Gabai CEO
gismabracha@gmail.com
Why didn’t you accept my previous post? have anything to do with my location?
I recieved this in the e-mail
Here is one fact: U.S. gasoline and oil demand is surging.
That may surprise you, but it’s happening — and in a bigger way than anybody expected.
The reason that you haven’t heard about it?
The media isn’t going to write headlines on surging U.S. gasoline demand while oil prices are trading under $60 per barrel.
If the word “glut” can’t go in the title — forget it. Fear sells more than greed.
The fact is, gasoline use in the U.S. in January was 800,000 barrels per day higher than last year. That’s the highest increase since 1998!
Oil demand is growing even faster. We’re using 1.2 million more barrels per day than last year.
A bit sobering…..
It got caught in the spam filter for some reason; I just approved it.
And yes, a great number of economists say that lower prices or higher efficiencies result in more consumption, VMT (vehicle miles traveled) in this case.