Building-Integrated Solar PV (BIPV) Product—The Very Best in Class
I recently ran across a rapid-growth Atlanta, GA-based BIPV company whose product approach I particularly favor. As I told the executive team when I first met them, this represents an important find for me, since I spend a significant amount of time each year in researching the best solutions that are available in this swiftly expanding market. Recent cleantech media reports predict that BIPV will be the fastest growing solar industry segment, and I have every reason to believe this is true.
What do I mean by “best solution?” Check out the photographs here. It’s a combination of ingredients, all of which have to be present in order to generate success: ease of installation, high durability, low cost (about $4/Watt installed), and, perhaps most importantly: aesthetic appeal; we’ve all seen some entries in this space that are really atrocious to look at.
These people will soon be making a huge splash in the US, if I have anything to do with it. As shown here, their many years of R&D have produced a cost-effective, aesthetic roof tile solution with integrated solar cells featuring a unique, and fully patented hurricane resistant cooled and ventilated solar tile system. The system is made of recyclable material with easy MC4 connections.
The main advantages over existing solar panel systems include the following: the aesthetics of the roof design, their unique cooling system, flexibility of installation (new build or retrofit market) and high energy output. The product has the ability to withstand up to 150 mph hurricane winds; it’s 100% waterproof, and the price/Watt is similar to garden-variety PV panels but, of course, you get a real roof with long-lasting warranties.
The tiles’ aesthetics substantially improve the value of the home and resale potential compared to conventional solar panels. The product is both a solar panel and a roof tile, creating a leak-free covering for the entire roof. It can also be installed over existing shingle roofs, avoiding the time and cost of removing the old roof while utilizing the existing shingles as an additional insulation layer.
The solar tiles are made with US-made monocrystalline cells, the world’s preferred technology to convert sunlight into electricity. The product will be manufactured and distributed in different geographic markets by local partners who will hold the production and distribution rights for their respective markets.
The company is currently looking for investors and/or strategic partners to get mass production and distribution started for the Americas region for this fully “made in the USA” product line. If you are interested as an investor or strategic partner, please don’t hesitate to let me know and I’ll connect you with these people immediately. Also, if you plan to be in Southern California anytime during the week of Oct 12th, 2015, perhaps you’ll want to meet me at the company’s presentation that will be held in Los Angeles.
Outstanding articulation of the product. Good reading.
Glad you liked it; thanks for the kind words. If you’re interested in getting involved, please let me know.
Plan to be very involved. We have a “technology exchange” underway with Solusengineering.
I Enjoy the content rich discussions.
So are they selling this product currently? When I started looking into solar PV about the only option was Unisolar BIPV peel and stick 128 watt strips for use on standing seam metal roofs. Not great efficiency and not even mentioned on their website anymore that I could see but I found it here.
http://www.amazon.com/Unisolar-Flexible-Solar-Panel-Laminate/dp/B006EP6MCU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
I have always been interested in BIPV though and since I would have to have my 10 year old roof which is supposed to last 30 years replaced before anyone would mount a panel rack to my roof anyway I would just as soon consider this.
They’re offering in Europe, but not yet in the US; that’s largely the point of the current fund raise and search for strategic manufacturing partners.
Craig nice information and article on new roof BIPV. Good to see that serious efforts are being made to commercialize the BIPV concept into a format that can work in the mass residential market. The cost sharing economies of a dual function product that addresses real estate / home construction and consumer acceptance factors presents large upside benefits.
Uni solar efforts were first stage efforts and never got to the refined level the BIPV market requires for mass acceptance.
Owens Corning has had a similar product on the market for a few years now. It is integrated roofing and has merit but I don’t how much market acceptance they have reached despite their strong industry position.
google Powerhouse by Owens Corning
best wishes for success with this concept.
On a Higher level and collateral benefit to us all who love Freedom it will force the utilities to allow individuals to retain the right to own soalr on their homes. The Utility industry is just in the first stages of trying to own all utility scale and community scale solar to maintain their revenue and control over the end users. So go , go solar roof BIPV.
Packing this into a mortgage payment or 30 year roof warranty could be a real strong contender provided the panel efficiency’s a competitive with current formats.
Thanks Craig!
Yes, all this is coming together to forge an exciting new way into the future of homebuilding and home ownership. And yes, the Dow Corning product looks good as well: http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/.
I like this product and the concept.If interested we can have a discussion on the JV in Indian to take care of the Indian and other Asian markets.contact details : kkr212003@yahoo.com, +91 9444302323 +91 9790980417.
Sure. Please see my email.
There are people, even here in the U.S., who live in remote areas where connecting to the grid may never be practical. For them, the product surely has considerable merit. It could greatly improve the quality of their lives.
Let us hope that research on similar products continues and yields helpful results.
This excels!
Ha! Well put…..
In the UK, we also have ROMAG with a variety of integrated solar roof tiles.
http://www.romag.co.uk/latest/news/intecto-has-arrived/
Hi Craig,
BIPV and BAPV products can be an excellent method of integrating multi-purpose building materials into new construction and renovations. These are very worthwhile innovations, but it’s important that the products are of high quality and durability.
As others have commented, a large number of manufacturers have been producing similar products for many years. (improving all the time as the technology advances). Just glancing though my copy of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Power Technologies, Building-Integrated Photovoltaics for Commercial and Institutional Structures – A Source Book for Architects and Engineers, Industry Edition, reveals more than 300 hundred of such companies in the trade listings.
Many of these are large corporations with excellent reputations for quality and stability.
Your enthusiasm for the company and it’s product is very commendable, but the question must be asked, why do you believe that this small company, arriving somewhat late into the market has a superior product ? What about the product is superior to its industry rivals? What’s the cost comparison? ( Warranties are only as good as the stability of the company).
Marcopolo,
I am very interested in knowing who these other manufacturers
or distributors are for the BIPV
Could you name me a few. If you know a roof I can go and see
This would be great?
Thanks,
Mike
Hi Mike,
Firstly I don’t know where you live so it’s a little difficult to address your question !
Secondly, from the nature of your comment to Lawrence, I would hazard a guess that you either work in the solar industry, or would seem to be very conversant with the technology and products available already, is that not so ?
However, there’s no need to go to the expense of purchasing the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Power Technologies, Building-Integrated Photovoltaics for Commercial and Institutional Structures – A Source Book for Architects and Engineers, (Industry Edition). Just by googling BIPV or BAPV , will provide you with more 481,000 references.
The first twenty will provide you an amazing range of references to manufacturers and products. Narrowing your search to BIPV roof tiles will give you even more specialized products and manufacturers, for pictures try [https://www.google.com/search?q=bipv+roof+tiles+that+look+like+normal+tiles&biw=1024&bih=646&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCoQsARqFQoTCOGqsN6c1cgCFYeblAodorcKFQ ]
By further narrowing your search to localities, you wil find installations near you, etc
But then, you already know all that, don’t you ?
Marcopolo,
Thank you for the pictures of the different BIPV.
Just like Craig I am very interested in integrated solar tiles.
I noticed on the pictures SRS who went out of business 8 years ago.
They should update the pictures with what is available.
The other roof tiles most in orange color are from China and Italy.
They can not be installed over a shingle roof…to heavy and the roof can not
take the weight.
They are made of clay and have no UL and ICC certifications. Quality?
In the US you have Dow Power a nice product but not ventilated. Because of that
they have overheating problems. You can find pictures of this on the Internet.
The cost is very high and electrical output very low.
What ever your choice is better install solar because electric from the grid will
double in the next 10 years because of high demand from the industry and vehicles.
Thanks again,
Mike
Hi Craig thanks you for your observations on BIPV.
On the surface it would seem to be a very interesting topic, but dig a little deeper and it ignores the direction of the current global R & D focus on PV Sciences & Innovation in its own right, and focusses just on new PV Product Development based on the existing PV format that we all know about, typically the Flat Module/Cell format of PV. This is an important oversight that will make the BIPV discussion a little more complicated when duly considered.
That doesn’t mean BIPV shouldn’t be discussed though – of course it should, but the reality is that new PV Products based on the current PV format ignores the important next stage of development of PV science and innovation, which is already well advanced in R & D laboratories and research centres globally, and has been progressing for at least the last 5 years.
Stage 4 PV Sciences & Innovation has not yet been commercialised; but anybody who thinks that what we currently enjoy in the Flat Module/Cell PV format is the final chapter in the history of PV Science per se, is of course living in lala land.
So yes discuss BIPV by all means, I am a supporter of BIPV thinking, but at this point of time and applying some professional detachment and objectivity to the subject, my experience tells me that the current BIPV format thinking [Flat Modules/Cells format] is definitely “to little too late” and will not attract any serious financial support as a mainstream technology in the immediate future.
Stage 4 PV Science will move PV away from the traditional Flat Module/Cell format in favour of PV Dense Junction Technologies. Essentially this means moving from a format characterised by inefficient “PV Junction Area” to one characterised by highly efficient “PV Junction Volume” which will offer quite astonishing increases in “PV Systems Efficiency” through increased energy density PV formats, which translates directly to much lower costs per energy unit.
Stage 4 PV research and development focus has been principally on identifying the means to create high energy density PV formats for some years now.
Current BIPV product concepts if commercialised, therefore run a high risk of becoming stranded assets [or overwhelmed assets by new PV formats coming on stream in the next 5 years] quite quickly in my opinion, but I still enjoy reading about BIPV product innovation.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Your point about the rapidly developing nature of technology, is very valid. This is especially true when you consider marketing products which are intended to have a long life-span.
However, like you, I agree that reading about all the innovative new technologies struggling for commercialization is not only fascinating, but gives confidence in the ability on humans to find solutions, and adopt new methods of increasing the quality of human life.
Laurence,
What matters: is the BIPV made of existing experienced materials?
Is the solar panel made by a certified ISO and certified TUV and UL manufacturer.
Is the cost of the BIPV the same as the large solar panels? Yes?
Is the solar roof tile ICC certified Yes?
Is this roof tile ventilated?
Do they have roofs build with the solar roof tiles?
If all this is actually there you have a winner!
Is the cost per Kwh under the 0.10$/Kwh. Excellent.
If yes you will have electric power output for under 0.10$/Kwh for 25 years.
We know that electric companies will charge you average 0.30$/Kwh average over 25 years.
Dense junction Technologies has no experience and will take long before they do.
Look to what you have available now and check on what could be the future!
The existing technology is excellent and trustworthy!
Go for existing BIPV
Mike
Regardless of how efficient PV systems become, and they could become much more efficient, there is still the problem of intermittency. Of course PV systems are already practical and helpful in niche situations, but to become practical on the scale necessary to generate most of the world’s power huge amounts of storage would be required. Although advances in battery technology have occurred, it would be unwise to hang the future of civilization on a technology that may never exist.
Freggersjr,
I fully agree with you.
I was just thinking about residential home.
In the future many more power system will come to the market.
Just thing about this. A Kwh cost now between the 0.13 and 0.18$/kwh
Within 10 years this will double. The cost for solar power is now under 0.08$/kwh
and will stay that way for 25 years.
Everybody will use more electric power in the future,home electric,cars,motor cycles etc.
In the Caribian a Kwh cost about 0.40$/kwh.
Certain countries in the world depend on foreign oil they better think about being independent.
Who ever invests in solar will be a winner.
You are right about certain countries’ depending on foreign oil. I lived in Fiji from 1994 to 2004. Their hydro systems sometimes run low on water forcing them to use Diesel power which is exceedingly expensive. It may be that using PV power when available could prevent the hydro systems from running out of water thereby eliminating the need to use Diesel fuel. If not, at least it would reduce the amount of Diesel fuel required.
There are remote villages in Fiji that will probably not be connected to the grid in the foreseeable future. Previously the ones which had electricity (many did not) got it from Diesel generators which were automatically started at sundown and ran until about 11:00 PM. Those are being replaced with PV systems and apparently are working well. It is possible that sometime in the future economical and safe micro nuclear power systems could become available, but that remains to be seen.
I definitely favor doing R & D on PV systems because they do have important niche applications, but I very much doubt that they will ever meet a major portion of global demand for power. As for wind, it may have some use but probably not in the several countries which often have hurricanes.
Fiji, a number of years ago, built a wind farm consisting of wind generators which could be tilted down as hurricanes approached, but they seem not to be economically justifiable even though they have reduced Diesel fuel consumption. Gigantic huge wind generators are much more economical than small ones but they cannot be tilted down to protect them from hurricanes.
@ freggersjr
It’s true that Solar and other alternate forms of energy can’t replace traditional forms of power production for industrial societies. ” Power on demand ” generation will always be incompatible with intermittent supply, and the problems of storage is an immense hurdle to overcome.
However, small scale energy conserving and even energy producing building products incorporated into building design, provide the householder, or commercial property owner, with some economic and benefits and should be encouraged.
No technology remains ‘cutting edge ‘ forever, and that’s true of Solar panels, tiles, etc.Solar Collectors will undergo many design changes as the technology advances, but that doesn’t mean an investment in what the individual finds suits their current needs should be put off because it might get outdated. (If we all did that, we’d never buy anything !).
Investing in the marketing of any individual company or product is a different story. It’s foolhardy to invest in the success of any company or product, without a lot of objective due diligence or the “investment” becomes little more than an emotional gamble. (Not that there’s anything wrong with a purely speculative gamble, but only if you can afford to lose).
The field of alternate energy-green products is littered with trillions of dollars of lost investment in “heroic’ (and less heroic), investment. (some schemes were always just plain barking mad).
But free enterprise is all about making and losing money. It’s when governments become involved that the playing field becomes more complicated.
Governments have a right, indeed a duty, to enter the market place as both financiers and consumers on behalf of the taxpayer as part of their obligation to manage national economies. The problems begin when governments use their regulatory powers to ensure a chosen investment succeeds.
Governments are no better than individuals or corporations at picking ‘winners’. It fact, governments judgement is often influenced by political or ideological considerations advanced by unqualified people resulting in inefficient,detrimental schemes kept in existence by government regulation and patronage.
All governments struggle with the need to balance political and ideological considerations against the need for appropriate levels of regulatory administration. Appropriate regulation can be beneficial to the development of industry, investment, consumers etc. Inappropriate regulation can prove disastrous.
Nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel, especially coal, has long been politically fraught with ideological and safety concerns. The industry has been demonized by being associated with Nuclear weapons, sensationalized stories of “meltdowns” and nuclear ‘incidents’.
It doesn’t matter that the industry has the best record for safety of any large scale power generation. The awesome potential power of the technology serves as a sort of evil demon for writers of screen plays and sensationalized, lurid rants.
The fact that nuclear technology has moved on since the 1950’s type of construction, and is almost completely unrecognizable from the industry of decades ago, doesn’t affect the opponents of the technology since their objections are based on ideology and ignorance, rather then scientific knowledge.
Decision makers in the Western World find long term planning difficult due to the short life expectancy of political administrations. It’s easier to get elected by promoting the popular romantic policies of today, rather than promote unpopular policies with a political payoff occurring decades after the politician has left office.
Therefore, it’s not surprising to see a technology invented in the West but discarded for ideological reasons, taken up by Asian economic rivals as a method of acquiring economic industrial ascendancy in the decades to come.
While Western intelligentsia delight in the self- indulgent decay of Western economics, increasing industrial irrelevance and lack of competitiveness, other more focused nations exploit our weakness.
Here’s a little reality check for the IEA. The IEA estimates the current percentage of Global energy form Solar and Wind is about 0.4 %. In 2040, if all governments implement all thier green promises, and if all the energy produced can be made “usable”, that figure may rise to 2.2%.
So far this has been achieved at a cost of nearly $ 280 billion in addition to ongoing subsidies. (Solar and Wind also need replacement in relatively short time periods).
Now the IEA may be wrong, but it has a record of enthusiastically supporting green projects so it’s estimates are unlikely to prove pessimistic.
In contrast, $ 280 billion spent on Thorium Reactors, would produce 1000 times more power, without subsidies (in fact show a profit) for at least 5 times longer. Not only would the produce vastly more power, but “on demand” removing the need for fossil fuel generation when weather condition were adverse.
But maybe the IEA is wrong,……..
It’s interesting that nuclear power still tends to be associated with nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons using uranium need uranium which is enriched to about 90% U235 whereas natural uranium is about 0.7% U235 with the rest being U238. Enriching natural uranium consists of throwing away U238 until what is left is the desired percentage of U235. In earlier times the only method to do that was gaseous diffusion which was a slow, expensive, and power-intensive process. However, weapons can use plutonium instead of uranium. For that reason, nuclear reactors were built to transmute uranium into plutonium. But now that we have ultra ultra high speed centrifuges to enrich uranium, there is little reason to build nuclear reactors to produce plutonium. Thus the most expeditious path to nuclear weapons is to use centrifuges to enrich uranium instead of using nuclear reactors to produce plutonium. That means that there is no longer a direct association between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
Then there is the matter if Iran. Our current nuclear power reactors require that the natural uranium be enriched to from 3% to 5% U235. That is nowadays done with centrifuges. However, the same technology used to enrich uranium for nuclear power reactors is exactly the same technology that is used to enrich uranium for weapons; it just takes longer and requires more centrifuges. Thus, it may be that the reason Iran wants a nuclear power reactor is to give it an excuse to have centrifuges to make weapon grade uranium, i.e., uranium enriched to 90% U235.
If we were using thorium instead of uranium to produce power, then Iran would have no excuse to have centrifuges to enrich uranium since, once started, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) needs no more uranium.
Incidentally, the Chernobyl reactor was designed to produce plutonium; the fact that it also produced power was simply an added benefit. When a reactor produces plutonium, it then uses the plutonium as fuel. Thus, to maximize the amount of plutonium, it is necessary to remove the fuel when the amount of plutonium is at its peak. For that reason, the Chernobyl reactor was designed so that individual fuel rods could be removed and replaced while the reactor was running. It used tons of graphite as a moderator. During a dangerous test, which included disabling the safety devices, it is believed that the power output briefly increased to at least 1,000 times normal! That caused a steam explosion which blew up the reactor and destroyed the warehouse-type building around it. The excessive heat set the graphite on fire which burned for days spreading radioactive contamination far and wide. Fortunately the pressurized water reactors we are using, although not a good design, are far safer and are surrounded by a heavy concrete containment structure. They don’t use graphite either. They are far safer.
Well said ! As usual, an excellent and informative comment. Can you imagine any other still judged by obsolete, 60 year old technology ?
Marcopolo,
You probably also have read the history of the LFTR, know why R & D on it was cut off, and know why instead the pressurized water reactor was chosen to provide power. Yes, as you say, it is a 60 year old technology, but if a better nuclear technology had been chosen in the first place it might still be a very good one even after 60 years.
It is a continual source of frustration that here in the U.S. the politicians are afraid even to say the word “nuclear”, including even those who are very well informed and would support nuclear power if they did not see it as political suicide. It may be that the same thing is true in Oz. Probably that is a temporary problem, but temporary can be a long time thereby causing problems to multiply.
I don’t think that clear thinking people are unalterably opposed to renewables. It’s just that we recognize their limitations but see them as very useful in special circumstances.
You are quite correct, it’s not just in the US where the word “nuclear” is produces such a negative reaction. Rational discussion of any form of nuclear technology is politically almost impossible in most western nations.
Decades of campaigning by anti-nuclear protesters has left nuclear technologies with a stigma that’s hard to overcome. In addition, politically the nuclear power industry has suffered from a 60 year old campaign by the political left, who formed much of their early political ideological training around such movements as ” ban the bomb ” and anti-nuclear.
$ Trillions have been spent on developing renewable power generation. The problems betting most renewable technologies are not because of the limitations of the technologies in themselves, but because they have been inappropriately applied to fulfill ideological and philosophic dynamics beyond their capacity.
Germany is paying the price for a politically popular, but appalling irrational decision to scrap domestic nuclear power generation.
Carbon taxes, emission trading, etc are all anti-industrial schemes that must inevitably cripple the competitiveness of those nation that impose such schemes. The claim “some one much provide leadership” is a delusional bleat, only heard in western nations.
Low cost “on demand” energy production is a basic element in any nations industrial economy. The US, followed by the rest of the western world, has indulged in an orgy of self-loathing and economic self-harm for decades. The delighted acceptance by leftist western writers and intellectuals at the decay of Western values and prestige is very evident.
Sadly, the hardest hit by these policies are the Western working class and poor who see their jobs exported to trade rivals, and their nations accumulating vast debt (mostly borrowed from those trade rivals) to finance self-indulgent middle class technologies that make their nations even less economically viable.
The industrial trade rivals to the West, possess no such ideological or philosophic considerations. These nations quite rightly, can’t believe their good fortune in finding competitors with large influential groups of citizens eagerly sabotaging the ability of Western nations to compete!
It’s tragic that no lessons have been learned from the economic and environmentally disastrous results from Jimmy Carter’s experiment of producing ethanol from US corn. ( But then the US learned nothing from the Volstead act either)
Solar energy certainly has a place in zero emission energy production, just as Wind, Hydro and Geo-thermal technologies can make useful contributions.
However, none of these technologies can meet the needs of low cost power production on an industrial scale, except nuclear. Oddly, despised ” nuclear ” power generation is also a form of Solar power since the sun itself is a huge nuclear reactor.
Marcopolo
I like the way you see the future of energy. I also think that nuclear is a important part of the solution. But all this is not without danger.
France is the number one in the nuclear technologies.
I suggest you read about the problems “Areva” has building the latest technlogy nyclear power plant in Flamanville France. They are 6 years behind schedule and will cost 3 times planned budget. It could even be they will have to stop the project!
Areva will also start building with the Chinese 2 nuclear plants in England ?
Take note that Westinghouse was sold to China. Profitabilty of the company was no there.
To many technical problems with no solutions yet!
Yes I beileve in nuclear but it will not be as easy as people think.We will have main safety problems before we will see the safe and profitable nuclear power plants.
In the mean time we can build solar and wind farms who are safe while we build and look for solutions for new generation nuclear.
Mike,
As part of what is necessary to phase out nuclear power, Germany is building more coal powered plants. They are also importing power from outside of Germany, including France which gets about 75% of its power from nuclear reactors. Their CO2 emissions are actually increasing.
France went from 0% nuclear to 80% nuclear for electricity in, if I correctly recall, 17 years, thereby showing that nuclear power can be quickly increased.
It’s not surprising that France is having trouble with new reactors of a different design. Many things besides nuclear power go way over budget, especially if initial expectations are overly optimistic. I remember working on a software project which was ill conceived, ill designed, and ill executed. In a futile attempt to get back on schedule, the company added more and more people which just slowed things down. When the project was a few years behind schedule, it was cancelled with a loss of many $millions. The stockholders never found out. The company is a large one and very well known. That’s the biggest software blunder that I personally know of, but I know first hand of many smaller blunders. Moreover, new technology could not be used as an excuse; it was not new technology.
We can expect more problems as new nuclear technologies are developed; that is the nature of new technologies.
Without an adequate power storage technology wind and solar power don’t have a chance of making a major dent in the CO2 emissions problems although they are still quite useful in certain niche situations. Of course R & D on power storage technologies should continue because even if renewables never become practical on a large scale, the ability to store large amounts of power economically would help to keep the grid stable as power demand and supply vary.
Mike and freggersjr ,
No energy generation technology comes without cost and development problems. Low cost high yield energy that can be up-scaled to provide convenient power on demand is the holy grail for any advanced economy.
In measuring the viability of any power generation technology, it’s important to clearly set out a set of objectives in prioritized order. (This is where many advocates get kinda fuzzy !)
Ideological, philosophic and political rhetoric only serve to confuse objectivity, and exploit the resulting confusion to replace rational objectivity with passionate “belief” .
This is where I differ from Craig, Cameron and others who seem to see energy generation technology as a sort of ideologically based opportunity to resuscitate old fashioned leftist political agenda’s. It’s my belief that any energy program constructed around any ideology will inevitably lead to failure and corruption.
Once the passion, “belief’ and ideology is removed, it becomes possible to decide on a set of objectives and prioritize those objectives. Once that’s been accomplished I have absolute faith in the ability of the human race to produce the best technology.
Marcolopo and Freggersjr
Thank you for your Reply. I agree we need to keep looking for safe solutions for nuclear.
The only point I wanted to make was that while we are looking for new solutions
for nuclear we can do other things.
When I talk about energy I talk about the world solutions and I am not looking to any particular country and not interested in politics.
I urge you to look to technologies developed in certain countries.
Germany and Japan decided to stop nuclear? Do you think they have a reason?
They have top engineering and if they would see solutions on safety in the future they would not abandon the technology. They are using more brown coal today since nuclear is not safe.
Do not think for a second I am against nuclear but I am very concerned about safety.
In a poll in EU on the question do you want a nuclear power plant build within 150km from your home? 95% said no ! Meaning people do not trust nuclear!
In the US only 6 nuclear plants are being build for the moment. In China 22.
We know it is a needed technology because it is the only one able to produce big quantities
at low prices. That is why we keep working so hard to find solutions.
Also look to the Northern countries in EU they are already past 30% on renewable energies.
Can we learn from them?
We certainly can learn from the past and mix with the future and come up with new solutions!
There are millions of smart scientists in the world thinking about this problem some of them actually coming up with solutions.
Personally what ever I can do to change this world a little bit I will not hesitate for a second to do it!
@ Mike
Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal and even Biomass are all technologies being diligently pursued in Europe and other parts of the world. The problem is that they are expensive and unreliable.
Energy production for an industrial society can’t be based on an ideological concept and the figures adjusted to suit the philosophy.
If the contribution made by Hydro-and Geo-thermal generation is removed, and only “usable” renewable power generation is counted (that which is used, not generated and dumped) then the figures for renewable power in the EU looks pretty miserable. The actual figures look even worse since the addition of intermittent power make the grid less efficient as power is constantly being dumped, or “ramped up” by conventional means when demand peaks and renewable production lessens.
National electricity grids were not designed to cope with constant power surges. The cost of maintenance and reconstruction is seldom configured into the costings for renewables.
That’s not to say the development of Wind and Solar (especially CSP) isn’t valuable and storage methods can’t be developed further to solve some of the problems, but it’s an inherently inefficient method of harnessing energy from the sun. The sun has already provided high grade concentrated energy in the form of radio-active material.
Safety :
It’s unfortunate that uranium became the basis of the nuclear energy industry, resulting in all forms of nuclear energy becoming associated nuclear weapons.
Popular prejudice, and political cowardice shouldn’t measure of the value of any technology. In fact the safest, most efficient, lowest cost, zero-emission method of producing industrial scale energy is nuclear, especially if that nuclear is derived from Thorium etc.
The image of the “dangerous” nuclear plant, with it’s infamous huge cooling towers, is completely outdated. A modern thorium plant can be built underground, and occupy an relatively small area located in a city block. Thorium plants can’t make weapons grade material, can’t “explode’ , contaminate, or ” melt down “.
In fact, its probably safe to say that Thorium is probably the safest, least polluting of all forms of power generation, including wind and solar !
The energy produced from one ton of thorium equals 3,500,000 tons of Coal !
It’s maybe significant that a corporation ( Aker Solutions) from the the “greenest ” of all the EU countries, Norway purchased the unused US patent for an ” Energy Amplifier for Nuclear Energy Production driven by a Particle Beam Accelerator ” Aker Solutions believes this is the key to producing thorium reactors. ( the patent is the work of Italian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia)
The Norwegian government has commissioned Aker to develop small 600 megawatt reactors designed to be located located underground near to power demand, able to supply small grids. This would dramatically reduce distribution costs and associated dangers. These plants could be built at a cost of less than $500 million. The Japanese, using similar technology estimate even lower cost for physically smaller but 1000 megawatt plants.
Waste : Not only do thorium reactors produce only a tiny amount of waste, the toxic life of the waste is less that 300 years. In contrast to other technologies, thorium reactors can utilize and dispose of the highly toxic waste from uranium reactors, and even nuclear warheads ! ( 10 years waste from a 1000 megawatt thorium reactor, wouldn’t fill a shoe box).
An equivalent wind farm, would cost several $ billion, with the added disadvantage of high costs of maintenance, land use, noise, danger to wild life, visual pollution, and transmission problems, all to produce a 25-35 year power generating system that will only produce power, when the wind blows !
Eevn in nation with an abundance of sun and cheap desert land like Morocco, a 1000 megawatt Solar power plant would cost up to $ 2-4 billion, but still only produce intermittent power. ( and huge transmission losses).
Mining and refining thorium is relatively economic and environmentally acceptable.
Developing a market for thorium would also help the rare earth industry utilized by so many green-technologies Thorium is present in rare earth ores, making tailing slightly radioactive, creating environmental problems in the processing phase. Having an avenue to sell the extracted thorium would change the whole dynamics of rare earth processing.
No technology is perfect, but thorium has just too many benefits too be ignored.
Mike,
In the early days of cars, cars had to be hand-cranked to start them. Sometimes, usually because the driver forgot to retard the ignition, the engine would kick backward while being cranked often causing the person doing the cranking to break his arm. In about 1914 a GM executive actually died of complications of a broken arm resulting from cranking a car. Perhaps a solution would have been to say that cars were too dangerous and they should be discontinued. However, they used a different approach: they developed the electric starter thereby eliminating the need for hand cranking.
In the 1970s it was discovered that the gasses used as refrigerants, such as R12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) and R22 (dicloromonofluoromethane), were depleting the ozone layer which, if it continued, would have serious consequences. There were calls to phase out refrigeration. Of course cooler heads prevailed and we started using different gasses as refrigerants thereby solving the problem without forcing us to do without refrigerators and air conditioning.
It would seem most reasonable to treat nuclear power in the same manner, i.e., to develop better nuclear technologies to eliminate the problems associated with out current pressurized water reactors. Work is being done to do that, but unfortunately without much current input from the U.S. The risks associated with our current nuclear technology are so much lower than the risks of continuing to burn fossil fuels that it would make sense to expand our current nuclear technology as fast as possible while concurrently developing a better nuclear technology.
Yes, there is a reason that Germany and Japan are attempting to phase out nuclear power. The reason is that public opinion is greatly swayed by endless shallow messages (sound bites) which convey little factual information. In somewhat earlier times news reporting had considerably more depth in that it included considerable background information; that is no longer true. If people were chosen at random probably it would be found that few actually understand WHY the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters occurred, nor would they be able to put the consequences into some context to evaluate the seriousness. They would also be unaware of the many types of nuclear reactors that are possible.
It is true that some European countries are running on about 30% or more renewable power, FOR ELECTRICITY. However, there is a big difference between 30% for electricity and the 90% FOR EVERYTHING which will probably be necessary to limit global warming to a tolerable limit. And, as the percentage of renewable power increases, the next increment becomes more difficult.
I suggest checking out the following two articles by Dr. James Hansen, a well respected climate scientist and professor:
http://seekerblog.com/2013/11/25/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/
http://seekerblog.com/2015/03/09/james-hansen-calls-out-big-green-its-the-money-that-drives-their-anti-nuclear-dogma/
Freggersjr and Marcopolo,
It is certainly nice to have all these conversations and I am learning out of it.
No more need to convince me of nuclear energy. I am convinced we need it! But not everywhere! Remember there is nuclear waist and the dangers are real and I am not even talking about in times of war what the enemy would do? Bomb…or do you think history does not repeat himselve?
I order to know what we can do to help change a little bit this world we need more than nuclear energy. A famous German company is helping to find solutions.
I suggest you to look to or google “Viesmann fuel cell heating and power unit”.
The plan in Germany is having by 2023 all nuclear gone and replaced with other solutions.
Many start ups are looking for solutions and will come up with different solutions.
The new hybride homes are also a big help.. They spend zero money on heating and cooling a year by simply insulating better and different ventilating of homes and offices.
It is mainly a combination between a solar roof and a heat pump to reach the zero home.
I know in person in EU engineering offices just making studies and executing projects with guarantees of zero cost on energy.
In the States we are far away from these hybrid homes but doable in a very short time span.
The same solar roof in let’s say Berlin would more than double the output in L.A.
No need for a heat pump. Also a solar roof installed on a home in Berlin just cost completely finished 1,20 EU/watt. The U.S pricing is very high. Or people use Solar City or Vivent and do not know the price at all? Vivent owned by Blackrock will need at least 15% return on investment. More competion is needed in Solar! A solar panel made by the best company cost FOB country of origine cost 0.35$/watt.
Another way to help. We are using In many homes hot air to heat and cool. The same air is just treated in heat or cold air and punched back in the home over and over again
Because of that air in the homes is more polluted than outside in the street!
Nobody talks about it but this would make a major change in bringing pollution down!
Just by mixing 10% frech air with existing would make a big change with limited cost and improve health.
Please keep making your interesting comments we all learn out of it.
If you know about existing technologies or new helping the environment I would love to hear from you!Thanks.
Mike,
You are quite correct, small scale energy saving, environmentally friendly building products can be a great way for individuals to make a contribution.
Germany is not such a great example. Energiewende is proving to be an economic disaster, but the German economy is still strong enough to indulge the luxury of an illusion that Nuclear power can be phased out and be replaced by Wind and Solar. In reality, Germany is using more coal (even reopening old coal fired plants) and buying power from French and Czech nuclear power generation.
The best and probably only economic method of dealing with existing nuclear waste, is with a thorium nuclear reactor ! As i said elsewhere, Thorium produces only relatively tiny amounts of waste, and even that waste has a very short toxic life span.
Nor are Thorium power plants any more sensitive to military attack than conventional power plants. (certainly less vulnerable than Wind or Solar ) . A thorium power plant is pretty well impervious to terrorist attack.
Mike,
I have a heat recovery ventilation system to prevent the build up of airborne toxins in my house. They are especially important in houses which are tightly sealed to improve energy efficiency. You can find more information on this with a google search on “heat recovery ventilator”. On the other hand, because I like natural light and the view of the mountains, I have considerably more glass area than would be recommended for energy efficiency. Regardless of how efficient windows are, they insulate considerably less well than well insulated walls.
Regarding cooling, absorption cooling systems can be driven by solar heat. For more information you can do a google search on “solar absorption chiller”. However, I haven’t studied these carefully enough to know whether they would make economic sense. Absorption cooling systems generally have a coefficient of performance (COP) of about 0.85 whereas conventional electric systems have a COP exceeding 3.0, but if there is plenty of free heat available, the low COP wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.
Most web sites dealing with energy issues are highly censored and delete comments that do not toe the line of the sponsor. However, Craig permits, and even encourages, free discussion and does not censor differing opinions. That enhances the educational value of the website.
Here is an interesting article about the significance of the power required for cooling:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/cold-economy-cop21-global-warming-carbon-emissions?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Version+A&utm_term=133885&subid=16069125&CMP=ema_565a
And, as the world becomes warmer, the demand for cooling will increase.
@ freggersjr
Well, the article appeared in the Guardian, so it’s not very historically accurate and a bit preachy, but interesting nonetheless.
There is a lot of R&D going into Solid State heat pumps. I have a fairly substantial investment in producing Ceramic Solid state heat pumps for use in the Wine industry (Solid State is better for red wine storage as it’s free of vibration ).
But your concern is valid, and relevant to the original theme of Craig’s article. There’s a lot of innovative new products that can be incorporated in building design to produce more environmentally friendly construction.
I’m sure you didn’t mean to say that the article is inaccurate because it appeared in The Guardian.
marcopolo,
Solid state heat pumps have been around for decades, mostly in the form of portable coolers or for laboratory purposes. The problem is that because of low efficiency they were not suitable for most purposes. If the efficiency problem can be solved and prices are reasonable, presumably they could make mechanical systems obsolete overnight and investors in the technology could become instant millionaires. The importance of efficiency would depend on circumstances so they could perhaps replace traditional cooling systems in some situations but not all situations. What works for cooling can generally work for heating also.
When my new house was in the design phase, I considered insulated concrete forms. However, even though they would have resulted in higher building efficiency, the cost was excessive so I settled for 2 x 6 studs for exterior walls instead of 2 x 4 so I have thicker insulation than standard. Changed circumstances could result in more buildings being constructed with insulated concrete forms. There is also room for improved efficiency for windows. Regardless of what future sources of power will be, it makes sense to use power more efficiently as long as the cost of doing so can be justified.
Regarding the Guardian, one has to be careful with many sources of information since few can be relied upon to be totally accurate and objective. Even so, they can be useful sources if one considers their limitations. However, the Guardian article does seem reasonable even if it is a bit speculative. In any case we can expect the demand for cooling to increase.
Hi Craig,
Not necessarily, but the Guardian does tend to publish articles which are more advocacy than unbiased reportage. Columnists like George Monbiot etc, tend to create the impression of bias.
A great newspaper should encourage informed debate, reporting and criticizing without fear or favour. Obviously it’s accepted that columnists are biased, and expressing opinions rather than facts, but the editorial policy should contain balance, or the media outlet simply becomes a means of disseminating propaganda.
I remember many years ago in Australia, the wry observation by Rupert Murdoch on the attitude of the very right-wing media baron Sir Frank Packer. Murdock used the desperate last days of the leftist government of PM Gough Whitlam as an example of media bias:
Murdoch told a fictional tale of all the press being called to Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra where the desperate PM announced he was going to dumbfound his critics by proving he could walk on the water of Lake Burley Griffen !
To the amazement of the assembled press corp, he not only walked across the Lake, but returned without getting his trouser cuffs wet !
The nations newspapers all carried the headline “Whitlam walks on Lake Burley Griffin” !
All. that is, except for Frank Packer’s Daily Telegraph, which announced ” Once Again Whitlam fails to swim Lake Burley Griffin “!
Murdoch was using the story to illustrate the fine line between catering to the taste and appetite of a target audience, and pig-headed bias.
Sadly, todays media outlets must more than ever cultivate dwindling audiences, leaving little room for well researched, measured debate.
Marcopolo,
Unfortunately I have to agree with you regarding the media. Few media sources provide adequate background information. I just finished reading “God and Government” by rev. Barry W. Lynn. He is a strong advocate of complete separation of church and state and the executive director of American United for the Separation of Church and State. Among other things he covers the triviality of debates and the expectation that questions about complex issues can be answered in one or two short sentences in accordance with the public’s demand for simple answers and solutions. He also covers the problem of making statements that cannot be twisted by the media to mean something different from what was intended.
It is very difficult to provide the public with adequate and thorough information. Ill informed public opinions force politicians to make poor decisions to the detriment of all of us.