Analyzing the Data Fairly: Is Renewable Energy Really "Green?"
![](http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww83/craigshields/Shordingers_equation.jpg "Analyzing the Data Fairly: Is Renewable Energy Really "Green?"")
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who struggle with the math and logic of renewables. After all, I’m one of them.
It’s not that I’m bad at math per se; rather, it’s that there are dozens of different ways to use numerical calculations to compute the relative value of each of our energy alternatives. To illustrate the point, here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post article earlier this year whose purpose was to dispel five myths concerning clean energy:
Myth #1: Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations.
But exactly how concerned should the reader be that a PV array is 8 times less efficient per square meter than a nuclear power plant? Does this have any real meaning? I’m not sure the issue with power plants is that we’re running out of room for them. Isn’t it a far more important concern, by a factor of maybe a thousand, that our current energy solutions produce waste products that are destroying the planet?
OK, I grant that the space required for the plant in question has some level of meaning. And, as I learned through the process of writing my book: Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies, there truly are “tough realities” (as I call them) as they apply to natural habitats. But if you’re going to be fair in presenting facts that would dispel that “myth,” wouldn’t it be interesting to at least acknowledge ideas like:
1) The cost of building the array vs. the nuke – in dollars, as well as environmental factors?
2) The fact that a PV array uses no fuel (except for sunlight)?
3) That operational disasters like Chernobyl are not possible with PV?
4) That embarking upon the process that a legitimate nation (or rogue state) goes through to refine nuclear fuel puts it at a huge advantage in the development of nuclear weapons?
5) That PV doesn’t make waste that needs to be stored — far away from all living things — for half a million years?
Perhaps the lesson here is that we have so much data that it’s hard to put it all into perspective. Maybe the author of this Washington Post article actually meant well, but fell into the same trap that takes down so many of us: we have data coming of out our ears. We have parameters on top of our parameters. We’re swimming in information with no way to sort out the important from the trivial.
Here’s a promise I’m prepared to make: if you tell me what you’re trying to prove vis-à-vis the energy industry, I’ll give you at least one way (probably several) to use ready-to-hand data that I guarantee will demonstrate exactly that, while minimizing the importance of contrasting data, or, better yet, ignoring it altogether.
Hey! This could be a new career path: advisor to those whose goal is to deceive an energy-hungry and largely clueless public with meaningless statistics! I could promote myself as ….
Nah.
And you leave out possibly the most important point which is that the space PV’s cover is irrelevant if they are rooftop mounted. This area has already been alienated from natural systems so there is no net change in landcover usage from installing rooftop PV’s.
This directly addresses the point in the original article. Hence, in my opinion, a better rebuttal
Regards
David
Excellent point; I forgot about that.
Although it’s true that when PV panels are mounted on roofs the space they require is unimportant, there are other consideration.
Before mounting PV panels on a roof, it is important to consider the life of the roof and the likelihood of having to repair the roof. I found that out the hard way with a solar water heater. Repairing the roof would probably require removing the PV panels. However, if a very durable metal roof is used, that may not be a problem, but it would not be a good idea to mount PV panels on an asphalt roof.
Also, there should be easy and convenient roof access to expedite cleaning the PV panels else an accumulation of dust would eventually greatly reduce their output. In some climates, snow on the panels would be a problem.
Roof top PV panels are probably more suited for remote areas in poor countries where connecting to the grid is not practical. A modest amount of power to recharge cell ‘phones and power a few efficient LED lights to enable children to do their school work more easily can greatly improve the lives of people in poor countries. It doesn’t require much storage to provide continuous power when needs are minimal and when people can tolerate doing without power occasionally. However, as a significant source of power for large developed countries, I don’t see PV power as being a good choice.
Check out this link to see how helpful PV panels are for people in poor countries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/science/earth/25fossil.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage
Myth 1 lost credibility immediately. I have a PV panel that produces 27W (on a good day). SIze is a smidgen less than 0.3sqm. Thus 3 x 27W per sqm, with a bit of space left over. Not 56W per sqm.
Some writers use what position and skills they have to influence public opinion. All writers are not necessarily thinkers who look beyond their preconcieved ideas for inspiration. And unfortunately not all readers have the capacity, training, skills, or just inclination for critical thinking. But what can we do when uninspired writing meets a reader who will blindly follow what is written. Critical thinking is being replaced by partisian reading.
I enjoyed your book as it added a vital human element. I don’t have much problem with numbers and use them when necessary to explain a point in the Alternative Fuel Vehicles section of Yahoo answers but you can almost feel readers beginning to “zone out.”
Thanks for the insights — and glad you liked the book. They make absolutely terrific Christmas presents, btw. 🙂 Just kidding.
More to the point, the Washington Post is not where I would hope to get “green” news. Under the premise of the proposed argument “air” would not be very “green” because it takes up the whole sky. Oceans would not be “green” because they take up 4/5 of the Earth’s surface. Forests would not be “green” because they take up too much space. The argument is a “straw man” (and a fallacy) in that it substitutes “space” for “green” and proceeds to knock green tech because it takes up too much space while never addressing the issue of “green” tech. Use of such an argument serves to characterize the writer, the editor that permits the writing, and the paper that prints such rubbish.
Very good rebuttal. What you also failed to mention is that the efficiency of solar per square foot is improving while the others are not. Plus, recently I was a guest of DOE’s ARPA-E where I added the forth “leg” to my “table. 1. For over 3 decades we have been storing heat in the summer and bringing it back in the winter at 20 cents on the dollar. 2. I have patents on an earth-friendly method of construction and 3. patent pending on a solar encapsulation system that will allow the construction of a roof that incorporates all six forms of solar and costs less before incentives than a conventional non-solar roof ~ and now ~ 4. the means to inexpensively store electricity and bring it back 24/7/365. No other form of energy generation will be as earth-friendly or as low cost per kW. As for efficiency improvement, upon seeing a mock-up of the roof system, 4 NREL technicians got in a heated argument as to how much it would increase the output of a cell array. They finally agreed to disagree with their answers ranging from a low of 4 times to a high of 40 times.
Jim
would it be possible to store the electricity in the walls if they were made of electricity storage cells.
sounds like your ideas are similar to my solar paint idea
will Gubb
Jim, I’d certainly be interested to hear more about your 6 Solar roof design, especially the cost element that makes it lower cost than a conventional roof. Combined with your storage options it should be a winner.
Good luck with the patents and more inportantly commercializing them.
Robert Orr – UK
Jim , please send me any info you can on your solar roof !! As a General Contractor this would be a huge selling point ! clincoln92@yahoo.com Thank you
There still has not been a method of storing energy that has been demonstrated to be practical and economical. Wind turbines and PV solar systems are being installed without the storage that would be required to use them to REPLACE the use of fossil fuels rather than to make a MODEST REDUCTION in the use of fossil fuels.
Also, many articles on nuclear power continue to assert that the problem of nuclear waste has not been solved. Actually, the problem of nuclear waste HAS been solved; it’s just that it has not been implemented in the U.S., although it has been partially implemented in France. France reprocesses and recycles its nuclear waste. The writers who assert that the nuclear waste problem has not been solved probably know better but for political reasons state that it has not been solved.
Changing from using uranium to using thorium would avoid most of the problems commonly associated with uranium reactors. With liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs), the fuel is ThF4 which is a liquid at the temperature at which the LFTR operates. That makes it possible, as the fuel circulates, to run a very small percentage of it continuously through a reprocessing system and run the reprocessed fuel back into the reactor. The amount of actual waste is extremely small and, because it quickly decays, needs to be stored for only a few hundred years instead of a few thousand years. Moreover, thorium is about four times as abundant than uranium and most of the thorium mined is a by-product of rare earth element mining and is now being thrown away!! I’m convinced that that the LFTR is way to go.
To do your own research on thorium, you can do a google search on “thorium reactor.”
There’s actually a (hopefully) forthcoming one that shows real potential and may deliver a 2-for-1 punch, namely Vehicle2Grid. Shai Agassi’s Better Place has this as part of their EV platform. Basically, the EV has a smart battery and can both draw from and feed back into the grid. Software has been developed that communicates with the utility to indicate which cars need charging, at what priority and which are able to give power back if necessary.
Since most of the BEVs will have a capacity of 24kWh, so it would only need 50000 of them to store 1 gWh. That would go a long way to smoothing out the troublesome variability of renewables. Of course, we cannot expect to cars to give up ALL their stores charge but even 25% of a full charge would go a long way to keeping the lights on in a neighborhood during a blackout.
One of the problems with that is that it would shorten the battery life of the electric vehicles. If I had an EV, I would not want the battery used in that manner unless I were compensated for the shortened battery life. Of course it’s possible that at some future date there will be batteries that will have very long lives even when they are frequently cycled, but such a battery is not yet available.
Solar thermal systems can use tanks of molten salt (KNO3 and NaNO3) to store heat so that generation can continue after sunset, but so far as I know, only one solar thermal system (in Spain) has done that. It can store heat to continue generation for only a few hours past sunset and I have no idea what the cost it.
It’s possible that at some future date adequate economical storage could make solar and wind power practical, but it hasn’t happened yet. Until storage becomes practical (which may never happen), I believe that we should be rapidly expanding the use of nuclear power, preferably using thorium and the LFTR instead of uranium.
Impact on battery life would be practically insignificant unless you were constantly discharging the battery below 80% or at a VERY high rate very frequently. EVs have battery mgmt. that won’t allow excessive discharge; also, assuming you have LEAF-like battery – 24 kW-hr capacity, 100 mile range, if you took 2.5 hours to drive 100 miles, your discharge rate would be 9.6 kW (which is also the max wattage on a 240V/40A circuit) or enough to run 10 houses at peak draw. Chances are you’d trip the breaker long before you endangered the battery. Daily driving would be a much greater wear factor on the battery than V2G. Also, if you were on a leasing plan like what Better Place plans to do, you wouldn’t care as you don’t own the battery and can swap it out at any time.
Thorium is promising but we can’t wait for the magical tech; there are no commercial thorium reactors in operation although India is heavily invested in the technology. We may as wait for a breakthrough in fusion or for someone to invent the Shipstone.
I hope that you’re right about using electric car batteries for power storage. It might be sufficient to solve the problems caused by the rapid and extreme variations in power from wind generators. However, that is not the only problem. We don’t know how long it will be before there are enough electric cars to provide power storage for the grid. Also, the amount of energy storage required to make wind and solar power practical is so large that the cost would make it unacceptable. It would be necessary to use stored power for at least several days and perhaps weeks since solar and wind power could be inadequate for that long. Whether that problem even has a solution is unclear.
It’s true that probably LFTRs won’t be available for 10 years or so, but until they are, current nuclear reactor designs, although not so good as the LFTR, can do the job. What is commonly called nuclear waste actually consists of unused fuel plus a number of valuable elements. Check out this link for more information on nuclear “waste:”
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/kirk-sorensen-asks-is-nuclear-waste.html
Note that France gets almost 80% of its electricity from nuclear reactors and exports power to Germany. Starting from a very low percentage of nuclear power, France increased its contribution to almost 80% in little more than 20 years and now has the cheapest power in Europe although it’s not totally clear what the exact costs are since it’s possible that there may be government subsidies that make the power seem less expensive than it actually is.
I want to back-up what Frank Egger has commented. Thorium also burns completly
and so no radioactive waste, and no plutonium to make A-Bombs.
Also, the future in many applications is mini-nuclear plants, no larger than 100MW,
which are cheaper per KW, far safer, long life, low maintence, etc.
David French writes:
Another consideration is that the widespread adoption of photovoltaic electric systems will eventually compete, or at least be an alternative, to the hugely centralized, bureaucratic, corporate monolith that operates the grid. That is a social issue. Solar electric will never heat houses, stoves, dryers or water, but it can power computers, TV’s and lighting. That is a technical practicality. When the grid fails, the lights do not have to go out.
You stated, “When the grid fails, the lights do not have to go out.”
That’s true if the sun is shining when the grid fails but if the sun is not shining when the grid fails, the lights will go out unless there is power storage. And, if there is power storage, then PV power is not required to keep the lights on when the grid fails.
I’m not totally knocking PV power. It is quite useful in remote villages in developing countries because it is not always practical to connect remote villages to the grid. A PV system, with battery storage, can provide adequate power for a few LED lights and efficient appliances which use little power, such as a computer or TV set. And, if the batteries run low, then they can revert to kerosene lamps until power again becomes available. However, with currently available technology, PV power cannot provide a significant portion of the power required by a large developed country.
I agree with you Craig. Both solar and nuclear energy have their disadvantages and limitations……..
Nuclear:
• It would be an easier transition from fossil fuels
• It provides huge amounts of electricity
• It does not emit greenhouse gases (directly)
• There are many sources to generate
• It is currently cheaper than solar
Solar
• It is a renewable source
• Available to anyone
• You do not have waste
• You can improve efficiency, and therefore costs, with research
And I think the most important difference; solar energy does not have the risks of nuclear energy.
What does the Schrödinger equation has to do with solar energy? Photoelectric effect?
Let me illustrate my point with an example: suppose that your youngest kid becomes suddenly ill. What do you do? run a poll among your neighbours (further suppose that none of them is a M.D), or rush to the closest ER where the real specialists can help him?
It the same, in my view, with RE. As you clearly state, decisions are being made by politicians within a two year horizon, whilst RE solutions must be evaluated using a far longer horizon. Therefore, the road we should take is to provide non-arguable facts, using them as our bricks to build solutions. You know who will be our most probable adversaries: lobbysts. Working on that part of the solution, must be an answer to that.
David Coote beat me to the punch with the comment about rooftop solar panel. With all the push behind renewables, I’m surprised that more cities, especially the sunny ones, don’t have this as a mandate. Also, in the US, there are huge areas that are suitable to PV / Solar Thermal development that aren’t really useful for much else. In the case of PV however, the panels can be mounted high enough that the ground below is still accessible for cultivation or grazing. This may also be possible when using a Stirling dish like the SunCatcher but I don’t know if it would be practical for a solar tower design.
It’s unclear how much cultivation could be done under solar collectors which would block the sunlight required by plants. Although not all plants require direct sunlight, plants used for food do require considerable sunlight.
A Stirling engine could be used with a power tower system although so far as I know, it has never been done.
Ford Aero space tryed to get a sterling solar system working in the earyl 80’s. I was there. it was a very diffulcult problem. The goverment had (Carters DOE) spent millions perfecting a 8 sqmeter solar dish. Very nice design and cheep, but it had no usefull function as a power genarator. the problem is that concentrated solar makes a plasma cone at the focal point that is 15,000 dergees +. so any material that can take that kind if heat and go to -30 degrees at night was very hard to come by. But the real problem was the sterling working gas that could do the closed loop expansion and contraction to run the sterling most everything including almost all metals and ceramics are transperant to Hydrogen gas. It would all leak out very quickly. could not make it work.
I would like to see the comparison done with Solar Thermal power and not Photovoltaics. Solar Thermal produces far more on far less land from what I have read.
And France has not exactly solved the nuclear disposal problem. They have done a wonderful marketing job to the French people with a promise to further reduce the waste (which they have done) But they have not solved it…they have merely relabeled the issue and presented it to look like it’s better…and it is better…but please, get real, they have not solved it.
And one of the largest sources of energy, according to the Natural Resource Defense Council is still in CONSERVATION !! Much of our electrical use goes to inefficient buildings.
But we need all of the solutions! Except Nuclear. Why would we continue to build a technology that is controversial and even potentially hazardous? Ahh, yeah, for the same reason that we drill miles into the ocean floor and hope it doesnt spring a leak and destroy an ecosystem.
We are not in a technology drought!!!!!!! We are in a political and general population drought of will and a good overview of reputable information.
So bravo on the book…I hope it truly delivers what the title promises.
Duh? what were the other four? This one was Hilarious so were the others just as funny? I read it and laughed, and Laughed, and Laughed.
On the serious level, Per Square Meter of what? In the nuclear plant are we including just buildings and structures above ground? Or surface area inside the perimeter fences? Including Parking Lots? or not? these are fundamental definitions are required to ascertain true comparability. For the Solar collector? id the area only of the Silicon cell material or does it include protective covering and support? or is it all land inside the perimeter fence?
For the gas well all that shows is the six inch diameter pipe. what area do we assign to the 1200 feet depth of the well and the several miles of underground area from which the gas is drawn out? And about that wind turbine it is only about 12 feet in diameter at the ground surface and a couple hundred feet of swept area up on the top, but deer can graze freely beneath them.
As is often the case Journalists need to learn a lot more about technology to write about it in a meaningful and accurate manner, but they don’t teach Journalists that in college. WHY NOT? Hey College Deans, why not an improver Journalism degree? in place of explaining plots of classic silent movies, each journalism major could get a minor in an engineering discipline, Architecture, Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, And perhaps Jurisprudence. Then somebody in the newsroom could write proper and accurate articles in their Technical specialty or Humanity which is all they study now.
You are absolutely right about journalists; they are not adequately educated.
As I’ve said before, if I had my way, to be graduated from high school biology, chemistry, and physics would be required courses. For a college degree, the same courses would be required at the college level. History, geography, and logic should also be required.
Also, education should be a life-long endeavor rather than ending with graduation.
If journalists did a better job, then the public would be better informed and better decisions would be made on matters which impact our future.
Analysis based upon land area is irrelevant if you want a valid comparison you have to do as my Dad always said, “Follow the Money, all the rest is irrelevant. If a few Opossum may need to be relocated, how much will that cost? $25.00? Is the benefit worth it? If you are building a 20,000 acre solar collector array, run Sheep under it, they eat the weeds! But watch out for Goats, they will butt you ! Let the local 4H Club take care of them…
It seems the idea of what green really is was missed in most of the comments; the use of space as a qualifier doesn’t cut it. Here in the west we have plenty of space but very little water yet our energy comes from coal and natural gas. If you climb one of our 10,000 ft mountains and look of into the distance you will see a brown smudge around the coal fired plants and a yellow smudge around the gassers; plenty of space but not very green.
Nuclear uses way too much water and developers are kidding themselves if they think they will build nuclear here where there’s plenty of space.
Transmission is needed but because of the distance from renewable hubs to major substations the cost is daunting at best. The answer lies in storage located near transmission and surrounded by renewable energy sources; when that happens we will have green energy but regulation has to change concerning the values applied to the benefits before storage can work. When the renewable developers realize they need storage and the state regulators as well as the federal regulators understand that as well and apply a value we will meet our energy needs with clean energy. It has nothing to do with how much space a projects uses.
I am not as smart as any of you guys, but keep up the good work! The more I read your comments the smarter and more hopeful I get. I am a step away from my solar contractor license. You guys help me explain the pro’s and con’s to an uneducated public !
Consumption versus production. I am stuck behind a Hummer, an Escalade, a Ford Bronco and a Prius. We are moving about 5 mph and have about 10 miles to the bridge to pay our toll. I am driving by myself because I have several places to go in the City. I suspect that the other drivers must be doing the same since they are all one driver and no passengers.
I believe that some incentives are given to efficient vehicles. I also remember something about penalties for very inefficient vehicles. Somehow I wonder how well this system is working since most cars on the road appear to be either standard wasters or super wasters of energy. Efficient vehicles seem to still be uncool for the average US American.
Since the Numbers are very obvious for our vehicle choices & the average car owner continues to prefer very inefficient transportation the energy message is still being missed, ignored or even flagrantly belittled by every interested party. Interested parties include oil companies, car manufacturers, lobbyists, politicians in the pocket, Federal and State Agencies that collect taxes.
The most obvious solutions have been down played for the financial benefit of the energy producers. I understand their position. What to do?
For vehicles it seems the obvious is electric drive. Where does the electric energy come from? Power plants? They still have to deliver that power to the user. The user has to store it.
What if the electric power came from a generator nearly as efficient as the electric power company?
Small, Very efficient production nearest to the final usage of that power.
Just some thoughts.
The real problem is energy to manufacture payback for current solar cells and there projected acceptance and market penetration. The current crystalline based solar cell can take more the a year to reach energy payback, in other words they have produced an equal the amount of energy that it took to manufacture them. the Rocky Mountain Institute graphed the projection of net energy produced over the next 75 years with an annual growth rate of the solar biz of 35%.
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-17_BalanceOfSystemPresentation
As more and more plants come on line they use more and more energy to make. Some disturbing result are projected. There is no net gain to replace the TeraWatts we need to power the world in-till 50 Years down the road in the future. This is with out some radical change in solar cell manufacturing costs. They also come to the conclusion that solar is the only way that has the potential to do the job. Also my friend is watching in California where they want to spent $10B (banks are willing to fund)to upgrade the natural gass depot in Long Beach. Where would be if we spent that money on Solar? maybe we wouldn’t need the natural gas?
Going solar is one of the most viable options. Buildings that are pre-planned and built to be energy efficient combined with solar windows and advanced storage systems are very close to market now. Simply put this makes an off grid 10 (or more) story building reality.