ENER Alternative energy Faces Headwinds: NYT

[Nuthatch]

Alternative Energy Suddenly Faces Headwinds

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: October 20, 2008

HOUSTON — For all the support that the presidential candidates are expressing for renewable energy, alternative energies like wind and solar are facing big new challenges because of the credit freeze and the plunge in oil and natural gas prices.

Shares of alternative energy companies have fallen even more sharply than the rest of the stock market in recent months. The struggles of financial institutions are raising fears that investment capital for big renewable energy projects is likely to get tighter.

Advocates are concerned that if the prices for oil and gas keep falling, the incentive for utilities and consumers to buy expensive renewable energy will shrink. That is what happened in the 1980s when a decade of advances for alternative energy collapsed amid falling prices for conventional fuels.

“Everyone is in shock about what the new world is going to be,” said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology, a California advocacy group. “Surely, renewable energy projects and new technologies are at risk because of their capital intensity.”

Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain both promise ambitious programs to develop various kinds of alternative energy to combat global warming and achieve energy independence......[more at link]....

link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21energy.html?em

 

[mbo]

The keyword is EXPENSIVE. Obama wants to MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZE touchy-feely 'alternative' energy, even while proven domestic energy supplies are available from coal and nuclear. Even after we've seen what subsidizing ethanol does to screw up economic realities.

It's called Birkenstocker energy policy.


And it's practiced by morons.

 

[Wardogs]

The keyword is EXPENSIVE. Obama wants to MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZE touchy-feely 'alternative' energy, even while proven domestic energy supplies are available from coal and nuclear. Even after we've seen what subsidizing ethanol does to screw up economic realities.

It's called Birkenstocker energy policy.


And it's practiced by morons.

DRILL BABY, DRILL!!

 

[Nuthatch]

Fellow posters: please keep political commentary on threads in the Political area about this topic, not on this thread. I highlighted the notes that both of the 2 big candidates have ambitious plans to keep that from happening--to acknowledge it and get past it. I want to discuss what the options are for alternative energy.

October 20, 2008 in Energy | 2 comments | Post a comment

Offshore Wind May Power the Future

Not only are offshore winds stronger but landlubbers have fewer objections to turbines almost invisible from the coast

By Emily Waltz


The waters of the Jersey Shore may soon become home to the nation's first deepwater wind turbines. New Jersey officials recently announced the state would help fund an initiative by Garden State Offshore Energy to build a 350-megawatt wind farm 16 miles (26 kilometers) offshore. The state wants by 2020 many more of these parks, at least 3,000 megawatts worth, or about 13 percent of the state's total electricity needs.

"This is probably the first of many ambitious goals to be set by states," says Greg Watson, a senior advisor on clean energy technology to the governor of Massachusetts. "Three thousand megawatts is significant. With that you're able to offset or even prevent fossil fuel plants from being built."

The federal government is about to open up to wind energy development vast swaths of deep ocean waters, and states and wind park developers are vying to be the first to seize the new frontier. Wind parks in these waters can generate more energy than nearshore and onshore sites, they don't ruin seascape views, and they don't interfere as much with other ocean activities.

New Jersey's plan was prompted, in part, by new federal rules that will greatly expand the territory in which developers can build offshore wind parks. Until now, such projects were only allowed in shallow state waters—those within 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) of shore. The new rules would allow them in federal waters, known as the outer continental shelf, which extend to the edge of U.S. territory about 230 miles (200 nautical miles, or 370 kilometers) out. These are the same waters where the hotly debated oil and gas drilling has been proposed, but the sites are unlikely to overlap, say wind developers.

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the federal agency with jurisdiction, plans to finalize the rules by the end of the year. The agency says it will lease plots of the shelf to developers of wind parks and other renewable energy projects, such as ocean current and wave-harvesting technologies. States are chipping in on wind park development projects in the hope that the energy from these complexes will feed into state grids and help meet renewable energy requirements....[more at link]....

Link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=offshore-wind-may-power-the-future

 

[Wardogs]

Nuthatch, that may have sounded a bit flip, but it goes to the heart of the matter in reality, and that is how he we pay for both research and implementation of VIABLE alternative sources.

Wind power, while sounding attractive has several drawbacks. The first is the actual space it takes for a "wind farm" large enough to actually produce an alternative to other types of power generation. No matter where it's located, generation is sporadic, dependent on the availability of the wind. (night almost always means a reduction in wind).

Another is the difference between "base power" and residential. "Base power" is what's needed to drive industry. It requires a much higher and steadier supply than residential. This kind of power generation is difficult to produce with wind.

While wind may be ideal for towns and even small cities, (and individuals) it lacks the robust generation capabilities needed for base power. For this you need the type of massive capability provided by hydro, clean coal and nuclear. You also need the transmission infrastructure to move this generated power to where it's needed.

Offshore wind farms face other drawbacks peculiar to their location, those being ease of maintenance, and vulnerability to an ocean environment. (salt corrosion, storms, etc).

While wind certainly has a firm place in the overall plan, it has severe limitations. Wind also adds virtually nothing to the transportation side of the equation. It doesn't add a drop of fuel to our transportation matrix. Even with a large surge in electric vehicles, it will be many years before other segments of that matrix (shipping, air and sea, construction, the list is long), will be affected by electricity at all.

We need oil. We will ALWAYS need oil for many purposes other than fuel.

By using our own, it eases the transition to alternatives as those technologies grow, without being at the mercy of outside interests, many of which are not our friends.
wardogs

 

[Nuthatch]

Alternative power has always held a fascination for me. In fact I drive by a large windfarm in my state frequently. The other drawback I see is the damage to the environment (there is always some sort of cost, isn't there?) in that the huge updrafts actually collapse the lungs of bats that fly the ridges, sort of like a diver getting the bends.

I get extremely frustrated with folks ignoring coal use as well as oil. No single approach is going to be the answer right now. I wish photovoltaics were cheaper and efficient appliances/ housebuilding, etc. were more common.

I agree about the marine environment. Then there is the use of the tides to create hydro power. Hard to say which is going to win, but we may never find out if it is too expensive to explore.

 

[Wardogs]

Alternative power has always held a fascination for me. In fact I drive by a large windfarm in my state frequently. The other drawback I see is the damage to the environment (there is always some sort of cost, isn't there?) in that the huge updrafts actually collapse the lungs of bats that fly the ridges, sort of like a diver getting the bends.

I get extremely frustrated with folks ignoring coal use as well as oil. No single approach is going to be the answer right now. I wish photovoltaics were cheaper and efficient appliances/ housebuilding, etc. were more common.

I agree about the marine environment. Then there is the use of the tides to create hydro power. Hard to say which is going to win, but we may never find out if it is too expensive to explore.

The use of tidal power, especially in the northern areas has great potential. (Tides reduce as you move toward the equator)

While some research is going on, there has been little serious exploration of this technology.

Solar has great potential also. Great strides are imminent in the structure of photo cells, but also in other ways to harness the sun for power generation.

Israel has built "mirror farms" that use heat to create steam to run turbines, but again, you need the right environment for this to be viable.

I also believe in the "do it all" approach. But the most obvious way to achieve and fund alternative sources as well as reduce dependence is still to utilize our own oil and gas resources.
wardogs