Get all cars off the road because some leak oil

As a pilot (private), and one who averages more than a quarter million miles a year on commercial flights, I can assure you that there are no absolute guarantees. The safest form of transportation to be sure, but absolutely safe, hardly.

Actually I was referring to much of the argument regarding hydrological issues that have been raised by models rather than the container testing. The point is that actual testing identified container issues and the switch to TAD was a result of that experience. We do have some long term experience with storage but most of it is in water rather than dry storage, and we are being forced to try to find a place that is in no one's back yard.

Again, I don't think that there is a problem with developing large scale solar installation in the deserts of the west. That is not the only answer however. Some like to quote the amount of "unoccupied" land and say there is plenty of land available without considering that much of the arable land is in food production and natural forests are part of nature's system for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The interesting thing is that some would have us cut down forests to produce solar energy and at the same time truly believe that global warming is human induced without seeing the conflict. While the dream of plug-in vehicles dances in many heads, fueled with the output of wind, solar, geothermal, etc., the technology does not currently exist.

I recently had to make a 2,000 mile round trip over six days. Since we were moving items from one home to another flying was not possible. The Prius consumed about 40 gallons of fuel on that trip, but the reality is that there is no EV out there where I could have even made the trip in six days, much less had 4 days to work on the other home. We may get there, but there are no guarantees and ignoring that which works and is proven in the hope that a useful technology will emerge is nonsense.

If we don't use everything we have available, and get even further behind the power curve (pun intended) then we will never catch up since the current level of regulation does not permit rapid response.

 

Bob, for those trips you made, hertz, budget, etc... all have viable options for you. could have done it in one trip...but that is not the point...

i think nuclear does have its place, my Dad was a nuclear power plant operation for like 20 some years. its simply not a viable option in MOST places of the country. it does consume a little water, but that is not the point. it needs a huge source of water to operate that is not drought prone. simply not a lot of areas in the country available anymore that comes along with the space and buffer zone required to build plants. not to mention stereotypes that would take decades to overcome NIMBY's

as far as solar...sure a massive centralized solar plant has its place and we should be building them where feasible...taking out a single tree to do this is what?? a joke?? we aren't really talking about taking out forests to build these right?...ok good...glad we cleared that up.

but, the first thing i would do is enact as quickly as possible, legislation that mandates that EVERY ROOFTOP IN AMERICA that is feasible (which is most of them) have solar installed. and do this without ANY REGARD TO ROI... (lets not get into a discussion of the ROI of foreign oil). on the rooftops that are not feasible, some can be fixed to carry the load, the ones that are overshadowed, facing north etc... well, ok, skip them...we have enough facing south that will do it... dont believe me... ask DirecTv, they have the same requirement and they claim 98% of all households can do satellite... (ok, forget that last part... i used to sell them, so could not resist, sorry...)

as far as the folly of solar in Seattle, lets look at some facts. Germany is the leading country in the world for solar energy...about 80% of Germany gets the same amount of solar radiation yearly as ....YEP U GUESSED IT!!! SEATTLE WASHINGTON!! ( im sure that the 18 hours of daylight we get mid summer helps...although our radiation angle sucks)

now is this gonna be cheap??? ok, lets see a show of hands, who is foolish enough to think there still might be a cheap and easy way out there?...hmmm... ok... glad we all on the same page...

we start the solar installs immediately, there is obviously not enough companies around making the panels or putting them in , not for a project on this scale... that probably will create more industry, more jobs and unless we are importing installers from the middle east, we might actually see that dollar we spent again.

*edit* a parting shot

here in Olympia, there is a guy named Joe, he started the PluginOlympia website detailing locations of EV charging stations. he has two EV's a Zap and a Miles ZX 40 4 door. he installed solar on his house. he lives in town, but his neighborhood like many is very heavily treed. but he does have a little gap facing south (living on the side of the hill helps his exposure too)

now, is he gonna get rich selling electricity to Puget Sound Energy?? no....is he gonna save a ton of money?? no... our rates are one of the lowest in the country (if it werent for Eastern WA, and Idaho, we be the cheapest).... will he greatly impact the supply of electricity here? no. we sell about 25% of our power now as it is...

but if joe and ALL HIS NEIGHBORS did it...would it make a difference??

 

SMUD.org | Community & Environment | Solar for Business

 

Bob, the desert SW get's more solar energy bombarding it every day to supply WAY more energy than this country is using. The problem isn't space, it's storage/grid reliability. You're right that there's not one solution, but solar could well work by itself EXCEPT there are very significant storage issues that make that not feasible at the present time. So you're absolutely right that we should be examining a variety of solutions because for the forseeable future there's not a single method that can do it all.... but available land isn't the issue.

I'd like to see something like this:

Efficiency first -- lets reduce our waste first. This is the easiest to implement.
Wind -- We're on track to install 7.5 GW of wind power this year alone! Pretty cool
CSP -- makes a lot of sense. Big installation, thermal storage, cheaper than PV
Geothermal -- can provide baseload power, the holy grail of RE
Wave/Tidal -- Johnny come lately but there's massive potential here. It's a ways from prime time though.
Biomass -- Baseload power, but how far can it take us. One benefit is that you can burn it in existing coal plants.
Landfill gas -- Baseload power, but small time. Still, it's there for the taking and better than letting the methane get into the atmosphere.
Nukes -- Has it's own laundry list of issue but may be the best bridge to a carbon free future.
NG -- The cleanest of the filthy and can "firm-up" CSP plants (CSP plants are identical to NG plants except for the source of the heat).
Coal -- kick it to the curb. If you're gonna use it, IGCC please. Coal plants should be decommissioned on a schedule and there should be a moratorium on new ones.

 

Not sure what your first sentence means? I drove my Prius so why would I need Hertz, Budget, etc. None have an EV that could make the entire trip since the technology doesn't exist. OK at 40 miles a charge before spending 8 hours recharging I could get there in about 4 days if I went constantly and could find recharging stations (although there are some areas along I-20 and I-49 where there aren't even gas stations every 40 miles).

I think I have said in 3 or 4 posts that adding solar to rooftops is just fine and folks should do it where appropriate. Having lived in Florida many years, and gone through 4 hurricanes, I wouldn't put too much investment on Florida rooftops (or those anywhere along hurricane prone areas). There are still "blue roofs" all over the state (blue tarps covering roofs blown off in various hurricanes).

I wonder who is going to pay for all of these rooftop applications. The government, i.e. taxpayers? Do you think such a program will be without regulation? Is reimbursement based on ability to pay? Oh, and for folks in places like Denver where there are significant hail storms (I once had over $1,500 in damage done to a car when caught out on I-25 during a hail storm) - do they have to pay to continually replace them? What about higher insurance premiums to cover the cost of replacement? What are you going to do with existing air handler units on commercial roofs? What about roofs that face north?

Again, I do not object, and certainly encourage, using solar collectors on individual structures where appropriate. It is sometimes an integral part of LEED efforts, but it certainly isn't appropriate in every case and it really isn't a substitute for large scale production, no matter the fuel source.

You do know that the DOE had a program (don't know if it still exists) that provided grants for individual homeowners to put solar on their roofs? This isn't new or the idea of a current campaign. Heck, I even have a solar collector and controller on my motorhome to keep the batteries charged when dry camping (you don't want to know what it cost!).

Finally, it seems to me that I read that even with the solar plants in place in Germany that solar accounts for LESS THAT 0.5% of the electrical power produced in that country. Further, I also seem to remember that the article talked about even bigger plants, up to 40 MW. You do realize that there are larger plants in the US and that those in operation for the last decade in the Mohave Desert are 30 MW.

By the way, I also recall the same article saying that the push for solar in Germany was largely because wind was falling out of favor due to complaints about the noise generated by the wind driven turbines. Given that there is no desert in Germany, and there are few areas (except for strip mines where the development to date has taken place) available that are not urban, arable or forest, it will be interesting to see how far this goes before a new source is sought.

It is the whole toolbox or we will come up short.

 

In general Tripp I agree with you. My concern is that political ideology tends to drive governmental action, and political ideology tends to focus on simple sound bites and has a very narrow focus. I know we are all talking about conservation, but did you ever notice that anyone talking about it contends they are doing it and it is everyone else that needs to conserve? In my case I check my car's tire pressure weekly and the motorhome's before every trip, just for safety purposes. If you won't do that to save your life why would you do it to conserve energy?

In addition, the slippery slope that underlies conservation is that it means we have to do nothing in terms of actually addressing the problem or taking a position, just check our tire pressure (electronic ignitions don't require frequent tune-ups). With that attitude we will be even further behind next week and next year.

I would also agree with your stance on coal, clean or otherwise. As for the rest, let them compete and provide some form of tax subsidy for every source that does not produce carbon. I understand that I harp on free markets, but a tax subsidy with a minimum of strings allows policy implementation without completely quashing market forces. After some period of time remove the subsidies and let the market decide.

 

I agree completely. Subsidies are great for emerging technologies/industries. They defo should have a shelf-life however.

As far as conservation, I'm really talking about things like LEED, LED traffic lights, yada yada yada. Things that just happen (like LCD vs CRT monitors) and get adopted. Don't drive a V8 and check your tyre pressure. Drive a Prius and sod the tyre pressure check (but you'll save money if you bother to check it). I love it when the market shapes things. It is the most nature way and has the best chance for success (which I'm sure you'll agree with ). The problem is that markets are reactive and not proactive and there are times when being proactive is important. Policy should be written so that it's technology agnostic (for example, don't focus on solar at the expense of everything else). Which ever technology(s) achieve the stated objective should qualify for whatever the carrot is. The ones that don't get the stick or maybe they just don't get the carrot.

 

Exactly. Land use is - or can be - a non issue for solar power. If we don't have a problem putting a building on the land, then all we have to do is put the solar on the buildings. No, it won't work for every situation. But it'll sure as heck work for lots of them. I have a 2-story 2500 sq foot home. I use one half of just the garage roof to provide enough power for my home AND my EV. If I covered the whole house with PV, I could power both neighbors as well.

 

This I don't understand. How is this doing nothing? Not addressing the problem? Conservation can be "grown" as fast or faster than coming up with new sources of energy. It is the cleanest "source" of energy on the planet. And it is the cheapest. There is really no practical end to conservation. An energy policy BASED on conservation is a winner in my book. Yes, we need to do other things about the energy that we still do use. But the first order of business is to stop throwing away the energy that we're already producing!

 

Don't forget solar thermal too. We could displace an enormous amount of NG consumption in this country if we got serious about that technology.