[Tusanoc]

Bound to Burn by Peter W. Huber, City Journal Spring 2009

Long article, but interesting. The gist of the argument is that,
since fossil fuels are so cheap and readily available, you will never
be able to get the poor, industrializing part of the world to cut
their usage (since cheap energy and labor is their draw for economic
prosperity) so the US needs to address carbon usage from a different
point of view. Open the doors back up to nuclear power since it can
compete economically (more so than wind and solar) and address land
use to increase carbon sinks, ie forests and prairie that suck carbon
out of the environment.

We won't be able to control how other countries generate their
electricity (without buying it from them first) so we should
concentrate on trying to mitigate the effects of it (carbon sinks).

[JonatonM]

Not all that true. CO2 stack emissions, especially from electricity generation, are likely proportional to other pollutants-- which are more localized. China (and India) already suffer from some of the worst air pollution from other pollutants that are byproducts of burning coal, such as mercury, varoius VOCs and HAPs. As those societies rapidly prosper, their populations clamor for better air. China has some of the biggest spending plans for solar power, for example. And India has been collaborating with the U.S. to capture a lot of indutrial methane and reuse it using technologies benchmarked under the U.S. Natural Gas Star program, for example. What the U.S. can do is be an exporter of technological knowhow for green technologies.

There is no easy solution to the carbon problem, otherwise it would have been implemented already. No "clean-coal" for example, and nuclear power isn't without its side effects either.

[Tusanoc]

Not all that true. CO2 stack emissions, especially from electricity generation, are likely proportional to other pollutants-- which are more localized. China (and India) already suffer from some of the worst air pollution from other pollutants that are byproducts of burning coal, such as mercury, varoius VOCs and HAPs. As those societies rapidly prosper, their populations clamor for better air. China has some of the biggest spending plans for solar power, for example. And India has been collaborating with the U.S. to capture a lot of indutrial methane and reuse it using technologies benchmarked under the U.S. Natural Gas Star program, for example. What the U.S. can do is be an exporter of technological knowhow for green technologies.

There is no easy solution to the carbon problem, otherwise it would have been implemented already. No "clean-coal" for example, and nuclear power isn't without its side effects either.

Well, what you say actually reinforces the article. China isn't doing solar because they are concerned about global warming, but because of tangible air quality.

[JonatonM]

Well, what you say actually reinforces the article. China isn't doing solar because they are concerned about global warming, but because of tangible air quality.

Does it matter why they're doing it if it achieves the same end result?

All I'm saying is that many people are saying that market forces are such that poorer nations will continue to prefer and to use cheap(er) fossil fuels. But they seem to forget that the same market forces and people also demand to breathe cleaner air just as soon as they are able to afford it. Who doesn't want clean air and clean water?! The idea, then, should be for America to be the supplier of cheap(er) and clean(er) energy technologies to the world and in the process create jobs for its own well-being. It's not going to be easy, but at least you've got big governments wanting to play ball with at least changing their energy mix.

[Tusanoc]

Does it matter why they're doing it if it achieves the same end result?

Yes, it definitely matters to know why someone does something. If the concern is carbon, but someone else's concern is air quality, they may do somethign that deals with the air quality problem but not the carbon issue. That is the point. International treaties aren't dictating China's energy policy. China is dictating their energy policy.

All I'm saying is that many people are saying that market forces are such that poorer nations will continue to prefer and to use cheap(er) fossil fuels. But they seem to forget that the same market forces and people also demand to breathe cleaner air just as soon as they are able to afford it. Who doesn't want clean air and clean water?! The idea, then, should be for America to be the supplier of cheap(er) and clean(er) energy technologies to the world and in the process create jobs for its own well-being. It's not going to be easy, but at least you've got big governments wanting to play ball with at least changing their energy mix. You are missing the point the author is trying to make. The other technologies aren't cheaper so what is the incentive for poor countries to pay for them.

[JonatonM]

Yes, it definitely matters to know why someone does something. If the concern is carbon, but someone else's concern is air quality, they may do somethign that deals with the air quality problem but not the carbon issue. That is the point. International treaties aren't dictating China's energy policy. China is dictating their energy policy.



You are missing the point the author is trying to make. The other technologies aren't cheaper so what is the incentive for poor countries to pay for them.

I get it. What I'm saying is that often, carbon issue and air quality issue are addressed by the same change. I'm also saying that we have to go beyond the current thinking.

Other technologies aren't cheaper, then again they have not had the history of usage that fossil fuels have. And solar power has become cheaper by several magnitudes just over the past few years. That's what I'm driving at. The poor countries are already paying for other technologies not only because they see the end point of global warming and want to make changes that support their own energy security, but also because cleaner technologies are also more often than not better at reducing carbon. Every coal-fired power plant in China that is replaced by natural gas fired power plant will not only reduce soot pollution in Chinese cities but will also reduce CO2 emissions because natural gas is cleaner burning. Small scale solar-thermal plants have reduced the need to burn cow-dung in many Indian villages-- that not only improves local air but also cuts down on CO2 and methane, obviously.

New technologies aren't always going to be more expensive, and it should be the goal of everyone to make them more cheaper and more readily available. An Indian company (Suzlon) is now the second or third biggest in the world when it comes to wind turbine manufacturing.

And really, not even the most advanced countries have figured out what to do with "carbon" issue overall. "Clean-coal" is a myth even now, for example.

[JonatonM]

ok, I finally read the whole article. So afterall, he is hoping that carbon sequestration works. Good luck! The magnitude of volume in stable formations required to pump carbon from a large coal-fired power plant is immense.

Presently, there is a lot of infrastructure in the oil industry that uses secondary and tertiary recovery-- technologies where basically new wells are drilled for the sole purpose of pumping other fluids (liquids and gases) into a formation in order to increase its pressure and bubble out more oil out of the main well. These injection wells number thousands, and the piping and other infrastructure that went into establishing those cost billions over many years.

And yet, that infrastructure is but a fraction of what would be required by the idea of clean-coal carbon sequestration.

I'm not one of the greens that rejects a particular form of energy. I think currently, we as a planet have to use all forms of energy and also practice conservation. U.S. depends on coal-fired power plants for almost 50% of its electricity demand, and with more and more gadgets being sold to us, that demand isn't going to go down. And we're not going to suddenly shut off 50% of our electricity either. There is room for coal-to-liquids, coal-gasification, natural gas, LNG, solar, wind, nuclear. Conservation. Everything.

Globalization is, however, one force that will need to be curtailed. It is at the center of many other problems faced by the developed world and developing world. But that's a force that was long in being unleashed, and it isn't going to be easy to change or stop it.

[JonatonM]

Giant centralized generating plants (nuclear being one of them) is one way of producing and distributing electricity. Many countries don't have robust grids, if they even have a grid to begin with. For them, localized energy generation is not a bad way of going forward. Solar power achieves that, and has made a lot of differences in villages in India and Africa where it has been installed. More of it needs to be done, of course. That's what I'm talking about when I say more can be done to spread solar power usage. India is going dual path by also adding nuclear generation-- thanks to its recent and long-awaited pact for civilian technology transfer with the U.S. China is experimenting with some of the highest voltage transmission lines tried anywhere in order to reduce transmission losses. Not sure how successful that is going to be. And of course, there are continued efforts to develop high-temperature supercondutors that can be melded into wire form...not a lot of success just yet though. Centralized power generation issue is that depending on grid quality, a lot of the generated power is lost in transmission.

Land use is certainly a big opportunity. But that goes along with the general theme. Think small. Use less. Conserve. And poor countries also are filled with humans, and they care for the environment too. Forests aren't being burned down to nothing everywhere. But where it is happening, it is more true that the economy has been put into the ambit of globalized trade. India has been able to maintain a vast proportion of its biodiversity and its forests, mainly because the Indian economy was very slow to globalize, only starting to open up to world trade in the 1990s. Ecological destruction since then has probably increased in pace since then.

Globalized corporations are the drivers of change now, no longer countries so much. That's the global econonmy and global environmental problem. But Republicans will never want to look at it that way.

[Tusanoc]

At least it took you three posts until you tried to make it about a political party.

[Nubtoubrem]

The problem with the argument that carbon energy sources are always going to be the most used because they are the cheapest assumes that they will always be the cheapest. The primary goal of many of the people developing solar technology is to make it cheaper then coal. They figure if they can make it cheaper then coal then they will be disgustingly wealthy. I have read some articles to suggest that his can be accomplished within a decade.

[Tusanoc]

The problem with the argument that carbon energy sources are always going to be the most used because they are the cheapest assumes that they will always be the cheapest. The primary goal of many of the people developing solar technology is to make it cheaper then coal. They figure if they can make it cheaper then coal then they will be disgustingly wealthy. I have read some articles to suggest that his can be accomplished within a decade.

Well right. A finite source would increase in value as scarcity increases. Basic supply and demand.

Again, I just think the gist of the argument is that, until that price point comes along, we may be better off dealing with the effects of other countries using carbon fuels (carbon sinks via smarter land use) than try to get them to adopt currently more expensive fuels.

At face value, it seems to make sense.

[JonatonM]

At least it took you three posts until you tried to make it about a political party.

You think energy policy is not politically driven? And that various political parties hold starkly different views on the way forward?

Anyways, here is more information and a different view than one proposed in your original post:

IEER | Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy

[Tusanoc]

You think energy policy is not politically driven? And that various political parties hold starkly different views on the way forward?

Political parties were no where in this conversation nor did they need to be.

[JonatonM]

A Diane Rehm Show talking about "clean coal" from the industry and from environmental/alternative energy perspectives, so that people can make up their own minds:

Clean Coal Technology | Public Radio Redux


Important thing to note with this whole issue again, as with many other issues of globalization, is that profits and revenues are privatized and environmental problems are socialized-- that's who coal power can be cheap. We are talking about CO2 emissions from coal burning, but coal power plants also have huge environmental impacts on ground as well as water that often goes unmitigated and unremediated.

[JonatonM]

Another aspect to consider is that mining techonology and coal-fired power plant technology is not all that widespread. Thanks to the way economic development has progressed in recent history, even now, I would venture a guess that most mining equipment is manufactured by a handful of Western companies and then, a handful of miners use that technology and geological knowhow to do the dirty work. Thus, it is simplistic to say that poor countries will just dig up cheap coal and burn it because there is no cheap but non-carbon technology. Western capital does most of the heavy lifting when it comes to bringing the values of cheap electricity to poor nations, and that western capital can be better handled, if there is a political will at a global level.

[Nubtoubrem]

Well right. A finite source would increase in value as scarcity increases. Basic supply and demand.

Again, I just think the gist of the argument is that, until that price point comes along, we may be better off dealing with the effects of other countries using carbon fuels (carbon sinks via smarter land use) than try to get them to adopt currently more expensive fuels.

At face value, it seems to make sense.

It isn't an issue of chasing a diminishing supply but rather the simple fact the technology itself will become cheaper to the point where the cost of producing solar power is lower then the cost of producing energy from a coal fired plant. It isn't that coal becomes more expensive but that solar becomes less so.

[JonatonM]

It isn't an issue of chasing a diminishing supply but rather the simple fact the technology itself will become cheaper to the point where the cost of producing solar power is lower then the cost of producing energy from a coal fired plant. It isn't that coal becomes more expensive but that solar becomes less so.

You will be heartily surprised to read that this is not a pie-in-the-sky project anymore. Fast Company Magazine profiled the solar power sector a few months ago in a long essay about various technologies, how efficient each is, who are the players on world scale, and what is next. What is next is quite fascinating:


"That's one of the key advantages of dye-solar-cell technology," Tulloch explains. "It accepts light from all directions; it accepts light in all light conditions. And the other key advantage is its manufacturing process. You need very sophisticated equipment for either the first or the second generation, but for dye solar cells, there are kits sold for children. My son, when he was 9, made one and did a demonstration at school."

Dyesol is one of a rapidly expanding roster of firms worldwide experimenting with this third generation of solar technology -- a subsection of the lab usually referred to as "organic PV." Dyesol's key distinction, though, is its startling proximity to market readiness and the name of the business partner intending to bring it there: Corus, the industrial behemoth formerly known as British Steel. In early 2007, Dyesol signed a $1 million contract with Corus to assess the feasibility of incorporating dye solar cells into its prefinished-steel-roofing materials. Corus churns out 100 million square meters of this Colorcoat roofing for use in factories and warehouses each year -- more than enough to reroof every Wal-Mart in America -- and the process already involves applying layers of paint. Replace some random decorator color with the ability to generate clean power and the appeal would be obvious and enormous -- particularly in Europe, where makers and buyers of building materials are increasingly required to account for the emissions involved in producing them.

By the end of 2007, the project had cleared what Tulloch calls "the area of highest technical risk," in which it was determined that Dyesol's cells could in fact feasibly be printed on a massive unspooling roll of steel as it zooms down a production line at 3 to 5 meters per second. The government of Wales has since invested in the project, and Corus has converted one of its Welsh production lines into a demonstration facility for solar-coated steel roofing. The test phase continues through 2009, and there's little chance the product could be on the open market before 2011 -- which is likely why Corus is declining comment on the technology's potential for now "as a way of managing expectations."

Fair enough. After all, the prospect of Europe's second-largest steel producer integrating solar cells into 100 million square meters of roofing per year might set certain fevered minds racing.

"Can you imagine metal roofs all around the world that are power generators?" Dyesol COO Ross MacDiarmid asks me.

The truth is, I can. It doesn't even seem like an act of imagination anymore.

Chris Turner is the author of Geography of Hope, a global survey of sustainable technology.
Access the full article for free at:

The Solar Industry Gains Ground ? And Goes Global | Fast Company

[Tusanoc]

It isn't an issue of chasing a diminishing supply but rather the simple fact the technology itself will become cheaper to the point where the cost of producing solar power is lower then the cost of producing energy from a coal fired plant. It isn't that coal becomes more expensive but that solar becomes less so.

Even if coal doesn't go up in price, it is a guarantee that solar will be cheaper [than coal] in the next 10 to 20 years?

[JonatonM]

Even if coal doesn't go up in price, it is a guarantee that solar will be cheaper [than coal] in the next 10 to 20 years?

Coal mining is subsidized to the extent that its environmental impacts are not fully covered in the price the public pays. Solar has an environmental impact too, I suppose, but not so large as coal. What I'm saying is that given a more level playing field, and more funding for solar tech, solar may become competitive to coal in the next decade or two. Already, 2nd generation PV cells produce at about $1/Watt, which is down from about $3/watt for crystalline PV cells.





As Neal Dikeman, a partner at clean-tech investment firm Jane Capital Partners, argues, the variables built into the cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity are so numerous and byzantine that grid parity itself may be an illusory near-term goal. The sunniest estimates of that blessed event, Dikeman notes, are based on the cost of generating more power when the demand is highest. But this peak-demand power -- the kind required by millions of air-conditioners at midday in California -- is only a single-digit percentage of the total generating capacity on most electricity grids, and the cost of producing the juice is just one of many line items on the average power bill, alongside transmission, distribution, and maintenance costs. And in solar's case, there's also the cost of reconfiguring the grid to account for hundreds of thousands of small-scale installations. So what does the version of grid parity touted by solar boosters amount to? "A legitimate sales tactic," Dikeman suggests, which "takes the best case to justify a subsidy to get down the cost curve." He says true grid parity is "still close to a decade down that curve."

Dikeman's guess is probably as good as any on that score, and he's certainly right that the solar industry's rise has depended on subsidies. Solar's growth has been largely driven by legislators, goosed along by various tariffs and tax incentives. But the energy business has long been a lonely place for free marketeers: According to British investment firm Ambrian Capital, the global renewable-energy industry receives about $11 billion in subsidies each year, versus $200 billion for fossil fuels, already a wildly profitable industry. So what's a clean, limitless power source worth? And what scale could solar reach if there were a similar national investment behind it? If U.S. capacity ramped up to equal the 10 gigawatts expected to come online worldwide in 2010, that would be enough to power 3 million homes and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the road. As BP likes to say, it's a start.

[Nubtoubrem]

Even if coal doesn't go up in price, it is a guarantee that solar will be cheaper [than coal] in the next 10 to 20 years?

I believe so. It is technology, it gets cheaper, it has already gotten much cheaper in the last five years. They are also coming up with ways to do things outside of the typical panel. They are working on solar paints that you would put on your roof. We are in the garage aspect of this technology right now because until recently there just wasn't enough money in the system and it was seen by many as the domain of the tree hugger. As it becomes clear that we will have mandates and funding to help the advancement of solar power you will see more and more people trying to chase that prize and they will figure it out.

Think of how much memory cost ten years ago vs what it is today.