The Energy Thread

I liked the goofy story I read recently about the dude who invented some technology that generates power from people walking on pavement

This?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/13/pavement-power-toulouse-streets

think I saw a different article but yeah that's the tech

how disco saved us

ugh so my wife and I are friends with this family primarily due to our kids' shared activities/friendships and said family is moving to China (Beijing) for a year, dad is a construction contractor etc and is already there and I find out yesterday, what is he doing? building a coal plant.

my wife had to listen to some rationalizations apparently, I didn't know what to say.

like, my job is to eliminate your job dude, kind of no getting around it

you're the san francisco mitt romney

I was just sort of stunned to receive this news, since in all other respects they have seemed pretty typical SF liberals. the nature of the work, on top of the huge dislocation involved (the kids are 3 and 4), I was just like ... really dude, no other jobs around here?

aren't there some high tech, low emissions (or relatively low) coal plants? cf that new yorker article or something

was it an article by a freakonomics guy or something

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/21/091221fa_fact_osnos

Jeremy Grantham is one of the few "important" (aka rich) willing to state the obvious about the United States' corn ethanol "policy":

Despite corn being almost ludicrously inefficient as an ethanol input compared to sugar cane and scores of other plants, 40% of our corn crop – the most important one for global exports – is diverted away from food uses. If one single tankful of pure ethanol were put into an SUV (yes, I know it’s a mix in the U.S., but humor me) it displaces enough food calories to feed one Indian farmer for one year! To persist in such folly if malnutrition increases, as I think it will, would be, to be polite, ungenerous: it pushes the price of corn away from affordability in poorer countries and, through substitution, it raises all grain prices. (The global corn and wheat prices have jumped over 40% in just two months.)

Our ethanol policy is becoming the moral equivalent of shooting some poor Indian farmers. Death just comes more slowly and painfully.

Once again, why single out Indian farmers? Because it was reported last month in Bloomberg that the caloric intake of the average Indian farmer had dropped from a high of 2,266 a day in 1973 to 2,020 last year according to their National Sample Survey Office. And for city dwellers the average had dropped from approximately 2,100 to 1,900.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/21/393127/romm/2011/11/29/377015/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/OxfamGraph11.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eR6oNbJqQ4

BEND OVER AND TAKE IT, AMERICA

such a sham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG29_0_J7qg

I like coal

coal is good

god the whole youtube channel is amazing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=TLkLkx70Dsc

big surprise, shale gas reserves may be lower than estimated...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-us-shale-gas-resources-overstated-part-1

meanwhile, India is filing a WTO anti-dumping complaint against the US regarding solar panel financing restrictions. An interesting twist to the whole solar panel trade war saga.

I read an article on oil drum that argued pretty persuasively that the recoverability of shale is something like 5-10%. Tempted to say it's a boondoggle but that's probably a little harsh.

The debate over how much shale gas is potentially recoverable has gone on for at least five years on forums like The Oil Drum. Ultimately recoverable shale gas reserves really depends on the shape of the hyperbolic decline curves that can be extrapolated from early flows, and so far these have varied very markedly between fields:
http://stevemaley.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/photo9.jpg

Its not a boondoggle, but tight gas needs gas prices above $5 (and higher) to be economic. The drilling and frak jobs on a single well can run into the millions.. Gas firms were in a land rush during 05-08, after the technology and potential were demonstated in the Barnett shale, and the lease contracts typically stipulate initial production within the first X years in order for the gas firms to hold onto the lease. So ssince the collapse of the gas market in 2008 the firms have been "forrced" to drill uneconomic wells in order to hold onto future revenue streams. The smart ones hedged like mad in 08 and are doing okay, the dumb ones, well lets just say you can thank their shareholders for your low gas heating bills for the past few years.

Chu submitted his resignation today, he will step down when a replacement is announced.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Reports-Steve-Chu-Officially-Leaving-DOE-Post

wondering how long it will take to get a replacement. Lisa Jackson is also stepping down from EPA. She announced it a while ago (planning on leaving "soon after" the State of the Union address), but it seems like whoever is nominated will face absolute opposition from republicans, particularly because any meaningful action on climate change is likely to come through EPA rules.

hydro power: i have read in a couple places that it isn't "actually" renewable due to sediment accumulation. is this true? to what extent?

I think that might be a confusion between renewable and sustainable. Sediment accumulation is more about ecosystem disruption and environmental damage down stream than about wether the source of energy is more or less infinitely replenished. A reservoir behind a dam can silt up reducing it's capacity to store energy, although good management and maintenance practices can minimise it, but the source of energy (the water cycle) continues to be renewed.

Even after a dam's reservoir is largely silted up, there's nothing preventing the fall of water through the turbines. What's lost is the ability to store large quantities of energy for use in low flow seasons, as well as ample irrigation & recreational water.

I haven't read anything about the effect of a river carrying its normal sediment load would have on the turbine blades, but it wouldn't be too difficult to continually dredge a small settling pond around the water intakes to minimise that.

a new kind of hydro power may be at the horizon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AjszftPlmc

what he says is interesting but for some reasons it doesn't look like the academic world is rushing to get in on that. maybe it's bunk.

doesn't seem scalable

ugh fuck these people

developing "model legislation" to repeal renewable energy portfolio standards and then passing it around to various state legislatures to try and get them passed

that's their thing, and they are wildly successful. i'm surprised they didn't try it earlier on. republican controlled state legislatures are DYING to shit all over renewable energy, this is like one of their main causes.

yeah they are sponsoring crazy insane legislation in NC and Kansas among other states, pure evil.

in other depressing news,

As IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven points out in the introduction to the report, we are way behind in pretty much every area needed to address the global warming challenge.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/reality-check-renewables-arent-cleaning-up-the-global-energy-system

whenever I feel down about the true viability renewable energy, I am always encouraged by how hard the fossil fuel industry and their pocketed legislators are fighting to kill it.

well mixed-source renewables have reached grid parity in Australia and Hawaii (i.e. same price as fossil fuel), so there is hope.

I mean if they weren't potentially viable, there'd be nothing to lobby against.

efficiency is more ... well efficient in reducing reliance on fossil fuels. unfortunately it's not as simple to sell as a solar panel.

Germany was getting 70% of it's electricity from solar power during periods of Summer 2012. And Germany isn't exactly the sunniest region! and like sleeve mentioned, renewables are at or approaching price parity with coal in many places. with even a small price on carbon (one not even approaching the true costs of using fossil fuels), the whole process would accelerate dramatically. it totally is possible. but if the u.s. congress can't even stand up to the NRA in the wake of a series of tragedies that are immediate, tangible, and provoking of widespread public mourning, they're going to have an even tougher time standing up to fossil fuel interests with even more money/influence, and with consequences of climate change that aren't as tangible and immediate as school massacres.

also, Shakey otm about efficiency. I do solar quotes as part of my day job, and I am continually amazed/horrified at Americans and their excessive energy usage. single family homes using 3,000 kWh a month - almost triple what we use with five people in our house. and almost all of them are weirdly fixated on covering 100% of their usage with solar, as opposed to trying to reduce their usage first. then, when you give them the inevitable answer - that there isn't enough room on their roof to cover more than 20% - the response is usually "well, can't you make better panels?" fucking America, RIP.

yeah everyone is like, DON'T TELL ME HOW MUCH ENERGY TO USE I NEED IT ALL

I left that light on in an empty room FOR A REASON

in ALEC news, the North Carolina bill to repeal their state's RPS has died in committee, with six Republicans voting AGAINST it. This is good news!

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nc-renewable-energy-standard-scores-surprise-win

!!

the republicans must have been confused or something?? i don't understand! still, great news, hopefully a harbinger for similar efforts!

A study out in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them.

...The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to "buy" either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb, the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says "Protect the Environment," and "we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option," said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/04/how-do-you-get-conservatives-buy-energy-efficient-products/5435/

god i fucking hate people

isn't that reaction the opposite of being conservative

literally speaking