Is solar and wind the wave of future?

Dave Yates (PAH)

all the energy required

to power all the world's energy needs strikes the surface of the earth in just one hour of sunlight. The trick will be to capture and utilize what's been largely ignored as the ultimate clean energy source.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Constantin

Well, let's see...

... None of the exterior walls were insulated with anything other than cobwebs, bees nests, and other delightful things to discover. The wind whipped through the place with gay abandon, particularly since the windows were neglected and the storms non-functional. In other words, the place had no effective insulation, and the little pink stuff under the attic didn't do anything to keep the place warm. The truth in the pudding was on the 3rd floor where electric heaters supplemented the meagre output that the 46 BTU/(ft² x hr) DOE output oil furnace was sending up the forced-air system. (!!!)

We gutted, then retrofit Icynene and Corbond throughout the house, with Corbond being used in the older section (where the walls are supposed to be thin to be historically accurate) and Icyene in the addition in the rear that has 6" studs. The basement had to be replaced due to multiple wall failures, so the new basement walls got 2" of XPS to keep the warm in. The extant windows were remanufactured and got Harvey Tru-Channel storms to keep the cold out. The new windows are Marvin ultimate double-hungs that also ought to help.

Obviously, there is no need yet to go to the same extremes as we did. However, the house was a basket-case and every bit of interior infrastructure had to be replaced, so we took advantage of that.

You could foam or dense-pack exterior stud bays even without removing interior plaster. Or you could take a page from the PERSIST system handbook and put 3" of XPS on the outside. Either way, you can minimize wall losses, infiltration, and all the other mechanisms that cause most of the heat loss and heat gain.

Older windows can benefit a great deal from some TLC and modern, infiltration-resistant storms. In areas where you have a lot of solar gain, retrofit films like V-Kool, etc. have a lot of promise in terms of keeping the thermal gain out of the house. In our home, windows account for 2/3 of the heat gain on a design day...

Another big improvement to envelope integrity was the insulated attic. We sprayed foam into the rafter bays with wild abandon and nothing is vented up there. The only roof penetrations we have at this point are for the sewer stack and the solar system. Less holes = less opportunity for the stack effect to develop inside the home. Last winter, when the home felt comfortable despite us only having storm windows on site, the efforts at sealing the place became evident when the 3rd floor was colder than the floors below because the thermostat was not installed yet. By contrast, my old dorm room broiled every winter due to the hot air rising...

There are a lot of choices out there as far as heating systems are concerned. Low-temperature emitters could be the rule, not the exception, and with increased competition, the cost of them would drop also. For example, I scratch my head why a TRV is supposed to cost $80+ considering what has gone into it. However, I'm happy to be corrected!

Lastly, the universe of boiler choices is slowly expanding. I wouldn't be surprised if more and more of us were to use Micro-CHPs in the future, for example. Currently, they're priced out of most markets, but if electrical prices continue to climb the way they have, they may become interesting. However, as the distribution companies in this area largely control both gas and electrical distribution, I doubt that they would encourage/allow gas price to electrical price margins to widen enough to make it worthwhile...

toddj

Yeah but did the BNL consider?

Constantin..

You make some interesting points re: BTU output of alternatives. But I have these questions.

1. First What is the BNL?

2. Did they consider the sterling engine machines that are going be used to power a plant for Southern Cal. Edison (see Business week article couple weeks ago). These are more than twice as effecient versus the typical photovotaics. Theoretically 100sq miles of these machines could meet all of the US energy needs currently produced by fossils. Obviously we wont do this because of cost but again if we begin to use technology such as this then we will make a big dent in fossil fuel consumption. Especially if these machines could be used to start producing hydrogen.

3. Even if BTU's "aren't there"..its not an all or nothing. I think as fossil fuels become more expensive per unit of extraction costs..the relatively fixed cost nature of alternatives makes the initial high capital expenditure (always a major obstacle to use of alternatives esp solar)
a more viable option.

I am not saying we are gonna meet all our energy needs via solar, wind,biodiesal, etc. just some. Of course your point about energy conservation is also a major step in the right direction.

Bob W._3

Reply to Constantin

I can see why you might see a 75% reduction, given what you were starting with. My old brick home cannot have wall insulation but we are tightening up the windows. I suppose if energy costs get so high that it becomes a 1973 Cadillac (unmarketable) we can ditch the historical facade and cover it with 3" XPS and stucco it. Yikes, what a thought. It may come to that though. Locking all that mass inside the thermal envelope would/should turn it into a fairly efficient home.

Constantin

Please excuse the acronyms...

BNL stands for Brookhaven National Labs, a Department of Energy (DoE) research facility on Long Island that deals with all sorts of energy issues. Alan Mercurio of OiltechTalk fame organized this, very informative, trip to the Energy Resources Division. We got to see microturbines (a technology I once researched), lots of different kinds of oil burners, a test rig for emissions, etc.

I agree that the solar/electric facility they're building in SoCal has a lot of potential. For one, its peak output could coincide nicely with the peak demands imposed by insolation... However, I have my doubts that 100 sq. miles could cover the 70%+ of US energy demand that is currently fed via fossil-fuel-based powerplants.

IIRC, that article mentioned that the 4500 acre (7 mile²) array will replace one 500MW plant. According to the Stirling Energy web site, the market for distributed energy in the US is estimated at 42GW or almost 100x what this plant can produce. At 14 miles² per 1GW plant... you start covering a lot of land with reflectors to cover the US demand.

For an interesting counterpoint regarding the technology used on this farm, have a look at the comments below this article.

Dave Yates (PAH)

according to ISES

conferences held during the Solar World Congress, it will require 6,000 square miles of PV panels to meet the US energy needs.

90,000 square miles of devastation from Katrina. Imagine if our government decided to incorporate pv grid-tied solar panels in the massive rebuilding effort.............

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Tony Conner_2

You're Right...

... I couldn't find the book I needed, so I was working from memory. (I should know better...) I've finally found it. Methane is shown as 23,875 BTU/lb, and hydrogen is listed as 61,095 BTU/lb.

toddj_3

I think that as the heating bills start coming in (and it will be real soon..as it was in the 40's here in New England this am) that people will start realizing that oil is just too damned expensive to put more money into when its only gonna get more expensive...the time to start putting money into alternatives is NOW!!

Just think once the solar industry gets more established so too will new and more effecient solar technologies emerge..especially ones that are cheaper to build.

I know there is a chance that solar technology effeciency wont improve much (but I still think it will if the industy were larger)..but even if it doesnt isnt the Klw hour about the same now as fossil fuel produced KLW's? I'm referring to the sterling engine machines...I think photovoltaics probably wont really be the big thing in solar..I think it may be this sterling engine thing. And unlike photovoltaics and unlike fossils it's without environmental issues.

Thanks Constantin for that link to BNL.. it was informative. If they can fix the "wear and tear' on the sterlings engines then use of these is a no brainer.

Todd

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Energy in the Upper Atmosphere

Is exponentially greater.

Actual particles are being exchanged up there. Down here we can only access the waves.

toddj

Another interesting Business week article


I was reading most recent edition of Business week and the Saudi's (via Aramco) are investing alot into bringing more oil online. Well the analysts are split about whether they can do it primarily because of a shortage of rigs and because they may have tapped much of their accessible oil. But other analysts believe the Saudis will pull it off.
Either way I go back to statements I read some months back and it was probably Business Week(but I'm not sure), when oil was below $40 a barrel. The article stated that the OPEC countries esp Saudi Arabia were fearful of oil price spikes because of its drag on the economy, as well as the possibility of alternative fuels coming online.

Maybe the Saudis are gonna pump while the pumping is good cause they know the party is gonna be over someday?

ToddJ

toddJ_4

Fossil fuels and health costs


I keep hearing so much about the best alternative to oil is coal or at least to extract oil from shale. While those may turn out to be our best option. I think we should look at the other costs associated with fossil fuels. Recently Business Week had a short article about new studies indicating that fossil fuel related illnesses have been grossly underestimated (they may revise these illnesses by 300%!!!). So shouldnt we calculate all the costs before we commit to a fuel because its up front costs seem lower!!

Tony Conner_2

There's...

...another string about "favourite quotes". Here's a couple that I think apply to pretty much all studies - not just this one:

"Who pays the piper, calls the tune."

"There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Always look at who's funding any given study, or survey. I have no idea who's behind the calcs for health costs (it could be a very legitimate un-biased body), but very often, somewhere in the background, the money comes from an organization with a vested interest. And - big surprise - the study or survey will reflect the preferred position of those same people.

I have watched while spreadsheets were repeatedly maniputed and fiddled with until they yielded the desired result. People were trying to make physics & thermodynamics distort to meet an economic threshold for politcal reasons. Note that I say "desired", not "correct" result. There's another old saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Or it could be one from the opening sequence of "Mythbusters" - "I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

I remain very wary indeed of studies and surveys.

toddj

> ...another string about "favourite quotes".

> Here's a couple that I think apply to pretty much

> all studies - not just this one:

>

> "Who pays the

> piper, calls the tune."

>

> "There are three kinds

> of lies - lies, damned lies, and

> statistics."

>

> Always look at who's funding any

> given study, or survey. I have no idea who's

> behind the calcs for health costs (it could be a

> very legitimate un-biased body), but very often,

> somewhere in the background, the money comes from

> an organization with a vested interest. And - big

> surprise - the study or survey will reflect the

> preferred position of those same people.

>

> I

> have watched while spreadsheets were repeatedly

> maniputed and fiddled with until they yielded the

> desired result. People were trying to make

> physics & thermodynamics distort to meet an

> economic threshold for politcal reasons. Note

> that I say "desired", not "correct" result.

> There's another old saying: "Figures don't lie,

> but liars can figure." Or it could be one from

> the opening sequence of "Mythbusters" - "I reject

> your reality, and substitute my own."

>

> I remain

> very wary indeed of studies and surveys.





While I agree that studies should always be viewed skeptically..I do think that we will find that fossil fuels are actually having a more serious impact on the environment and on our health than some would have us believe.

I am not saying we should get rid of all fossil fuels..hell that would just be ridiculous. But I do believe that we need to look at all the costs with fossil fuel usage as we plot a course toward finding new sources of fuel.. it just seems we are not taking the plunge and using solar, bio diesel and wind (and other sources) as much as we could. I do think that prior to this year these forms of energy were not economical..but I do think we are in a different era and we have to start thinking that way.

toddj