Cool Earth Solar

[LNRob]

While the politicians spew out their rhetoric about "clean coal" and promoting backward ideas like "drill baby drill", a privately held company in California is actually DOING something about the energy crisis. I just came across this article today and thought I'd share it with you....

Cool Earth Solar Set to Open Prototype Plant and Change the Shape of Solar Power

This is one of the first truly innovative ideas I've come across in a long time. It's exciting that there are companies out there like this one who are dedicated to solving the world's energy issues, instead of just talking about it.

I also browsed Cool Earth Solar's website and came up with a couple of interesting bits of information:

Just how much electricity does the world use?

Electric power plants produced 17,320 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2005. In 2030, the world is projected to need about 33,264 TWh—nearly double the amount of 2005. (Source: 2008 EIA International Energy Outlook Report.)

How much energy does the Sun provide?

The amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's surface in one hour is enough to power the entire world for a year.

How many solar power plants would the U.S. need to meet its electric needs?

One solar power plant, using Cool Earth's technology, covering 150 miles by 150 miles, would generate enough power to meet all the electrical needs of the United States through 2030.

Cool Idea B)

[mountainhiker]

Cool Earth Solar Set to Open Prototype Plant and Change the Shape of Solar Power

Here is the key statement

At $1 per watt, Cool Earth Solar is able to produce electricity at a cost already competitive with power generated from natural gas.

Being cost competitive is always the KEY to a new idea being accepted. If this is really true then a LOT of cities around the world need to be looking at it.

:thumbup:

[Simon]

Here is the key statement Being cost competitive is always the KEY to a new idea being accepted. If this is really true then a LOT of cities around the world need to be looking at it.

:thumbup:

If you take into account environmental and health impacts renewable energy is ALREADY more cost-effective than fossil fuels:

Here are some estimates of the cost in Australian cents per kilowatt-hour (Ac/kWh) of various sources of electricity (for a detailed discussion see “Renewables: how the numbers stack up” in New Matilda: http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledeta...;CategoryID=213 ):

3-4 — coal, Australia;

18 — the real cost of coal, taking into account the environmental and health impact; according to a conservative Canadian Ontario Ministry of Energy Report (CAN$0.164);

15 — nuclear via the UK’s newest Sizewell B plant;

7.5-8.5 — wind power, Australia;

15 — concentrated solar power or CSP;

25-45 — standard silicon-based photovoltaics (PVs).

However recent advances means we must add the following to the list:

4 – the price of solar PV is set to fall dramatically to compete directly with the current “market price” of coal due to balloon, sliver and non-silicon PV technology advances. The non-silicon organic thin film technology developed by US Nobel Laureate Alan Heeger and his South Korean colleagues will reduce the cost of installing photovoltaic (PV) capacity by a factor of 20; the Swiss ETH CIGS non-silicon thin film system may be competitive with coal within 5 years (a related US Nanosolar technology is in mass production: http://www.investorideas.com/Articles/050707a_page1.asp ); Australian sliver silicon PV technology will drop silicon solar panel costs threefold. In particular, the Californian balloon solar capture technology is predicted to make PV solar competitive with “market price” coal by 2010 (see “Solar energy & the end of war. US balloon technology to slash solar energy cost 90% by 2010”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18667/42/ ).

4 – Australian geothermal. According to Professor John Veevers (“The Innamincka hot fractured rock project” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics”, editor Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007; also see energy cost-related related chapters by Dr Gideon Polya “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality”, Dr Mark Diesendorf “A sustainable energy future for Australia”, and Martin Mahy “Hydrogen Minibuses”): “Modelled costs are 4 cents per kilowatt hour, plus half to 1 cent for transmission to grid. This compares with 3.5 cents for black coal, 4 cents for brown coal, 4.2 cents for gas, but all with uncosted emissions. Clean coal, the futuristic technology of coal gasification combined with CO2 sequestration or burial, yet to be demonstrated, comes in at 6.5 cents, and solar and wind power at 8 cents.”

Further, wave, tidal, biomass and biofuel energy technologies are renewable technologies competitive with the “true cost” of fossil fuels. Australia’s huge reserves of economic geothermal power are expertly assessed to have the capacity to provide most of Australia’s energy needs for the best part of a millennium and Australia is blessed with huge solar, tidal, wave and wind resources.

Source

[Steve_Barker]

I must say I have a soft spot for clean coal technology, I used to work at the Coal Research Establishment:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1381...echnology-.html

Just after the article above Mrs Thatcher axed UK coal research, and put the technology back many years.

[mountainhiker]

I must say I have a soft spot for clean coal technology, I used to work at the Coal Research Establishment:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1381...echnology-.html

Just after the article above Mrs Thatcher axed UK coal research, and put the technology back many years.

The real problem with "taking into account environmental and health impacts" is that becomes "playing with numbers". The bottom line is that "being cost competitive" is always the KEY to a new idea being accepted. You are looking at a persons pocket book. They will always buy for the most part, the best product at the lowest cost.

For the majority of the people, environmental issues will never factor in. That may not be what we want but when it comes down to the average person spending the money they have, cost is a key to the decision making process.

Take a car, option one is a car using gas that costs $20,000 and an electric car that costs $40,000, the electric car will never make it in the market place because that $20,000 difference can not be recovered in the life time of the car. Bottom line is that wasting time bad mouthing clean coal is not the answer. Between now and the time that we can use technology to bring down the cost of alternate energy forms you have to use something and it has to be cost effective. :info:

[Simon]

The real problem with "taking into account environmental and health impacts" is that becomes "playing with numbers". The bottom line is that "being cost competitive" is always the KEY to a new idea being accepted. You are looking at a persons pocket book. They will always buy for the most part, the best product at the lowest cost.

For the majority of the people, environmental issues will never factor in. That may not be what we want but when it comes down to the average person spending the money they have, cost is a key to the decision making process.

Take a car, option one is a car using gas that costs $20,000 and an electric car that costs $40,000, the electric car will never make it in the market place because that $20,000 difference can not be recovered in the life time of the car. Bottom line is that wasting time bad mouthing clean coal is not the answer. Between now and the time that we can use technology to bring down the cost of alternate energy forms you have to use something and it has to be cost effective. :info:

That is why governments need to make things that are bad for the environment cost a lot more while making the eco-friendly things cost less.

[mountainhiker]

That is why governments need to make things that are bad for the environment cost a lot more while making the eco-friendly things cost less.

False logic there, you cannot force something that people depend on to cost more because that does not make eco-friendly things cost less, just screws the people. What makes them cost less is finding ways to produce them for less cost or provide them at less cost. B)

[Simon]

False logic there, you cannot force something that people depend on to cost more because that does not make eco-friendly things cost less, just screws the people. What makes them cost less is finding ways to produce them for less cost or provide them at less cost.

Or not. It works. It's just that you comes from US of A and has no clue about what wonders governments can do for the people and the society.

Sweden has done this for years - making dirty things cost more and green things cost less. Far from enough - but the rightwing government is gonna get kicked out of the office after their horror-one-thing job and replaced by a red-green alliance. Can't wait for 2010!! Yay then its time to kick some blu a**es.

(sorry for getting off-topic)