"Our concept enhances U.S. energy and material security by reducing dependence on imported oil. Initial system and economic analyses indicate that the prices of Green Freedom commodities would be either comparable to the current market or competitive with those of other carbon-neutral, alternative technologies currently being considered," said F. Jeffrey Martin of the Laboratory's Decisions Applications Division, principal investigator on the project.
Green FreedomGäó, the concept's name, hopes to produce "carbon-neutral, sulfur-free fuel and chemical production in a large scale production from air and water" for vehicles and aircraft.
At the heart of the technology is a new process for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and making it available for fuel production using a new form of electrochemical separation. By integrating this electrochemical process with existing technology, researchers have developed a new, practical approach to producing fuels and organic chemicals that permits continued use of existing industrial and transportation infrastructure. Fuel production is driven by carbon-neutral power.
Wow, I haven't read anything this good and so bold in the greentech in quiet some time. I found this story last night on the New York Times' Dot Earth blog.
.
About Los Alamos
Established in 1943, Los Alamos National Laboratory is a premier national security research institution, delivering scientific and engineering solutions for the nation's most crucial and complex problems. Our primary responsibility is ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the nation's nuclear deterrent.
Anyway, the real problem we face isn't technology. The answers are out there and we have a good enough grip of science to make some real advances. The problem is that the government isn't putting enough muscle behind the R&D efforts. We could wait and hope that some private investors take a chance (some have, but not to the extent required for real progress) OR the government, with all its muscle, could push us forward into a new energy future.
Solar thermal energy is a technology for harnessing solar energy for heat. This is very different from solar photovoltaics, which convert solar energy directly into electricity. Solar thermal collectors are characterized by the US Energy Information Agency as low, medium, or high temperature collectors. Low temperature collectors are flat plates generally used to heat swimming pools. Medium-temperature collectors are also usually flat plates but are used for creating hot water for residential and commercial use. High temperature collectors concentrate sunlight using mirrors or lenses and are generally used for electric power production.
From Wikipedia:
2001 energy costs Potential future energy cost
Wind 4-8¢/kWh 3-10 ¢/kWh
Solar pv 25-160¢/kWh 5-25 ¢/kWh
Solar thermal 12-34¢/kWh 4-20 ¢/kWh
Large hydropower 2-10 ¢/kWh 2-10 ¢/kWh
Small hydropower 2-12 ¢/kWh 2-10 ¢/kWh
Geothermal 2-10 ¢/kWh 1-8 ¢/kWh
Biomass 3-12 ¢/kWh 4-10 ¢/kWh
Coal (comparison) 4 ¢/kWh -
Geothermal heat 0.5-5 ¢/kWh 0.5-5 ¢/kWh
Biomass - heat 1-6 ¢/kWh 1-5 ¢/kWh
Low temp solar heat 2-25 ¢/kWh 2-10 ¢/kWh
Also, as renewables become prevailent in states with less efficiency, the regulatory requirement to backup and make reliable those sources comes into play, which the above prices listed in Wiki do not include. The cost of traditional backup generation and demand response programs are likely to be required, increasing costs per kwh, especially in states such as Virginia, where the price per kwh for renewables would be above the range noted. By contrast, in more efficient regions, there are definitely tailwinds.
As for nuclear recently released was the cost of nuclear not included here - 1.68 cents/kwh in 2007 was a record low besting 2005's 1.72 cents/kwh.
"The accomplishments of the nation's nuclear power plants in 2007 are the equal of a baseball player winning the triple crown," said Frank L. (Skip) Bowman, NEI president and chief executive officer. "At a time when consumers are confronted with rising oil and gas prices and an increased reliance on foreign energy sources, nuclear energy provides reliable, affordable and clean electricity. Nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases during the production of electricity, and it is available today to meet rising electricity demand and fight global warming.
Combining cheap reliable nuclear w/ more expensive and intermittent renewables in VA may work.
Nuclear by thorium, which has been around since uranium was discovered, produces one-third the waste. The reason thorium was shelved for uranium was because uranium's a dual-purpose, nuclear generation and nuclear weapons grade material. Thorium provides only one function, energy, which make more sense in today's world of non-proliferation. Check out Virginia's very own Thorium Power.
------------
The one thing I read about the solar chimney was that the cost was rock-bottom low. Even the pilot project was making money, 60kw nameplate @ 50% efficiency rating, costing only $1M US in 2000 with virtually zero maintainance. Also the one property this source has over other solar thermal, is its longer span of heat powering the turbine. When the sun sets the temperature in the soil undercover remains warm, and the thermal activity continues as darkness falls and air temps drop. The drawback was the 148.2 US acres of space it covered for a measely 60kw generator.
On the otherhand, assume a renewable power plant has 1000 MW capacity and another 500 MW capacity. All things equal, the smaller will function at higher costs per kwh. Assume two 1000 MW capacity renewable power plants but one is 60% efficient the 2nd 30% efficient. All things equal, the lower efficient-rated plant costs considerably more per kwh.
My point is, many states have less efficient sources of a renewable power, and would be required to invest in other resources to make those renewables more reliable to the grid, adding costs to an already higher price per kwh.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching no renewables in Virginia, or similar states here in the mid-Atlantic, but the realities are that certain regions are more suited for renewables than others. If C02 reduction is the goal, states with less "gifted" should use other cheaper means [aka lower hanging fruit] today, which would provide a greater contribution towards the goal.
Will time and technology change this? I certainly think and hope so, but that could take a decade or more and alot could change. For this reason, we have to be prudent today and assume it will not happen. That's a very conservative approach yes, but more beneficial towards the effort assuring us reaching the goal.
Let the southwest be the nations test lab for solar. Let the top 20 windy states build out wind. Let the Pacific NW states test wave, and others with higher velocity tidal and hydro flows develop new hydro power. Technological advances under more ideal conditions and production increases will as you mentioned, lower costs for everyone in time, but it will also best determine the drawing line where to site these renewables. That's the free market and our nation's history has determined it the best approach.
For Virginia, I believe you and I should be embracing EEC and nuclear more, fight for CCS and new mining methods. With these resources VA can guaranty itself some of the cheapest electricity into the future, allowing for the introduction of more expensive renewables like off-shore wind for example, in time when the market brings us there.
Having an RPS mandating state utilities sell at least a certain % of its electricity in-state is grand, but we shall see how many kwh are available if every state around us does the same. That's part of the realities/reason why we have a recommended RPS vs. a mandate. We shouldn't assume Va's 12% on renewables is too low yet. Some states with lower growth rates can afford to mandate higher % of new power from renewables. However for states like VA, with some of the highest growth in demand in the nation, may not be able to pull off the same %, because the actual megawatts in terms of reliability, may not exist for them to do so. And if one were to look at other states RPS descriptions, some include EEC as part of their RPS, while VA does not. We can't compare our RPS to others for these reasons. If there was a comprehensive recommendation nationally, a national standard portfolio, I think the picture would be clearer.
About Sandia
