Alternatives ARE coming! And that is GOOD news.......


Economics of alternative energy improve | Green Tech - CNET News.com


Posted by Martin LaMonica 2 commentsMany household budgets are feeling the impact of high gasoline prices. Imagine if you ran a power plant.

Two reports released on Tuesday make the case that alternative forms of energy--everything from plug-in hybrid cars to solar power plants--are becoming more cost-competitive with fossil fuels.



Clean-energy research firm Clean Edge, in a report done with nonprofit Co-op America, said that the United States could get 10 percent of its electricity from solar energy by 2025 under the right circumstances.

Meanwhile, financial analysts at AllianceBernstein said that hybrid vehicles already offer a lower cost of ownership than gas-only cars, a situation that could dramatically increase market share in coming years.

The rising costs of oil, natural gas, and coal are having a profound impact on utilities and automakers. But that's only one factor making alternative sources of electricity or transportation more attractive.

The capital outlay needed to build power generation facilities is on the rise, too, because of higher commodity prices. Construction costs of gas, coal, and nuclear power plants have increased about 75 percent since 2004, according to Bernstein Research, citing Department of Energy and company reports.

In addition, regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions--expected to take hold in the next few years--significantly alter the cost of delivering electricity from fossil fuels, particularly coal.

"The economics of traditional fuels are changing," said Richard Keiser, global technology strategist at Bernstein Research. "The perceived environmental costs of these (fossil) fuels is no longer zero."

As a result, wind and geothermal power are now cost-competitive with operating fossil fuel-powered plants. Keiser predicted that wind growth will be in the double digits for at least the next decade.

The push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is expected to play out in the transportation sector as well.

Keiser said that with gas at $3.18 a gallon or higher, the total cost of ownership for a hybrid car is lower than a conventional one. He assumed 15,000 miles driven per year, a six-year life, a $5,000 price difference, and mileage of 25 miles per gallon versus 45 for the hybrid.

"Consumers don't know this...and automakers haven't given them a lineup (of cars) to make this choice easy," he said. But if gas prices persist and biofuel options remain limited, market share for hybrids could rise "dramatically" from 2 percent of new cars today.

Closing the price gap
Bernstein's Keiser said that solar electricity still remains more expensive than fossil fuels. However, Clean Edge analysts said that the gap is closing, predicting that solar will be the same cost as traditional forms of power generation--or at "grid parity"--in 2015.

In its report, it provided a plan for how U.S. utilities, prompted by regulators and policy makers, could lead a transition to 10 percent solar power in the U.S. in 2025.

That's a big jump from less than 1 percent today, but authors Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder said they see utilities considering solar far more seriously today than any other time.

In the past few months, there have been a number of deals signed to build concentrated solar power plants in the Southwest and more are expected in coming months, Pernick said.

"Among the utilities we talked to, they said 'Yeah, this (target) would be difficult but it's achievable.' That's an important shift," said Pernick.



The projected drop in price for solar panels using silicon or thin film solar cells.

(Credit: Clean Edge, 2008)
Solar energy provides a hedge against rising fuel prices and solar energy's peak output is the middle of the day, which is a more costly time to provide electricity, they noted.

On the retail level, Clean Edge predicts that more homeowners and businesses will install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Of the total 10 percent forecast, solar PV represents 8 percent.

The report forecasts a regular decline in the installed cost of solar panels, so that solar is at price parity with traditional electricity generation in places with high electricity rates in 2015 and in most other places in the U.S. by 2025.

Despite the bright outlook of this report and similar targets, the solar industry right now is troubled by policy uncertainty that can slow, rather than speed, adoption of solar energy.

An investment tax credit for renewable energy projects is set to expire at the end of this year and several attempts to extend it have been derailed.

Pernick said that if the tax credit is not extended this year, he expects it to be extended next year for five years. Solar demand will also be driven by state-level mandates, called renewable portfolio standards, for utilities to use renewable energy sources.

Topics: Wind, Environment, Policy, SolarTags: solar,PHEVs

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

It is good, but if it provides 10% of our electrical needs that would translate into about 2-3% of our oil consumption I believe.

which is why I do support a national program similar to the Apollo project....but for energy....

We should have started long ago.

I see that Honda has a production hydrogen car for sale in CA.

I go back and forth between pessimism and optimism.....

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

Trouble with hydrogen is that it requires a lot of electricity to make the hydrogen, which of course requires oil.

The only solution is a ton of fast breeding nuclear power plants coupled with some space based solar collecting grid, oh and updating our antiquated electrical grid.

Yes, currently that is a huge negative....

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but it certainly needs to be implemented carefully.....and I think there will be better sources available eventually.

I also favor the "silver buckshot" approach.....go after multiple sources of energy, not just one or two.....

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

Nuclear is not a problem. Take the desert flats of Nevada and Utah and build the damn things, then pour a ton of concrete over them in case they explode (which has never happened, but still pour the damn concrete). Take the waste, mix it with even more concrete and then stack it in the desert.

Can be done in 5 years, and then you can worry about alternative energy.

Natural gas is a major source of electricity generation through the use of gas turbines and steam turbines. Particularly high efficiencies can be achieved through combining gas turbines with a steam turbine in combined cycle mode. Natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, and produces less carbon dioxide per unit energy released.

Natural gas can be used to produce hydrogen, with one common method being the hydrogen reformer. Hydrogen has various applications: it is a primary feedstock for the chemical industry, a hydrogenating agent, an important commodity for oil refineries, and a fuel source in hydrogen vehicles.

Natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
Victory in Iraq

Nuclear is problematic because of the waste, and potential for large scale radioactive disasters...however, that does NOT mean it should never be used....

I agree, if sited properly (not over fault zones, etc), and built properly it is a fine source of power....

I still like the "silver buckshot" approach best....

__________________
"If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you." -- Billy Wilder

"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." -- Otto Von Bismark

You don't understand the electric energy business.

1) a lot of electric power is from methane.
2) methane can be efficiently transformed into hydrogen at higher efficiency that into electric power
3) hydrogen can be converted into electric power at about the same efficiency as gas cogeneration
4) electric drive trains are more efficient than gas or oil combustion power trains

Therefore, higher efficiency results for using methane to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars than gasoline cars.

Methane cogeneration to charge electric battery cars is less or equal in efficiency to methane to hydrogen to fuel cell cars.

So, no need to build nuclear power plants to produce hydrogen from water, a really inefficient method.

And nuclear power plants just can't compete in the market because wind, solar thermal are cheaper if you capitalize the nuclear risks. The industry knows this, so they have been pushing for the risks to be taken on by government, for insurance on accident or terrorism, and for the financial market risk. If solar and wind end up being cheaper than nuclear in ten-twenty years, the bond payments will make the nuclear plants unprofitable, and when this happens, the bond holders and stockholders take a haircut. To pay for that risk, interest on nuclear power plant bonds needs to be high, which increases the cost of nuclear power, making wind and solar cheaper even sooner.

The problem is in the metals in the pressure vessels, containment system, the piping for the heat transfer to the generator, which all become embrittled by the radiation, and over time crack, then corrode, then leak.

As for being able to build them quickly, well only if the critical parts are bought from Asia or Europe; the foundries in the US capable of building such things were shutdown years ago because labor cost were too high in the US.