Tuesday, March 8, 2011

A Solution – The Solar Grand Plan


One of my favorite ideas to help solve the problem of climate change was presented in the December 2007 issue of Scientific American entitled “Solar Grand Plan”. According to the article, this plan could provide 69% of all US electricity and 35% of our total energy by 2050, and the development costs would only average 10 billion a year over 40 years. Once developed the costs would be almost zero as no "fuel" is required. The plan would eliminate the need for all imported oil, thereby reducing our huge trade deficit and easing Middle East tensions. If sufficient wind, geothermal, and biomass were added to the mix, we could provide 100% of the electricity and 90% of our nation’s energy needs by the year 2100.

So how do we pull off this miracle? First a few facts:

Light coming from the sun brings with it an amazing amount of energy. For example there is enough power in only forty minutes of sunlight striking the earth to provide all of humanity with its energy needs for a year.
In the American South West there are 250,000 sq. miles of land suitable for solar power. But we need only a tiny fraction of that. For example, if we had had the necessary solar collectors, it would have taken only 2.5 % of that land to have provided our entire nation’s energy usage for the year 2006.

Well, this sounds wonderful you say, but aren’t their problems with solar? How do we get all that power from the South West to New England or Washington State, or Chicago? Aren’t those awfully long distances for electric power? And what about nighttime when there is no sun? And didn’t someone say that solar requires lots of water, an item in short supply in our SW deserts?
So let me answer each question in turn.

First, getting the power from where it’s made to where it’s needed. Anytime you pass electricity through a wire or cable, a certain percentage of that power is lost in what’s called the “resistance” of the wire. So the longer the cable, the more power is lost. For really long distances, direct current or DC lines are more efficient with less power loss than the traditional alternating current or AC lines. So, for example, to get all this solar power to New England with manageable power loss, we could build DC transmission lines, than tap into the traditional AC power grid once we get near our destination.
But there is something even more special about direct current. If you cool the right material to super low temperatures, all the resistance disappears and you get what’s called superconductivity. Result – no power loss at all! (More about this later.)

Second, night time power
So what about nighttime power when there is no sun? To cover nighttime power needs we could install extra solar cells to collect the required night time power during the day, then store that power until it’s needed. Ordinary rechargeable batteries won’t work because we would need to store way too much power. But there are other solutions. 

One interesting solution is use the extra electricity to “split” water (two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen), then save the hydrogen, letting the oxygen (the stuff we breathe) go into the air. Why hydrogen? It turns out that hydrogen would just love to recombine with the oxygen again creating huge amounts of energy. And, unlike coal, oil, or gas, the only byproduct is harmless water. So we’d store the hydrogen, then “burn” it at night when we need the power. Since hydrogen at room temperature is a gas, and gasses take up a lot of space, the best way to store the hydrogen is to chill it to such a low temperature that it becomes a liquid.

Now things get really interesting! It turns out that liquid hydrogen is cold enough that if we ran it through the right kind of hollow DC electric cables, the cables would become super-conductive with zero power loss.

With all this information, let’s build our new US power system. In a small portion of the south west we build our solar plants. We add facilities that, during the day, use a portion of that solar power to  extract hydrogen from water and liquefy it. At the same time we construct some heavily insulated, underground, superconducting “pipes” designed to carry power to the far reaches of the country. The inner part of the pipe carries the super cold liquid hydrogen while the out shell carries the DC electricity. The solar electricity provides power during the day. The liquid hydrogen gets piped to old power plants that have been converted so that their turbines, now burning hydrogen rather than coal or gas, can provide power during the night.

There are still some problems, however, that must be addressed. I will attempt to do so in my next release. 

Monday, February 21, 2011

Books, References and Links

This list will be updated as we go along. I’m sure that readers will have excellent suggestions and I will add any that seem appropriate.

Suggested books
       Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Gared Diamond
       What’s the Worst that Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate, by Greg Craven
       Our Choice, A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis by Al Gore
       Also by Al Gore: Climate Change: Picturing the Science
       The Flooded Earth by Peter Ward -- explaining the
effect of carbon dioxide and ice cap melting on the rise of sea levels and the destruction of much agricultural land and coastal cities/populations.
       Also by Peter Ward: The life and death of Planet Earth

Interesting Links

Naomi Klein: Why Climate Change Is So Threatening to Right-Wing Ideologues
http://www.alternet.org/water/150180       "Climate change challenges everything conservatives believe in. So they're choosing to disbelieve it, at our peril."

From my friend Arden: Suggested presentations on www.ted.com .
·        www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html  makes the case that the past mass extinctions were caused by carbon dioxide build ups and Hydrogen Sulfide releases, not just extraterrestrial body impacts. 
 www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html  talks about GDP being a poor national measure of well-being. Also, that the Declaration of Independence calls for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (not the pursuit of GDP).
 http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/juan_enriquez_wants_to_grow_energy.html Juan talks about bioenergy and global warming and the destructive path we are on. He also has a TED eBook on evolution going forward.
 http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html  talks about population growth with excellent graphics.

Articles
Here's an article about the GOP and science: "3/4ths of Senate GOP Doesn't Believe in Science"
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/150340

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense by John Rennie. Scientific American –November 30, 2009


Tuesday, February 15, 2011

3rd Reason: A Leap of Faith


To act against GW requires what is essentially a leap of faith. Are we really going to have climate change? How bad will it be? What if we act and all the scientists turn out to have been wrong, or Tom’s historical review of the industrial revolution and population growth was just a lot of hot air? Wouldn’t we have wasted huge amounts of national resources in an attempt to battle a non-existent boogie man? What if?

There is a wonderful little book by Greg Craven called “What’s the worst that could happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate” in which he addresses this issue by helping the reader create a decision grid which looks something like this:

ACTION

Global Warming
A
Significant Action Now
B
Little or No Action Now

False

Huge expense wasted


Party time!

True
Economic costs
Increased regulations
But worth it!
Global catastrophe
(economic, social, political, public health, environmental)
On the left of the chart is Global Warming, True or False. Across the top are two choices: to act or not to act. In the middle of the grid are the consequences of each action if GW is false or if it is true. The author, like myself, would rather act in case GW is true and avoid global catastrophe and risk the waste if it turns out to be false. 

But in any case, because we have never been confronted with any issue like it, and because all our predictions about GW are highly educated guesses, not based (because they can’t be) on actual experience, deciding to take action is an act of faith. And so far, too many of us, especially those who rely on experience and certainty, can’t yet trust a bunch of scientists peering with highly technical and difficult-to-understand lenses into a never before experienced future.

Wouldn’t it be SO much easier if we could rely on experience and say something like, “Remember what happened a few centuries ago when we had our last global warming? That was a disaster because the idiots who were around then didn’t take action in time. Let’s be smarter this time and act now!” But of course we can’t. But perhaps we can find another way, and perhaps you, dear reader, can help me. Comments welcome!