Everyday Erinyes #325

 Posted by at 7:41 am  Politics
Jul 032022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Armies (and Navies etc.) are made up of human beings, and human beings need everything that all human beings need. This is almost simplistically obvious. But it also leads to the inference that almost anything can turn out to be vital to our national security – and therefore, the production of almost anything can be justifiably encouraged under the Defense Production Act. But inarguably, energy is right up there. To be secure as a nation, we need energy to keep our people from dying from harsh weather conditions (hi, Texas!) Also, in battle conditions, reliable sources of energy are needed to keep tanks moving and communications effective –  to name just two of many reasons.
==============================================================

President Joe Biden authorized use of the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of several climate-friendly technologies.
Werner Slocum/NREL

Daniel Cohan, Rice University

Solar panels, heat pumps and hydrogen are all building blocks of a clean energy economy. But are they truly “essential to the national defense”?

President Joe Biden proclaimed that they are in early June when he authorized using the Defense Production Act to ramp up their production in the U.S., along with insulation and power grid components.

As an environmental engineering professor, I agree that these technologies are essential to mitigating our risks from climate change and overreliance on fossil fuels. However, efforts to expand production capabilities must be accompanied by policies to stimulate demand if Biden hopes to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Energy and the Defense Production Act

The United States enacted the Defense Production Act of 1950 at the start of the Korean War to secure materials deemed essential to national defense. Presidents soon recognized that essential materials extend far beyond weapons and ammunition. They have invoked the act to secure domestic supplies of everything from communications equipment to medical resources and baby formula.

For energy, past presidents used the act to expand fossil fuel supplies, not transition away from them. Lyndon Johnson used it to refurbish oil tankers during the 1967 Arab oil embargo, and Richard Nixon to secure materials for the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline in 1974. Even when Jimmy Carter used the act in 1980 to seek substitutes for oil, synthetic fuels made from coal and natural gas were a leading focus.

Today, the focus is on transitioning away from all fossil fuels, a move considered essential for confronting two key threats – climate change and volatile energy markets.

A field of solar panels in the desert with Las Vegas casinos and mountains in the background.
Utility-scale solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels. This installation is at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The Department of Defense has identified numerous national security risks arising from climate change. Those include threats to the water supply, food production and infrastructure, which may trigger migration and competition for scarce resources. Fossil fuels are the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights additional risks of relying on fossil fuels. Russia and other adversaries are among the leading producers of these fuels. Overreliance on fossil fuels leaves the United States and its allies vulnerable to threats and to price shocks in volatile markets.

Even as the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas, the United States has been rocked by price spikes as our allies shun Russian fuels.

Targeting 4 pillars of clean energy

Transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy can mitigate these risks.

As I explain in my book, “Confronting Climate Gridlock,” building a clean energy economy requires four mutually reinforcing pillars – efficiency, clean electricity, electrification and clean fuels.

Efficiency shrinks energy demand and costs along with the burdens on the other pillars. Clean electricity eliminates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and enables the electrification of vehicles, heating and industry. Meanwhile, clean fuels will be needed for airplanes, ships and industrial processes that can’t easily be electrified.

The technologies targeted by Biden’s actions are well aligned with these pillars.

Insulation is crucial to energy efficiency. Solar panels provide one of the cheapest and cleanest options for electricity. Power grid components are needed to integrate more wind and solar into the energy mix.

Heat pumps, which can both heat and cool a home, are far more efficient than traditional furnaces and replace natural gas or heating oil with electricity. Electrolyzers produce hydrogen for use as a fuel or a feedstock for chemicals.

Generating demand is essential

Production is only one step. For this effort to succeed, the U.S. must also ramp up demand.

Stimulating demand spurs learning by doing, which drives down costs, spurring greater demand. A virtuous cycle of rising adoption of technologies and falling costs can arise, as it has for wind and solar power, batteries and other technologies.

The technologies targeted by Biden differ in their readiness for this virtuous cycle to work.

Insulation is already cheap and abundantly produced domestically. What’s needed in this case are policies like building codes and incentives that can stimulate demand by encouraging more use of insulation to help make homes and buildings more energy efficient, not more capacity for production.

Solar panels are currently cheap, but the vast majority are manufactured in Asia. Even if Biden succeeds in tripling domestic manufacturing capacity, U.S. production alone will remain insufficient to satisfy the growing demand for new solar projects. Biden also put a two-year pause on the threat of new tariffs for solar imports to keep supplies flowing while U.S. production tries to ramp up, and announced support for grid-strengthening projects to boost growth of U.S. installations.

Electrolyzers face a tougher road. They’re expensive, and using them to make hydrogen from electricity and water for now costs far more than making hydrogen from natural gas – a process that produces greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Energy aims to slash electrolyzer costs by 80% within a decade. Until it succeeds, there will be little demand for the electrolyzers that Biden hopes to see produced.

Why heat pumps are most likely to benefit

That leaves heat pumps as the technology most likely to benefit from Biden’s declaration.

Heat pumps can slash energy use, but they also cost more upfront and are unfamiliar to many contractors and consumers while technologies remain in flux.

Pairing use of the Defense Production Act with customer incentives, increased government purchasing and funding for research and development can create a virtuous cycle of rising demand, improving technologies and falling costs.

A worker in ballcap and short sleeves installs a large hat pump, hooking up hoses next to a house.
Heat pumps, which can both heat and cool, are far more efficient than traditional furnaces and air conditioning.
Phyxter.ai/Flickr, CC BY

Clean energy is indeed essential to mitigating the risks posed by climate change and volatile markets. Invoking the Defense Production Act can bolster supply, but the government will also have to stimulate demand and fund targeted research to spur the virtuous cycles needed to accelerate the energy transition.The Conversation

Daniel Cohan, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
AMT, It’s indeed true that increasing demand is vital to motivating increased production.  And, as long as himans are resistant to change (which I assume will be true until the race becomes extinct), there will be challenges to replacing old technology with new. However, it has happened in the past. If our experience with the automobile is any guide, that means that producers are going to have to accept smaller profit margins than they are acustomed to – at least for a while – at least until the new technologies are firmly established and production costs go down. It would also not hurt for income levels to go up – remember it was the New Deal with all its effects, as well as unions, which actually turned us all into consumers – and gave us the ability to keep up consumption. Wealthy oligarchs were not happy with it then, and they won’t be happy with it now. But if wealthy oligarchs don’t capitulate and start to “bite the bullet” soon, they will end up with no customers and will lose everything.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Jun 072022
 

Yesterday, I had said I planned to rest, and I guess I did. I slept almost 4 hours passed my (only a suggestion) alarm time. When I did get up, my back was really complaining (which the TENS fixed up pretty quickly), but my shouldr felt fine. I think (hope) I have found the sweet spot to assuage that particular pain point. In any case, I have material – two stories about Colorado, one a good example and the other a horror story – and also a story on a crime prevention tactic hat actually works (so of course it has no chance against Republicans.)  Today’s cartoon memorializes the first known summit conference in WEurope (I for one would not be surprised t learn that native Americans were doind it long before that.)

Also, please, everyone, cick back (under the comments, on the left) to the post published just before this Thread for Nameless’s wonderful post. (And here I thought I was the queen of workarounds. This is brilliant!)

Cartoon –

Short Takes –

The 19th – Colorado is the first state to abolish anonymous sperm and egg donors. Activist Erin Jackson on why that matters.
Quote – In 2021, Jackson, who had no prior advocacy experience, joined a handful of other activists in starting the U.S. Donor Conceived Council, a political advocacy group. Sen. Stephen Fenberg, the president of Colorado’s state senate, reached out to Jackson to ask what donor-conceived people want to see happen in terms of regulation of the fertility industry. Jackson was armed with data she had collected outlining the types of policy positions her community wanted to see. Fenberg ran with it: Jackson and the U.S. Donor Conceived Council were instrumental in shaping first-of-its-kind legislation in Colorado.
Click through for details. Ethics is complicated. The original concept of anonymity was based on the assumption tha donors had a right to protection, but this ignored the fact that those who resulted had a right to information too. What you don’t know CAN hurt you.

CPR News – Victim IDs released in coal slide at Pueblo power plant
Quote – The men worked for Utah-based Savage, a contractor for Xcel Energy that operates the plant’s coal yard. Witnesses reported that the accident happened on a feeder pile for the station’s coal-fired power plant, which is Colorado’s largest…. Rescuers found the bodies of the two men buried beneath about 60 feet of coal after a day-long search. The men had been standing about 30 feet up a slope of the pile when the slide occurred, according to the Pueblo Fire Department.
Click through for background (including a lin to the original story). This is an extremely good argumant for terminating the use of coal world-wide. (Not that Republicans care about people dying as long as they are making money.)

Vox – A study gave cash and therapy to men at risk of criminal behavior. 10 years later, the results are in.
Quote – That’s such an incredibly good deal that it sounds too good to be true. But it’s been borne out by the research of Chris Blattman, Margaret Sheridan, Julian Jamison, and Sebastian Chaskel. Their new study provides experimental evidence that offering at-risk men a few weeks of behavioral therapy plus a bit of cash reduces the future risk of crime and violence, even 10 years after the intervention.
Click through for full story. It’s far more complex than a single quote can communicate.

Food For Thought

Share
Apr 102022
 

Glenn Kirschner – NY DA Bragg tries to double-talk his way out of his decision to end the Trump criminal investigation

Ring of Fire – Conservatives Have Complete Meltdown Over Oreo Cookies

MSNBC: “Extraordinarily Disgraceful” that American Officials would Support Putin, says Spanberger

Rebel HQ – Richard Ojeda SHREDS Moscow Mitch’s Lack Of Morals

Ths tweet is from Steve Schmidt of the Lincoln Project, and yes.

Mrs Betty Bowers – Schooling Ron DeSantis https://youtu.be/aUEnTcpLvV0

Beau – Let’s talk about West Virginia, solar, and stranded assets….

Share
Mar 132022
 

Glenn Kirschner – AG Garland: “DOJ Will Hold All Accountable”, Starting w/”Cases in Front of Us & Build From There”

Meidas Touch – Ban Putin Propaganda

American Bridge – America is on the move

No Dem Left Behind – Don’t Say Gay Bill, the GOP’s Long Strategy of Weaponizing Fear & Hate

Liberal Redneck – Gas Prices and Joe Biden

Sky World- By Bear Fox performed by Teio Swathe – [In English and a Native language, I do not know which] Words: “Let us put our minds together and remember those who have passed on, their lives’ duties accomplished, they are living peacefully in the Sky World.”

Beau – Let’s talk about North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court….

Share

Everyday Erinyes #308

 Posted by at 12:16 pm  Politics
Mar 062022
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I’ve already said(or implied) that I am too emotionally invested in the Russia-Ukraine confit to wrote about it, and that is still true. This is not so much about the conflict itself as the science behind certain actual and/or possible developments from that conflict. I think this is important, and I’m sure I’ll get agreement on that.
==============================================================

Military action in radioactive Chernobyl could be dangerous for people and the environment

Much of the region around Chernobyl has been untouched by people since the nuclear disaster in 1986.
Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Timothy A. Mousseau, University of South Carolina

The site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine has been surrounded for more than three decades by a 1,000-square-mile (2,600-square-kilometer) exclusion zone that keeps people out. On April 26, 1986, Chernobyl’s reactor number four melted down as a result of human error, releasing vast quantities of radioactive particles and gases into the surrounding landscape – 400 times more radioactivity to the environment than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Put in place to contain the radioactive contaminants, the exclusion zone also protects the region from human disturbance.

Apart from a handful of industrial areas, most of the exclusion zone is completely isolated from human activity and appears almost normal. In some areas, where radiation levels have dropped over time, plants and animals have returned in significant numbers.

fox against grassy background
A fox near the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.
T. A. Mousseau, 2019, CC BY-ND

Some scientists have suggested the zone has become an Eden for wildlife, while others are skeptical of that possibility. Looks can be deceiving, at least in areas of high radioactivity, where bird, mammal and insect population sizes and diversity are significantly lower than in the “clean” parts of the exclusion zone.

I’ve spent more than 20 years working in Ukraine, as well as in Belarus and Fukushima, Japan, largely focused on the effects of radiation. I have been asked many times over the past days why Russian forces entered northern Ukraine via this atomic wasteland, and what the environmental consequences of military activity in the zone might be.

As of the beginning of March 2022, Russian forces controlled the Chernobyl facility.

Why invade via Chernobyl?

In hindsight, the strategic benefits of basing military operations in the Chernobyl exclusion zone seem obvious. It is a large, unpopulated area connected by a paved highway straight to the Ukrainian capital, with few obstacles or human developments along the way. The Chernobyl zone abuts Belarus and is thus immune from attack from Ukrainian forces from the north. The reactor site’s industrial area is, in effect, a large parking lot suitable for staging an invading army’s thousands of vehicles.

The power plant site also houses the main electrical grid switching network for the entire region. It’s possible to turn the lights off in Kyiv from here, even though the power plant itself has not generated any electricity since 2000, when the last of Chernobyl’s four reactors was shut down. Such control over the power supply likely has strategic importance, although Kyiv’s electrical needs could probably also be supplied via other nodes on the Ukrainian national power grid.

The reactor site likely offers considerable protection from aerial attack, given the improbability that Ukrainian or other forces would risk combat on a site containing more than 5.3 million pounds (2.4 million kilograms) of radioactive spent nuclear fuel. This is the highly radioactive material produced by a nuclear reactor during normal operations. A direct hit on the power plant’s spent fuel pools or dry cask storage facilities could release substantially more radioactive material into the environment than the original meltdown and explosions in 1986 and thus cause an environmental disaster of global proportions.

grassy foreground with industrial buildings in the distance
View of the power plant site from a distance, with the containment shield structure in place over the destroyed reactor.
T.A. Mousseau, CC BY-ND

Environmental risks on the ground in Chernobyl

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is among the most radioactively contaminated regions on the planet. Thousands of acres surrounding the reactor site have ambient radiation dose rates exceeding typical background levels by thousands of times. In parts of the so-called Red Forest near the power plant it’s possible to receive a dangerous radiation dose in just a few days of exposure.

Radiation monitoring stations across the Chernobyl zone recorded the first obvious environmental impact of the invasion. Sensors put in place by the Ukrainian Chernobyl EcoCenter in case of accidents or forest fires showed dramatic jumps in radiation levels along major roads and next to the reactor facilities starting after 9 p.m on Feb. 24, 2022. That’s when Russian invaders reached the area from neighboring Belarus.

Because the rise in radiation levels was most obvious in the immediate vicinity of the reactor buildings, there was concern that the containment structures had been damaged, although Russian authorities have denied this possibility. The sensor network abruptly stopped reporting early on Feb. 25 and did not restart until March 1, 2022, so the full magnitude of disturbance to the region from the troop movements is unclear.

If, in fact, it was dust stirred up by vehicles and not damage to any containment facilities that caused the rise in radiation readings, and assuming the increase lasted for just a few hours, it’s not likely to be of long-term concern, as the dust will settle again once troops move through.

But the Russian soldiers, as well as the Ukrainian power plant workers who have been held hostage, undoubtedly inhaled some of the blowing dust. Researchers know the dirt in the Chernobyl exclusion zone can contain radionuclides including cesium-137, strontium-90, several isotopes of plutonium and uranium, and americium-241. Even at very low levels, they’re all toxic, carcinogenic or both if inhaled.

aerial view of fire burning on wooded landscape
Forest fires, like this one in 2020 in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, can release radioactive particles that had been trapped in the burning materials.
Volodymyr Shuvayev/AFP via Getty Images

Possible impacts further afield

Perhaps the greater environmental threat to the region stems from the potential release to the atmosphere of radionuclides stored in soil and plants should a forest fire ignite.

Such fires have recently increased in frequency, size and intensity, likely because of climate change, and these fires have released radioactive materials back into the air and and dispersed them far and wide. Radioactive fallout from forest fires may well represent the greatest threat from the Chernobyl site to human populations downwind of the region as well as the wildlife within the exclusion zone.

Currently the zone is home to massive amounts of dead trees and debris that could act as fuel for a fire. Even in the absence of combat, military activity – like thousands of troops transiting, eating, smoking and building campfires to stay warm – increases the risk of forest fires.

bird held in hands with tumor visible through feathers
A bird from Chernobyl with a tumor on its head.
T. A. Mousseau, 2009, CC BY-ND

It’s hard to predict the effects of radioactive fallout on people, but the consequences to flora and fauna have been well documented. Chronic exposure to even relatively low levels of radionuclides has been linked to a wide variety of health consequences in wildlife, including genetic mutations, tumors, eye cataracts, sterility and neurological impairment, along with reductions in population sizes and biodiversity in areas of high contamination.

There is no “safe” level when it comes to ionizing radiation. The hazards to life are in direct proportion to the level of exposure. Should the ongoing conflict escalate and damage the radiation confinement facilities at Chernobyl, or at any of the 15 nuclear reactors at four other sites across Ukraine, the magnitude of harm to the environment would be catastrophic.

[Get fascinating science, health and technology news. Sign up for The Conversation’s weekly science newsletter.]The Conversation

Timothy A. Mousseau, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

==============================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, some of this could probably have been anticipated by educated people who stay up to date. Other aspects were surprising (who knew that, from Chernobyl, after all this time, it might still be possible to “turn off the lights in Kyiv”?) And there is still so much we don’t know.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
Mar 052022
 

Glenn Kirschner – NY Prosecutors Investigating Trump Resign, DA Alvin Bragg Refuses to Release Resignation Letters I am posting this because I am not hiding anything. But I would point out that a straight stick points two ways. And I have not forgotten that when Tish James jumped in in Trump** her office announced that they and the Manhattan DA’s office would be coordinating their efforts. I would expect that a major element of that coordination would be coordinating the order in which steps would be taken. Again, a straight stick points two ways. We don’t have evidence for either direction at this point.

Lincoln Project – Last Week in the Republican Party – February 28, 2022

Ring of Fire – Mitch McConnell Brutally Smacks Down Donald Trump And Rick Scott

MSNBC – Trump Crime? MAGA Riot Panel Reveals Evidence Of ‘Criminal Conspiracy’

Truth Matters – State of Democracy

Armageddon Update | What Is It Good For? (“Scream Sanity” indeed!)

Beau – Let’s talk about Psaki, Hawley, energy, and national security….

Share

Everyday Erinyes #281

 Posted by at 10:15 am  Politics
Aug 292021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Renewable energy is, by definition, renewable. If you harvest energy from the sun or from the wind, and the sun sets or the wind stops blowing, there will always be more. But in order to make it through the night, or through the calm days, you need to be able to store the energy you harvested while the sun was up and the wind blowing. And, while we do have a lot of ways to store it, we are not as far along as I had hoped in making those ways last long enough and be dependable enough to leave fossil fuels behind just yet. So maybe we need to take stock of the situation.
================================================================

These 3 energy storage technologies can help solve the challenge of moving to 100% renewable electricity

Energy storage can make facilities like this solar farm in Oxford, Maine, more profitable by letting them store power for cloudy days.
AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

Kerry Rippy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

In recent decades the cost of wind and solar power generation has dropped dramatically. This is one reason that the U.S. Department of Energy projects that renewable energy will be the fastest-growing U.S. energy source through 2050.

However, it’s still relatively expensive to store energy. And since renewable energy generation isn’t available all the time – it happens when the wind blows or the sun shines – storage is essential.

As a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, I work with the federal government and private industry to develop renewable energy storage technologies. In a recent report, researchers at NREL estimated that the potential exists to increase U.S. renewable energy storage capacity by as much as 3,000% percent by 2050.

Here are three emerging technologies that could help make this happen.

Longer charges

From alkaline batteries for small electronics to lithium-ion batteries for cars and laptops, most people already use batteries in many aspects of their daily lives. But there is still lots of room for growth.

For example, high-capacity batteries with long discharge times – up to 10 hours – could be valuable for storing solar power at night or increasing the range of electric vehicles. Right now there are very few such batteries in use. However, according to recent projections, upwards of 100 gigawatts’ worth of these batteries will likely be installed by 2050. For comparison, that’s 50 times the generating capacity of Hoover Dam. This could have a major impact on the viability of renewable energy.


Batteries work by creating a chemical reaction that produces a flow of electrical current.

One of the biggest obstacles is limited supplies of lithium and cobalt, which currently are essential for making lightweight, powerful batteries. According to some estimates, around 10% of the world’s lithium and nearly all of the world’s cobalt reserves will be depleted by 2050.

Furthermore, nearly 70% of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Congo, under conditions that have long been documented as inhumane.

Scientists are working to develop techniques for recycling lithium and cobalt batteries, and to design batteries based on other materials. Tesla plans to produce cobalt-free batteries within the next few years. Others aim to replace lithium with sodium, which has properties very similar to lithium’s but is much more abundant.

Safer batteries

Another priority is to make batteries safer. One area for improvement is electrolytes – the medium, often liquid, that allows an electric charge to flow from the battery’s anode, or negative terminal, to the cathode, or positive terminal.

When a battery is in use, charged particles in the electrolyte move around to balance out the charge of the electricity flowing out of the battery. Electrolytes often contain flammable materials. If they leak, the battery can overheat and catch fire or melt.

Scientists are developing solid electrolytes, which would make batteries more robust. It is much harder for particles to move around through solids than through liquids, but encouraging lab-scale results suggest that these batteries could be ready for use in electric vehicles in the coming years, with target dates for commercialization as early as 2026.

While solid-state batteries would be well suited for consumer electronics and electric vehicles, for large-scale energy storage, scientists are pursuing all-liquid designs called flow batteries.

Flow battery diagram.

A typical flow battery consists of two tanks of liquids that are pumped past a membrane held between two electrodes.
Qi and Koenig, 2017, CC BY

In these devices both the electrolyte and the electrodes are liquids. This allows for super-fast charging and makes it easy to make really big batteries. Currently these systems are very expensive, but research continues to bring down the price.

Storing sunlight as heat

Other renewable energy storage solutions cost less than batteries in some cases. For example, concentrated solar power plants use mirrors to concentrate sunlight, which heats up hundreds or thousands of tons of salt until it melts. This molten salt then is used to drive an electric generator, much as coal or nuclear power is used to heat steam and drive a generator in traditional plants.

These heated materials can also be stored to produce electricity when it is cloudy, or even at night. This approach allows concentrated solar power to work around the clock.

Man examines valve at end of large piping network.
Checking a molten salt valve for corrosion at Sandia’s Molten Salt Test Loop.
Randy Montoya, Sandia Labs/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

This idea could be adapted for use with nonsolar power generation technologies. For example, electricity made with wind power could be used to heat salt for use later when it isn’t windy.

Concentrating solar power is still relatively expensive. To compete with other forms of energy generation and storage, it needs to become more efficient. One way to achieve this is to increase the temperature the salt is heated to, enabling more efficient electricity production. Unfortunately, the salts currently in use aren’t stable at high temperatures. Researchers are working to develop new salts or other materials that can withstand temperatures as high as 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit (705 C).

One leading idea for how to reach higher temperature involves heating up sand instead of salt, which can withstand the higher temperature. The sand would then be moved with conveyor belts from the heating point to storage. The Department of Energy recently announced funding for a pilot concentrated solar power plant based on this concept.

Advanced renewable fuels

Batteries are useful for short-term energy storage, and concentrated solar power plants could help stabilize the electric grid. However, utilities also need to store a lot of energy for indefinite amounts of time. This is a role for renewable fuels like hydrogen and ammonia. Utilities would store energy in these fuels by producing them with surplus power, when wind turbines and solar panels are generating more electricity than the utilities’ customers need.

Hydrogen and ammonia contain more energy per pound than batteries, so they work where batteries don’t. For example, they could be used for shipping heavy loads and running heavy equipment, and for rocket fuel.

Today these fuels are mostly made from natural gas or other nonrenewable fossil fuels via extremely inefficient reactions. While we think of it as a green fuel, most hydrogen gas today is made from natural gas.

Scientists are looking for ways to produce hydrogen and other fuels using renewable electricity. For example, it is possible to make hydrogen fuel by splitting water molecules using electricity. The key challenge is optimizing the process to make it efficient and economical. The potential payoff is enormous: inexhaustible, completely renewable energy.

[Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]The Conversation

Kerry Rippy, Researcher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, we all know that only an idiot would say “if you just have solar power you have no light at night,” or “you only have wind energy when the wind is blowing.” And that is because these technologies utilize storage. And I guess I thought we were farther along in storage than we in fact are. We need better storage, and we need it cheaper – both in terms of the money it costs consumers, and also in terms of how resources are used. Any help from you ladies wold be deeply appreciated.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share