[RTC List] New record set yesterday for alternative energy generation

[Dave Thewlis]

There is a fair amount going on in what is being called the "smart 
grid".  The Obama Administration charged NIST several months ago to put 
together a standards roadmap for implementing the smart grid which will 
if followed through on have a major effect on energy consumption.  See 
http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.  This is all hugely political of course 
because a lot of the vested interests in energy production aren't wildly 
excited about changing anything.  But it's got to happen.  The core of 
this is smart buildings which can manage power usage based on how they 
are going to be used on more or less a moment by moment basis (think 
hooking your scheduling system to the building's energy management 
system), requirement aggregation, dynamic requests and pricing.  
Something like 50% of the energy consumed in the U.S. today is consumed 
by buildings, and something like 50% of that is wasted because of the 
lack of dynamic adjustment. 

Dave Thewlis

William Van Hefner wrote:
> A topic that Larry briefly brought-up is at the real crux of the problem
> when it comes to energy independence for the United States.
> Infrastructure. We could potentially save many billions of dollars each
> year by powering vehicles solely by electricity. The technology is there
> today for cars that will fit the needs of most Americans without an extra
> 1,000 lbs of engine to carry around, like hybrids have to. The problem is,
> what would happen if even 10% of the people in this country bought one? As
> soon as everyone got home at night and plugged their cars in to recharge,
> our electrical grid would suffer a complete meltdown.
>
> The problem with wind, solar, hydro and most other "green" technology is
> that energy generation is sporadic. Solar doesn't work at night. Wind only
> works when it's windy. Hydro only works when there is enough extra water,
> etc. All of today's modern generation facilities, whether they run on
> natural gas, coal, nuclear, whatever... have one thing in common. They can
> all output a steady flow of electricity 24/7. Our nation's electrical grid
> is simply not built to handle large volumes of energy that are only
> available "some" of the time. Unlike small home-based systems, the
> nation's electrical grid has no "batteries" to store energy for later use.
> You would need a battery the size of the empire state building in order to
> provide enough back-up power for most parts of the country.
>
> Even if we had such as system, another part of the problem today is that
> unless the location of these new power generation plants just happen to be
> in the same place as the old ones, major upgrades to infrastructure are
> also going to be needed in order to get the power generated to where it
> needs to go. In this regards, nuclear is much more of a "drop-in"
> replacement as a power source. Our local power plant is an excellent
> example of how interchangeable the technology is. Just don't build a
> nuclear power plant on top of an earthquake fault!
>
> I think that the best shot we have right now at a new "green" source of
> energy generation, which could output a steady source of power 24/7 and
> could be built at the location of most existing power plants is fusion
> generation. It's a lot closer than most people think. Try taking a look at
> https://lasers.llnl.gov/ for more info. It won't solve everything. There's
> still the problem of handling peak loads for things like electric cars,
> but it's a big step in the right direction.
>
>
>   


-- 
*Dave Thewlis, DCTA Inc.*
+1 707 840 9391 (voice) · +1 707 498 2238 (mobile)
http://www.dcta.com · dthewlis at dcta.com <mailto:dthewlis at dcta.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20091112/9a3cf319/attachment.html>