The Great Lakes Zephyr - Wind Energy & Hydrogen Journal

The following is the text of an interesting debate I'm having with Ross Donald of the Renewable News Network via altpower digest at Yahoo Groups:

Dear Ross,

I'm leaving the rest of this thread here for quick reference.

In a case of solar power vs. oil, coal, or nuclear power, solar would get my vote every time.
In a case of solar power vs. wind energy, I would vote for whichever made economic sense, regardless. Now, before you say "ha! He just said that wind energy makes more sense economically and therefore does not support solar power!" I would like you to reference the context of the conversation. This is about ramping up renewable energy sources to alleviate the very immediate natural gas shortages faced by the USA. There are several points I want to make here, so I will reference them as "bullet items".

1. Both forms of clean renewable power are as far as I can tell, equally attractive from the standpoint of an unlimited, essentially free, renewable power source. The only limits I am aware of are those imposed by availability of geographic locations suitable to collection. I have not done any digging to see which form has more surface area on the planet available suitable to that mode of power production, outside the United States. Within the U.S. and it's coastal waters, it appears to me to be roughly even.

2. Given equal viability for the power source, wind power is currently, given the state of current technology, cheaper to utilize for power production, to the best of my ability to determine.

3. The need for alleviation of energy shortages caused by natural gas availability shortages is very immediate. This type of situation calls for the lowest cost / highest speed replacement of energy supply. We need to ramp up electricity production through another resource that is competitive economically, environmentally, and in terms of scalability with natural gas powered generation.

4. Wind energy is generally more available in winter. Solar energy is generally more available in summer. Natural gas usage is peaking in winter, when it is being tapped as an energy source both for heating of living and working space and as a source of energy for electricity production at the same time. (Granted, if natural gas were to become a large enough contributor to electricity production, air conditioning demand could outstrip heating for peaking demand, but I do not believe we're there yet.)

5. Wind energy has been growing at an average global rate of nearly 30% annually for just these reasons, so the manufacturing capacity mostly exists and could readily be scaled up quickly.

This was the general reasoning I used in making my earlier statement. In order to alleviate the looming natural gas shortage was the context of the topic.

Given a more long term view, the picture is somewhat different. Recently the Earth Policy Institute released an article stating that wind power could meet the total world demand for electricity and transportation needs if coupled with hydrogen could meet projected demand through year 2020 if only ten percent of the Earth's surface with viable wind conditions were available. See "Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source" at: http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release-m.asp?objid=||D1D1364B000000F5FFB5EC17C0EFE1B4

What about beyond year 2020? Solar power could conceivably add more generation capacity and take the scope of renewables much further. It makes sense for those who live in areas where solar power is abundant to develop it. The energy economy picture looks to remain very regionalized through the foreseeable future as far as energy sources are concerned. It makes sense from a security standpoint for solar -rich regions to build local generation capacity to offset the need for energy imports in the short term. In the long term, solar power capacity adds will make even more sense globally as the effects of global warming become more and more pronounced and obvious, and the true costs of fossil fuel use are shoved under our noses like a hot potato.

Also, at some point, geographically acceptable terrestrial resources will become saturated for energy production, and the we must leave the planet for any increases in in renewable energy sources, and at that point, solar energy becomes the only easily-reached game in town.

Therefore, in the context of urgency, it makes more sense to lead with wind / hydrogen, and follow through with solar, at least when speaking of utility-scale generation capacity. In terms of individual plants that reduce grid dependency, the picture is far more dominated by which power source is locally available, and solar will make more sense to those in areas where wind is not so available, especially since the cost of production increases dramatically for wind power in smaller plants.

The end result?

Utility scale = wind first, then solar.
Individual independence = whichever is economically feasible in your area, and preferably both due to seasonal availability, especially the further from the equator you live. You will also need a battery string or other energy storage technology to buffer the intermittent nature of either.

I do support solar power, in the sense that it is environmentally sound technology, and in proper perspective for a long term comprehensive plan to transition to renewable power globally. If it had made more sense to me in the context given, I would have suggested it over wind energy. Given the information I have currently, it does not make greater sense to me in that context.

Sincerely,

Dan Stafford

Renewable News Network wrote:

Dear Dan,

Why can't you support solar energy?

You will be tempted to reply, I'm sure, that, you do support solar, but
your words betray you.

You talk about using both solar and wind, but then argue against this,
in trying to promote wind versus solar, when the arguement should be and
is, in fact, that 1) solar is better than natural gas, and 2) wind is
better than natural gas, too, where ever and whenever, the alternatives
can be shown to be preferable.

Wind energy may be cheaper than solar in some instances, and may
as abundant as solar energy in places, and may be able to be ramped
up to meet the same and/or other needs; but all this, in no way,
means that the same cannot be said regarding solar energy, in other
instances.

Its a matter of logic and strategy. Essentially, it makes no sense to
put solar down, in order to build wind up. We don't need a zero sum
perspective, when a synergystic approach is better.

Whatever you may want to say in favor of wind energy is certainly
worth considering. And solar energy advocates welcome most all
support for anyone's particular favorite mode of renewable energy, but
for you to support one resource at the expense of another form of
renewable energy, is counter-productive in many ways.

As to the facts, to state that "Solar is a much more expensive solution"
(than wind) is simply not true, in all instances, without going into
greater detail, in terms of place, price, and technological application.

Let the oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and utility industries say
that solar is expensive, so that we can argue against that proposition,
together. If you're trying to cozy up to the anti-solar interests, in
order to gain support for wind, by putting solar energy down, you will
hurt both wind and solar.

Yours truly,
Ross Donald


"Wise up." -John Belushi


On 6 Jul 2003 Dan Stafford wrote:

From: Dan Stafford
Subject: Re: Solar Power Cure for Natural Gas Shortage





From: (Tom Waters)
Subject: Solar Power Cure for Natural Gas Shortage

WASHINGTON, DC, July 3, 2003 (ENS) - The Solar Energy Industries Association released an analysis that shows that clean, renewable solar power could replace nearly one-third of the natural gas supply shortage in 2005, if the federal government took steps this year to promote solar expansion.
The news comes amid growing concern that the current shortage of three to four billion cubic feet of natural gas per day cannot be alleviated for several years, at a minimum.
Much of the problem stems from the growing use of natural gas to generate electricity.
"If Congress included a solar power stimulus section as part of its pending energy bill, we could mitigate nearly a third of the natural gas shortfall with clean, renewable power from the sun in 2005," said Glenn Hamer, executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association, the national trade organization representing solar electric and solar thermal manufacturers, component suppliers, and distributors. The association proposed steps that would allow the U.S. solar industry to meet these goals. First, a federal solar electric rebate pegged at $4 a watt, which would phase out over time. This would be modeled on successful state rebates, or "buy downs." Another proposed step is a 25 percent tax credit on solar system purchases by homeowners, businesses, farms, and government entities. The group wants to extend the wind energy production tax credit to solar, including a temporary triple multiplier for the first 1,000 megawatts of solar to come on line.
The association also urges passage of the other solar provisions pending in the House and Senate energy bills.
"As the President and Congress recognize, the tax code is the fastest way to jumpstart the economy. It's also the fastest way to stimulate new clean energy production to alleviate the natural gas shortage," Hamer said.
________________________________________


Dan Stafford wrote:

Wind energy is far cheaper, every bit as abundant, and could easily be
ramped up to meet the same needs. Considering solar is most available in
summer and wind in winter, a combination of the two would be a much
better solution. Wind power costs are now ranging from 3.5 - 6 cents /
kwh, and could conceivably drop to 1.5-2 cents / kwh if demand fueled
mass-production lines and dropped equipment costs. and the U.S. has the
best wind potential on the planet. Solar is a much more expensive solution.