American companies are in the battle. Ausra and PG&E announced a similar 177 MW CSP plant in California last year, and Ausra announced they're making all their components in Nevada (unlike Abengoa, which is doing all the high value manufacturing in Europe). Solar's pretty interesting right now...
The amount of energy that hits a square yard of the Earth on a sunny day is surprisingly large. (I researched this years ago in graduate school.) The article notes "Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation
’s total energy consumption in 2006." (250,000 sq. miles) That's a large area but only about 1/2 of 1%. Plus solar panels can be on buildings and such.
I'm also curious about biodiesel made from algae. It can be grown in multilevel buildings thus taking up less land area. It doesn't interfere with food crops. It has the potential to be quite cheap. Plus, we have vehicles and fuel stations that can burn and distribute right now.
I'm also curious about biodiesel made from algae.
I'm interested in algae from the fuel cell angle (Ballard Power is one company working on this -- Canadia, of course). I love the whole idea of fuel cell technology, of selling your extra power back to the local utility. Maybe a topic for a future blog post!
Twenty years ago I thought the oil companies would have to invest in alternative energy.
I hope they don't wake up to it.
An oil company's job is to get more people to use more energy (right up to a few points before they start running out of it), or pay more per unit. An electricity broker's job (hello, Enron!) is the same thing.
I cannot reconcile this with the whole idea of conservation: Using less of a resource which is becoming scarce in either absolute (like barrels of oil left) or relative (like kWh from a generation plant) terms.
At some point it's about making money, through ever-continued growth, versus providing a service without which people cannot live in what we consider a first-world manner.
It can't be about both at the same time. On the meta level, it can't even be about, say, using more crude oil when gas is $2 a gallon, and less when it's $3.
My guess is firms which actually generate electricity and provide it to a geographically captive area are a little more connected to the idea.
Imagine the hottest day of the summer, looking at the map in the war room, wondering what will happen if just 5 more air conditioners are turned on.
But ThresherK, our whole economic system is based on increased consumption. It's completely at odds with the idea of conservation or "conservatism." It's the great irony of American culture and American politics.
The same people who wonder why teens don't "just say no" to sex are telling young people to say "yes" to everything else in our consumer culture.
The same people who have created a dire economic situation for most Americans are giving them money as an "economic stimulus" --in other words, not to save, but to spend, spend, sped.
Our "just say yes" consumer approach to everything is of course going to be our Nation's ultimate downfall. You cannot consume your way out of problems. It's a law of nature. At some point a steady-state or balance must be reached. Even parasites know if they over consume, they kill their hosts--and thus themselves.
It's all connected.
Solar energy is an abundant energy source for the future of earth, but it must decrease the cost, and improve efficiency.
Commenting by HaloScan
