patrick.net

Geothermal: RZ ticker symbol is gone. I'm not sure what happened, they appear to still exist: http://www.rasertech.com/geothermal

I do know some folks were were burned on that stock but they had an interesting spin on the tech - they could even convert engine heat back into electricity.

Solar: Net negative for the pocket book and environment. Seems like Obama rolled through here only a year ago and dumped 500K on this piggy: http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/04/more-trouble-for-solyndra-as-factory-closes-layoffs-start/ At least I think it was 500K. Everyone I worked with wanted to buy into that place - be very very careful of solar.

Corn ethanol: One of the worse mistakes we've made. Even the eco-nuts that pushed for legislation want it banned now.

If you hear of a company that can do an efficient single-step bacterial conversion of cellulosic fiber to ethanol huge buy - get that one. It's coming soon. On that note I'd love to see some new genetically engineered super fuels someday. Yes, like gasoline but better. Imagine the muscle cars of the future!

Wind: I don't know much other than it take a lot of them to get very little and nobody wants them in their back yard.

Nuclear: Mmmmmaybe? If not we are kind of most likely screwed. The reality is solar/wind/geo is a drop in the bucket and we will be reliant on gases/coal/carbon for a long time.

Solar is like the car makers in the early 1900's. Everyone is coming out to give it a shot now. Whoever starts combining inventive ideas to reduce costs, will win and knock everyone else out pretty quickly. Cost is something like 25% silicon 25% glass/glue/structural 50% installation. Someone who can reduce installation by a huge amount would have a killer product, reduce it from a major project to a few hour DIY project + a few hours of professional electricians time. That would be major.

Wind produces a lot of power, and pretty cheaply. Especially when you start scaling it up. Slightly unpredictable and best used with a grid tie system. But farmers use it for all kinds of things, like pumping water.

Geo is one that doesn't get enough attention really. Kinda unfortunate.

Alternative energy will never really go anywhere until there is some kind of floor on oil prices via taxes. There has been boom bust cycles in alternative energy since the 70's. Every time the sector gets up to speed the price of oil crashes and everyone gets wiped out.

Why is solar a loser? Solar panels might or might not work out but, there are millions of acres of sun drenched desert which are ideal for a solar mirror array electrical generation plant. Some commercial size plants are being designed and built now. Read up on the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) in CA.

Geothermal won't amount to much in the US. There isn't enough available accessable geothermal to make a dent.

Wind is going to be bigger and bigger. Even better as it becomes more common the prices of the windmills will come down as the components become mass produced. Drive through the Permian basin in TX. There are so many wind units it's just amazing. All the nay sayers comment that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Actually it doesn't blow everywhere all the time. It's always blowing somewhere. To make serious use of wind the electrical grid will need upgrading to move power from wherever the wind is generating at any given time.

bob2356 says

Why is solar a loser? Solar panels might or might not work out but, there are millions of acres of sun drenched desert which are ideal for a solar mirror array electrical generation plant. Some commercial size plants are being designed and built now. Read up on the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) in CA.

That is actually a good point, centralized energy production is much more efficient. I actually like the idea of solar panels on houses etc and think it's a good idea national security wise - distributed production. I've got an uncle that consults for VC firms in that area who explained why my preference wasn't too feasible though.

He said in their mind what we really need are two things: nuclear (if not carbon sources) and something I still haven't heard of - some disruptive technology in the storage area. Apparently a lot of what we already make gets lost as our battery tech is still primitive. He said if I ever hear of a company that can do this buy the stock. :)

There's an awful lot of solar info out there - but I don't believe that it's viable in many places like the bigger cities of the north.

It's expensive to retrofit unless we give the same breaks that we do for big oil. I like the buildings that have plants on the roof to capture water, cut back on the heat island effect, etc - but a friend I know said that in order to retrofit his building it wouldn't pay for itself for about 50 years.

No easy solution but we need to figure something out. Solar works in the west, wind works many places. Why does it have to be just one way?

I can't take seriously until Companies approach projects and visions, like they did with the Lake Pontchartrain bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate bridge, where companies have a solid vision and goal. They then issue bonds, and sold them to the public who were committed to the completion and future interest in the Completed project. Not just publicly traded companies who's success of the project depended on the daily stock ticker. In this age of economics 90% of these companies are squandered before they ever get a chance to make a difference. Also having the investor herd mentality behind them, visions are often convoluted in copying the same old tried and true. Another side effect America seems to suffer from Global economic age. There is no distinction any more between, American made progress, and innovation, and Asia's "Best designs are stolen" mentality.

Or people with Green ideas seem to want the Government to foot the bill, and get legislation to mandate, there will be captive patronage.

Which is a conflict of everyone's interest for those paying attention.

Nobody is willing to put their money where their mouth is and commit, hit or miss on new ideas and innovation.

Tenouncetrout says

Nobody is willing to put their money where their mouth is and commit, hit or miss on new ideas and innovation.

Really, nobody?

Tenpound, there are oil subsidies and farm subsidies and corporate subsidies and automotive bailouts and wallstreet bailouts and... well, the government is mega helpful with subsidizing industries it likes.

I'd dare say that the lobbyists for all those industries really encourage tax breaks for new industries that compete with them.

And yet, somehow, these green industries struggle on. "Nobody" notices, I guess.

Tenouncetrout says

I can’t take seriously until Companies approach projects and visions, like they did with the Lake Pontchartrain bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate bridge, where companies have a solid vision and goal.

You really should look into the politics and corruption that were involved in the Brooklyn Bridge before you praise the process too highly. I believe the Golden Gate bridge was financed by public bonds.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/strauss.html as was the Pontchartrain bridge. The original proposal for the lake bridge was to finance it by selling real estate on the island but that never happened.

elliemae says

Tenpound, there are oil subsidies and farm subsidies and corporate subsidies and automotive bailouts and wallstreet bailouts and… well, the government is mega helpful with subsidizing industries it likes.

Why do you guys rebuttal with the what the worst possible things the Republicans champion, all the time?

Who says I'm for how the Republicans have been fucking things up since Regan? I'm talking about the Irony of the Lefts actions, not saying the I like how the Republicans corporate cronyism is great for this country. And you make my case even more, if their actions are damn bad, then why is the Left emulating their policy in pushing their agendas? It's a Failed system remember?

What is missing in all of this Green talk talk is things everyone could do to help mitigate most of the issues on Global warming. Like panting a trees and reusing vs recycling(recycling is a huge cash cow for companies that gets people to do 90% of the work for them, and provide 100% of the raw materials. Reusing is less consumption all around.

The Green movement had one character wrong in their name.
That "n" is supposed to be a "d". Republicans be damned!

Wow, tenpound... obviously a nerve was hit.

I rechecked my post to see where the word "republican" was included, and damn if I couldn't find it. I'll look again if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure it'll be the same outcome.

Tenouncetrout says

Like panting a trees

Try again - I'd like to have a conversation with you, yet it''s hard to do alone. Unfortunately, I tried to insert a photo from my computer but I don't know how. I'll do it in another thread, I guess. http://patrick.net/?p=698700

OK... here's my three cents on it.

First there is no "magic bullet". All of these alternative technologies have both benefits and drawbacks. Many are application specific.

The best way is to take a holistic approach, using a wider array of technologies. Solar / Wind / Geothermal are not "new" technologies. Biofuels, and some of the more eccentric cutting technologies are truly new and innovative.

I think that, given our infrastructure, our consumption patterns, and projected growth thereof, we would be best to move from a centralized system, as we have now, to a more de-centralized system where individual homes, or perhaps neighborhoods, use wind / solar / biofuels / etc. for a majority of their energy needs.

I don't see alternative energy as an "R" issue or a "D" issue. It's simply a question of economics... but when doing ones math, you need to factor in the inherit cost of keeping the status quo.

There are two obstacles. The first is cost. Whether you are for or against subsidies, there is no doubt that the initial cost for many of these technologies is still higher than what most want to spend, and payback periods for most applications tend to be long.

Surely, they have gotten more cost competitive in recent years, partially because of economies of scale, but also because traditional energy costs have risen dramatically.

Given that my background is engineering, with sub-specialization in thermodynamics and heat transfer, I have a unique take on the pros and cons of these alternatives.

Transportation is a more difficult problem to solve. If the electric vehicle continue to make strides, they may gain more market share on the traditional combustion vehicles, but at what cost? How do we produce the energy to charge them? You can't escape the second law.

One of the ideas I'm toying with is building, rather than buying a home... and if I do opt for that route, I would want to use a combination of geothermal, solar and wind to supplement more traditional energy sources. Building it in from the get-go has some cost advantage over trying to retrofit an existing residence.

I'm with ECBB. My biggest concern is for the environment - but the problem is that it's often cheaper to pay for an oil spill if it happens than to plan for it appropriately.

I don't believe that it's a Repub or Demo issue, it's a political issue. If they want to be re-elected, our politicos side with the money.

elliemae says

I don’t believe that it’s a Repub or Demo issue, it’s a political issue.

Now you're learning, which is why I say, people need to put put their money where their mouth is, and stop expecting the same lying cheating vote grubbing politicians to change a damn thing.

This isn't a new problem, in Asia they are just investing and developing and generally innovating, while we're glad handing the issue, expecting Uncle Samuel Jackson, to call in the Wolf.