Steve Michel's Journal of Lateral Modernism********************** Vol. IX No.8 August 2008

North America's energy future? think BIG.

By Steve Michel

Concerning North America's energy future, the greatest misinformation floating around is that there is no choice but to turn to nuclear energy. Critics assume nuclear power plant can provide megawatts of electricity cheaply from an installation unlike wind energy which provides less output per installation. Not true! Nuclear on a dollar per watt basis cannot compete with renewable energy. Most critics of renewable energy are thinking at the wrong scale. Rather than small site windmills critics should be thinking of huge megawatt windfarms . Inland and offshore windfarms are presently supplying more electricity worldwide than all nuclear plants combined.

Same with solar potential: Arizona and California have enough solar days to supply the whole west coast- day and night (energy can be stored as hydrogen fuel or other means.)

The hard numbers are that the cost per watt for nuclear energy is being touted by the industry at approx 1.5$ per watt overnight construction costs. Even if their numbers factor in indirect costs for disposal and other externalities, that's just the reactor salesmen's numbers. Actual reactor construction have had frequent construction cost overruns and none can compete without subsidies. Contractors for nuclear power plants tend to be military industrial contractors like Haliburton and Betchel who bid low and come in with cost overruns in construction and waste tax-payers money. I have yet to see a single nuclear plants that been built at $2/watt overnight cost (including waste disposal and decommissioning). The cost per watt for existing nuclear plants is closer to 6$/watt.:

On the other hand, wind and solar power tech is dropping in price every year and CSP (concentrator solar panels) are bringing the costs per solar watt lower. Wind turbine installations are already built and running at below $1.5/watt. The cost of producing electricity with solar/wind/tide power is dropping to the point were it is already a more viable choice. Check the government wind maps and you'll see your town is probably within a short distance from a viable wind farm site. IF not maybe a coast with potential tidal power or the southwest with more solar days going to waste everyday than you can count.

Which energy option would I allow in my backyard? yes, I would allow CSP and/or a full blown wind farm -many do for a concession. Some farmers get paid 10,000$ a year to allow installations on their sites without their livelihood or health being affected the least bit. How many would allow a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood? This shows how how small a development footprint even 3megawatt mills have with more power per square foot then any nuclear plant today. Yes it takes many of them for capacity which is a strategic advantage because that's built-in redundancy -real damage resistance and no risk of a CHERNOBYL type disaster.

I think the main consensus in most discussions for America's energy future is any one form of energy should not be treated like a silver bullet. Instead a distributed network of renewable energy production is taking shape rapidly with potential CSPs in Arizona, offshore and inland wind-farms in Nantucket . Just check Vestas advertisements and see the installed base they have running. And it's long term viability. Big and small players can become energy providers for big and small communities.

Renewable watts>CAPACITY: most pundits and projections for wind energy in the U.S. peg its total potential capacity to 10 to 20% max. of the country's energy needs..at least that's what wind maps , tell us. Nuclear supporters have used this capacity ceiling limit to lobby their case. But engineering efficiencies can create additional capacity without adding new coal or nuclear plants by using new synergies.

Synergies of efficiency can harness energy is surprising ways. That's why a federal level energy policy makes sense. FOR EXAMPLE, ALL LEED CERTIFIED BUILDINGS (new and retrofits) require energy efficiencies of 25% to 47% (for Platinum ratings) to receive the LEED certification. In theory, If LEED was embedded into federal and municipal codes and by-laws for all new construction and retrofits (combined with subsidies and tax credits) then every dollar spent to save energy effectively puts energy back in the grid. Even if LEED certified building would cost 10% more than a standard building, which means for a $200/persqft building hard cost $20persqft is spent to make the building put back 25 to 47% of its energy consumption back into the grid (ie the energy the building doesn't use is sold by the utility to a less efficient user). In Quebec , Hydro-Quebec (the main utility) figured this out: they gain by subsidizing energy retrofits. So the utility helps pay for part the extra 20.00$ spent by the building owner. Hydro-Quebec is a state owned utility therefore can leverage this arrangement in concert with federal energy policies. Same thing in California where a policy of decoupling(a term used to describe separating the utility's profits from energy production such the energy savings are on the same level playing field as energy produced)is enforced for similar effect.

Going back to synergies: it's obvious by doing the math that utilities can create greater capacity just by helping foot the bill to save energy and build green energy. That's all free energy they can sell at profit. But who will transact the deal and put up the money first in a free market system? Obviously tax breaks and subsidies must serve as catalysts to initiate a business deal between the building owner who invests in to save 47% of his HVAC(heating-cooling) energy use and the utility co. who will sell it at profit.

The 47% figure is not a maximum-it is merely an easily attainable figure for average construction. There are buildings designed that can create more energy than they use and fully electrified net zero buildings are entirely possible and have been built.

Final analysis:

CLASSIFIED ADS:

Plant a tree with a click:
Commission tropical trees in Africa Haiti and in the Amazon

In the News:

Steve's interiors(tm)

www.flickr.com

Back issues 12/03 ,01/04 , 02/04 ,03/04 ,04/04 ,05/04 , 06/04, 07/04, 08/04, 09/04, 12/04, 01/05, 02/05, 03/05, 12/05, 01/06 ,02/06, 03/06 ,05/06 , 06/06 ,07/06 , 08/06 ,09/06 ,10/06 ,11/06, 12/06, 01/07, 02/07, 03/07, 03/07, 04/07, 06/07, 08/07, 09/07, 10/07, 11/07, 12/07, 01/08, 02/08, 03/08, 04/08, 05/08, 06/08, 07/08

Dalani News:Dalani News, is a monthly E-zine of environmental advocacy, science and technology articles, and afrofuturism. Dalani treads the fine line between the actual and a better world just around the corner.

test your vocabulary/FONT>

Disclaimer: The opinions and information presented and expressed are intended for discussion purposes. Copyrights of external web pages and/or articles belong to their respective owner(s). Some externally referenced sites may become inactive or modified. Please notify editor of any malfunctioning or missing pages .

© smichel design co. 2008 all rights reserved **********************contact:webmaster[at]dalani.com

>Commemorative African trees via Paypal certified credit card payment

Contribute to the Billion Tree Campaign

culture