Google gives up on renewables

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

This article talks about two Google PhDs that spent four years analyzing different renewable energy sources and determined that none of them were viable:.

First off, I think you have to consider the source. "The Register"? Seriously? You might look at the sidebar links as a guide to its credibility, or (IMHO, anyway) save some time by realizing that any site which uses the word "boffins" is aimed at credulous idiots :-)

But if you really consider the content, what they are saying is not that renewables aren't viable (for one thing, residential solar has reached grid parity in about 10 US states, and is on track for a majority in a couple of years). They're saying that society in its present form is not sustainable, and we knew that already.

[Cobb]

Chewing gum for the brain. They are looking at it that all energy production is harmful and which one is least harmful. If they picked cars or something else they would come to the same decision. For example, which method of accessing the internet is best? How many carsongerics are made in the production of a pc, mac, tablet, phone, chromebook, etc?

Im sure power will follow gas, as it costs more, people will use less. I mean it as third world countries and part of the US resorts to rolling black outs to "regulate" load on the system.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

residential solar has reached grid parity in about 10 US states, and is on track for a majority in a couple of years).

But it isn't anywhere what it needs to be to replace the current transportation/heating/industry demands, and it would be very very very costly to do that. Most cars run on fuel, you need to send ALL that power plus inefficiencys over the grid and replace gas heating and industrial energy consumption, and have the solar capacity to back it up.

Also "grid parity" is a strange metric, are you going to replace farmland with solar panels during the buildout to meet the energy demands?

[gone-ot]

Drill *deep* enough and tap into earth's CORE heat (geothermal).

[Nigel_S]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Drill *deep* enough and tap into earth's CORE heat (geothermal).

No need to drill, Iceland already generates all it's power from geothermal energy without significant drilling, I'm sure they could export some to the USA

[Cobb]

if there was only a way to get energy from the ground and ship it to other countries or pump it across multiple countries in a big pipeline?

Originally Posted by Nigel_S

No need to drill, Iceland already generates all it's power from geothermal energy without significant drilling, I'm sure they could export some to the USA

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Drill *deep* enough and tap into earth's CORE heat (geothermal).

That is the most under-utilized but plentiful form of energy available.

[Nigel_S]

Originally Posted by Cobb

if there was only a way to get energy from the ground and ship it to other countries or pump it across multiple countries in a big pipeline?

There is, the Atlantic Superconnection carrying 1.2 Gigawatts of geothermally generated electricity from Iceland to the UK:


Facts
•Cable length - 1000km
• World’s longest subsea HVDC cable
•Total capacity - 1.2 Gigawatts
•Homes supplied -Two million

Atlantic Superconnection

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Xist

This article talks about two Google PhDs that spent four years analyzing different renewable energy sources and determined that none of them were viable:

Those PHDs claimed Link;

So what price should we be aiming for?
Consider an average U.S. coal or natural gas plant that has been in service for decades; its cost of electricity generation is about 4 to 6 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. What’s needed are zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years.

Ok .. so that's the target $/kwh .. the conclusion seems to suggest that target can't be achieved in the next 40 years.

Really ???

Let's look at that ( we won't take 4 years ).

- - - - -

TNYT

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

- - - - -

Hmmm ... somehow with 40 years of progress .. and 40 years of Fossil Fuel price increasing .. somehow we won't reach the point we are at already today ??

[changzuki]

Google may be giving up on renewables but I'm doing just fine on them.
12 years now, original set of lead acids, 100+ year old house, and the utility pole is only 30 feet away.

Hopefully Google's announcement will drive the price of renewables down, then I'll stock up!

I love living in Disneyland!
~CrazyJerry