Comments on: Beat Coal http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/ Thoughts on business, innovation and the energy situation the world faces. Sat, 15 May 2010 05:26:15 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mark Rublee http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-3280 Mark Rublee Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:36:55 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-3280 Hello, I have the same question as Richard. I would like to build a solar sterling genset for my home. What happened to this design? Thanks, Mark Hello, I have the same question as Richard. I would like to build a solar sterling genset for my home. What happened to this design?
Thanks,
Mark

]]> By: Adam Epstein http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-847 Adam Epstein Wed, 13 May 2009 19:52:40 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-847 Bill: Enjoyed this piece and agree. That said, might be appropriate to also add geothermal into your matrix, inasmuch as depending upon plant construction costs and current subsidy levels electricity derived from geothermal can come in below gas. Moreover, it's likely that less than 5% of the country's geothermal assets are presently being tapped. -Adam Bill:

Enjoyed this piece and agree. That said, might be appropriate to also add geothermal into your matrix, inasmuch as depending upon plant construction costs and current subsidy levels electricity derived from geothermal can come in below gas. Moreover, it’s likely that less than 5% of the country’s geothermal assets are presently being tapped.

-Adam

]]> By: Daniel http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-349 Daniel Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:23:19 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-349 Hello, I too would like to know the progress of the parabolic tracking solar power system! Please let me know where I can buy one. Thanks, Daniel Hello,

I too would like to know the progress of the parabolic tracking solar power system! Please let me know where I can buy one. Thanks,

Daniel

]]> By: Daniel Mettler http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-305 Daniel Mettler Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:33:29 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-305 I have the same question as Richard, because I watched your video on TED and thought "neat, looks like it's a year away from production" - until I noticed that it had been filmed in 2003! In other words, 6 years have passed and nothing happened. I'm building a house this year so I was interested in having such an "inexpensive, great technology" (that would also work in Switzerland), but I assume something got it the way. what happened? Thanks, Daniel I have the same question as Richard, because I watched your video on TED and thought “neat, looks like it’s a year away from production” – until I noticed that it had been filmed in 2003! In other words, 6 years have passed and nothing happened. I’m building a house this year so I was interested in having such an “inexpensive, great technology” (that would also work in Switzerland), but I assume something got it the way. what happened?
Thanks, Daniel

]]> By: pilkster http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-303 pilkster Sun, 05 Apr 2009 05:38:21 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-303 Hi Bill I've just finished watching your TED talk; as Richard mentions it would be great to hear about your progress on stirling engine & cost effectively tracking the sun. Awesome work by the way. Hi Bill

I’ve just finished watching your TED talk; as Richard mentions it would be great to hear about your progress on stirling engine & cost effectively tracking the sun. Awesome work by the way.

]]> By: Richard http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-176 Richard Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:24:26 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-176 Bill - whatever happened to the solar power generator using parabolic petals to concentrate sunlight on a stirling engine generator? In the talk you gave on TED in 2003 you said that the petals used inexpensive microprocessors and brushless stepper motors to track the sun on their own. No human intervention was required. The engine, and perhaps the tracking system also, was designed using genetic algorithms. It looked really great and the idea was fantastic. So whatever happened to it? Would be really interested to know - thanks - Richard Bill – whatever happened to the solar power generator using parabolic petals to concentrate sunlight on a stirling engine generator? In the talk you gave on TED in 2003 you said that the petals used inexpensive microprocessors and brushless stepper motors to track the sun on their own. No human intervention was required. The engine, and perhaps the tracking system also, was designed using genetic algorithms. It looked really great and the idea was fantastic. So whatever happened to it? Would be really interested to know – thanks – Richard

]]> By: Mr T http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Mr T Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:03:50 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-51 15,000 Kilowatt-hours of energy is "freely" delivered to the roof of every 2500 sq ft house every month from an infinite and un-regulated source! Even if solar panels are 15% efficient, who cares. .15 x 15,000 = 2250 kilowatt-hours/month. That still provides enough power to run all home appliances as well as an electric car. Just look at your last power bill. And solar panels are quickly becoming 25% efficient. Electric cars use 93% of the electric energy sent to the batteries. This means that 93% of the energy, which comes from ones solar panels, moves your car. (Isn't movement the reason we have cars?) The remaining energy is lost in heat. Internal combustion (Gasoline) engines are 30% efficient and have 10 times more parts. The extra parts serve to remove the 70% lost heat. If you do the math - $2.40 of every $4 gallon of gas is lost as heat. It does nothing to move the vehicle. But we continue to pay $300/month to OPEC to fill our gas cars and over $200/month for electric energy which is also made mostly from petroleum. Is a real solution really so hard to figure out? 15,000 Kilowatt-hours of energy is “freely” delivered to the roof of every 2500 sq ft house every month from an infinite and un-regulated source! Even if solar panels are 15% efficient, who cares. .15 x 15,000 = 2250 kilowatt-hours/month. That still provides enough power to run all home appliances as well as an electric car. Just look at your last power bill. And solar panels are quickly becoming 25% efficient.
Electric cars use 93% of the electric energy sent to the batteries. This means that 93% of the energy, which comes from ones solar panels, moves your car. (Isn’t movement the reason we have cars?) The remaining energy is lost in heat.
Internal combustion (Gasoline) engines are 30% efficient and have 10 times more parts. The extra parts serve to remove the 70% lost heat. If you do the math – $2.40 of every $4 gallon of gas is lost as heat. It does nothing to move the vehicle.
But we continue to pay $300/month to OPEC to fill our gas cars and over $200/month for electric energy which is also made mostly from petroleum.

Is a real solution really so hard to figure out?

]]> By: Jim Bell http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Jim Bell Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:21:07 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-44 Folks like Jim Rogers from Duke energy do a great job putting the energy picture in balance. He and others represent the massive amount of coal and NG in our fuel mix and the huge challenge moving away from these sources. Ultimately there are a range of technologies that will help us move off of coal, including upgrades to current coal plants. Practically, each of these technologies has a cost benefit (1 year, 20year, 50 year payback). Near term conservation plays a huge role to providing room for a rationale energy approach. If we invested purely in solar now, we would use a huge amount of resources on a 25 year payback option. If we waited for gen 3 solar, we would invest a fraction of our resources. So what do we do? Conserve! Energy demand keeps climbing at 5%. It is hard to change infrastructure with a constant pressure on growth. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that conservation can reduce energy usage by 20%, with a likely positive impact on productivity (meaning operation savings). The resources saved can then be applied to invest in gen 3 solar when it comes on line. Energy Lover..... www.gadgetsforgreen.com Folks like Jim Rogers from Duke energy do a great job putting the energy picture in balance. He and others represent the massive amount of coal and NG in our fuel mix and the huge challenge moving away from these sources. Ultimately there are a range of technologies that will help us move off of coal, including upgrades to current coal plants. Practically, each of these technologies has a cost benefit (1 year, 20year, 50 year payback). Near term conservation plays a huge role to providing room for a rationale energy approach. If we invested purely in solar now, we would use a huge amount of resources on a 25 year payback option. If we waited for gen 3 solar, we would invest a fraction of our resources.

So what do we do? Conserve! Energy demand keeps climbing at 5%. It is hard to change infrastructure with a constant pressure on growth. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that conservation can reduce energy usage by 20%, with a likely positive impact on productivity (meaning operation savings). The resources saved can then be applied to invest in gen 3 solar when it comes on line.

Energy Lover…..
http://www.gadgetsforgreen.com

]]> By: Steven Guilliams http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Steven Guilliams Sat, 24 May 2008 17:16:21 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-20 Agreed 100% about beating coal, and glad you mentioned solar thermal. When I evaluated alternative energy sources for a college seminar 7 years ago, solar thermal seemed extremely promising, yet it still isn't catching on. I wonder how outdated the numbers you posted are. If the raw input for coal has doubled, presumably the $ / kWh for coal-generated power has spiked. Photo-voltaic cells are expensive because their manufacture is energy intensive, so the cost of solar energy from cells may have jumped as coal and other energy sources have grown more expensive. Solar thermal is expensive due to its complexity, but many components such as mirrors, motors and tubing are value-added manufactured products and thus their cost relates more to normal inflation than to the rapid increases in the cost of energy. Agreed 100% about beating coal, and glad you mentioned solar thermal. When I evaluated alternative energy sources for a college seminar 7 years ago, solar thermal seemed extremely promising, yet it still isn’t catching on.

I wonder how outdated the numbers you posted are. If the raw input for coal has doubled, presumably the $ / kWh for coal-generated power has spiked. Photo-voltaic cells are expensive because their manufacture is energy intensive, so the cost of solar energy from cells may have jumped as coal and other energy sources have grown more expensive.

Solar thermal is expensive due to its complexity, but many components such as mirrors, motors and tubing are value-added manufactured products and thus their cost relates more to normal inflation than to the rapid increases in the cost of energy.

]]> By: Lawren Markle http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Lawren Markle Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:01:32 +0000 http://www.billgross.com/2008/02/beat-coal/#comment-9 Bill, \n \nI couldn't agree more with your assertion that we need to get moving on alternate energy sources. In my view, $5 per gallon gas is probably the best thing that could happen to us in the short run. We need to be forced into change through economic hardship, because common sense isn't getting the job done fast enough. Regarding coal, you might be interested in this link to a story about coal and the comments that have been posted. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/04/the-beginning-o.html \nSolar is not well represented in the views there and in fact is discounted by one comment because of the low overall percentage of solar power contribution. Maybe we need more discussion of the acceleration in solar deployments because it is heating up fast, so to speak. What are the numbers on that? Thanks for a great blog. Bill,
\n
\nI couldn’t agree more with your assertion that we need to get moving on alternate energy sources. In my view, $5 per gallon gas is probably the best thing that could happen to us in the short run. We need to be forced into change through economic hardship, because common sense isn’t getting the job done fast enough. Regarding coal, you might be interested in this link to a story about coal and the comments that have been posted. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/04/the-beginning-o.html
\nSolar is not well represented in the views there and in fact is discounted by one comment because of the low overall percentage of solar power contribution. Maybe we need more discussion of the acceleration in solar deployments because it is heating up fast, so to speak. What are the numbers on that? Thanks for a great blog.

]]>