Germany's Renewable Energy Solves Very Little.

For years, Germany has favored solar and wind energy, but has little to show for it.

A program, called 300,000 rooftops, launched construction of 1000-watt solar arrays on home rooftops, with very generous subsidies. Several years ago this program stopped, with the assertion that the goal had been reached. Though they probably reached the goal, it is more likely that they stopped because they realized how little had been accomplished. 300,000, 1000-watt rigs equals 300 megawatts, rated energy, or 30% of one, one-gig nuke. However, solar cells only deliver rated energy an average of four hours per day, so this 30% only delivers 50 megawatts, 1/6 of 300 megawatts. This is equal to 1/20 of one, one-gig nuke, which typically delivers 93% of the year. It would take six million rooftops to equal the yearly output of one, one-gig nuke.

Their wind energy program seems to be more practical. I believe that they have 20,000 or more megawatts of rated wind energy now, and plan 40,000 megs (40 gigs) by 2030. Wind may give rated energy 6 hours per day (25%), so this is equivalent to 10 gigs of nuclear energy, on a yearly basis. However, they have a plan to dismantle their 18-plant nuclear fleet. If that does happen, instead of having more, zero emissions energy, they will have cut their clean energy by half.

Important also to many German citizens, is the specter of tens of thousands of wind turbine towers, dominating the landscape, and destroying the historic scenery of villages.

Jatropha Trees; Good; But.

Much is being made nowadays in newspapers, magazines, TV and websites about the remarkable jatropha tree. This oil bearing tree can produce good biofuel from marginal land. It does not need to use good farmland the way corn ethanol does. Furthermore, it is claimed that this tree can thrive in arid climates; it would therefore be drought resistant to a large extent. (This does not mean it couldn't do better with good soil and water.) This tree might be a better solar energy source than photovoltaic (pv) cells. Organic materials need no factory, just progressive growth by generations, from nursery to deployment. It would be labor-intensive, which could also be a good thing in poorer countries.
There is good data about India's large-scale jatropha tree farming for their national railways in 2006. From CNBC-TV, India produced 350,000 tons of biofuel from 650,000 acres (1,000 square-miles) (no info given on land/water quality).
Per google, one barrel oil is about 1/8 ton--India therefore produced 2,800,000 (2.8M) barrels on 1,000 square-miles in one year (this yearly crop is equaled by just 70 days average energy production from one, one-gig nuke, so there is no free lunch with solar). Globally, if as much as one million square-miles of land suitable for jatropha could be planted (an enormous undertaking, but doable), 2,800,000,000 (2.8B) barrels of clean biofuel could be produced. This would be about 1/11 of the 30 billion barrels of current world oil consumption; 4% of the world's total current energy, since oil equals 40% of the world's energy supply. It would also be equivalent to about 200, one-gig nukes.
Subsistence farmers in poor countries, aided by government-supplied, seedlings and training, could hope for cash crops worth more than $2000/acre at current prices; even more money in coming years. African tree farms, possibly with millions of bored water wells, would be a natural benefit for rich European nations to use as Kyoto Treaty carbon offsets.
PS: Per Bloomburg.com, Japan, Italy and Spain face combined fines of as much as $33 billion (B) for failing to reduce emissions as promised in their agreement to the Kyoto Treaty.

Is Ted Turner Right About Cannibalism?

Ted Turner was widely quoted recently, saying that starvation and cannibalism is facing the Earth within a very few decades. Cannibalism is not humanity's normal response to starvation; there has been much starvation in our past, and even today here is massive silent starvation in the form of malnutrition among the world's poor. America's agricultural policies are largely to blame and should be changed; but that is another subject.
However, Mr. Turner is probably alluding to runaway heating of the atmosphere and spreading droughts; much more serious even than the problem of rising sea levels. Climate change is surely happening, but not on the scale he threatens, unless he means an era of methane eruptions from frozen hydrates in tundra and oceans. Geologists believe that such eruptions occurred 55 million years ago, and raised atmospheric temperatures by as much as 14-degrees C. This era saw a large-scale die off of many species, our species could certainly not survive such a change.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently studying the frozen hydrates, which dwarf the
combined known oil and natural gas reserves, to see what conditions might cause large eruptions, or "burps" of methane. I would like to ask the ORNL if it would be possible to mitigate this very serious problem, by flaring-off the plumes, if they should happen to occur. It is certain that the plumes could be detected by satellite; it seems likely that flaring would cause orders of magnitude less heat than letting this potent greenhouse gas spread through the air for decades; but could the plumes be ignited by incendiary rockets, or some such?

Big Oil Profits Again

In the 10/25/07 post, my wild guess was that US Big Oil companies probably earned $10 billion on one billion barrels of oil. This was based on imported oil (probably 60% of total), but should hold for the domestic supply also. Now, per headlines, some politicians are ranting that Big Oil made $125 billion profit this past year. This is right in line with my blue-sky guess; if you allow an engineer's CEGW (Close Enough for Government Work), and the obvious fact that there are bad, even losing, years in the industry as well as good.

America consumes 7.5 Billion barrels of oil per year; 20MBPD times 365 days. $125 billion profit on this throughput equals $16.66B for each one billion barrels. If demagogues are allowed to destroy this industry it will be a tragedy for the entire world. Oil is a huge part of the US economic might, and in turn our economy pulls the entire world along. We should hope that China/India with one-third of the world's population will join us. If some day they lead us economically, fine as long as we all cooperate. We should also hope that the oil industry will eventually wither away, after coal; but not before 5,000, one-gig nukes can take up the slack.

Open Message to wecansolveit.org

As a senior who worries about the climate dangers to humanity's future, I believe that the massive energy provided by nuclear electric plants has the best chance to solve the problem. All forms of renewable energies, in huge quantities, will also be needed, as soon as possible.
One of your key points is that wind turbines can provide one-third of US electricity. Just how many large, e.g. 1500-kilowatt turbines, which can only deliver rated energy an average of 20-25% of a year, do you have in mind? I estimate that your goal would take 272,000 such machines, equal to the energy of 160, one-gig nukes. My estimate is based on data from my environmental bible, National Geographic, and the US Energy Information Administration (eia-doe-gov). The math is as follows: 100, one-gig nukes produce 20% of US electricity, therefore 160 more would produce another 33%, your goal. Per National Geographic, August, 2005, four, one-gig nukes equal 6800, 1.5-meg (1500 kilowatt) wind turbines. 40 times 6800 is 272,000 machines. Is this in the same ballpark as your projection?
Equally important; what proportion of the energy need will 272,000 wind turbines fill? Using nuclear power as a yardstick, the energy will not be significant. Total world energy right now is equivalent to 220 million barrels of oil per day, or 5500, one-gig nukes. Building 272,000 wind turbines will take years. Suppose it is accomplished by 2050, and suppose further that the world will need twice as much energy as now; or equivalent of 11,000, one-gig nukes. The current 1/3 of US energy equals only 160, one-gig nukes, so the 272,000 will equal only 1.5% of the world's energy need. By all means push renewables, but don't expect too much from your modest goal. A real aim, one million US wind turbines by 2050 would equal 6%, or two million, 12%, of the world's 2050 need. Then worldwide, nuclear energy, natural gas in place of coal, unless all of coal's CO2 can be sequestered, solar and wind, conservation, biofuels from anything except food, and fuel efficiency, might put us on the road to a solution.

Greens Get Silly, But Are Very Right At Times.

To me, fighting construction of the Tellico Dam to save one unimportant species , the Snail Darter, was silly. Nature has tried and discarded gazillions of species over geologic time.
(To digress, it would be interesting to have a guess of how many different species there were in humanity's family tree, from the earliest forms of life to ourselves. My Christian educators never said that evolution could not have happened. Couldn't God have started life on earth, knowing with Infinite Intelligence, that the RNA/DNA molecules' Design, and amazing properties, would inevitably evolve creatures in God's image? God's Image could mean intelligence; i.e. intelligent creatures like ourselves capable of contemplating God's existence. The form that we would arrive at might not have mattered.)
Back to the Greens. They were right about the hole in the ozone layer. With that heads-up, the world is in process of trying to stem the problem. Couldn't loss of the ozone have forced us to live some form of nocturnal life, since sunlight would become deadly?
Likewise, I am firmly convinced that they are right about climate change, and the very serious consequences future generations will face. However, they then get all ideological and fight the hard-headed answer, nuclear energy. Since it is so difficult to get everyone moving in the same direction, I believe that diffused (weak) solutions, from conservation, efficiency, and better forestry, to solar, wind and biofuels will take too long to work. The massive, concentrated energy of nuclear plants is the best chance that humanity has for survival.

One Nuclear Kilowatt Equals Five of Solar

As a senior, concerned for humanity's very survival, who thinks that nuclear is the only clear answer, I would still be delighted to see 100,000 square-miles of pv cells, and thousands of concentrated solar energy plants in our future. However, there is not enough manufacturing capability in the world to produce such an immense array of structures this century, not even in several centuries beyond. This huge quantity would be needed because solar energy is so weakly diffused. In 12 hours of daylight, a pv cell can only accumulate 4, or at most 5, hours of sunlight for rated output. A nuke delivers rated energy more than 22 hours of the day, 95% of the hours of every year.
Solar enthusiasts make the most of the situation, by saying that a solar cell produces the energy during the heat of the day when it is most needed for air conditioning. This is only a small percentage of the electric energy a household needs. (NOTE: It is my belief that by 20-30 years from now, all air conditioning may well be outlawed; people will be able to survive without air conditioning.)
Other proponents point to houses constructed by experts, that have every possible detail of shape, materials, insulation, heat pumps, etc. in the design. Such houses can be energy neutral, or better. However, America's 300 million people, possibly 75 million households, are not likely to find more than a million with enough enthusiasm and resources to make this a practical part of the energy solution. Government programs can help, but only as a percentage play; unless climate change becomes so serious that everyone must sacrifice and join the fight. If we wait too long to see if to see if solar energy will work, this enlightenment may come too late. The massive potential of nuclear energy would give a much more certain future.