Last November marked the opening of High Point Center (rendering above), a new community center building in West Seattle’s High Point neighborhood. On the Center’s roof is what is touted to be Washington State’s largest installation of photovoltaic solar panels on any single building. Photovoltaic (PV) systems convert incident sunlight to standard household AC electrical power.
Last week the Seattle City Council announced a goal of carbon neutrality for the entire city by 2030. Achieving true carbon neutrality will require weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, and aside from efficiency, the most important strategy for making that happen is conversion from fossil-fuels to carbon-free electricity. What is the potential contribution of PV systems like the one at High Point Center?
Short answer: The fossil fuel-based energy that we currently consume massively dwarfs the amount of energy we could ever realistically expect to generate from PVs.
Longer answer to follow.
The 90 kW PV system at High Point Center will produce about 90,000 kWh of electricity per year. How much energy is that?
According to Seattle’s recently published greenhouse gas inventory, in 2008 the average Seattle household’s total energy consumption was 21,000 kWh. So the High Point Center PVs could meet the net annual energy needs of four average Seattle households.
Next question: How much PV would it take to generate an amount of energy equivalent to all the fossil fuels currently used by Seattle?
Using PV to match the 10,053,000 MWh of fossil fuel-based energy consumed by the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial sectors in 2008 would require 112,000 PV systems like the one at High Point Center, and the panels would cover 36 square miles. Not trivial, to say the least.
The transportation sector is less straightforward. For this analysis I’ll stick to road travel, which is 40 percent of the City’s total carbon footprint.
Previously, I estimated that 1,100,000 MWh of electrical energy per year would be required to power Seattle’s entire fleet of cars and light trucks if they were all electric. Assuming electric commercial trucks would be on average one fourth as efficient as electric cars, that comes out to roughly 2,000,000 MWh annually for all road travel in Seattle—equivalent to 23,000 High Point PV systems covering more than seven square miles.
So, to offset fossil fuel consumption for Seattle’s whole enchilada—residential, commercial, industrial, and road transportation—we’re talking 43 square miles of PV. Not exactly practical, given that Seattle’s total land area is 84 square miles.
And then there’s the price tag of such a colossal amount of PV. At current installed costs of $7.60 per watt, the project would set the City back $90 billion. Ahem.
(Anybody still with me? Anyone checking my math? OK, take a deep breath.)
The take home point here is not that PVs are a waste of time—they aren’t. The value of this thought experiment is that it puts some perspective on the big picture limits of one alternative. Because we use such a huge amount of fossil fuel-based energy, there is no silver bullet solution—and in reality, there is no viable one-for-one energy replacement for fossil fuels, period.
Compared to most other cities, the prospects for carbon neutrality in Seattle are better because our electricity is nearly carbon free. But even with all the new carbon free energy sources we can realistically bring on line by 2030, achieving true carbon neutrality is still going to require a major reduction in the amount of energy Seattleites consume—on the order of a two-thirds reduction is my best guess.
What would that society look like? In 1950, per capita energy use in the U.S. was one third lower than it is today, but that wasn’t because their energy infrastructure was more efficient—the opposite was true. People used less energy in 1950 because they lived in smaller houses, traveled less, and had fewer appliances and electronic gadgets.
If we aggressively pursue efficiency—and that includes location efficient land use patterns that enable reduced single-occupant vehicle travel—in concert with the full spectrum of carbon-free energy strategies, then carbon neutrality need not require any sacrifice in quality of life. And in fact, there is much to be gained, such as energy independence, the creation of green jobs, and the reduction of car dependence.
Indeed, if we hope to inspire people to rise the challenge of achieving carbon neutrality, we must reframe the discussion such that climate change is perceived not as a crisis, but as an opportunity.
Tweet
Well… too, this assmes that nothing else changes. For example, what do cars run on 20 years from now? Fuel cells? Electric? Other? If electric, where does that electricity come from?
Do we restrict the size of homes? Can that even have an impact on things given the existing housing stock? And what does the city mean by carbon neutral – for example, there are houses that run on oil heat – even if you refit the furnaces to run on a partial biodiesel mix, those houses will not be carbon neutral unless offsets are included.
IN fact, the term 'carbon neutral' leaves significant wiggle room – it does NOT mean 'non-carbon producing' counts offsets. However we need to have confidence that those offsets truly DO offset the amount of carbon they claim (and in the year they're made, not over a longer lifetime).
Well… too, this assmes that nothing else changes. For example, what do cars run on 20 years from now? Fuel cells? Electric? Other?
By building more and more PVCs, we are stimulating the industry. This money will go towards making PVCs more efficient and productive. My guess is that in a few years, they will be way more efficient than they are now.
By building more and more PVCs, we are stimulating the industry. This money will go towards making PVCs more efficient and productive. My guess is that in a few years, they will be way more efficient than they are now.
I think you meant to title this “Photovoltaic Energy is Not a Cure-All”. PV is not the only technology out there.
For example we could easily cover our current usage with various nuclear technologies, or more hydro, or PV placed somewhere more efficient like Nevada, where finding many many square miles of land is quite easy.
Personally I don't feel like embracing a 1950's level standard of living, mostly because I don't feel Leave it to Beaver is an accurate portrayal of that era.
I think you meant to title this “Photovoltaic Energy is Not a Cure-All”. PV is not the only technology out there.
For example we could easily cover our current usage with various nuclear technologies, or more hydro, or PV placed somewhere more efficient like Nevada, where finding many many square miles of land is quite easy.
Personally I don't feel like embracing a 1950's level standard of living, mostly because I don't feel Leave it to Beaver is an accurate portrayal of that era.
Definitely meant photovoltaic energy.
As Dan writes:
“Because we use such a huge amount of fossil fuel-based energy, there is no silver bullet solution—and in reality, there is no viable one-for-one energy replacement for fossil fuels, period.
…
If we aggressively pursue efficiency—and that includes location efficient land use patterns that enable reduced single-occupant vehicle travel—in concert with the full spectrum of carbon-free energy strategies, then carbon neutrality need not require any sacrifice in quality of life.”
The point being, w PV as the case study, alternative energy isn't the the only solution. We also have to address our land use and transportation policies.
Definitely meant photovoltaic energy.
As Dan writes:
“Because we use such a huge amount of fossil fuel-based energy, there is no silver bullet solution—and in reality, there is no viable one-for-one energy replacement for fossil fuels, period.
…
If we aggressively pursue efficiency—and that includes location efficient land use patterns that enable reduced single-occupant vehicle travel—in concert with the full spectrum of carbon-free energy strategies, then carbon neutrality need not require any sacrifice in quality of life.”
The point being, w PV as the case study, alternative energy isn't the the only solution. We also have to address our land use and transportation policies.
Well, yes, Leave It to Beaver was an accurate portrayal of that era. The show was produced from 1957-1962. Families had one car, one much smaller house, many fewer appliances, and no electronic stuff, and there weren't millions of planes zipping around the world constantly using fuel. I lived back then so I'm not guessing.
Saying “we could easily cover our current usage…” doesn't mean we will. Most of the strategies suggested here and elsewhere are based on logic. Many human factors don't exactly tend toward logical behavior. Why expect us to immediately become diametrically opposed in behavior to the behavior that's gotten us where we are now? Who's going to be the plantetary benevolent dictator who imposes such a change?
Well, yes, Leave It to Beaver was an accurate portrayal of that era. The show was produced from 1957-1962. Families had one car, one much smaller house, many fewer appliances, and no electronic stuff, and there weren't millions of planes zipping around the world constantly using fuel. I lived back then so I'm not guessing.
Saying “we could easily cover our current usage…” doesn't mean we will. Most of the strategies suggested here and elsewhere are based on logic. Many human factors don't exactly tend toward logical behavior. Why expect us to immediately become diametrically opposed in behavior to the behavior that's gotten us where we are now? Who's going to be the plantetary benevolent dictator who imposes such a change?
Disclosure: I work for City Light, but let it be known that I am not an electrical engineer or a journeyman.
I think you are making a mistake in assuming that solar would ever take the entire electrical load: For one thing, it is transitory, and only available during daylight hours, battery storage notwithstanding. But solar is an important piece of the energy system, and one that will play an increasing role in our generation portfolio.
Hydro, baring unforeseen complications regarding global warming, will continue to be our base source of generation. But solar, wind, geothermal, natural gas and nuclear (which I'm not a fan of, but is an existing NW generation source) will become more important.
This requires something of a shift in mindset, particularly from the utilities: No longer will it be a question of getting the power from point A (the dam or plant) to point B (the end user). In the new model, consumers will offset their consumption by providing generation which may or may not feed back onto the grid. Also, smaller scale transient sources (wind and solar farms, landfill generation) will be in abundance on a scale not previously considered: Just a few years ago, City Light was considering discontinuing operations at the elderly Cedar River watershed hydro project because of its relatively small generation. But in the future, that generation might be considered a medium sized player in the generation picture.
Also, the Seattle residential load represents a disproportionate amount of electric heat, both baseboard and forced air, due to past aggressive marketing of electric heat by City Light. That is gradually changing as natural gas becomes more available in residential neighborhoods, and newer, more efficient technologies take hold in new construction and in retrofitting existing homes.
Will we see a solar array on every roof? No. But don't discount emerging technology and the role it will play in filling our energy needs.
Disclosure: I work for City Light, but let it be known that I am not an electrical engineer or a journeyman.
I think you are making a mistake in assuming that solar would ever take the entire electrical load: For one thing, it is transitory, and only available during daylight hours, battery storage notwithstanding. But solar is an important piece of the energy system, and one that will play an increasing role in our generation portfolio.
Hydro, baring unforeseen complications regarding global warming, will continue to be our base source of generation. But solar, wind, geothermal, natural gas and nuclear (which I'm not a fan of, but is an existing NW generation source) will become more important.
This requires something of a shift in mindset, particularly from the utilities: No longer will it be a question of getting the power from point A (the dam or plant) to point B (the end user). In the new model, consumers will offset their consumption by providing generation which may or may not feed back onto the grid. Also, smaller scale transient sources (wind and solar farms, landfill generation) will be in abundance on a scale not previously considered: Just a few years ago, City Light was considering discontinuing operations at the elderly Cedar River watershed hydro project because of its relatively small generation. But in the future, that generation might be considered a medium sized player in the generation picture.
Also, the Seattle residential load represents a disproportionate amount of electric heat, both baseboard and forced air, due to past aggressive marketing of electric heat by City Light. That is gradually changing as natural gas becomes more available in residential neighborhoods, and newer, more efficient technologies take hold in new construction and in retrofitting existing homes.
Will we see a solar array on every roof? No. But don't discount emerging technology and the role it will play in filling our energy needs.
if zoning and transit are more of a cure all, it's rather strange the city council pleding carbon neutral is also the city counsil espousing the auto friendly DBT and the auto friendly 520 (a/k/a the new Viaduct on Lake Washington ….two whole levels of roadway, one for WSDOT alone, three times bulkier than the current bridge and probably 5x more concrete….) which cannot have even a transit only lane.
Meanwhile, our brave friends fighting for density urge as many as six stories around a 1.4 mile of a light rail station, woo hoo.
Fed Way: 45 stories.
The REAL plan is thus to ensure auto usage predominates, no big changes to transit, and that the single family character of Seattle just stays the same, it's all a big fat lie when they claim to be for carbon neurtral then don't do a thing about it!
Those electric cell things? Just call them “photo ops” — that's all they are. Or you could just say they're “scams.”
if zoning and transit are more of a cure all, it's rather strange the city council pleding carbon neutral is also the city counsil espousing the auto friendly DBT and the auto friendly 520 (a/k/a the new Viaduct on Lake Washington ….two whole levels of roadway, one for WSDOT alone, three times bulkier than the current bridge and probably 5x more concrete….) which cannot have even a transit only lane.
Meanwhile, our brave friends fighting for density urge as many as six stories around a 1.4 mile of a light rail station, woo hoo.
Fed Way: 45 stories.
The REAL plan is thus to ensure auto usage predominates, no big changes to transit, and that the single family character of Seattle just stays the same, it's all a big fat lie when they claim to be for carbon neurtral then don't do a thing about it!
Those electric cell things? Just call them “photo ops” — that's all they are. Or you could just say they're “scams.”
With 88 percent being generated by Hydro there's nothing we should do except close down the coal generating plant in Centralia — one of the nations dirtiest.
However, SeaTac airport, BNSF rail, the Harbor and the Interstate all douse us daily with fumes from planes, trucks and trains.
A better effort would be to focus on building a Puget Sound Hydrogen Highway. Any excess hydropower could be used to create hydrogen (electrolysis) and Washington State could conceivably have a high degree of energy independence … fueling its vehicles with H2 as fuel cell cars and trains become available in 2015.
From NY state:
http://www.nypa.gov/ar05/2005AR/sec4.htm
“Radical changes will occur in the energy business, driven by technological innovation,” said Shalom Zelingher, NYPA's chief technology development officer. “Using hydropower to produce hydrogen will facilitate the transition to a hydrogen economy, and discovery of a future potential for this new technology in ways we may not have previously considered.”
The hydropower-to-hydrogen project will result in a greater understanding of the technology, a public better educated about hydrogen as a clean, renewable fuel, and greater economic value and job creation.
With 88 percent being generated by Hydro there's nothing we should do except close down the coal generating plant in Centralia — one of the nations dirtiest.
However, SeaTac airport, BNSF rail, the Harbor and the Interstate all douse us daily with fumes from planes, trucks and trains.
A better effort would be to focus on building a Puget Sound Hydrogen Highway. Any excess hydropower could be used to create hydrogen (electrolysis) and Washington State could conceivably have a high degree of energy independence … fueling its vehicles with H2 as fuel cell cars and trains become available in 2015.
Reddy. Think of rooftop solar, (simpler systems – not huge arrays) as “back-up” power to the grid. The plug-in hybrid battery pack (half the size of all battery-electric) is a good match to modest solar array.
Emergency Drill time. If grid went down, how long would hybrid battery pack to run house. Turn off Hot Water. Close some circuits. Keep refridgeration, computer, phone, TV, radio working. This backup power system can produce energy conservation programs, for sure.
And let's not forget, every household gets a choice whether to Drive or Cut utility bills.
Reddy. Think of rooftop solar, (simpler systems – not huge arrays) as “back-up” power to the grid. The plug-in hybrid battery pack (half the size of all battery-electric) is a good match to modest solar array.
Emergency Drill time. If grid went down, how long would hybrid battery pack to run house. Turn off Hot Water. Close some circuits. Keep refridgeration, computer, phone, TV, radio working. This backup power system can produce energy conservation programs, for sure.
And let's not forget, every household gets a choice whether to Drive or Cut utility bills.
Wells, solar is only a backup to the grid if there is a battery system associated with it- i.e. dedicated to it, not attached to a car.
Otherwise, inverters cut off if the power from the grid is cut off. This is a safety requirement to prevent backfeed.
Wells, solar is only a backup to the grid if there is a battery system associated with it- i.e. dedicated to it, not attached to a car.
Otherwise, inverters cut off if the power from the grid is cut off. This is a safety requirement to prevent backfeed.
It will be up to Seattle to look nowhere else for inspiration, and to cover its ears from the jargony “green job” concept coming from the Fed level. Seattle will also have to accept discounted PV panels from Taiwan or the Philippines, even if they're offered by US sunbelt companies. They'll have to be cheap if they're going to be implemented more and more by households and businesses in the next twenty years. Buying from California or New Mexico companies isn't going to cut it for suppliers, unless they import them themselves. The jargony “green job” concept is going to get in the way and stifle environmental initiatives with trade and protection complaints, so keep it local like it is already–for the next twenty years. If the Redevelopment Act is going to mandate funds, this is what to watch out for. Recipients might be forced to buy the most expensive PVC panels that are US made and they'll be too expensive to replace.
That said, the Fed level isn't all bad. The tax breaks are generous, assuming a refund is expected and someone has the ready cash or a credit card to front a new Energy Star rated appliance, a room remodel for efficiency, or an alternative energy system, like half a solar panel or a tankless water heater. This is but ONE reason someone out of a few million MIGHT do something about energy conservation and efficiency.
What I see in conjunction with the City 2030 plan, and what I'm not sure exists yet, is selling electricity back to Seattle City Light or whoever that is, if one has spent loads upfront for an alternative energy system that offsets the individual home's traditional electric. The energy meter should measure both systems. Even if the alt system doesn't turn the City Light meter into a money machine, at least it should reduce the monthly electric bill (but again, and I agree, it's not realistic for many to just go solar all of a sudden. How about a 60 year plan?).
Make rainwater barrels admissible. Did I read somewhere that the state owns roof water or am I the one who's insane?
So I'm on board with alt energy, even at one building at a time, and it might as well keep the namesake “alt” for the next twenty years, and I think I agree that most people assume solar or alt energy is supposed to replace existing systems, zero-sum. It just can't do that.
Back to the national level, people will buy whatever cars the major car brands are offering. Seattle can't change the car lineup or factory schedule, but I think Seattle can put a chokehold on laying pavement.
It will be up to Seattle to look nowhere else for inspiration, and to cover its ears from the jargony “green job” concept coming from the Fed level. Seattle will also have to accept discounted PCV panels from Taiwan or the Philippines, even if they're offered by US sunbelt companies. They'll have to be cheap if they're going to be implemented more and more by households and businesses in the next twenty years. Buying from California or New Mexico companies isn't going to cut it for suppliers, unless they import them themselves. The jargony “green job” concept is going to get in the way and stifle environmental initiatives with trade and protection complaints, so keep it local like it is already–for the next twenty years. If the Redevelopment Act is going to mandate funds, this is what to watch out for. Recipients might be forced to buy the most expensive PCV panels that are US made and they'll be too expensive to replace.
That said, the Fed level isn't all bad. The tax breaks are generous, assuming a refund is expected and someone has the ready cash or a credit card to front a new Energy Star rated appliance, a room remodel for efficiency, or an alternative energy system, like half a solar panel or a tankless water heater. This is but ONE reason someone out of a few million MIGHT do something about energy conservation and efficiency.
What I see in conjunction with the City 2030 plan, and what I'm not sure exists yet, is selling electricity back to Seattle City Light or whoever that is, if one has spent loads upfront for an alternative energy system that offsets the individual home's traditional electric. The energy meter should measure both systems. Even if the alt system doesn't turn the City Light meter into a money machine, at least it should reduce the monthly electric bill (but again, and I agree, it's not realistic for many to just go solar all of a sudden. How about a 60 year plan?).
Make rainwater barrels admissible. Did I read somewhere that the state owns roof water or am I the one who's insane?
So I'm on board with alt energy, even at one building at a time, and it might as well keep the namesake “alt” for the next twenty years, and I think I agree that most people assume solar or alt energy is supposed to replace existing systems, zero-sum. It just can't do that.
Back to the national level, people will buy whatever cars the major car brands are offering. Seattle can't change the car lineup or factory schedule, but I think Seattle can put a chokehold on laying pavement.
Can car headlights, collectively, beam enough energy into a panel? C'mon! Maybe there's an engineer or inventor out there who can answer this? The tunnels, especially the curved ones, like the Mercer St. exit tunnel could be lined with these panels. Are there not enough cars at night shining their beams against the tunnel walls? I flunked physics and I'm not a scientist.
Can car headlights, collectively, beam enough energy into a panel? C'mon! Maybe there's an engineer or inventor out there who can answer this? The tunnels, especially the curved ones, like the Mercer St. tunnel could be lined with these panels. Are there not enough cars at night shining their beams against the tunnel walls? I flunked physics and I'm not a scientist.
alex jonlin: Single crystal silicon PVs are a relatively mature technology and their efficiency is already close to its theoretical maximum. Demand and mass production will make the cheaper, but not much more efficient. There are other PV technologies that have better effieciencies–2x maybe at most–but they are much more expensive.
Giffy: Please provide more details about how we could “easily cover our current usage.” That's not reality as I know it. Moving PV from Seattle to Las Vegas buys you about 70 percent more output. But it's still a high cost energy source and then how do we get that power from there to here? Where are you going to put any significant new hydro dams? Yes, there are other energy technologies, and we should be pursuing all of them much more aggressively than we are now (with the exception of nuclear), but none of them come anywhere close to fossil fuels in terms of energy return on investment.
Sarah68: We won't need a planetary benevolent dictator. The increasing cost of energy will take care of things all by itself.
Reddy Kilowatt: This was a thought experiment and I didn't mean to suggest that PV could ever take over the whole electrical load. And yes, two further complications that I didn't even get into are the massive effort it would take to convert our fossil fuel machines to electricity, and also the daily fluctuation of solar output. I don't get you point about homes converting from electricty to natural gas though, since that increases CO2 emissions.
jbailo: It takes electricity to make hyrdrogen and there is an efficiency loss in that process. Electric cars are the better choice.
vonb: Incentives will help bring PV manufacturing back to the U.S. But in any case, there jobs associated with PV besides just the manufacture of the panels.
alex jonlin: Single crystal silicon PVs are a relatively mature technology and their efficiency is already close to its theoretical maximum. Demand and mass production will make the cheaper, but not much more efficient. There are other PV technologies that have better effieciencies–2x maybe at most–but they are much more expensive.
Giffy: Please provide more details about how we could “easily cover our current usage.” That's not reality as I know it. Moving PV from Seattle to Las Vegas buys you about 70 percent more output. But it's still a high cost energy source and then how do we get that power from there to here? Where are you going to put any significant new hydro dams? Yes, there are other energy technologies, and we should be pursuing all of them much more aggressively than we are now (with the exception of nuclear), but none of them come anywhere close to fossil fuels in terms of energy return on investment.
Sarah68: We won't need a planetary benevolent dictator. The increasing cost of energy will take care of things all by itself.
Reddy Kilowatt: This was a thought experiment and I didn't mean to suggest that PV could ever take over the whole electrical load. And yes, two further complications that I didn't even get into are the massive effort it would take to convert our fossil fuel machines to electricity, and also the daily fluctuation of solar output. I don't get you point about homes converting from electricty to natural gas though, since that increases CO2 emissions.
jbailo: It takes electricity to make hyrdrogen and there is an efficiency loss in that process. Electric cars are the better choice.
vonb: Incentives will help bring PV manufacturing back to the U.S. But in any case, there jobs associated with PV besides just the manufacture of the panels.
Six stories is much, much denser than you think it is. Four square blocks of midrise is substantially denser than one 45-story tower. Build up all the land within 1/2 mile of a single point up to 6 stories and you can easily fit 25,000 housing units. For comparison, all of downtown Seattle, including Pioneer Square, the ID, the CBD, Denny Triangle and Belltown combined, contains 15,000 housing units; the entire city of Kirkland has about 22,000; and one 45-story tower can fit, at most 400 housing units.
Should we consider highrise around some light rail stations? Certainly, but don't knock midrise. It is a very dense and very sustainable built form.
Six stories is much, much denser than you think it is. Four square blocks of midrise is substantially denser than one 45-story tower. Build up all the land within 1/2 mile of a single point up to 6 stories and you can easily fit 25,000 housing units. For comparison, all of downtown Seattle, including Pioneer Square, the ID, the CBD, Denny Triangle and Belltown combined, contains 15,000 housing units; the entire city of Kirkland has about 22,000; and one 45-story tower can fit, at most 400 housing units.
Should we consider highrise around some light rail stations? Certainly, but don't knock midrise. It is a very dense and very sustainable built form.
One thing you didn't mention, Dan, is embodied energy. It takes energy to make 43 square miles of photovoltaic cells. It takes energy to build dense buildings and to build light rail. It also takes materials, and materials require even more energy to extract.
All of that construction equipment that builds skyscrapers, all that mining equipment that extracts the minerals necessary to produce 43 square miles of PV and 300 miles of light rail, all of it runs on fossil fuels. Half the energy that a car uses over its entire lifetime is consumed in the manufacturing process. I don't know what the figure is for buildings, but it's not insubstantial. We are a lot farther from true carbon neutrality than we think we are.
One thing you didn't mention, Dan, is embodied energy. It takes energy to make 43 square miles of photovoltaic cells. It takes energy to build dense buildings and to build light rail. It also takes materials, and materials require even more energy to extract.
All of that construction equipment that builds skyscrapers, all that mining equipment that extracts the minerals necessary to produce 43 square miles of PV and 300 miles of light rail, all of it runs on fossil fuels. Half the energy that a car uses over its entire lifetime is consumed in the manufacturing process. I don't know what the figure is for buildings, but it's not insubstantial. We are a lot farther from true carbon neutrality than we think we are.
But I am not sure his post really establishes that point.
Also, based on the preceding paragraph it seems to be more lets live like we do in the 1950s. While increased density and more non-car based transportation solutions are great, I really do not see us, willingly at least, using less energy overall. Buses for example are not that much more efficient that cars :http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-08a.htm
Light rail is, but we are a lifetime away from it being the bulk of our transportation uses.
If we are serious about global warming we need to start building existing carbon free power plants now. Work on land use and transportation, sure. But there is absolutely no way those will make much of a dent at all before it is long too late.
Oh and its not like transportation and land use don't incur a carbon cost. Building a light rail lines requires lots of energy especially with the tunnels that our geography requires. Same with building density. If we are actually going to transition people from suburbs to cities, then we are going to be building more units than we would if we were simply accounting for growth.
But I am not sure his post really establishes that point.
Also, based on the preceding paragraph it seems to be more lets live like we do in the 1950s. While increased density and more non-car based transportation solutions are great, I really do not see us, willingly at least, using less energy overall. Buses for example are not that much more efficient that cars :http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_2007-08a.htm
Light rail is, but we are a lifetime away from it being the bulk of our transportation uses.
If we are serious about global warming we need to start building existing carbon free power plants now. Work on land use and transportation, sure. But there is absolutely no way those will make much of a dent at all before it is long too late.
Well, yes, … so I'm not guessing.
My point is more that the 50's were not the utopia that is often presented. Sure we used less energy but if you had family on the other side of the country you might see them a few times in your life. Today most everyone could afford to fly out once a year. Those appliances and gadgets also are a huge benefit to people. For example the very thing enabling this discussion.
Saying “we… where we are now?
Building a bunch of advanced nuclear plants is a hell of a lot easier than land use and transportation.
Well, yes, … so I'm not guessing.
My point is more that the 50's were not the utopia that is often presented. Sure we used less energy but if you had family on the other side of the country you might see them a few times in your life. Today most everyone could afford to fly out once a year. Those appliances and gadgets also are a huge benefit to people. For example the very thing enabling this discussion.
Saying “we… where we are now?
Building a bunch of advanced nuclear plants is a hell of a lot easier than land use and transportation.
Why exclude nuclear? We have the technology, it is safe, and we have amble fuel especially with the more advanced designs. It would more than buy us enough time to work on fusion and other technologies that could generate more power than we need cheaply and cleanly.
Hell for the cost of our engagements in the middle east, which are about energy security as much as anything, we could have built a hundred nuclear plants, launched some solar power generating satellites, rebuilt our grid, built some massive solar farms, and subsidized solar on individual roof tops. With a better grid we could easy transmit power from NV to here. Hell we transmit lots of power around this country right now.
And maybe I should clarify; I mean easy as in technologically doable, not necessarily politically simple.
Why exclude nuclear? We have the technology, it is safe, and we have amble fuel especially with the more advanced designs. It would more than buy us enough time to work on fusion and other technologies that could generate more power than we need cheaply and cleanly.
Hell for the cost of our engagements in the middle east, which are about energy security as much as anything, we could have built a hundred nuclear plants, launched some solar power generating satellites, rebuilt our grid, built some massive solar farms, and subsidized solar on individual roof tops. With a better grid we could easy transmit power from NV to here. Hell we transmit lots of power around this country right now.
And maybe I should clarify; I mean easy as in technologically doable, not necessarily politically simple.
Sarah68 asks, thinking it was a rhetorical question:
“Why expect us to immediately become diametrically opposed in behavior to the behavior that's gotten us where we are now? Who's going to be the plantetary benevolent dictator who imposes such a change?”
Why, Dan Bertolet, of course. Or Alex Steffen. Or any other self-important, self-promoting, self-appointed arbiter of what's good for us.
Sarah68 asks, thinking it was a rhetorical question:
“Why expect us to immediately become diametrically opposed in behavior to the behavior that's gotten us where we are now? Who's going to be the plantetary benevolent dictator who imposes such a change?”
Why, Dan Bertolet, of course. Or Alex Steffen. Or any other self-important, self-promoting, self-appointed arbiter of what's good for us.
Dan is right to be skeptical of the potential of the various renewable energy ideas offered. Solar PV's has been in production for decades, and major breakthroughs that will make then economical have been “just around the corner” for the entire time. A similar analysis would explore the limitations of wind power, nuclear power, biofuels, and various other ideas.
That is why I suggest an energy policy that implements a carbon tax and eliminates the subsidies for the production of energy sources. A market informed by the costs of “externalities” is the best judge of the proper energy mix. This plan also spurs conservation in a way that the current plan does not.
However, I would also have to ask whether the potential of rail transport is also exaggerated. We've seen so far an awfully high cost per rider, and many of the projections put out by transit groups are based on unproven assumptions about behavior. There are also the economic costs of using congestion to control behavior, a scheme that I can't support.
Dan is right to be skeptical of the potential of the various renewable energy ideas offered. Solar PV's has been in production for decades, and major breakthroughs that will make then economical have been “just around the corner” for the entire time. A similar analysis would explore the limitations of wind power, nuclear power, biofuels, and various other ideas.
That is why I suggest an energy policy that implements a carbon tax and eliminates the subsidies for the production of energy sources. A market informed by the costs of “externalities” is the best judge of the proper energy mix. This plan also spurs conservation in a way that the current plan does not.
However, I would also have to ask whether the potential of rail transport is also exaggerated. We've seen so far an awfully high cost per rider, and many of the projections put out by transit groups are based on unproven assumptions about behavior. There are also the economic costs of using congestion to control behavior, a scheme that I can't support.
Dan, I was speaking of the characteristics of the residential electrical load, not the bigger picture of CO2. However, I have to plead ignorance here: Does natural gas home heating and cooking contribute significant amounts of CO2? It is better or worse than heating oil? (the traditional non-electric heating source in Seattle)
Dan, I was speaking of the characteristics of the residential electrical load, not the bigger picture of CO2. However, I have to plead ignorance here: Does natural gas home heating and cooking contribute significant amounts of CO2? It is better or worse than heating oil? (the traditional non-electric heating source in Seattle)
Whatever happened to “Cash for Caulkers?” Has this program started, or is it already over? Has anyone figured out how much energy could be saved if every house in Seattle were insulated to the max? How would the cost of this compare to City Light building another gas-fired, small hydro, wind or solar plant? City Light used to offer homeowners free energy audits, but discontinued doing so a long time ago.
Whatever happened to “Cash for Caulkers?” Has this program started, or is it already over? Has anyone figured out how much energy could be saved if every house in Seattle were insulated to the max? How would the cost of this compare to City Light building another gas-fired, small hydro, wind or solar plant? City Light used to offer homeowners free energy audits, but discontinued doing so a long time ago.
“Cash for Caulkers” is also known as Home Star, and it's queued up in the Senate. we may see it in the next couple of months.
Many are advocating and organizinng for a whole-city energy efficiency retrofit program, but the financing tools to make it happen remain elusive–especially since the Legilsature failed to move energy efficiency financing legislation this session. It would produce a lot of jobs and be more cost-effective than adding generation, but it's harder to pay for.
“Cash for Caulkers” is also known as Home Star, and it's queued up in the Senate. we may see it in the next couple of months.
Many are advocating and organizinng for a whole-city energy efficiency retrofit program, but the financing tools to make it happen remain elusive–especially since the Legilsature failed to move energy efficiency financing legislation this session. It would produce a lot of jobs and be more cost-effective than adding generation, but it's harder to pay for.
“self-important, self-promoting” I haven't sensed either of these traits in Dan's writings, and I've been following him for years. Baseless attacks and disrespectful comments are the least attractive aspects of this site.
“self-important, self-promoting” I haven't sensed either of these traits in Dan's writings, and I've been following him for years. Baseless attacks and disrespectful comments are the least attractive aspects of this site.
Obviously we have different thresholds for what constitutes “baseless,” “disrespectful,” and “attack.”
Obviously we have different thresholds for what constitutes “baseless,” “disrespectful,” and “attack.”
(raises hand) Natural gas produces 30% less CO2 than fuel oil, but that's not a realistic comparison in our region – that would be natural gas vs. electric. We can make electric carbon-free, we can't do the same for natural gas.
For heating, you can not only get closer to carbon-neutral with electricity, but you can increase efficiency as well. Switch to a ground-loop heat pump, and you'll cut your electric heating use by at least half.
(raises hand) Natural gas produces about a third of the CO2 as fuel oil, but that's not a realistic comparison in our region – that would be natural gas vs. electric. We can make electric carbon-free, we can't do the same for natural gas.
I would always tell clients to act in this order:
1. Behavior
2. Efficiency
3. Generation
There are large steps between each. #1 is free (better than free, makes money), #2 costs money but will quickly pay for itself, #3 is expensive and may never pay for itself. It is almost always cheaper to become more efficient or change your behavior than it is to install PV or wind turbines. That said, we often maxed out #1 and #2, and that's the time to turn to #3.
This was a great post that demonstrates how expensive #3 is. Building dense, efficient buildings works to maximize #1 and #2. We'll still need #3 to get to carbon neutrality, but it's the least important step.
I would always tell clients to act in this order: 1. Behavior 2. Efficiency 3. Generation There are large steps between each. #1 is free (better than free, makes money), #2 costs money but will quickly pay for itself, #3 is expensive and may never pay for itself. It is almost always cheaper to become more efficient or change your behavior than it is to install PV or wind turbines. That said, we often maxed out #1 and #2, and that's the time to turn to #3. This was a great post that demonstrates how expensive #3 is. Building dense, efficient buildings works to maximize #1 and #2. We'll still need #3 to get to carbon neutrality, but it's the least important step.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way.
FWIW, there are big areas of Seattle that don't have natural gas, and the typical home has a 60 or 100 amp service with an oil furnace. (My own house was like that until PSE came through the neighborhood with natural gas).
For a time in the late 70's, early '80's, City Light was actively discouraging electric heat in the interests of conservation. If you did a service upgrade you had to sign a statement saying you weren't adding heat load. That's not done now, but the general sentiment still seems to be that gas heat is the “greener” way to go.
Economically speaking, gas heat seems to be the most affordable – at least at this moment in time. My gas bill is practically nothing, but my electric bill is relatively high – mostly because of a hot tub and an 8' baseboard heater in the basement that I am too lazy to get rid of. I'd love to try one of those ductless heat pumps, but I'm too cheap to shell out the bucks – even though the thing costs me probably fifty bucks a billing period.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way.
FWIW, there are big areas of Seattle that don't have natural gas, and the typical home has a 60 or 100 amp service with an oil furnace. (My own house was like that until PSE came through the neighborhood with natural gas).
For a time in the late 70's, early '80's, City Light was actively discouraging electric heat in the interests of conservation. If you did a service upgrade you had to sign a statement saying you weren't adding heat load. That's not done now, but the general sentiment still seems to be that gas heat is the “greener” way to go.
Economically speaking, gas heat seems to be the most affordable – at least at this moment in time. My gas bill is practically nothing, but my electric bill is relatively high – mostly because of a hot tub and an 8' baseboard heater in the basement that I am too lazy to get rid of. I'd love to try one of those ductless heat pumps, but I'm too cheap to shell out the bucks – even though the thing costs me probably fifty bucks a billing period.
Yes, natural gas is currently cheap – so cheap they flare the stuff in many parts of the world to get to the money-producing oil (see this pdf). And electricity without clean generation capacity won't get us to carbon neutral: added consumption will lead to natural gas (or worse) being burned for electricity elsewhere (and then you lose efficincy).
Which is why efficiency is so important. The cheapest watt (or therm) is the one you don't use. Caulk holes, cover your windows, and get a programable thermostat (maybe one for your hot tub as well, if you never plan on using it in the middle of the night or during the day on weekdays).
Yes, natural gas is currently cheap – so cheap they flare the stuff in many parts of the world to get to the money-producing oil (see this pdf). And electricity alone won't necessarily help you get to carbon neutral: unless we build clean generation capacity, added consumption will lead to natural gas (or worse) being burned for electricity elsewhere (and then you lose efficincy).
Which is why efficiency is so important. The cheapest watt (or therm) is the one you don't use. Caulk holes, cover your windows, and get a programable thermostat.
Give me a break — have you even read any of this guy's stuff? Ivan hit the nail on the head.
As for personal attacks and disrespectful comments, Dan is the king of those, unless you are a doting fanboy who hangs on his every word, as is apparently the case with you.
Give me a break — have you even read any of this guy's stuff? Ivan hit the nail on the head.
As for personal attacks and disrespectful comments, Dan is the king of those, unless you are a doting fanboy who hangs on his every word, as is apparently the case with you.
Hey guys, chill out. Stick to debating the issues in Dan's post.
Hey guys, chill out. Stick to debating the issues in Dan's post.
Michael G, The idea to electrify transit on rail is arguably the best investment long-term. European cities work on this model and our cities can follow suit.
Streetcar lines best serve the highest density residential-commercial district-neighborhoods with least number of vehicles and best access.
Light rail becomes more efficient after years of adapting to the new travel mode, plus development, plus experiencing cross-county travel on Link as more comfortable and reasonably convenient. It takes time and careful development for light rail to succeed. Don't be another BS artiste on this board.
Michael G, The idea to electrify transit on rail is arguably the best investment long-term. European cities work on this model and our cities can follow suit.
Streetcar lines best serve the highest density residential-commercial district-neighborhoods with least number of vehicles and best access.
Light rail becomes more efficient after years of adapting to the new travel mode, plus development, plus experiencing cross-county travel on Link as more comfortable and reasonably convenient. It takes time and careful development for light rail to succeed. Don't be another BS artiste on this board.
I mentioned plug-in hybrid to meet your point. My point stands — Solar is an ideal back-up power supply, especially with a plug-in hybrid or all-battery vehicles. The former limits routine driving range to half that of the latter, thus plug-in hybrid has that advantage and several others over all-battery vehicles. Just thought you might like to think about it and debate the point. Or, we could talk trolleybus systemology. I respect and appreciate your intellectual discernment on these issues.
I mentioned plug-in hybrid to meet your point. My point stands — Solar is an ideal back-up power supply, especially with a plug-in hybrid or all-battery vehicles. The former limits routine driving range to half that of the latter, thus plug-in hybrid has that advantage and several others over all-battery vehicles. Just thought you might like to think about it and debate the point. Or, we could talk trolleybus systemology. I respect and appreciate your intellectual discernment on these issues.
$90B/43 sq mi/13000 Gwh/1.4 Gw average of intermittent solar PV power or one nuclear plant producing 24/7 power taking up a quarter of a sq mile costing about $1.7B based on current Asia build costs of American designed NRC approved reactors
Are we stupid or what!!!!
$90B/43 sq mi/13000 Gwh/1.4 Gw average of intermittent solar PV power or one nuclear plant producing 24/7 power taking up a quarter of a sq mile costing about $1.7B based on current Asia build costs of American designed NRC approved reactors
Are we stupid or what!!!!
The problem with your “analysis” is not your math – your long division skills are apparently fine. The problem is your assumptions and your 'point of beginning”. The Pacific Northwest ( and Seattle) MAY be one of the few areas of the US to get close to “Carbon Neutral”. The NW has only one (1) nuclear plant and two coal plants – Centrailia and Jim Bridger( Wyoming). Seattle has nearly ZERO fossil fuel used to create electricity.
Tthe PRIMARY source of electricity is falling water – dams. (For Seattle, Ross, Diablo, Gorge and Boundary). Next would probably be co-gen (waste heat) and wind (eg: Kittitas County).
The PRIMARY fossil fuel is natural gas – NOT coal or oil.
The primary transportation fuel is gas/diesel. As a phased path to change, first make gas/diesel MUCH more efficient, while building
infrastructure to support electric/ electric hybrid vehicles. Time of day rates would provide incentives to charge electric vehicles off -peak, at night.
Keep building solar, with the goal of cutting natural gas used for space heating.
None of this will happen all at once. But it can all happen in a decade.
The problem with your “analysis” is not your math – your long division skills are apparently fine. The problem is your assumptions and your 'point of beginning”. The Pacific Northwest ( and Seattle) MAY be one of the few areas of the US to get close to “Carbon Neutral”. The NW has only one (1) nuclear plant and two coal plants – Centrailia and Jim Bridger( Wyoming). Seattle has nearly ZERO fossil fuel used to create electricity.
Tthe PRIMARY source of electricity is falling water – dams. (For Seattle, Ross, Diablo, Gorge and Boundary). Next would probably be co-gen (waste heat) and wind (eg: Kittitas County).
The PRIMARY fossil fuel is natural gas – NOT coal or oil.
The primary transportation fuel is gas/diesel. As a phased path to change, first make gas/diesel MUCH more efficient, while building
infrastructure to support electric/ electric hybrid vehicles. Time of day rates would provide incentives to charge electric vehicles off -peak, at night.
Keep building solar, with the goal of cutting natural gas used for space heating.
None of this will happen all at once. But it can all happen in a decade.
WNP-1 and WNP-4 are the same design as the Bellefonte Nuclear Reactors in Alabama, which were also abandoned but are now being restarted.
WNP-1 and WNP-4 are the same design as the Bellefonte Nuclear Reactors in Alabama, which were also abandoned but are now being restarted.
Least efficient way to heat a home with fossil fuels – convert fossil fuel to electricity and then use space heaters.
Most efficient way to heat with fossil fuels – use high efficiency furnace.
Most efficient way to use fossil fuels to move a vehicle – convert to electricity and power the vehicle with electrical power. Individual IC engines convert at about 15 – 25% efficiency. Power plants can do a better job with NG around 50%.
Least efficient way to heat a home with fossil fuels – convert fossil fuel to electricity and then use space heaters.
Most efficient way to heat with fossil fuels – use high efficiency furnace.
Most efficient way to use fossil fuels to move a vehicle – convert to electricity and power the vehicle with electrical power. Individual IC engines convert at about 15 – 25% efficiency. Power plants can do a better job with NG around 50%.
The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun.
A big thanks for this information. I have stumbled it and will definitely let the rest of my friends know. They without a doubt should find it as interesting as myself.