Clean Energy and Jobs Now?
Two firefighters were killed in the Los Angeles area conflagration, apparently under control now, that had been competing for media attention with the red hot Health Care “debate”. Some others, including residents, were badly injured.
The flames were unusually fierce and early this time, fed by brush desiccated by another year of drought. But record high temperatures and drought had become a regular weather feature, increasingly worldwide in scope. In Europe, even earlier this year, the Athens area in Greece had been hit hard; in August 1943, 50 people in Paris were reported to have succumbed in 4 days; other times, the heat and drought news comes from Uruguay, then Australia, Israel, and Africa of course. Even proverbially wet coastal British Columbia is no longer immune.
Very few now would absolve climate change, global warming, of responsibility, even though other factors, such as El Niňo and long term natural climate variations, may play a part. Replacing the polluting with any of the clean solar energy sources, wind, direct sunlight, biomass et al, would tend to counter global warming. Moreover, there are ways to build solar installations which in addition would help toward adaptation to climate changes that will have taken place already. We had worked out such a design in our (government) research center in 1973-4.
It featured major advantages (beyond the adaptability) compared to the solar options the public was allowed to be informed of, mainly “flat plate” thermal collectors for domestic water and swimming pool heating, a little “passive” solar architecture and much hype about flat plate photovoltaic (PV) power. That was the least competitive technology, thus the most effective for providing the (formerly AEC) agency picked to fund energy research grants ( DOE precursor ERDA) with the evidently welcome research conclusion that “solar power is technically feasible , but far too expensive in practice”. We had our own research budget and could assert confidently that solar power could be close to cost effectiveness in many places almost immediately, and competitive with the polluting sources in the most favorable locations; which were abundant in our California lab's pertinent states (~west of the Mississippi).
There are quite a few analogies to our recent / current situation. The US superpower had also just been revealed as vulnerable by a price shock and boycott imposed by oil exporting countries, leading to long lines at gas stations that did have some for sale, where people began to talk about energy from the sun. Energy was indeed declared as being at the top of our agricultural research priorities, along with food production.
Such formal declarations did not mean that “powerful” vested interests which determine government practice really decided to let the national needs trump a more profitable status quo. As, e.g., in the current Health Care dispute, it means at most that some more of their excess profits have to be invested in corrupting key people and confusing the general public.
This is not the proper place to describe the wrongdoing needed to prevent a serious solar transition starting in the 1970s and sparing us much of our calamities since. It began with much of our approved research budget being withdrawn retroactively (unprecedented); allegedly not to prevent our work, the feasibility and legitimacy of which was never questioned. The energy priority remained in place. A paper we wrote on the design was not welcomed, but allowed to be presented almost “as is” at a Disneyland meeting of the polluting energy people. The published Proceedings are thus available, but almost only in their libraries. Anything wrong with the UCLA meeting of the Solar Energy Society just a month later? But the vile illegalities that followed my whistleblowing two years later, first to the Carter White House, overshadow these early assaults on just our professional rights / responsibilities and are more akin to outrages of these past few years.
From all I can now find out, our design (especially with some easy updating) still looks superior in most respects to published proposals, notably for sunny and semi-arid regions. It was never meant as exclusive model (as no solar model should be), although it can be flexible enough to include many others. Use of more than one technology for substantial decentralized installations has been a central feature, so as to minimize the need for expensive energy storage (our having included only wind and biologically stored solar energy in the diagram of a “sun village” was not meant to exclude less widely available ones; even limited fossil burning in the early, 1970s stages).
Focusing direct sunlight, so as to concentrate it at least about 10x before absorption by thermal or PV targets is central for the main power yield, at least in the preferred areas. The very thin focusing lenses we worked on, shown to be easily mass produced inexpensively (for 1-2 % of the sale price of comparable devices) can probably be complemented with relatively inexpensive mirror troughs (e.g. for use where the diffuse sunlight is not needed below) when they, like the lenses are deployed under transparent roofs.
Glass roofs shield components from wind loads, rain, uv degradation etc, at the expense of 8-10% of sunlight. It allows wide material choice and tracking the sun with only minor expense of the power gained (compared to weather exposed collector fields). The light harvesting system for thermal power thus can be inexpensive enough to let some of the light (especially in the red) pass through the spectrally selective absorber (that heats the fluid which carries the energy to turbine or non-electric use); since that from the (unfocused) diffuse light is likely to be inadequate for many of the crops to be grown below. The precious water for crop irrigation that can be collected from the transparent roof is utilized for the modern, more sparing, greenhouse requirements. Such crops are obviously less threatened by global warming. Pending more detailed future treatment here, also for concentrated PV, fairly detailed early summaries (chapter 3 and chapters 4-6) of the design will have to make do (The first link is a footnote to a 1977 memo to the Carter White House; the following ones are from an enclosure to a 1980 memo to the UN Human Rights Commission.)
Environmental advantages, beyond the intrinsic virtue of clean energy without anthropogenic radioactivity or CO2, include the non exclusive land use for energy harvesting collectors and the reduced need for transmission of reasonably decentralized energy harvested at / near consumption site. It also makes possible utilization of what has to be “waste heat” in highly centralized installations in a remote desert, and which amounts to most of the energy collected. That contributed further toward making this the most energy conserving and the cheapest sunpower. It is far easier to get financing for a reasonably sized plant. It is highly job, rather than fuel or capital, intensive. With enough lens mass production in place (no problem), it can proliferate very fast, obviating the need for any new dirty competition at least in the more favorable locations. Those also include much of the underdeveloped countries that need it most, especially right now; if we aspire to a more peaceful, just, world.
The situation now looks surprisingly similar to that in the 1970s, at least at first glance. The clean solar sources are still deemed desirable, but they are almost always referred to as “renewable” energy, a major semantic achiement for the dirty competition. The term makes sense when crops have to be grown for burning as biofuel. But the sun keeps radiating, the winds keep blowing, ocean waves churning, and rivers for hydropower just keep rolling along; without requiring renewal by us.
It was not President Obama who ended SERI, the Solar Energy Research Institute, and replaced it with NREL, where the N stands for National, the "patriotic" adjective conferred on the AEC (to DOE) labs designed for “peaceful” and bomb making nuclear work. It was a predecessor who got rid of the “solar” in the SERI founded by Jimmy Carter in the 70s. The concentration first on some health care reform need not mean that Barack Obama is less pro solar than Carter. My guess is that he is unaware of the possibility of something more than a “twofer” of some energy and jobs; like a “multifer” of much more energy and jobs, at less expense, very fast, with added “xtras”, not all of which have been discussed here.
When Jay Leno, in one of his last NBC night shows, asked him why nobody was being prosecuted for the rip-offs associated with the Wall Street bailout, Obama said that (most of) that didn't have to be Illegal. But those thought responsible for the LA fires are sought for murder. That makes some sense, and no less would prosecution for the deliberate, powerful prevention of methods which could have prevented the starvation of many millions since, for oil wars, 0ne of which featured the biggest fire on record (set in disputed oil fields) and many casualties burned alive when their vehicles were hit (also Amertcans). Even if confined to what happened in our /my case, the illegalities would have richly deserved criminal prosecution; which I'd rather avoid. It should not be off the table, if they now use their corruptive clout to scuttle “energy reform” more powerfully than the health reform opponents' lobbies used theirs.
Clean energy, as job creator, appeared to be second to none on Obama's agenda initially, and solar proponents expected much. Lacking, however, was a most important feature present at Jimmy Carter's 1977 call for the moral equivalent of war for energy; namely a grassroots movement organizing for Sun Day (Wednesday May 3, 1978). That may not be enough, given the reach of those opposed, also into “movement”-like NGOs, but it may well be essential. It is hard to believe that a “Renewability Day” could generate the sort of genuine grassroots enthusiasm prevailing in the Sun Day movement.
Steven Chu is a far more impressive Secretary of the Energy Department than Carter's, but that may not be enough to bring about the changes needed there. He is probably bound to also represent at least his “Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”, the beneficiary of two Applied Semantics face lifts since I came to know it as the Lawrence Radiation Lab. What has been approved up to now doesn't look ideal; nor bad, given that any solar project is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. I haven't abandoned hope of better to follow soon. I was in my 40s when this work was started and I expected to be involved for a few months before returning to my normal, more scientific, research; in which I had gained significant international recognition, but insignificant in societal importance next to the solar development. I am now in my mid 80s, so have to keep up hope for Barack Obama and team, since I can't expect a better president in the time I may have left.
(After posting other things, also kept in suspense for many months, there should be more on this. There should then be a link to it here.)
The flames were unusually fierce and early this time, fed by brush desiccated by another year of drought. But record high temperatures and drought had become a regular weather feature, increasingly worldwide in scope. In Europe, even earlier this year, the Athens area in Greece had been hit hard; in August 1943, 50 people in Paris were reported to have succumbed in 4 days; other times, the heat and drought news comes from Uruguay, then Australia, Israel, and Africa of course. Even proverbially wet coastal British Columbia is no longer immune.
Very few now would absolve climate change, global warming, of responsibility, even though other factors, such as El Niňo and long term natural climate variations, may play a part. Replacing the polluting with any of the clean solar energy sources, wind, direct sunlight, biomass et al, would tend to counter global warming. Moreover, there are ways to build solar installations which in addition would help toward adaptation to climate changes that will have taken place already. We had worked out such a design in our (government) research center in 1973-4.
It featured major advantages (beyond the adaptability) compared to the solar options the public was allowed to be informed of, mainly “flat plate” thermal collectors for domestic water and swimming pool heating, a little “passive” solar architecture and much hype about flat plate photovoltaic (PV) power. That was the least competitive technology, thus the most effective for providing the (formerly AEC) agency picked to fund energy research grants ( DOE precursor ERDA) with the evidently welcome research conclusion that “solar power is technically feasible , but far too expensive in practice”. We had our own research budget and could assert confidently that solar power could be close to cost effectiveness in many places almost immediately, and competitive with the polluting sources in the most favorable locations; which were abundant in our California lab's pertinent states (~west of the Mississippi).
There are quite a few analogies to our recent / current situation. The US superpower had also just been revealed as vulnerable by a price shock and boycott imposed by oil exporting countries, leading to long lines at gas stations that did have some for sale, where people began to talk about energy from the sun. Energy was indeed declared as being at the top of our agricultural research priorities, along with food production.
Such formal declarations did not mean that “powerful” vested interests which determine government practice really decided to let the national needs trump a more profitable status quo. As, e.g., in the current Health Care dispute, it means at most that some more of their excess profits have to be invested in corrupting key people and confusing the general public.
This is not the proper place to describe the wrongdoing needed to prevent a serious solar transition starting in the 1970s and sparing us much of our calamities since. It began with much of our approved research budget being withdrawn retroactively (unprecedented); allegedly not to prevent our work, the feasibility and legitimacy of which was never questioned. The energy priority remained in place. A paper we wrote on the design was not welcomed, but allowed to be presented almost “as is” at a Disneyland meeting of the polluting energy people. The published Proceedings are thus available, but almost only in their libraries. Anything wrong with the UCLA meeting of the Solar Energy Society just a month later? But the vile illegalities that followed my whistleblowing two years later, first to the Carter White House, overshadow these early assaults on just our professional rights / responsibilities and are more akin to outrages of these past few years.
From all I can now find out, our design (especially with some easy updating) still looks superior in most respects to published proposals, notably for sunny and semi-arid regions. It was never meant as exclusive model (as no solar model should be), although it can be flexible enough to include many others. Use of more than one technology for substantial decentralized installations has been a central feature, so as to minimize the need for expensive energy storage (our having included only wind and biologically stored solar energy in the diagram of a “sun village” was not meant to exclude less widely available ones; even limited fossil burning in the early, 1970s stages).
Focusing direct sunlight, so as to concentrate it at least about 10x before absorption by thermal or PV targets is central for the main power yield, at least in the preferred areas. The very thin focusing lenses we worked on, shown to be easily mass produced inexpensively (for 1-2 % of the sale price of comparable devices) can probably be complemented with relatively inexpensive mirror troughs (e.g. for use where the diffuse sunlight is not needed below) when they, like the lenses are deployed under transparent roofs.
Glass roofs shield components from wind loads, rain, uv degradation etc, at the expense of 8-10% of sunlight. It allows wide material choice and tracking the sun with only minor expense of the power gained (compared to weather exposed collector fields). The light harvesting system for thermal power thus can be inexpensive enough to let some of the light (especially in the red) pass through the spectrally selective absorber (that heats the fluid which carries the energy to turbine or non-electric use); since that from the (unfocused) diffuse light is likely to be inadequate for many of the crops to be grown below. The precious water for crop irrigation that can be collected from the transparent roof is utilized for the modern, more sparing, greenhouse requirements. Such crops are obviously less threatened by global warming. Pending more detailed future treatment here, also for concentrated PV, fairly detailed early summaries (chapter 3 and chapters 4-6) of the design will have to make do (The first link is a footnote to a 1977 memo to the Carter White House; the following ones are from an enclosure to a 1980 memo to the UN Human Rights Commission.)
Environmental advantages, beyond the intrinsic virtue of clean energy without anthropogenic radioactivity or CO2, include the non exclusive land use for energy harvesting collectors and the reduced need for transmission of reasonably decentralized energy harvested at / near consumption site. It also makes possible utilization of what has to be “waste heat” in highly centralized installations in a remote desert, and which amounts to most of the energy collected. That contributed further toward making this the most energy conserving and the cheapest sunpower. It is far easier to get financing for a reasonably sized plant. It is highly job, rather than fuel or capital, intensive. With enough lens mass production in place (no problem), it can proliferate very fast, obviating the need for any new dirty competition at least in the more favorable locations. Those also include much of the underdeveloped countries that need it most, especially right now; if we aspire to a more peaceful, just, world.
The situation now looks surprisingly similar to that in the 1970s, at least at first glance. The clean solar sources are still deemed desirable, but they are almost always referred to as “renewable” energy, a major semantic achiement for the dirty competition. The term makes sense when crops have to be grown for burning as biofuel. But the sun keeps radiating, the winds keep blowing, ocean waves churning, and rivers for hydropower just keep rolling along; without requiring renewal by us.
It was not President Obama who ended SERI, the Solar Energy Research Institute, and replaced it with NREL, where the N stands for National, the "patriotic" adjective conferred on the AEC (to DOE) labs designed for “peaceful” and bomb making nuclear work. It was a predecessor who got rid of the “solar” in the SERI founded by Jimmy Carter in the 70s. The concentration first on some health care reform need not mean that Barack Obama is less pro solar than Carter. My guess is that he is unaware of the possibility of something more than a “twofer” of some energy and jobs; like a “multifer” of much more energy and jobs, at less expense, very fast, with added “xtras”, not all of which have been discussed here.
When Jay Leno, in one of his last NBC night shows, asked him why nobody was being prosecuted for the rip-offs associated with the Wall Street bailout, Obama said that (most of) that didn't have to be Illegal. But those thought responsible for the LA fires are sought for murder. That makes some sense, and no less would prosecution for the deliberate, powerful prevention of methods which could have prevented the starvation of many millions since, for oil wars, 0ne of which featured the biggest fire on record (set in disputed oil fields) and many casualties burned alive when their vehicles were hit (also Amertcans). Even if confined to what happened in our /my case, the illegalities would have richly deserved criminal prosecution; which I'd rather avoid. It should not be off the table, if they now use their corruptive clout to scuttle “energy reform” more powerfully than the health reform opponents' lobbies used theirs.
Clean energy, as job creator, appeared to be second to none on Obama's agenda initially, and solar proponents expected much. Lacking, however, was a most important feature present at Jimmy Carter's 1977 call for the moral equivalent of war for energy; namely a grassroots movement organizing for Sun Day (Wednesday May 3, 1978). That may not be enough, given the reach of those opposed, also into “movement”-like NGOs, but it may well be essential. It is hard to believe that a “Renewability Day” could generate the sort of genuine grassroots enthusiasm prevailing in the Sun Day movement.
Steven Chu is a far more impressive Secretary of the Energy Department than Carter's, but that may not be enough to bring about the changes needed there. He is probably bound to also represent at least his “Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”, the beneficiary of two Applied Semantics face lifts since I came to know it as the Lawrence Radiation Lab. What has been approved up to now doesn't look ideal; nor bad, given that any solar project is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. I haven't abandoned hope of better to follow soon. I was in my 40s when this work was started and I expected to be involved for a few months before returning to my normal, more scientific, research; in which I had gained significant international recognition, but insignificant in societal importance next to the solar development. I am now in my mid 80s, so have to keep up hope for Barack Obama and team, since I can't expect a better president in the time I may have left.
(After posting other things, also kept in suspense for many months, there should be more on this. There should then be a link to it here.)
posted by solar_sol | 9:46 PM
|
0 comments
