Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mdmathis6; jas3
Most credible studies I have seen (e.g., DOE, FERC, ORNL, Battelle, etc.) indicate that if fully exploited to their maximum economic potential, so-called "renewables" will end up supplying somewhere in the range of 20-30% of projected energy demand. That helps, but it leaves the larger question unanswered: where to we go for the other 70-80% of our needs?

This is what gets me about discussions on energy supply. Someone invariably suggests "renewables" as the answer, or at least part of the answer, to meeting energy supply. But look at the numbers, you're talking about one-fifth, or, at best, a little less than a third of our needs. All this time and effort spent on a source that will struggle to be at best a minor component of our overall supply. What about the bigger picture? There's an 800 lb. gorilla in the room (the other 70-80% of demand) that needs attention too. We'll be a darned sight further down the road in answering the question of our energy needs if we focus on meeting the four-fifths demand first, and then maybe later coming back to the question of the remaining one-fifth. Cart before the horse, people.

143 posted on 11/23/2007 9:06:49 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: chimera

Yup. I agree, except I think that 20-30% is a substantial overstatement. 10% is a more likely number.

jas3


144 posted on 11/23/2007 10:55:30 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: chimera

You looking at energy supplies in terms of their use today...but there has also been a constant increase of efficiency in technogies of various types with reduction of energy needed to power them.

My key point is to the discussion as to how to maintain national vitality and viability should foreign energy supplies suddenly be lost to us....not just to survive but to thrive!


145 posted on 11/23/2007 2:59:14 PM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

To: chimera

“...if fully exploited to their maximum economic potential, so-called “renewables” will end up supplying somewhere in the range of 20-30% of projected energy demand.”

You don’t see where ‘maximum economic potential’ is the lynchpin of that statement ? Did the studies you refer to take into account a drop in costs of PV by a factor of 10 this early in the game ? The DOE computer model NEMS predicted almost $4K per kw installed costs for residential PV for the 2004 - 2009 time period, and $3K out to 2014, and $1,500 after 2020.

Instead, Nanosolar is talking about panel costs dropping to $300 per kw which would make the total installed cost only $1,500 per kw for residential systems. In 2008 rather than 2020. Which means the NEMS model needs serious revision and residential PV penetration will be much higher than ever forecast.


147 posted on 11/26/2007 9:48:24 AM PST by Kellis91789 (Liberals aren't atheists. They worship government -- including human sacrifices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson