The Silicon Valley for Alternative Energy: Continuing the Discussion

Politics, politics (0.00 / 0)

Re: Binghamton-- the solar focus for Binghamton is the very strongest suit, as Hinchey is Mr. Solar Energy, and has a lot of clout and can bring federal funding for it home to his district.

Maybe problems with RIT being a center for fuel cells, as a lot of work has been done at rival RPI, with a very politically-connected company named Plug Power.  Maybe no Bruno will change the fortunes of RPI in that regard.  Anybody know where that is at lately, I haven't heard much in years?

Arcuri is on the Infrastructure Committee, and Syracuse is just outside his district, includes some of the labor market.  Still, Syracuse University has a lot of experience in stuff more appropriate to the development of conservation and HVAC stuff.  Left over from work with Carrier, even though they are gone.  As far as DestiNY-- if you believe their hype, I want to sell you a bridge I own in Brooklyn.

The Congresscritters on the Ag Committee (Gillibrand and Kuhl now... maybe Massa?) will have a hand in where research dollars go for biomass research.... RPI, I'm lookin' at you.  Maybe Alfred and the Ceramics Corridor too (for advanced combustion units).  As far as the natural resources for promoting the development of manufacturing/industrial capacity, the North Country has the grasslands and the Southern Tier the woods.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 17:20:28 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 0)

As far as RPI/RIT, I justify it in that Albany is doing fine.  Additionally, the nanotech industry is really taking off there.  Again, this plan doesn't stop anyone from researching anything, it only directs federal dollars for specific public/private research.  I agree that the lack of Bruno would probably neutralize this problem.

Arcuri could team up with Maffei.  I've been told Maffei is a HUGE infrastructure buff, which was another factor in my suggestion.

I know, I know...I get too excited about DestiNY.  I can dream though.

I would be shocked if Massa didn't take Kuhl's spot on the Ag Committee.  That would be piss-poor management on Pelosi/Hoyer's parts.  

Thanks for your input Robinia, you are extraordinarily knowledgeable about this issue and I really appreciate your guidance.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 17:29:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few comments (0.00 / 0)

Solar power isn't ready for prime time.  The payback time for investment in solar energy is still far longer than solar cells are rated to last, meaning you have to replace them before they pay for themselves.  There is a manufacturing breakthrough on the horizon, however, that may change that equation.  Until we find a cheaper way to produce electricity directly from the sun, however, it will be a fringe source of energy.

Wind power is far more cost-efficient.  The problem is getting the energy from where it is produced (generally far from cities) to where it is needed (generally in the cities).  Most people don't want high-voltage power lines anywhere near them, due to fears that may or may not have a rational basis.

Fuel cells aren't really "alternative energy" sources, as they require energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water.  They are really a different type of energy storage device.

"Alternative transportation policy," to me, sounds like a major investment in intra- and inter-city mass transit.  This is a great idea, and should be extended not only to passenger transit but also to freight transit.  A fully electrified, properly integrated, passenger and freight rail system could make a tremendous difference in fossil fuel use, road and bridge repair costs, and air quality.

I notice you don't mention two important items -- geothermal heat exchange systems and energy efficiency.  These two items, especially the latter one, can produce the greatest change, and the greatest decrease in reliance on fossil fuels.  The reason these items are rarely discussed is that there isn't a large, corporate structure ready to reap enormous profits.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 18:58:00 PM UTC

Yes-- and no. (4.00 / 1)

Agree about the importance of geothermal, and conservation/efficiency is job one, and can revitalize economies everywhere that there are buildings.  It should be the centerpiece, but, as per geothermal, the lack of interest from either large companies or universities makes the profile too low.

Solar also gets slammed by the "special interests," because it is hard for them to charge for the fuel.  Dan, I wish I could get you to speak more moderately than to say things like "solar is not ready for prime time."  Solar is not one, but many, technologies that use sunshine as a fuel.  Some are tried, true, and useful to the max.  I've been personally benefitting from a low-cost solar technology for over three decades now.  Some "traditional" (how did petro-based energy get "traditional" in just a century or so, when other forms of energy have been in use for millenia, but are called "alternative"?) energy technologies are not good investments, too... but we don't judge the potential of oil based on one or more oil furance lines that die before the payback period.

As far as the need for transmission lines to make use of wind energy: most of Northern Europe is dealing with that issue by encouraging off-shore wind-- East Coast US can and should do the same.  

---

by: robinia @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 19:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

There are areas in which solar energy is already cost-efficient, but they are generally very small.

One such example is with certain temporary roadside signs.  A lighted sign needs electricity, and it's generally cheaper to have a sign with solar panels attached than to string a long cable or power a small generator.

The problem is that without significant tax benefits or outright government subsidies solar power is not cost-effective for most major energy uses.  Recently, a major university in New Jersey (I don't remember which one) announced that they would create a nine-acre field of solar panels.  It will cost $10,000,000 and save about $200,000/yr. on electric costs.  That's a fifty-year payback period!  (Note:  Most solar panel arrays are more cost-effective than that, but since they are generally rated for a twenty-year lifespan, they are still not worth it in a purely economic sense.)

There are other concepts, such as using mirrors to concentrate solar power, and more high-tech solar windows that allow some light to pass through while shifting certain wavelengths to smaller solar cells.  But they're not capable (yet) of competing in the marketplace.

The breakthrough I mentioned earlier has to do with the production of the silicon wafers used in solar cells.  A production method that creates wafers that are just as efficient as current ones, at far less cost, is being worked out, and may be on the market within the next two years.

Meanwhile, until solar power can be tapped for major energy use in a cost-effective way, it will be limited to small projects, and will not be "ready for prime time."

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 20:28:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

the idea here is a mix of practicality in use and research innovation.  We want to bring money to upstate precisely for what you mentioned; "until solar power can be tapped for major energy use in a cost-effective way".  This type of research is meant to find those ways.

This is our manifestation of the green collar dream.  We just want to bring that dream to upstate.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 20:40:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe I missed your qualifications... (0.00 / 0)

but, Dan, you are making blanket judgements as if you have reviewed and evaluated all solar technology.  I'm thinking you probably have not.

Lower tech solar applications, like lower-tech biomass applications, are underinvested in for the same reasons they work so well for the consumer: they are cheap to build and cheap to run.  De-couple the idea of "solar energy" from "PVC Cells," please.  Not every energy source needs to be used to generate electricity.  Solar for domestic hot water, passive and active solar heating, and "solar ovens" in remote areas-- like the deforested parts of Africa where fuel is scarce-- are mainstream technologies with very short payback periods.  Do people make dumb investments in hi-tech solar installations that have an unreasonably long payback periods?  Well, duh.  Just look at all those ethanol refineries, too.  The correct response, however, is not to announce that the whole solar field "needs more research"-- that is a game that is promoted by the Petro Lobby, trust me.  Matter of fact, they are probably even behind some of those absurd installations, just to "prove" that it doesn't work.

There has been active attack on solar research and development ever since the early seventies.  If the Petro lobby is working so very hard to suppress it, you better believe there is some good potential benefit for us all in it, if we can just get it out of their death-grip.  Many thanks to Congressman Hinchey for learning about, promoting and funding these efforts.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:14:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hi Dan (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for the contribution;

Part of the point of Binghamton's solar research is to find cheaper, more efficient ways to capture solar power.  They're looking at different materials for the panels.

I'm also a big fan of transportationpolicy.  Freight rail should absolutely be part of this type of investment.  Also, I consider energy efficiency as a large part of the infrastructure area.  As mentioned, the new headquarter in Syracuse will be a LEED platinum building, which is the pinnacle of modern building efficiency.  I would hope that Syracuse continues working on developing and leading in this area.

Geothermal is not a source I know much about, although I was under the impression that it's not actually a renewable resource.  Anyway, this list isn't necessarily an exhaustive search of all alternative energy sources but rather a plan on upstate investment in specific R&D.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 20:06:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Geothermal is renewable (0.00 / 0)

In fact, it is nearly the ultimate renewable energy source.  It makes use of the fact that the temperature underground (just a few feet underground) is fairly constant year-round.

In the summer, heat can be allowed to move from above ground to underground.  This movement can be tapped to generate electricity.  In the winter, the process is reversed.

It's not completely renewable; entropy always increases.  But it is cheap, clean, highly renewable, and remarkably efficient, especially in areas where there is a wide disparity between summer and winter air temperatures.

There is at least one company in the Hudson Valley that is installing geothermal heat exchange systems in commercial zones, taking advantage of the economies of scale that result from having several adjoining businesses work together to create a single system.

In NYC, geothermal isn't all that practical, since the bedrock comes too near the surface.  But in most areas of the state (and the country), it is one of the best systems available.  Generally, it pays for itself within 7 years.  That means a homeowner (for example) could take out a 15 (or possibly 10) year home improvement loan, and once the system is in that homeowner's savings on energy costs will be larger than the loan payments.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 20:34:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Renewable/nonrenewable aspects of geothermal heat (0.00 / 0)

To make use of geothermal heat with heat pumps, there is a good bit of electicity used to pump in the system-- into and out of the heat exchanger... and, depending on the system, it may also require a backup heat source (two sources are always more costly than one).  But, it can be a good system, particularly for larger buildings.  The new Dryden Town Hall uses one and is very happy with it, and I know several homeowners who have installed them-- while they were much more expensive than ordinary heating systems, those homeowners are committed to green energy and willing to pay the cost.

Around here, the heat pumps go quite far underground, not "just a few feet."

One very practical use (low-tech) of geothermal as an ancillary (not primary) heat source is a passive, earth-bermed version.  That requires no electrical assist, and is 100% renewable. I have a low-tech passive geothermal component to my home heating, along with the passive solar.  Neither cost me much extra at all at the time I designed and built my house (late seventies), and both have saved me a bundle over the decades.  My first floor is earth-bermed on the North side and glass on the South.  It's technology that can be incorporated into new housing if the designers take care, without significantly increasing costs... but, it does impact design options.  Because most houses in this country are either cookie-cutter tract homes or aesthete-designed macmansions, we don't tend to get much of this.

A new cadre of green designers is needed.... and is being grown in the Ithaca area, too.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:27:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Natural Gas (0.00 / 0)

We should mention natural gas. In the economically depressed area where I live, Chenango and Madison county, is a hotbed for the Marcellus and Herkimer Shale natural gas plays.

They are suggesting there is enough NG here to provide us the nation with fuel for 300 years.

So, I would suggest that we incubate at several SUNY schools, or create a new SUNY school in Chenango County, that primarily focus on extraction innovation, waste treatment, and product innovation. After all, plastic is oil based.

There are huge local debates, and people from as far away as NYC coming up here to voice their concerns at our town hall meetings. So I too think there is a whole bunch of politics being played out, but we should leverage this as soon as possible to start putting local people into the work force. Most drill and maintenance crews are from out of the area.

Also, there is an entire railbed from Binghamton to Utica that has essentially been abandon. We also have NYRI issues here too.

---

by: chenangofreethinker @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 21:48:17 PM UTC

Except (0.00 / 0)

natural gas is not renewable, not at all.  As T. Boone Pickens mentioned, LNG is a decent idea for a short-term solution.  That's not at all the intention of this general plan.

---

by: BingChester @ Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 22:33:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Renewables in NY (0.00 / 0)

Right now, all of the commercial scale wind projects in NY (see http://www.awea.org/projects ----> NY) are money losers, made profitable through the miracles of tax credits/rapid depreciation. These only work for EXTREMELY wealthy owners who have taxes (of the right kind), and the renewable energy tax credits/incentives work to make those profitable. If you pay little in the way of taxes, these are no good to you.

We need to make renewables profitable, like they are in France, Germany and Spain, via a route called Renewable Feed-in Laws (see http://www.wind-works.org for how these work). These will also put a cap on electricity prices, make financing of these capital intensive projects less risky (leading to lower interest rates/longer term loans) and allow all people who have savings to invest in these. Furthermore, the profits from these operations are taxed, allowing civilization to be properly financed, not just borrowed ad-ininitum. These laws are responsible for 250,000 jobs in Germany over the last 10 years, and 50,000 to perhaps 100,000 jobs in Spain/Portugal.

Sound intriguing? It does to me.

For a more lengthy discussion of RFILs and the way the prevailing Quotas/subsidies work (for some) see http://wagengineering.blogspot...

Nb41

---

by: Nb41 @ Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 22:01:45 PM UTC