Three Levels Of Renewable Energy Infrastructure

16th January 2008

Hi Derek,
thank you for taking the time to reply.

I understand that your point is that of scale - i.e. that renewables currently seem unable to provide the industrial scale of power that we would require.

The bottom line for microgeneration is how much energy it is possible to generate locally... I think that the problem is one of diversity - i.e. no single technology will suffice - but all in combination will...

When I look at my local area I can see the following small-scale sources of renewable energy which are, as yet, completely unexploited - because they are 'economically unavailable':

• Private/business residences - none have solar cells (PV or vacuum), none have wind gens.
• The neighborhood rubbish is buried instead of being burnt & converted to electricity.
• The neighborhood green waste is composted but it could be burnt and/or methane digested...
• Our sewage is not methane-digested (& converted to electricity)
• Our local river (the Ouse) has many locks & wiers - most near the grid - none of which have water turbines.

The only reason these are not economically viable is legislation.

From the point of physics - it is absolutely clear that there is a glut of kinetic energy in the environment which is available to harness. The only problem - from our point of view - is how to do it - and whether it makes 'economic sense'.

If we were to ignore economic factors completely - for the sake of argument - then we could propose the following - at the 3 scales of society (I'm missing a few options at each level)...:

Level 1) Individual Properties

• If every house and business were fitted with evacuated tubes for heating, PV cells and wind-gens for electricity
• If the grid were upgraded to allow storage of energy (whether by flow batteries or other means)
• If tariffs were set so it was profitable to set up small-scale renewable electricity-gen businesses
• If all meters were 2-way and all excess was sold back to the grid.

Level 2) Local Areas

• If all rubbish were burnt...
• If all sewage were digested, then burnt...
• If all wiers and locks were converted to include small turbines.

Level 3) Nationwide

• Tidal lagoons. I'm sure that with a bit of engineering we could design and build tidal lagoons - around large parts of the coast - that would not only generate power, but would protect from erosion, provide fish-nurseries and more.
• Wind farms - it does seem as if this technology has been over-promoted in order for it to take a fall when it doesn't produce... Wind-farms have their place - but to solely use this method for electricity generation is utterly inappropriate.
• Geothermal power
• Large-Scale Solar
• ...

How It All Adds Up...

At level 1 - it's difficult to acheive self-sufficiency. While roof-mounted solar and wind can provide 100% of a house's energy requirements, it cannot produce enough (even if the whole roof is covered) to power the vehicles used by the occupants. (assuming electric vehicles). It also cannot produce enough power for industry.

At this level - the best we could hope for is for the individual properties to be self-heating, and self-lighting.

At level 2 - It's feasible to produce significant power - perhaps enough to power the services sector - but again - not enough for everything.

At level 3 - we have the ability to produce large amounts of energy - that are not required for heating or lighting purposes... The existence of power generation at levels 1 and 2 means that the majority of the power generated at this level is available to industry and transportation.

The essence of your argument - that we cannot produce enough - relies on the assumption of the lack of levels one and two. These are only lacking because of poor legislation.

This is not (so much) the case in Germany and Holland...

By the way - I noticed in the Telegraph that Germany is phasing out all nuclear power. They produce 300 x more solar, and 10 x more wind power than us - *because they (recently) set profitable tariffs* on these supplies.

Also, I read today that a study (by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection) has shown that children living within 3.1 miles of a nuclear power station are 2.19 times more likely to be diagnosed with leukemia than those outside that zone. As a scientist - you will be aware that that is more than a bit statistically significant... (BTW I do have a science degree - I'm not completely uneducated ;^)

I'm sorry old chap - but nuclear is a bad option. If you're still unsure - why don't we draw up a cost-benefit analysis for it?..

Reply From Derek

Good letter, Tim, for me to think more about ... thank you! D.

Next Installment

A Critical Misunderstanding

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

There are no comments for this page.

To add your own comments, click here to login or register