Comments on: A fight over the future of solar

German parliamentarian Herman Scheer responds to criticisms from venture capitalist Vinod Khosla about how best to develop renewable energy sources.

[billmosby]

Nuc R and D

A trillion dollars? I think most of that has to be accounted for as
money spent on building nuclear plants, not research and
development. The US government spent about a billion a year
for maybe a couple of decades on research and development of
nuclear energy (rough figures from memory, I'll admit), and the
Soviets probably a lot less than that. Others just used our light
water reactor designs, and a few used the Canadian heavy water
design. Nukes were built because their energy could be
produced and delivered for a LOT less than solar and wind thirty
years ago. Wind, particularly, was tried even earlier than nuclear,
and abandoned for lack of the sophisticated technology that
goes into modern wind turbine structures, aerodynamics, and
electrical generation and control. A wind turbine is more
challenging to build than a helicopter, and helicopters were not
especially practical until the very late 50s. 50 years later, of
course, both helicopters and wind turbines have been developed
much beyond the original state of the art. Development money
is only part of the story when it comes to innovation. Ideas and
understanding also figure in, and nuclear energy was just better
understood first than the disciplines necessary for wind energy.
Its different now, of course. And the same goes for solar PV and
thermal, too.

[pjianwei]

Do not be naive.

The reason why nuclear energy is subsidies is because they do lead to a very strategic weapon. The moment you can create a more powerful weapon from solar or thermal energy you can get as much subsidies as you like.

[ghostofitpast]

The REAL debate

I am very glad that CNET News.com took the trouble to publish statements from both sides of this "fight." I would like to argue, however, that the conflict is not over what will be the most effective technology. Rather, it is a classic clash between the interests of shareholders (represented by Khosla) and those of customers (of energy companies, in this case, represented by Scheer). I have just discussed this proposition at greater length in my own blog at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/04/technician-versus-venture-capitalist.html

[dargon19888]

Nuke R&D misleading...

I have to question the numbers presented by the author concerning nuclear energy R&D.

Countries that have and are doing Nuclear R&D are doing both weapons R&D, disposal/recycle R&D, and possibly some plant redesign R&D.

My guess is that the bulk of the R&D money went towards weapon research, or possibly fusion research.

Both parties in the "fight" have their own personal agenda and myopic viewpoints.

Yes solar thermal will only work in certain areas.
Solar panels will only work part time and then there's the question of their efficiency in conversion of sunlight to electricity. Wind and wave power also have some potential too.

The truth is that we need all of the above to offset our use of fossil fuels. Get rid of petrol, you need to generate more electricity. Get rid of coal, you need to replace how its being generated.

The sad reality is that we need clean and safe(r) nuke plants. Only problem is that everyone will say "not in my backyard".

The point is that there is no simple answer.

[greenec]

Nuke R&D not misleading

The statements about nuclear R&D are not misleading: weapons research is likely not included in these numbers.

Goldberg, Marshall. Federal Energy Subsidies: Not all Technologies are Created Equal. Renewable Energy Policy Project Research Report #11. July 2000. http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/pdf/subsidies.pdf
In the US: "Wind, solar and nuclear power received
approximately $150 billion in cumulative
Federal subsidies over roughly fifty years, some
95% of which supported nuclear power. Perhaps
more significant, nuclear power received far
higher levels of support per kilowatt-hour
generated early in its history than did wind or
solar."

or for international comparisons:

IEA Energy R&D Statistics
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/rd.asp

[MikeeeC]

Interesting

I find it interesting that someone would disparage nuclear power, and yet subscribe to the questionable concepts of ?climate change? (i.e. global warming) ? particularly since the entire hypothesis of global warming was based, not on science, but on conjectures made by a small group of scientists trying to promote nuclear power generation.

[MikeeeC]

Interesting

I find it interesting that someone would disparage nuclear power, and yet subscribe to the questionable concepts of ?climate change? (i.e. global warming) ? particularly since the entire hypothesis of global warming was based, not on science, but on conjectures made by a small group of scientists trying to promote nuclear power generation.

[billmosby]

Source?

This is the first I've heard this said. Which scientists were those?
I worked with a number of nuclear scientists and engineers at
Argonne National Laboratory for almost two decades, and never
heard any of them assert that global warming was human-
caused. They more typically downplayed it as a conjectural
theory not solid enough to provide a good reason for promoting
nuclear energy. They were more focused on adding nuclear
energy to the other sources, not replacing any of them. If there
are any left unretired these days, some of them might have
warmed up to warming, so to speak, but I have not heard about
it.

[todiane4]

re: Interesting

The "questionable" concepts of climate change? What questions do you have? Whether climate change is happening? Whether it is being caused by humans?
Far from a small group of scientists trying to promote nuclear power generation, 928 peer reviewed analyses along with the IPCC's most recent reports have confirmed that climate change is both happening and being caused by human beings.

Please, let's elevate the debate beyond this level of resistant ignorance.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[Mark Shapiro]

Good energy policy uses markets, and

as Mr. Scheer correctly observes, PV panels fit into free markets
MUCH better than any large scale power plants, whether coal fired,
nuclear, or CSP. (Other forms of micropower also fit well: read
Amory Lovins at www.RMI.org.)

This is a crucial point, especially for free-market conservatives and
all who are skeptical of concentrated power.

[billmosby]

A certain percentage does

And that percentage is said to be around 20 percent of the
electricity in a grid, because of the variability of the solar
component. Unless of course energy storage is provided along with
the variable source, which perhaps doubles the cost of the energy
source. In small doses, PV or wind is a no-brainer economically, or
will be if it is low-cost enough. In larger doses, it takes some other
reason than free-market economics to fly in the near future.

[Steve Jordan]

The point everyone seems to be missing...

...is that there is room for ALL of these technologies, working together! The more solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and HUMAN power we use, the less we need large-scale nuclear, coal and oil. Also, the better we conserve, and the more efficient our tools are, the less of all of these sources do we need.

We need to be addressing the application of ALL of these together, depending on location, load, distribution, and efficiency, using the more efficient (read: Clean) to lessen the load on the less efficient (polluting) power sources, and finding ways to cut energy consumption in the first place.

These myopic debates are exactly what has kept us in this same downward spiral since the seventies, and why there is so little improvement in the situation. Time to stop arguing, and start doing.

[billmosby]

Amen, brother.

I used to say the same thing all the time. Thanks for reminding me!

[ahickey]

Didn't come across well

QUOTE:
My new book, Energy Autonomy has been one of the topics of the panel discussion with Vinod Khosla and Michael Peevey in February in San Francisco.

During this discussion, Khosla did not respond to the book and its theses. That was understandable at that time. He might not have had enough time to read the book beforehand. But what really surprises me is that he now discusses my opinions and concepts at length, obviously without having read a single line since. His comments thus are a little spooky to me.
END QUOTE

I don't trust people who start by plugging their book or bad mouth other people. If your argumnet has merit then be positive.
This whole thing looks like handbags at dawn.

[todiane4]

re: Didn't Come Across Well

AHickey, I understand your being suspect in general of strongly worded critiques if they seem to come out of nowhere and to only be self serving. But perhaps you did not read the original article by Khosla to which this article is a rebuttal. Starting with its title "Scheer Nonsense", Khosla starts off "bad mouthing" Scheer from the get go in reaction to a panel discussion they had that was based in part on the book by Scheer titled Energy Autonomy. Therefore, it seems to me fair game (and not just a plug of his book) that Scheer would a) mention that book in his rebuttal, and b) defend himself against the insults that were handed to him.

[todiane4]

re: Didn't Come Across Well

Excuse me--The title "Scheer Nonsense" for Khosla's post appears on other blogs where I read it like Huffington Post. That said, he calls Scheer's ideas such names as "folly", "plain religious dogma," so the point of my comment above remains the same.