Unfortunately I couldn’t find underpinnings for this. Moreover, it’s in contrast with the rest of the report, which makes a strong case for CSP now, technically (off the shelf technology) and politically (expedient thing to do).

On a summary of a report by DLR a 2050/15% indication can be found.

In a recent article in the Guardian an indication is given that CSP can deliver high quality (in the sense of People, Planet and Profits) electricity. Especially when seen in the light of money going to nuclear fusion (7bln euro’s), trillions of euro’s going to refurbishing & expanding current power plants and subsidies to fossil industries, one wonders where our policy makers have their heads.

When listening to Lester Brown on how the US car industry was transformed after Pearl Harbor, one can wonder even more why a true solution + bonus of free drinking water & shade, enabling now refugees to have a reason to want to live and prosper in the North Sahara is treated so, ehh, ineffectively.

3 to 4 bln euro per year until 2020 would make CSP viable RES in a mix with other RES like wind, hydro etc. This would not only serve the EU, bur also inspire China, India cs to follow suit. Khosla’s point.

When offered a scheme of bartering their natural gas to CSP-builder EU, or one of its member states, when the bureaucracy would to take too long to serve future generations’ interests, CSP could be even closer.

For it is not rocket science, but human beings willing a better future for their children. All children, of all species.

It’s our challenge to go beyond the interests of current regime actors, who have little interest but short term share holder value or worse.

Pace e Bene,

Emil M

Neither India nor China, by the way, were mentioned as one of the top five countries where solar thermal would be most viable. I point this out only because it seems to contradict Khosla’s intimations.

To be clear, again I am not dismissing solar thermal. I am only questioning Khosla’s favoring it as “the” winning technology to replace coal and nuclear.

A report in the last couple years released jointly by Greenpeace,The European Solar Thermal Power Industry, and the IEA’s SolarPACES program advocates solar thermal ; however, it says it is only capable of covering 5% of world electricity needs by 2040.

That said, I have some issues with the points you bring up in your comment here above.

First, I notice you leave biomass, hydropower from rivers, and wave power out of your mix above.

I am not sure why you leave hydropower and wave power out, which have potential to supply at least a third of worldwide electricity needs according to the scientific reports I have read. Hydropower already supplies 20% of global electricity. Environmental impacts would have to be mitigated, as with any energy source, but when put into perspective of the impacts of conventional energies, shouldn’t these systems be given your attention and (moral if not financial) support?

Presumably you leave out biomass because you think it should be used for biofuels rather than electricity (and heat), as stated in your article. I wonder what you make of the recent Stanford study that indicates the carcinogenic pollution from cellulosic biofuels stands to be no better and quite possibly worse than that of regular gasoline. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.

pdf

That along with the fact that cellulosic biofuels technology is not yet market ready and the fact that its replacement of gasoline would require massive infrastructures that involve coordinating the Ag business/bureaucracy, the Oil Distribution business/bureaucracy, and the Auto business/bureaucracy personally have dampened my faith in cellulosic biofuels as being a very good option for replacing conventional fuels. At least in the personal automobile sector. Other sectors, especially airplanes are a different story. I think a select group of people would stand to make a financial killing on a complete shift to cellulosic biofuels, but it does not seem at all clear that it would be to the greatest benefit to general life and societal welfare.

You minimize in your article the financial and economic viability of electric vehicles. However, unlike cellul. biofuels, the technology for these exists, at least in a form that is viable for probably the majority of drivers for their personal needs. You mention price as an obstacle, however, several models of EV’s that get hundreds of miles per charge are coming out on the market for under $50K in the next couple of years. And the fast charging Altair batteries look promising as well. Also I need not explain that support for mass production would bring costs down all the more. You mention in your main article that using electricity is a problem environmentally until we switch to renewable source electricity. I don’t see how this is a viable argument in favor of cellulosic biofuels, when their manufacturing and distribution will use the same dirty energy and likely a lot more of it than charging EV batteries for cars. I believe, as no doubt you do, that electricity must shift to renewables regardless of what happens in the transportation sector. That said, until that happens, people can buy roof or garage port installed solar panels to charge their batteries. Tesla already reports offering modestly priced solar installation with their vehicles that can charge batteries for 50 miles of driving per day. I have a hard time seeing how, from an environmental and human life impact perspective, cellulosic biofuels are more viable on a mass scale than electric vehicles other than as part of flex fuel hybrid technology that could serve as a bridge for people who need to drive long distances until batteries catch up.

I also question your figures in part 6) of your comment. My question, by the way, as all these comments are, is sincere. I am not just trying to rabble rouse for rabble rousing’s sake I have no vested interest, in any of these technologies–except the desire that we likely all share of seeing life continue to thrive on this earth and well beyond our lifetimes.

Wind you say will make up 10-15% of the energy mix. I wonder by when you mean this figure to take place. And according to what studies. Greenpeace and the Global Wind Energy Council, whose figures are based on IEA projections (so it is presumably not just people with vested interests coming up with these figures), estimate that if moderate efficiency measures are taken, wind can supply the world with 15.6-17.7% of its electricity needs by 2050, and that figure can be raised to 34.2 percent with advanced efficiency measures taken. Perhaps you have no faith that such efficiency measures will happen?

Regarding your 10% PV projection: Greenpeace projects 16% worldwide use of solar energy by 2025, a figure which does not to my knowledge include CSP. The World Energy Council reports that solar generated energy already makes up 10% of world supply. This figure is not just PV presumably, but also solar cookers, heaters, and the like. However, the amount of solar thermal CSP in that 10% mix is surely very small and much smaller than PV and other decentralized technologies.

Biomass is projected to be able to supply up to 5% of the electricity mix by mid-century (according to the IEA).

The point I am trying to make is that a mix of a variety of renewables could be poised together to viably replace coal faster than you project, and solar thermal, while it has many good things going for it, might not be the much needed saving grace that you make it out to be. It may well be appropriate for hot, desert -like areas, especially in developed countries that already have grid infrastructures in place–e.g. the Mohave, parts of Spain… But with its reliance on direct sunlight, dust problems, its own inefficiency issues, water use, as well as the problems of creating grids in rural areas of developing countries, I have a hard time seeing how it will replace the majority of coal use either.

One last point is regarding Spain’s project to build Europe’s first solar thermal plant. I am guessing, Mr. Khosla, that you are happy about this, given your enthusiasm about this technology. I think it any project that is favoring solar energy over conventional energies right now is of interest. It has probably occurred to you, being a business minded and practical thinker, that the reason this project is getting off the ground is largely the feed-in tariff policy the country implemented not long ago. This policy, of course, was modeled after the one Dr. Scheer pioneered in 2000 that you belittle in your article. A contradiction for you to perhaps take a look at. I mean no disrespect. Only to impart a closing sentiment that I think it important to keep our debates constructive and fair-minded and to avoid thrashing insults that are likely to slow progress down unnecessarily at a time when we have no time.

I, too, am curious about your thoughts on some of the storage plays out there. Also, have you given much thought to pyrolysis technologies that convert wood waste and other agricultural waste into bio-oil/syngas/char? The bio-oil could be used in modified turbines to generate electricity and heat, and contains materials that could replace many petrochemicals. Again, not a complete solution to the coal problem but certainly part of the mix, no?

EEStor apparently has not yet demonstrated a cell, and they have not replied to concerns from quantum physicists regarding the electron tunnelling effect that becomes prominent at their densities.

Suri Ahmad

And I am sure that if you were forced to build solar with your own money, you would complain that biofuels is 32x better than solar.

Such idealistic comments that solar is better than biofuels, while having no clue about the costs of delivery, is not real. I bet such comments come from certain ideologically motiviated quarters who have never produced one penny of production with their own money.

In other words, money talks, BS walks.

Suri

I find you’re over view to the point, meaning you must look at replacement technologies that are cost competitive with coal. What is interesting is your analysis comes close to that of Bush and the energy policy they had proclaimed, which was immediately panned as wrong. The claim was they had not included enough alternate energy as a percentage of the total package.

The interesting part is your opinion on the need for high efficiency solar and the thermal solar as the direction we should be going for short term gain. I believe the thermal was not included in the plan and could change that basic energy plan. As for efficiency that has been the Holy Grail of Solar Energy for years. I was unable to see the kind of efficiency percentages for the companies you are looking at. Personally I see cost as the biggest obstacle, but are they getting better or close too 30%?

Could you provide an opinion on the following point? I believe your ideas on thermal storage are not only interesting’ they are do able, but I see the possibility of capacitance storage as another. One of the topic on the blog has been EEstor and there possible Cap battery and the other is (my idea here) Altairnamo’s battery. They have tested past 20,000 cycles (I see no end in sight) and I personally believe you could now look at this type of battery as a capacitor in the sense that it never goes bad (because of cycles – just like a cap). Therefore, I see a lot of interest by power companies in both systems, since initial cost is not as much a concern as is length of live. The Altair batteries could work for them even with the higher cost. However, if the EEstor Cap works that blows everything out of the water.

My question to you is; what do you think of EEstor and Altairnamo? If the EEstor works (and there are many question as to whether it will ever work) that could be a big change to your analysis, because then cheaper storage would be possible every where, like homes, wind mills, and so on. In fact it could even be better then thermal storage.

Thanks, Tom McGreer – Green Works