I knew there was a reason why I like Google besides its efforts to bring PC apps to the Web:

Google's Quest for 1 GWH Alternative Energy

This amazing company proved several things that standard thinking denied while it started up and grew. First thing, that a search engine company can make money. Second that highly redundant computing systems are better than squeezing the buffalo till it, er, "burps." Third that its gmail system can actually work while giving GB storage to the masses, a direct threat to MS dominance, although nobody's admitting to it publicly.

And now the company is heading into alternative energy.

Questions:

How likely is it that Larry Page will succeed?

What types of alternative energy might produce the goal of 1 Giga Watt Hour (GWH) consistently? Many coal-fired plants only produce 200-300 Mega Watt Hours (MWH).

What would success at this level mean to the present energy industry (oil, gas, coal, nuke, hydro)?

AM, your link is...shot. It needs some sort of sign-in code. Too bad, it sounded intriguing.

That's odd, I have no trouble getting to it through FireFox under MEPIS, and I don't have an account with the site.

Try This Alternative E-Link ;-)

What types of alternative energy might produce the goal of 1 Giga Watt Hour (GWH) consistently? Many coal-fired plants only produce 200-300 Mega Watt Hours (MWH).
Many coal-fired plants are outdated establishments, overworked and overstrained by a society that refuses to ge its act together.

Nuclear power seems attractive at this point, but remember, it is only temporary. I am far more intrigued by those few scientists who propose streamiling existing solar-wind-water power edifices, in order to create better energy efficiency. Buning the planet's fuel, be it oil, fissile, or coal, is far more desrtuctive thansimply using existing natural envornments for our own purposes. THe earth moves, with or without us. So, we might as well move with it.

What would success at this level mean to the present energy industry (oil, gas, coal, nuke, hydro)?

Nuclear power--I'm still holding out for clean fusion. Perhaps if the government started funding it like a military project instead of a civilian one...but that would be too much to ask. Oil, gas and coal will be out within a century, water power...fizzles. Unless you mean hydrogen. Which is drawn from water. Using electricity drawn from coal. Should the provenence of that energy change, I would be more supportive of it.

How likely is it that Larry Page will succeed?

I wouldn't bet against him in pretty much any endeavor he undertakes given his track record. Pretty innovative guy.



What types of alternative energy might produce the goal of 1 Giga Watt Hour (GWH) consistently? Many coal-fired plants only produce 200-300 Mega Watt Hours (MWH).

Off hand, I'd think nuclear would be the only type right now that could sustain that kind of output on a consistent basis (if we're talking 24/7 here). During my aerospace career I worked on some prototype solar, hydro and ocean wave energy projects that could deliver a spike of power at these levels if built on a massive scale, but they wouldn't be sustainable over even a 24 hour period. I'm not sure it would be necessary for that to happen anyway.



What would success at this level mean to the present energy industry (oil, gas, coal, nuke, hydro)?

Oh, I would think it would be a huge boom to the existing energy industry. The people in this industry have the knowledge and experience at providing energy. Any new source or method of providing that energy would necessarily require their expertise at exploiting/delivering it. After all, at the end of the day it all comes down to providing people with the energy necessary to go from point A to point B, heat or cool their homes, cook their food and turn on their computers and television sets.



Aquilla

Dr. Peter Diamandis is going about this the same fashion but using the XPrize methods to reach the same goals. I like the prize method better as you can get multiple solutions instead of a few singular to one entity. I've thought that perhap creating open market investment funds for this type of research or to support companies that research alt energy might be a great way to go. Greed works as does old fashioned attempts to entice altruistic support. Blended together and you get a really potent set of opportunities.

The search for alt energy sources is THE Gold Rush of the future. To paraphrase science fictions Baron Harkonnen
"He who controls the alt energy sources controls the earth" or "If you (build it)can manufacture the source and realize a profit they will come and come and come".

I am not a huge fan of government sponsored research as I dislike having something so important left to the mercies of politicians and the sacrificial targets of the DNC or GOP. Also this lessens the chance of breakthroughs being buried or deliberately suppressed. Once the knowledge is made public it is very easy to have the reality of claims examined and either supported or debunked.

What types of alternative energy might produce the goal of 1 Giga Watt Hour (GWH) consistently? Many coal-fired plants only produce 200-300 Mega Watt Hours (MWH).
I would also say nuclear. Fusion?Hydrogen? Not any time soon. Maybe small scale could power your house type of systems, seen some pretty good ideas there.
I think small scale is more reasonable. enough to power a home or building, but larger than that? just don't see it anytime nearby.

What would success at this level mean to the present energy industry (oil, gas, coal, nuke, hydro)?
If successful the energy companies will probably be the first to line up to capitalize on the possibilities.

Speaking of innovative thinking, Google is truly an innovative company as opposed to the present energy people. I once interviewed with a power company on the east coast and was slammed with a direct question about what I thought of alternative energy.

Didn't get the job, even though it was just in mainframe DP, like I was going to have any say in anything but hardware and software. My impression of the culture was one of deep, dark, dumb retrothink to the 19th century. I told the lizards that I thought alternative energy was a cool idea, that I had wanted to get involved in it after college (1975) but then gas got cheap and there you go. Their faces actually turned red.

Energy has some characteristics about it that should never be ignored. Page approaches all problems in this way, thinking down to the fundamentals and trying different approaches, especially the ones dismissed out of hand as being proven wrong, such as the idea that Web advertising would ever make any money. Bill Gates did this as a young nit by proving that a company can make money with operating systems alone. Before MS became a success, everyone knew that you had to make hardware first, then the operating system software. Apps could always make money, but just an OS? No way.

It's interesting that geothermal energy has a prime place in this effort to break off from the traditional energy sources. I'm convinced that this is going to be where the mother lode of energy is found. I'm also certain that the noise machine will generate a lot of fake science about altering the magma heat patterns if we harvest too much of geothermal to generate cheap electricity.

Another thing that could smoothen out energy generation is a combination of storage and generation. Electronic circuits use capacitors to smoothen out the flow. Power supplies use big capacitors, relatively speaking depending upon the amount of current we're talking about. I've seen caps the size of coffee cans in big iron power supplies. Melting salt to store heat was thought of way back in the 1970s, which would be hot enough to boil water. If you can boil water, you can generate juice.

Well, these are actually old methods. I'm looking forward to hearing about new ways of doing an old thing -- boiling water. I'm also looking forward to some hot-dang absolutely brilliant things from modern physics and chemistry, possibly biology.

As for the present energy business people, they're looking at the big meteor coming and can't do a thing about it except make noise. They are like mainframers in the 1980s. I was one of those guys but did the mammal thing and evolved.

I tend to agree but now believe they (energy companies) are jumping in so as not to miss the revenue that will be generated by the wave of innovation that is sure to take place if the price of oil stays high.

The problem in the 1970s is many of these companies (like gas) were regulated monopolies and their “vision” of the future was narrow at best. Their idea of a “customer” was non existent and their management was more like government than industry – i.e. slow and generally unresponsive.

With deregulation things are starting to change although too slow for my taste.



Not sure we have anywhere near the geothermal potential of say Iceland – worth exploring though.




To date nuclear is the most environmentally safe way to "boil water". Solar works as well but is not yet efficient enough to be competitive.

My understanding is that power distribution is where most power is lost and this includes losses in the equipment, power lines, devises powered etc. We have made progress but there is far more to do. New superconducting power distribution ideas are intriguing.

“Superconductor power cables can carry three to five times the power of conventional copper cables. Compact, underground superconductor cables can be used to expand capacity and direct power flows at strategic points on the electric power grid and can be used in city centers where there is enormous demand, but little space under the streets for additional copper cables”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/...31124071226.htm

http://www.amsuper.com/products/htswire/HTSCables.html

http://www.supercables.com/Reference/tabsartikel.pdf

“WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The release of the Bush energy plan and its goal of energy independence for the U.S. outlined a key role for nuclear energy - the nation's second largest source of electricity.
And no wonder! Nuclear energy plays a crucial role in the nation's diverse mix of electricity sources and our 103 operating nuclear plants provide electricity for one of every five homes.
In addition, nuclear energy is our nation's largest emission-free source of electricity, accounting for more than 69 percent -- more than twice that of hydropower.”
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt060701a.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

Yep, typical conventional thinking. Not surprised.

But that's not what's happening right now. If the oil/gas industry is doing anything with alternative energy, it'll be a day late and a dollar short. There's no vision in that industry, just a bunch of 19th century entrenched thinkers. Sort of like the answer to our energy needs is nuclear, which has never made a dime in the industry. It's government pork.

The real alternative energy solutions happen in labs right now. For example, deep earth drilling is a big deal at the Colorado School of Mines, which has its hands on a bunch of laser patents for the next generation drill bits. On the average, every square foot of the Earth's land surfaces is only about 20 miles from the magma, which is hot enough to boil water to the temperatures used in coal-fired power plants. The water doesn't have to actually touch the magma either, just get close. Plus the water can be the super-pure stuff used in power plants, so that does away with conventional geothermal problems of too much mineral content that gums up the works. Also low output.

In Golden Colorado there's a project to put a giant, acres-big solar concentration plant in the southern part of the state where the sun shines bright and the land is flat. The projected output is in the 1 GWH range, and the major tech challenge is to store heat for generating at night, thus smoothing out the grid contribution.

Biomass fuel looks to be gearing up too, with research into algae farming that promises to produce much more usable fuel per acre than corn, can be grown in salt water and doesn't need a lick of good soil.

None of this stuff is being embraced by the present gas/oil industry. But the industry is drilling hot and heavy on the Western Slope, out after black gold when the world market is about to go green.

Laser Drill Skinny

Green Gold Algae Oil

Granted, the projects aren't top priority for this country. That's Iraq with the recent request of $200 billion in supporting funds. Some think the Bush administration is a lot of talk with no real support for alternative energy:

No Friend of NREL

Well, whatever. But it is interesting that VC (Venture Capital) is heading toward alternative energy like it did with Silicon Valley in the 1990s.

To put the problem as simply as possible, generating and storing electricity is the wave of our energy future. Here's a paper and carbon battery:

Paper Carbon Battery #1

And another:

Paper Carbon Battery #2

The development and marketing of these alternative technologies will bring another wrinkle to the idea of solar power generation. Instead of trying to store heat, store the electricity directly for feeding into the grid at night. Alternatively (so to speak), forget the grid and do it locally. That would eliminate the waste of long-distance transmission.

I can see geothermal plants scattered around cities, short-haul transmission, perhaps going back to DC like Edison thought. Big solar plants for sunny flat land. Algae oil powered plants otherwise, and lots of electric cars, trucks, boats, maybe not planes but trains for sure. They're already electric in cities, and with no coal to haul, who needs 'em? Just kidding. Go straight electric and toss out the diesel, or power the diesel with algae oil.

We won't need a single ounce of uranium either. Not for peaceful energy anyway.

I would suggest that the oil/gas industry get in on the VC funding in this next step for the entire human race. Everyone, including China, will want this stuff.

Seen a pretty cool idea for the way to solve the energy loss. an Austrailian project is building large solar towers. Inside the towers are hundreds of fanblades ala wind towers (which prevents bird death and takes advantage of the collection of fans and the fact that heat rises).
Although some energy is leached at night to keep the fans going they help power each other and can feed off the power they generate until the sun rises.
During the day the rising temps keep the fans going and so you get a double whammy for power generation, solar/wind.
They would need to be built clear of population as they are huge.
interesting idea anyways.

Not “embraced” is a relative term. The “labs” are working hard and we just saw a “clean coal” power plant start in IL but like all new technology it is far away from “commercialization” not to mention cost competitive. Both of which are required to “make it” in the marketplace.

Billions are being spent and imo the government has to do more as well as “big oil”.

Geothermal could be decades away. 20 miles is one hell of a long drill hole! But like you I look forward to the developments.

I disagree on nuclear. Compared to drilling 20 mile holes in the earth and all that goes with it nuclear is easy and can be profitable will the new plants being discussed.


http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti...ant-des-bg.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/...nucenviss2.html

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/docum...t/generationiv/

How can France get 90% energy independent and not the US. They are big nuclear users. We blew it in 1975 when oil dropped we bailed on alternative and nuclear power – BIG mistake.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

Not really that long, Ted. Oil companies regularly drill laterally to get at the pockets scattered around a single drilling rig. And with the new laser drills about to come online, it'll go real fast. The oil companies of course want this to lower their overhead and time-to-market, but shoot, you don't even have to get to the magma to reach 1,000 degrees F, which is what a typical coal-fired plant operates at. Remember, it's all about boiling water to produce high-energy steam.

There is no such thing as a clean coal-fired plant. That's just industry jargon for a less damaging coal-fired plant. It still requires coal mining and the burning of fossil fuels.

Nukes are dangerous. They encourage nuke weapons proliferation, ala the recent alarms about Iran. I also don't buy the industry's claim to being profitable. On top of this, nuke power plants provide more terrorist targets. But hey, go blow up a geothermal plant. We'll just build another one. With nukes you'd have quite a bit of fallout to consider, possibly core meltdown.

I'd be okay with spending taxpayer money to get the alternatives up and running. Sure beats spending it on Iraq. We'd also be leading a world-wide energy revolution, which beats an economy dependent on real estate.

I disagree o nukes in general. If France can do it certainly we can – and even if the government has to subsidize it for a while it will still be cheaper than the idiocy of subsidizing corn for fuel use which has raised the price of all food in this country.

I am all for the government subsidizing new technologies but as we say in engineering “the devil is in the details” and he works closely with Murphy. The geothermal plants you speak of are decades away and we need to move in several directions at once if we ever hope to be even close to energy independent.