This story out of MIT: Nanotechnology 'fertile' for energy breakthrough:

"I think we'll see the peaking of oil and natural gas sooner than most of those in the fossil fuel industry think," said David Carlson, chief scientist at BP Solar. "By 2035 photovoltaics could produce about 10 percent of the world's electricity and play a major role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions."

Photovoltaics is the technical term for generating electricity from light.

MIT's Vladimir Bulovic said. . .

. . . that nanotechnologies such as nanodots and nanorods are potentially "disruptive" technologies in the solar field. That means they could cause a major switch in a primary energy source, potentially proving more efficient than the silicon used in most solar energy devices today. Bulovic is fabricating quantum dot photovoltaics using a microcontact printing process.

"If 2 percent of the continental United States were covered with photovoltaic systems with a net efficiency of 10 percent, we would be able to supply all the U.S. energy needs," said Bulovic, the KDD Associate Professor of Communications and Technology in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Maybe I'm being too "Pollyannaish," but this sounds encouraging . . . Two percent is a LOT of land. Though we wouldn't have to replace anywhere near the whole U.S. energy budget for it to be worthwhile.

According to this page, the total land area of the U.S. is 3,537,379 square miles. Take away Alaska and Hawaii to get the continental U.S., and you are left with 2,959,005 square miles. Two percent of that is...

Fifty-nine thousand, one hundred and eighty square miles. That's 59,180.

For perspective: Over half of the fifty states are smaller in area than 59,180 square miles. The closest in size to that number are Iowa (55,869), Michigan (56,804), and Georgia (57,906).

So: who's for paving over Georgia?

Because unless I'm missing something, that is what we're talking about: literally paving over that much area, and I have to assume utterly destroying any flora, fauna, or other living things that are unlucky enough to have been previously occupying it. Unless they happen to, you know, not require sunlight.

As you may know, we currently use a lot of petroleum. Petroleum is, even at today's prices, relatively cheap in terms of dollars. It is, however, very expensive in other terms, not the least of which are the costs resulting from the empowerment of Islamofascist mullahs around the world and tinpot dictators like Hugo Chavez. I don't know of a single "silver bullet" of energy production currently known to anyone. Some energy solutions work better in certain situations. Others work better in other situations. Any solution which helps to reduce America's energy dependence, even by a few percent, is worth looking at.

As I noted, photovoltaics simply aren't cost-effective at current prices and efficiencies. I understand that electricity costs approx. 10 cents per kilowatt-hour in most areas of the U.S. I also understand that a 50-watt solar panel can be had for a couple hundred dollars. By my back of the napkin math, this panel would have a 20-odd year payback at current electricity prices, ignoring financing and maintenance expenses.

Now, suppose that a next-generationrooftop photovoltaic system could manage to pay for itself (either through cost reductions, efficiency improvements, or both) in five years of energy savings. We may be a ways off from this hypothetical, but we're at least in the ballpark of making economic sense. If, for example, we were able to halve the cost of the panel (from $200 to $100) and double the efficiency (from 10% to 20%), we'd be there. Couple this with a doubling of energy cost (not an unreasonable proposition), and the payback could be in the 2- to 3-year range. That's nothing to scoff at.

The right side of the political spectrum has always been ambivalent about alternative energy. Alternative energy conservatives have, for the most part, been latecomers. I'd include myself in this group, except I don't consider myself a "conservative." Given the potential for positive effects on America's independence, it's encouraging to see more right-wingers take an interest in the topic. What's curious to me is the more recent ambivalence on the left. This should be the greenies "time in the Sun," right? I mean, more and more moderates and conservatives are getting on board for alternative energy. The green prophets should be all over it, leaning back & crossing their arms haughtily, with cocky, "we've been telling y'all" grins plastered across their granola-chomping faces. Unfortunately, this doesn't look likely. They tend to view the arrival of newly-arrived potential allies with suspicion rather than delight. Perhaps there's something in the leftist psyche that prefers ideological uniqueness to political success. I suppose I'll have to leave that to the psychologists and political scientists. Allen S. Thorpe at Cockalorum offers this explanation:

It's not Pollyannaish to be hopeful about new energy tech, but don't be surprised if the environmentalists don't turn out to be all that enthusiastic. Their real goal isn't sustainable energy, or clean energy, so much as no fewer people. They'll object to using surface to generate solar power as much as they do to urban sprawl. The more clean energy, the more cars and the more people.

Posted by: Ragnar at 04:59 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1082 words, total size 7 kb.