Two articles published almost back-to-back in the Science section of the NYTimes (one of the last remaining bastions of science reporting) caught my eye yesterday. While they were each interesting by themselves, it was their combination that sparked an idea for today’s blog post. First, there is an article about new steps in utilizing the largest source of energy available to Earth, the Sun. A photosensitive dye, extracted from raspberries, is the basis for a new type of solar panel, which mimics photosynthesis. Here is inventor and chemist, Dr. Michael Graetzel, discussing his discovery.
The second article talks about record breaking gusts of wind; we have now measured gusts in excess of 250 miles an hour. Combined, these articles highlight the vast and various renewable energy resources that surround us, and yet we are still struggling to harness them for our use.
Given the impending depletion of our current energy resource, crude oil, and the global political, social, environmental and economic problems that it is causing, I strongly believe that it is in the general public’s best interest to be educated and aware of the progress (or lack thereof) that science is making towards finding reliable and efficient energy alternatives. An understanding of what is and is not working in the lab will benefit investors and consumers as they make decisions about how to support and promote new industries as alternative energy is taken from the lab to the consumer. What is really going to work, and what isn’t. I imagine that insight might be gained by speaking with both the scientists and the CEOs on these topics.
I’m not really one for New Year’s resolutions—I tend to not feel the influence of any sort of magical renewal associated with the changing calendar year—but in the coming months I am hoping to increase my understanding of existing research on alternative energy sources. A preliminary step it to start reading read TreeHugger with more frequency, the popular blog that reports exclusively on issues of sustainability and the environment. My interest in the blog tends to wane because the number of stories on setbacks to emission standards, energy crisis, and biodiversity seem to far outweigh the successes.
A friend of mine expressed awed delight when she flew over the wind farm just outside of San Francisco… and that seems like a good place to start my education. Stay tuned for some future posts on the topic.
the chief challenge in renewable energy seems to be less about the harvesting and more about storing, advancements in battery technology are paramount to the success of the new technologies we should be using.
I am pessimistic about the ability of humanity as a whole to achieve these goals in time, while confident in the ability of technologists and scientist to come with innovative solutions to the impending energy crisis, i have much less faith in prevailing business models.
Our entire economic models and outlook are geared towards scarcity as means to achieve high profit margins, there is no motivation for energy companies to invest in energy sources that are abundant, for this to change our entire view on value needs to change as well.
I was discussing energy with someone recently, and she said we should all switch to solar energy. I expressed the opinion that solar was still a lot more expensive than coal for generating electricity, and she said that was because of a conspiracy by the oil companies and president W to keep solar costs high. I’m really not sure how to respond to people who are so profoundly uninformed while at the same time vehemently opinionated.
Wind is more promising than solar at this point, but we need a national grid to ship the energy from where it is abundant to where it is needed, harvesting wind energy in a place that’s not all that windy is very suboptimal. The stimulus package invested some money into the grid project.
Most people do not understand the inefficiencies of dye-based solar energy systems. These systems utilize only a tiny fraction of the solar energy they receive, because the pigments or dyes only absorb only a limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The unabsorbed wavelengths (most of the visible light spectrum, most of the infrared spectrum, and all of the ultraviolet spectrum) create unwanted heat.
Biochemical generation of electricity (using either solar or chemical energy) is always inefficient. The breaking and reforming of chemical bonds typically results in the loss of one-third to one-half of the stored chemical energy. Shuffling electrons from one molecule to the next requires energy. The net result of the absorbtion inefficiencies and the chemical energy-to-electricity inefficiences is that the electricity generated is less than 10% of the total solar energy that strikes the surface of the panel.
The dye panel solar energy technology will generate low amounts of electricity with high upfront costs. The inefficient panels will use far more resources and have a greater negative impact on the environment than using rechargeable nickel-metal hydride batteries. Solar power isn’t always green.