[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Ryan Lanham]

Highly unlikely.  I think something like .50 cents a kilowatt hour is more
likely-and that would be cheap.  The price is obviously set against the
standard of nuclear which is almost universally given as 11 cents / kW-h.
Coal is generally set a 5 cents.

The film plastics are going to have all sorts of problems--getting rid of
them is one.  Making them in scale is another.  They will require glues and
epoxies everywhere to be set down.  More chemicals.  More run off risks.

Anything under 25 cents a kW-h is attractive.  So far, solar isn't close.

Nuclear would be about 3 cents a kW-h except for extremely high regulatory
costs.

The simple truth is that all forms of solar decay in the sun.  Plastic will
decay too.  Efficiencies will drop and radiation will play havoc with
electronics.  Solar isn't a very smart idea for large scale applications and
it will wear out far too quickly for economical small scale applications.
Plus you need weird chemicals.

Ryan


On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://nanosolar.com http://konarka.com
> fundamentally, plastic solar is way cheaper than coal and it's going to be
> the dominant energy generation method in the future, barring something
> cheaper - and at $0.10 per watt of capacity (from Konarka's projections)
> that's a per kilowatt hour cost a few percent that of current cheap coal...
>
> it's very, very radical stuff. I do think everybody playing this game needs
> to be fully aware of what's coming from the plastic solar guys.
>
> Vinay
>
>
> --
> Vinay Gupta
> Free Science and Engineering in the Global Public Interest
>
> http://bit.ly/flucode - please follow the Flu Code
> if you are in a flu-effected area. It protects us all.
>
> http://guptaoption.com/map - social project connection map
>
> http://hexayurt.com - free/open next generation human sheltering
> http://hexayurt.com/plan - the whole systems, big picture vision
>
> Gizmo Project VOIP : (USA) 775-743-1851
> Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk/AIM: hexayurt
> Twitter: @hexayurt http://twitter.com/hexayurt
> UK Cell : +44 (0) 0795 425 3533 / USA VOIP (+1) 775-743-1851
>
> "If it doesn't fit, force it."
>
> On Jun 10, 2009, at 3:31 PM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> Michel:
>
> The US is a fair model of a future world:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif
>
> Transportation will decrease, but it will not remain carbon-based.  The
> only serious alternative is electric.  Hydrogen will be a chunk, but not
> much.  Hybrid is a transition technology.
>
> Local consumers in most places cannot access wind or solar in reasonable
> quantities to make personal production realistic or economical.
>
> I think small solar is a 3% at best sort of solution.  Centralized solar
> turning turbines with hot air, etc. is more realistic.  Centralized power is
> needed for industry and transportation and those aren't going away.  Yes,
> there will be efficiencies and savings, but there will also be growth.
> People in the undeveloped world are not going to agree to be poor while the
> West gets to be rich with lights, heat/AC, mobility, shipping, intensive
> mining and mineral use, etc.
>
> Nuclear has a huge future role.  It has to.  People who argue otherwise are
> simply hurting the planet--killing it.  We need power.  Nuclear is going to
> be the main source (period.)  We should fight to minimize it wherever we
> can, but it is the main source.
>
> We need mostly decentralized medium scale distribution grids with medium
> scale production resources that are sustainable and non-carbon.  That means
> hydrogen to me.  Ocean energy can aid, but it isn't a real answer so far.
> OTEC is the obvious vehicle to hydrogen--as is geo-thermal.  Iceland will be
> rich one day when it uses its geo-thermal assets to make liquid hydrogen and
> ship it around the world to hydro plants that fuel small and medium sized
> coastal developments.  Everyone can be rich by building and deploying deep
> ocean OTEC.  The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria,
> Ethiopia/Somalia, India, Central America, the Caribbean--all obvious winners
> with OTEC/hydrogen.
>
> It has been positively criminal that hydrogen and means of production
> haven't been pushed forward more vigorously.  Solar I see as a non-starter
> that will be a minor player--it is too small to produce hydrogen and it is
> too variable to be a realistic developed power source on its own.  The sun
> is the answer, but you need energy storage--warm water gives you that...and
> we've got plenty of it.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090613/e1d7c2b8/attachment.html>