MIT report "The Future of Solar Energy"

[DanKegel]

The problem with investing in R&D is that not all ideas being researched and developed are viable. So if the government backs the wrong horse, and not 100% of projects move forward, then they are forever dragged through the mud for "wasting tax payer dollars". Not all investments are winners, and unless people can accept that some will succeed and some will fail, investing in R&D will be a target. ... And yes, I remember Evergreen Solar very very well. They were from my home town, I knew a lot of the engineers, I sold a lot of their panels, and lost a bit of money in their stock. But I don't judge the whole industry because their innovative panels couldn't compete with the heavily gov't subsidized Chinese panels that flooded the market.

Venture capital funds back a number of startups, fully expecting that many of them will fail. What matters is whether they get a good return on their investments as a whole.
The DOE funded some winners, too, and got its money back, according to http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IX0A120141113
That same program is said to be funding two nuclear reactors ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ost-from-feds/ ) for similar reasons - worthy projects too risky to succeed without help.

What killed Evergreen? It was a brutal time for solar, but according to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...res-the-ticker, their fundamental bet was that polysilicon would stay expensive, so the key to profitability was to use lots less of it. That turned out to be wrong. So the lesson from both Evergreen and Solyndra might be "it's risky to bet the farm that an expensive commodity will stay expensive".

[bberry]

Electric driven heavy transport (about 95% of how products get to the store) is not going to happen for decades so diesel fuel will still be required.

As for using "cheap" renewable power 24/7... I may live to see that happen but seriously doubt it since the US uses gigawatts of power at night.

Also just about all types of chemical cleaners and plastics products require petrol in some version to be manufactured. So unfortunately America will still be dependent on fossil fuels for many years.

Converting heavy transport to coal based electric wouldn't make much sense either. But there is no reason locomotives couldn't be natural gas powered. Also, delivery likely changes with more autonomous vehicles. The shortage of over the road truckers is pushing the "road train" concept, where the human is only in the first truck. Changing power type is more likely when it coincides with redesigning fundamental aspects of transport.

Solar already works for some business types in some locations. It probably works even better with batteries at $250/kwh.

It is difficult to see how diesel will be replaced in farming and construction. But diesel is pretty much dead for local deliveries vehicles. I wonder what kilowatts are needed per day for a UPS truck?

None of this happens fast without a policy of carbon reduction. Especially in the U.S., with all of our petrochemicals.

[Sunking]

It is difficult to see how diesel will be replaced in farming and construction. But diesel is pretty much dead for local deliveries vehicles. I wonder what kilowatts are needed per day for a UPS truck?

There is no replacement for diesel fuel in heavy transportation and aerospace. Light Rail can use electricity, but not freight. Planes and space craft i sout of the question, they must use diesel or high energy density fuels. Heavy trucking require diesel. Only large marine shipping can use electricity generated by nuclear power.

Well planes and space craft can use nuclear.

I will say this though. Americans are stupid for not using diesel fueled autos.

[DanKegel]

I suppose you think crime in the U.S. has increased too since your youth.

You don't? I really don't think anyone can be that dumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States seems to agree that crime has fallen recently; it points to
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16...es-in-america/ for some historical context.

( One theory is that violent crime rose and fell as a result of the introduction and then phaseout of leaded gasoline 20 years earlier:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3829390/

though the evidence that lead exposure itself accounts for the changes is weak:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18413435 )

But http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/am...worsening.aspx says that polls show most Americans believe crime is getting worse.

Could be a case of "if it bleeds, it leads", i.e. violent crime gets more attention in the media than lack of violent crime, who knows.

[Sunking]

Most crime is not reported.

[SunEagle]

Converting heavy transport to coal based electric wouldn't make much sense either. But there is no reason locomotives couldn't be natural gas powered. Also, delivery likely changes with more autonomous vehicles. The shortage of over the road truckers is pushing the "road train" concept, where the human is only in the first truck. Changing power type is more likely when it coincides with redesigning fundamental aspects of transport.

Solar already works for some business types in some locations. It probably works even better with batteries at $250/kwh.

It is difficult to see how diesel will be replaced in farming and construction. But diesel is pretty much dead for local deliveries vehicles. I wonder what kilowatts are needed per day for a UPS truck?

None of this happens fast without a policy of carbon reduction. Especially in the U.S., with all of our petrochemicals.

It is true that more smaller delivery vehicles are starting to use natural gas or electric. I still don't think the long distance haulers (18 wheelers) will be changing out their diesel engines with a different fuel source engine any time soon.

As for future "road trains", most roadways aren't designed for vehicles that are real heavy and for safety are limited to double trailers only. Making them longer and heavier would make it impossible to use them on most roads.

I just don't see the transition happening any faster with or without a "carbon reduction" policy. Pushing companies to change quickly usually drives them out of business and then the FEDS have to throw money at them to prop them back up.

[DanKegel]

It is true that more smaller delivery vehicles are starting to use natural gas or electric. I still don't think the long distance haulers (18 wheelers) will be changing out their diesel engines with a different fuel source engine any time soon.

Yeah. Delivery (with lots of braking and acceleration) seems like a natural place to look for efficiency gains.

e.g. one company is making drop-in replacement power trains that add regenerative braking and use a diesel-driven turbine, supposedly more than doubling fuel efficiency, with a payback time of ~5 years:

http://breakingenergy.com/2015/03/12/wrightspeed-hybrid-electric-trucks-are-the-cutting-edge-of-truck-design/

[bberry]

There is no replacement for diesel fuel in heavy transportation and aerospace. Light Rail can use electricity, but not freight. Planes and space craft i sout of the question, they must use diesel or high energy density fuels. Heavy trucking require diesel. Only large marine shipping can use electricity generated by nuclear power.

Well planes and space craft can use nuclear.

I will say this though. Americans are stupid for not using diesel fueled autos.

Compressed natural gas is only 20% less energy dense than diesel. There's no land or water based form of transportation where CNG/LNG can't work well. The commercial transporter uses diesel today as the most cost effective fuel in existing equipment. You can buy a CNG truck today.

Diesel is best for constant RPM applications. Even light commercial trucks have moved to gas engines for lower life cycle cost. Diesel may be economic in cars where it is not regulated for particulate emissions. Diesel engines produced in the U.S. before 2006 were great performers, and great polluters. But cars were still not a great application for an engine like diesel that has a limited RPM range of operation.

Locomotives are electric motor driven anyways. It just a question of where and how the electricity is produced. There's no fundamental requirement in a locomotive for the energy density of diesel.

[bberry]

As for future "road trains", most roadways aren't designed for vehicles that are real heavy and for safety are limited to double trailers only. Making them longer and heavier would make it impossible to use them on most roads.

These modern "road trains" are not attached trucks. The robot trucks follow the lead truck at about 30 feet distance. One human is required to drive port to port in the lead truck over the interstate. The loads are then picked up for the last local delivery stage by human drivers.

The "robot trucks" aren't smart enough to handle local roads.

Most truck drivers want to be employed in local delivery anyways, not over the road.

[DanKegel]

Most crime is not reported.

Most violent crime probably is, though, don't you think?

[russ]

These modern "road trains" are not attached trucks. The robot trucks follow the lead truck at about 30 feet distance. One human is required to drive port to port in the lead truck over the interstate. The loads are then picked up for the last local delivery stage by human drivers.

The "robot trucks" aren't smart enough to handle local roads.

Most truck drivers want to be employed in local delivery anyways, not over the road.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[SunEagle]

These modern "road trains" are not attached trucks. The robot trucks follow the lead truck at about 30 feet distance. One human is required to drive port to port in the lead truck over the interstate. The loads are then picked up for the last local delivery stage by human drivers.

The "robot trucks" aren't smart enough to handle local roads.

Most truck drivers want to be employed in local delivery anyways, not over the road.

Are these robot trucks "fact" or still on the proverbial drawing board?

While there are a few autonomous cars being tested there is still a lot of work to do before they become a common site let alone a "convoy" of robot trucks.

[bberry]

Are these robot trucks "fact" or still on the proverbial drawing board?

While there are a few autonomous cars being tested there is still a lot of work to do before they become a common site let alone a "convoy" of robot trucks.

The Freightliner version is licensed, but still requires a driver in every seat. A road train with just one lead driver will come way before fully autonomous cars. It's a small subset of the functionality required for full autonomy.

Another benefit is the potential to drive slower and using less fuel. Truck tractors mostly sit idle now because of human endurance.

[russ]

Just to cut the BS

6 May 2015 at 11:18 excerpts

American truck maker Freightliner has premiered its first robot big rig, and it has already received a road license plate for a computer-controlled 18-wheeler on public highways.
The Freightliner Inspiration Truck operates on a system called Highway Pilot, an automated cruise control setting which is intended to allow the driver to relax and, for instance, read The Register while avoiding Decepticons road hazards.

Freightliner is refreshingly frank about the automated elements of its Highway Pilot system, and admits they are little more than standard cruise control and lane departure prevention systems which have been somewhat tidied and organised for lorry use. It is understood that there is no intention to weaponise the AVs or develop the capacity to autonomously transform between vehicle types.

[Amy@altE]

Venture capital funds back a number of startups, fully expecting that many of them will fail. What matters is whether they get a good return on their investments as a whole.
The DOE funded some winners, too, and got its money back, according to http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IX0A120141113
That same program is said to be funding two nuclear reactors ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ost-from-feds/ ) for similar reasons - worthy projects too risky to succeed without help.

What killed Evergreen? It was a brutal time for solar, but according to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...res-the-ticker, their fundamental bet was that polysilicon would stay expensive, so the key to profitability was to use lots less of it. That turned out to be wrong. So the lesson from both Evergreen and Solyndra might be "it's risky to bet the farm that an expensive commodity will stay expensive".

Exactly my point. Investing will result in winners and losers. You can't throw out all investment because not 100% win. As long as the overall program makes money, you shouldn't demonize the whole industry. But this is what certain groups are doing. Whenever anyone says solar, their immediate response is Solyndria. No mention of all of the successful projects. Kill all solar because of a couple of failures.

GOP's response to Obama's 2016 budget proposal, which increased funding for RE was "Out-of-Touch Spending Priorities. America’s budget should be balanced like a family budget – considerate of priorities, and understanding of sacrifices. However, the President’s nearly $4 trillion budget is neither balanced nor reflective of Americans’ needs. American families are concerned about growing our economy and creating jobs — yet the President throws $11 billion towards energy projects, including $7.4 billion to fund clean energy technologies. Can somebody say “Solyndra?”"

RE jobs is the fastest growing segment in the US, so investing in RE will grow the economy and create jobs.