But I saw a news story about the way the current california laws on solar can require people to cut down trees to maintain sun to solar panels. As much as I want more solar power, its not truly “green” energy if it goes with taking out actual green things.

Power grid spikes and drops due to clouds are another problem which need more honest effort to solve.

So YEA solar, but nothing is truly free so lets be honest and work out the new problems as they arrise.

I was not attacking you. I was trying to point out a problem that I observe in the energy world.

Please read this copied from above….

———

“CSP – you’re using it for what I’d call “solar thermal”. Other people are using it for concentrating light on small pieces of PV silicon.

[JR: You are not correct. Some people use it for both,"

---------

That's exactly what I said. CSP is a term with multiple meanings. If someone comments on a new CSP site do we know what they are talking about until they add more words to describe what they mean?

[JR: You said some people use "solar thermal" for concentrating PV. That isn't true. Some people use it for both. I don't. It is not possible to standardize terminology since their is no officiating body. I can only tell you how I'm going to use them. But if someone uses "geothermal" or "geothermal energy" by itself, then you are quite safe in assuming they are talking about primary power, not a heat pump.]

If someone throws “geothermal” into the conversation are they talking about geothermal heat pumps or geothermal electricity generation? That confusion just ran through a discussion on DailyKos. And check Ronald’s comment above.

I come from a science background where words have very specific meaning in order to minimize confusion. It seems that this sort of definitional rigor has not entered the renewable energy area.

You’re in discussion with many other leaders in the field. Are there ever discussions about standardizing the language?

[JR: Many of us wanted to change "plug in hybrid." Couldn't be done.]

I usually take to name something that the people who actually doing it want to be called.
If you go on the internet and websites of Concentrated Solar Power groups, they use that or CSP. for concentrated PV’s they go by CPV.
Better might be Concentrated solar thermal power (CSTP) but would the 4 letters throw people off?
I agree with you on that geothermal thing being confusing. I have to use both terms when using internet search engines; it seems to get called different things by different people also.

Your Republican Governor seems to have joined our California Republican Governor and other practical-minded officials and moved in the direction of fixing problems rather that taking the Bush-route.

Here’a a place to start looking for answers.

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/ en/ media/ enews/ 2006/ 2006-04-R1_Energy-act.htm

Lots more sites turn up via a googling.

I get the feeling that you’re being critical of something that you don’t yet understand. You seem to have not made the distinction between PV solar and thermal solar.

And you need to read up on high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmissions.

Wikipedia has good treatments of all this most interesting stuff.

Here’s a quicky reply to your apparent concerns:

Rooftop solar PV makes sense close to point of use. It’s not clear that it’s the best idea to put them on rooftops. NanoSolar has an argument about ground mounting on their site.

Thermal solar makes sense further out in the desert. This stuff takes up some space.

HVDC is a very efficient way to move large amounts of power long distances. About a 3% loss over 1,000 km and a percent or so loss at each end. Wires are not much different in size from those used in current AC high voltage transmission but carry a lot more power. String them along existing power routes. No need to install them over the scenic/National Park areas.

And both of you need to reactivate your jerk filters. A really nasty attitude is leaking through into the discussion.

CSP – you’re using it for what I’d call “solar thermal”. Other people are using it for concentrating light on small pieces of PV silicon.

[JR: You are not correct. Some people use it for both, while most people I know use if for solar thermal, see, for instance, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy here or the National Renewable Energy Lab here. It would make no sense to call it "solar thermal" as I've previously said because I have a solar thermal hot water heater on my house.]

Baseload – some people are using it for 24/365 minimum needs. You’re using it in a more limited way – filling in the late afternoon/early evening power needs between the solar day and off-peak times.

[JR: Actually that's not how I'm using it. I'm using it to connote that CSP with several hours of storage can deliver power as needed by the power system, rather than be shunted aside as one of those "unreliable" or "variable" renewable sources inevitably dismissed by conservatives and delayers as inadequate to the task of assuredly providing the public power when they need it. The closest technical definition is probably "load following," but I have been using baseload because nobody knows what load following means. As you probably know, "baseload power" itself does not have a single definition.]

Geothermal – some use the term for harvesting energy from under the surface and using it to make electricity. Others are using it for ground effect heat pumps.

[JR: I think here there is an effective standard usage. If you are talking about heat pumps than you use the word "heat pump" or something similar. If not, then when you say geothermal you are talking about the primary renewable power source.]

Where’s the language police when we need them?

Is there any ‘controlling agency’ that could standardize the language?

[JR: On this blog, I am the controlling agency Do not attempt to adjust the vertical, do not attempt to adjust the horizontal, and you can spend your time critiquing my language choices, but that will mainly lead me to deduce that you don't actually value your time highly.]

Let me see a few things. Why doesn’t he simply pass a city wide initiative that puts the panels on rooftops an all parking structures of major businesses? The area of land covered would be greater than Mojave and it would be immediately consumed where it was needed most.

NIMBY (Not in my Back Yard) is no longer an option to avoid what you are doing. LA needs to be help responsible or addressing it’s own energy needs. Villaraigosa needs to stop having affairs with Mexican Anchor women while expounding the family values platforms and spend more time using his real brain.

For Villaraigosa, the problem he has with this though is the electrical grid is not designed to take all that electricity at once and redistribute it. It also doesn’t take advantage of the tons of flat sunny spaces that could be used right now.

Doing it in his own city would create jobs in his own city that would last last forever and help his city and the state. I urge Villaraigosa and those reading this to spend a few minutes to watch a short video call the “story of stuff” http://www.storyofstuff.com/

[JR: I've been in deserts and in arid places. My main goal is avoiding having them cover a third of the planet. That means lots and lots of CSP. Fortunately, new HVDC power lines today carry a lot more juice. But in any case, I have little tolerance for enviros who quite literally can't see the forest for the trees. Absent hundreds and hundreds of gigawatts of carbon free electricity in this country and thousands worldwide, there won't be much bloody life on land or sea to "protect" anymore. That would be beyond absurd, it would be wantonly self-destructive.]