AHC/WI: Renewable Energy For Peace and National Defense (Cold War)

Delta Force

Banned
The United States government launched its Atoms for Peace initiative in the 1950s and 1960s to promote nuclear technology for energy, medicine, industry, and other civilian applications. In fact, the entire United States nuclear energy program was actually launched out of fear that the Soviet Union or the United Kingdom would use their early start in the technology to sway the developing world to their side with the promise of cheap energy. Obviously the costs never quite worked out, but that's something that was looked at. If it had worked it would have been an excellent idea though, because energy is directly correlated with economic and human development.

Domestically, the United States considered nuclear energy to be useful for national defense. The facilities are hardened and difficult to destroy with air attack or far away nuclear explosions, and they can operate for extended periods of time without fuel delivery. This is in contrast to coal plants, which weren't as sturdily built and require constant train deliveries.

What if the United States had considered doing something similar with renewable energy during the Cold War? It would allow remote areas of developing nations to acquire at least some energy, and even some energy can dramatically improve quality of life. For the United States it would allow energy generating capacity to be spread out and become less vulnerable to attack or natural disasters.
 
Wind energy was fairly common in the western part of the country. It started as water pumps for irrigation and transformed in electricity generation on farms. The industry was vibrant until the rural electrification programs during the depression. How to revive it during the early Cold War period is beyond me.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Wind energy was fairly common in the western part of the country. It started as water pumps for irrigation and transformed in electricity generation on farms. The industry was vibrant until the rural electrification programs during the depression. How to revive it during the early Cold War period is beyond me.

Geothermal energy has significant potential in the Western United States as well. It's ultimately held back by the same issues that limit nuclear energy though, namely high capital costs that utilities must raise to complete them (they can't charge customers prior to plant completion) and that put the technology at a disadvantage in states where companies must use investment payoff schedules instead of levelized costs when applying for project approval.
 
Wind energy was fairly common in the western part of the country. It started as water pumps for irrigation and transformed in electricity generation on farms. The industry was vibrant until the rural electrification programs during the depression. How to revive it during the early Cold War period is beyond me.

'Vibrant' as in able to supply 32 Volts DC at 800-1440 Watts when the wind was good, to charge a battery bank.

The turbine cost $100. five foot of tower stub($6 for each 10ft more), plus at least $80 for 600 pounds of batteries, for 2800 Watt hour storage capacity.
Going to 110V cost more.

As soon as Farmers could get 'real' power, they did.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
FDR tried something similar during the Depression;

What if the United States had considered doing something similar with renewable energy during the Cold War? It would allow remote areas of developing nations to acquire at least some energy, and even some energy can dramatically improve quality of life. For the United States it would allow energy generating capacity to be spread out and become less vulnerable to attack or natural disasters.

FDR tried something similar during the Depression; the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project:



https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/838/page/1248/display

Kind of a limited TVA for far northeastern Maine.

Congress refused to fund the project for more than one year, and the existing power companies in Maine opposed it.

The tides - US portion of the Bay of Fundy, essentially - are among the strongest in the world.

Best,
 
Do you know any POD that advance drilling technology?

Solar photovoltaic cells being commercialized the 1960s might be doable. Even though the efficiency was low(15% at most), the high cost seems to be low production. The annual production in 1977 was only 500kw.

Solar thermal heating, and architecture could significantly reduce the demand for heating oil.

In this WI would there be a push for greater efficiency in the economy? I was under the impression that it wasn't pushed till after the energy crisis.
 
FDR tried something similar during the Depression; the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power Project:



https://www.mainememory.net/sitebuilder/site/838/page/1248/display

Kind of a limited TVA for far northeastern Maine.

Congress refused to fund the project for more than one year, and the existing power companies in Maine opposed it.

The tides - US portion of the Bay of Fundy, essentially - are among the strongest in the world.

Best,

The idea goes back to the 1920s . In OTL the first tidal was built on the coast of France in 1961. A big leap but unfortunately tidal is limited in potential.

Could early experience with tidal energy benefit other marine energy technologies and off shore wind?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; the Depression era funding was the first serious

The idea goes back to the 1920s . In OTL the first tidal was built on the coast of France in 1961. A big leap but unfortunately tidal is limited in potential.

Could early experience with tidal energy benefit other marine energy technologies and off shore wind?

Yep; the Depression era funding was the first serious effort, however. Could have been an interesting pilot project.

Best,
 

Delta Force

Banned
Do you know any POD that advance drilling technology?

Geothermal drilling technology is related to petroleum and natural gas technology.

Solar photovoltaic cells being commercialized the 1960s might be doable. Even though the efficiency was low(15% at most), the high cost seems to be low production. The annual production in 1977 was only 500kw.

Solar thermal heating, and architecture could significantly reduce the demand for heating oil.
Petroleum companies were actually some of the biggest purchasers of renewable energy technology in the 1970s and 1980s. They acquired it to reduce operational expenses, as even the early systems were less costly than trying to acquire electricity and/or fuel in remote areas.

Petroleum companies also had some historical involvement with alternative energy technologies. Gulf Oil owned General Atomics, and Royal Dutch Shell owned Scallop Nuclear, Inc.

In this WI would there be a push for greater efficiency in the economy? I was under the impression that it wasn't pushed till after the energy crisis.
That's not likely. Energy demand grew 7% per year from the 1890s until the 1970s, so the focus was more on trying to meet the demand that had been consistently observed. My understanding is that it wasn't that no one was thinking of energy efficiency in the 1970s and 1980s, it's more that the utilities were focused on building generating capacity (which they are allowed to charge for in rates) and selling energy, while customers didn't have any incentive to work with utilities to smooth out peak demand curves or save energy.

You could probable press for renewables earlier, encourage self-sufficiency in the event of nuclear war.

That's the approach I'm thinking of. Renewable energy would be expensive to build and it would be difficult to integrate with the grid at the time. If it was proposed as a partial power source to prevent total shortages in the event of an attack or natural disaster it would likely garner more support.

Rural areas would be prime areas for the technology. It would be to get power to electricity deprived areas in the developing world, while in the developed world it would be as an emergency power source in the event of a natural disaster or enemy attack. A generator could be used for that role, but once it reaches fuel exhaustion it would be useless.

Having enough energy to operate lights, a radio, and/or a television can really improve quality of life in a developing world, disaster, or national defense situation. If a battery is used with the system it might even be possible to use a small refrigerator for medicine in developing nations.
 
'Vibrant' as in able to supply 32 Volts DC at 800-1440 Watts when the wind was good, to charge a battery bank.

The turbine cost $100. five foot of tower stub($6 for each 10ft more), plus at least $80 for 600 pounds of batteries, for 2800 Watt hour storage capacity.
Going to 110V cost more.

As soon as Farmers could get 'real' power, they did.

Vibrant means that there was over a half dozen manufacturers of small we nod turbines in the period. The largest sold over 30,000 units in its 30 year historia. The first vertical axis turbine was invented in 1931 and 1mw turbines were tested in 1941. They didn't preform well due to a shortage of aluminum.

The capabilities you describe don't seem so bad. What do the farmers need so much power for? I can see lights, and water pumps being the most important. Refrigerators weren't so common. Where electric fences needed by a lot of farmers?

The cost wouldn't be a issue of the government is helping out. The bottleneck, as you pointed out, is the batteries. There are other energy storage solutions. The easiest I imagine would be compressed air. It is very efficient and the turbines could be made simpler without generators. City wide compressed air storage was available in Europe since the late 19th century.
 
Geothermal drilling technology is related to petroleum and natural gas technology.

Petroleum companies were actually some of the biggest purchasers of renewable energy technology in the 1970s and 1980s. They acquired it to reduce operational expenses, as even the early systems were less costly than trying to acquire electricity and/or fuel in remote areas.

Petroleum companies also had some historical involvement with alternative energy technologies. Gulf Oil owned General Atomics, and Royal Dutch Shell owned Scallop Nuclear, Inc.

That's not likely. Energy demand grew 7% per year from the 1890s until the 1970s, so the focus was more on trying to meet the demand that had been consistently observed. My understanding is that it wasn't that no one was thinking of energy efficiency in the 1970s and 1980s, it's more that the utilities were focused on building generating capacity (which they are allowed to charge for in rates) and selling energy, while customers didn't have any incentive to work with utilities to smooth out peak demand curves or save energy.



That's the approach I'm thinking of. Renewable energy would be expensive to build and it would be difficult to integrate with the grid at the time. If it was proposed as a partial power source to prevent total shortages in the event of an attack or natural disaster it would likely garner more support.

Rural areas would be prime areas for the technology. It would be to get power to electricity deprived areas in the developing world, while in the developed world it would be as an emergency power source in the event of a natural disaster or enemy attack. A generator could be used for that role, but once it reaches fuel exhaustion it would be useless.

Having enough energy to operate lights, a radio, and/or a television can really improve quality of life in a developing world, disaster, or national defense situation. If a battery is used with the system it might even be possible to use a small refrigerator for medicine in developing nations.

To fully exploit the Geothermal resources outside of the good spots, wells need to be 3 km to 10 km deep. How possible is that with early cold war drilling tech?

Could a successful Project Mohole lead to faster advances in drilling technology? Its in your time range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mohole

I was thinking today that Hawaii might be the perfect candidate for this renewable energy initiative. The state has solar, wind, geothermal, and marine energy potential. Plus its remote, and has high fuel cost. Maybe in the vain of the Apollo program, someone declares that Hawaii will be energy independent by 1970.

Wouldn't this WI cause an earlier oil glut due to the lower demand. Also in your other thread you mentioned a nuclear glut. Would a solar glut be possible?

This WI has a interesting foreign policy accept. The technology may be more accessible to the developing world than Nuclear power. Africa has more solar energy potential then any other continent and little electrical infrastructure. Maybe the initiative could be paired with a peace corps like program

I can envision a wind turbine size race between us and the Soviets.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Could those turbines be hooked into the grid once electrification programs do reach them?

Certainly, but utilities might not like it.

The engineers would be concerned about integrating large amounts into the system because it's so variable and intermittent, and with earlier technology varying output might be difficult. In fact, it would be all but impossible prior to the 1970s outside of areas with hydroelectricity. Natural gas plants can vary outputs easily with their gas turbines, but steam turbines aren't very good at that.

The accountants wouldn't like renewable energy users not paying their fair share of grid costs. As long as it's supplemental to the grid and an emergency power source they would probably just view it as akin to a conservation measure. If they try to sell power back to the grid it's going to get into the same debates that are taking place today, because the cost you pay for electricity actually includes some fixed costs such as line maintenance that are split up to lower the utility connection charge.
 

Delta Force

Banned
To fully exploit the Geothermal resources outside of the good spots, wells need to be 3 km to 10 km deep. How possible is that with early cold war drilling tech?

Could a successful Project Mohole lead to faster advances in drilling technology? Its in your time range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mohole

Geothermal wells cost around $100 to $300 per meter, although that's probably not for something like a 10 kilometer well. I'm not sure what size of pipe that is for either. The maximum electrical capacity that a single well can provide is around 7 megawatts before the temperature limit of the pump is exceeded, and plant costs are $4,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity, with O&M of 10% per year. Capacity factors are 92% or so though, slightly higher than nuclear at 90%. There's also the issue of what to do if there isn't any water at the site, it can be injected by it increases costs and might not be feasible in water scarce areas.

All of that cost is up-front though, and under some circumstances geothermal energy can also provide heating. Steam can also be used for cooling if run through an absorption cooling system.

A 200 kW plant could be purchased for less than a million dollars or so, and it would be able to provide probably one thousand people with firm power if they used 1,000 kWh per year, apart from shutdowns. Because of the risk of shutdowns, and also because of varying loads, it would probably have some supplemental generation anyways, in which case there is enough capacity to support an average of 1,600 people with 1,000 kWh per year from geothermal alone.

This doesn't cover the costs of drilling a well, but it shows what the potential is.

I was thinking today that Hawaii might be the perfect candidate for this renewable energy initiative. The state has solar, wind, geothermal, and marine energy potential. Plus its remote, and has high fuel cost. Maybe in the vain of the Apollo program, someone declares that Hawaii will be energy independent by 1970.

Alaska is another option, and possibly Puerto Rico and the Panama Canal Zone. Islands might not be considered to be suitable for nuclear energy, as it's possible even a small reactor incident could result in there being no safe area to evacuate to. A properly designed reactor can contain an incident for hours or up to two days, but that's not a realistic option on an island.

Wouldn't this WI cause an earlier oil glut due to the lower demand. Also in your other thread you mentioned a nuclear glut. Would a solar glut be possible?

It probably wouldn't. Electricity isn't interchangeable with fuels, so what happens in one doesn't really impact the other. The exception is a period between the 1960s and 1973 (at least in the United States and possibly Europe) in which petroleum actually was burned to generate electricity. Petroleum was massively undervalued relative to coal, and coal was at historically high prices at the time.

A glut probably wouldn't occur because even after decades of subsidies non-hydroelectric renewable energy is a very small portion of United States and total world electricity capacity. Petroleum would probably still make sense for electrical generation until an energy crisis occurs and people realize it doesn't.

Even if petroleum somehow was displaced, it would just go to feed the fleets of 12 mile per gallon cars roaming America's highways at the times. Perhaps the cheap petroleum would lead to cheap jet fuel, and with it supersonic aircraft.

This WI has a interesting foreign policy accept. The technology may be more accessible to the developing world than Nuclear power. Africa has more solar energy potential then any other continent and little electrical infrastructure. Maybe the initiative could be paired with a peace corps like program

I can envision a wind turbine size race between us and the Soviets.

Wind turbines and possibly even solar panels could be useful in the developing world, where limited power is a massive improvement over no power. It could supplement the nuclear energy program as a realistic way to provide energy to the areas of the world that are unlikely to receive power for decades to come. Even the United States and Soviet Union didn't complete rural electrification until the 1960s.
 
Top