Energy experts are gathering to figure out how to incorporate renewable and non-renewable energy in the best possible way.
People in the industry say it`s a particularly compelling conference at the Bismarck Civic Center, because it`s bringing so many different types of energy initiatives together.
The people who are working on energy that today say ethanol is a big part of solving energy security problems, but it`s not going to make the type of impact that some people may think it will.
Right now, the EERC says 86 percent of the total energy utilized and produced in this country comes from fossil energy. Even though a lot of money is going into renewables, it doesn`t mean they`re going to replace coal.
"If things continue along the path that they`re on right now, we`ll probably see 20-25 percent of our total energy mix coming from renewables and the rest of it will come from our more traditional sources which are fossil energy," says Gerald Groenewold, of the EERC.
It says it will take a lot of money and infrastructure to get more renewable energy systems online in the state.
"But I think what makes North Dakota unique and a compelling case is that you have the ability to produce both renewable and fossil fuels," says Brian Jennings of the American Coalition for Ethanol. "Not many states in this country can say that."The EERC says water, like on the Missouri River, plays an even bigger role in ethanol and other renewables than people may think. So does North Dakota`s biggest lake.
"What`s the primary reason we have a significant coal, mining, and utility industry in North Dakota," Groenewold says. "It isn`t just because the coal`s here. It`s because the coal is adjacent to Lake Sakakawea which is we hope a reliable source of water for cooling the power plants."
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sheland Farms producing renewable energy
ELLISBURG, N.Y. -- Sheland Farms is the first farm in Northern New York that is now producing renewable energy with an Anaerobic Digester. Tuesday both local and state officials were on hand to discuss the project.
"And that was no easy task and it was a task that was completed with a great deal of partnership," said Jim Wright, (R) Senator - Watertown
"And that was no easy task and it was a task that was completed with a great deal of partnership," said Jim Wright, (R) Senator - Watertown
Owner of Sheland Farms, Doug Shelmidine says the million dollar project took over five years to complete. But what exactly is an Anaerobic Digester? Shelmidine explains.
"Well basically what we're doing here is we're taking cow pop and we're making it into power. We're on one hand doing that. We're putting it in a big tank, heating it up and we're letting the microbes and bacteria grow and they release methane and then we're taking that methane gas and burning it in an engine set, powering a generator and creating power," said Doug Shelmidine, Owner of Sheland Farms.
And not just renewable energy, the digester also produces bedding for the farms 550 dairy cows. Before the digester went on line Sheland Farms was spending 45-thousand dollars just on bedding for the cows and about 40-thousand in overall electric costs. Now that money can be spent here locally.
Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets, Patrick Hooker says this type of project shows the rest of the country what New York State can do.
"So were producing this wonderful product that we need milk and at the same time you know with a little added technology we're able to provide energy as well and have a more environmentally sustainable system. It's a really nice almost close loop. Benefits, benefits, benefits all the way around this," said Patrick Hooker, Commissioner of the Department of Ags & Markets.
The project also helps the farm reduce it's dependency on foreign oil and improve it's crop production. There are nine other Anaerobic Digester's online in New York State.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
energy can't meet demand
Behind the shortage are the growing number of states requiring utilities to include clean energy in their power mix, as well as surging demand from big businesses.
By 2010, clean-energy demand will outpace generation by at least 37% unless a rush of projects is built, says a report due out next week from the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Under laws in 25 states, clean energy — such as wind, solar and biomass — must constitute up to 30% of a utility's energy portfolio in five to 15 years. In 2003, just 10 states had such requirements. Also, growing concerns about power plants' global-warming emissions have led consumers and businesses to boost clean-energy purchases by 46% a year since 2003. Much of that is fueled by corporations, which have increased their green power purchases twenty-fivefold since 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency says. "Demand is growing faster than people expected," says NREL senior analyst Lori Bird.
Utilities and customers typically don't buy renewable energy itself. Rather, they buy renewable-energy credits — premiums above standard electric prices that subsidize a generator for each kilowatt hour of power it produces. Consumers, for instance, can pay up to $10 extra on their monthly utility bill or buy credits online.
Meanwhile, green energy, mostly from wind farms, has expanded 30% a year, NREL says. But new wind capacity has been slowed by a worldwide turbine shortage and local opposition to wind projects.
Partly as a result, renewable-energy prices have doubled the past couple of years in Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Plains states and have risen up to 50% in the West, say green-energy marketers Green Mountain Energy and 3Degrees and broker Evolution Markets. In the Mid-Atlantic, wind-price increases bumped the average monthly premium on utility bills for green-energy consumers to $10.50 from $6.30, says Green Mountain's John Holtz.
By 2015, New England will face a gap of 1,500 megawatts — enough to power 1.1 million homes — between green-energy resources and what's needed to meet standards, Northeast Utilities says. It will have to import clean energy from Canada, though there are now inadequate transmission lines to do so.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
bright energy future without coal or nuclear
This week, our dirty coal-fired power plants were back in the news with electoral candidates arguing the ifs and whens of their necessary shutdown. Shutting down coal plants, our guiltiest climate-change-causing beasts, seems like a no-brainer, but heels keep dragging.
We're told that spending $1.3 billion on scrubbers is the answer. Let's be clear: Scrubbers remove some particulates – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets.
We're told a nuclear-based energy plan is the answer. The 20-year electricity plan unveiled by the Ontario Power Authority last month calls for half of Ontario's electricity supply to come from refurbished and new nuclear reactors. Because these reactors take many years to construct, coal plants will need to stay online to fill in the gap. It doesn't have to be this way.
The billions earmarked to build and replace an aging fleet of nuclear reactors or to put scrubbers on outdated coal plants would be better invested in new clean renewable technology of the future. Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are fast to deploy and, if done right, can eliminate the need for coal or nuclear to keep the lights on.
Unfortunately, Ontario's energy planners have chosen to lowball the potential for green options in favour of a nuclear-centred future. For example, the OPA plan calls for 200 megawatts of solar energy by 2025. Germany installed five times that much in 2006 alone. Ontario could be harnessing three times the amount of wind power the OPA plan calls for, 10 times the amount of solar the OPA plan calls for, and thousands of megawatts from bio-energy sources, cogeneration and waste heat recycling.
The OPA plan also underestimates energy efficiency and conservation. The plan puts an arbitrary cap on energy savings through conservation and energy efficiency at only 60 per cent of the cost-effective potential identified and recommended by the OPA's own studies. This will cost Ontarians millions of dollars in missed opportunities, higher production costs and higher electricity rates. The Pembina Institute and WWF-Canada's "Renewable is Doable" study shows Ontario could be saving nearly double the amount of energy through energy efficiency and conservation than the OPA plan claims.
More than two-thirds of the renewable energy in the OPA plan is installed and planned large hydro. Hydro is an important energy source and should be in the mix – but in addition to maximizing wind and other renewable sources first, not instead of.
Probably of greatest significance, the OPA plan totally ignores the use of power storage technologies for wind, solar and other renewable sources that would allow renewable energy to be Ontario's primary power source, not subordinate to a nuclear plan.
The OPA marginalizes renewable energy, arguing that large, centralized nuclear megaprojects are needed to supply our "base load" needs. But Ontario's base load power can be met through the right technical, regulatory and policy tools. Ontario could learn from California, one of the leaders in North America in integration of renewable energy into the grid. It has set up a task force to look at what's needed in the way of grid management, transmission optimization and regulatory and policy reform to meet California's lofty renewable energy targets.
For Ontario, a decision to invest billions of dollars in nuclear megaprojects or coal scrubbers is a decision not to invest in clean renewable technology. Every dollar sunk into huge transmission systems to support centralized megaprojects is a dollar not invested in "smart grids" that accommodate local production of renewable energy.
A bright energy future without the need for coal or nuclear is doable. With renewable energy, energy efficiency and co-generation, we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by half of what's called for in the OPA plan. Ontarians could actually be saving money on their electricity bill rather than deepening our nuclear debt with at least another 40 years of expensive and unreliable power, not to mention generating more long-lived, unsolvable radioactive waste.
We're told that spending $1.3 billion on scrubbers is the answer. Let's be clear: Scrubbers remove some particulates – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets.
We're told a nuclear-based energy plan is the answer. The 20-year electricity plan unveiled by the Ontario Power Authority last month calls for half of Ontario's electricity supply to come from refurbished and new nuclear reactors. Because these reactors take many years to construct, coal plants will need to stay online to fill in the gap. It doesn't have to be this way.
The billions earmarked to build and replace an aging fleet of nuclear reactors or to put scrubbers on outdated coal plants would be better invested in new clean renewable technology of the future. Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are fast to deploy and, if done right, can eliminate the need for coal or nuclear to keep the lights on.
Unfortunately, Ontario's energy planners have chosen to lowball the potential for green options in favour of a nuclear-centred future. For example, the OPA plan calls for 200 megawatts of solar energy by 2025. Germany installed five times that much in 2006 alone. Ontario could be harnessing three times the amount of wind power the OPA plan calls for, 10 times the amount of solar the OPA plan calls for, and thousands of megawatts from bio-energy sources, cogeneration and waste heat recycling.
The OPA plan also underestimates energy efficiency and conservation. The plan puts an arbitrary cap on energy savings through conservation and energy efficiency at only 60 per cent of the cost-effective potential identified and recommended by the OPA's own studies. This will cost Ontarians millions of dollars in missed opportunities, higher production costs and higher electricity rates. The Pembina Institute and WWF-Canada's "Renewable is Doable" study shows Ontario could be saving nearly double the amount of energy through energy efficiency and conservation than the OPA plan claims.
More than two-thirds of the renewable energy in the OPA plan is installed and planned large hydro. Hydro is an important energy source and should be in the mix – but in addition to maximizing wind and other renewable sources first, not instead of.
Probably of greatest significance, the OPA plan totally ignores the use of power storage technologies for wind, solar and other renewable sources that would allow renewable energy to be Ontario's primary power source, not subordinate to a nuclear plan.
The OPA marginalizes renewable energy, arguing that large, centralized nuclear megaprojects are needed to supply our "base load" needs. But Ontario's base load power can be met through the right technical, regulatory and policy tools. Ontario could learn from California, one of the leaders in North America in integration of renewable energy into the grid. It has set up a task force to look at what's needed in the way of grid management, transmission optimization and regulatory and policy reform to meet California's lofty renewable energy targets.
For Ontario, a decision to invest billions of dollars in nuclear megaprojects or coal scrubbers is a decision not to invest in clean renewable technology. Every dollar sunk into huge transmission systems to support centralized megaprojects is a dollar not invested in "smart grids" that accommodate local production of renewable energy.
A bright energy future without the need for coal or nuclear is doable. With renewable energy, energy efficiency and co-generation, we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by half of what's called for in the OPA plan. Ontarians could actually be saving money on their electricity bill rather than deepening our nuclear debt with at least another 40 years of expensive and unreliable power, not to mention generating more long-lived, unsolvable radioactive waste.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Wind energy blows into Columbia
COLUMBIA — Recent cool breezes carry sweet relief from the summer heat, but wind has also become a valuable commodity for investors in a new Missouri wind farm that will be dedicated Monday and is already supplying wind power to Columbia.
Bluegrass Ridge wind farm, north of King City in Gentry County, Mo., will formally join the 34 other states that use wind as a supplemental source of energy Monday, according to statistics released by the American Wind Energy Association. The dedication begins at 10 a.m. and will feature remarks by U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a picnic, exhibits about wind energy and tours of the wind farm. A representative of the Associated Electric Cooperative will cap the celebration with the ceremonial flipping of a switch on one of the brand new wind turbines.
The turbines
Suzlon S-88 turbines, being erected near King City, are among the largest and most powerful in America: Each one has a generating capacity of 2.1 megawattsEach turbine is nearly 260 feet tallEach turbine has three 140-foot bladesThe rotor diameter of each turbine is 289 feet, nearly the length of a football fieldSource: www.ruralmissouri.org
Bluegrass Ridge is the result of a coordinated effort by Associated Electric; the Wind Capital Group, which is founded by Tom Carnahan, son of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan; and John Deere Wind Energy. Two more wind farms, Conception wind farm and Cow Branch wind farm, are expected to be up and running by the end of the year, Associated Electric spokeswoman Nancy Southworth said.
Bluegrass Ridge began supplying electricity to Columbia on Sept. 6 as part of the city’s effort to incorporate renewable energy into its power supply. Voters approved an ordinance in late 2004, requiring that 2 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2008. That’s the first of several benchmarks on the way to an ultimate goal of 15 percent by 2023. Power sources that qualify as renewable are those that naturally replenish themselves, such as solar energy, wind power and bioenergies.
Connie Kacprowicz, a spokeswoman for the Columbia Water and Light Department, said the city is ahead of the pace.
“We’re planning on having 5 percent in 2008,” she said, a percentage the ordinance doesn’t require until 2013. “We feel we’re doing great.”
The arrival of wind energy in Columbia did not come easily. It required somewhat heated negotiation with the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, or MISO — an organization that governs energy flows among its members. The city and MISO clashed over how soon wind power could be provided to Columbia, but the two eventually compromised so that the city can receive wind energy on a “non-firm” basis until February, Kacprowicz said.
Non-firm basically means “non-guaranteed,” Kacprowicz said. “We can schedule and ask for a certain amount of power, and, as long as the system isn’t overwhelmed, we should be able to get it just fine. We don’t see it being a problem between now and February,” when Columbia will be assured of receiving the full amount of wind power it has contracted to buy.
In addition to the new wind power, the city will receive renewable energy from two methane gas projects: one at Ameresco in Jefferson City and another being developed at the Columbia landfill.
The future of wind
Environmental concerns about burning coal have made wind and other renewable energy sources an attractive option to the public, but they weren’t worthwhile for investors until recently. Volatile gas prices, clean air requirements and efficient turbine technology have combined to create incentives that have vaulted the United States into a leading role in wind-energy development.
The use of wind energy in the United States increased nearly threefold from 2001 to 2005, according to a report by the Energy Information Administration. This marked the first year that Missouri had its own wind turbines. This is largely due to natural limitations. Missouri has considerably less wind than other states that produce wind energy, but better technology has finally made wind energy financially viable, especially in northwest Missouri, said Kerry Cordray, a spokesman for the Energy Center at Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources.
Wind’s contribution as an energy source will remain limited for now, because it’s an inconsistent resource. Wind, for example, typically blows the least during the summer, when demand for electricity is greatest.
“It’s important and will remain important, but it will also, for the foreseeable future, remain a supplemental resource,” Cordray said, but he emphasized that the industry expects to grow.
Cost is another major challenge; Southworth estimated that wind power typically costs up to three times as much as coal power to generate. Its costs, however, are comparable to the expense of power produced using natural gas.
Those obstacles have prevented many industrial countries from adding wind power to their energy portfolios. According to a report by the Global Wind Energy Council, 59 percent of today’s wind energy is being produced in Germany, Spain and the United States. Of those three countries, the United States showed the most growth in wind-energy production in 2006.
Despite the gains, non-renewable sources still accounted for 90 percent of America’s total energy capacity as of 2005, the energy council indicates. As the only city in Missouri with a contract to buy wind energy, Columbia is leading the effort to change that.
Bluegrass Ridge wind farm, north of King City in Gentry County, Mo., will formally join the 34 other states that use wind as a supplemental source of energy Monday, according to statistics released by the American Wind Energy Association. The dedication begins at 10 a.m. and will feature remarks by U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a picnic, exhibits about wind energy and tours of the wind farm. A representative of the Associated Electric Cooperative will cap the celebration with the ceremonial flipping of a switch on one of the brand new wind turbines.
The turbines
Suzlon S-88 turbines, being erected near King City, are among the largest and most powerful in America: Each one has a generating capacity of 2.1 megawattsEach turbine is nearly 260 feet tallEach turbine has three 140-foot bladesThe rotor diameter of each turbine is 289 feet, nearly the length of a football fieldSource: www.ruralmissouri.org
Bluegrass Ridge is the result of a coordinated effort by Associated Electric; the Wind Capital Group, which is founded by Tom Carnahan, son of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan; and John Deere Wind Energy. Two more wind farms, Conception wind farm and Cow Branch wind farm, are expected to be up and running by the end of the year, Associated Electric spokeswoman Nancy Southworth said.
Bluegrass Ridge began supplying electricity to Columbia on Sept. 6 as part of the city’s effort to incorporate renewable energy into its power supply. Voters approved an ordinance in late 2004, requiring that 2 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2008. That’s the first of several benchmarks on the way to an ultimate goal of 15 percent by 2023. Power sources that qualify as renewable are those that naturally replenish themselves, such as solar energy, wind power and bioenergies.
Connie Kacprowicz, a spokeswoman for the Columbia Water and Light Department, said the city is ahead of the pace.
“We’re planning on having 5 percent in 2008,” she said, a percentage the ordinance doesn’t require until 2013. “We feel we’re doing great.”
The arrival of wind energy in Columbia did not come easily. It required somewhat heated negotiation with the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, or MISO — an organization that governs energy flows among its members. The city and MISO clashed over how soon wind power could be provided to Columbia, but the two eventually compromised so that the city can receive wind energy on a “non-firm” basis until February, Kacprowicz said.
Non-firm basically means “non-guaranteed,” Kacprowicz said. “We can schedule and ask for a certain amount of power, and, as long as the system isn’t overwhelmed, we should be able to get it just fine. We don’t see it being a problem between now and February,” when Columbia will be assured of receiving the full amount of wind power it has contracted to buy.
In addition to the new wind power, the city will receive renewable energy from two methane gas projects: one at Ameresco in Jefferson City and another being developed at the Columbia landfill.
The future of wind
Environmental concerns about burning coal have made wind and other renewable energy sources an attractive option to the public, but they weren’t worthwhile for investors until recently. Volatile gas prices, clean air requirements and efficient turbine technology have combined to create incentives that have vaulted the United States into a leading role in wind-energy development.
The use of wind energy in the United States increased nearly threefold from 2001 to 2005, according to a report by the Energy Information Administration. This marked the first year that Missouri had its own wind turbines. This is largely due to natural limitations. Missouri has considerably less wind than other states that produce wind energy, but better technology has finally made wind energy financially viable, especially in northwest Missouri, said Kerry Cordray, a spokesman for the Energy Center at Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources.
Wind’s contribution as an energy source will remain limited for now, because it’s an inconsistent resource. Wind, for example, typically blows the least during the summer, when demand for electricity is greatest.
“It’s important and will remain important, but it will also, for the foreseeable future, remain a supplemental resource,” Cordray said, but he emphasized that the industry expects to grow.
Cost is another major challenge; Southworth estimated that wind power typically costs up to three times as much as coal power to generate. Its costs, however, are comparable to the expense of power produced using natural gas.
Those obstacles have prevented many industrial countries from adding wind power to their energy portfolios. According to a report by the Global Wind Energy Council, 59 percent of today’s wind energy is being produced in Germany, Spain and the United States. Of those three countries, the United States showed the most growth in wind-energy production in 2006.
Despite the gains, non-renewable sources still accounted for 90 percent of America’s total energy capacity as of 2005, the energy council indicates. As the only city in Missouri with a contract to buy wind energy, Columbia is leading the effort to change that.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Tory members praise energy plan
Liberal natural resources critic says proposal excludes Labrador energy requirements
CLIFF WELLS
Transcontinental Media—Corner Brook
Tom Marshall says west coast residents are big winners in the energy plan announced by the province Tuesday.
The finance minister and Tory legislature member for Humber East said the transmission line from the Lower Churchill project to the island portion of the province is good news, as is the Petroleum Exploration Enhancement Program, otherwise known as PEEP, a $5-million pot of money for seismic work on the west coast.
“That money will be provided by the new energy corporation,” Marshall said.
“In turn,” he said, “the energy corporation will obtain equity in those exploration companies, if it’s in the interests of the province to do so.
“The other thing I think is very important for the whole province, of course, is there’s a plan there to take the revenue from the non-renewable resources and using the revenues, which are finite and time-limited, to develop the renewable resources,” Marshall said, noting that the renewable resource economy is going to be powered by “sustainable, green energy sources like hydro and wind.”
Marshall said that allows future generations to benefit from the non-renewable resources, rather than hogging the benefits for the present generation.
He said the clean, renewable power will be a great resource for Newfoundlanders many years from now.
Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale agrees the PEEP program is a great boost for the province’s west coast, but so is the transmission line that will be built.
“One of the most exciting pieces for the west coast is once the Lower Churchill is sanctioned, we’ll do a transmission link from Labrador to the island part of the province,” Dunderdale said.
“That will travel down the west coast and come east. Depending on what transmission route we use for exporting our surplus power, it might go west as well, so (there are) exciting opportunities for the west coast of the province.
“Bringing electricity from Labrador, but having access to the power to build industry and all the benefits that will spin out of the construction of the transmission line down the west coast and across the province, there’s tremendous opportunities for the west coast,” Dunderdale said.
But Yvonne Jones, Liberal natural resources critic and legislature member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair, says the proposed new energy direction for the province appears to have excluded the energy requirements of Labrador and that is less than acceptable.
One of the stated policy actions of the document, “Focusing our Energy,” is to build a transmission line from Labrador to the island portion of the province by 2015.
Jones pointed to a number of large-scale projects in Labrador that would benefit from having a less expensive source of energy.
Several of these, she noted, include the military base at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is run by diesel power and the mine at Voisey’s Bay which functions with five diesel generators.
She said other anticipated projects, such as the uranium project in Postville and the two mineral finds in Labrador West, will require a major amount of energy to operate.
“While there are several long-term plans to deal with energy issues on the island, such as replacing the Holyrood generating station with a cleaner energy source through this transmission link, the document does not outline how Labrador will benefit from this investment,” Jones said.
“When the consultations for this plan took place,” she said, “Labradorians made it clear that they wanted to see real benefits, such as cheaper and available sources of power.
“This plan is a disappointment in that there are no such commitments to address this serious consumer, economic and regional development issues".
CLIFF WELLS
Transcontinental Media—Corner Brook
Tom Marshall says west coast residents are big winners in the energy plan announced by the province Tuesday.
The finance minister and Tory legislature member for Humber East said the transmission line from the Lower Churchill project to the island portion of the province is good news, as is the Petroleum Exploration Enhancement Program, otherwise known as PEEP, a $5-million pot of money for seismic work on the west coast.
“That money will be provided by the new energy corporation,” Marshall said.
“In turn,” he said, “the energy corporation will obtain equity in those exploration companies, if it’s in the interests of the province to do so.
“The other thing I think is very important for the whole province, of course, is there’s a plan there to take the revenue from the non-renewable resources and using the revenues, which are finite and time-limited, to develop the renewable resources,” Marshall said, noting that the renewable resource economy is going to be powered by “sustainable, green energy sources like hydro and wind.”
Marshall said that allows future generations to benefit from the non-renewable resources, rather than hogging the benefits for the present generation.
He said the clean, renewable power will be a great resource for Newfoundlanders many years from now.
Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale agrees the PEEP program is a great boost for the province’s west coast, but so is the transmission line that will be built.
“One of the most exciting pieces for the west coast is once the Lower Churchill is sanctioned, we’ll do a transmission link from Labrador to the island part of the province,” Dunderdale said.
“That will travel down the west coast and come east. Depending on what transmission route we use for exporting our surplus power, it might go west as well, so (there are) exciting opportunities for the west coast of the province.
“Bringing electricity from Labrador, but having access to the power to build industry and all the benefits that will spin out of the construction of the transmission line down the west coast and across the province, there’s tremendous opportunities for the west coast,” Dunderdale said.
But Yvonne Jones, Liberal natural resources critic and legislature member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair, says the proposed new energy direction for the province appears to have excluded the energy requirements of Labrador and that is less than acceptable.
One of the stated policy actions of the document, “Focusing our Energy,” is to build a transmission line from Labrador to the island portion of the province by 2015.
Jones pointed to a number of large-scale projects in Labrador that would benefit from having a less expensive source of energy.
Several of these, she noted, include the military base at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is run by diesel power and the mine at Voisey’s Bay which functions with five diesel generators.
She said other anticipated projects, such as the uranium project in Postville and the two mineral finds in Labrador West, will require a major amount of energy to operate.
“While there are several long-term plans to deal with energy issues on the island, such as replacing the Holyrood generating station with a cleaner energy source through this transmission link, the document does not outline how Labrador will benefit from this investment,” Jones said.
“When the consultations for this plan took place,” she said, “Labradorians made it clear that they wanted to see real benefits, such as cheaper and available sources of power.
“This plan is a disappointment in that there are no such commitments to address this serious consumer, economic and regional development issues".
Sunday, September 9, 2007
INDIGENOUS EQUIPMENTS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
Most of the commonly used renewable energy system and equipments are being manufactured indigenously.
The Indian companies are also exporting some of the renewable energy system and equipments.
The Government is providing several financial and fiscal incentives to encourage domestic production and make renewable energy available at cheaper rates.
These incentives include capital subsidy on some of the systems, soft loan to manufacturers and users, concessional or nil duty on import of some of the equipments, raw materials and components, excise duty exemption and 80 per cent accelerated depreciation in first year.
The import of various renewable energy equipments is permitted under open general licence (OGL); therefore, no data on import of all renewable energy equipments are maintained by the New and Renewable Energy.
The Indian companies are also exporting some of the renewable energy system and equipments.
The Government is providing several financial and fiscal incentives to encourage domestic production and make renewable energy available at cheaper rates.
These incentives include capital subsidy on some of the systems, soft loan to manufacturers and users, concessional or nil duty on import of some of the equipments, raw materials and components, excise duty exemption and 80 per cent accelerated depreciation in first year.
The import of various renewable energy equipments is permitted under open general licence (OGL); therefore, no data on import of all renewable energy equipments are maintained by the New and Renewable Energy.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Nuclear Power Generation – Asian Situation
| | ||||||
By-Khondkar Abdus Saleque
Increasing concern of adverse impact of global warming due to green house gas emission and rising price of non renewable fossil fuels are making the countries of East and
The economy of countries like
There are over 109 nuclear power reactors in operation, 18 under construction and plans to build about a further 110.China,
A recent Nuclear Issue Briefing Paper indicates that through to 2010 projected new generation capacity in the region is 38GWe per year. From 2010 to 2020 the new generation capacity increase will be 56 GWe/yr.This is about 36% of the world’s new capacity (current world capacity is about 3500GWe, of which 368 GWe is nuclear). In addition to the active nuclear reactors, under implementation and planned ones there are about 56 research reactors in 14 countries of the region. Only
Let us discuss the situation of different countries as described in the briefing paper.
The recent reactors are all of third generation type having modern safety systems.
About 45% of
To fuel its rapidly growing economy
It is also exploring possibilities of gas import from
Countries like
Electricity is the dynamo of economic growth. South and East Asian countries are very thickly populated. To sustain the GDP growth the countries will have to develop the power generation at the same pace. At the same time they have to remain conscious of global warming and GHG emissions. There will be little growth of coal plants. The environmental restrictions imposed on coal plants will make these very expensive. Yet some countries may have little other choice. There may be growth of Natural Gas based plants in some countries.
But that resource is also not very abundant. Natural gas is too valuable to be burnt for power generation. It has other valuable use options. These areas have great hydro potential. But relocation of affected people in thickly populated countries and other environmental issues are restricting growth of Hydro plants. Many countries are aggressively approaching Nuclear power plant option. But people are apprehensive of safety and waste disposal issues.
Third generation Nuclear plants are very safe. It addresses major safety concerns and several contingency measures. If we go for proper technology there are very little worries. The plants have high capital costs but minimum operating expenses. Waste treatment and disposal can also be very safe. If the Nuclear Programs are properly planned and effectively managed by appropriate professionals there are little worries.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Energy research can be trial and error
The Minneapolis-based utility soon will dole out $23 million for alternative-energy projects that could bear fruit -- or lay eggs. Since 1999, the innovation program -- created by the Legislature -- has awarded nearly $53 million, and gotten a decidedly mixed basket of results.
A fruit: A wind turbine in Pipestone that delivers the local school district enough money to pay for a teaching position. An egg: An experiment that found removing tars and bits of pollution from gases is harder than it looks.
"Sometimes you just have to try something and find that doesn't work, so I'll take a different path," said Debra Paulson, Xcel's manager of regulatory administration.
So far, nine of 48 projects have been canceled or withdrawn. Some may take five to 10 years to show clear results.
A seven-member panel is sifting through more than 100 requests for money in the latest round of grants. The panel includes representatives of Xcel, consumers, ratepayers, industry and residents of Prairie Island. The money that funds the program is collected from Xcel ratepayers.
Nuclear waste led to program
Its genesis came in 1994 during a debate over what to do about spent fuel at Xcel's Prairie Island nuclear plant near Red Wing. The Legislature wanted to spur research and development in renewable energy to reduce the state's dependence on nuclear power and other conventional sources of energy.
While Xcel has yet to make public the details of pending applications, past grants have financed a variety of renewable energy projects.
WindLogics, a St. Paul company that tracks and forecasts wind patterns for utilities and other clients, was granted nearly $1 million in 2003 to design a computer model -- and install monitoring equipment -- to more accurately assess which way the wind is blowing, as well as how fast and for how long.
As a result, utilities can now orchestrate which generators run -- or are kept idle -- with better warning of how much electricity to expect from the wind turbines that dot Minnesota.
"To the extent they can get a better forecast, they can then arrange the schedule of their other operating plants, whether coal or gas or nuclear," said Mark Ahlstrom, WindLogics chief executive.
WindLogics is publishing results of the research, which is still underway, in an effort to see that the technology spreads beyond Minnesota's borders.
"I think we're producing a working system and technical advancements that are advancing the state of the art," Ahlstrom said.
Research and production
Half the grants disbursed by Xcel go to research projects and the rest go to projects that produce renewable energy.
A $100,000 grant helped the Science Museum of Minnesota build a solar-powered "zero energy building" -- one that produces at least as much energy as it uses -- as part of its outdoor science park in St. Paul.
A $753,000 check gave the Pipestone Area School District most of the cash for a 750-kilowatt wind turbine. The district gets about $45,000 a year by selling the power to operators of a nearby electrical grid.
"It means we can keep a teacher," said Jim Lentz, school superintendent.
Sometimes bright ideas end in clear setbacks.
The program approved a $639,000 grant for studying whether a filter, using centrifugal force, could be devised for removing tars and other impurities from gases obtained from "biomass" -- a broad category that covers everything from waste rotting in fields to garbage decaying in landfills. The gases can be used to power electrical generators.
But a report on the project found plenty of problems, from leaking gases to particles remaining stuck in filters to a lower-than-expected capacity with the filtering equipment. The experiments were conducted by Hopkins-based MagStar Technologies and Community Power Corp. in Littleton, Colo.
They concluded the process "will not be a practical means of cleaning producer gas streams in the near future."
Another disappointment
A $739,000 grant to Roseville-based Sebesta Blomberg, an energy management and design firm, also ended in disappointment.
The company found that the technology to extract gas from distiller's grains and byproducts at an ethanol plant could feed an electrical generator to sustain the power demands of an ethanol plant.
But it also found a problem: The grains and byproducts had a higher value if sold as animal feed and the technology to extract gas was costly.
The return "wasn't worth the investment to produce your own power," said John Carlson, a principal at Sebesta Blomberg. But, in his view, the study was worth the effort. Some of the technology has proven useful in later company projects, he said.
Many of the results, according to Xcel's Paulson, will end up in peer-reviewed technical journals, to be read by researchers across the nation and around the globe.
The latest proposed projects must survive a gantlet of reviews by technical experts and budget specialists. By October, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will have the final say on what projects go forward.
"What we all eventually get out of this is technology that will be environmentally friendly, creative and useful," Paulson said.
And, in some cases, tips on ideas that don't work.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power
By Erik Kirschbaum
BONN, Germany (Reuters) - It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator.
Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.
So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.
It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs in recent years, posting growth rates that surpassed the optimistic forecasts made by the fathers of a pioneering 2000 renewable energy law.
This law, known by the acronym EEG, has helped this cloudy, rainy country on the northern rim of central Europe become a solar giant.
"The EEG was the single most important vehicle to boost the solar energy market," Frank Asbeck, chairman of SolarWorld AG, told Reuters. The law, which offers cash incentives to people introducing renewable energy sources, was designed to help fight climate change and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
"There has also been an enormous interest for solar power from the public in general," added Asbeck, who in 1988 started his Bonn-based company making and marketing PV products. Its 1,350 staff have doubled in number in the last two years.
"Germans have a fondness for inventing and developing technologies -- especially when it might lead to big export rates. Helping fight climate change is a bonus," said Asbeck, who plans to nearly double the staff again within two yearSunday, July 29, 2007
Power utilities race for renewable energy sources
Faced with a voter-imposed mandate, some of the Puget Sound region's large power utilities are on the hunt for new sources of renewable energy.
The demand, spurred in part by Initiative 937, is prompting new power projects to spring up. It's still unclear whether the shift will drive up overall energy costs at utilities, because renewable prices are coming down, and utilities have a number of years to meet the mandates.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Solar panels tested at ASU lab
Corinne Purtill
The Arizona Republic
The Photovoltaic Testing Laboratory at the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus is a rough place for solar panels.
Machines fire simulated hail at the panels to make sure they won't crack when exposed to the elements on a rooftop. Cement bricks are stacked upon them. Technicians batter them with iron-filled bags to ensure that a panel won't shatter and cause injury if a child were to run into them.
If a panel survives the tests put to it, the lab awards the manufacturer with the certification they need to put them on the market.
And lately, business is booming.
Demand for solar panels has increased dramatically worldwide. Faced with rising energy costs and growing concerns about global warming, countries are turning to renewable energy sources such as solar to supply their power needs.
Most of the panels tested at the lab in Mesa are sold in Germany. The German government has an aggressive solar promotion program that allows residents to sell unused electricity generated on their home solar systems back to the utilities for a profit.
Mani Tamizh-Mani, the lab's director, says he believes Arizona should be doing as much to promote solar as Germany, which gets 40 percent less sunshine than Arizona.
"In this state, solar is the best" renewable energy option, Tamizh-Mani said. "It is highly predictable, especially in Arizona. And it is plenty."
The ASU lab is one of three photovoltaic testing labs in the world and the only one in the United States. The other two are in Germany and Italy.
The lab tests solar panels - also called photovoltaics because the sun creates an electric charge when it hits the panel - for safety, electrical and mechanical performance.
In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, ruled that Arizona utilities must get 15 percent of their power from renewable energy resources by 2025.
At least 4.5 percent of the state's energy must come from individual projects like rooftop solar panels.
Solar's high price tag has kept the technology from really taking off in Arizona. The largest home solar systems can cost residents as much as $30,000, even after rebates from the utility and state and federal tax credits.
But solar advocates say the panels will become more attractive as costs drop and traditional energy sources become scarcer.
"When we have the first few blackouts, people will be interested in solar," said Paul Symanski, marketing manager at the lab.
The Arizona Republic
The Photovoltaic Testing Laboratory at the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus is a rough place for solar panels.
Machines fire simulated hail at the panels to make sure they won't crack when exposed to the elements on a rooftop. Cement bricks are stacked upon them. Technicians batter them with iron-filled bags to ensure that a panel won't shatter and cause injury if a child were to run into them.
If a panel survives the tests put to it, the lab awards the manufacturer with the certification they need to put them on the market.
And lately, business is booming.
Demand for solar panels has increased dramatically worldwide. Faced with rising energy costs and growing concerns about global warming, countries are turning to renewable energy sources such as solar to supply their power needs.
Most of the panels tested at the lab in Mesa are sold in Germany. The German government has an aggressive solar promotion program that allows residents to sell unused electricity generated on their home solar systems back to the utilities for a profit.
Mani Tamizh-Mani, the lab's director, says he believes Arizona should be doing as much to promote solar as Germany, which gets 40 percent less sunshine than Arizona.
"In this state, solar is the best" renewable energy option, Tamizh-Mani said. "It is highly predictable, especially in Arizona. And it is plenty."
The ASU lab is one of three photovoltaic testing labs in the world and the only one in the United States. The other two are in Germany and Italy.
The lab tests solar panels - also called photovoltaics because the sun creates an electric charge when it hits the panel - for safety, electrical and mechanical performance.
In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, ruled that Arizona utilities must get 15 percent of their power from renewable energy resources by 2025.
At least 4.5 percent of the state's energy must come from individual projects like rooftop solar panels.
Solar's high price tag has kept the technology from really taking off in Arizona. The largest home solar systems can cost residents as much as $30,000, even after rebates from the utility and state and federal tax credits.
But solar advocates say the panels will become more attractive as costs drop and traditional energy sources become scarcer.
"When we have the first few blackouts, people will be interested in solar," said Paul Symanski, marketing manager at the lab.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Study: Renewable Energy Not Green
By Sara Goudarzi, Special to LiveScience
Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.
Building enough wind farms, damming adequate number of rivers and growing sufficient biomass to produce ample kilowatts to make a difference in meeting global energy demands would involve a huge invasion of nature, according to Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York.
Ausubel came to this conclusion by calculating the amount of energy that each renewable source can produce in terms of area of land disturbed.
“We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape,” Ausubel told LiveScience.
Land grab for energy
The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment. For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy.
New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
You can convert every kilowatt generated directly into land area disturbed, Ausubel said. “The biomass or wind will produce one or two watts per square meter. So every watt or kilowatt you want for light bulbs in your house can be translated into your hand reaching out into nature taking land.”
Small dent in landmass
Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel’s analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.
“In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources,” said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.
Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.
“Now there’s 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S.” Turner told LiveScience. “This represents a very, very tiny area. And that’s just one technology.”
“If you look at how much land area we’ve covered with roads, it’s more than double that. So yeah, it’s a large area, 100 miles by 100 miles, if you pack it into one thing, but if you scatter it across the country and compare it to all the other things we’ve already covered, it’s not an egregious area.”
Double use of land
Ausubel’s analysis concludes that other renewable sources such as solar power and biomass are “un-green”. According to his findings, to obtain power for a large proportion of the country from biomass would require 965 square miles of prime Iowa land. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 58 square miles, plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000-megawatt electric nuclear plant, a more environmentally friendly choice, Ausubel wrote.
However, new land doesn’t have to be put into use just for a solar plant. Some scientists say already existing infrastructures could be doubled up for use to cover such an area.
“We could do with just rooftops of buildings and homes, land area we’ve already covered,” Turner said. “We could meet 25 percent of our annual electrical demand by just putting solar panels on already existing rooftops of homes and businesses.”
“Similarly, wind farms use up a lot of land area but they only really take up 5 percent of the land they cover,” he explained. “The rest of it can be used for farming so it doesn’t really impact the land area that much.”
Going nuclear
Ausubel thinks that a better alternative to renewable energy resources would be nuclear power, which would leave behind far less waste than other alternatives
“There are three legs to the stool of environmentally sound energy policy—one is improved efficiency, second is increased reliance on natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration and the third is nuclear power,” he explained.
“Nuclear power has the proliferation issues, which are serious but the environmental issues are small. With nuclear energy the issue is to contain radioactivity, which has been successfully done.”
Turner agrees that nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint, but he thinks that the waste issue associated with this technology is very serious.
“It’s unconscionable to dismiss the issue of nuclear waste," Turner said, “because you have to store that waste for hundreds of thousands of years and nuclear wastes are particularly damaging to the environment and have social impacts also.”
Similarly, Gregory A. Keoleian, co-Director for the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan, thinks more in-depth analyses are needed before dismissing renewables and considering nuclear power as a viable option.
“I think the characterizations made that ‘renewables are not green’ and ‘nuclear is green’ sound provocative, but they do not accurately represent these technologies with respect to a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and analysis,” Keoleian told LiveScience. “The treatment of renewable technologies [in this study] is shallow and the coverage of the nuclear fuel cycle is incomplete."
To capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources, scientists believe there need to be more studies and discussions.
“We have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of money and a finite amount of energy, and we need to be very careful about the choices we make as we build this new energy infrastructure,” Turner said. “I’d like to see something that will last for millennia and certainly solar, wind and biomass will last as long as the sun shines. “
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Energy research can be trial and error
The Minneapolis-based utility soon will dole out $23 million for alternative-energy projects that could bear fruit -- or lay eggs. Since 1999, the innovation program -- created by the Legislature -- has awarded nearly $53 million, and gotten a decidedly mixed basket of results.
A fruit: A wind turbine in Pipestone that delivers the local school district enough money to pay for a teaching position. An egg: An experiment that found removing tars and bits of pollution from gases is harder than it looks.
"Sometimes you just have to try something and find that doesn't work, so I'll take a different path," said Debra Paulson, Xcel's manager of regulatory administration.
So far, nine of 48 projects have been canceled or withdrawn. Some may take five to 10 years to show clear results.
A seven-member panel is sifting through more than 100 requests for money in the latest round of grants. The panel includes representatives of Xcel, consumers, ratepayers, industry and residents of Prairie Island. The money that funds the program is collected from Xcel ratepayers.
Nuclear waste led to program
Its genesis came in 1994 during a debate over what to do about spent fuel at Xcel's Prairie Island nuclear plant near Red Wing. The Legislature wanted to spur research and development in renewable energy to reduce the state's dependence on nuclear power and other conventional sources of energy.
While Xcel has yet to make public the details of pending applications, past grants have financed a variety of renewable energy projects.
WindLogics, a St. Paul company that tracks and forecasts wind patterns for utilities and other clients, was granted nearly $1 million in 2003 to design a computer model -- and install monitoring equipment -- to more accurately assess which way the wind is blowing, as well as how fast and for how long.
As a result, utilities can now orchestrate which generators run -- or are kept idle -- with better warning of how much electricity to expect from the wind turbines that dot Minnesota.
"To the extent they can get a better forecast, they can then arrange the schedule of their other operating plants, whether coal or gas or nuclear," said Mark Ahlstrom, WindLogics chief executive.
WindLogics is publishing results of the research, which is still underway, in an effort to see that the technology spreads beyond Minnesota's borders.
"I think we're producing a working system and technical advancements that are advancing the state of the art," Ahlstrom said.
Research and production
Half the grants disbursed by Xcel go to research projects and the rest go to projects that produce renewable energy.
A $100,000 grant helped the Science Museum of Minnesota build a solar-powered "zero energy building" -- one that produces at least as much energy as it uses -- as part of its outdoor science park in St. Paul.
A $753,000 check gave the Pipestone Area School District most of the cash for a 750-kilowatt wind turbine. The district gets about $45,000 a year by selling the power to operators of a nearby electrical grid.
"It means we can keep a teacher," said Jim Lentz, school superintendent.
Sometimes bright ideas end in clear setbacks.
The program approved a $639,000 grant for studying whether a filter, using centrifugal force, could be devised for removing tars and other impurities from gases obtained from "biomass" -- a broad category that covers everything from waste rotting in fields to garbage decaying in landfills. The gases can be used to power electrical generators.
But a report on the project found plenty of problems, from leaking gases to particles remaining stuck in filters to a lower-than-expected capacity with the filtering equipment. The experiments were conducted by Hopkins-based MagStar Technologies and Community Power Corp. in Littleton, Colo.
They concluded the process "will not be a practical means of cleaning producer gas streams in the near future."
Another disappointment
A $739,000 grant to Roseville-based Sebesta Blomberg, an energy management and design firm, also ended in disappointment.
The company found that the technology to extract gas from distiller's grains and byproducts at an ethanol plant could feed an electrical generator to sustain the power demands of an ethanol plant.
But it also found a problem: The grains and byproducts had a higher value if sold as animal feed and the technology to extract gas was costly.
The return "wasn't worth the investment to produce your own power," said John Carlson, a principal at Sebesta Blomberg. But, in his view, the study was worth the effort. Some of the technology has proven useful in later company projects, he said.
Many of the results, according to Xcel's Paulson, will end up in peer-reviewed technical journals, to be read by researchers across the nation and around the globe.
The latest proposed projects must survive a gantlet of reviews by technical experts and budget specialists. By October, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will have the final say on what projects go forward.
"What we all eventually get out of this is technology that will be environmentally friendly, creative and useful," Paulson said.
And, in some cases, tips on ideas that don't work.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Ethanol is a solid step in state's energy future
By Mark DeSaulnier and Bob Balgenorth
GUEST COMMENTARY
WE'RE FEELING the financial squeeze at the pump. Oil politics are a major root cause of turmoil throughout the world. We face relentless questions on how fast our planet is warming and what we should do about it as a nation and as individuals. In all areas of our state, thousands search unsuccessfully for meaningful jobs.
Low-carbon renewable fuels, such as ethanol, that are produced right here in California, can be a significant tool to help solve all these problems.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently took an important step toward encouraging increased use of low-carbon fuels at their June meeting in Fresno.
Gas prices have climbed to well more than $3.20 a gallon for two fundamental reasons -- the limited supply of gasoline on the Earth and the premium we pay because of the instability in the oil producing regions of the world.
In other words, crude oil is expensive because we are running out of cheap supply and all of the uncertainty in the Middle East also creates a significant "instability premium," which impacts America in the form of a hidden tax added to the price we pay at the pump.
Ethanol can be an intermediate step to solving this problem.
Today, ethanol is approximately 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in California.
Therefore, increasing its use is an immediate action the state can take today to decrease gasoline prices for consumers.
By incorporating as much as a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline, we have the opportunity to increase the supply of gasoline by 4 percent, which will significantly reduce the cost of gas.In addition, as a result of CARB's action, renewable fuel use in California will increase by more than 600 million gallons, and California is set to become the world's single largest renewable fuels market.
Just as it's been so often before in emerging technologies, California is home to the leading innovators in the renewable fuel revolution.
Venture capital firms are investing billions of dollars on the present and future in fuels. And biotech firms are transforming the California economy by working to diversify the state's transportation fuel base to include renewable fuels.
These dynamic companies and California's institutions of higher education employ increasing amounts of brainpower to build a brighter future for the state.
A brand-new sector of the California economy has passed the tipping point and has taken hold. New ethanol production facilities are being built, providing good, high-paying jobs with health benefits and a secure retirement for the highly-skilled labor force needed to build and maintain these complex plants.
Thousands of families and the local communities where these new plants are located are experiencing the positive economic benefits of this new renewable fuel industry.
This healthy market dynamic is good for everyone. Although some domestic auto companies have increased the amount of fuel flex-capable cars to the market, it's essential that others follow and that the pace is accelerated.
Through market adoption and government support, a majority of motorists could have real choice and a true competition of fuels would exist.
This would decrease prices of all fuels and stimulate a healthy competition -- a real win for all Californians.
And what about the warming Earth? Ethanol can provide a way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles today, and in due time, with all the private and public research that is going on, ethanol in California will be made from additional sources such as agricultural residues or fast growing energy crops that include Eucalyptus and other types of plants.
Existing ethanol facilities will incorporate other measures to further reduce carbon emissions such as powering the plants with manure or biomass, which would make them virtually 100 percent renewable.
Although it's not the answer alone to solving global warming and climbing gas prices, ethanol is an immediate concrete step we can take to deal with many of the issues that threaten to overwhelm us if we don't act quickly.
As Californians, we need to do everything we can to take full advantage of the opportunity to increase the use of low carbon renewable fuels for the health of our environment, economy and consumers' pocketbooks -- today and for future Californians.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Predicting the impact of suburbia
Monday, 23 July 2007 Deakin University
Deakin University researchers have developed a quick and easy method to predict the environmental impact of Australian buildings.
Using data gathered from 30 buildings in Melbourne, including hospitals, offices, schools and houses, the researchers with Deakin’s Built Environment Research Group discovered for the first time a strong relationship between building costs and energy performance. From this information they have been able to develop a quick and reliable way to calculate energy consumption by simply knowing a building’s capital cost budget.
“Our research has shown that lower capital cost leads to lower energy use. Therefore, cost effective construction leads to better environmental performance— a fact that is not well understood,” said Professor Craig Langston, Director of the Built Environment Research Group with Deakin’s School of Architecture and Building.
Professor Langston said that their results were vital given the pressure all buildings placed on the environment.
“The built environment demands 40 to 50 per cent of global energy, consumes 40 per cent of non-renewable resources, generates 40 per cent of landfill waste and uses 30 per cent of fresh water reserves. Obviously this is not sustainable, particularly as buildings increase in number and size,” he said.
“With Australia having the world’s highest rate of energy and water use per capita, it is timely for these issues to be aired.”
During the three-year study, the researchers found that estimates of a building’s embodied energy (the energy used to manufacture a building’s materials) were directly tied to its capital cost budget. This enabled them to produce an equation or ‘calculator’ based on a building’s budget to predict energy performance that could then be used to inform more energy efficient building design.
Professor Langston said that embodied energy was generally not considered in building design and construction by industry practitioners.
“There is a lack of professional knowledge about embodied energy, with few practitioners able to calculate it, which has led to its absence in routine design decision-making,” he said.
“However, embodied energy represents about 40 per cent of total energy needs for a typical building over 30 years (when the embodied energy of operational maintenance is included). With increasing energy efficient initiatives, greater use of prefabrication and transportation, and renovation to ensure market appeal, embodied energy is becoming more significant than ever.”
The researchers also found that the same principles could be applied to determine a building’s operational energy (heating, cooling, lighting etc) over the next 100 years.
“What we have been able to produce is a model that not only reduces time but also eliminates the complexity of energy, particularly embodied energy, calculations from a few weeks of expert effort to a few minutes by a relative novice,” Professor Langston said.
“By putting this useful tool into the hands of building practitioners, the widespread use of energy analysis can be routinely incorporated in the early design stages of new building projects to ensure an appropriate and sustainable deployment of resources.”
Monday, July 23, 2007
Colorado Renewable Energy Mapping Task Force Members Named
in News Departments > People
by NAW Staff on Wednesday 18 July 2007
Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colo., has appointed seven Coloradans to the Renewable Resource Generation Development Area Task Force. Eight other members of the task force have been designated or appointed by Joan Fitz-Gerald, Senate president, and Andrew Romanoff, House speaker, and three members were designated by the governor's energy office, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Colorado Counties Inc.
The task force – established by the passage of Senate Bill 91 in late May – was created to produce maps that detail all electricity generation and transmission lines in Colorado in order to determine the most appropriate areas for renewable energy development. The maps are due for delivery to the governor by the end of the year.
Task force appointees by Ritter include Dan McClendon, general manager of Delta-Montrose Electrical Association; Frank Prager, vice president of environmental policy for Excel Energy; Rick Gilliam, director of Western states policy with SunEdison; Ronald Lehr, a former Public Utility Commission chair and current wind energy consultant; George Smart, chief of engineering for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado Big Thompson project; Tony Frank, director of renewable energy development for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; and John Bleem, a division manager for the Platte River Power Authority.Appointees by Fitz-Gerald and Romanoff include Craig Cox, Interwest Energy Alliance; Mac McLennan, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association; John Nielsen, Western Resource Advocates; Ron Larson, Colorado Renewable Energy Society; Barbara Walker, Independent Bankers of Colorado; and Sam Mamet, executive director of Colorado Municipal League.Glenn Gibson, Larimer County commissioner, was designated by Colorado Counties Inc.; David Hurlbut, with NREL, was designated by the director of NREL; and Morey Wolfson, with the governor's energy office, was designated by the director of the governor's energy office.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Suddenly, solar's hot
Energy prices have the sun looking good
By Shelley Shelton
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 07.15.2007
In the late 1970s, a nationwide energy crisis had people looking for ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels. Many focused their attention on solar energy as a renewable resource.
But energy prices moderated, tax credits for solar systems evaporated, and solar's future dimmed.
Fast-forward to 2007: Energy prices are again soaring and remain volatile, and with the perceived threat of global warming, people are once again wondering what they can do to become less dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels.
"My thought process was, if I can produce enough energy on my roof to meet my needs, I want to produce something tangible toward energy independence," said Chuck Dunn, 51, who is installing what will be Tucson's largest residential array of solar panels on a home he's building in the Foothills.
Interest in solar energy seems to be everywhere, from government to commerce to consumers, with new manufacturing and new jobs on Tucson's horizon.
District 8 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Demo-crat, has said she wants Southern Arizona to become the "Solar-con Valley" of the United States. She has introduced legislation to promote training a solar-industry work force and to set up an initiative for states to receive money for advancing commercial applications of solar technology.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has called our state the "Saudi Arabia of solar energy within the United States," and she recently signed legislation to prevent homeowners' associations from restricting the use of solar systems.
15% renewable by 2025
Political attention aside, solar is also gaining steam at the Arizona Corporation Commission, which recently decreed that all utilities must generate 15 percent of the state's energy from renewable resources by 2025. At that time, about 5 percent of the energy must come from solar cells.
That's good news for consumers, who can take advantage of tax credits and rebate programs as utilities scramble to meet that edict. New, possibly better, incentives might be on the way as well.
Tucson Electric Power Co. and other Arizona utilities — including Arizona Public Service Co., the Salt River Project, and Trico and Sulphur Springs Valley electric cooperatives — offer rebates for solar installations. TEP has two residential plans and one non-residential plan in its solar energy program, called SunShare, each worth thousands of dollars (see accompanying information).
With regulators boosting renewables, solar incentives for homeowners could get richer.
TEP plans to file a new Renewable Energy Standard plan in the next few months, said Joe Salkowski, a TEP spokesman. Though the plan isn't finished, it will include an incentive package, he said.
"It might be in people's interest to wait and see what the new program is going to offer. It may be different," Salkowski said.
Then there are tax credits.
The federal government offers a 30 percent credit up to $2,000 for residential consumers who install approved solar electric devices on their homes, with no maximum for commercial users. The same deal is available for people who install solar hot water.
The state of Arizona provides a 25 percent credit for solar devices — with electricity and hot water lumped together — up to $1,000 in addition to the federal government's credit.
Could get half back
With all the tax credits and rebates available, it's possible for an average consumer to get back about half the cost of solar equipment, said Katharine Kent, owner of The Solar Store, which markets and installs solar-energy products.
TEP customer Dunn said he would not have taken on the solar project for his new home without the utility's help with the costs.
Another customer, Dale Keyes, has been on the SunShare plan for a little more than a year. He has a two-kilowatt alternating-current system on the roof of his Midtown home.
Keyes got a substantial discount on the panels thanks to TEP, he said, but taking that discount into consideration and adding another $3,000 in tax credits from the state and the feds, he still spent $8,000.
By staying connected to the TEP grid, Keyes and Dunn both said, the houses still have electricity when the sun goes behind a cloud or at night when there is no sun.
The homes are "net metered," meaning they feed excess energy into the TEP system — in Keyes' case, the meter actually runs backwards when this happens — and then essentially buy the energy back at a discount. And it eliminates the need for batteries to store the energy for when the sun isn't out.
"It has performed above and beyond my expectations," Keyes said. "We've had several people stop and ask us questions" about the system.
Even as consumer and political interest in solar grows, the local solar manufacturing industry is expanding.
Germany-based Solon AG — a maker of solar modules and photovoltaic systems — opened its first U.S. manufacturing plant under the name Solon America in Tucson early this month. Global Solar Energy, a former venture of TEP parent UniSource Energy Corp. now partly owned by Solon, also recently announced expansion plans.
And New York-based Prism Solar Technologies Inc. — which manufactures a new kind of photovoltaic module that uses holographic technology to filter and focus the sun's rays for maximum effect— opened a research and development facility here in June.
Still hurdles ahead
Despite the flurry of activity, solar still faces some hurdles.
"There's tremendous potential in the sun but we are not there yet," said Mike Gleason, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Gleason was the sole commissioner who voted against the 2025 mandate, on grounds the technology wasn't mature enough. "When the Wright brothers had their flight at Kitty Hawk, they didn't try to fly the Atlantic with that plane," he said.
The companies that have moved here say more can be done in the way of incentives to bring solar-oriented businesses here, and the rules and breaks for consumers need to be simplified so they're easier to understand.
"Something that's difficult for the customer takes more time to increase the market," said Olaf Koester, president and chief executive officer of Solon America.
Tax credits based on how much renewable energy a company manufactures would help, said Glenn Rosenberg, Prism Solar's chief technology officer in Tucson. And good access to transportation for shipping is important too, he said.
Incentives are what will bring people in, said Larry Kazmerski, director of the national center for photovoltaics at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kazmerski said the timing is good for Arizona to position itself as a solar capital.
"Arizona really is considered tops in the point of view of technology expertise," he said. "You have a tradition but you also have a future."
Getting started:
For more information on utility solar programs in Southern Arizona:
• TEP/UniSource Energy Services SunShare
The SunShare program is offered by Tucson Electric Power Co. and UniSource Energy Services (a sister company that serves Santa Cruz County): http://www.green watts.com and follow the links to SunShare for the appropriate company. For information by phone, call 745-3100 or toll-free 1-866-253-3690.
• Trico Electric Cooperative SunWatts program: http://www.trico.coop/sunwatts_ information.html; 744-2944.
• Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative SunWatts: http://www.ssvec.org/programs /energySunWatts.php; 1-520-384-5515.
Other local solar links:
• Tucson Solar Alliance: http://www.solarinstitute.org/ tucson_solar_alliance
• Arizona Solar Center: http://www.azsolarcenter.com
• The Solar Store: http://www. solarstore.com
• Expert Solar Systems: http://www.expertsolar.com
• GeoInnovation: http://www.geoinnovation.com
HOAs and solar
Earlier this month, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed Senate Bill 1254 into law. The bill closed loopholes in previous legislation to prevent homeowner associations from restricting the use of solar panels.
The bill says that despite any provision in community documents, associations can't prohibit the installation or use of a solar-energy device. Associations may adopt "reasonable rules" regarding the placement of the device as long as those rules don't prevent the installation, impair functioning or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.
It's always a good idea to check your HOA's rules, which normally require homeowners to submit designs before adding any improvements.
Comparing costs
Nationwide industry costs for power generation per kilowatt hour, by source:
Coal — 2 to 4 cents.
Natural gas — 5 to 11 cents, varies with the fluctuation in cost of natural gas.
Nuclear — 2 cents, not including upfront costs and disposal costs.
Wind (unsubsidized) — 5 to 11 cents.
Solar — 18 to 80 cents.
Figures provided by TEP from company research. Figures do not represent TEP's costs.
Solar hot water
If the cost of solar photovoltaics seems daunting, you can get your feet wet by starting out with a solar water-heating unit.
The federal government provides a tax credit of up to $2,000 for solar water heaters, separate from the credit given for photovoltaic installations. The maximum $1,000 credit offered by Arizona can be applied to several kinds of systems, including photovoltaics, skylights, pools and water heaters.
Costs can range from $2,000 to $5,000 installed, and payback time for most heaters happens within the first 10 years, according to the Arizona Solar Center.
By Shelley Shelton
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 07.15.2007
In the late 1970s, a nationwide energy crisis had people looking for ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels. Many focused their attention on solar energy as a renewable resource.
But energy prices moderated, tax credits for solar systems evaporated, and solar's future dimmed.
Fast-forward to 2007: Energy prices are again soaring and remain volatile, and with the perceived threat of global warming, people are once again wondering what they can do to become less dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels.
"My thought process was, if I can produce enough energy on my roof to meet my needs, I want to produce something tangible toward energy independence," said Chuck Dunn, 51, who is installing what will be Tucson's largest residential array of solar panels on a home he's building in the Foothills.
Interest in solar energy seems to be everywhere, from government to commerce to consumers, with new manufacturing and new jobs on Tucson's horizon.
District 8 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Demo-crat, has said she wants Southern Arizona to become the "Solar-con Valley" of the United States. She has introduced legislation to promote training a solar-industry work force and to set up an initiative for states to receive money for advancing commercial applications of solar technology.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has called our state the "Saudi Arabia of solar energy within the United States," and she recently signed legislation to prevent homeowners' associations from restricting the use of solar systems.
15% renewable by 2025
Political attention aside, solar is also gaining steam at the Arizona Corporation Commission, which recently decreed that all utilities must generate 15 percent of the state's energy from renewable resources by 2025. At that time, about 5 percent of the energy must come from solar cells.
That's good news for consumers, who can take advantage of tax credits and rebate programs as utilities scramble to meet that edict. New, possibly better, incentives might be on the way as well.
Tucson Electric Power Co. and other Arizona utilities — including Arizona Public Service Co., the Salt River Project, and Trico and Sulphur Springs Valley electric cooperatives — offer rebates for solar installations. TEP has two residential plans and one non-residential plan in its solar energy program, called SunShare, each worth thousands of dollars (see accompanying information).
With regulators boosting renewables, solar incentives for homeowners could get richer.
TEP plans to file a new Renewable Energy Standard plan in the next few months, said Joe Salkowski, a TEP spokesman. Though the plan isn't finished, it will include an incentive package, he said.
"It might be in people's interest to wait and see what the new program is going to offer. It may be different," Salkowski said.
Then there are tax credits.
The federal government offers a 30 percent credit up to $2,000 for residential consumers who install approved solar electric devices on their homes, with no maximum for commercial users. The same deal is available for people who install solar hot water.
The state of Arizona provides a 25 percent credit for solar devices — with electricity and hot water lumped together — up to $1,000 in addition to the federal government's credit.
Could get half back
With all the tax credits and rebates available, it's possible for an average consumer to get back about half the cost of solar equipment, said Katharine Kent, owner of The Solar Store, which markets and installs solar-energy products.
TEP customer Dunn said he would not have taken on the solar project for his new home without the utility's help with the costs.
Another customer, Dale Keyes, has been on the SunShare plan for a little more than a year. He has a two-kilowatt alternating-current system on the roof of his Midtown home.
Keyes got a substantial discount on the panels thanks to TEP, he said, but taking that discount into consideration and adding another $3,000 in tax credits from the state and the feds, he still spent $8,000.
By staying connected to the TEP grid, Keyes and Dunn both said, the houses still have electricity when the sun goes behind a cloud or at night when there is no sun.
The homes are "net metered," meaning they feed excess energy into the TEP system — in Keyes' case, the meter actually runs backwards when this happens — and then essentially buy the energy back at a discount. And it eliminates the need for batteries to store the energy for when the sun isn't out.
"It has performed above and beyond my expectations," Keyes said. "We've had several people stop and ask us questions" about the system.
Even as consumer and political interest in solar grows, the local solar manufacturing industry is expanding.
Germany-based Solon AG — a maker of solar modules and photovoltaic systems — opened its first U.S. manufacturing plant under the name Solon America in Tucson early this month. Global Solar Energy, a former venture of TEP parent UniSource Energy Corp. now partly owned by Solon, also recently announced expansion plans.
And New York-based Prism Solar Technologies Inc. — which manufactures a new kind of photovoltaic module that uses holographic technology to filter and focus the sun's rays for maximum effect— opened a research and development facility here in June.
Still hurdles ahead
Despite the flurry of activity, solar still faces some hurdles.
"There's tremendous potential in the sun but we are not there yet," said Mike Gleason, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Gleason was the sole commissioner who voted against the 2025 mandate, on grounds the technology wasn't mature enough. "When the Wright brothers had their flight at Kitty Hawk, they didn't try to fly the Atlantic with that plane," he said.
The companies that have moved here say more can be done in the way of incentives to bring solar-oriented businesses here, and the rules and breaks for consumers need to be simplified so they're easier to understand.
"Something that's difficult for the customer takes more time to increase the market," said Olaf Koester, president and chief executive officer of Solon America.
Tax credits based on how much renewable energy a company manufactures would help, said Glenn Rosenberg, Prism Solar's chief technology officer in Tucson. And good access to transportation for shipping is important too, he said.
Incentives are what will bring people in, said Larry Kazmerski, director of the national center for photovoltaics at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kazmerski said the timing is good for Arizona to position itself as a solar capital.
"Arizona really is considered tops in the point of view of technology expertise," he said. "You have a tradition but you also have a future."
Getting started:
For more information on utility solar programs in Southern Arizona:
• TEP/UniSource Energy Services SunShare
The SunShare program is offered by Tucson Electric Power Co. and UniSource Energy Services (a sister company that serves Santa Cruz County): http://www.green watts.com and follow the links to SunShare for the appropriate company. For information by phone, call 745-3100 or toll-free 1-866-253-3690.
• Trico Electric Cooperative SunWatts program: http://www.trico.coop/sunwatts_ information.html; 744-2944.
• Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative SunWatts: http://www.ssvec.org/programs /energySunWatts.php; 1-520-384-5515.
Other local solar links:
• Tucson Solar Alliance: http://www.solarinstitute.org/ tucson_solar_alliance
• Arizona Solar Center: http://www.azsolarcenter.com
• The Solar Store: http://www. solarstore.com
• Expert Solar Systems: http://www.expertsolar.com
• GeoInnovation: http://www.geoinnovation.com
HOAs and solar
Earlier this month, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed Senate Bill 1254 into law. The bill closed loopholes in previous legislation to prevent homeowner associations from restricting the use of solar panels.
The bill says that despite any provision in community documents, associations can't prohibit the installation or use of a solar-energy device. Associations may adopt "reasonable rules" regarding the placement of the device as long as those rules don't prevent the installation, impair functioning or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.
It's always a good idea to check your HOA's rules, which normally require homeowners to submit designs before adding any improvements.
Comparing costs
Nationwide industry costs for power generation per kilowatt hour, by source:
Coal — 2 to 4 cents.
Natural gas — 5 to 11 cents, varies with the fluctuation in cost of natural gas.
Nuclear — 2 cents, not including upfront costs and disposal costs.
Wind (unsubsidized) — 5 to 11 cents.
Solar — 18 to 80 cents.
Figures provided by TEP from company research. Figures do not represent TEP's costs.
Solar hot water
If the cost of solar photovoltaics seems daunting, you can get your feet wet by starting out with a solar water-heating unit.
The federal government provides a tax credit of up to $2,000 for solar water heaters, separate from the credit given for photovoltaic installations. The maximum $1,000 credit offered by Arizona can be applied to several kinds of systems, including photovoltaics, skylights, pools and water heaters.
Costs can range from $2,000 to $5,000 installed, and payback time for most heaters happens within the first 10 years, according to the Arizona Solar Center.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Less climate-change hot air
By PatrickBlennerhassett
Jul 13 2007
Dangerous Mind
Hypocrisy reared its ugly head this past Saturday as I sat there watching the Live Earth concerts that flooded my TV screen. Massive shows featuring nearly every imaginable act took place all over the world to support Al Gore’s campaign against global warming.
The whole time I kept thinking “How much gas and electricity are they burning to bring these concerts to the public?”
Back home an Idling Control Bylaw had just been passed by Victoria, and the Oak Bay Climate Change Task Force were being busybodies holding meetings on how to ban plastic bags. And once again, I couldn’t help but wonder “How many of the task force drive their cars to meetings, and how much paper are they using in all of these reports?”
We’re missing the point with all these half-baked ideas that will somehow lead us to some environmentally sound utopia of the future. Climate change isn’t being caused by too many plastic bags or ignorant car owners idling their cars for hours on end. No, global warming is caused by four things – fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and petroleum.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, man has relied solely on these four non-renewable resources for power. Not only are greenhouse gases caused by them, they’re also fuelling wars on almost every continent. Dr. Andrew Weaver, a well known UVic climate scientist, said doing the little things like recycling, turning off unused lights and trying to conserve gas are still necessary, but really aren’t combatting either of the two elephants in the room.
“In the grand scheme of things they really don’t do a lot at all,” said Weaver, also a lead author of the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “But they are part of the bigger issue with solving climate change. And the two sides to that are technology and behaviour. Putting in better light bulbs isn’t going to have much of an effect. But it’s part of a process where down the road, people will be more open to the alternative measures we need to take when the technology is ready.”
Those alternative measures? Eradicating the internal combustion engine, permanently. The transportation sector needs to undergo a fundamental shift from automobiles that run on gasoline, said Weaver.
“We’ve got to go 90 per cent below the rate we’re at right now by 2050,” he added. “And as the technology allows us to do that we need to have the behavioural changes in place well before that.”
Dr. Lawrence Pitt, research co-ordinator with the UVic’s Integrated Energy Systems agrees with Weaver, but adds “getting rid of the internal combustion engine at this stage is premature in my opinion.”
The other elephant in the room might be easier to tame.
“The production of electricity and heat for our homes, businesses and factories still dominates the energy landscape world-wide,” he said.
Right now China is burning so much coal, powering its thriving economy, it truly does make an Idling Control Bylaw seem like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Pitt said until developing nations, and first world countries replace traditional forms of energy, global warming isn’t going anywhere.
“I think it’s more likely that notable strides in emission reductions will come first in the area of electricity production,” said Pitt. “Generating low-emission electricity from hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas by capturing and geologically sequestering the CO2 is becoming more credible. Significant investments in billion-dollar scale projects are on the drawing table in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. Over the next 25 years, this could be the way we build new generating plants, in addition to nuclear and some renewable energy plants such as wind and hydro which are also low-emission technologies.”
Pitt and Weaver point out an interesting fact. Non-renewable resources like hydroelectricity are much better, necessary alternatives, but have their drawbacks.
“Right now in Alberta they have numerous wind farms that are producing energy, but that’s only when it’s windy,” Weaver said. “You can’t just shut off a coal burning plant when it’s windy and switch to wind power, it doesn’t work like that.”
Pitt’s team at IESVic is at the forefront of getting society onto the sustainable energy path. Hydrogen technology, fuel cell science, ways to power our world with vastly renewable resources. And Pitt added we’re still decades from making those necessary leaps and bounds.
“Cost of hydrogen technologies are high and fuel cells are expensive and don’t last long – yet,” he said. “But this is true of any new energy technology. And the signs are good that there will be steady progress in improving on both fronts.”
He explained that carbon-capture technologies produce hydroden as a by-product, leaving hydrogen as a fuel for power generation.
“Maybe when this happens, some of the growing amount of hydrogen can be made available for transportation services just about the time, in say 15 years or so, when fuel cells may be come more wide spread for transportation.”
We should consider ourselves lucky in B.C. About 50 per cent of the province’s electricity is produced by major hydroelectric generating stations on the Columbia and Peace rivers. But we’re an anomaly, blessed with a rich environment. The rest of the world doesn’t have these benefits, and needs other alternatives.
Politicians are the people we’re looking to for leadership. Al Gore, the City of Victoria, Oak Bay’s Climate Change Task Force. It’s a great way to give peace of mind to the blissfully ignorant as they drive their SUVs to public meetings, sipping on Starbuck’s lattes, taking about banning the terribly villainous plastic bag.
But it’s all missing the point. Researches and scientists have the answers, and until we start listening to them, we’re going to be driving down this hypocritical highway for a very long time.
Jul 13 2007
Dangerous Mind
Hypocrisy reared its ugly head this past Saturday as I sat there watching the Live Earth concerts that flooded my TV screen. Massive shows featuring nearly every imaginable act took place all over the world to support Al Gore’s campaign against global warming.
The whole time I kept thinking “How much gas and electricity are they burning to bring these concerts to the public?”
Back home an Idling Control Bylaw had just been passed by Victoria, and the Oak Bay Climate Change Task Force were being busybodies holding meetings on how to ban plastic bags. And once again, I couldn’t help but wonder “How many of the task force drive their cars to meetings, and how much paper are they using in all of these reports?”
We’re missing the point with all these half-baked ideas that will somehow lead us to some environmentally sound utopia of the future. Climate change isn’t being caused by too many plastic bags or ignorant car owners idling their cars for hours on end. No, global warming is caused by four things – fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and petroleum.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, man has relied solely on these four non-renewable resources for power. Not only are greenhouse gases caused by them, they’re also fuelling wars on almost every continent. Dr. Andrew Weaver, a well known UVic climate scientist, said doing the little things like recycling, turning off unused lights and trying to conserve gas are still necessary, but really aren’t combatting either of the two elephants in the room.
“In the grand scheme of things they really don’t do a lot at all,” said Weaver, also a lead author of the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “But they are part of the bigger issue with solving climate change. And the two sides to that are technology and behaviour. Putting in better light bulbs isn’t going to have much of an effect. But it’s part of a process where down the road, people will be more open to the alternative measures we need to take when the technology is ready.”
Those alternative measures? Eradicating the internal combustion engine, permanently. The transportation sector needs to undergo a fundamental shift from automobiles that run on gasoline, said Weaver.
“We’ve got to go 90 per cent below the rate we’re at right now by 2050,” he added. “And as the technology allows us to do that we need to have the behavioural changes in place well before that.”
Dr. Lawrence Pitt, research co-ordinator with the UVic’s Integrated Energy Systems agrees with Weaver, but adds “getting rid of the internal combustion engine at this stage is premature in my opinion.”
The other elephant in the room might be easier to tame.
“The production of electricity and heat for our homes, businesses and factories still dominates the energy landscape world-wide,” he said.
Right now China is burning so much coal, powering its thriving economy, it truly does make an Idling Control Bylaw seem like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Pitt said until developing nations, and first world countries replace traditional forms of energy, global warming isn’t going anywhere.
“I think it’s more likely that notable strides in emission reductions will come first in the area of electricity production,” said Pitt. “Generating low-emission electricity from hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas by capturing and geologically sequestering the CO2 is becoming more credible. Significant investments in billion-dollar scale projects are on the drawing table in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. Over the next 25 years, this could be the way we build new generating plants, in addition to nuclear and some renewable energy plants such as wind and hydro which are also low-emission technologies.”
Pitt and Weaver point out an interesting fact. Non-renewable resources like hydroelectricity are much better, necessary alternatives, but have their drawbacks.
“Right now in Alberta they have numerous wind farms that are producing energy, but that’s only when it’s windy,” Weaver said. “You can’t just shut off a coal burning plant when it’s windy and switch to wind power, it doesn’t work like that.”
Pitt’s team at IESVic is at the forefront of getting society onto the sustainable energy path. Hydrogen technology, fuel cell science, ways to power our world with vastly renewable resources. And Pitt added we’re still decades from making those necessary leaps and bounds.
“Cost of hydrogen technologies are high and fuel cells are expensive and don’t last long – yet,” he said. “But this is true of any new energy technology. And the signs are good that there will be steady progress in improving on both fronts.”
He explained that carbon-capture technologies produce hydroden as a by-product, leaving hydrogen as a fuel for power generation.
“Maybe when this happens, some of the growing amount of hydrogen can be made available for transportation services just about the time, in say 15 years or so, when fuel cells may be come more wide spread for transportation.”
We should consider ourselves lucky in B.C. About 50 per cent of the province’s electricity is produced by major hydroelectric generating stations on the Columbia and Peace rivers. But we’re an anomaly, blessed with a rich environment. The rest of the world doesn’t have these benefits, and needs other alternatives.
Politicians are the people we’re looking to for leadership. Al Gore, the City of Victoria, Oak Bay’s Climate Change Task Force. It’s a great way to give peace of mind to the blissfully ignorant as they drive their SUVs to public meetings, sipping on Starbuck’s lattes, taking about banning the terribly villainous plastic bag.
But it’s all missing the point. Researches and scientists have the answers, and until we start listening to them, we’re going to be driving down this hypocritical highway for a very long time.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Pursuit of biofuels bring new global security risks
The US and Brazil are among a raft of countries looking to ramp up their biofuel* production amid concerns over the long-term supply of traditional energy sources, bringing new concerns over global security.
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that while biofuels offer many advantages for producing countries, the potential long-term environmental degradation and increased competition for land and water resources means it cannot be viewed as a risk-free alternative to non-renewable fuels.
Anna Gilmour, an independent analyst for Jane’s Intelligence Review says greater use of land for biofuel production will inevitably mean a reduction in land for food crops at a time when the rising global population is putting increased demand on food and water supplies.
“While there is clearly a growing demand for the conversion to biofuel production it could also expose governments to rising social unrest, as food prices rise and poorer members of society reap few benefits from the new ‘wondercrop’, “says Ms Gilmour.
“Apart from the social unrest and job losses, the expansion of this industry has the potential to increase internal conflict between governments and non-state armed groups in countries such as Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines."
Efforts to clear new land for biofuel production will be strongly opposed by non-state armed groups who may view it as a challenge for territorial control, resulting in action and subsequently more unrest.
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Columbia is an example where the potential security risks are more complicated, as large tracts of supposedly unused land are actually used for illegal cultivation of coca plants, from which cocaine is extracted. With most of Colombia’s non-state armed groups heavily dependent on the lucrative cocaine trade, efforts to repurpose this land towards biofuel production would be strongly opposed on several fronts.
“The Colombian government lacks the military strength to provide adequate protection to workers responsible for clearing coca and in convincing farmers to give up the lucrative coca crop. Also, the likely retaliation from insurgents will pose a long-term challenge to the development of Colombia’s biofuel industry,” adds Gilmour.
Jane’s Intelligence Review says that while environmental concerns pose long-term risk in the form of climate change, the most pressing risk will come in the form of heightened competition for land, food and water resources.
Currently Brazil and the US are responsible for some 70 per cent of global ethanol production.
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that while biofuels offer many advantages for producing countries, the potential long-term environmental degradation and increased competition for land and water resources means it cannot be viewed as a risk-free alternative to non-renewable fuels.
Anna Gilmour, an independent analyst for Jane’s Intelligence Review says greater use of land for biofuel production will inevitably mean a reduction in land for food crops at a time when the rising global population is putting increased demand on food and water supplies.
“While there is clearly a growing demand for the conversion to biofuel production it could also expose governments to rising social unrest, as food prices rise and poorer members of society reap few benefits from the new ‘wondercrop’, “says Ms Gilmour.
“Apart from the social unrest and job losses, the expansion of this industry has the potential to increase internal conflict between governments and non-state armed groups in countries such as Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines."
Efforts to clear new land for biofuel production will be strongly opposed by non-state armed groups who may view it as a challenge for territorial control, resulting in action and subsequently more unrest.
Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Columbia is an example where the potential security risks are more complicated, as large tracts of supposedly unused land are actually used for illegal cultivation of coca plants, from which cocaine is extracted. With most of Colombia’s non-state armed groups heavily dependent on the lucrative cocaine trade, efforts to repurpose this land towards biofuel production would be strongly opposed on several fronts.
“The Colombian government lacks the military strength to provide adequate protection to workers responsible for clearing coca and in convincing farmers to give up the lucrative coca crop. Also, the likely retaliation from insurgents will pose a long-term challenge to the development of Colombia’s biofuel industry,” adds Gilmour.
Jane’s Intelligence Review says that while environmental concerns pose long-term risk in the form of climate change, the most pressing risk will come in the form of heightened competition for land, food and water resources.
Currently Brazil and the US are responsible for some 70 per cent of global ethanol production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
