ENERGY RUN

New Pioneers in Shale

2010-06-29T23:19:00.001+08:00

Deepwater drilling remains steeped in hot water as oil continues to spew into the Gulf. U.S. coal supplies are feeling the heat of growing pan-Asian demand that is altering the very structure of the global coal market.

The unavoidable outcome of these paired circumstances is a heightened focus upon onshore oil and natural gas supplies; and in the vast, celebrated North American shales lie untold fortunes in nonrenewable energy. If you thought the race was on a few years ago to tap into these supplies, have a look at the foreign capital that is now entering this market ... turning the jog into more of a sprint.

India's largest publicly traded company, Reliance Industries, signed a $1.36 billion joint venture agreement last week with Pioneer Natural Resources (NYSE: PXD) for a 45% stake in the driller's Eagle Ford shale assets. Atop a $263 million initial cash payment, Reliance will cover more than $1 billion in total drilling costs over the next four years.

According to Pioneer, this will enable at least a 15-fold increase in the company's Eagle Ford production from just 2,000 boepd (barrels of oil-equivalent per day) in 2010 to 32,000 boepd or beyond by 2013. As my Foolish colleague Toby Shute has pointed out, some Pioneer acreage is in a "dry gas window" within the Eagle Ford play, while the more characteristic liquid-heavy acreage has attracted major producers including ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK).

Rather than a mere reminder of the emerging significance of the Eagle Ford, this deal underscores a growing tide of foreign development capital supporting North American shale production more broadly.

Reliance Industries itself, back in April, inked a $1.7 billion deal with Atlas Energy (Nasdaq: ATLS) for a 40% stake in that driller's operations in the Marcellus shale.

Encana (NYSE: ECA) revealed last week an intent to form a joint venture with China National Petroleum -- the state-run parent company of PetroChina (NYSE: PTR) -- to develop assets in northeast British Columbia. Encana proudly declared: "Given the depth of our enormous unconventional natural gas resource portfolio, we are accelerating our organic growth rate and targeting a doubling of our production per share over the next five years."

2010: Year of the Solar Battles

2010-01-03T09:28:00.001+08:00

by Margot Gerritsen on 01/02/2010 00:48 3 comments , 436 views
Categories: Renewables, Solar Power
Tags: california, utilities, brightsource, senator feinstein

2010 may well become known in the renewable and environmental community as the year of the solar battles. Battle is definitely brewing in California, with the main focus at the moment on Brightsource. Just before the new year, Senator Feinstein introduced a new bill that she hopes will help balance preservation of the Mojave desert with recreation and renewable energy development.

What makes these discussions difficult is that not all relevant knowledge is available (such as impact of large scale solar construction on the desert tortoise habitats, or probability of success of transmigration of such species to other areas). And as always, there are so many different interests at stake.

We're organizing a forum on large scale solar deployment in April. In preparation, we'll write a series of fact sheets or lack-of-fact sheets on utility scale solar. As soon as these are finished, I will post them here.

This utility scale solar debate is very reminiscent of the debates on large scale wind projects we had one or two decades ago.

Link to original post

Britain plans 10 new nuclear plants

2009-11-10T13:26:00.000+08:00

Britain's government has named 10 sites where new nuclear power stations could be built, with the potential to produce electricity by 2018.
Ed Miliband, the country's climate change secretary, also unveiled changes on Monday to planning rules aimed at speeding up approval for energy projects.
He said the move would help secure a new generation of low carbon energy for British homes in the coming decade, in accordance with the government's pledge to tackle climate change.

"The threat of climate change means we need to make a transition from a system that relies heavily on high carbon fossil fuels to a radically different system that includes nuclear, renewable and clean coal power," he said.

He said the new plants could provide 40 per cent of the country's electricity by 2025, and that the UK plans to generate 30 per cent of electricty by renewable sources by 2020.

All but one of Britain's existing nuclear plants are due to close by 2023. The new 10 nuclear sites, many of which are near existing nuclear facilities, include three in Cumbria, northwest England, near the Sellafield reprocessing plant.

The government's new planning rules, while include nuclear plants, renewable energy and fossil fuels, have raised fears that they could stifle the voice of local protesters opposed to new developments.

But Miliband played down the concern, saying the current system was a "barrier" to progress.

Greg Clark, the opposition energy spokesman for the Conservative party, said the government was attempting a "last minute scramble" in the face of looming energy shortages.

Sugar cane becomes Brazil’s second energy source

2008-05-12T13:15:00.000+08:00

Sugar cane and cane-based ethanol became a more important energy source than hydroelectric power in Brazil's overall energy production last year, topped only by petroleum and oil products according to a report from the government’s energy planning agency, EPE.

Brazil and USA leads the world's production of ethanol

Sugar cane had a 16% share in the country's energy matrix while hydroelectric power dams were left behind with a 14.7% share. Oil and derivatives represented 36.7%, down from 37.8% in 2006. The rest of the matrix is made up of wood and coal, 12%; natural gas 9.6% and mineral coal, 6%.Non renewable energy sources dropped from 55.1% in 2006 to 53.6% while renewable energy rose from 44.9% to 46.4%. "It's a historic year in that sense, it's an irreversible trend," EPE President Mauricio Tolmasquim told reporters.

He attributed the growing role of sugar cane to booming demand for ethanol as a motor fuel, but expected more cane and ethanol to be used for electricity generation as well. Brazil is a world leader in bio-fuels with decades of valuable expertise in using ethanol in cars.In February 2007, the consumption of ethanol surpassed that of gasoline for the first time in two decades. The trend is driven by a drop in ethanol prices and huge sales of flex-fuel cars that can run on ethanol, gasoline or any mix of the two.Hydrous ethanol consumption jumped 46% last year to 10.4 billion liters, while the usage of anhydrous ethanol that is mostly blended into gasoline sold in Brazil rose nearly 20% to 6.2 billion liters.

At the same time, gasoline consumption in the country dipped almost 4% to 18 billion liters, according to EPE.Tolmasquim said it was important that Latin America's largest country was self-sufficient in the three main sources of energy, including oil. Brazil met its oil needs with domestic output for the first time in 2006.It still needs to import some light crude to mix with heavy local crude for refining, but it also exports heavy oil. Last year's exports totaled an average of 421,000 barrels per day and imports stood at 418,000 bpd.Brazil together with United States leads the world’s production of ethanol, a green alternative for oil. However the US ethanol is made out mainly out of corn.

Primo Launches More Environmentally-Friendly Bottled Water in Time for Earth Day 2008

2008-04-08T17:43:00.000+08:00

Primo Launches More Environmentally-Friendly Bottled Water in Time for Earth Day 2008.

(PRNewsFoto/Primo) WINSTON SALEM, NC UNITED STATES
Innovative Single-Serve Bottles Made from Plants, Not Crude Oil
WINSTON SALEM, N.C., April 7, 2008 /PRNewswire/

This Earth Day, busy
consumers will be able to enjoy the convenience of bottled water while
reducing their impact on the planet with Primo water, a great-tasting water
in a more environmentally-friendly, single serve bottle. Traditional water
bottles are made from crude oil, a non-renewable resource.

The Primo bottle
is different from all other water bottles sold in the U.S. because it is
made from plants, a natural, renewable resource grown on American soil.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080407/NYM007A )
Plastic water bottles are created from PET (polyethylene
terephthalate), a petroleum-based plastic derived from limited and
depleting reserves of crude oil and natural gas.

These fossil fuels take
millions of years to regenerate. Primo is unique and more
environmentally-friendly because it is made from Ingeo(TM) natural plastic,
the world's first and only performance plastic made from 100% annually
renewable-resources

1) This plastic is also commonly known by its generic
name, PLA (polylactide). Primo water bottles are as durable as other water
bottles, but because they are manufactured from an annually-renewable
resource, they have less impact on the environment than other plastic
bottles. In fact, if all plastic PET bottles made from crude oil sold today
in the U.S. were instead made from Ingeo(TM) natural plastic, Americans
would save the equivalent of a billion gallons of gas each year.

(2)
Consumers will not only enjoy Primo for its environmental benefits, but
also for its great taste. In blind taste tests conducted at the end of 2007
across the U.S., three out of four consumers preferred Primo over the
leading spring water and four out of five preferred Primo over tap
water.

(3) In fact, Primo water was enjoyed at the MusiCares(R) Person of
the Year event, on the red carpet and in the green room of the first
"green" GRAMMY awards ceremony held in Los Angeles on February 10th.
"We're proud to bring consumers a more environmentally-friendly bottled
water," said Billy Prim, CEO of Primo Water Corporation. "Not only does
Primo give consumers the great taste, convenience, everyday price value and
availability that they've been looking for in a bottled water, it also
helps them to leave a better world for their children."

"With Primo, consumers have told us they feel good twice; once for
promoting their own health by drinking more water and avoiding sugar, and
twice, for helping to preserve the precious and depleting resources of our
planet," said Dave Burke, President and COO of Primo To Go.

Primo will be sold in a multipack of eighteen 16.9 oz. bottles and will
be available nationally this spring in select leading retailers, including
all Kroger stores in April. Suggested retail price is $4.99.

About Primo Water Corporation

Primo Water Corporation, a privately-held company based in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, manufactures, markets, and services mineral
enhanced bottled water that meets both the convenience consumers seek and
the environmental benefits they desire. Today, three product lines make up
Primo Water Corporation's portfolio. The first, introduced in June of 2005,
offers three- and five-gallon Zero Waste bottles and an exchange program
that rewards consumers for recycling their bottles for refills.

The second,
launched in April of 2008, is a new line of Energy Star rated and stylish
water coolers. And the third is a single-serve bottled water, in a
more-environmentally-friendly bottle made from plants, not crude oil.
According to blind taste tests, three out of four consumers prefer Primo
over the leading spring water and four out of five prefer Primo over tap
water. To learn more, visit http://www.primowater.com.

oil bug-swatting

2008-03-17T20:41:00.000+09:00

Most OIL companies have reaped the sweets of a resource that, some would argue, has literally kept the world turning. With the instability of the price of oil and the concerns of the associated environmental degradation, the time has come for us to really assess what we have done and chart a realistic path forward.

To my mind, the turning point for the entire world should have come after the recently held International Conference on Renewable Energy, when the President of the United States called on Americans to stop depending so heavily on oil, since it presents a challenge to the nations national security.

He also noted that despite popular belief, the US federal government spent more than $12 billion to research, develop and promote alternative energy sources, and has provided incentives for the private sector to invest.

This is the direction that all countries must be headed. For a world power to make such statements pointing to the vulnerability that the country faces because of oil small island states must be equally as cautious and, quite frankly, scared. We all know that if the United States sneezes three quarters of world will catch a cold, and this is one cold that we can ill-afford to catch.

The way to go is utilising environmentally friendly products and we are seeing quite a few companies heading in that direction, particularly with regard to luxury vehicles. Incentives for making these changes will be critical since many companies are still only seeing the bottom-line and their profit margin. It is also up to the consumer to demand that the products that they consume or purchase are of the strictest standards and comply with stringent eco-friendly practices.

On the topic of oil, it would be remiss of me not to mention recent comments made by Deputy Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Programme, Stein Hansen, who took the more optimistic approach to the rising oil prices.

He suggested that it should not be viewed as a negative, but rather an opportunity for countries to focus more on alternative energy sources.

He pointed to the fact that with a sun-rich region such as the Caribbean, every island should be making full use of the suns rays. Hansen also lauded Barbados use of solar technology. However the question remains, how much further are we going to go? There was tremendous hype associated with the solar-powered vehicles, which would have been used as shuttles in and around the city. What has become of that project? What else are we doing to seriously promote renewable energy on the island?

These are all considerations that will have to be made as we watch the price of oil, a non-renewable resource, spiral out of control and out of our reach.

Ethanol Playing Large Part in Solving Energy Problems

2007-11-04T14:24:00.000+09:00

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."

Sheland Farms producing renewable energy

2007-10-12T16:54:00.000+09:00

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

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.

energy can't meet demand

2007-10-07T19:40:00.000+09:00

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.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: | |

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.

bright energy future without coal or nuclear

2007-09-25T19:05:00.000+09:00

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.

Wind energy blows into Columbia

2007-09-18T19:30:00.000+09:00

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.

Tory members praise energy plan

2007-09-16T23:43:00.000+09:00

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".

INDIGENOUS EQUIPMENTS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

2007-09-09T20:35:00.000+09:00

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.

Nuclear Power Generation – Asian Situation

2007-09-03T13:27:00.000+09:00

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 South Asia to lean towards Nuclear power generation. Some countries have no basic energy of their own. They rely exclusively on imported energy. Some have their own energy. But these are not enough to fuel expanding economy.

The economy of countries like China, India is booming. To keep pace with rapid economic growth they need to increase the electricity generation capacity. Nuclear power being environment friendly the countries are endeavoring to set up the nuclear plants. Countries in the East and South Asia are planning and building new power reactors to meet their increasing demands of electricity.

There are over 109 nuclear power reactors in operation, 18 under construction and plans to build about a further 110.China, Japan, South Korea and India are the major players of the nuclear option. The increase in nuclear share will relieve the traditional fossil fuels from rapid depletion and will be a useful step to reduce GHG emission. However, people are apprehensive of the safety of the operation of the plants and disposal of nuclear wastes. There will be some concern of misusing the nuclear technology to produce nuclear bombs by rouge countries. But effective policing of the IAEA and responsible actions of major nuclear countries may keep these under control.

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 Singapore and New Zealand of the Pacific Rim countries are without any kind of nuclear research.

Let us discuss the situation of different countries as described in the briefing paper.

Japan:

Japan does not have any basic energy resource. It relies absolutely on imported LNG and oil from different countries. So Japanese had to rely a great deal on Nuclear power generation notwithstanding the catastrophic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from atom bombs. A few days earlier an earth quake caused some damage to a nuclear plant and led to its closure. About 29 % of Japanese power is generated from nuclear plants.55 units are in operation, 2 are under construction, 11 planned. Japan has 17 research reactors.

The recent reactors are all of third generation type having modern safety systems. Japan is eyeing on doubling its nuclear capacity to 90GWe by 2050 to meet its obligation for limiting GHG under Kyoto protocol. Japan has a high temperature test reactor which has reached 950 Degree Celsius high enough to enable thermo chemical production of hydrogen. Japan plans to use some 20GW of nuclear heat for hydrogen production by 2050. The first commercial plant will be start in 2025.

Republic of Korea (ROK):

About 45% of Korea’s power requirement is met from nuclear plants. Like Japan Korea also do not have any basic energy source. No oil, no gas. It has 20 nuclear reactors in operation, 1 under construction, 7 planned. It also has 2 research reactors. It has a plan to expand to 28 reactors and include advanced reactor design and achieve 60% nuclear power supply 2035. Korea has strong alliance with US to expand its nuclear generation capability. It has a US$ 1 billion plan for R& D and demonstration program to produce commercial hydrogen utilizing nuclear heat by 2020.

India:

India has proceeded to sign an accord with US for expanding its nuclear power generation capability. It has attained nuclear arms production capacity and successfully tested nuclear devices. It has not signed nuclear non proliferation treaty. It has 15 units in operation, 8 under construction, 24 planned and has also 5 research reactors. Nuclear power currently supplies about 4% of its total power requirement. It has achieved independence in its nuclear fuel cycle.

To fuel its rapidly growing economy India needs massive expansion of power generation. But considering the environmental impact can not go for more coal plants. It does not have enough oil and gas of its own. Neither has it assured access to regional or international energy source. So it is looking forward to expand its nuclear generation to comfort its energy security. By 2020 it is targeting an increase to 20GWe by setting up another 24 units. India is pioneer in developing thorium fuel cycle, and has several advanced facilities related to this.

China:

China is has the most expanding economy. Its power demand continues to expand @8% per year. It is trying every option to secure assured growth of power generation. It has mostly coal plants. It is one of the major polluter. But now it has realized the adverse impact and opting for environmental friendly power generation. It has significant reserve of oil and gas. But to fuel its enormous growth it is aggressively accessing regional and international resources. It has got good working relation with Iran. China is setting up energy import projects with Russia. Chinese companies are very active in Africa.

It is also exploring possibilities of gas import from Myanmar. It is also expanding its nuclear power generation. 10 units are already in operation. It has 5 more under construction, 13 planned and 50 proposed. National plan indicates 40GWe by 2020and 240 GWe by 2050.China has also built a small high temperature gas cooled reactor with pebble bed fuel in 2000. A commercial prototype HTR is expected to start by 2010.It is also partnering with ROK to produce hydrogen.

Pakistan:

Pakistan meets about 3% of its power demand through nuclear plants. It started its second plant in 2000 and the third supplied by China is under construction. It has 2 active reactors, 1 under construction, 2 planned. It also has 1 research reactor. It has a plan to expand capacity to 7.5 GWe by 2030.

Taiwan:

Taiwan meets 20% of its electricity demand from nuclear plants. It has 6 reactors in operation, 2 under construction. The plants under construction are third generation advanced plant.

North Korea:

North Korea partially built 2 units but abandoned construction at a certain stage. It was very close to commission one small reactor but concern focused on attempts to develop illicit weapons capability. Subsequently the construction halted.

Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam and Bangladesh have research reactors and are planning to set up nuclear reactors to produce electricity.

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.

Bangladesh like the regional countries has taken up plans to set up nuclear plants. It has offers from ROK. Some people are arising concern about safety. Believe us the modern plants are very safe. If we can have long term contracts with the suppliers for enriched uranium and can plan for proper waste disposal we must proceed aggressively for nuclear generation. We must also ensure that we have very competent and skilled professional group to operate the plants.

About 1000MW Nuclear power in 3-5 years will be great for us. We need power to power our rural economy. The present situation is terrible. We can not let it continue like this. We must explore and exploit all viable options to generate power and make it available for our very hard working and innovative work force.

Energy research can be trial and error

2007-08-28T09:55:00.000+09:00

By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune

Last update: July 21, 2007 – 3:47 PM

Thomas Edison discovered 2,000 ways not to make a light bulb before he found illumination. Xcel Energy Inc. is learning that ideas about renewable energy are subject to the same 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.

Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power

2007-07-30T15:20:00.001+09:00

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 year

Power utilities race for renewable energy sources

2007-07-29T15:18:00.000+09:00

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - July 27, 2007
by Deirdre Gregg

Staff Writer

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.

Solar panels tested at ASU lab

2007-07-28T15:13:00.000+09:00

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.

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

2007-07-27T15:09:00.000+09:00

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. “

Energy research can be trial and error

2007-07-26T15:07:00.000+09:00

By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune

Last update: July 21, 2007 – 3:47 PM

Thomas Edison discovered 2,000 ways not to make a light bulb before he found illumination. Xcel Energy Inc. is learning that ideas about renewable energy are subject to the same trial and error.

"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.

Nuclear waste led to program

While Xcel has yet to make public the details of pending applications, past grants have financed a variety of renewable energy projects.

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.

"It means we can keep a teacher," said Jim Lentz, school superintendent.

Sometimes bright ideas end in clear setbacks.

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.

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.

"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.

Ethanol is a solid step in state's energy future

2007-07-25T15:05:00.000+09:00

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.

Predicting the impact of suburbia

2007-07-24T15:03:00.000+09:00

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.”

Colorado Renewable Energy Mapping Task Force Members Named

2007-07-23T16:41:00.000+09:00

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.

Suddenly, solar's hot

2007-07-22T16:34:00.000+09:00

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.

Less climate-change hot air

2007-07-20T16:32:00.000+09:00

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.

Pursuit of biofuels bring new global security risks

2007-07-18T16:31:00.000+09:00

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.

Research focuses on renewable energy

2007-07-17T16:28:00.000+09:00

By Ben Sutherly
Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2007

Fuel cell research under way in Ohio might someday save farmers and food processors headaches in disposing of waste.

It might even help them make money by turning that waste into renewable energy — specifically electricity. And it could help dairy farmers cut odors from cow manure and improve relations with neighbors.

The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster received $1.5 million in state Third Frontier funding in 2005 for research into converting food-processing leftovers into renewable energy. And OARDC is receiving an unspecified amount of U.S. Department of Energy funding to find similar ways to convert manure into energy.

"You could come up with a very significant part of the energy needs of Ohio," said OARDC researcher Floyd Schanbacher.

Key to that research is a fuel cell developed by Cleveland-based Technology Management, Inc., Schanbacher said.

He said he's pleased so far with the fuel cell's reliability. While many fuel cells are finicky and must use highly refined hydrogen, Schanbacher said the TMI fuel cell can use fuels with sulfur contaminants — contaminants often present in food-processing and livestock waste.
"We think it's got a good prospect for success," he said.

Bobby Moser, dean of Ohio State University's college of food, agricultural and environmental sciences, said the technology could reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

TMI has about 20 full-time employees and has been developing fuel cell technology since 1990, said Benson Lee, TMI's president.

The fuel cell, which runs on hydrogen extracted from methane given off by animal waste or other decomposing organic matter, is relatively compact. Measuring 16 inches by 16 inches and 32 inches high, it weighs about 100 pounds, Lee said.

If enough fuel-cell systems are commercially produced, Lee anticipates the price per fuel-cell system could drop below $500 — making the systems affordable for dairy farmers and food processors, whose waste is expensive to dispose of.

"Small scale is where Ohio could be a world leader in the use of this technology," he said.

But significant hurdles remain. TMI's fuel cell technology so far has been tested only in laboratories. Lee hopes to raise $2 million to $3 million to engineer the fuel cells so they can run outside the lab for a long time. He said field testing won't begin for up to three years.

And there currently isn't a market for the fuel cells. Ohio's regulatory landscape traditionally hasn't provided much incentive for farmers and food processors to generate renewable energy, though the Public Utility Commission of Ohio is working to change that. As a result, Ohio lags in renewable-energy projects, Schanbacher said.

TMI has received more than $22 million in federal and state grants and contracts, according to Lee.

Coal-fired Huntly earns big black mark

2007-07-16T16:24:00.000+09:00

5:00AM Monday July 16, 2007
By Wayne Thompson

Greenpeace ranks Genesis Energy the worst contributor to climate change.
In its updated Clean Energy Guide, Greenpeace said the company earned the ranking because it owns the Huntly coal-fired power station, the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Susannah Bailey said yesterday Genesis Energy plans involved fossil fuels, for example, the 240-megawatt Rodney gas-fired station for which it will seek consent this year.

Contact had taken second ranking because it owned gas power stations which contributed to climate change.

Last year's guide placed Mighty River Power and its retail brand Mercury Energy as having policies and practices that were the least mindful of climate change.

"Mighty River and Mercury Energy have improved their ranking because they dropped their plans to recommission the Marsden B Power Station in Northland on coal," said Ms Bailey.

"Part of the reason they did so was because of consumer pressure from the 2005 Clean Energy Guide."

This year's guide also takes into account each company's energy efficiency programme and whether they encourage households to generate their own renewable electricity.
Ms Bailey said Meridian Energy remained the best supplier of clean electricity, because all its electricity was generated from renewable sources and it had made a commitment to use only renewable sources.

She said it had been encouraging to notice an overall shift in the attitudes of the electricity industry.

"New Zealanders' concern about climate change has reached an all- time high," she said. "People want to see the Government and industry taking action but they also want to take action themselves."

Genesis Energy spokesman Richard Gordon said the company was trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by moving into renewable energy projects - wind farms and a small hydro station at Tongariro.

It opened the EP3 gas-turbine station at Huntly last month, using technology that lowered emissions.

"We don't disagree with Greenpeace on the need to reduce emissions, we just disagree on how fast we can get Huntly coal-fired generation out of the market," said Mr Gordon.

Huntly was the country's biggest power station and its output could be gradually displaced in the next 13 to 15 years, with efficient gas generation and renewable energy sources.

Contact Energy spokesman Jonathan Hill said the company was disappointed with its ranking in view of its "industry leadership position" on climate change.

It had a $2 billion investment programme in renewable energy generation. It had also put on hold the Otahuhu C gas-fired plant in order to focus on renewable generation.

Weekend Review: Solar Energy, Saved By the Sun

2007-07-15T13:12:00.000+09:00

By Robin Schidlowski Jul 8, 2007

Solar Field: Represents the latest in solar technology। Artists rendition by Sandia National Laboratories

Is the solar energy revolution upon us? Solar Energy: Saved By the Sun, a PBS NOVA show first aired in Spring 2007, asks that question and presents a battery of solar related arguments। While light on science, the program provides a solid, basic understanding of the solar energy debate and a picture of where it is heading। After waiting 30 years for solar to be the “next big thing”, the recent spotlight on global warming has raised the country's collective concern about how our energy is produced. In the U.S. we use natural gas, nuclear, hydrogen, and coal power, and only 1% of all energy is created through sun or wind energy. Now, that balance is shifting as we are withdrawing our reliance on fossil fuels and other non-renewable sources of power.Solar is a $38 billion year industry and is growing rapidly. The film introduces viewers to several scenarios that show promise for its implementation at multiple scales, from residential and commercial to municipal and federal. It stops short of telling us what to do, instead providing enough information for a newbie to have a conversation about solar technology as well as a platform for further investigation. The DVD can be purchased online, or you can explore the website that accompanies the film free of charge. Some ideas from the film and reasons to think seriously about solar power:

Kramer Junction is a solar power generating plant that uses hyperbolic mirrors to heat oil, that boils water, to create steam, which turns turbines, to create energy for 150,000 homes in Los Angeles। Locating solar “farms” outside of cities, on rooftops, and in creative spaces, can equate to cities powered in large part by the sun.

Germany has created a system of solar subsidies and guarantees the purchase of consumer energy। The result is that 30% of the country is powered by the sun. Getting solar in the national politics has led to a healthy solar manufacturing industry and the debunking of the idea that solar isn't feasible if it isn't always sunny. It isn't, especially not in Germany, but the sun still provides a significant amount of the national energy and this equates to a huge savings in fossil fuel usage and carbon emissions.

Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute is convinced that solar can serve his energy needs, and then some। In his Denver home he has built a solarium that yields bananas, papaya, passion fruit, loquats, grapes, and tomatoes. He captures sunlight, heat, and hot water, creating an indoor tropical micro-climate. He is not trying to defeat nature he is letting solar design work for him.

Technology such as solar film, electron conducting solar paint, and multi-junction solar panels will equate to higher efficiency and less expensive sun energy. As our collective conscience shifts toward less polluting lifestyles, our governments are beginning to subsidize the development of solar technology, just as they have with nuclear energy for half a century. Take advantage of the subsidies in your state, and take part in the solar revolution.

Alternate fuel sources

2007-07-08T22:25:00.000+09:00

Solar energy best for future

Our society will slowly shift from the non-renewable energy sources of oil and gas for heating and cooling to a renewable energy source — solar.

Nuclear is burdensome on future generations. Wind and water are geographically specific. Coal and oil are non-renewable and a major source of the greenhouse effect. Gas, which is cleaner burning, nevertheless is finite and also a contributor to the greenhouse effect. I have two proposals.

First is to use half the roof-area of apartment buildings for solar collection to turn that source into electricity. Housing complexes for senior citizens and the disabled will be much more prevalent in the future due to the "baby boom" generation. Funding for heating and cooling costs is partially picked up by government subsidies. The initial cost of the proposal could be partially funded by the government, private organizations the energy industry, private contributing individuals and corporations.

My second proposal is more to the amenability of these apartment complexes, specifically, the planting area around the ground floor apartments. This requires clean working gutters.

For older folks and the disabled, the propagation of plants is both healthy physically, mentally and socially. What is needed is available planting area, decent soil, plant material, fertilizer and water.

All can be supplied by residents except water. Rainwater is the best. Use half these massive roof areas for rainwater collection. Each building would have a collection point. They already have gutter systems and as of June 2007, they need new roofs.

Think of our older generation. Gardens have traditionally been areas for contemplation, reflection and peace. The development of a small environment propagates pride and increases the property value.

This might seem like a frivolous suggestion, it has a real value for residents and visitors alike. We must begin to think of the future.

CUBA: Sugarcane - Source of Renewable Energy, But Not Ethanol

2007-07-03T21:15:00.000+09:00

By Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Jun 1 (IPS) - Like other Latin American countries, Cuba is focusing on the development of renewable energy sources. But unlike Brazil, a leader in biofuels, this Caribbean island nation has ruled out the production of ethanol fuel based on sugarcane, because of President Fidel Castro's opposition to using food crops to produce biofuel on a large scale.

Cuban researchers continue to see the sugar industry, for decades the motor of the Cuban economy, as a strategic sector capable of producing food products for human and animal consumption, generating electricity from bagasse -- the fibrous by-product of sugar extraction from cane stalks -- or producing alcohol and even pharmaceutical products.

When the sugarcane industry was at its height, producing harvests of up to eight million tons, it generated around 10 percent of the electrical power produced in Cuba. But with the drop in production seen over the past decade, the proportion of electricity that it produces shrank from 10 to 5.6 percent, between 1990 and 2002.

In 2002, the sugar industry underwent a major restructuring that involved the closure of half of the country's 156 sugar mills, in order to bring production levels into line with international prices, which had dropped at that time to around six cents a pound. "The first source of renewable energy remains sugarcane biomass, and if the strategy for the future is to produce energy in a decentralised manner and with diversified sources, this should be one of them," Cuban expert Julio Torres commented to IPS.

A large part of the mills that survived the restructuring and remain active upgraded their installations in order to generate their own energy supplies, although they do not yet produce a surplus to sell to the national grid. "Investment must be made in technological changes to make the electricity generating industry more efficient," said Torres. "The problem does not lie in the number of mills that are working, but in the quality of the mills." "Sugarcane biomass could be the start of the road towards sustainable energy production for our country," he added.

The expert said there are plans to increase sugarcane production, but argued that researchers "must begin studying the best way to deal with the problems posed by climate change, which has a major impact on agriculture." This year, unseasonal rains hindered the sugar harvest, which ended in mid-May with an output no higher than last year's poor showing: 1.2 million tons, according to preliminary estimates.

The cost per kilowatt of burning biomass is four times lower than that of burning fossil fuels. In addition, biomass is a cleaner source of energy that does not release into the environment heavy metals and other toxic substances. Although the residues produced by the alcohol industry do pollute the environment, there is technology that allows such waste to be used in the production of biogas, which would replace the fuel oil used in the distillery itself. Biogas is produced by the anaerobic digestion or fermentation of organic matter. It is a low-cost, renewable biofuel that can be used for cooking or generating electricity.

At the same time, the process generates a subproduct that can be used as fertiliser or as feed for fish or birds. "Biogas has several uses, but the most important aspect is its impact on reducing the pollution produced by the country's sugar and coffee factories," Luis Bérriz, president of Cubasolar, the Society for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources and Respect for the Environment, told IPS. In his view, what is needed is "greater development of this source of alternative energy in the country," which already uses hydroelectricity and solar power and is also interested in harnessing wind power.

A year ago, sugar industry officials announced during an international conference in Havana an ambitious programme to expand the alcohol industry, including the modernisation of 11 distilleries and the installation of seven new ones, which would make use of the waste products by means of different solutions.

The project was aimed at increasing the production of alcohol, including dehydrated alcohol to be mixed with gasoline on the domestic market and for export, Luis Gálvez, director of the governmental Cuban Institute of Research on Sugarcane Derivatives, told IPS at the time. But the industry has ruled out its plans to produce ethanol fuel -- an issue on which the convalescent Castro has launched a heated debate, in which he focuses on the danger posed to food security by using food crops to produce biofuels on a large scale.

In a congress on renewable energy last week, Conrado Moreno, a member of Cuba's Academy of Sciences, said the upgrading of 11 distilleries would allow an increase in alcohol output -- mainly for use in producing rum and pharmaceutical products -- to 150 million litres a year. "That ethanol will not go towards the production of fuel," said Moreno, who added that "There has never been large-scale production in Cuba" of ethanol for fuel.

The Cuban government signed an agreement with Venezuela in February for the construction of 11 plants to produce ethanol and the expansion of sugarcane cultivation towards that end in that South American country.

As Alí Rodríguez, Venezuela's ambassador to Cuba, later explained, the fuel will cover already existing demand in Venezuela, by providing the 15 percent ethanol in gasoline exports and by replacing the leaded gasoline that is no longer produced in the country.

Wind company invests in Welsh solar venture

2007-07-02T13:08:00.000+09:00

Jun 30 2007
by Sion Barry, Western Mail

ONE of the world’s leading wind energy businesses has invested in a South Wales solar electricity systems venture.
Taffs Well solar photovoltaic specialist, Energy Equipment Testing Service, has received a significant equity investment from Renewable Energy Systems Group.
EETS, through its subsidiary, PV Systems, is a major manufacturer and supplier of building-integrated commercial and domestic solar electricity systems in the UK, with more than 800 installations to date.
It has a client list that includes blue chip multinationals, government, construction and domestic clients.
RES’s parent company, Sir Robert McAlpine, is a leading player in the construction industry and keen to meet the demand for low-carbon energy solutions from its clients.
Story continues
ADVERTISEMENT

Bruce Cross, managing director and founder of PV Systems, said, “Solar electricity has the potential to provide power for every new building. The UK industry is predicted to follow the same expansion as in Germany, where it has grown one hundredfold in five years.

“Having been in the industry for 25 years, we have the R&D capability, the manufacturing capacity, and the design and installation experience to provide the solutions required for this fast growing market. We look forward to working with RES and expanding our capacity.”

Gerallt Jones of law firm Hugh James said, “We are delighted to have advised EETS on this important deal, which will add the considerable experience and contacts of RES and Sir Robert McAlpine to the expertise built up by EETS over the ten years since the company was spun out from Cardiff University.”

Does wind power blow?

2007-07-01T23:30:00.000+09:00

Alternate energy sources like wind and solar can't possibly meet our needs. But is nuclear energy the answer?

The answer to Canada's energy needs might be found blowing in the wind or in controversial nuclear technology -- or a combination of both. Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein, a proponent of nuclear energy, and national comment editor Paul Berton, who says Canada is lagging in development of alternate sources of power, recently engaged in an energetic debate.

GOLDSTEIN: It's nice to pretend that we'll be able to meet Canada's future energy needs via windmills, solar power and the like, but it's a pipe dream. Surely, you understand that?
BERTON: Only one thing is for sure: we cannot meet Canada's future energy needs with traditional methods alone.

GOLDSTEIN: What's certain is that if we try to rely too much on wind and solar power in the name of going green, we'll go broke in the dark. Renewables are absurdly expensive compared to fossil fuels. Plus, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so there are major concerns about availability and reliability as well.

BERTON: Last time I checked, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and they're dirty. Sun and wind are renewable, and clean. Compared to the various unforeseen, hidden or ignored costs of burning fossil fuels and creating nuclear energy, the price of wind and solar energy will look like a bargain in the future. Meanwhile, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the energy created can reduce our dependence on other sources.

GOLDSTEIN: Wait a minute. Are you serious about stopping global warming or not? If you are, then you should not be dismissing nuclear power, the only realistic form of energy we have that does not emit greenhouse gases. My authorities? Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and James Lovelock the grandfather of the world-wide green movement, who criticizes today's "Greens" for raising the alarm about climate change and then hypocritically campaigning against the peaceful use of nuclear power.

BERTON: I'm not dismissing nuclear power. I'm saying if we do more to encourage wind and solar energy we won't need as much of it.

GOLDSTEIN: Fair point, but the Greens can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand argue we are facing catastrophic, irreversible climate change within the next few decades and then dismiss, as they do, nuclear power. If we rely solely or excessively on wind, solar and tidal power along with biomass and geothermal, which are all decades away from practical, mainstream use, it will end very badly. I'm not against developing renewable power. I'm saying we have to be realistic about what it can do.

BERTON: I'm not sure the term excessive can ever apply here. Canada has a big wind resource, and we're not using it. We're way behind the Europeans, the United States, India and China in terms of the energy we produce.

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's biggest wind resource is the House of Commons, whenever the braying jackasses in it start yelling at each other about global warming. And China? You seriously think China has any lessons to teach Canada about how not to pollute? China is building 562 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel energy there is. The only thing windmills in China will do is blow the smog around.

BERTON: Oh please. Spare me the theatrics. It's up to us to lead the way and show others how it can be done. Even if it costs more money now, it will save money down the road. It's just simple common sense.

GOLDSTEIN: Theatrics? You mean like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth? The reality is that throwing money indiscriminately at renewable energy resources -- especially wind power by the way, since the serious investment after nuclear should go into solar (read Lovelock) is a huge mistake. Canadian politicians, of all parties, are trying to fool the public into thinking the "boutique" little renewable energy projects they're trotting out right now are a painless solution to smog and climate change. They're not.

BERTON: You call it indiscriminate money throwing; I call it investment. Wind energy was worth over $25 billion worldwide in 2005. And the industry is doubling in size every three years. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Yes, solar and wind development will cost taxpayers' money, but it will pay off economically and environmentally, and it will create lots of jobs.

GOLDSTEIN: Why can't you take "yes" for an answer? I'm not saying there should be no public investment in renewables. Tell you what, let's take all the tax money our government now gives to oil companies to find oil -- like they're not already making enough profit -- and use it to fund Canadian research into renewable energy. We can debate which renewables later. Presto! We create high-value R&D jobs in Canada and develop new clean technologies to sell abroad, while reducing our own greenhouse gas emission targets back home. Happy? Just don't pretend we can scrap our nuclear plants or stop building new ones.

BERTON: Unfortunately not, but the fact is we're not working fast enough to harness the wind and the sun. You almost sound like a politician with this "fund Canadian research into renewable energy" business. What government needs to do more of is help speed up the process for wind (or sun) developers, increase subsidies and legislate demand for it.

GOLDSTEIN: Am I in the Twilight Zone here? If you stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and direct that funding to renewable energy research, you ARE "speeding up the process" plus increasing public subsidies for research. What our politicians are doing instead -- like Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario -- is committing us to pay outrageous energy prices for "boutique" renewable projects that aren't anywhere near ready for mass use, just so they can announce they're "doing something." As for "legislating demand," yikes! Remember the former Soviet Union's "five-year plans for the production of tin?" How well did that turn out?

BERTON: Ah, nothing like invoking the memory of the evil Soviet Union to bolster an argument. Fine, we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. But "outrageous energy prices" may be a good thing (if all the hidden costs for nuclear and fossil fuels are factored in) in terms of both conservation and research and development.

GOLDSTEIN: Actually, that would be telling people the truth. For all the nice, comforting, politically correct green/bafflegab talk about solar panels, windmills, hybrid cars and florescent light bulbs, the only way to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is to charge outrageous prices for fossil fuels. That's the real discussion we haven't even started yet. If you seriously want to reduce greenhouse gases, windmills aren't going to do it for you -- $5 a litre gas will. That's the inconvenient truth our politicians won't talk about. Don't say you weren't warned.

BERTON: Now we're talking.

NGO in Bacolod wins int'l award for pioneering renewable energy

2007-06-25T16:30:00.000+09:00

BY CHRYSEE SAMILLANO

Technology perfected in Negros Occidental that has brought clean water to 15,000 people in 68 remote hillside villages in the Philippines, and is being replicated in other parts of the world, has won a local foundation an international green energy award to be presented by former US Vice President Al Gore on June 21.

The Alternative Indigenous Development Foundation Inc. based in Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod City, is one of 10 renewable energy pioneers from across the globe who have qualified for the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy and who have won 10,000 pounds each, Aladino Moraca, AIDFI executive director, told the DAILY STAR yesterday.

The AIDFI will compete with the nine other groups from Bangladesh, China, Ghana, India, Laos, Nepal, Peru and Tanzania for five top awards that will earn the winners an additional 30,000 pounds each to help project expansion and replication in other communities, he said.

The AIDFI hopes to use its price money to replicate its award winning ram pump technology in Laos, Indonesia and Thailand, Moraca said.

Gore, who will present the prizes at the Ashden Awards ceremony held at the Royal Geographical Society in London on June 21, said, "The Ashden Awards are a powerful reminder that well designed and managed local sustainable energy initiatives can tackle climate change while meeting the needs of local communities. Tackling these issues simultaneously - in both rich and poor countries - is critical to addressing the twin planetary challenges of climate change and sustainable development."

AIDFI has been selected as one of the world's 10 renewable energy pioneers for its specially designed ram pumps, Moraca said.

'NO ELECTRICITY NEEDED'

Ram pump technology was developed 300 years ago but AIDFI has enhanced the technology using cheap locally available materials, such as door hinges, that allows the transfer of water up to 200 meters, he said.

Our installations have no operation cost since they have no need for electricity or fuel, they work on a 24-hour basis, last long and part replacement is cheap, he said.

Many people living in hillsides do not have easy access to fresh water and have to make difficult journeys down steep slopes to collect what they require for their basic needs from rivers and springs, said Auke Idzenga, a Dutch development worker who has lived in the Philippines for 16 years and heads the AIDFI's Appropriate Technology Department, said.

Lack of water leads to poor hygiene and sanitation and limits agricultural activities, he said in his presentation before the Ashden Awards screening committee.

With AIDFI's ram pumps remote villages now have ample water supply, around 200 to 1,000 litres/day for each household, which is used for washing, sanitation and irrigating crops.

IT'S SUSTAINABLE

By developing a new and improved ram pump design and involving communities in installation and maintenance, AIDFI has avoided the pitfalls that other ram pump projects encountered which made them ultimately unsustainable, Idzenga said.

With the support of the community, AIDFI pumps can last at least 20 years. The success of the scheme has also changed the mindset of local people who now see renewable energy as the best option for them, he said.

There is a huge need for this type of technology in areas where there is no immediate access to clean running water, he said.

Our ram pumps can use the power of water flowing in the rivers to lift a small fraction of water over 100 meters vertically and sometimes pump it over a kilometer where it is needed, he said.
Government bodies, NGOs, and development agencies pay for the installations but local people are trained as technicians to maintain the pumps and villagers pay for the maintenance themselves, he said.

"When a ram pump is installed, the local people benefit from having sufficient water for personal hygiene, sanitation and washing clothes rather than just enough for eating and drinking," Idzenga said.

They also have a surplus for growing more food that can significantly increase their income, he said.

For many people, the most important benefit of the ram pump is having adequate safe water supply for the first time, Idzenga said.

SHARED DREAMS

Leonidas Baterna, a committed Negrense union organizer since the 70s, had shared his ideas and dreams for an integral and liberating development with Idzenga, Moraca said.

In 1991 the two together with several development workers with grassroots work experience founded AIDFI to develop technology systems that exists in harmony with nature and provide sustainable development for the poor, Moraca said.

It was registered as an NGO in 1992 and now employs 21 people.

Aside from ram pumps, AIDFI has been working to provide poor communities with micro-hydro for battery charging, biogas plants, hand and foot pumps, solar water heating and micro wind power.

Moraca said that, so far, their ram pumps have also been introduced to training centers in Japan and Malaysia and to a refugee camp in Thailand.

SERVING NEGROS

In Negros Occidental their ramp pumps are now serving 47 villages, he said.
In Sitio Bagacay, Barangay Inapoy, Kabankalan City, villagers for years had to walk a kilometer down a steep area to a spring for their daily water needs until June 2006 when AIDFI technology came to their village.

Today two ram pumps deliver 28,000 liters of drinking water a day from the spring to the center Sitio Bagacay for the 100 households in the area, Moraca said.

In Barangay Maquiling, Sagay City, the village had to pay for the running of an electric driven pump to bring water to homes from a distant spring.

Today with their ram pump they do not have to pay for electricity to bring 11,000 liters of drinking water a day to 120 households, he said.

In Sitio Tara, Barangay Carabalan, Himamaylan, meanwhile, six ram pumps draw water from a river to irrigate about 30 hectares of rice and vegetables and feed the livestock of 40 small farmers, Moraca said.

WIDER AWARENESS

Moraca said that, more than the prize money they won that will enable them to bring their technology to more villages, they are hoping that the recognition will bring wider awareness of what they are doing.

When we first introduced our ram pumps people would not believe that the technology worked until they saw it in the villages where they had been installed, he said.

It was like shouting in the desert. With the international recognition given to AIDFI, we hope it will spur more local governments and groups to use our green technology to help more rural villages, he said.*CPG

Why Recycled Paper Just Isn't Good Enough

2007-06-24T19:00:00.000+09:00

Source: Darcy Hitchcock, GreenBiz

Darcy Hitchcock is the co-founder of Axis Performance Advisors, a consulting firm that helps organizations find responsible solutions that the needs of owners, employees, customers, the community and the environment.

Here, she talks with Tom Pollock, the project manager for the Paper Working Group and the EPAT projects at Metafore, a source of tools, information and innovative thinking for businesspeople focused on evaluating, selecting and manufacturing environmentally preferable products.

Darcy Hitchcock: When people buy paper products, everything from copy paper to toilet paper, they're focused on recycled content as a measure of good environmental performance. The more sophisticated buyers have also looked at the bleaching process. Why is this not adequate if a company wants to "do the right thing"? Tom Pollock: To get a true measure of environmental performance you have to look at the life-cycle of a product. Considering just a few criteria doesn't make it possible to do that. With paper products, this means understanding environmental performance at the forest level, mill level, how it gets to the consumer, etc. Recycled content is important -- but it is not the whole picture. For example, climate change is a big issue and choosing a recycled product does not address climate change. CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have to be taken into account. What is happening at the paper mill and what type of energy is used to make a paper product can be as important as what the product consists of in terms of environmental performance.

DH: Do you have examples of when increasing the recycled content would have been the less-sustainable option?

TP: One example would be buying a recycled paper product made at a paper mill overseas. In the U.S., over 30 percent of recovered paper from your blue bins is being bought by manufacturers and shipped overseas to countries like China. These mills may be modern, but if the energy to run these mills comes from burning dirty coal, that has serious implications. These mills aren't regulated like paper mills in North America. So, there are situations where buying recycled paper could have a bigger environmental impact than buying paper from a local supplier that doesn't offer recycled content. As in any important choice -- you have to consider the trade-offs.

DH: What about shipping weight. If a magazine publisher chose a lighter weight paper instead of more recycled content, they could save a lot of CO2 from shipping the magazines. That would factor too, wouldn't it?

TP: Definitely. Lighter basis weight papers are a very smart way to go because it uses fiber more efficiently, in storage and well as transportation costs.

DH: How does it save storage space? Does it really make a difference in my file cabinet?

TP: I’d say more at the industrial level. When companies buy paper by the ton a lower basis weight means a smaller paper roll, which requires less space on the shop floor, or on the semi truck. That translates into energy savings because the magazines or newspapers are lighter and require fewer resources to transport and store. But again, looking at one metric like transportation is important but not the whole story. Time Magazine recently published a study where they found that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions came at the paper mill level. Also, forest management and certification are important issues, but when it comes to carbon emissions it’s not a significant factor.

DH: OK, so if recycled content isn’t enough, what other factors should buyers be considering and why do they matter?

TP: At Metafore we talk about environmental performance in terms of desired outcomes. A project we’re engaged in now, called the Paper Working Group, has a definition for environmentally preferable paper based on seven desired outcomes a company should consider in their purchasing decisions:

DH: That’s at quite a high level still. Can you tell me more about what specific environmental impacts I should be considering?

TP: To measure progress toward these outcomes, you can use certain measurable indicators. For example, efficient use and conservation of raw materials takes into account fiber efficiency, water use and energy use, as well as recycled content. Conservation of natural systems takes into account the percent of fiber that’s traceable back to the source and whether it’s certified as sustainable. (See the sidebar for the complete set of metrics.)

DH: I would think that different paper processes would yield quite different amounts of toxic chemicals too, right?

TP: Yes, definitely. And where that paper is manufactured has a big impact as well. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest we use a lot of hydropower. In other parts of North America and countries all over the world, they may use more coal or other non-renewable energy sources. And even beyond CO2, you have to look at SO2, solid waste, dioxin, mercury, and so forth.

DH: Good grief. How is a purchaser supposed to make sense of all this?

TP: The first step is to take a holistic view of the products you’re purchasing and look at the life-cycle to be sure that your environmental values are being reflected in your purchasing decisions. Just picking a recycled paper won’t do that for you.

Metafore recommends that you begin by having this conversation internally at your company, and then communicating it effectively in the marketplace. There are also tools that companies can use to measure progress toward their environmental goals in conjunction with their paper supplier -- such as the Environmental Paper Assessment Tool -- EPAT. The EPAT was designed by the Paper Working Group, a project of Metafore. The EPAT works as a web-based, data-driven assessment tool that allows purchasers to establish their own priorities and then evaluate multiple paper products from different mills. Then the buyer can choose the paper that best meets their values, or at the very least, have a conversation about environmental performance with their supplier. The EPAT provides a framework to have that conversation with their supplier and also helps them make a more informed purchasing decision.

DH: With the EPAT, you let the buyers determine what’s most important to them. Isn’t there a right answer here? Why not just give people the relative priorities so they don’t have to figure it out for themselves?

TP: That’s a great question. The EPAT is not a prescriptive tool. It allows a buyer to assign weights to the environmental indicators to reflect their own environmental objectives. Different paper products, be it coffee cups or magazines, have different trade-offs to consider. So to apply a one-size-fits-all value judgment won’t be serving the purpose.

DH: Are there other considerations that people often overlook that you’d like to mention?

TP: Knowing where paper comes from is one. At the paper mill, that includes the pulp supply used to make the paper. This is where certification and traceability comes in. In the past, we didn’t have the systems in place to trace pulp—it was much more complicated than 2x4s— but now we can. Now you can choose paper that comes from a well-managed forest. Again, I think a good strategy is to always consider the source.

DH: OK, but now that you’re not using one indicator—recycled content—you now have many different criteria. You have to make trade-offs, right? What if one paper has a good CO2 rating but a low traceability profile?

TP: That happens in almost every paper purchasing decision. There are always trade-offs. Choosing a particular paper with high recycled content might mean settling for not so clean production. Certification might mean more transportation. So it’s important for buyers to weigh these factors to make an informed decision based on their own environmental values.

DH: I can see how your EPAT might be a great tool for major paper purchasers. But what is the small business owner who just runs down to the office supply store?

TP: Even if you don’t have a relationship with individual paper mills, the process of setting weights to the EPAT indicators and understanding the full range of environmental trade-offs will help communicate your environmental goals and make informed decisions. That could be at the office supply store, as you mention, or your printer or local copy shop.

DH: So what do people who usually just buy paper through an office products retailer do? Are there office products retailers that are integrating this thinking and making this information available to their customers?

TP: Staples (a Paper Working Group participant) has displayed a very strong commitment to the environment and was involved in the development of the EPAT as well. My advice for people who buy their paper through retailers is to choose a company that shares your concerns and values and is transparent in doing so. Staples is one clear leadership company in making environmentally preferable paper available to its customers. If you have a print job go to FedExKinko’s -- another. When we do big print jobs we do it ourselves because Kinko’s is committed to these issues and offer recycled as well as environmentally friendly. The trick is when a company claims to be "green." Is it a just a claim from their marketing department, or do they have evidence to back it up that tools like the EPAT provide?

DH: Thanks, Tom. This is very enlightening. It's a great example of how we've become more sophisticated in our understanding of what sustainability means.

Wind power runs into zoning rules

2007-05-31T16:05:00.000+09:00

By PAUL J. WEBER - Associated Press Writer

MELISSA, Texas --An orange flag marks where Gary Lisle planned to put up a 33-foot windmill behind his house. But that's about as far as his green idea got in this Dallas suburb.

Denied a building permit in March, Lisle joined the growing ranks of frustrated homeowners across the U.S. whose hopes of harvesting wind energy in their backyards have been dashed.
Some communities have outlawed residential turbines. Others entangle applicants in so much red tape that they simply give up.

"The fact is, we're dealing with ignorance," said Lisle, whose turbine would resemble a big pinwheel with three small blades spinning atop a flagpole.

Standoffs between cities and green-minded homeowners are becoming more common as interest grows in residential turbines. Backyard windmills are already an $18 million-a-year industry in the U.S., and manufacturers think that could triple if wind got the same local acceptance and federal incentives as solar energy systems, which typically involve nothing more intrusive than panels on the roof.

Zoning boards and neighborhood associations have heard complaints that the windmills would be unsightly, that the blades could break loose and fly into someone's yard, that a twister could knock a pole down or send it flying like a missile, or that the spinning blades would make too much noise. (Unlike big industrial wind turbines, the backyard varieties are barely audible.)
"Planning and zoning are the single biggest obstacle to wind energy in the United States," said Roy Butler, owner of Four Winds Renewable Energy in western New York, who often consults with local governments faced with turbine permit requests.

Local officials insist they are not environmentally close-minded; they are just following the rules and taking into account their constituents' concerns.

In Melissa, a community of 5,000 people squarely in sight of suburban strip malls and encroaching cookie-cutter subdivisions, Mayor David Dorman said he embraces green thinking. And in neighboring McKinney, Wal-Mart built its nationally lauded "green" store that includes a 120-foot turbine spinning above the entrance.

But Dorman said the city code does not provide for residential turbines, an omission not uncommon outside energy-progressive places like California.

Dorman also said it might be unfair to allow some people to have a technology that is not available to others who do not have the money or the yard space. So rather than grant variances to individual homeowners for windmills, he would like to see eco-minded neighborhoods designed from the ground up.

"If a developer came in tomorrow and said we have an idea for a green subdivision, I'd be all for it," Dorman said.

Residential windmills start as low as about $12,000, and industry officials say one can cut household bills anywhere from 10 percent to 50 percent, depending on the wind and the height of the tower.

Southern California's well-to-do Bear Valley Springs community also forbids windmills, even though most of its 9,000 residents probably have the large yards and the money needed to join the estimated 2,000 residential turbine owners nationwide.

Michael Bennett, general manager of the Bear Valley Springs homeowner association, said the community's environmental board just recently began drafting rules that would enable the community to catch up to the rest of the state.

"The No. 1 concern has been visual blight," Bennett said, "and No. 2, the noise level."

Rhode Island Renewable Energy owner Dave Anderson said promoting turbines in some wind-fertile areas can be almost futile, since neighbors there "want to be green, and they think it's a great idea and, you know, we've got to do something about the Middle East. But 'Just don't do it in my backyard.'"

"There's a lot of people who don't want to go through the hassle of fighting town hall," Anderson said. "They say, 'We're not going to fight that fight.

ADB And The Case Of Phulbari Coal Project

2007-05-30T16:37:00.000+09:00

By Anu Muhammad
19 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org

On March 9 2007 Washington Post reported, 'The Bush administration has objected to a proposed open-pit coal mine in Canada near the Montana border, citing the potential for irreversible environmental damage to Glacier National Park, pristine trout streams and the largest natural lake in the West. ....About 25 miles north of the border, the Cline Mining Corporation of Canada wants to lop off the top of a mountain and over the next 20 years haul away 40 million tons of coal -- in a drainage that forms the headwaters of the North Fork of the Flathead River.....The North Fork of the Flathead, which the federal government says would quickly be contaminated with heavy metals and other mining pollutants, forms the western boundary of Glacier Park. It then flows south into Flathead Lake, often described as the largest pristine lake in the nation and a major recreation site.'

While the US administration obstructed Canadian open pit mining in a mountain area because of 'potential for irreversible environmental damage to Park and natural lake about 25 miles north of the border', US backed institutions and agencies are pushing Bangladesh Government to go ahead with open pit mining in a densely populated and agricultural land area against experts opinion and strong public opinion.

ADB push for Phulbari Project

At a press conference on March 27, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country director in Bangladesh, Hua Du, expressed the ADB's eagerness for the quick decisions in favour of big Indian corporate giant Tata's proposals related with gas and coal, and the British based company Asia Energy's (AEC) Phulbari Coal Project (PCP). Both are for open pit mining.

'Business is business', she said categorically (Holiday, April 1, 2007).

It is important to note that about 70,000 people were gathered in Phulbari on 26 August 2006 to protest against the proposed open pit mining project. Law enforcers opened fire on them as they were returning home from the protest rally. Three persons were killed and hundreds wounded. Twenty of the wounded people were rendered permanent suffering, one is still in hospital with permanent disability. The action of the law enforcers, however, could not kill off the protest. More people took to the streets in a mass uprising. After days of relentless protest, participated by Bangalee, Adivasi (indigenous), women, men, senior and children, the government relented and entered into an agreement with the protestors represented by National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas Mineral resources, Port and Power.

That historic social contract clearly stated, among others,

1. 'Phulbari coal project will be scrapped and Asia energy will leave the country.'
2. 'No open pit mining will be allowed anywhere in the country'.

3. 'Steps will be taken for development and utilization of coal only after proper consultation with the people keeping national interest intact'.

Meanwhile, a committee of experts, formed by the government, submitted its report in which it observed that the Phulbari project should be cancelled in environmental, economic and legal grounds. However, as Hua Du's statement suggests, nothing can change the bank's mindset.

Why is the bank so enthusiastic to back Asia Energy on the one hand and remain indifferent to experts' opinion about, and the local peoples clear NO to, the project on the other? Why is profit for a company preferable to agencies like ADB even if it costs peoples lives, livelihood and environmental disaster although their written commitments say otherwise?

ADB for Projects of Mass Destruction

In order to ensure energy security for a country like Bangladesh and to find the best possible path to explore natural resources we need to keep in mind that oil, gas and coal are non-renewable resources, cannot be reproduced; that these resources are limited, while domestic demand is growing; that global uncertainty and conflicts on oil, gas and coal mark insecurity for the weak countries; and that energy price is rising and has become unpredictable.

To ensure best possible utilization of energy resources in present and future, every steps concerning exploration, production and utilization of these resources should be transparent. The contracts patronized by the ADB or the World Bank or the IMF have always been secretive. To ensure energy security, the sector should be organized with an objective to fulfill energy demand (present and future) of people and the productive sectors; the peoples ownership and authority over their own resources must be ensured; and development of national institutions and capability must get the highest priority.

However, main features of government policies derived from the ADB and the World Bank support to date are:

There has never been any attempt so far to have comprehensive energy policy and related steps that is consistent with national interest and energy security of the people.

Non-renewable resources have always been considered as something tradable.

Privatization and commercialization of gas, coal and oil has been on the top priority.

Global agencies systematically worked to grab the resources in favour of global corporate. Foreign - aided development projects were utilized to formulate policies in this regard. The energy sector study project of 1982, the energy regulatory commission in 1993, the gas sector master plan and the coal policy in 2006 are some of the examples where World bank, Asian Development Bank were involved.
Dismantling of national agencies, undermining national capabilities, ignoring national needs in short and long term have been common. In fact, global capital is in confrontation with people all over the world, among others, on three issues:

whether people and the country should own and have authority over their own lives and natural resources or global corporates should be allowed to take over; whether natural resources should be used or preserved for the maximum utilization for the development of the country or to be extracted in a big way to maximize profit of foreign big companies; and whether resources will remain common property or turned into private property of corporates.

People in general and Phulbari in particular and many experts opine in favour of utilizing resources as common property, for badly needed development; not to be plundered or wasted or make disaster.

Phulbari Coal Project: Why people and experts oppose? The Phulbari coalfield was the latest discovery among the big four coalfields found in Bangladesh since independence. In 1994 the then government signed agreement with the BHP of Australia. In 1998, BHP transferred its right to one year old British- Australian company Asia Energy.

Asia Energy was preparing itself for open-pit mining. It said in its documents, 'Mining by the open cut method is new to Bangladesh, but it is a proven and highly productive and safe method in similar geological and hydrological conditions in other parts of the world such as Australia, India, Indonesia and Germany.' It goes without saying that projecting such a sweeping comparative statement as expert opinion is ill motivated. Leaving aside other criteria, the population and water aspect in Phulbari is entirely different from the reality in other countries like Australia or Germany even India or Indonesia.

The AEC further stated in defense of open-pit mining: 'Adoption of this method will permit the fullest extraction of coal resources, and will augment duration of the mining period and thus enhance socio-economic opportunity, income prospects and gains for the Bangladesh economy.' It was not made clear who would bear the cost and who would be the beneficiaries of this 'fullest extraction'! We know the beneficiaries are company and allies while losers are the people and the country.

Key points of the Project are:

The latest figure for the extractable quantity of coal in Phulbari is 572 million tonnes. Besides coal, the mine contains high-grade silica (sand), ceramic clay, Madhupur clay and gravels and rocks of high quality.
· The coalfield will extend over 135 square kilometres. Again, the area, which can be affected directly or indirectly during the mining operation including de-watering, will be nearly 656 square kilometres.
· This area is very fertile, paddy output is high, and nearly all the land yields three crops per year!

· The business activities in the non-agricultural sector are also expanding fast.
· The density of population is very high, 4245 per square kilometres.

The company says, as the mine advances during the first 5 to 10 years, between 15,000 and 20,000 people will have to be resettled, and over the 30-year life of the mine, the total number of people resettled could be 50,000. According to the local sources, the affected number of people may go beyond 2,00,000!

· Because of the coal-mining operations, the production activities of the entire area in agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry will be totally destroyed and will remain unproductive for an indefinite period! The products here include aman, aus, IRRI and Boro varieties of rice, wheat, mustard, potato, corn, banana, sugarcane, jute, chilli, garlic, onion, vegetables of all varieties, and numerous fruit-bearing and timber trees.

· There are also rivers and canals, beels, and fish farms numbering over a thousand, and farms that rear ducks, hens and cattle, etc. Besides, there are many shops, and business and commercial houses. Economic activities in the entire area will come to an end.

· Desertification will ruin lives and livelihoods in greater area beyond mine site.

· Water contamination in the mining area may affect total water system of the country because of its network.

· Asia Energy stated that 'during the operation of the mine, 2,100 short-term and 1,100 long-term positions would be available for employment'. It has been deafeningly silent about the fact that livelihood of over 2,00,000 people will be destroyed by its operation.

· If we consider only coal in the mine, Asia Energy could make profit Taka 1,500 billion (more than US$ 200 billion) in thirty years.

· On the other hand, Bangladesh could receive, by way of 6 per cent royalty and taxes, $7 billion in 30 years. In this context, it should be noted that currently the export earning of Bangladesh has exceeded US$ 10 billion per year. Bangladeshis working abroad send foreign exchange remittances worth around US$ 5 billion per year.

Experts on soil sciences, water and geology further stated that, Asia Energy's mining process could dry up underground water aquifers over an area of roughly 324 square kilometres, with an ecological effect that is difficult to quantify in money terms.

· The company will install over 80 'dewatering tube-wells' in the mining area to pump water out of the mine in order to access the coal, which lies below it. Although Asia Energy proposes 'aquifer injection' systems to prevent a water level drawdown, the local ecology may be irreversible.

· Asia Energy has also proposed that the earth that will be dug up for the mine will be converted into a hill that is 14 square kilometres in area and 385 feet high, also featuring a lake that will cover 6 square kilometres. This huge land area will become irrecoverable for agriculture, causing further loss of livelihood, locally. (New Age, August 31, 2006)

Considering the adverse effect on production and economic activities, Bangladesh will suffer huge deficit for the project in addition to loss of coal resources and environment. Peoples suffering will be immense.

Problems, Flaws and Irregularities with the project:

There are many problems with the project, each of these goes against national and international legal, environmental and human rights preconditions. Expert committee pointed out some flaws and irregularities too. We may sum up different legal and other procedural problems with the project and deceptive activities by the company as follows:

1. The contract signed with the Asia energy shows royalty to be paid to the government of Bangladesh as 6 per cent of the production, although the original contract with BHP had been 20 per cent.

2. The coalfield was transferred from BHP to Asia Energy in 1998, but no gazette notification was served at the time.

3. Submission of development plan as the Phulbari project needed a deposit of 3 percent bank guarantee but no deposit was made.

4. According to Mines and minerals Rules 1968 (amended in 1987 and 1989), clause 41, only 400 hectares is allowed for open pit, but the Asia Energy project is for nearly 6000 hectares. The land allocated for the mine was more than 10 times than the existing law permits.

5. According to clause 43 of the above rules, leases can be made only for 10 years and extension can be made upon review but in Asia Energy's case, it is for 35 years.

6. According to international law, practices and convention, any development project requires consent of local people where the project is to be implemented. Asia Energy has made lies and false campaign on this claiming that people have consent on the project.

7. The company did not publish its plan and document to the people of the area and did not go for circulation. Only thing they circulated is a propaganda sheet hiding consequences but glorifying the project.

8. UN convention categorically stated that if any project area has indigenous inhabitants than it is mandatory to have full consent from them. The Phulbari project was in progress completely against the opinion of the indigenous people.

9. After obvious failure to convince people on the project Asia Energy was engaged in bribing people with cash and kind to become informer against agitating people, they also tried to terrorize people by hiring and organizing mastans and goons.

10. Long before getting the final work order Asia Energy started mobilizing capital from London AIM stock market. ` Some 48 million shares were floated in 2004, rocketing up to a price of 900 pence a share by March 2005, for a total market capitalization of over $800 million, six months before the Department of Environment of the Government of Bangladesh granted Environmental Clearance for mining on 11 September 2005. Asia Energy envisioned a $1.1bn (£578m) investment and was negotiating for backing from the Asian Development Bank and the US Ex-Im Bank.' (Analytical monthly review, October 15, 2006).

People or Corporate profit

Therefore, the Phulbari project is economically irrational, environmentally disastrous to a scale unprecedented in the country. It is also legally flawed, corrupt and deceptive. It is nothing but another project of mass destruction.

We must recall that in 1964 USAID funded a hydroelectric project in Chattagram, south east of Bangladesh, that evicted nearly one hundred thousand indigenous people. Most of them are still not resettled, not being compensated. Although that project generated some electricity, but permanent conflict created by the project still exacts a high toll on Bangladesh. Power generation is also now facing crisis. Meanwhile whole peaceful and beautiful landscape turned into an area of conflict, gave birth to insurgency, resulted militarization, caused regular casualties and drainage of public money. Distrust, violence, blood bath continues. USAID was successful project wise, generations in the country have been paying for their sin.

If we compare this with Phulbari coal project in gain loss, in environmental, peoples displacement and agricultural destruction, in desertification of huge area and as well as contamination of water system in the country, we find the later as much more disastrous in many ways. Nevertheless, the ADB is showing its determination to go with the project. If this can make a success Tata will come with another open pit for Barapukuria, the adjacent area.

People in Phulbari area showed their determination to protect their lives, resources and national interest. If anybody now goes ahead with the project, in effect, asks for genocide in different forms. Now Bangladesh government needs to clear its position, whether it has any concern for people, resource and environment of the country or it is reduced to servicing agency of global corporate bodies. People of the countries that dominate the ADB (Japan and the US) have to take a decision whether they want to see their money being utilized to invite genocide, mass destruction, environmental disaster just to satisfy vulgar greed of a company.

(The article is an abridged version of a paper presented at a symposium organized by Peoples Forum on ADB, Kyoto, Japan, May 5, 2007)

To Drink or To Drive

2007-05-24T15:08:00.000+09:00

by Paul R. Hollrah

May 01, 2007 01:44 PM EST

With each passing day, the push to substitute renewable energy sources for non-renewable sources, e.g. fossil fuels, begins more and more to resemble the global warming hysteria that recently won Al Gore an Academy Award. But before we all jump onto the most celebrated of renewable energy bandwagons, ethanol fuels, there are some basic things about ethanol that everyone should know.

So what is ethanol? Otherwise known as ethyl alcohol, or grain alcohol, ethanol is a slightly toxic, colorless, flammable liquid produced by fermentation. It is found in alcoholic beverages and is commonly referred to as alcohol.

Fermented beverages are usually classified by the foodstuff from which they are made. Beer is made from cereal grains and other starchy materials, while wines and ciders are made from fruit juices. Most beers contain from 3-5% ethanol; wines contain from 8-12% ethanol; while other fortified alcoholic beverages contain up to 25% ethanol, by volume.Distilled beverages, containing ethanol percentages up to 100% (pure grain alcohol) are made by distilling fermented beverages.

Categories of distilled beverages include whiskeys, distilled from fermented cereal grains; brandies, distilled from fermented fruit juices; and rum, distilled from fermented molasses or sugarcane. Vodka, made from fermented grain or potatoes, tequila, and other spirits, rarely have a taste associated with the starting material.

Moonshine, the most storied homemade ethanol, is made by fermenting a sugar source, usually corn, to produce ethanol and then separating the alcohol from the fermented mixture (the mash) through distillation: cooking the mash to produce ethanol vapors and then converting the vapors to liquid by cooling, as in a copper coil.

The downside to homemade ethanol is that methanol, and other highly toxic alcohols, can occur naturally in distilled spirits, resulting in the potential for death or blindness when consumed.

Home distillation of ethanol for commercial resale is still illegal in the United States, although the fermentation of beer and wine was legalized in 1978. Nevertheless, home distillation of ethanol is growing in popularity, with instructions, materials, and support available on the Internet.

However, the largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel or fuel additive. As the Wikipedia Encyclopedia notes, “As early as prohibition, there have been stories of moonshiners using their product as a powerful fuel in their automobiles… The sport of stock car racing got its start when moonshiners would modify their automobiles to outrun federal government revenue agents.”

Today, the world’s largest ethanol production industry is in Brazil, where a major automotive innovation has been the flex fuel engine… capable of running on pure ethanol, all gasoline, or any combination of both, depending on relative price fluctuations in gasoline and ethanol.

Brazil’s success in ethanol conversion was only possible because of the country’s efficient sugar cane industry. Sugar cane not only has a greater concentration of natural sugar (about 30% more than corn) but is also easier to process.

In the United States, the primary ethanol feedstock is corn. Approximately 2.8 gallons of ethanol can be produced from a bushel of corn. However, ethanol produced by grain fermentation and distillation always contains a small amount of water: at least 4.4%. This amount of water cannot be removed by further distillation; and while the product may be eminently suitable for human consumption, the presence of the water makes the ethanol unusable as engine fuel unless purified (dried) by other processes.

Critics say that the principal problem with the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel is that the energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) for ethanol made from corn is approximately 1: 1. In other words, it takes roughly as much energy (for planting and harvesting, natural gas based fertilizers, transportation, and processing) to create a gallon of ethanol as a gallon of ethanol produces when used as a motor fuel.

Ethanol advocates reject that notion outright, suggesting that the EROEI models fail to include the energy reducing byproducts of ethanol production, such as utilizing corn stalks as fuel in the distillation process. In addition, they suggest that waste mash from the distillation process can be used as a supplement in cattle feed and that the waste material subsequently produced by the cattle can then be used as a replacement for natural gas-based fertilizers.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 107 grain biorefineries in the U.S. have a production capacity of 5.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year, while an additional 56 plants, now under construction, can add 3.8 billion gallons of new capacity in the next 18 months. This is compared to U.S. gasoline demand currently at 150 billion gallons per year.

Clearly, ethanol as a motor fuel has a lot of hurdles to clear before it can ever be seen as a major factor in the motor fuel market. For example, the United States does not have enough cropland to grow the corn necessary to supply the motor fuel market. And, in a food-starved world, do we really want to dedicate that much arable land to the production of ethanol?

And finally, if we produce automobiles to run on pure ethanol, as opposed to gasoline-ethanol blends, what’s to stop our kids from drinking our tanks dry as opposed to driving them dry? Locking gas caps, anyone?

Wind power key to EU goal of increasing use of renewable energy

2007-05-15T13:42:00.000+09:00

The Associated Press
Published: May 7, 2007

MILAN, Italy: With hydropower running near its limits, wind energy is one of the keys to achieving the goal of generating 20 percent of the EU's power supply with renewable sources by 2010, European policy makers told Europe's premiere wind energy event on Monday.

But obstacles remain in many countries ranging from aesthetic and environmental concerns to the need for stable political frameworks, upgrades in the existing power infrastructure and intensified research and innovation, participants said.

The European Commission is working on an action plan to put into practice the political decision made in March by the 27 EU nations to increase the use of renewable energies to 20 percent by 2020 while confirming the goal of lowering greenhouse gases by 20 percent in the same period.
The document, expected to be completed by October or November, will include national objectives for each EU nation.

"The scientific evidence is clear. Climate change is happening. There is no doubt any longer, and the scientists agree and have stopped arguing. An integrated approach is needed," said Fabrizio Barbaso, deputy director general of the European Commission. "Human beings are responsible, and human beings need to find an appropriate response. Energy is an issue that concerns the very future of our planet."

Barbaso expects wind power, along with biomasss fuel sources, to be a critical component of the action plans, since hydropower, which represents two-thirds of renewable energy share, is running at its maximum level.

The European Wind Energy Association estimates that between 13 percent and 16 percent of EU electricity consumed by 2020 could be generated by wind, for a total of 180 gigawatts of windpower.

The association says that, in an average year, wind produces 3.3 percent of the total EU energy consumption, or approximately 100 terrawat hours of electricity. That would increase fivefold by 2020 if the goals are met.

"Wind energy will be the main contributor to effectively get 20 percent of the EU's total energy supply to come from renewables by 2020," wind association president Arthouros Zervos said.

But to reach that goal, Zervos said Europe would have to develop an offshore wind energy policy while continuing to work on expanding onshore wind farm production. While offshore projects can harness higher velocity winds that are more regular, they remain more expensive to develop than onshore projects, Zervos said.

The wind industry says that increasing reliance on wind power generation would create about 370,000 new jobs in Europe and make energy prices more predictable.

In Europe, Germany and Spain continue to be the biggest wind energy producers, but their combined market share has decreased from 80 percent in 2002 to 50 percent last year as other EU countries develop their potential, the EWEA said.

Hydrogen Cars Are Not Up to Speed, Yet

2007-05-08T14:43:00.000+09:00

A flawed but valiant attempt to combat global warming and conserve natural fuel sources

BMW has recently announced pacesetting plans to introduce the Hydrogen 7 to a small pool of U.S. consumers later this year, ideally becoming the true (read: environmentally friendly) “Ultimate Driving Machine.” The vehicle will utilize an internal combustion engine capable of being powered on either gasoline—thus providing the common consumer demand of 300 miles—or on liquid hydrogen for about 125 miles.

So is hydrogen the solution for decreasing our dependency on oil, or will the first models merely end up as dead as General Motors’ electric vehicles?

With more time, money and engineering entrepreneurship, mass-produced hydrogen-powered cars may be possible. Yet do we want to wait for an alternative that may not be the best alternative, or should we seek what’s viable at the present moment? Currently, plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) are a better, cheaper and more readily available option than hydrogen-powered cars—despite how snazzy advertising and quick science may make the hydrogen cars appear.

At first glance, hydrogen seems like the perfect solution for our infamous car culture, which chugs gasoline faster than a pre-initiated frat boy downs a bounty of beer. According to the April issue of Scientific American, US Vehicles consume 383 gallons of gasoline a day; do the math and you have about 140 billion gallons annually. That’s about two-thirds of total national oil consumption, half of which is imported from overseas.

Hydrogen, unlike gasoline, can come from both renewable and non-renewable resources. BMW, in their brochure for the Hydrogen 7, highlights the car’s green selling point: the electricity used to split water molecules, which provides an alternative to fossil fuels, could come from renewable energy sources. However, the use of renewable energy sources for hydrogen-powered cars currently does not appear to be economically feasible, particularly as only two percent of energy production currently falls into the reusable category. A 2004 California Academy of Sciences study even foresaw that fossil fuels would be the source of hydrogen for “several decades.”

While hydrogen fuels generate less carbon dioxide than conventional internal combustion engines, its production, according to the March/April issue of MIT’s Technology Review, generates four times more pollution than a vehicle that runs on methane, diesel or gasoline.

With global warming making its presence noticeably felt and heard, it’s time for automakers—and consumers—to take stronger, more tangible action. As of 2003, transportation emissions account for one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

While hydrogen vehicles would require an entirely new network of pipelines and fuel stations, PHEVs are currently capable of reducing petroleum consumption and emissions. The half-gas, half-electric vehicle that allows its battery to be recharged overnight provides a better bet than hydrogen-powered cars—or, really, any cars.

The Department of Energy (DOE) made a smart move earlier this month in granting $14 million in research for plug-in hybrid batteries.

Currently, the DOE estimates that hybrids produce 22 percent fewer greenhouse gases than purely petroleum-powered cars; for PHEVs, the reduction stands at 36 percent.

PHEVs are also enormously economically friendly. At an average cost of $3 per gallon of gas, a non-hybrid car costs 8 to 20 cents per mile, according to the advocacy group CalCars. With a PHEV, taking into account the average U.S. electricity rate of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), these costs drop to 2 to 4 cents per mile.

And, if all automotive alternatives fail, we can always ride bikes.

Canada to Build 40MW Solar Power Plant

2007-05-03T14:04:00.000+09:00

Posted by Zonk on Sunday April 29, @03:30AM
from the thinking-big dept.

IceDiver writes "According to an article in the Toronto Star, an Ontario company has been given approval to build a 40MW solar power plant near Sarnia in Southwestern Ontario. This is enough power for about 10,000 homes.

The plant will cover 365 hectares (1.4 sq. miles) and is to be operational by 2010. OptiSolar, the company building the plant, claims to have developed a way to mass produce the solar panels at a dramatically reduced cost, making the plant competitive with other forms of power generation. 'Compared to coal, nuclear power, even wind, solar's squeaky-clean image comes at a high price.

OptiSolar is selling the electricity to the province under its new standard offer program, which pays a premium for electricity that comes from small-scale renewable projects. In the case of wind, it's 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar fetches 42 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly four times as much.'"

Mill goes green to harness river’s renewable energy

2007-05-01T15:09:00.000+09:00

ELIZABETH STUDEBAKER
Feature Writer

CLIFTON – What’s good for the environment is good for Clifton Mill. Using the water power that’s already there, a giant turbine is being restored to power a limited part of electricity used at the centuries-old Mill.Clifton Mill is responding to the Earth Day call for action on climate change.

Earth Day was created in 1970 to spark a revolution against environmental abuse. Anthony Satariano II, Mill owner, explains the business’ electrical needs are so huge, that use of the turbine is limited in scope. Clifton Mill is one of the few grist mills still in operation in the United States. During the Holidays, thousands of visitors enjoy the spectacle of millions of lights. The Millrace Restaurant and Gift Shop are year-around attractions. These areas that will be powered by the turbine.

The turbine housed in a huge, double-sided canister was first installed at the Mill by previous owners in the late 1960s. At the suggestion of Mike Winters, an electrician from the Clifton area, it’s being re-activated. Mike has designed and helped create and maintain some of the mechanical attractions seen in the Miniature Village during the holidays.

Anthony Satariano I desribed the turbines “like a water wheel inside a can.” Inside the giant red cylinder are huge metal water wheels at either end. The turbine is a Model D Samson that was made by the James Leffel Co. in Springfield. One side still powers the Mill and the other half will now spin the generator for the lights inside the Mill and restaurant. T

he turbine will use the same water power that has been running this Mill site since 1802, free clean green energy, that water flows 24/7.“For Clifton Mill, it’s back to the basic, old-fashioned techniques are in again,” it’s owners say.

Global Warming: Limits of Solar and Wind Power

2007-04-26T14:36:00.000+09:00

Contributed by: arch_stantonViews: 474
As people across the US poured into Earth Day celebrations, they saw booths and heard speakers extolling the virtues of solar and wind power. What participants were highly unlikely to hear was that renewable energy cannot stop global warming without major social changes that Earth Day organizers rarely discussed.Global Warming: Limits of Solar and Wind Powerby Don FitzZMagAs people across the US poured into Earth Day celebrations, they saw booths and heard speakers extolling the virtues of solar and wind power.

What participants were highly unlikely to hear was that renewable energy cannot stop global warming without major social changes that Earth Day organizers rarely discussed.Keep in mind the difference between the words “necessary” and “sufficient.”

Yes, expansion of solar and wind power is absolutely necessary to prevent CO2 levels from rising, coastal cities from being flooded and species from going extinct. But no, by themselves, solar and wind are not sufficient to make the use of energy sustainable.

Nine million percent?Most climate experts accept that, in order to avoid catastrophic effects of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2) must be cut by 60-80% by 2050 (though the figure may need to be a 95% cut in the US).

The belief that replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind technology can accomplish this reduction tends to overlook several factors:1. Corporations bombard the world with the message that everyone should consume like Americans do;2. Corporations tell those in the US that they should ape after the playthings of the rich;3. Population is growing;4. Market economics force pathological expansion; and,5. Solar and wind comprise a minute fraction of current energy.

Let’s combine these to get an idea of how much solar and wind would need to expand to replace coal, oil, nukes and gas by 2050.

First, the US consumes about 25% of the world’s energy while having only 5% of the world’s population. For the rest of the world to consume at the rate of the US would require global production to increase by a factor of 6.33.People in the US constantly hear the message that they do not consume nearly enough.

The rest of the world does see skid row as their model for consumption — they also look at the wealthiest in the US. If we use the 5% wealthiest for the standard of comparison, the value of 6.33 should be squared to give 40.0 as the amount that world production would have to increase for everyone to consume at the level of the most affluent in the US.Population is expected to slow down its growth rate but still increase by 50% between 2007 and 2050.

Allowing for population growth, by 2050, production would need to increase by a factor of 40 x 1.5 = 60.The market economy must grow or die. A widely held view is that the world economy will continue to grow 2-3% annually during the rest of the century. A 2.5% growth rate would result in almost tripling production by 2050.

This means that production would need to grow by 60 x 3 = 180.During that time, solar and wind would need to replace other energy sources. According to the US Energy Information Administration, renewable energy accounted for 6% of all 2003 energy, and of that 6%, only 1% was from solar and 2% from wind (the rest coming from biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric).

This means that solar and wind comprise .06 x (.01 + .02) = .0018 of US energy. Accounting for less than 0.2% of energy, solar and wind would have to increase by a factor of over 500 to replace other energy. Multiplying the 500-fold increase in solar/wind by the 180-fold increase in production means that energy from solar/wind would have to increase by a factor of 90,000 by 2050 for people throughout the world to consume at the rate of the richest 5% in the US.If there is no challenge to the US being a model of consumerism, there would need to be a roughly nine million percent increase in solar/wind power for them to replace other forms of energy in 43 years.

No silver bulletSuch an increase is not likely to happen. One of the problems with figuring out what renewables can actually do is that those who are religiously devoted to them are prone to saying things that are out of touch with reality. In his new book, Heat, George Monbiot quotes a solar power enthusiast who wrote, “Even in the cloudy United Kingdom, more electricity than the nation currently uses could be generated by putting PV [photovoltaic solar power] roof tiles on all suitable roofs.” (p. 125) Monbiot put some numbers together and calculated that the actual potential for rooftop PV is 1/800 of energy that is used in the UK.Rooftop collection is a major component of a solar power strategy. A single story home would be most efficient. Unfortunately, this contradicts another principle of saving energy: the larger the building, the more self-insulating it is.

Multi-family apartments or condos need less energy to heat a room than would be needed in stand-alone homes of the same size. Similarly with putting solar panels on the sides of buildings. A building which is not surrounded by trees or other buildings would be great for such solar panels.

But trees are necessary both for shade and for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Putting multi-story buildings close to each other is necessary for the high density required by an urban mass transit system, but it works against the sun-catching surface space for solar collection.With about half of US energy going to temperature control for buildings, these factors limit the amount of energy that solar power can provide in urban areas.

PV technology works best for rural homes. The main problem that stand-alone systems must deal with is energy storage for times when the sun isn’t shining. A bank of batteries can cost over $20,000. It’s less costly if users can link their panels to a power grid and sell excess power to the local electric company. But if customers sell PV power to the grid, they will be doing so at hours when demand and therefore prices are low and buying power back when demand and prices are high.The price of solar power is falling, but it would need to plummet to replace fossil fuels. Though it takes 25-35 years for PV cells to pay for themselves, their life expectancy is only 25 to 30 years. Wind power has its own limitations.

It is only possible for wind to produce large amounts of electricity if it consistently blows strong. Since urban buildings tend to make wind weak or sporadic, wind mills are of little use in cities. Winds are usually strongest in mountain passes and along coastlines.A rapid expansion of wind power would involve far more than just the windmills themselves.

It would require new grid capacity and transmission lines from wind farms to locations of usage. Wind power requires 1.1 years of use to generate as much energy as used in manufacture and the figure for solar is 2 – 4 years. Are renewables truly renewable?Renewables are thought of as sources of energy that are not “drawn down” by their use. But this does not take into account materials that are used to harness the energy or their environmental effects. If the source of energy is infinite, but the land and materials that people use to capture the energy is not infinite, is that type of energy truly “renewable?”

The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has a definite financial interest in the rapid expansion of solar power. Yet, in its recent publication claiming that renewables can offset fossil fuels, ASES admits that advanced PV technologies, such as thin-film PV, use rare materials including indium, selenium, and tellurium and that exhaustion of supplies could interfere with their development.One of most promising of new PV approaches is Titania Dye Sensitised Cells. Though most of the production involves common materials, the solar cell needs to be covered with transparent plastic. And what is plastic made from? Petroleum, the most infamous of non-renewable substances.

Though the amount of petroleum used to cover the planet with solar cells would be tiny compared to covering the world with cars, it drives home how important it is to make the focus of a sane energy policy preserving oil for genuine needs of future generations.An even more serious concern with the “renewability” of renewables is their use of land when they become the dominant sources of energy. Do we really want to fill every mountain pass, coastal area and valley with wind mills? ASES assures that “…land set aside specifically for solar PV generation will not need to occur until this technology provides a very large fraction (perhaps more than 25%) of the nation’s electricity.” (p. 95) Looking at it the other way, once solar PV replaces fossil fuel, it will encroach on wildlife habitat.The biggest reason that renewable energy may not be truly renewable is that it depends on fossil fuel to replace fossil fuel.

Total energy use in the US is currently about 100 quads. A quad is equivalent to a quadrillion (a one followed by 15 zeroes) Btu. In his classic The Party’s Over, Richard Heinberg observes that “to produce 18 quads of wind power in the US by 2030 would require the installation of something like half a million state-of-the-art turbines…That is five times the present world production capacity for turbines...most of the energy needed for that undertaking would have to come from dwindling fossil fuels.”

People would be consuming voraciously at the same time they were constructing a massive new energy infrastructure. Where would the energy for this gargantuan orgy of consumption/construction come from? Would it mean pumping every drop of oil out of the ground to move the new equipment across the globe? Would it require blowing the top off of every sacred mountain that had coal in it? Would it demand mining enough uranium to melt down nukes in every country? Would it mean extracting every cubic foot of natural gas so there was none left for heating by the time 2050 arrives? Switching to solar/wind by 2050 might require the greatest use of fossil and nuclear fuel the world has ever seen. That’s not a good way to prevent global warming.

The real issueCalculating the needed increase in solar and wind production only included a few quantifiable factors. It did not include how manufacture would exacerbate the exhaustion of water which is already shrinking due to industrial agriculture. It did not include the overrunning of the last acres of animal habitat and the resulting extinction of species.

Nor did it include the enormous increase in production of toxins which could do even more damage to humanity than changing weather conditions. The problem is that market economics pushes corporations to encourage the most rapid squandering of energy possible. There could be a doubling of available energy, a tripling of energy or an increase in solar and wind power of nine million percent and there would still be a shortage.

This is not to deny that solar panels are absolutely essential for a sustainable energy policy. It is to say that fanaticism about solar power which blinds people to its limitations can also blind them from seeing the need to reduce the total quantity of energy produced in Western countries.

Global warming is not a technological problem and no increase in the production of solar and wind and eco-gadgets can solve it. The energy crisis and rising CO2 levels are crises of market economics and the question we must ask is: How do we change society to make it sustainable?There is no shortage of energyConsider the following two assertions:1. There is already more energy than we need. 2. No matter how much energy is produced, it will not be enough. These two statements appear totally contradictory. Yet they are both true.

It is similar to food and starvation. There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Yet hunger is increasing. Agribusiness says that we need to fight starvation by increasing food production via another “Green Revolution” with pesticides, herbicides, genetic engineering and leveling of rain forests to plant crops to be sold to distant lands. None of those are necessary and will, in all likelihood, increase hunger.

People starve not because there is not enough food, but because available food is not distributed to those who need it. It is more profitable to process food and send it to those who overconsume in rich countries than it is to sell it to those in poor countries who can pay less for it. Local food production for need, combined with aid during times of crisis, could feed everyone. But increased corporate control of food means more production for the international market and food drained away from those who need it the most.

Corn for people to eat locally is transformed to corn to feed cattle for international hamburger chains. Less corn is available to solve hunger as American obesity skyrockets. A thousand food commodities and diabetes follow the same path.Just as an increase in the quantity of food can be followed by an increase in starvation, an increase in the quantity of energy available can accompany an energy shortage. If people controlled their energy locally, they could decide how much to produce and, more important, what types of energy-draining activities need to be limited. But increases in energy production occur simultaneously with control by big energy corporations. The more energy that it produces, the more big energy is motivated to sell it for wasteful practices.

Will big energy propose to end nighttime sports events with huge lights? To require that only fluorescent light bulbs be produced? To advocate for urban centers free of private automobiles? Not a chance. In a market economy, the goal of big energy is to make as much profit today from selling as much energy as possible and energy for real needs be damned. Big energy gleefully provides electricity for trivial pursuits in the overdeveloped world as poor villagers fell their remaining trees for firewood.

Even if perpetual motion machines or Star Trek replicators could increase the production of solar and wind by nine million percent, there would still be a shortage of energy. In a type of perverted Malthusianism, the market creates artificial desires faster than the planet’s ecosystems can sustain them.

The flip side is that just as plenty of food exists right now, there is already an abundance of energy. Humanity can live better, healthier and longer lives by changing habits of producing food, altering methods of transportation, building off-grid homes, limiting the manufacture of unnecessary junk, and halting the killing people to steal their oil. If we do these, there could be a smooth transition away from coal, oil, nukes and gas to solar, wind and other renewables. Without these changes, no quantity of renewable energy is enough.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=12654

Energy Under Water

2007-04-26T14:17:00.000+09:00

April 2007
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press

NEW YORK -- The murky rivers around New York City bring to mind many things - garbage, chemicals, perhaps mobsters' bodies - but clean energy is not one of them.

The state is trying to change that thinking, however.

It is teaming with a Virginia company to use the East River for a unique experiment in renewable energy: Six giant turbines are being placed underwater in a $7 million project to harness the energy of the tides and produce electricity.

One of the 16-foot-diameter, windmill-like turbines is already operating, supplying power to a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. The other turbines are being installed during the next two weeks.

"We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment," Verdant Power President Trey Taylor said.

Hydroelectric and wind power operate on similar principles, with water or air turning turbines. But those projects require dams or windmills, which can be costly, intrusive and objectionable to environmentalists.Project organizers say this is the first time the underwater-turbine concept has been used in the U.S.

"We picked New York on purpose because the regulations are so strict and because the East River is a tidal strait. There is a high current," Taylor said. "You know what they say about New York: If you can make it here ..."The project is entering an 18-month testing phase. Its backers hope to expand use of the technology in New York if it works out.

One downside is that the river sometimes moves too slowly. On average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity only about 77 percent of the time. At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power 10,000 homes.

That is not much in a city of 8 million people, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say."The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that," Taylor said. "That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.

"Some environmentalists worry that the project may harm fish by stirring up sediment or otherwise altering their habits. The river is not quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and it is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon, many of which travel between the ocean and the river.

Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored with sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being churned up. Commercial vessels do not use that section of the river, so shipping is unaffected.

Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the 8,500-pound, steel-alloy turbines have any significant effects, but so far they are pleased.

"The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing," said Robert Goldstein of the environmental group Riverkeeper. "They seem to be acting very careful and moving forward in a responsible way."The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has provided nearly $2 million toward design and environmental testing.

"We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results," said Ray Hull, a spokesman for the authority. "This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.

"Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too: "During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking."Taylor is thinking bigger. He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers such as the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi, and around the world.

"There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world," he said. "But many live near running water."

BIOFUELS -- ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL

2007-04-21T14:45:00.000+09:00

"Biofuels" are transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel that are made from biomass materials. These fuels are usually blended with the petroleum fuels - gasoline and diesel fuel, but they can also be used on their own. Using ethanol or biodiesel means we don't burn quite as much fossil fuel. Ethanol and biodiesel are usually more expensive than the fossil fuels that they replace but they are also cleaner burning fuels, producing fewer air pollutants.

Ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from the sugars found in grains, such as corn, sorghum, and wheat, as well as potato skins, rice, sugar cane, sugar beets, and yard clippings. Scientists are working on cheaper ways to make ethanol by using all parts of plants and trees. Farmers are experimenting with "woody crops", mostly small poplar trees and switchgrass, to see if they can grow them cheaply and abundantly. Most of the ethanol used in the United States today is distilled from corn. About 99 percent of the ethanol produced in the United States is used to make "E10" or "gasohol" a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Any gasoline powered engine can use E10 but only specially made vehicles can run on E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

Biodiesel is a fuel made with vegetable oils, fats, or greases - such as recycled restaurant grease. Biodiesel fuels can be used in diesel engines without changing them. It is the fastest growing alternative fuel in the United States. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel, is safe, biodegradable, and reduces the emissions of most air pollutants.

Wind and Solar drive NEX out-performance

2007-04-20T16:24:00.000+09:00

The Wilderhill New Energy Global Index (NEX) of clean energy companies forged ahead in the first quarter, its 17.6% gain putting other indices in the shade - the S&P 500 was just 0.2% ahead while the NASDAQ was up 0.3%.

Wind and Solar were the hottest performers on the index, rising by 35.4% and 28.8% respectively, while the only sector to lose ground was Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy, which lost 3.1%.General sentiment on clean energy was strong, with the publication of the latest IPCC report in February and an Oscar win for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth keeping the sector in the headlines.

Companies listed in countries that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol continued to outperform those listed in non-signatories Australia and the US - in Kyoto markets, companies saw gains of 20.1%, while there was an increase of 11.1% in non-Kyoto markets.

The wind sector was driven by developments in Europe, where Theolia, the Euronext-listed French wind project developer, saw a rise of 148.6% in its shares as it gained control of the 165MW European wind portfolio of GE Energy Financial Services in return for 5.3m Theolia shares. A bid battle between Areva, the French nuclear company, and Suzlon, the Indian turbine maker, pushed the shares of REpower, the German turbine manufacturer, up by 91.3%.But investors punished Suzlon, which saw its shares drop by 23.2%. Nordex, another German turbine maker and project developer, saw gains of 76%.Gains in Solar were led by Baoding Tianwei Baobian Electric, the Chinese transformer manufacturer and PV manufacture holding company, whose shares were 112.6% higher than at the start of the year, but performance was strong in all regions - Solon, the Frankfurt-listed German solar system integrator, was up by 74.9% on the back of a 72% growth in revenue for 2006, while First Solar, the US thin-film PV cell manufacturer, gained 74.3% as it secured long-term contracts and set up a manufacturing plant in Malaysia. However, the markets punishedATS Automation Tooling Systems, the TSX-traded Canadian industrial automation company, whose shares lost 26.1% as it cancelled the IPO of its Photowatt subsidiary.

Investors in Europe and the US turned away from biofuels as they began to take a more considered view of the viability of the sector after the extraordinary gains last year - the biggest fallers on the index were Verbio, the German biodiesel and bioethanol producer, which was down 46.6% after warning of weak demand for 2007; and Diversa, the NASDAQ-listed biofuel technology group, was 28.2% lower despite narrowing its losses and announcing a merger with Celunol, a cellulosic ethanol technology company.

Shares in Brasil Ecodiesel, the Brazilian biodiesel producer and project developer, dropped 22.3% as President Bush's South American tour failed to bring an easing of US tariffs on Brazilian biofuels and Aventine Renewable Energy, the NYSE-quoted ethanol producer, fell 22.7% in the face of investor hostility to the sector.The index gained three new constituents at the end of the first quarter of 2007, while five companies dropped out. All of the new entrants are involved in Demand-Side Energy Saving, in line with New Energy Finance's prediction that in 2007, policy-makers and investors worldwide would wake up to the reality that if you want to cut fossil fuel use, it is easier to increase the efficiency of the 98% of energy generation that is non-renewable, than by adding to the 2% thatis renewable. Meanwhile, all of those companies that leave the index are US-listed.

There have been a number of positive developments in Demand-Side Energy Saving this year, including announcements by Australia and the European Union that they would phase out traditional incandescent lightbulbs and EU commitments to improve energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.Arima Optoelectronics, a company that makes light emitting diodes (LEDs), laser diodes (LDs) and backlight moulds becomes the only Taiwan-listed company on the NEX. Color Kinetics, a Boston-based company listed on NASDAQ, is also involved in lighting - it provides solid state lighting systems and technologies using LEDs.

Kingspan Group, meanwhile, provides insulated panels and insulation for construction, as well as some waste containment and recycling products and becomes the only Ireland-listed group on the index. It is well-placed to benefit from the increasing focus on energy efficiency in buildings.

The sector also lost a member, Linear Technology, a US integrated circuit manufacturer. It was among four NASDAQ-listed companies to depart, all in different sectors. In Power Storage, Active Power, the US backup power supply system maker, leaves not only the NEX but also, potentially, NASDAQ, after it failed to comply with filings requirements.

US fuel cell and power holding company Distributed Energy Systems dropped out of the Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution sector, while Solar lost Emcore, the US semiconductor solutions developer, which was also facing delisting from the NASDAQ due to delayed filing of its results. NYSE-listed Hexcel, a carbon fibre manufacturer company, left the Services & Suppliers sector.

The rebalancing leaves the NEX with 84 constituents - Solar remains the biggest sector in the NEX, with 16 constituents, followed by Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy with 14 and Wind with 12. But Demand-Side Energy Saving consolidates its position as fourth biggest sector, with 10 members while Power Storage (6) and Services & Suppliers (5) slip back. There are seven companies each in Hydrogen & Fuel Cells, Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution and Renewables - Other, which encompasses geothermal and mini-hydroelectric power.

North America remains home to the most NEX members, with 19 listed on NASDAQ, along with nine on the New York Stock Exchange and four in Toronto.However, the geographical spread of the NEX continues to advance, with 30 companies listed on European exchanges, 21 in Asia and two in South America.

Powered by the Sun: Poway School Adopts Solar Energy

2007-04-16T11:35:00.000+09:00

A Matter of Degrees: Climate Change in San Diego
Ana Tintocalis

Monterey Ridge Elementary in the Poway Unified School District is the newest in a growing list of solar powered schools in San Diego County. KPBS education reporter Ana Tintocalis explains why there’s a lot more to this school than just solar panels.

Monterey Ridge is the only school in San Diego County with such a big focus on the environment. In fact, the school’s mascot is the Monarch butterfly, and the school colors are rust and green. But it’s the campus’ huge solar power system that really captivates young minds. More than 20,000 square feet of large black solar panels blanket the hillside behind the campus.

Nine-year-old Yung Wu Son compares the solar panels to the leaves of a tree. Principal Rebecca Wardlow says the system is an essential teaching tool at the school. She says even grownups want to learn more.

The solar panels provide up to 60 percent of the school’s energy needs. Wardlow admits the system was expensive. The price tag is $1.5 million. The district is paying $900,000 of that amount, and a state rebate covers the rest. Poway Unified won’t recoup the expenses for another 15 years.

The expensive project is a major reason why other school districts are reluctant to go solar. But Wardlow believes it’s all worth it for her school. The campus is using clean, renewable energy instead of producing tons of carbon dioxide.

But Wardlow says the biggest payoff is knowing her students are gaining valuable knowledge about renewable energy and energy conservation. Science teachers develop lessons based on how the expansive solar energy system works. Ten-year-old Alexandria Davis.

Students also learn why many scientists believe the greenhouse effect is making the world a warmer place. Teacher Susan Mahoney uses the school’s own pint-size greenhouse to show how plants are affected by good and bad levels of certain gases.

State explores renewable energy powered by tides

2007-04-15T10:42:00.000+09:00

The Associated Press

NEW YORK - The murky waterways around the city aren't exactly what spring to mind at the mention of an environmentally friendly location.Cesspool, perhaps. Or rumored resting place of countless mobsters. But not a green zone.

The state thinks otherwise. New York and a Virginia-based company have partnered to use the East River as the staging ground for a unique experiment in renewable energy.

They are placing six windmills underwater on the east side of Roosevelt Island to harness kinetic energy in the tides to produce electricity - without having to dam the water.

As the river's current rotates the giant turbines, the energy is converted into electricity that is powering a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. One of the turbines is already in operation, and five more are being installed in the next two weeks as part of the $7 million project.

“We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment,” said Verdant Power President Trey Taylor.

The technology is based on the same principles of hydropower and wind power.Wind energy uses turbines that harness drafts of air which is converted to power, and dams use the kinetic energy in moving water.

The East River turbines resemble windmills, but were specially crafted to move with river currents.Project organizers say it's the first time the concept has been used in the U.S.

Taylor started work on the effort about eight years ago, and is in a final, 18-month testing phase.The regulations governing such projects here are stringent, but Taylor hopes that will show the project can succeed anywhere.

“We picked New York on purpose, because the regulations are so strict, and also because the East River is a tidal strait, there is a high current,” Taylor said. “You know what they say about New York. If you can make it here ... ”One downside to the technology is that there isn't always a current, so on average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity about 77 percent of the time.

At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power as much as 10,000 homes.

It may not seem like much, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say. The U.S. gets most its power from coal-fired plants, then natural gas and hydropower. Offshore wind farms have been growing in popularity around the country, but they frequently run into opposition.

“The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that,” Taylor said. “That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.”

New York City released a report this week saying that it produces nearly 1 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.Naturally there are environmental concerns with the project, chiefly, sediment changes and damage to fish populations.

The river isn't quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon.Many fish species travel between the ocean and the river, and if the turbines alter the behavior, it could dramatically affect fisheries.

Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored using sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being kicked up by the rotation. Commercial boats do not use that section of the river, so the shipping industry is not affected by the project.

Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the turbines have any significant effects on the water, but so far, they are pleased.

“The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing,” said Robert Goldstein, an attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper.

“They seem to be acting very careful, and moving forward in a responsible way.”The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has funded nearly $2 million to help with the cost of design and environmental testing, and has high hopes for the project.

“We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results,” said Ray Hull, spokesman for authority.

“This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.”Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too.“During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking.”

If more power is available, there's a lower chance of suffering through another summer of disastrous blackouts.A 2006 blackout in Queens affected more than 100,000 people and Con Edison has been under pressure to come up with a plan to avoid similar problems.

Taylor is thinking bigger. He eventually hopes to outsource manufacturing to assembly plants, and form joint partnerships with city energy suppliers, like Keyspan.He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers like the St. Lawrence or Mississippi, and around the world.

“There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world,” he said. “But many live near running water.”

Wave Power to Replace Gas in Zanzibar?

2007-04-05T19:13:00.000+09:00

Zanzibar is considering the possibility of turning Indian Ocean currents and waves into electric power to make the utmost of its geological position as an archipelago off east Africa.

If the initial study proves viable, the Zanzibar Utilities Company will build a power plant on the Pemba Island, one of the three major islands consisting the archipelago, which enjoys a history of strong currents and tidal waves.

The company expects to resort to power generated from tidal waves or ocean currents to turn the table against its loss-making situation. It now spends an average of 200 million Tanzanian shillings (200,000 US dollars) per month to generate power via gas turbines whereas it collects 60 million shillings (60,000 dollars) for its power supply.

Ocean energy constitutes to a large unexploited source of renewable energy and wave power therefore commands a good economical potential.

The Zanzibar Utilities Company will wait for the initial study to decide on whether to benefit from the wave power or the tidal power, which dictate two different energy converters to transform wave energy or tidal energy into electricity.

With prices of non-renewable natural gas rising in many countries around the world as readily accessible supplies dwindle, those countries which have a suitable stretch of coastline and are unwilling to invest the huge sums of money some of the world’s richest countries are spending on LNG (liquid natural gas) terminals may find wave and/or tidal power to be a viable and renewable alternative.

Underwater Windmill Helps Power Arctic Village

2007-04-04T12:43:00.000+09:00

John Roach
National Geographic News

Energy derived from the moon now trickles into a village near the Arctic tip of Norway via a novel underwater windmill-like device powered by the rhythmic slosh of the tides.

The so-called tidal turbine is bolted to the floor of the Kvalsund Channel and was connected to the nearby town of Hammerfest's power grid on September 20. It is the first time in the world that electricity directly from a tidal current has been fed into a power grid.

The gravitational tug of the moon produces a swift tidal current there that courses through the channel at about 8 feet (2.5 meters) per second and spins the 33-foot-(10-meter) long blades of the turbine.
The blades automatically turn to face the ebb and flow of the tide and rotate at a pace of seven revolutions per minute, which is sufficient to produce 700,000 kilowatt hours of non-polluting energy per year—enough to power about 35 Norwegian homes (70 U.S. homes).
"Basically it's like putting a windmill in the water," said Bjørn Bekken, a project manager for Hammerfest Strøm, the company that built the device.

Richard Charter, a marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense in Oakland, California, said the system has the potential to be a significant contributor to the natural energy mix, but warrants careful development.

"The good news is there are no carbon emissions, no radioactive plume or nuclear waste, no oil spill trajectory, and no chemical pollution," he said. "The thing is estuarine ecosystems are very sensitive."
The technology is so new, said Charter, that its impacts on things such as fish migration and water circulation patterns are not well understood. Environmental Defense is concerned the technology will be widely implemented too quickly.

"As an organization, we are generally supportive of a careful, methodical look at this technology," said Charter, "but it is too soon to make a call as to if it is the Promised Land of renewable energy."

Alternative Energy

Proponents of the tidal turbine technology say it is a welcome, environmentally friendly alternative-energy option. One key advantage over wind and solar power is that the energy output is 100 percent predictable, said Bekken.

"The tidal stream is going to be there and it is going to be exactly the same, you can predict it at all times," he said.

Breezes can be too weak or too strong for windmills to work properly and in places like the north of Norway the sun completely disappears for several months each year, rendering solar power inefficient in winter. The tides, however, are as sure as the moon.

Tidal turbines are also hidden beneath the surface of the water and thus do not blight the visual horizon. Windmills have been criticized as an eyesore by several community and environmental groups.

The tips of the blades are 66 feet (20 meters) below the water's surface, allowing clear passage for ships and slowly rotate led by their rounded edge, thus posing little threat to fish and other sea critters, according to Bekken.

The one adverse impact recognized by proponents of the technology is to the fishing industry, as fishing equipment could get tangled up in the turbines. As a result, fishing must be restricted in turbine locations.

Technological Advance

Since the 1960s, energy producers have reaped electricity from the tides by trapping the high tide in artificial lagoons with dams. When the tide goes out, gravity sucks the water through turbines to generate electricity, much like a hydroelectric system on a river.

Environmentalists and fisheries groups, however, said the projects—the largest of which is in la Rance, France—damage habitat and alter water circulation patterns as far out as 300 miles (500 kilometers) from the power plant.

The tidal turbines, by contrast, do not require a dam. The structures are simply plunked into the water and bolted to the seafloor.

"This one may have the ability to harvest enough energy to make it worthwhile and not interfere with circulatory patterns, but it will probably be a site-specific equation," said Charter.
The tidal turbine technology is only just now being attempted because it has taken several decades for the wind industry to perfect the windmill, a design the tidal turbine engineers borrow heavily from, said Bekken.

"Also, advances in sub-sea technology have been brought up to the level where we can use it for this kind of project as well," he said.

For example, Charter said that advances in materials science in the last decade have allowed engineers to design equipment that can withstand the corrosive effects of salt water.

Once the technology is scaled up, Bekken hopes the costs of tidal turbines to be comparable with windmills. The development cost of the prototype is about U.S. $11 million to date.

In order to keep maintenance costs down, duplicates of all important systems are built into the turbine so that if one breaks the other can be switched on instead of having to dispatch a scuba diver to fix it.

The project's backers, which in addition to Hammerfest Strøm include the Norwegian oil group Statoil, the international engineering group ABB, Norwegian arm of Rolls Royce, and local Norwegian utilities, hope to sell thousands of the units to help Europe meet its green energy requirements.

CSU looks to turn wind from annoyance to asset

2007-04-02T19:55:00.000+09:00

By Associated Press

FORT COLLINS - Those old blue northers that can blow you over or spill your coffee cup will be turned to profit within a decade.

Within eight years, Colorado State University plans to get all its electric power from its own wind farm at a cost of $100 million to $300 million.

The CSU Green Power Project will build a wind farm in northern Colorado that generates more power than the school consumes. It also will include a laboratory for studies on wind power. The area has long been a national wind resource.

The university's nonprofit research foundation made a deal with Wind Holding LLC to build the farm on the university's 11,000-acre Maxwell Ranch near the Wyoming border, a very windy area.
"The Colorado State University Green Power Project is just another step in the university's overall goal to develop reliable and ecologically sound energy alternatives to fossil fuels and to continue groundbreaking research in this area," said Colorado State President Larry Edward Penley. "Colorado State is a leader in global renewable energy solutions, whether that involves running our snowplows on befouls or installing clean-burning, electricity-generating cookstoves in the underdeveloped world."

For decades, the university used biofuels and stepped up recycling as well as reducing water use. The school began offering residence halls and university apartment renters the option of buying green power in 2001.

The school also has many clean energy research projects.

"This is an unprecedented opportunity for a private sector wind power company to combine its years of practical expertise with the world-class green energy research capabilities of Colorado State University," said Bruce Morley, CEO of Wind Holding LLC. "This synergy could result in a quantum technology advance in developing solutions for a pressing domestic energy challenge."

The company has two years to start the project and eight years to finish with a minimum power production of 65 megawatts with a potential of 200 megawatts from 25 wind turbines. CSU, with 25,000 students, has a peak demand of 16 megawatts.

"By powering the university with wind and opening its wind farm to university students and researchers, Colorado State is demonstrating a commitment to developing renewable energy technologies that can provide our nation with secure and clean domestic sources of energy," said Stan Bull, associate director at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Once a Dream Fuel, Palm Oil May Be an Eco-Nightmare

2007-04-01T01:46:00.000+09:00

AMSTERDAM, Jan. 25 — Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups in the Netherlands were thrilled by the early and rapid adoption of “sustainable energy,” achieved in part by coaxing electrical plants to use biofuel — in particular, palm oil from Southeast Asia.

Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants.

But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.

Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there.

Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world’s third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming, ranked after the United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both in the Netherlands.

“It was shocking and totally smashed all the good reasons we initially went into palm oil,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands, a conservation group.

The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.

As a result, politicians in many countries are rethinking the billions of dollars in subsidies that have indiscriminately supported the spread of all of these supposedly eco-friendly fuels for vehicles and factories. The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which demands that all member states aim to have 5.75 percent of transportation run by biofuel in 2010, is now under review.

“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.”

He added, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”

In the Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has provoked soul-searching, and helped prompt the government to suspend palm oil subsidies. The Netherlands, a leader in green energy, is now leading the effort to distinguish which biofuels are truly environmentally sound.

The government, environmental groups and some of the Netherlands’ “green energy” companies are trying to develop programs to trace the origins of imported palm oil, to certify which operations produce the oil in a responsible manner.

Krista van Velzen, a member of Parliament, said the Netherlands should pay compensation to Indonesia for the damage that palm oil has caused. “We can’t only think: does it pollute the Netherlands?”

In the United States and Brazil most biofuel is ethanol (made from corn in the United States and sugar in Brazil), used to power vehicles made to run on gasoline. In Europe it is mostly local rapeseed and sunflower oil, used to make diesel fuel.

In a small number of instances, plant oil is used in place of diesel fuel, without further refinement. But as many European countries push for more green energy, they are increasingly importing plant oils from the tropics, since there is simply not enough plant matter for fuel production at home.

On the surface, the environmental equation that supports biofuels is simple: Since they are derived from plants, biofuels absorb carbon while they are grown and release it when they are burned. In theory that neutralizes their emissions.

But the industry was promoted long before there was adequate research, said Reanne Creyghton, who runs Friends of the Earth’s campaign against palm oil here.

Biofuelswatch, an environment group in Britain, now says that “biofuels should not automatically be classed as renewable energy.” It supports a moratorium on subsidies until more research can determine whether various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting manner.

Beyond that, the group suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel be counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer accounting of environmental costs.

The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This versatile and cheap oil is used in about 10 percent of supermarket products, from chocolate to toothpaste, accounting for 21 percent of the global market for edible oils.

Palm oil produces the most energy of all vegetable oils for each unit of volume when burned. In much of Europe it is used as a substitute for diesel fuel, though in the Netherlands, the government has encouraged its use for electricity.

Supported by hundreds of millions of euros in national subsidies, the Netherlands rapidly became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons last year, nearly double the previous year.

The increasing demand has created damage far away. Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to 2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.

In December, scientists from Wetlands International released their calculations about the global emissions caused by palm farming on peatland.

Peat is an organic sponge that stores huge amounts of carbon, helping balance global emissions. Peatland is 90 percent water. But when it is drained, the Wetlands International scientists say, the stored carbon gases are released into the atmosphere.

To makes matters worse, once dried, peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million ton of carbon a year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.

The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil fuels, the researchers said. “These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were not counted before,” said Mr. Kaat. “It was a totally ignored problem.” For the moment Wetlands is backing the certification system for palm oil imports.

But some environmental groups say palm oil cannot be produced sustainably at reasonable prices. They say palm oil is now cheap because of poor environmental practices and labor abuses.

“Yes, there have been bad examples in the palm oil industry,” said Arjen Brinkman, a company official at Biox, a young company that plans to build three palm oil electrical plants in Holland, using oil from palms grown on its own plantations in a manner that it says is responsible.

“But it is now clear,” he said, “that to serve Europe’s markets for biofuel and bioenergy, you will have to prove that you produce it sustainably — that you are producing less, not more CO2.”

Greens don't always live up to the name

2007-03-31T22:15:00.000+09:00

By TODD MYERS
GUEST COLUMNIST

Here's a little known secret. Environmental activists don't care about global warming.
Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing steadily and burning fossil fuels contributes to that trend. Altering that trend apparently is issue No. 1 for environmental activists. Their actions, however, don't always match that goal.

This is surprising, especially because Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels made leadership on climate change a central theme of his administration, including Seattle's plan to meet the Kyoto carbon emission targets in 2012. The mayor promised to spend $37 million in the next two years and millions more to achieve that goal -- about $21 to $42 for every ton of carbon emissions reduced.

The high cost, however, leads one to question if reducing carbon emissions is the mayor's primary goal. The city of Seattle could go to established organizations such as the Oregon Climate Trust, which charges only $10 per ton of CO2 reduced, or the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits cost $4 per ton.

Those organizations offer programs that reduce carbon emissions elsewhere to offset Seattle's emissions. Buying offsets would reduce carbon far more than funding expensive public works projects.

That's not the only example.

Environmental activists advocate "green building standards" for state buildings. Paying a little more up front on energy systems in new buildings, they say, will reduce energy use later. Many of these "green" buildings such as Seattle City Hall, however, end up using more energy than those they replaced. A "green" Tacoma middle school used 25 percent more energy in its first year than a comparable non-"green" school built at the same time in the same district.

The reaction of environmental activists to such data is illustrative. Instead of demanding improvements, they defend the failed standards. One proponent of such standards admitted that "the certification process doesn't audit actual performance of the building or how much energy it really uses."

Further, market-oriented solutions that successfully reduce carbon emissions often are shunned. That was made obvious recently in Europe. Energy producers who reduce carbon emissions may sell credits to others who exceed the emission cap. In Britain, energy firms earned 1 billion pounds ($1.88 billion) from such trading. Instead of celebrating this confluence of environmental responsibility and profit motive, the World Wildlife Fund called for a "windfall tax" on that profit.

Their discomfort with "profit" outweighed concern about global warming. Taxing the profit serves only to reduce the incentive of companies to reduce carbon emissions.

In Washington state, green power advocates actively oppose our largest source of carbon-free, renewable energy -- hydropower. Although they claim that no new sources of significant hydropower exist, they added additional barriers to potential development by classifying major hydro as non-renewable in Initiative 937.

That same initiative, however, counts other renewable energy sources an extra 20 percent toward required targets if the project is built using union apprentices. Such efforts seem to indicate that they are willing to sacrifice carbon reduction for an economic ideology.

Environmental activists frequently lament we are not taking global warming seriously. The gap between their words and actions undermines their credibility. Until they are willing to support effective market-oriented environmental solutions that preserve consumer choice, we have to wonder whether they really care about reducing carbon emissions, or are just using the issue to achieve other goals.

Todd Myers is director of Washington Policy Center's Center for Environmental Policy. Contact Washington Policy Center at 206-937-9691 or online at washingtonpolicy.org.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, LANDFILL GAS, AND BIOGAS

2007-03-29T16:00:00.000+09:00

Another source of biomass is our garbage, also called municipal solid waste (MSW). Trash that comes from plant or animal products is biomass. Food scraps, lawn clippings, and leaves are all examples of biomass trash. Materials that are made out of glass, plastic, and metals are not biomass because they are made out of non-renewable materials. MSW can be a source of energy by either burning MSW in waste-to-energy plants, or by capturing biogas. In waste-to-energy plants, trash is burned to produce steam that can be used either to heat buildings or to generate electricity.

In landfills, biomass rots and releases methane gas, also called biogas or landfill gas. Some landfills have a system that collects the methane gas so that it can be used as a fuel source. Some dairy farmers collect biogas from tanks called "digesters" where they put all of the muck and manure from their barns. Read about a field trip to a real waste-to-energy plant or learn about the history of MSW.

WOOD AND WOOD WASTE

2007-03-29T15:59:00.000+09:00

The most common form of biomass is wood. For thousands of years people have burned wood for heating and cooking. Wood was the main source of energy in the U.S. and the rest of the world until the mid-1800s. Biomass continues to be a major source of energy in much of the developing world. In the United States wood and waste (bark, sawdust, wood chips, and wood scrap) provide only about 2 percent of the energy we use today.

About 81 percent of the wood and wood waste fuel used in the United States is consumed by the industry and commercial businesses. The rest, mainly wood, is used in homes for heating and cooking.

Many manufacturing plants in the wood and paper products industry use wood waste to produce their own steam and electricity. This saves these companies money because they don't have to dispose of their waste products and they don't have to buy as much electricity. The photograph to the right is of biomass fuel, probably wood chips, being stored and dried for later use in a boiler.

BIOMASS -- ENERGY FROM PLANT AND ANIMAL MATTER

2007-03-29T15:58:00.000+09:00

Biomass is organic material made from plants and animals. Biomass contains stored energy from the sun. Plants absorb the sun's energy in a process called photosynthesis. The chemical energy in plants gets passed on to animals and people that eat them. Biomass is a renewable energy source because we can always grow more trees and crops, and waste will always exist. Some examples of biomass fuels are wood, crops, manure, and some garbage.

When burned, the chemical energy in biomass is released as heat. If you have a fireplace, the wood you burn in it is a biomass fuel. Wood waste or garbage can be burned to produce steam for making electricity, or to provide heat to industries and homes.

Burning biomass is not the only way to release its energy. Biomass can be converted to other usable forms of energy like methane gas or transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Methane gas is the main ingredient of natural gas. Smelly stuff, like rotting garbage, and agricultural and human waste, release methane gas - also called "landfill gas" or "biogas." Crops like corn and sugar cane can be fermented to produce the transportation fuel, ethanol. Biodiesel, another transportation fuel, can be produced from left-over food products like vegetable oils and animal fats.

Biomass fuels provide about 3 percent of the energy used in the United States. People in the USA are trying to develop ways to burn more biomass and less fossil fuels. Using biomass for energy can cut back on waste and support agricultural products grown in the United States. Biomass fuels also have a number of environmental benefits.

Colorado getting serious about renewable energy

2007-03-28T14:57:00.000+09:00

When Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter campaigned last year on a theme to diversify the state’s energy economy and make it a leader in alternative energy, it could have been easy to dismiss the goal as too optimistic or far-fetched.

A pair of developments this week, however, shows that the state is making progress in setting itself up as a hub for alternative energy.

The Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels was announced this week as a cooperative effort among the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the Colorado School of Mines and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

The goal of the new project: to convert the abundant crops grown by Colorado farmers into fuel that can be used to power cars and other machines used in the modern world.

Initial funding for the project is $2 million, but organizers hope that energy companies will pay into the research ventures from the lab and universities.

While the governor certainly shone a spotlight onto the need for renewable energy during his campaign, the work between the universities and the federal lab predates his administration.

Last May, the same four entities were grouped into what was called the Northern Colorado Clean Energy Cluster. This week’s announcement shows the state is ready to put money behind the effort.

But while the state has a role in jump-starting a renewable energy effort, it is still private businesses that will lead the way in bringing technological advancements to the marketplace.

That’s why it was heartening this week to see the Danish company Vestas Wind Systems Inc. announce plans to build a plant near Windsor that will produce the turbine blades needed for capturing wind energy.

The 400 jobs the company will add to the regional economy are certainly cause for celebration, but even more so, the move signals that Colorado is serious about alternative energy and friendly to companies that want to do business here.

The energy needs of the future will be met by a combination of products that are not now in the marketplace. The events of this week should encourage Coloradans that this state could be the source of some of those products and help drive the economy for decades to come.

US ethanol decision to impact on Aust car exporters

2007-03-27T22:01:00.000+09:00

Australian car manufacturers say an American decision to have their new vehicles able to run on biofuels will push up costs for Australian car exporters.

America's biggest car companies have announced that almost half of their new cars will be able to run on 85 per cent ethanol in five years.

It follows a plan by US President George W Bush to reduce petrol consumption by 20 per cent over the next decade.

Chamber of Automotive Industries chief executive Peter Sturrock predicts the ethanol decision will add thousands of dollars on the costs of vehicles sold overseas.

"That change is unfortunate in the sense that it will require additional cost and some unique production arrangements in Australia and that being the case, it will add some complexity in cost," Mr Sturrock said.

"However, if that decision has been taken, I would imagine it would in fact impact on vehicles being exported to the US in the next few years."

Mr Sturrock says it is too early to say how much extra it will cost manufacturers to make cars for the US.

"I imagine it will run into some hundreds of dollars, maybe into the thousands of dollars per vehicle to be modified for the US specifications but we would have to study that more closely," he said.

'Few benefits'

He argues the environmental benefits from switching from a non-renewable to renewable fuels are almost negligible.

"In the first instance, the science reflects that it may be marginally beneficial but we have to remember that to produce ethanol in the first instance, there is a process required to take the product from grain or sugar cane and that itself uses a good deal of energy," he said.

"So we need to just examine the whole picture in terms of the energy consumption requirements to go from grain crops to ethanol to put into fuel to be put into vehicles."
Greenpeace energy adviser Paul Cleary agrees that ethanol, which is made from corn, is not a greener choice.

"At the moment, to produce ethanol, it requires a huge amount of energy in the growing of the crops and most importantly, in the electricity that's used in manufacturing it," he said.

"Most of that electricity in Australia, 88 per cent in fact, comes from coal-fired power stations."
Ethanol is a hot-button issue in America's mid-west, which produces almost half the world's corn.

The flashy Indy race cars, with their screaming V8 engines, have become unlikely pin-ups for the car makers' decision.

The IndyCar Series is set to become the first in motor sport to use a renewable fuel source. IndyCars will run on 100 per cent ethanol this season.

It’s a bird! It’s a Plane! No! It’s a Solar-Powered Plane!

2007-03-25T21:24:00.000+09:00

Going non-stop around the world in a hot-air balloon may seem like the pinnacle of air travel, but circling the globe in a solar-powered plane might be even better. The only person who will really know is Bertrand Piccard, a Swiss psychiatrist who could be the first person to make the trip around the planet in both contraptions.

Yesterday the appropriately named Piccard, who made the first trip around the world in a hot-air balloon with his co-pilot, was awarded funding from Deutsche Bank to build the first solar aircraft. Bloomberg news reports that:

The record-breaking flight is planned for May 2011 along the Tropic of Cancer. Construction of a smaller prototype with a 61- meter wingspan will begin next month. The first test flights are scheduled for next year. The biggest challenge will be to develop an aircraft with batteries capable of storing enough solar energy to fly through the night, said Piccard.

Deutsche Bank covered 15 percent of the total cost of the project, which is called Solar Impulse. The donation reflects the company’s belief in supporting alternative energy technologies, said Joseph Ackermann, the chief executive officer of Deutsch Bank AG.

Air travel currently requires fossil fuels and in the United States, accounts for 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Some day, solar-powered planes could help decrease our dependence on non-renewable resources and emissions.

Right now, the only thing standing in the way of everyone using solar-powered planes is the technology. According to the Solar Impulse website, the current wingspan of 80 feet will only allow one man to fly for 24 hours. But the team members seem hopeful:

But if we go back into history, when the great Wright brothers got their first plane to fly a distance of 200 meters in 1903, could they have imagined that 66 years later, two men would walk on the moon?

We’ll certainly be looking to the sunny skies in 2011 for a plane that’s soaring to new heights. And that’s not just a bunch of hot air.

Energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity

2007-03-21T21:16:00.000+09:00

Fifty-seven members of the North Dakota Renewable Energy Partnership (ndrep.org) represent a broad range of industries like Xcel Energy, Cass County Electric, Great River Energy, Ottertail Power, Soy Bean Growers, Corn Growers, regional economic development agencies, and state agencies like the ND Department of Renewable Energy and Efficiency. They all had input on developing renewable enrgy bill. Other industry experts that are not members, like John Dwyer of the Lignite Council, have been helpful in supporting #2288 and #1515, renewable energy bills that would help our state invest in the development of sustainable, home grown, renewable energy.

Producing more renewable energy will also help our state's fossil fuel industry by helping extend those non-renewable energy sources, adding renewables to fossil fuels often helps non-renewable energy sources burn cleaner, and it helps make them more marketable at a higher value.

Developing all our energy resources to their full potential in the most responsible, efficient and sustainable manner is North Dakota's great opportunity to help resolve the United States energy challenge and grow and diversify our state's revenues.

A recent survey showed 93 percent of North Dakotans (http://ndrep.org) want more state funding for home grown, renewable energy.

Please consider that one way to diversify our funding sources for vital sectors like education, human services and water, is to make significant state investments now for developing North Dakota's unmatched biomass and renewable energy resources.Biomass to biofuels does not use food for energy conversion and is among the fastest growing energy sectors in the country.

We have a fantastic opportunity this session, to invest now to diversify our energy resources and economy. Diversifying North Dakota energy development to its full potential could generate the sustainable funds to resolve our property tax problem, fund our challenges in demographics for human services along with more funds for water management and delivery.

Tennessee has budgeted a $61 million investment in biomass and cellulosic research
(http://www.areavoices.com/renewnd/). Many other states are investing as much or more, though they don't have as good of resources as ours here in North Dakota.

Please help restore funding for #2288 by contacting our North Dakota legislators this week. The appropriation for a $20 million investment in North Dakota's future is less than 4 percent of the current surplus.

As North Dakota native General Chuck Wald stated at a recent energy roundtable session, the United States energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity.Mike WilliamsBoard member of the North Dakota Renewable PartnershipFargo, N.D.

ENERGY RUN

New Pioneers in Shale

2010: Year of the Solar Battles

Britain plans 10 new nuclear plants

Sugar cane becomes Brazil’s second energy source

Primo Launches More Environmentally-Friendly Bottled Water in Time for Earth Day 2008

oil bug-swatting

Ethanol Playing Large Part in Solving Energy Problems

Sheland Farms producing renewable energy

energy can't meet demand

bright energy future without coal or nuclear

Wind energy blows into Columbia

Tory members praise energy plan

INDIGENOUS EQUIPMENTS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Nuclear Power Generation – Asian Situation

Energy research can be trial and error

Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power

Power utilities race for renewable energy sources

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - July 27, 2007by Deirdre Gregg Staff Writer

Solar panels tested at ASU lab

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

Energy research can be trial and error

Ethanol is a solid step in state's energy future

Predicting the impact of suburbia

Colorado Renewable Energy Mapping Task Force Members Named

Suddenly, solar's hot

Less climate-change hot air

Pursuit of biofuels bring new global security risks

Research focuses on renewable energy

Coal-fired Huntly earns big black mark

Weekend Review: Solar Energy, Saved By the Sun

Alternate fuel sources

CUBA: Sugarcane - Source of Renewable Energy, But Not Ethanol

Wind company invests in Welsh solar venture

Does wind power blow?

NGO in Bacolod wins int'l award for pioneering renewable energy

Why Recycled Paper Just Isn't Good Enough

Wind power runs into zoning rules

ADB And The Case Of Phulbari Coal Project

To Drink or To Drive

Wind power key to EU goal of increasing use of renewable energy

Hydrogen Cars Are Not Up to Speed, Yet

Canada to Build 40MW Solar Power Plant

Mill goes green to harness river’s renewable energy

Global Warming: Limits of Solar and Wind Power

Energy Under Water

BIOFUELS -- ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL

Wind and Solar drive NEX out-performance

Powered by the Sun: Poway School Adopts Solar Energy

State explores renewable energy powered by tides

Wave Power to Replace Gas in Zanzibar?

Underwater Windmill Helps Power Arctic Village

CSU looks to turn wind from annoyance to asset

Once a Dream Fuel, Palm Oil May Be an Eco-Nightmare

Greens don't always live up to the name

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, LANDFILL GAS, AND BIOGAS

WOOD AND WOOD WASTE

BIOMASS -- ENERGY FROM PLANT AND ANIMAL MATTER

Colorado getting serious about renewable energy

US ethanol decision to impact on Aust car exporters

It’s a bird! It’s a Plane! No! It’s a Solar-Powered Plane!

Energy challenge is North Dakota's great opportunity

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - July 27, 2007
by Deirdre Gregg

Staff Writer