New Pioneers in Shale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Renewable Energy | Shortage | NREL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.