Green Options » Alternative Fuels

China’s Second Pebble Bed Reactor Steam Plant; World’s Third Commercial HTGR

Rod Adams — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:49:34 +0000

There is some excitement in the nuclear focused blog world about “The World’s First Commercial High Temperature Nuclear Reactor” based partly on a recent article in Power Engineering by Jana Miller titled “Powering Up A Growing Nation”. This project in Shandong Province will be a unique plant whose reactor heat source is two containers full of spherical fuel elements, each one of which is about the size of a billiard ball.

I am a bit reluctant to call this plant a “first”, but I can get just as excited about the third, 10th or 100th plant in a progressive series of improved plants that should number 1000 reactors or more.

The plant, designated as HTR-PM, will be a 200 MWe pebble bed reactor heated steam plant with two reactors, each with a single steam generator (boiler) feeding a single turbine. The plant will be built in Rongchen City on a site large enough to host series of perhaps 10-12 similar plants. In that area of China, there are hundreds of older coal fired power plants generating 50-300 MWe each.

The HTR-PM is a carefully watched project that uses technology old enough to be new again. The concept was introduced in the late 1940s by Farrington Daniels who suggested the idea of combining uranium with graphite, which is a high temperature substance that also moderates neutrons, into small, discrete units that could be piled into a simple, shielded container.

This concept, known as the Daniels’ Pile, was a bit before its time. The material science available in the late 1940s could not provide the tight, vapor-proof coatings needed to ensure that all fission by-products remained sealed in the pebbles in all core conditions. That problem was addressed and overcome by the German project known as the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR) run in Julich from 1959-1988.

The AVR started operating in 1961, provided power to the grid in 1967 and was shut down after many years of testing and fuel developmental improvements in 1988.

The first commercial high temperature reactors

The AVR did not operate in isolation; during the same time there was a high temperature gas cooled reactor, built by Gulf General Atomics (now just General Atomics) and operated in the US at Fort St. Vrain. That HTGR was based on fuel in a different form, but it used fuel particles surrounded by layers of graphite and silicon carbide to provide the capability of operating at a significantly higher temperature and thermal efficiency than the conventional light water reactors.

I had the opportunity to visit General Atomics in 1994, before they decommissioned the fuel manufacturing facility that produced the Ft. St. Vrain fuel, and they gave me the pebble that you see here as a keep sake. It has been on my desk ever since.

The German group operating the AVR also built a commercial unit - Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR) - using fuel pebbles where some pebbles contained uranium-235 and others contained thorium-232. This fuel combination intrigued the designers because thorium is about 3-4 times as abundant as uranium, but it needs to be exposed to neutrons in a reactor before it can be used as fuel.

Unfortunately, though they were both commercial reactors, neither the Ft. St. Vrain HTGR nor the THTR operated for very long and neither led to any immediate successors. Good ideas, however, often incubate in the minds of problem solvers that see all of the potential and determine ways to solve the problems for another try.

China’s New High Temperature Reactors (HTR)

In 2000, the AVR rose up like a Phoenix in a new location at Tsinghua University with a new name - HTR-10. The Chinese had recognized the potential of the design and purchased essentially all of the makings including technical drawings, machinery, and consulting engineering services from the German owners. In January 2003, the HTR-10 began critical operations and testing. I have a number of friends and colleagues who have visited the facility and have been impressed. You can have a similar experience by watching a video produced by the Australian Broadcasting System titled Nuclear China.

There are many things about pebble bed reactors that fascinate me, but one of them is the fact that they can be configured to be able to withstand a complete loss of cooling without causing any core damage. As long as each reactor unit produces less than 400 MW of thermal energy, operators can turn off the cooling circulators and walk away knowing that the plant will heat up a bit, shut itself down, and never exceed a temperature at which any fuel damage will occur. Now that is a hot idea whose time has come!

The HTR-PM is capable of providing very high quality steam, identical to the steam produced in the most efficient coal fired power plants. In fact, Jim Holm has suggested that we could short cut the lengthy nuclear plant construction process by replacing boilers in existing steam plants with high temperature pebble beds.

It is one hell of a way to help solve the world’s most pressing energy challenge - how do we replace the low cost heat that coal provides to enable our modern economy without creating emissions that may overheat our planet?

Photo credits HTR-10 Schematic and simulated pebble fuel element from Rod Adams archives under creative commons.

75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
e2 energy: “Coal & Nuclear: Problem or Solution?”
Power Plant Efficiency Hasn’t Improved Since 1957
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030

Lovecraft is Fueling a New West Coast Trend

Courtney Carlisle — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:00:46 +0000

Since high school, I have wanted a Mercedes Turbo Diesel station wagon. Nope. Not lying. I have no idea where or why the infatuation, but now, with the introduction of Lovecraft biofuels, I am not alone. Even the celebs, like Mandy Moore, are converting their old school early 1980’s diesel Mercedes to run on biofuel.

What are the benefits of converting?

For starters, if you have a little patience and a generous Japanese restaurant nearby, you can get free fuel. While Wendy’s overall doesn’t rank high on the eco-friendly factor, my dad has nearly 100 in the South that use WVO in the form of French fry oil to run their maintenance trucks. Lighter oils - like the kind used for tempura at sushi places are the best and easiest to filter
Reduces sulfur gas (which contribute to acid rain) emissions by 99%
And, according to Lovecraft, takes the refineries and war out of the equation

When you run low, you can always head over to Sam’s or Costco and pick up some veggie oil to get you by to your next filling station or you can fill up with diesel interchangeably. It’s not necessarily a permanent solution, but it’s a great temporary option to help get a little extra mileage without getting gouged at the pump. Although, based on gas prices alone in LA, it would probably take you 2-3 years to recoup your costs from a professional conversion (unless we hit $10 a gallon this winter).

Biodiesel’s New Approval Rating Could Ease Warranty Concerns

Clayton B. Cornell — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:30:39 +0000

Lack of warranty support for biodiesel has been a major stumbling block for new diesel owners who want to start using the fuel. But three long-awaited ASTM specifications could help change that.

Automakers and engine manufacturers have been requesting a finished blend specification for B20 biodiesel blends for several years, with some citing the need for that spec as the single greatest hurdle preventing their full-scale acceptance of B20 use in their diesel vehicles.

On June 19th, after more than five years of research and discussion, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) finally approved the following specifications for biodiesel fuel:

Changes to the existing B100 biodiesel blend stock specification (ASTM D6751)
Finished specifications to include up to 5% biodiesel (B5) in the conventional petrodiesel specification (ASTM D975)
A new specification for blends of between 6 percent biodiesel (B6) to 20 percent biodiesel (B20) for on and off road diesel.

If that’s gibberish to you, here’s the take home message: the new specification for B6-B20 biodiesel blends could prompt more automakers to fully support B20 in their new cars and trucks.

Anyone who’s ever seriously looked into buying biodiesel for a new car or truck knows that manufacturer warranty approval of biodiesel is all over the map.

For example, Chrysler supports a B20 biodiesel blend in 2007 Dodge Ram trucks like the one above—but only for use in government or commercial fleets. GM also only supports fleet use of B20, but supports B5 in all commercial vehicles as do Ford, Mercedes, and VW. (Interestingly enough Case IH and New Holland, two manufacturers of $200K+ agricultural machines both support B100.)

Automakers: Could You Please Start Supporting B20? Thank You!

Why don’t automakers provide better support for biodiesel? The most (seemingly) reasonable explanation I’ve been given has to do with biodiesel’s ability to withstand the incredibly high pressures and precise specifications of the new common rail fuel injection systems, which also could apparently impact the ability of new clean diesels to meet NOx emissions standards.

But I’m going to need to see some numbers before I buy that, since biodiesel is already cleaner burning than diesel fuel anyway. I’m also not convinced that biodiesel wouldn’t work in high-pressure situations when diesel does.

I fired a few questions at VW about this, after test-driving the new clean diesels earlier this month. All I got was:

“There are studies taking place that suggest we won’t authorize anything beyond B7.”

and:

“Anything higher than a B7 mixture may degrade the burn thus the potential for negatively impacting emissions”

The keyword there is may. I’ve never seen any evidence that biodiesel would not work at a B20 blend in these newer engines, and hopefully these new standards will further ease any concerns automakers might have.

Final Words:

The new ASTM spec for B6 – B20 is a major building block in GM’s efforts to elevate biodiesel as part of our overall energy diversity strategy.

-John Gaydash, Director of Marketing for General Motors Fleet and Commercial Operations

Posts Related to Biodiesel and Biodiesel Warranty Issues:

More: http://nbb.grassroots.com/08Releases/ASTM_final/

[Via]

Photo Credit: skidrd via Flickr under Creative Commons License

Biodiesel Powered Earthrace Beats Around the World Record by 14 Days

Max Lindberg — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:00:58 +0000

Around the World in 60 Days

The sleek tri-hull Earthrace eco-boat, has beaten the world speed record for a powerboat to circumnavigate the globe. The biodiesel powered craft traveled 24,000 nautical miles in 60 days, 23 hours and 49 minutes, finishing its journey by crossing the finish line in Sagunto, Spain.

That beat a record set in 1998 by the British boat, Cable and wireless Adventurer.

According to a news release from Earthrace, skipper Pete Bethune, a former oil worker, had this to say about the achievement:

“We’re completely stoked to have achieved something so incredible,” says Bethune.
“Earthrace’s success has proved that any form of transport, including marine, can be nondamaging to the environment as well as being high performance. It is still early days for alternative fuel and there are issues that need to be addressed by those with the power to make change happen. But I hope that Earthrace and her adventure highlight to the world the importance of continuing to research and develop alternative fuel sources for global use.”

The trip was not without its problems, however. The craft hit sea debris in Palau and forced replacement of the boat’s drive shaft and propeller. It navigated through monsoon conditions in the Indian Ocean, and bypassed a backlog of ships waiting to transit the Panama Canal.

The boat is a 24m tri-hull wavepiercer, and was built in New Zealand.

More on the Earthrace Biodiesel Boat and Biodiesel:

Image Credit: Earthrace

Natural Gas Can Power Vehicles OR Electric Power Plants

Rod Adams — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:26:37 +0000

There is nothing really new about using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as a vehicle fuel. It works well in internal combustion engines and it is possible to squeeze enough energy on board in a reasonable size tank at a reasonable pressure to provide gasoline or diesel equivalent range. There are modification kits available for a number of automobiles, there is at least one production automobile (Honda Civic GX) and there are a number of options for buses (Viking CNG BS-III, New Flyer C/L30LF, C/L35LF, C/L40LF, etc.) suitable for municipal fleets.

The new thing, the reason that talk about CNG is growing, is that natural gas now costs about half as much per unit energy as gasoline and has an even greater cost advantage over diesel fuel.

With new software and lean-burning regimes available, CNG powered engines have improved their fuel economy to the point where they have reached essential parity with engines powered by the sister fossil fuels of gasoline and diesel. To compare fuel cost per mile, it is not a bad approximation to compare fuel costs per BTU, (or MMBTU, or therm).

I know, there are enough different units out there to cause some confusion, but if you want to do battle with the energy suppliers, you have to learn their language. Two thumb rules worth knowing - multiply the cost of natural gas in $/MMBTU by 6 and you will find out how much an oil equivalent barrel of natural gas costs. Multiply the cost of a gallon of diesel fuel by 7 and you will find out its cost in $/MMBTU.

One of my most frequently visited web sites is Bloomberg.com: Energy Prices where you can find the market prices for a number of different fuels. There you can find daily market prices (without taxes and retail mark ups) for natural gas, gasoline and distillate fuels (heating oil and diesel fuel are essentially the same composition.) Example: today, natural gas delivered to New York City gate (a trading hub) costs $13.92, the equivalent of $83.50 per barrel when converted to oil equivalent units. Diesel fuel costs $3.92 per gallon, the equivalent of $27.50 per MMBTU. Arm yourself with this information and you can see why people in decision making positions are looking hard at CNG again.

CNG vehicles have been around for a while, have good track records for safety and cleanliness, and have a growing pool of satisfied customers. The federal government also provides some generous subsidies for both individuals and fleet purchasers. Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, natural gas qualifies as an alternative fuel, which gives it a certain tax status by providing EPAct credits.

Throw in those incentives, a shift in the market price to significantly favor natural gas and some long term marketing efforts by coalitions that include Sierra Club, NRDC, ExxonMobil, CleanAir.org, PowerCompare.org, Natural Gas Vehicle Association and Chesapeake Energy and you may soon see a lot more of those CNG vehicles on the road.

Of course, those who know me at all know that I have difficulty producing an energy related article without bringing up nuclear power, so here is the expected plug. In recent memory, natural gas has actually been far less expensive than it is today. In 2003, for example, an MIT study about energy futures assumed that the high price case would be $4.00 per MMBTU with about a 5% annual increase.

Using that prediction, gas should cost just $5.10 per MMBTU, not $13.92. The difference is that gas is now the “go to” electricity fuel. A little more than 20% of the electricity in the US is produced by burning natural gas - the quantity of gas consumed in power plants has increased by 30% since 2000.

When we begin building and operating new nuclear power plants, which run on abundant fuel that costs just $0.50 per MMBTU (including the waste storage fee), we will free up a lot of gas and drive down its market price. That will make room for a lot of domestically powered CNG vehicles and reduce the amount of oil that we need to import. (The reason I “shouted” the word OR in the title is that every BTU of gas can only be burned once. Every bit that burns in power plants cannot be burned in vehicle engines.)

That kind of talk makes it hard for aggressive nukes like me to build coalitions with other energy suppliers who are thoroughly enjoying their current market power, but how does it sound to you?

Photo credit - DC Metro CNG bus by Rod Adams under Creative Commons. (Taken in going home traffic on June 25, 2008)

GM Backs Hydrogen Refueling Station Near LA
Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country
The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs)

Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy

Nick Chambers — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:15:02 +0000

Revetec, a little known company from the Gold Coast region of Australia, may be on to something huge: they’ve created an engine that is 50% smaller, 50% lighter, has 50% lower emissions and is cheaper to manufacture than a conventional internal combustion engine of the same horsepower. Oh yeah, did I mention that it doubles the fuel economy too.

What that means is a car like the 2007 Toyota Yaris, which is rated at 40 mpg on the highway, would get 80 mpg with a Revetec engine.

This isn’t some hoax… They have a prototype which has been attached to an actual vehicle and independently tested to substantiate their claims.

In personal communication with Mr. Brad Howell-Smith, the Chairman, Inventor and CAD Designer for Revetec, he says “road tests have estimated that [the engine] uses around 50% less fuel than a conventional engine” and if it were converted to run on diesel, that performance gain could be much higher.

Also, because the engine delivers higher torque, and can perform and operate well at much lower rpm’s than a conventional one, the noise levels are lower.

To illustrate how serious he is, Mr. Howell-Smith said that since 2001 his company has been in touch with the US Military Head of R&D for the Southern Hemisphere on a “regular basis” for the purpose of developing one of their engines for light aircraft.

The current prototype engine, the X4v2, is what Revetec calls a “controlled combustion engine.” The meat of the engine comprises two counter rotating multilobate cams, which are acted upon by two pairs of diametrically opposed pistons which are rigidly interlinked by connecting rods.

If that sounds like complete gibberish to you, you’re not alone. Which is why I included an animation of the process to the left. A more simplified animation of the general motion of an engine of this sort is also included below.

Mr. Howell-Smith said that “if [the engine] uses 50% less fuel given that it has the same top end as a conventional engine, emissions would be reduced by 50% if the bottom end was utilized.”

What does all that stuff about “bottom end” and “top end” mean? The X4v2 has a huge amount of torque over a much larger range of rpm’s than a conventional internal combustion engine.

If a person were to drive a vehicle fitted with this engine in a non-aggressive fashion and keep the rpm’s at the “bottom end” (meaning no “jack-rabbit” starts) they could expect to see a 50% reduction in emissions.

Alternatively, according to Mr. Howell-Smith, a person could see a 30% reduction in fuel use and a 30% reduction in emissions if they used the full acceleration power of the X4v2 all the time. This would provide a 20% increase in acceleration capabilities.

We could debate about whether or not the internal combustion engine has a place in the future of transportation or whether it’s going to be all-electric or fuel cell or whatever… but in the meantime, Revetec has a product that could revolutionize the the transportation industry now, and provide a much needed large reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.

Just imagine a bunch of 80 mpg Toyota Yarises (Yarisi??) running around all over the place. A little scary, I know, but… an 80 mpg conventional automobile? I must be dreaming, wake me up before I get too excited.

Posts Related to Engines and Fuel Economy:

Image Credits: Revetec

Airlines Looking for Alternatives: Air New Zealand Tests Biofuels

Courtney Carlisle — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:41:44 +0000

Recently, Virgin Airlines garnered a lot of support and criticism for their announcement that they would be experimenting with biofuels. Now, Air New Zealand has annoucned that it will begin testing a new generation of biofuel this year. With the goal of converting a portion of its domestic fleet to run on the renewable fuel source within five years, the airline will be the first in the world to test a biofuel derived from jatropha, a bush grown in India that produces seeds with a high oil content.

An airline spokesperson commented that early tests showed biofuels cost about half the price of normal aviation fuel and produced half of the environmental emissions. Of course, regulators will have to approve the fuel for “safety” before they can officially convert the fleet, but rising prices for aviation fuel and falling support of the airline industry are spurring the search for an alternative.

This is just a preliminary step and is in a research phase. Alternatives to the jatropha plant, such as algae, exist. Not to mention, availability and infrastructure for international as well as domestic flights doesn’t currently exist and won’t until airlines and fueling companies are able to reach an agreement.

Are Automakers To Blame For Consumer Car-Buying Trends? Auto Alliance Weighs In

Clayton B. Cornell — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:28:46 +0000

Editors Note: This guest post was contributed by Charley Territo, spokesperson for the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, in an effort encourage better dialogue between the auto industry and the environmental movement. Charley also contributed a guest post on Grist on May 20. I asked him to weigh in on a question I’ve had for a long time: How can automakers like GM complain that consumers only want to buy big cars when they spend hundreds of thousands advertising brands like Hummer? Here is his response. Feel free to weigh in with your own comments below.

For years it’s been assumed that, using their superior marketing skills, automakers have the ability to trick consumers into buying SUVs and pickup trucks…when, in reality, the consumers really only
wanted to buy compact cars. While that’s probably quite flattering to the marketing departments, it doesn’t have the important benefit of actually being correct.

Current events are now allowing people to see more clearly the greater force at work driving consumer demand: Gas prices.

Gas just pushed past $4 a gallon – a record high. With no drop on the horizon, customers are adjusting not only their driving habits but their purchasing patterns, as well.

The last time the average gas price in a given month constituted a record high, it was May 2007. Incidentally, that is also the only month in the five years prior to March 2008 in which consumers
purchased more passenger cars than they did light trucks. That is not a coincidence.

Think about that: years have been spent trying to legislate incremental increases in fuel economy standards. But the recent rise in gas prices has succeeded in changing the fuel efficiency of the new automobile fleet without any government intervention. The lesson here is very important: when consumers became a part of the equation, both consumers and the auto industry will respond. . .and this response is faster and more effective than artificial regulation. But let’s be clear, though: the auto industries response did not happen overnight. In fact, the auto industry has been working toward this for many years now.

For years, automakers have been touting the more than 100 models that achieve fuel economy ratings of more than 30 mpg on the highway. For years, they have been introducing alternative fuel autos like hybrid electric, ethanol capable e-85, clean diesel and more to prepare for a time when consumers valued fuel economy the way they valued attributes like towing capacity, 4 wheel drive, cargo room, safety, performance and styling.

That time has arrived.

Automakers have been preparing for that shift, and they are working even harder now that it is arriving,. They are increasingly changing their product lineups to meet the challenge, and more and more fuel efficient autos will be introduced in the future. By the end of next year more than 50 new models of hybrids are expected to be available, and the sales of clean diesel vehicles are expected to grow from less than 1% of sales today to 10-15% by 2015. Last year more than 1 million ethanol capable ffvs (flex-fuel vehicles) were sold in the U.S with the increased renewable fuels standard included as part of last year’s energy bill. That number will continue to grow.

The U.S. is not one size fits all, though. If real progress is going to be achieved on fuel efficiency, consumer incentives are important.

Remember these points:

What works in one part of the country doesn’t always work in another.
The fuels available in one part of the country aren’t always available in another.
The vehicles that are popular in one part of the country aren’t always popular in another.

That’s why automakers believe that the best way to enhance our energy security, save money at the pump and reduce our carbon dioxide emission is through the use of diverse fuels and diverse autos. No one likes to pay more for gasoline. . .or for that matter food, airline tickets or any other consumer good. But higher prices force consumers to make decision about their habits that otherwise wouldn’t be made. For now it looks like high gas prices and demand for more

Fuel efficient cars are here to stay. Automakers are ready to respond with cleaner, safer and more fuel efficient vehicles than ever before, proving once again that the market will respond faster than incremental government mandates.

Photo Credit: rick on Flickr under Creative Commons License.

350: Stabilizing Earth’s Atmosphere - Animation Video to Build Awareness

John Ivanko — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:06:29 +0000

It’s not just any number: 350.

Returning to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our Earth’s atmosphere is the level that most of the world’s scientific community agrees as the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. When industrial revolution began, it was 275 parts per million. Today, we’re far above that at 385 parts per million and continuing to rise at an accelerating pace, often contributing to the extreme weather, shrinking glaciers and numerous other effects of climate change familiar to more and more of us.

View this stunning 350 video animation on YouTube, created by the innovative Free Range Studios, designed to reach out to the world to foster the coming together of global community to address this challenge — and hold our political leaders accountable to provide the policies that encourage the changes we must all make.

350.org, an organization spearheaded by Bill McKibben, seeks to weave together all communities around the world seeking to help our return to safety and atmospheric stability, to 350. “This is a problem that comes with a time limit,” says McKibben. “If we do not solve it soon, then we’re not going to solve it.” In eighteen months, world leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss solutions to climate change, but their solutions are tepid at best according to McKibben. So he and several others have taken it their charge to help everyone on Earth — with the help of everyone on Earth — to understand the importance of climate change and returning to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide, forcing the kind of comprehensive change necessary at all levels of society and with governmental policies that foster such rapid change.

As we write about in ECOpreneuring and Rural Renaissance, we examine our ecoprenuerial enterprise from the perspective of how our business is a catalyst for solving climate change in various ways, like over-producing electricity from the wind and sun. Our B&B serves as a waystation for citizens searching for ways to reclaim self-reliance, self-sufficiency and community interdependence. Others we’ve met at a Green Festival, the MREA’s Energy and Sustainable Living Fair, or a farmer’s market are finding creative ways to solve our problems today with renewable energy, energy conservation, and sustainable food systems, all while thriving in a local economy.

So, how are you helping get to 350? First step, let’s get everyone on the same page and get the arrows of change pointing the same direction. See www.350.org to learn, take action and spread the word to change the world for the better. This could very well be the largest branding campaign ever with the intent of restoring our planet, rather than destroying it with the products or services we use and throw away.

Share the change. Create the change. Be the change.

Related Posts about 350:
Creativity 350: Crafting a Green World

Photo provided with permission: 350.org

McCain Proposes $300 Million Prize to Developer of “Super Battery”

Max Lindberg — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:25:58 +0000

On his campaign swing through the west, Sen. John McCain proposes awarding $300 million to the first developer of a battery technology that exceeds all known technology today. The package would have to be superior to any technology known today, to power plug-in hybrids or electric cars.

McCain is also focusing on alternative fuels, suggesting a $5,000 tax credit for every person who buys a zero-emission vehicle. He says that should level “the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline”.

It seems like McCain is jumping from one side of the fence to the other in his campagin. Last week he sided with President Bush, calling for resumption of off shore drilling, now he’s beating the drum for alternative fuels.

And let’s not forget McCain’s call for 45 more nuclear reactors by 2030.

I’m confused. Could he be appealing to those who hear only what they want to hear? That might cover both bases and get a few more votes.

Meantime, Senator Barak Obama opposes the idea of offshore drilling, saying it won’t answer the immediate problem facing motorists around the world. He blames, in part, the speculation of energy traders for the upswing in oil prices.

Source Material: ABC

The All-Electric (EV) CitiCar: Powered by the Sun

John Ivanko — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:02:43 +0000

I’m eagerly awaiting the 4-door, family-sized EV sedan rumored to be in the pipeline from the Canadian-based ZENN Motor Company (they already make a great 2-door model that’s even affordable to us non-celebrity types, picture above). I’d like to avoid going to the gas station at all when going to an Energy Fair or Green Festival. While our VW Jetta TDI gets more than 40 mpg, these days the cost for diesel (and biodiesel when I can get it) is quite a bit more than gasoline, and rising faster than gas.

For now, we’re moving around locally in a funky-looking, all-electric CitiCar, made in 1974. Our CitiCar is restored to roughly original condition (except for the wear and tear on the body itself) with the expert help of our neighbor who found two more after we found ours. It’s hard to go anywhere without people cutting me off — not out of rage — but curiosity or with a smile on their face. Sometimes getting a “head turner” doesn’t need to come at a huge price.

Which is my point. Why not own an EV for less than $8,000 (perhaps much less), today? The cost for our CitiCar plus new parts and new batteries ran just over $3,400, with the restoration and rewiring taking about a year, off and on — again, thanks largely to the electricity-savvy knowledge of our neighbor. Since the CitiCar is over 30 years old, we snagged collector plates and pay the registration fees only once, then we’re done for as long as we own the car. If you don’t mind the “used” appearance of a vehicle, you can ride around without having spent a dime at the gas station. Our CitiCar doesn’t possess the attractive styling of an EV1 from GM — but you won’t find even one of those on the road anywhere.

I’m amazed that there are still hundreds of CitiCars out there in garages, warehouses, or in a barn like mine was: motor on the seat and tires rotting. There were supposedly about 2,600 or so CitiCars manufactured by the Sebring Vanguard Company in Florida from 1974 to 1976, during our last American energy crisis. Whether because of liability insurance or crash test requirements, the company halted production and disappeared within a few years of rolling the first CitiCar off the line.

We like to think the car resembles a wedge of cheese because in Green County, near Monroe, Wisconsin, where there are more cheese factories than any other county in the US. The CitiCar negotiates the bumps a bit rough and the brakes need pumping to stop effectively, but with a top speed of about 35 miles per hour and 30 to 40 mile range, it gets us where we need to go for about 1-cent a mile. In a future blog, perhaps I’ll add a video of my 8 mile round trip to the bank — if there’s interest to see it on the go.

To completely stay on the renewable energy side and avoid electricity coming from coal-fired or nuclear power plants, we’re recharging the CitiCar with a .5 kW photovoltaic system — perhaps one of few solar powered cars on the planet.

So, until you save up enough for the Tesla or the next generation of long-range EV cars that fit more than two people, you might keep your eye out for an old CitiCar.

Image Credit: Zenn Motor Company

Price of Oil Has Department of Defense Looking to Save Fuel

Timothy B. Hurst — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:30:12 +0000

$1 per barrel increase in the price of oil costs U.S. $130 million

Whenever I’m involved in a discussion about government waste and/or the politics of bureaucratic budgeting, I undoubtedly recount a story that usually leaves people nodding in agreement or shaking their head in disbelief. The story goes like this: A friend of mine we’ll call “Rob,” whom I used to work with during my summer breaks, was coming back to Massachusetts for an unexpected late-September visit. Rob had relocated to Pensacola, Florida where he was learning how to fly jets at the Naval Flight Training School. As Rob lifted the golf clubs out of the nose of the fighter jet he had just flown from Florida to Massachusetts for a one-day visit, he knew his trip was different - and he was a little uneasy about it.

You see, Rob’s day-long visit to play golf in Massachusetts was made possible by an officer (or officers) who rightly feared that ending up with a surplus of fuel at the end of that fiscal year would slash the budget for fuel in the next. Rob’s little visit was back in the early 1990s, but with today’s skyrocketing fuel prices, and the added fuel demands of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “largest single user of petroleum products in the world” is looking for ways to use less fuel - and more types of it.

The Shreveport Times reports that the military spent $12.6 billion on jet fuel, diesel and other fuels in 2007 and rising fuel costs have the DoD asking Congress for additional funding to cover a projected shortfall. In the meantime, the Air Force has been looking for ways to offset rising fuel costs, including conservation. Col. West Anderson is the 2nd Bomb Wing’s vice commander at Barksdale AFB.

Anderson knows a thing or two about fuel consumption. A B-52 bomber has a 50,000 gallon fuel tank, when all filled up, his fleet of 60 plus B-52s hold a total of 5 million gallons of JP-8 jet fuel.

Col. Anderson says:

“We’ve been exploring fuel savings, trying to lighten the loads that we carry on day-to-day training missions, so we get better fuel economy. We’re planning our missions more efficiently so were not using as much ‘drone’ time, don’t try to spend as much high-level time, (and) condense and pack the training into a tighter schedule.”

Defense planners are also looking to alternative fuel sources and synthetic fuel blends to help cushion the impact of rising oil prices. Said Air Force Maj. Don Rhymer of the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office, of the “The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011.” The DoD also hopes that at least 50% of this fuel will be produced domestically by 2016.

But “alternative fuel sources” and “synthetic fuel blends” are not automatically good things, as Clayton Cornell at gas2.org points out. Cornell writes:

“While synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it could also double CO2 emissions produced by military flight[s]. At the time of this writing, synfuel is made via Fischer-Tropsch process from either coal or natural gas to produce a somewhat cleaner burning but extremely greenhouse-gas intensive product. The Air Force may be underscoring a recently hyped green image, but it seems that economic considerations are largely at play here…”

And what about those late-September Navy-sponsored New England golf getaways? The ones where the primary mission is to burn “surplus” fuel? Their days may be numbered, but there are no reductions or structural incentives for using less currently in the works.

According to Col. Anderson, “We haven’t been told that we’re going to get a reduction in our flight hours we have submitted for next year. That always could happen, but right now we have received no word that any of that is going to take place.”

“Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011″

“The World’s Top Ten Military Spenders”

Shreveport Times

Photo: U.S. Air Force

A Clean Future equals a Cheaper Future

Joshua S Hill — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:58:45 +0000

It comes as no surprise to me to see time and time again examples of human stupidity. I’m not the sunniest of people on my best day, and when all around me the world is going to hell in a handbasket for a veritable multitude of reasons, one can only get depressed, or rise above it and become as arrogant as me.

This most recent spate of reviling the human race was sparked by an opinion piece by Elizabeth R. Sawin from the Sustainability Institute. Her title was enough to make me smile: “$4.00 per Gallon Gasoline and Climate Change Both Call for the Same Solution: Collective Investment in Clean Energy.” I smiled again when she opened with a question she was recently asked: “What do you have to say about global warming to the whole segment of Americans who are just waking up to energy issues with $4.00 per gallon gasoline?”

Needless to say, my revulsion of the human species, or at least a vast majority of them (I have a variety of revulsions, this one is environmentally based), seem to have only just realized that maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to have a look for something other than fossil fuels to power our transportation.

And the terms “climate change” or “global warming” do not even register.

I must admit to a certain measure of childish glee, when I see petrol prices rising as they are. You see, I do not drive a car, and at 24, I have no real desire to drive one either. No doubt by the end of 2008 my peer group will have bullied me in to getting my license, but apart from the sporadic 3am drive to the supermarket for a chicken, my feet and my bike are all I need (and maybe the occasional bus/train ticket).

So at a time when petrol prices are skyrocketing and the US Senate defeating the Climate Security Act, people are suitably concerned. But as I mentioned, it isn’t because of any fear of melting ice-caps or drowning polar bears – although I like to think that many at least feel they should care about such things, even if they don’t actively do so.

Now Sawin quickly antagonizes a great magnitude of people out there by using the term “scientific consensus” to describe what is happening to our environment; it’s never a good move. But I don’t even want to discuss that. The point I want to make is this: how come with fuel prices getting higher than Willie Nelson, people don’t want a cheaper alternative?

It would seem to me that, even though you may be 100% against the idea that man has decided to pollute Earth in to oblivion (guess where I stand), surely you would like to be paying a little less to get to work in the morning? (Another gleeful admission: I work from home!) Wouldn’t you like to pay a little less to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer? (I got nothing for those two! I’m sufferin’ like the rest of you!)

So if there ever comes a time where there is a vote to be cast, calls to be made and politicians to be swayed, make sure you do your part: vote to bring in alternative energies, call your local whatever and let him know! Because even if you don’t feel the environment needs the helping hand, I can sure bet that your hip-pocket wouldn’t mind one.

The Week in Cleantech News (6/9-6/12)

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:35:10 +0000

The San Francisco board of supervisors has approved the country’s largest municipal solar program. The program is designed to reduce the cost of solar for city residents and leverage private dollars to get more solar on San Franciscans’ roofs (earth2tech).

GM is backing a hydrogen refueling station near Los Angeles. The station will be located at Clean Energy’s compressed natural gas (CNG) facility and should be operational by the fall (gas 2.0).

U.S. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) will introduce a national renewable energy feed-in tariff. Under the bill, utilities would be required to pay a set price to anyone supplying less than 20MW of renewable electricity to the grid. Inslee plans to introduce the bill in the next week or two. But requiring utilities to pay a mandated amount for renewable energy is “a new idea to D.C., and like a fine wine it’ll need time” (ecopolitology).

U.S. Department of Energy promises $30 million to build plug-in hybrid vehicles. “Among the trio of three-year projects, General Motors would seek to improve lithium-Ion battery packs and charging systems, integrating its research by 2011 within a test fleet” (Green Tech Blog).

The world’s energy leaders have launched an energy efficiency initiative. The International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) will “support on-going work of the participating countries and relevant organizations, exchanging information of best practices, policies and measures and developing public-private partnership programs” (Renewable Energy World).

“The Week in Cleantech News (5/12-5/16)”

Photo: Muenzer via flickr under a Creative Commons license