So I thought it might help to pose the future-of-our-energy question in another way: What do I WIMBY? (As in, Want In My Backyard?)

OK, here we go: Following are photos illustrating several clean and/or renewable energy options that could help us curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Which ones would you be willing to view from your backyard as a tradeoff for a cleaner, brighter future? Be honest now: I’m asking literally if you would say OK if one of these was what you saw when looking out of the window of your home.

Is it Nuclear Power?

Image credit: Anna Gomez at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Concentrated Solar Power?

Image credit: Sandia National Laboratory at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Distributed Solar Power?

Image credit: Downtowngal at Wikimedia Commons, under a Creative Commons license.

Wind Power?

Image credit: Dirk Ingo Franke at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Hydroelectric Power?

Image credit: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain.

Tidal Power?

Image credit: TidalStream Partners at Wikimedia Commons, under a GNU Free Documentation license.

Or Geothermal Power?

Image credit: Gretar Ívarsson at Wikimedia Commons, released into the public domain.

I’ll be the first to answer: I’d have to say distributed solar (rooftop panels) and tidal. Honestly, I’d find all the others unsightly when viewed from my home. (Though I have to acknowledge that’s clearly selfish: if it’s a choice between saving the Earth — and civilization — from the effects of catastrophic climate change, I’d take any of the above.)

Of course, by the time any of us really has to make that choice, it’ll be too late to stave off a climate catastrophe. That’s the problem with NIMBYism.

The report, “On the Rise; Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming,” touts the multiple benefits of solar thermal power that the U.S. has barely begun to tap. One, it’s a clean source of energy that could replace other power sources that generate greenhouse gases and worsen climate change. Two, by storing thermal energy, it can generate electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. And ,three, it’s wildly abundant in the U.S., offering way more clean energy than we currently use on a daily basis.

The report notes that a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar thermal installation in the American Southwest could meet the entire country’s energy needs. That area, it further adds, is just a little larger than the amount of land in the U.S. that has been strip-mined for coal.

“If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and addressing our energy challenges, solar energy must be part of the solution,” said Holly Binns, Environment Florida’s field director.

While the Southwest alone could generate more than 7,000 gigawatts of energy,  other parts of the U.S.  — including Florida — promise a large potential for solar energy development. The Sunshine State has some catching-up to do, but recently improved its clean-energy performance with the opening of the Sunshine Energy Solar Array near Sarasota. The 28,000-square-foot array, Florida’s largest to date, can generate 250 kilowatts of energy, enough to power about 45 typical homes per month.

Clearly, the state will need quite a few more like these to make a serious dent in its fossil-fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Florida officials hope recently approved green-energy legislation will encourage those kinds of developments. The bill includes, among other things, authorization for a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a renewable fuel standard and renewable portfolio standard that promotes wind and solar energy, and new building standards that call for higher energy efficiency in new homes and businesses.

At the national level, the Environment Florida report is also encouraging. With the right policies, it says, the U.S. could easily generate 80 gigawatts of concentrating solar power by 2030. That would be enough to power 25 million homes, reduce carbon emissions by 6.6 percent and create between 75,000 and 140,000 new jobs.

Good news — for a change — isn’t it? Let’s just hope the right people are listening.

Although they have yet to disclose the location of the new tower manufacturing facility, it would be situated to complement the company’s fist North American blade manufacturing plant, which recently opened its doors in Windsor, Colorado.

For the tower plant, the company will need a large parcel of land served by freight rail, a combination that Northern Colorado can provide at several locations, including the Windsor location, where construction proceeds on phase two of the blade plant. According to the Northern Colorado Business Review, more than 1,000 new jobs could result from further expansion of Vestas’ manufacturing presence.

Healthy Profit Margins Hide Industry Bottlenecks

In the second piece of big news for the Vestas, the company reported very strong earnings on Thursday - the kind of earnings that emphasize the wind energy industry’s resilience to the slumping economy. Net income for Vestas rose 94 percent to 33 million euros ($56 million) from 17 million euros a year earlier. The company was expected to earn 35.5 million euros, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of five analysts.

Despite the strong growth in the wind energy business worldwide, the overall demand pressure on the industry persists. According to Bloomberg, there are still long lead times for a number of key components that can last as long as 15 months. Of particular concern to turbine manufacturers is a global increase in demand for carbon-fiber, the graphite composite material that moderns turbines blade use because of their light weight, and high tensile strength.

With that said, it seems that it will be a few years before supply will match demand. Even as new manufacturers pop up around the globe, they are being outpaced by the increases in global demand for clean, renewable energy.

Sources:

• Northern Colorado Business Review
• Bloomberg

Other posts about the cleantech industry:

• “Can ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ be Sexy: Two Energy Efficiency Stocks
• “Solar System Leases Taking Industry by Storm“
• “The Unlimited Potential of American Wind Energy: AWEA“

Photo: Vestas Wind Systems

Fortunately, Marin Clean Energy has a plan called Community Choice Energy. MCE plans to form a Joint Powers Authority for cities and counties to pool the electricity dollars and take over the procurement of power as well as begin building local renewable energy capacity. Their Community Choice Energy plan calls for 50% renewable energy by 2014 and eventually 100% subject to operational and economic constraints. Continuing with the status quo, Marin is likely to get 30-60 MW of renewable energy or enough electricity for about 15-30k homes in the next 15 years. With Community Choice, Marin is likely to get 120-225 MW or enough electricity for 60-122k homes in the next 15 years. That’s 300% higher with Community Choice.

Recently, Supervisor Charles McGlashan spoke at press conference about MCE’s plan to dramatically boost renewable energy in the Marin:

We have an arduous journey ahead of us to make sure that we provide the accurate background and detailed information to our colleagues on every single city council in Marin County. If you may know the background, the Community Choice Aggregation law passed in ‘02 enables your local government to aggregate you into a completely new paradigm of managing and generating your electricity. And frankly one of the things that I like about the policy is that moves one of the core basic goods of our society - our energy production - back from corporate monopolies and buildings far far away into local backyard, our local board rooms, and our local communities. And that has a few very important benefits that i am personally very intrigued with. first of all it keeps a significant amount of revenue available for reinvestment in our own communities so that we can be paying our local green businesses to generate some of our local electricity in our own county. thats great for job creation, its good for low income job opportunities, for people who need jobs, its good for the electrical trades, and its a boost for a our local economy.

With that comes a more democratic process where community members themselves can talk to their local leaders and decide what kind of energy future do we really want. i think right now in the Rose Garden at the White House President Bush is offering another very tepid climate change initiative that might stop the rate of increase of greenhouse gases some time in the next quarter century. And one of the problems that we have at the local level is we keep waiting for national or state leadership that continues to fail to materialize.

So what Marin Clean Energy promises to do is bring back the community choice, the community direction of how we build our energy future together and brings that control to us locally. And some of the upsides, in addition to the job growth, include 350,000 tons a year of avoided CO2 emissions. There’s absolutely nothing we can do at the local level that is more compelling than that. Thats an overall 15-17% reduction in our CO2 emissions below 1990 levels. Theres nothing we can do next year that will come close to that potential.

Over the last five years, as supervisor Brown will mention, we have conducted very arduous homework on the risks and the bonds capabilities, the legal issues involved with forming this. And I am happy to say that the materials we are presenting to our city council colleagues have explored every single one of those risks. And frankly in my view those risks are lower than doing nothing. If we stay and do nothing, we could be subject to the wild fluctuations of natural gas prices, coal burning for electricity, and even the huge reinvestment in the nuclear power plant plants that others claim is green energy.

And so we’re girding for a very intense debate back and forth with a lot of misinformation and assertions made on the other side I believe, and I want to ask the public to do some very hard homework. We have a very detailed set of information for the city council members and their staffs. And nows the time to dig deep and do some very serious homework. In my view, this may be the most important public policy issue that we investigate in the entire decade. Its a huge potential leg up on local renewable power with local economic benefits. And have to now, sit down, get serious and do some very hard analysis to make sure this provides the promise that so far we think it does. Thank you very much.

Hear the audio.

See also the Local Clean Energy Alliance site for information on the Community Choice Energy effort in the East Bay.

Among other things, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 would roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest the money in renewable energy development and energy efficiency technology. It also would create a windfall profit tax on oil companies failing to invest in increased capacity and renewable energy resources.

According to one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT):

“The bottom line is that at a time when this country faces a major crisis in terms of the price of oil, when many working families in our state and all over this country are hurting, I think we have brought forth a comprehensive piece of legislation, which begins to attack that problem with the result of lowering the price of oil.”

Reaction Less than Stellar

Thus far, reaction across the blogosphere is just as what might be expected. Dave Roberts at Grist makes no bones about his skepticism and calls the move a “counter-pander.” He writes:

“Look: you can’t promise Americans you’re going to lower the price of gas. It’s a lie, and they’re going to notice when prices don’t go down. It might help you tactically in the short-term, but in the long-term it’s going to come back and bite you on the ass. Gas prices are going to keep going up, and good leadership begins with honesty.”

It’s not just bloggers who oppose the Consumer-First Energy Act, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) released a statement yesterday decrying the windfall profits title of the bill as “misguided.” According to the statement:

“Regrettably, this proposed margin provision, which would push trading from regulated and transparent markets to unregulated and nontransparent markets, would constitute a significant step backward in transparency and market integrity.”

The problem I see with this legislation is that it does nothing to address the structural problems that are causing a rise in oil prices. Simply put, the only way for us to even try and stabilize oil prices is to use less. Using less would require major investments in public transportation, the kind of investments the feds are very skeptical of providing.

Some of the components of the Consumer-First Energy Act are as follows (adapted from bill summary - available here)

• A windfall profit tax for oil companies - A 25 percent windfall profits tax on companies that fail to invest in increased capacity and renewable energy sources. This provision would not apply to the profits those companies reinvested in clean, affordable, domestically produced renewable fuels, expanding refinery capacity and utilization, or renewable electricity production.
• Stop speculation in the oil markets - First, the bill prevents traders of U.S. crude oil from routing transactions through off-shore markets to evade speculative limits and sets forth reporting requirements. The bill also requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to set a substantial increase in the margin requirement for all oil futures trades, contracts or transactions.
• Roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest the money in renewable energy - Bill would roll back $17 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies and instead invest those taxpayer dollars to improve consumer price protection, renewable energy development and energy efficiency echnology through a designated Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund.
• Stop government purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum until the price of oil drops to $75 a barrel or less - The Consumer-First Energy Act calls for suspending through December 2008 oil purchases for the SPR. Filling could resume when the 90 day average price of crude oil recedes to $75 or less.
• Protect consumers from price gouging - Give the President the authority to declare an energy emergency should there be a shortage, disruption or significant pricing anomalies in the oil market.

See Also:

• “Clean Energy Tax Credits Will Not Be Passed Without Funding“
• “Senate Passes Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Why am I not More Excited?“
• “Feast or Famine Cycles of US Clean Energy Development“
• “Show Me the Deliberation…Please“

Associated Press

Photo: © Tommyschultz | Dreamstime.com

Last week’s topic was why corn ethanol is an environmental loser.

But are all biofuels losers? No. Some can be winners. One of those is called cellulosic ethanol.

What Is Cellulosic Ethanol?

All ethanol — whether it is corn or cellulosic — is the same chemical compound: C2H5OH. You might recall from elementary chemistry courses that the “OH” group at the end of the formula indicates that the compound is an “alcohol.” Alcohols can have varying numbers of carbon atoms. Alcohol with two carbon atoms is called “ethanol.” The other alcohols are generally too toxic to be ingested, and thus ethanol has been the libation of choice down through the ages. (Ethanol used as fuel is rendered nonpotable.)

So corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol don’t signify different types of ethanol, but rather the different material (or feedstocks) used to produce them.

Why Cellulosic Ethanol Can Be an Environmental Winner

Corn ethanol is produced from kernels — actually only a small part of the corn kernels — the sugars and starches. Herein lies one of the limitations of corn ethanol. You see, sugars and starches comprise a tiny fraction of the corn plant’s mass — about 2-15%. Because only a small fraction of a plant is used to make corn ethanol, the amount you can produce is limited.

Cellulosic ethanol is a different story. Most of the dry biomass — as much as 80% — is typically made up of cellulosic material — the stuff that makes the plant sturdy. So you can make a lot of ethanol using a plant’s cellulose instead of its sugars and starches. (By the way, even if the cellulosic material comes from corn, we still call it “cellulosic ethanol.” Corn ethanol is made solely from the sugars and starches of the corn kernel.)

The Major Advantage of Cellulosic Ethanol

Our guts are unable to digest cellulose, so we typically throw away that part of crops. A lot of it is left on the field or disposed of as agricultural waste. For corn, the cellulosic material includes the corn stover — the leaves and stalk — and the cob.

Remember what made corn ethanol such an environmental negative? A main reason is that it requires that land being used to grow food (or left as forests or grassland) be converted to growing an energy crop. And that leads to lots of global warming pollution.

This is not a problem for cellulosic ethanol — we can simply use the agricultural waste from food crops to make the ethanol and thereby avoid all those emissions.

Why We Can’t Fill Our Tanks With the Cellulosic Stuff … Yet

Unfortunately, right now, producing cellulosic ethanol on an industrial scale is too expensive. Unlike converting a plant’s sugars and starches to corn ethanol, making cellulosic ethanol requires that we first break down the cellulosic material. But because this material is what makes a plant sturdy, the atoms in these compounds are strongly bonded together and that makes them hard to break apart. The processes we have available today to do this are too expensive to make cellulosic ethanol commercially competitive.

But that will likely change. Scientists and engineers are working to make a commercially viable form of cellulosic ethanol. Some are developing new chemical processes; others are trying to genetically engineer new microbes that can “ferment” cellulose into ethanol like normal microbes that ferment sugars into ethanol. (The U.S.Department of Energy is helping fund six biorefineries.)

Cellulosic Ethanol Could Help Cut U.S. Global Warming Pollution

By my own estimates, agricultural and forest wastes could supply as much as 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year, saving up to 76 megatons of global warming emissions per year. (These results are somewhat larger than but consistent with other recent estimates (e.g., see Smith et al. 2004).) Such savings would cut a little less than 5% of all our heat-trapping pollution and about 15% of the emissions from the transportation sector.

By mid-century, cellulosic ethanol could supply as much as 86 billion gallons of ethanol, saving a little more than 180 megatons of global warming pollution per year — or almost 12% of America’s total global warming pollution and about 35% of the emissions from the transportation sector.

These are significant numbers. But to reach such levels we would need to grow bioenergy crops such as switch grass. Such cultivation, in turn, would require converting lands for this purpose, and that could raise some of the problems discussed in last week’s post.

The Bottom Line of Biofuels: There Are Winners and Losers

The saying “waste not, want not” applies to biofuels. The best biofuels are made from agricultural or forests wastes or from plants cultivated on degraded or marginal lands. The product from such feedstocks — cellulosic ethanol — is where we should be directing our entrepreneurial energies.

Read more about Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.

See also:

CleanTechnica: Gene from Cow’s Stomach Engineered to Create More Affordable Biofuel

Gas 2.0: Mascoma Update — Cellulosic Ethanol Company Adds $10 Million From Marathon Oil

CleanTechnica: First Sustainable Ethanol to Mass Market?

Cool looking contraption, huh? What you’re looking at is Finavera Renewables’ latest project in scalable wave power technology. If you think that picture is pretty cool, you’ll enjoy the animation: [kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/r89xQxZsaN8" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Photo: U.S. Minerals Management Service

In the fall of 2001, Jim Gordon of Energy Management Inc. (EMI) announced his intentions to build a 420 megawatt wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts - the nation’s first. Now, the long permitting process that was made even longer by powerful opposition groups, is nearing resolution…finally.

More than 40,000 individuals and organizations have submitted comments on an environmental review of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, according to an article in the Cape Cod Times.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Rodney Cluck, Cape Wind project manager for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the lead federal agency to review Cape Wind Associates’ plan to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Massachusetts. Originally, the comments were set to be released last Friday, but officials at the Minerals Management Service postponed the release to give agency staffers more time to organize the overwhelming public response to the proposed wind farm.

As a result of the scoping process’ popularity, the MMS announced that they would be preemptively extending the comment period for all of the remaining “Alternative Energy Leases” from 30 to 60 days.

The final number of public comments submitted on the agency’s Cape Wind draft environmental report has yet to be tallied. But it is quite telling that an earlier 2005 report on the same project issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced one-tenth the number of comments than this one indicates that MMS did something right since taking over the review of Cape Wind from the Army Corps as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (As an aside, I think it also says something about the Corps of Engineers’ ability to adequately conduct a thorough public scoping process).

Opponents remain critical; supporters remain confident

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the project’s most vocal opponent, enlisted 40 experts to review the report. The hired guns produced a 3,000-page critique of the Cape Wind proposal. One theme of critique coming from private scientists as well as public ones, was that the report’s information on migratory birds and fishery habitats where the project would be located is inadequate. “At the very least, the (report) should explain why recommended studies and analyses were not conducted and the ramifications of not having that information,” Michael Bartlett, supervisor for the New England Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Despite the criticisms of the MMS report, the vast majority of comments submitted will be in favor of the project, predicted Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for Cape Wind Associates.

A record of decision from the agency indicating approval or disapproval of the Cape Wind project is expected to be released sometime in the winter. And only then will this long, arduous journey be over…right?

Cape Cod Times

Other Posts Related to the Cape Wind Project:

“The Politicos Chiming in On Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (8/2005)

“(D)emocracy: Tell the Feds What You Think About Cape Wind” :: Planetsave (2/2008)

“Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for Cape Wind” :: ecopolitology (8/2007)

“Breaking: MMS Report Favorable on Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (1/2008)

“Cape Wind Opponent to Step Down” :: sustainablog (1/2008)

Photo: © Kamil Sobócki | Dreamstime.com

The students are listening and learning. One father (who happens to be a coal mining equipment distributor) candidly remarked that he does not want his daughter influenced and becoming one of those “tree huggers”. His daughter, a student of Miss Litton’s, respectfully comments that in her opinion her father’s generation does not understand the damage that has been done to the environment. Miss Litton sticks to scientific questions and research. She has her students read Meltdown a book written by Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia. The book holds the view that Global Warming is cyclical and that the news coverage has been dominated by hysteria. On the other hand, she teaches her students about green house gases and reducing the use of non-renewable energy sources. Her students research and discuss how long energy sources such as coal and oil will last. Miss Litton encourages pursuing clean renewable energy sources.

The president of the National Science Teachers Association states that Miss Litton is an exception to the rule. Most high school science teachers do not hold degrees in this field. He also states that most local school districts in our country view environmental science in the same manner as the evolution debate. He said they consider it “too hot” and stay away from offering classes in the subject.

This brings us to the question, is this possible? Can we educate our children about environmental science without the politics that often accompanies such discussions? Do environmental efforts have to be political or even politically motivated? I think we can embrace this together, from all sides. I agree with and applaud Miss Litton in her efforts!

Photo Credit: Riah’s Photography

After hearing President Bush blame Congress for our country’s high gas, food, and energy prices yesterday, I still wasn’t convinced that drilling in ANWR would solve all of our problems (note: sarcasm).

It turns out that voters, at least according to a poll of 1,200 Americans conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc., feel the same way.

Not only did fifty-seven percent of voters rate energy issues as “very serious” concern, but they also thought investment in renewable energy was the best solution:

What is the best way to solve America’s energy problems? According to 51 percent of voters, the answer is to invest in renewable energy sources; 28 percent call for energy efficiency and conservation policies; and only 17 percent favor more drilling and mining for domestic fossil fuels.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing for potential presidential candidates to take into account, even focus on, if they can afford to be so bold. I can guarantee it will be at the top of my list of voting criteria.

For more, see yesterday’s post, Bush Blames Congress for High Electricity, Food, And Gas Prices.

You remember, the power line scare back in the ’70’s (which really hasn’t gone away) and of course the more recent flap about cell phones emitting dangerous electromagnetic fields to the brain. In case you want to read more on these issues, a specific Google entry should suffice.Now, before you go somewhere else, hang on, there’s more to this electromagnetic field issue than you may think. That’s coming up, along with a short tip of the hat to the man who got us started on our way to the world we live in.

Back to the story. A New York Times article suggests that the flow of electrical current to the motor that moves a vehicle, in this case a hybrid, sets up very large electromagnetic fields that could result in health risks to both adults and children. Again, the reference here is to children and the danger of leukemia. Sound familiar?

Now, we live with electromagnetic fields (EMF) every day. Where electric current flows, generally speaking, there are EMF’s of varying degrees. There are no specific government, or scientific standards for EMF exposure, so much of this concern is pure conjecture, or so it seems. As for plug-ins and electric cars, it is thought that drivers and passengers could be exposed to large EMF’s for extended periods of time.

The NYT article told the story of a Staten Island woman who bought a Honda Civic Hybrid in 2007. She drove the car about 200 miles each week as part of her employment. After a while, the woman said she fell asleep at the wheel three times, and her blood pressure rose. She believes the strong electromagnetic fields produced by electrical systems in the car caused the malady.

There could be many causes for her affliction, but just remember that it’s her reality, specific to her alone. The woman clearly stated those were her own conclusions and not based on a doctor’s opinion.

To make a long story short, both Toyota and Honda say their hybrids meet all recognized safety standards. They say their plug-ins are tested for EMF’s and they stand by the safety of their products.

Just to set the record straight, man-made EMF’s may not be the only threat to health. A recent article in New Scientist tells of research in Russia that indicates the earth’s very own EMF’s may result in suicides. And there is ongoing research into the effects of the earth’s magnetic fields on humans. A trip to Google is suggested for further research.

While preparing for this article, I thought of the man who brought electromagnetism into the public mainstream, and made everything we hold electrically dear today possible.

His name, Nikola (Nicholas) Tesla, a Serbian immigrant born in 1856. He’s often been called “the man who invented the twentieth century.”

Tesla held more than a hundred patents, including the transmission of electric power, an electro-magentic motor, a regulation system for alternating current, which powers our world today. His inventions made radio and TV possible, his induction motor has made it possible for nearly everything that moves on wheels today. In spite of all that, he never became financially wealthy, dying in 1943, and according to some, penniless.

Was Tesla affected by electromagnetic fields? After all, he spent his life exploring them, often living for hours within high concentrations. He was 87 when he died. Could they have helped extend his life, or were his genes just right for a long life?

There’s a story on EV World about Tesla’s so-called “Black Magic” touring car. It was a 1931 Pierce-Arrow, supposedly converted by Tesla and his nephew to run on some sort of energy created out of a box of electronic circuitry measuring 24 x 12 x 6 inches. He replaced the gasoline engine with an electric motor, hooked the circuit box up to the motor and they were off. The car is said to have been capable of reaching speeds up to 90 mph.

Eventually, the car reportedly wound up on a farm near Buffalo, New York, and the magic “converter” box disappeared.

The article asks, had he tapped into the earth’s magnetic field, or, found zero point energy or gravitation waves?

I’m sure we’ll never know.

As for today’s hybrids and electric cars being dangerous to our health, it appears more scientific study is needed to answer that question.

Posts Related to Plug-ins and Electric Cars:

• Coal-Power Can’t Stop Plug-In Hybrids From Beating Normal Cars
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• Formula 1 Racing to Go Hybrid from 2009-2013

“The battery enables large amounts of energy from wind or solar power to be stored, managed, controlled and sent into the electricity grid when it is needed. It doesn’t matter whether the wind is blowing or not; the battery makes the electricity output predictable and reliable,” said Tim Hennessy, CEO of VRB Power Systems, the battery manufacturer based in Vancouver, Canada.

Analysts say the potential market is huge for technology that can improve the reliability of large amounts of energy from wind and solar power. Wind power is not generally considered dispatchable or “firm” because wind is intermittent and fluctuates greatly on all scales (e.g., minute by minute, day, season). Furthermore, the wind does not always blow when electricity is most needed and therefore valuable.

Battery storage is particularly useful when wind power feeds a grid belonging to a so-called “island” such as in the UK and Ireland. Spain, on the Iberian Peninsula, is also effectively an electrical island because it has limited interconnections with France in the north and Morocco in North Africa.

By contrast, the electricity grids of Germany and Denmark are interconnected with those of their neighbors. Their excess wind power goes all over Europe; the extensive and varied demands of the grid negate the need for a huge storage system. In addition, Germany uses hydropower and biomass to back up wind and compresses air into salt mines to store excess energy.

With few dams for hydropower and few salt mines, the “electrical islands” of Ireland and Great Britain have fewer options. As a result, they will probably need large amounts of battery storage as they expand their use of wind power.

Both the UK and Ireland are planning wind parks on a massive scale. The UK plans for 33 GW of capacity of offshore wind power by 2020. Ireland already has 1,000 MW of wind power and plans to install 2,400 MW more by 2016 and 4,300 MW by 2020 to reduce their dependence on imported fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, the 2 MW battery in Sorne Hill, slated to begin operation in 2009, could be the start of something big. Hugh Sharman, a contractor with VRB, estimates that Ireland may need as much as 1,000 MW of battery storage capacity by 2016.

As oil and gas prices continue to rise, battery storage systems become even more cost effective. A MW of wind electricity generated in Ireland costs 70€ ($106), which Sharman says is much cheaper than generating the equivalent electricity using natural gas. The lower cost of wind generation helps offsets the high initial investment costs of the battery, and the battery would enable wind power to be delivered when it is most valuable: electricity could be stored during off-peak hours when the price is low and fed into the grid in peak hours when the price is higher.

If the UK proceeds with its plan to install 33 GW of wind capacity by 2020, it could use as much as 12,000 MW of battery storage to balance out the system, Sharman said. Under the plan, nuclear and clean coal will supply a base load of 20 GW augmented by 33 GW of wind power. Without batteries, the base load would be difficult to supply with a fluctuating wind power supply.

The flow battery was developed in the early 1980s at the University of New South Wales in Australia, and further refined and brought to market by VRB Power Systems. It generates current by moving oppositely charged electrolytes in a vanadium sulphate solution between positively and negatively charged half-cells.

The battery charges when the wind turbines produce more power than is needed. When the wind speed drops, the battery almost instantaneously feeds the electricity into the system. In this manner, it can make wind power up to 95 percent constant.

VRB’s battery can be charged and discharged more than 10,000 times without significant deterioration, compared to only 2000 times for conventional lead-acid batteries. It also emits less key environmental pollutants such as CO2 and Nitrogen Oxide through its life cycle and is made without toxic metals (lead, cadmium, zinc, and nickel).

In places like Europe and California, which have relatively aggressive CO2 reduction laws, wind power augmented with battery storage is likely to become a key electricity source over the next several decades. Further, as cities and counties take control of their energy procurement through California’s Community Choice Energy law to boost the renewable content of their power mix, large scale battery systems are one of few viable options for realizing the ultimate goal of a reliable and stable, 100% renewable electricity grid.

For this reason, solar power has long been discounted in favour of wind on this blustery island where one’s neighbours are likely to raise a few eyebrows should one be so eccentric as to cover the roof in solar panels.

This was certainly on the mind of Ashley Seager when he laid out the princely sum of £8,500 ($16,900) in 2007 for the installation of a 3 kilowatt solar power generation system for his South London home. However, one year later and despite a year of weather that has been poor even by British standards, Ashley’s investment is beginning to pay dividends having generated 92% of the Seager household’s annual electricity requirement.

Global warming has not yet turned the British Isles into a tropical paradise, but this experience demonstrates that solar energy is still a viable option, even the most dreary climate, resulting in electricity bills low enough to bring a little sunshine on even the rainiest day.

But - there are a few caveats..

The payback time on the Seager’s solar system will be approximately 13 years - not the shortest investment, and for a British family considering the same investment today the payback time will be even longer; Until recently the British government offered a 50% grant on home solar installations -which has now been capped at £2,500 due to demand, forcing many solar installers out of business despite the rapidly falling cost of the technology. (in comparison, Germany - whose government offers generous renewable energy support -  fitted solar installations to 130,000 homes last year compared to 300 in the UK).

Secondly, payback time is greatly influenced by the fluctuating cost of energy. Solar systems generate electricity during the day which goes mostly unused whilst the family are at work or school. The excess electricity is sold back to the power company and then re-purchased in the evening when the sun has set and energy use is at it’s highest. Although rising electricity costs increase savings, most power companies in the UK buy electricity from solar homes for less than the price at which they sell it back again. Again, in comparison, those renewable-crazy Germans buy electricity for twice the price at which they sell it.

The complex regulations, grants and tariffs which surround micro renewable energy are still shifting as the UK government tries to land on a sensible set of long term energy policies. This uncertainty makes solar a more unlikely option for the less well-heeled, but the savings and the eco credibility factor certainly mean that the Jones’s may soon be swapping those raised eyebrows for solar panels..

Learn more about solar energy, and find out how much you can save (California only) at Renewzle.

With thanks to The Guardian. Photo courtesy of Flickr

Saving energy in buildings is both one of the easiest things that can be done, as well as one of the hardest. The principles for creating a building that needs less energy and operates more efficiently are well known. Most building technology is fairly basic and easy for even non-experts to understand. This makes it simple. We don’t have to wait for expensive, high tech solutions (though they can contribute greatly and will provide new flexibility and compelling possibilities for building better buildings in the future). Heavily insulated buildings can be easily constructed with readily available and well known technology. Adding more insulation to walls is easy, though there is a cost. Consumers and building owners need to become more aware of the long term costs of operating a building, and give consideration to more than just the initial construction costs. And overcoming economic considerations and taking a long-term view is the hard part.

There are more aspects to the enjoyment of buildings (or of enjoying life) than just saving energy. If we built houses with superinsulated walls and only small windows, they would save more energy, but they might not be as pleasant to be inside. Since most people spend the great majority of their time inside buildings, buildings need to be enjoyable places. Running with wild abandon across a field (as I watched my son and his classmates doing this morning) uses more energy than walking, but it’s a lot more fun. Architecture needs to balance our enjoyment and our need for buildings we want to be in with the energy that they need in order to function. One of the biggest benefits that the USGBC has found in buildings that have attained LEED certification is the fact that people like being in them. People who use green buildings are happier and more comfortable, have greater productivity and fewer sick days than those in comparable “regular” buildings.

We can design buildings such that they will require little additional energy input. And now, it is becoming easier for buildings to heat their own water and produce their own electricity. Even in regions where sun and wind are not regular and dependable at all times, on-site energy systems can be connected to the grid. In that way, they can be combined with their neighbors to distribute the surplus when they are producing more than they need, and can draw from the grid for supplemental power when they aren’t able to produce enough.

see also: Elements of Building: Water

image source: Wikimedia Commons

Photo courtesy: AEST, Inc. http://www.aesti.com

Alan Doering of AURI says agricultural residues and co-products aren’t waste, they’re potential new revenue streams to power the future.

AURI, or Agricultural Utilization Research Institute of Waseca, Minnesota, is a nonprofit organization that develops new uses for agricultural products and ag-processing co-products.

Alan Doering, an Associate Scientist with AURI, filled me in on steps being taken to utilize every bit of what used to be considered products of the waste stream.

Turkey droppings are fueling a power plant that serves 40,000 homes. Syrup derived from the making of ethanol is being used to power the plant that makes the ethanol. And there’s more on this amazing work in my interview with Alan.

doering-final.mp3

Asia

Two “Extinct” Species Discovered

First there was Swinshoe’s softshell turtle, and then the Javan Elephant. Is this more commonplace than we might believe?

Frankly, no. Despite the occasional hubbub over an animal science has lost track of– say, the Coelacanth– we’ve witnessed something extraordinary. Swinshoe’s turtle was previously believed to be extinct in the wild, with only three remaining in captivity, and therefore every one of these 300-pound turtles is a critical find.

Continue reading: Environmental Graffiti. Hot in media: Stumble Upon.

Building Ban for Beijing Olympics

All building sites in Beijing will be shut three weeks before the start of the Olympic Games, as the city tries to clear its skies of pollution.

Digging, pouring of concrete and outdoor spray-painting will also be banned under plans announced by the Environmental Protection Bureau.

The move follows mounting concern that athletes may suffer from Beijing’s noxious atmosphere.

Continue reading: BBC. Hot in media: Care2 News Network.

China ‘Now Top Carbon Polluter’

China has already overtaken the US as the world’s “biggest polluter”, a report to be published next month says.

The research suggests the country’s greenhouse gas emissions have been underestimated, and probably passed those of the US in 2006-2007.

The University of California team will report their work in the Journal of Environment Economics and Management.

Continue reading: BBC. Hot in media: Digg.

South America

Amazon Tribe Enlists Google in Battle with Illegal Loggers

You may know it as Google, but in bamboo-and-thatch roundhouses deep in the Amazon rainforest the iconic brand goes by another name. The Surui people, one of the most remote on Earth, call it ragogmakan – “messenger” – and they’re banking on the search engine to save them and their ancestral lands from extinction.

The tribe – whose first contact with the modern world was less than 40 years ago – are replacing their bows and arrows with hi-tech gadgets in their battle for survival. They have already begun using satnav on their traditional trails through the trees. And Google Earth has just agreed to provide high-resolution satellite images of their forest home.

Continue Reading: The Independent. Hot in media: Digg.

GOING, GOING, GONE? New Satellite Images Reveal a Shrinking Amazon Rainforest

Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon may be on the rise, according to high-resolution images released by an agency of the Brazilian government. The images suggest an end to a widely hailed three-year decline in the rate of deforestation and have spurred a public controversy among high-level Brazilian officials, writes Tim Hirsch, author of “The Incredible Shrinking Amazon Rainforest” in the May/June 2008 issue of World Watch magazine.

Deforestation accounts for approximately one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions and is responsible for significant species loss worldwide. Recent anti-deforestation measures under the administration of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have led to a marked drop in the rate of forest loss over the past three years.

Continue reading: ENN. Take action: Petition to save the Amazon.

Africa

Dockers Refuse to Unload China Arms Shipment for Zimbabwe

South African dockers are refusing to unload a Chinese cargo ship carrying 77 tonnes of small arms destined for Zimbabwe.

The arms, including three million rounds of ammunition suitable for AK47s and 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades, were ordered by the Zimbabwean military at the time of the March 29 election – which Britain and other Western powers have accused Robert Mugabe of trying to rig.

Continue reading: Times Online. Hot in media: Digg.

Middle East

Bahrain World Trade Center Activates Wind Turbines

You may remember that about a year ago we brought you news of the Bahrain World Trade Center, which was designed to have three giant turbines provide power to the building. Well, this past Tuesday, the project was finally completed, with the final testing and installation of the enormous wind turbines which power the building. This week, Bahrain WTC has, for the first time, activated all three 29m-diameter turbines at the same time!

Continue Reading: Inhabitat. Hot in media: Digg.

North America

Canada Leads Way with Ban on Baby Bottles Containing Bisphenol A

The government announced Friday that Canada will be the first country to ban plastic baby bottles with bisphenol A after concluding the chemical is toxic.

Health Minister Tony Clement unveiled the “precautionary and prudent” move while trying to calm fears with a limited ban of the widely used chemical, also found in hard plastic sports bottles and tin cans of food and infant formula. Most Canadians “need not be concerned” about the health effects of bisphenol A, but Clement said “this is not the case for newborns and infants.”

Continue reading: The Gazette.

Europe

Biofuel Rule Will Do More Harm Than Good, Oxfam Says

U.K. fuels for cars and trucks must contain biofuels starting today, a move that may do more harm than good to the environment and drive food prices higher, charities including Oxfam and Greenpeace said.

Under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, suppliers must ensure that 2.5 percent of fuel sold at U.K. pumps consists of biofuels, which are made from crops and grasses. The requirement will rise to 5 percent by 2010. The Department for Transport says the plan will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 2.5 million metric tons a year.

Continue reading: Bloomberg. Hot in media: Digg.

Global

Millions Of Pounds Of Trash Found On Ocean Beaches

Ocean Conservancy released its annual report on trash in the ocean with new data from the 2007 International Coastal Cleanup the most comprehensive snapshot of the harmful impacts of marine debris. The mission of Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup is to engage people to remove trash from the world’s beaches and waterways, to identify the sources of debris and to change the behaviors that cause pollution.

This year, more than 378,000 volunteers participated in cleanups around every major body of water around the globe. Volunteers record the trash found on land and underwater allowing Ocean Conservancy a global snapshot of the problem.

Continue reading: Science Daily. Hot in media: Care2 News Network.

Wind speeds of 100 mph were recorded across Europe and topped 135 mph at the Czech Republic’s highest mountain, Snezka. The surplus electricity on the grid, produced mostly by German and Danish wind farms pushed prices down by 12% on the spot market.

Traders buying and selling round-the-clock power reported that the ‘day ahead’ price in central Europe’s power market dropped to €49.5 ($76) per megawatt hour compared with €56 at the end of the previous week, according to a piece at Planet Ark. Unfortunately, the article also suggests that sudden drops in electricity prices on the spot market have little effect on end-use rates.

This story points out one of the most persistent ‘problems’ of large-scale wind energy development- how do we address the peaks and valleys on the grid presented by wind power, and how do we reconcile those with power plants which cannot be easily adjusted to deal with those peaks?

Several options of dealing with the storage issue have emerged including compressed air, hydro pump-backs, and more efficient flywheel designs. These are all good steps, and more will undoubtedly emerge. That is why it is important that the ‘problem’ of storing wind energy be framed as an opportunity for technological innovation, and not as a justification for more coal-fired power plants.

Some people are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to promote environmental alternatives, demonstrating just what is possible in a world that has long been reliant on fossil fuels.

I recently wrote of a Swiss family who are at the half way point of an epic round the world eco journey travelling only by foot, bicycle and wind power. During this journey they aim to cross seven seas and climb seven of the world’s highest mountains.

Now, a Swiss doctor is undertaking an adventure of similar proportions. Matrin Vosseler, in a bid to raise awareness on climate change has walked across much of Europe and the Middle East, sailed a solar powered boat across the Atlantic, and is now walking across the United States from West to East.

Walking with the emblem of the Sun on his back, Vosseler hopes to spread the message on climate change to the 500 to 25,000 people he comes into contact with each day:

“Every driver sees me. I wave to many of them and many wave back. They think ‘what kind of person would walk through the United States with a sun on his pack?’. And they eventually connect when they see a report in the newspaper or on television about me. So it’s a tremendous opportunity to spread the message.”

Dr Vosseler is currently somewhere along highway 40, with only a couple of thousand kilometres to walk before he reaches Boston where he plans to hitch a ride with a sailboat back to Europe.

You can follow Martin Vosseler’s progress across America using Google Maps, or find out more about his journey on his personal site (German Only).

Source: SwissInfo