Spain's Renewable Energy

On a recent trip to Spain I was struck by the large number of three things that I saw frequently. Although the rat tail/mullet hybrid hair cuts and popular facial piercings also caught my attention, I am referring to wind turbines, solar panels, and greenhouses. According to the Spanish Wind Energy Association, Spain has an installed capacity of 16.7 GW of wind power.[1] Meanwhile, Texas - the leader in American wind power, which is about 20% larger than Spain in land area, has only installed about 4.3 GW of wind power capacity according to the Texas Comptroller's 2008 Energy Report. The same report also states that Texas contributes about 25% of the 16.6 GW of installed wind capacity in the United States.[2] Therefore Spain and the United States produce about the same amount of wind power despite the United States being 20 times larger. Germany tops the world's wind power list, with an installed capacity of about 22.3 GW of power according to the Global Wind Energy Council.[3]

In addition to a large number of wind turbines, I also noticed several large solar panel "farms". Although Spain only produces about 1.5 GW of solar power currently[4], this is still a greater amount on a land area basis than is produced in the United States[5].

Finally, the most unexpected sighting in Spain (again, not including some of the hair styles) was the vast number of greenhouses that covered the southern coast. It appeared that the greenhouses were being used to grow crops, but perhaps they could be converted or expanded to culture algae (perhaps even marine species) in the future in a semi-closed environment for the production of fuels and chemicals. Many researchers have claimed that large scale production of algae in closed environments is unfeasible due to the high capital cost of installing the greenhouses. While this may still be true, the large number of greenhouses in southern Spain suggests that at high enough prices, indoor cultures can be economical, and more productive than outdoor crops.

As a final comment, I noticed that many of the wind turbines, solar panel farms, and greenhouses were signifcant eye sores to the beautiful surroundings that they were placed in (including the Sierra Nevada mountains and Meditteranean coast shown above). I thought it was interesting that Spain placed a greater priority on renewable energy (which has a goal of producing 30% of it's electricity from renewable sources by 2010) than they did on preserving the aesthetic appeal of their national landscape (and potentially their tourism industry). The United States has already experienced the conflict between renewable energy and aesthetic landscape in the past, and it will be interesting to see which one secures a higher place in our country's priority list in the future.

*All photos taken by Colin Beal

[1] - Spanish Wind Energy Association, aeeolica.es/contenidos.php?c_pub=101, 2009
[2] - Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, The Energy Report, May 2008, Available online at seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind.htm
[3] - Global Wind Energy Concil, Global Wind 2007 Report, Available online at gwec.net/index.php?id=90
[4] - Whelan, Carolyn, Is the Sun Setting on Solar Power in Spain, Scientific America, October 20 2008. Available online at sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-sun-setting-on-solar-power-in-spain
[5] - Wikipedia, Solar Power in the United States, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

Wind Turbines? In Britain?

This week I read the article “Britain’s massive offshore wind power potential” by Paul Eccleston published on Telegraph.co.uk on October 5, 2007. This article immediately grabbed my attention because my first though was, “England? Wind power? How does that work?” Since the most common way I have seen wind harnessed is through giant windmills in the plans of West Texas, I was intrigued at how such a tiny island could extract enough profitable power from the wind to actually be useful.

However, the technology that the UK is using to harness the wind power is giant offshore wind turbines. These seem to be much more preferable than the windmills I’m used to seeing on land because they are placed so far out to sea that they don’t bother anyone’s property. Also, because they are so far out to sea, they can be built on a much larger scale.

Another interesting fact is that the UK is “the windiest place in Europe”, so extracting power from the wind will be a feasible idea. Currently, there are 5 offshore wind farms that are operational, with many more on the way. The British Government has a goal of obtaining 20% of their energy needs from sustainable sources by the year 2020. With the amount of wind that is available, this seems reasonable.

The rest of the article discusses the corporations that are behind these wind farms in the sea and the economics behind it, reading the article really spurred my interest in design and construction of the wind turbines that are actually used at sea.

As it turns out, the offshore wind turbines that are places out at sea are identical to the 3-bladed ones that cover West Texas. The only difference is, that they are in the middle of the ocean.

Even though these offshore wind farms seem like great ideas because wind is free, there is a great abundance of it, and it doesn’t really bother the people that are using the energy in the end, I can’t help but think that there are some disadvantages to these farms. And, it raised some questions with me.

What is the maintenance of an offshore turbine compared to an onshore one? I would assume that the constant interaction with the salt water would be somewhat corrosive to the turbines, so they would require more maintenance than one that resides on land. And, even though the turbines are non-obtrusive to humans that live on land, what about the animals that live in the sea? It certainly has to disrupt the surrounding ecosystem by placing giant wind turbines in the middle of the sea, especially while they would be under construction. Once they are in place, I wonder how long it takes for the ecosystem to stabilize and whether or not it has been permanently damaged.

Even though the British seem to be way ahead of us Americans on this technology, July 15, 2008 CNN’s Paul Courson published “Wind farm to be built off Delaware shore” where it was announced that Delmarva Power and Bluewater Wind will be constructing the US’s first offshore wind farm offshore of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. This company projects that they will be able to get 16% of their energy from the 150 wind turbines that will be constructed. This farm is expected to be up and running by 2012.

Since the US has substantially more coastline than Britain, I think that it would be a sustainable technology worth investigating. Now, whether or not we have the quality of wind that the British Isles get would have to be studied. However, before any company jumped into the construction of these turbines, I hope that both the companies and local governments do their research to make sure they aren’t harming the local ecosystem of the sea as well as research the maintenance of the turbines to see if they are cost efficient.

Fake plants to be made out of plastic...plants?

With all our discussion of the end uses of petroleum and how we use so much, I got to wondering how much we use in the manufacturing of plastics. They are, after all, petroleum based and they are in almost every area of our lives. During my search, I found an interesting online article in The Independent, a British newspaper. It answered my petroleum question, claiming that "plastics account for seven million barrels of petroleum per day - that's 8 per cent of global supply." The article didn't cite any sources so I'm not sure where the data came from, but the thing that struck me was the content of the article. It discusses efforts being made by companies, namely the American company Metabolix, to produce bio-plastics. These plastics are produced from bacteria and plant sugars, and the company hopes to actually be able to grow plants engineered to produce this plastic in the near future. As the article explains, the actual formation of the plastic occurs due to the bacteria, so the plants could have other uses like bio-fuel feedstocks. The example given was of switchgrass, which is a promising fuel feedstock that can grow in a variety of environments and be used to produce cellulosic ethanol. Someday, refineries may be able to produce plastic and fuel from the same crop, greatly incereasing the appeal of crop-based biofuels (as opposed to algae).

Upcoming technologies and their possible sucess or failure, (this article is from 2007 and I'm not sure if Metabolix succeeded) highlight the idea that it is difficult to predict, and thus support which technologies will end up helping us reduce our environmental impact. Almost everything we do has an impact; the result is that we aren't picking between good and bad technologies, but bad and worse technologies. For example, this whole bio-plastics thing could be a huge lift to the crop bio-fuels cause, despite the fact that soil degradation and ecosystem impacts are still a huge issue. Even with these drawbacks, the cost-benefit analysis may end up showing a large enough net gain to make crop based biofuels a good decision. And huge, unexpected advancements like this one could happen at anytime, in any area of research.

That line of thought made me realize the importance of changing the way we behave and how we use energy. No matter what method of producing energy ends up wining out, advances made in efficiency and cultural changes that help us use less will always help reduce our impact on the environment.

The Necessity of Human Capital

Our discussion of energy has thus far examined problems from the perspective of technology and governmental policies, but I think another equally important factor is human capital.

Roger Duncan cited our nation’s workforce as one of the seven factors contributing to the crisis, and I completely agree. He noted that a significant portion of his workforce could retire tomorrow, leaving the company with little experienced personnel to maintain current infrastructure while planning for future growth. In the oil industry, Shell claims that 50% of their workforce will retire in 10 years. In my own experience with a major oil company, out of a group of 40 people, about 20 people were well into their 50s, ten were between 25-50 and ten were 1-3 years out of college.

The industrial sector of America is at a crossroads. My own experience with my high school graduating class suggests that business is a far more popular major than engineering, and as such we are steadily outsourcing our engineering and manufacturing aboard. The nature of our corporations has changed to reflect our obsession with profit; GE not only manufactures a variety of high-tech equipment but also owns NBC and operates a financial arm, GE Capital. Traditional engineering and manufacturing outfits such as GM are fading fast while those companies that have survived are cutting R&D budgets.

Solutions to future energy challenges will start with scientists and engineers. Our current engineering curriculum was structured after WWII to help the US emerge as a manufacturing powerhouse. Since then, our curriculum has been copied and implemented around the world, and emerging countries have built manufacturing complexes superior to that of our own. Though highly cost-effective, these countries have little incentive to innovate; the disposable nature of consumer goods will keep us coming back to them for more of the same inexpensive shoes and ever-larger TV’s.

These various observations: the impending retirement of experienced technical professionals, the changing nature of corporations, and the growth of manufacturing around the world are different strands of the new fabric that will define our engineering education in the future. For the US to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must be the ones providing solutions to future energy challenges.

As recent grads replace retiring people, more creativity will emerge through fresh ideas and new approaches to old problems. I am fascinated by the global oil industry, but I am all for conservation and producing new sources in the most environmentally and socially responsible manner to reduce GHG emissions. The employees of American corporations, from the welders on the shop floor to CEOs such as recently ousted Rick Wagoner, will also be dependant on these fresh ideas in the face foreign competition that can manufacture the same products better for less.

Dean Fenves of the Cockrell School of Engineering hopes to revolutionize engineering education here at UT-Austin. Engineers can and will find solutions to our energy challenges, but only if we allow our creativity to flourish. We must also be engaged with our world and its problems so that our discoveries can be turned into solutions. As politicians get caught up in debating subsidies and investors wonder which clean technology will “win,” I think a more fundamental question to ask ourselves is how are we developing our human capital? I have a lot of reason to be optimistic because of my education and the knowledge that there are many more engineers such as myself to come.

This blog was inspired by:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/12/of-financial-capital-and-human-capital.html

Other Sources:

http://www.engr.utexas.edu/spotlights/2008/deanfenves/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/careers_in/article1917003.ece

Conserve vs. Consume

As we discussed in class, Americans are addicted to both fossil fuels and technology. Fossil fuels provide a convenient source of energy, which we love, but we know that sources are steadily depleting. Rather than simply using less energy, our first inclination is to turn to another convenient source of energy in order to continue living in consumerism. We get excited about alternative energy saviors and ignore personal responsibility. We are accustomed to getting what we want as long as we are willing and able to spend the money. Will a technological solution solve the problem, or will it simply postpone future energy shortage and perpetuate the American addiction? Overpopulation and increasing energy demand make energy shortage inevitable, and technology can only slow it down.

I know I don’t speak for everyone, especially those in Dr. Webber’s class. It also seems, at least from the front end, that Obama’s stimulus package may in fact aid in shifting the American mentality. A Georgian newspaper reports that the energy conservation industry is surging as a result of the stimulus. John Sibley, program director for the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance, states, “We have an unprecedented opportunity to build a market for energy efficiency and help consumers manage their energy bills.” Could this be a new dawn in American thought?

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/03/29/georgia_energy_stimulus.html

Not Convinced...Yet

I do not understand the entire science behind global warming (as I have not spent my entire life studying the sources and nature of GHG), but the topic intrigues me. I am not alone--well, not AS alone--in my lack of understanding. Scientists do not not understand the full affects of GHG on Earth's systems either. For example, as we learned during our climate change lecture, is there a possibility that the "cooling" affects of GHG outweigh the "warming" affects? We don't know what we don't know.

Climate change is an interesting subject not only because of the debated impact of anthropogenic carbon, but also because it has created so much hysteria and political fervor. When lots of people--especially those who have no business speaking intelligently about climate change (i.e.: politicians, movie stars, college students who have read a chapter in a text about global warming, and other "activists")--jump on the wagon too fast, I become skeptical. I fear climate change has become a money-making machine. Too many marketing specialists, researchers, universities, renewable energy firms, advertisers, reporters, and politicians have too much invested for it to fail.

I ran across an article by Nicholas Dawidoff in the NY Times (link below) about the global warming opinions of the world renown scientist Freeman Dyson. Dyson is currently 85 years old and because he swims against the school regarding climate change, he has been ridiculed left and right. While I disagree with some of his claims, I think he provides a sobering perspective to the global climate change issue. He agrees that human activity has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but he says that most scientists who tout global warming do not know enough about the complex biological processes in our ecosystems. He also states that we, as co-inhabitants of this globe, should be more worried about true evils like "war, poverty, and unemployment." I agree with this statement. Instead of being driven by the hoopla of climate change, policy makers need to address true, deadly issues like education deficits, malnutrition, and poverty. Do we really want Aunt Susie to be driving that expensive HEV, or do we want that rebate money going to pay a teacher more? I think our government's priorities are skewed.

Carbon-producing businesses, vehicles, and people (guilty: I eat too much red meat) have been demonized unnecessarily. Yes, we need to be responsible citizens by being good stewards of the environment and by maintaining a healthy lifestyle, but calling for extreme behavioral changes based on a theory is excessive. Although we should not ignore harmful pollutants like particulates, ozone, sulphur-based molecules, and nitrogen oxides, I, like Dyson, believe that nature will take care of herself.

(Send your comments. I am ready for them. I know my thoughts are very unpopular.)

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1

Residential Energy Efficiency

One of my tasks at work has been to publish a number of energy efficiency tips to inspire my coworkers to practice conservation at home. My job is based in San Marcos and one of the first things I did was look up home rebate information for various utilities in the area. I knew Austin Energy was progressive and generous with their rebates, but I was shocked to discover that no other neighboring utilities had comparable rebate programs. 

Through Austin Energy/Austin Water home-owners in Austin can qualify for a slew of rebates, including the following:

- Home Performance with Energy Star Rebate - rebates up to $1575 (includes air conditioner/heat pump, duct repair and sealing, additional attic insulations, solar screens/window film/low-E glass, caulking and weather stripping, and attic radiant barrier)

- Air Conditioner/Heat Pump - up to $1250 per system

- Solar Water Heaters - up to $2000 per system, existing construction 

- One Kilowatt Solar PV System - up to $3750 per system

- High Efficiency Clothes Washer - up to $150 rebate

- High-Efficiency Toilet Program - free toilets or rebates up to $200 on approved toilets

- Pressure Regulating Valve (PRV) - up to $100 toward the purchase and installation of a PRV

- Rainbarrel - up to $30 rebate on rainbarrels

- Rainwater Harvesting - up to $500 on the cost of installing a larger capacity rainwater harvesting system (over 300 gallons)

- Free Programmable Thermostats - Free programmable thermostat and installation; in exchange for the installation, you're allowing Austin Energy to cycle off power on summer days between 3 and 7 pm when electricity demand is at its peak

Austin Energy customers may also receive a free home energy audit from a number of selected companies. After performing the audit, the company will make recommendations for improvement and provide cost and rebate estimates.  

Residents with low/moderate incomes may also qualify for free home performance improvements, like attic insulation, minor duct repair and sealing, caulking around plumbing penetrations, solar screens, and weather stripping around doors.

We have recently taken advantage of a number of these rebates - the high efficiency toilet, the high efficiency washing machine, the free energy audit, and as a follow-up to the audit, weatherization/duct efficiency testing and sealing. In a couple of hours today, a crew of workers was sent to our home and they performed blower and duct efficiency testing, duct sealing, caulking around plumbing penetrations, caulking around windows, weather stripping around doors, gaskets behind electrical outlets, and installing insulation board behind a hot water heater. Rebates will cover about 1/3 of the bill, and we were told to expect a savings of between 10 and 40% on our monthly utility bill. 

Other recommendations that were suggested as a result of the audit were installing additional insulation, installing a radiant barrier under our metal roof, and wrapping our hot water heater. 

If you can't take advantage of Austin Energy's rebates, there are a number of home efficiency improvements you can try out on your own. For instance:

(1) Add foam gaskets behind electrical outlets and light switches

(2) Insert outlet caps into unused outlets

(3) Caulk around windows and where plumbing, ducting, and electrical wiring penetrates walls

(4) Add weatherstripping to doors

(5) Kitchen exhaust fan covers can keep air from coming in when the fan's not being used

(6) Insulate your hot water heater tank, being careful not to cover the thermostat

(7) Lower the themostat on your hot water heater to 120F

(8) Add films on south-facing windows to reduce solar heat gain during the day

(9) Install white window coverings on south- and west- facing windows  and make sure to close curtains during the day

(10) Replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs where possible, since they use less energy and produce less heat

You can read up on some of Austin Energy's rebates here:

Austin Energy Rebates

You can read up on City of Austin's water-related rebates here:

Water Rebates

The DOE has a number of energy efficiency tips here:

Energy Saver Tips

Good luck!

Not quite right!

Earth Hour 2009 is being claimed to be a huge success with millions of people across over 2000 cities participating in this hour long initiative. I was curious about the magnitude of energy saved in the process and decided to scour the internet for some information. Though I did not find any data representative of worldwide energy savings, I did find information about some cities and states in their respective regional news articles. However, what was interesting was the frivolous use of power and energy as same and interchangeable in various news articles.

For example, the Brisbane Times reports:

In total, about 195 megawatts of electricity were saved across South East Queensland: the equivalent of turning off more than 300,000 standard plasma televisions for one hour while last year, enough energy for 500,000 plasmas was saved.

Well, turning off 300,000 plasma televisions for one hour, at a rated power in watts, should be an energy saving in watt-hours. Similary BusinessWorld reports from Manila, Philippines:

The Energy department said at the weekend that Luzon saved as much as 500 megawatts (MW), the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) reported that power consumption in Cebu went down by 48 MW, while the main cities of Davao and Zamboanga in Mindanao saved about 50 MW.

I believe, savings should be in terms of energy whereas decrease in load or consumption should be reported in terms of its time-derivative, power. To draw an analogy (though not a perfect analogy), if we take a shorter route while traveling from point A to B in a fixed time, we say that we saved some distance and not velocity.

Some of them have been more considerate to this difference, such as this one:

The reduction in electricity usage in the City of Chicago and ComEd's northern Illinois service territory during Earth Hour was estimated to be about 100 megawatt hours.

One possibility for this neglect might be that the Earth Hour was exactly 1 hr long and quantitatively it made no difference.

PS: On an entirely unrelated note, I found this article on the changing perspective towards nuclear energy. What was interesting was this hitherto unknown information to me: coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste!

New Stimulus for Renewables in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

One of the largest factors responsible for driving the renewable energy boom over the last fifteen or so years was tax credits. Indeed, high electricity prices improved the economics of renewable energy projects, but the other factor that drove renewable energy boom was the desire of firms with large tax bills to reduce their tax liabilities. By investing in a renewable energy project that earned tax credits, the investor could reduce its taxable income.

Until the recent legislation was passed the primary federal tax incentives were the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The PTC was initiated in 1992 and gives project owners a tax credit when the project generates revenue from selling its power. In 2008it was worth $21/MWh for wind, closed-loop biomass, and geothermal power projects. Other renewable generation projects like open-loop biomass, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower, and wave & tidal power projects received a tax credit of $10/Mwh (note that solar projects do not benefit from the PTC).

The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been available for certain types of commercial energy projects for a while, but was strengthened by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The credit provides a tax credit equal to 30% of qualifying costs for solar, fuel cell, and small wind projects. Geothermal, microturbines, and combined heat and power projects are eligible for a credit equal to 10% of the project’s qualifying costs. This tax credit is realized in the year that the project begins commercial operations, but it vests over five years. If the project owner sells the project before the end of the vesting period, then the remaining portion of the credit is forfeited.

When the economy and profits were strong these tax credits provided strong incentives to invest in renewable energy projects, but now there are far fewer companies making large profits. Many companies are just struggling to achieve and maintain profitability. Also, a lot of the investors in these projects were large financial institutions, many of which are now simply struggling to survive. So, as the economic conditions worsened, the pool of investors in renewable energy projects shrunk rapidly. The inability to use these tax credits combined with the decline in energy prices across the board (especially coal and natural gas) made the economics of renewable energy projects for investors look very bad.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in mid-February addressed this issue; it allocated $40 billion of the $787 billion to clean energy initiatives. The legislation also called for modifying existing clean energy tax incentives and creating new ones, which will cost another $20 billion. One of the changes called for in the Act gives projects that are eligible for the Production Tax Credit (PTC) the choice to use an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) instead. However, the biggest change is that in lieu of the ITC, project owners can now choose a new incentive that offers a cash grant of equivalent value to the ITC for qualified renewable energy projects that are placed in service in 2009-10 (so in effect, if the project is eligible for the PTC, the developer could choose the ITC or grant instead).

While it sounds like choosing the cash grant instead of the production or investment tax credit should be a no-brainer that is not necessarily the case. The decision is dependent on the cost of the project, the capacity factor (how much power the project actually generates compared to its total capacity), investors expected future tax burden, liquidity needs, investment time horizon, and other idiosyncratic needs or preferences of investors. However, the real question is will this new addition of the cash grant option and the improvements in the flexibility of the existing tax incentives actually stimulate the market for renewable energy projects?

I believe the answer is, “yes”. Even though the grant and the ITC provide, in theory, essentially the same amount of value the grant provides cash in a liquidity constrained environment. The fact that the government is promising cash payment should make it easier for a project developer to obtain additional project financing. Further, in the past, a project that relied upon the PTC faced the possibility of operational problems resulting in less power being generated than expected; this would result in smaller tax credits being generated than expected. Now, a project that would have previously relied on the PTC can elect for a cash grant that carries no ongoing operational risk. The project just has to generate power for five years and it will recover 30% of the capital cost; fluctuations in the amount of power generated over that time won’t change the value of the grant.

So, in short, the new provisions in the stimulus act reduce risk for investors and provide more options. Investors view more options as being more valuable, so in essence, the stimulus plan reduces risk and increases return. What investor doesn’t want that??

http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02F&State=federal%C2%A4tpageid=1&ee=1&re=1
http://www.lbl.gov/publicinfo/newscenter/tabl/2009/march/03-23-09/lbnl-1642e.pdf

The Tide is in at Puget Sound

Puget Sound, near Seattle, Washington, is the subject of a number of tidal energy proposals. Though some site research proposals have been denied by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, others are in the planning or pilot testing stages. These sites will help determine whether tidal energy is a feasible option for alternative energy in the United States. (1)

Traditionally, tidal energy has been captured by tidal barrages or fences, in which water from the tides is allowed into the structure and then released through turbines, which generate electricity. More innovative technology is planned for Puget Sound, where tidal turbines would be installed. The turbines are similar to wind turbines, but they will have to be sturdier because water is denser and will cause more wear on tidal turbines. Though the turbine will be more expensive and use more material to build than the barrages, tidal turbines will produce more energy. (2) Puget Sound is a likely candidate for tidal turbines, since in 20 to 30 feet of water, some currents along the coast reach the desired speed for energy generation. At an ideal current between 4 and 5.5 mph, a tidal turbine can produce the same power as a wind turbine four times its diameter. (4)

There have been many policies to increase alternative energy research, but who controls the domain of tidal energy policy has been disputed. On St. Patrick’s day, lawmakers reached an accord that will clear up disputes on offshore wind and tidal energy. Since 2007, the Interior Department and the FERC had qualms about who would have domain over, and therefore make rules for, offshore energy sources. Tuesday it was decided that the FERC will officially get to decide which tidal and wave energy projects it promotes offshore. (3)

The US Navy is planning research at Puget Sound that will aid the United States in improving their energy supply. Specifically this will deal with Kinetic Hydropower System, or KHPS, technology that will power Naval bases. This technology will use an array of tidal turbines to maximize energy generation with rising and receding tides. Policies drafted by the FERC will determine whether the Navy project and others at Puget Sound will be implemented. (3)


(1) http://www.pstidalenergy.org/index.html
(2) http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/ocean.html
(3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123726111665551781.html?mod=dist_smartbrief
(4) http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50008

There is Clean Coal!

This last semester a got a chance to work here on the UT campus as a lab technician for the Rochelle group, which is researching ways to sequester flue gas from coal fired power plants. The primary technology being studied uses organic amines in an absorber/stripper system to absorb the CO₂ out of power plant flue gas. The separated CO₂ can then be compressed with traditional compressor equipment and sequestered into the ground. The basic technology was developed in the late 1920’s to absorb CO₂ out of natural gas and oil refinery streams. The technology has been significantly improved since its inception to allow for higher energy efficiency, decreased corrosion of plant materials, and decreased degradation of the amine solvent. Some major focus areas of Dr. Rochelle’s research included studying inhibitors that prevent the amines form degrading in the presence of oxygen and studying chemical kinetics for proper equipment sizing.

If this clean coal technology was implemented two major capital intensive projects would need to be implemented. First, coal power plants would need to install these systems on their flue gas process streams. Second, additional power plants would need to be constructed to account for energy used in the absorption/stripping process.

The rule of thumb used by the group calculated that an 800 MW coal fired power plant would lose about 1/3 of its power output using this technology due to energy consumption (The 800 MW plant is would now be a 533 MW plant). According to the EIA energy review the United States generates about 1.8 Trillion KW-hr of electricity from coal. If this technology was implemented today about 0.6 trillion KW-hr of new power would need to be produced to offset the loss. If we decided to replace this loss with 800 MW coal plants we would have to build 750,000 new power plants (0.6 x 10^12 KW-hr/800,000 KW-hr).

By these numbers I wish I was a power plant construction contractor right about now!

More information about the Rochelle group can be found at http://www.che.utexas.edu/rochelle_group/index.html

Could Chinese Climate Negotiations Lead to a Revival of American Manufacturing?

I heard the other day in class and on NPR that Chinese climate negotiators in DC have floated a trial balloon of saying that international agreements to reduce carbon emissions should be the responsibility of the consuming countries, not the exporting countries (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602948.html). 

While this seems like an attempt by China to weasel out of reducing carbon emissions, which would harm their economy, what would happen if this system (end user responsible for the environmental costs of consumed products) were adopted? (Ignore for a moment the accounting nightmare to figure out exact emissions, and the erosion of sovereignty this would entail if end user countries were able to make environmental changes in producing countries).

China's main comparative advantages in the past twenty or so years that they've been a manufacturing exporter have been low labor costs and lax environmental control. They've passed off the negative externality of pollution to the Chinese people, which means that the benefits of manufacturing go to the factory owners (to be simplistic) but the cost of dirty air and water are borne by surrounding community. So the end user (Americans buying Barbie dolls, for instance) does not pay the full cost of the product, and which is what the climate negotiator in the article wanted to rectify. At the same time, recall the increasing strictness of environmental protection laws in the United States since the 1970s, which in part accelerated the decline in American manufacturing (combined with globalization and decreasing costs of shipping permitted China to become a manufacturing power as soon as it opened itself to the world after Deng Xiaopeng). Erin Brockovich type scandal aside, this means that the full cost of American manufacturing is borne by the American consumer.

So if tomorrow America took responsibility for the costs of Chinese pollution, presumably it might not make sense to continue importing goods from China because to bring Chinese manufacturing to American (stricter) environmental standards would place a huge "exit tax" on exported goods and price those goods out of the market. Faced with the cost and difficulty of continuing with Chinese production, the higher labor costs in the United States might not be an impediment to manufacturing, particularly as environmental costs have been internalized over the past 40 or so years. It would also lead to higher prices for American consumers, but wouldn’t the average consumer want for her money to stay in the United States in general and particularly during a recession, at least in the short term before economies of scale would bring down the price of goods?

Of course, I've made the assumption that ostensibly high Chinese pollution control costs (given the low current technology they use and the cost for the US to clean it up or pay via some cap-and-trade mechanism) plus labor costs are higher than US pollution control costs plus labor costs. Also, I assume that manufacturing and export contracts can be turned around rather quickly to ramp up US production.

So this Chinese climate negotiator’s trial balloon could inadvertently mean a revival of American manufacturing, but it would also have negative consequences for Sino-American relations. It would the effect, if not the intent, of protectionism. It would deprive China of export earnings, which would instead remain in the US. Without the deep financial ties between the countries (or weaker ties going forward) there would seem to be less of a "strategic partnership" between the countries and more cause for tension and conflict.

Just a thought.

Revolutionary PV for Rooftops?

A California based company Solyndra Inc. has been awarded with the Renewable-energy Loan Guarantee from the Department of Energy. The company argues that the PV system is superior in terms of installation, higher efficiency, and safer operation. The cylindrical shape of the cell can capture more light (direct, diffused, reflected). Therefore, the cell does not have to be mounted on an angle. This eliminates the expensive structural supports and installation costs. In addition, no angle on the mount means more panels on a roof and more electricity.



All these improvements are impressive. However, in the bigger picture of making this society renewable-energy driven, are these improvements enough to make a major impact and receive a $535 million loan guarantee from the government? Known disadvantages are a high payback time and large land size required for installation (if not on rooftops). These issues are not necessarily addressed. Most of all, low efficiency even with the help of new cylindrical PV cells might not be significant enough to overcome the efficiency deficit with power plants.

[1] Solyndra Inc.
[2] Energy Department Issues First Renewable-Energy Loan Guarantee
[3] Energy, Technology & Policy class - Lecture 8: Renewable Power

Polluting for Free

In 2005, every U.S. citizen emitted 20.1 metric tons (on average) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to energy-related consumption. To put that into perspective, Europeans emitted 8.2 metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide per capita, while the Chinese only emitted 4.1 metric tons.

Why do we Americans emit so much more carbon dioxide on a per capita basis compared to the rest of the world? Some argue that greater energy consumption – which clearly leads to greater environmental degradation - allows for higher living standards. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that the average American has a higher “living standard” than the Chinese, but I wouldn’t make the same statement when comparing America to the living standard of Europeans. I argue that the main reason why American’s can afford to emit so much carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere is because the environmental impact of energy consumption is not embedded into the price of energy. To put it simply, there is no economic cost associated with polluting, so there is no incentive to stop. The movement to develop a green/renewable energy industry will surely fail if energy prices continue to discount the environmental impact of excavation, production and use of fossil fuels. Why? The price points of energy produced from solar or wind on a massive scale are significantly higher compared to energy produced from conventional sources such as coal or oil.

How can we embed the environmental cost into the price of energy? There are several ways the United States can modify the price of conventional energy sources to reduce consumption and motivate the technological innovation necessary to get the green/renewable energy industry up and running. We can take a page from Europe’s book and artificially inflate the price of energy by creating a price floor. For example, setting the price floor for petroleum to $3.50 per gallon creates an artificial price at which gas will never fall below regardless of the market price of a barrel of oil. The key is to determine a price level that shifts consumer preferences away from conventional energy sources. Another solution is the cap and trade system, which is also employed in Europe. The cap and trade system creates extra cost for energy producers that go above and beyond their emissions requirements set by the government. Conversely, companies that have emission levels below threshold requirements can create extra revenue by selling credits to over-emitters. An alternative option is to tax energy producers for every metric ton of carbon dioxide pollution.

The three alternatives highlighted above all have slightly different economic consequences that are difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy. However, one thing is certain. As the price for conventional energy sources increases – as it will if the government taxes either the manufacturer of energy or the end user of energy directly - the demand for alternative solutions will increase. This will open the door for the green/renewable energy industry to compete on terms of price, which is the biggest impediment that is restricting alternative energy sources ability to penetrate the market.

Green vs. Green

As a gross generalization, I have previously assumed that all environmentalists are in favor of advances in solar and wind energy. Less coal + more renewable = Better Energy Portfolio.....right? Well, not exactly.

In California, a debate of environmental concerns is occuring over the proposed installation of solar and wind generation on approximately 600,000 acres of land in the Mojave desert, located in a state designated renewable zone [1]. Numerous companies have applied to create projects in the area. The current debate is centered around the need for new renewable energy versus the need to preserve pristine lands.

The argument against development is specifically concerned with the great amount of space that wind and especially solar installations would consume. While concerns for negative impacts on wildlife are being voiced, this side of the debate appears to also be a NIMBY situation. The opposition effort is now being spearheaded by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has proposed turning the land into a national monument [2]. This would effectively prevent any new project from being developed.

I find it very interesting how difficult it is to balance all interests in this situation. Focusing solely on environmental concern, there is solid cause for California to be both in favor of and against developing solar and wind generation in the Mojave. Sen. Feinstein has said, "I’m a strong supporter of renewable energy and clean technology, but it is critical that these projects are built on suitable lands [2]." But what are "suitable lands" for solar/wind generation? Do deserts not qualify?

I am not sure how this situation will play out, but my personal hope is that development will occur in such a way that attempts to mitigate negative environmental impacts. I found this situation to be a stark reminder of how energy issues can be politically complex, to the point of pitting green interests against green interests.


[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090320-706706.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/earth/24ecowars.html?ref=us

Low Hanging Fruit: Ripe for the Pickin'

Our efforts to reduce carbon emissions will undoubtedly utilize many different strategies. Pacala and Socolow of the Princeton Environmental Institute first illustrated the concept of stabilization wedges in 2004, in which they identified a desirable CO2 emissions rate and prescribed various existing technologies we can use to achieve emissions reductions (1). The wedge concept reiterates the important, and sometimes overlooked idea, that a diverse array of technologies and practices are necessary, and that we should emphasize the use of existing technologies to make emissions reductions. One of the wedges I would like to discuss is the Efficient Building wedge, specifically lighting as it is the lowest hanging fruit of them all.

The inefficiency of incandescent light bulbs is well known; about a 5% efficiency with the rest wasted as heat. Many countries have passed regulations to phase out incandescent bulbs, Australia, Brazil, Switzerland, U.S. (by 2014), and recently the EU (by 2012). The substitute lighting of choice for the majority of residential and commercial applications are CFL's. Lasting 10 times longer than incandescents (10,000 hrs) and using 75% less energy, CFL's will greatly reduce energy use and carbon emissions(2). But why stop there?

The promise of cost competitive light emitting diodes (LED's) may be closer. LED's boast even greater energy efficiencies and life spans (45,000 hrs) than CFLs, but up to this point have been prohibitively expensive. Recent production breakthroughs, noted in the latest Economist, may greatly reduce the cost of LED's. The breakthrough involves using cheaper silicon wafers instead of expensive sapphire-based wafers. Using silicon wafers means a lower cost for materials, and a production process that can utilize more economical 6 inch wafers and more common fabrication equipment(2).

The potential future energy savings of switching to LED's has been noted by the DOE. They estimate that LED's can reduce the electricity demand of lighting by half and avoid adding 130 new power generation facilities. DOE's Next Generation Lighting Initiative, started in 2003 and funded through 2011 with $450 million, sole objective is to "research, develop, and conduct demonstration activities" "based on white light emitting diodes" (3). The goal is to make LED's cost competitive with incandescents and CFLs, while maintaining desirable lighting qualities, by 2011. Identified by DOE as a major obstacle to meeting this goal is the cost of materials and manufacturing. Perhaps the recent production breakthrough is on their radar, and hopefully the commercialization of these LEDs is not far off. It would be ideal for LED commericialization to take place during the lighting replacments now mandated, instead of a second lighting renessiance further down the road.

(1) Pacala, 2004, Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science 305, 968, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/305/5686/968.pdf

(2) The Economist, 2009, A brilliant new approach, http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13315818

(3) EIA, 2002, Impacts of Energy Research and Development, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/erd/energy.html

Merger in Canada’s Oil Business

I have been waiting to see what actions are taken by Oil companies to face this hard economic times. One of the first moves is the recently announced merger of two major Oil Companies in Canada: Suncor Energy and Petro-Canada. This post provides an overview of the merger.

The objectives of this merger are to reduce their high operating costs and to jointly face the opposition of environmentalist groups that have been gaining public sympathy. The expected savings for this merger are $300 million during the first year.

Actual Suncor shareholders will hold 60% of the new company and the remaining 40% will be hold by the actual Petro-Canada shareholders.

Key facts about the merged company:

· 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent proved and probable reserves.
· 433,000 barrels per day of refining capacity.

Suncor, before the merger, was the third largest oil company in Canada. It employs 6,500 workers and was the first company to commercially mine the Athabasca oil sands. It is an integrated oil company: extraction, refining and retailing.

Petro-Canada, employs around 6,000 workers worldwide. It has an upstream production of 418,400 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d) (2008 data).

Is this merger a signal of future mergers in the US? If so, Which companies will merge in the future?

Sources

http://www.suncor.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/worldbusiness/24deal.html?ref=energy-environment
http://www.petro-canada.ca/en/media/282.aspx

Like Astronauts Do

Last friday, March 20, the International Space Station showed off it's full power capability with the successful deployment of the final pair of solar wings, which were delivered and installed in the day's prior by the American Discovery Team. [1]
Watch the space station unfurl solar wings.

The starboard 6 or S6 solar array installed has a wingspan of 240 feet, with 32,800 solar cells. Click here for more information about the S6 solar system. More interesting to me though is that the team also replaced a tank for a failed unit in a system that converts urine to drinkable water. [2]

I didn't realize the ISS had a water recovery system (WRS), and I was curious about the technology behind it. After a little digging I found most of what I was looking for.

It didn't take long for me to realize that the reclaimed water unit is just one small piece to a huge power puzzle aboard the ISS called the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). "The ECLSS consists of an air revitalization system, water coolant loop systems, atmosphere revitalization pressure control system, active thermal control system, supply water and waste water system, waste collection system and airlock support system. [3] The point is that all of these systems interact in a closed loop, receiving power from the solar arrays, to support the ISS atronauts' lives.

Grid assembly began in July of 2006 when the oxygen generator was delivered by the space shuttle Discovery. Then, on November 14, 2008, the US space shuttle Endeavour delivered the WRS which was fully operational by November 25.

The WRS (left image) recycles urine and waste water to clean water that can be used to drink, bath, prepare food, or generate oxygen by electrolysis. First, the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) reclaims water from urine through distillation. This water is then added to the pther waste water and sent through the Water Processor Assembly (WPA). The WPA first uses a series of filters to remove free gases and solids. Then, any micro-organisms and other contaminates are removed by fast, high temperature chemical reactions. The end result is 6.8 tonnes of recycled waste water per year, which means the three person ISS crew can be increased to six, and more scientific equipment can be stored onboard. [4]

Such a renewable system is fantastic and I am sure the technology imployed in space is benifiting our energy technology efforts here on earth. Infact, Water Security Corporation, the patent owner of the WRS technology, has commercialized The Discovery – Model WSC4 for rural water dissenfection, which won a humanitarian award. [5]

But what I could not find is how much energy input is needed for the entire ECLSS, or even just the WRS. Because unlike the space station, whose energy storage from solar power is on site, we are having difficulties with storing and transpoting solar energy on Earth. So, my question is if large scale production of water recovery systems for homes and businesses of developed countries, where clean water is easily accessed, is practical in terms of the energy input?

Sources:

[1] - news.bbc.co.uk

[2] - cnn.com

[3],[5] - science.ksc.nasa.gov

[4] - water-technology.net

The Smart Grid - The way of the future?

In the middle of last month, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus plan for government spending that had a $38 billion emphasis on energy, with additional $20 billion set aside for tax incentives for the electrical industry. $4.5 billion of these $38 billion will be applied towards modernizing the electrical grid through the introduction of the "smart-grid". [1]

"What is a smart-grid?", you might ask, and "How will it help us save energy?".

A smart gird is a way of delivering electricity to consumers, using advanced technologies, that will save energy, reduce cost and increase the reliability of the system.[2] The smart grid will use smart meters and smart devices that will allow the consumer to see his/hers electricity use by the hour, instead of on a monthly basis, and having that knowledge, it is believed the consumer will alter his/her behavior in order to save money. Electricity pricing will be demand driven, which means that if the demand of electricity is high, then the price will be high and vice-versa. Currently, we are paying a flat rate for electricity, regardless of the demand on the grid. This means that at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when the grid is loaded down and the losses are the greatest, the price of electricity is the same as at 3 o'clock in the morning, when the load is minimal. The smart grid will make customers pay a premium when they are
using electricity during peak demand and will sell electricity cheaper, when demand is not as high. The smart grid essentially allow the end consumer be a player in the energy market, by letting the consumer decide when and at what price he/she will buy electrical energy.

The smart grid will be impossible without a state-of-the-art communication system in place which will collect data from the millions of customers and will set energy prices almost instantaneously. This communication system is what will also enable electrical energy to be transferred from one part of the grid to another in a case of an outage, making the grid more resilient.

However, there are experts who disagree that the smart grid will be safer and more reliable, because the communication system will open this vital service to cyber attacks from hackers. The article "Report: Smart grid hackers can cause blackouts" states that a single hacker with about $500 worth of equipment and some knowledge of electronics and software engineering will be able to take over thousands, and maybe even millions of meters, therefore gaining control over state of a large part of the grid. If the hacker decides to shut down a part of the grid this can cause partial and maybe even a rolling blackout that will affect the whole system.[3]

William Sanders of the National Science Foundation Cyber Trust Center believes that the grid will not be deployed until these security concerns are addressed.

In my non-expert opinion, I believe that the smart grid will not do what it is predicted to do. I agree with the article on security, because there is always the chance of a hacker smart enough to find a loophole in even the most secure system. Look at online retailers, for example: Even after all these years of experience and all the money spent on security measures, at least once a year a hacker manages to break into their servers and steal thousands of credit card numbers. The smart grid creates an incredible amount of power, which if falls in the wrong hands, due to a computer or a human error, can have disastrous results.

I believe the concept of the consumer being a participant in the electricity market, discussed earlier, will not work out as well as everybody hopes. The simplest example of that is that if everyone were to turn on their appliances during off-peak hours, when the price of electricity is low, then the demand will increase and therefore the price will increase as well, which negates the effect of using off-peak power.

There are a lot of questions that are left unanswered about the smart grid: there are still a lot technological an policy issues that need to be addressed, before this idea is implemented in full scale.

Articles / References:

[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10165605-54.html?tag=mncol;txt
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10201651-83.html

Renewable energy frontier collides with the Alaskan frontier

While the rest of America is slow to jump on the band wagon for wind renewable energy, rural Alaskan towns are eager to install wind farms through the Alaskan Village Electric Cooperative.

In Alaska there are villages that are so small and rural they have no roads. Everything in the community is shipped by barge or plane including fuel. At $7.40 a gallon, it’s no wonder that these rural communities are eagerly installing wind farms in order to save money.

The simple beauty of this program is that while oil and diesel are expensive to transport to these communities, wind turbines can be placed virtually anywhere because of the harsh, barren landscape. They pay for themselves in a few years by the amount of energy they save for the community. For example Toksook Bay, a fishing community, has three wind turbines that save anywhere from a few dozen gallons to a few hundred gallons every day. It’s an economic example of the sustainability of this technology.

What’s great is the bias that wind is a luxury fuel is being overturned in a conservative state which used to sneer at the idea. It’s true that most of the oil from the United States comes from Alaska, but little stays in the state, which partly accounts for the high prices. Even urban areas are benefiting from wind power as more and more wind farms pop up along the coast and it looks like more are to come. Currently, 24% of the energy in Alaska is generated from hydroelectric sources, but Gov. Palin has announced recently Alaska will try to obtain 50% of their energy through renewable sources by 2025. So it’s very plausible that Alaska will become the frontier for renewable energy.

Sources:

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/alaska-the-clean-energy-frontier/?scp=3&sq=alaskan%20alternative%20power&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/business/18alaska.html?_r=2&ref=business
http://www.absak.com/
http://www.avec.org/about-us.php
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Elster-Electricity-537499.html

TRAIN SYSTEM IN USA/CONSUMPTION OF COAL

TRAIN SYSTEM IN USA/CONSUMPTION OF COAL
The aim of this particular post is to shed some light on the train system in USA. I had this thought that why don’t people in USA use train system to travel in between cities, instead of airplane or their own cars. There is always an option of running trains on electricity by having electricity lines along the railway tracks. This country has an enormous amount of coal reserves, more than oil. If this coal is used in generating electricity, which is used in running trains, with lot of people commuting in trains in place of driving their own vehicles or taking a plane, railway system can become extremely profitable and reliable.
Let’s compare railway system with other forms of transport:
Mode Revenue per passenger mile Energy consumption per passenger mile Deaths per 100 million passenger miles Reliability
Domestic airlines 12.0¢ 3,182 BTUs 0.02 deaths 82%
Intercity buses 12.9¢ 3,393 BTUs 0.05 deaths N/A
Railway 26.0¢ 2,100 BTUs 0.03 deaths 74%
Autos N/A 3,458 BTUs 0.80 deaths N/A

If USA can have the consumption of fuel by railway in form of coal instead of oil, and people start commuting by trains, the energy equation can change dramatically.
You must be having one question, what about the emissions by coal. Well, it has a solution:
Concern for global warming has led to a call for a moratorium on all coal consumption, unless carbon capture is utilized. Coal is the largest potential source of CO2 emissions. The simplest, most stable form of carbon sequestration is to simply leave the coal in the ground.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the cleanest currently-operational coal-fired electricity generation technology. FutureGen is an experimental U.S. research project to investigate the possibility of sequestering IGCC CO2 emissions underground.
Courtsey:WIKIPEDIA
The policies of any country can completely affect the lives of the people and also the state of economy, no matter how rich the country is in terms of resources.
The causes of the decline of passenger rail in the United States were complex. Until 1920 rail was the only practical form of intercity transport, but the industry was subject to government regulation and labor inflexibility. By 1930 the railroads had constructed, with private money, a vast and efficient transportation network, but when the federal government began to construct the National Highway System they found themselves faced with unprecedented competition for passengers and freight with automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft, all of which were heavily subsidized by the government road and airport building programs. At the same time the railroads were subject to property and other taxes. Every foot of rail was taxed, and some localities treated them like cash cows.
Courtsey:WIKIPEDIA
Some people might still question, but coal, why coal? What about emissions?
Look at this question this way,
This country goes to Iraq looking for oil. So many, people die, for oil. USA imports enormous amounts of oil from other countries increasing its dependency on different countries. USA can be self sufficient and have different forms of efficient transport system, using its own resources, like coal along with oil.
-Once I asked the Dr Webber this question, why doesn’t this country have an efficient railway system?
There are many reasons he could think of which goes against trains
1-Not a large population which travels by trains, unlike in India or Japan
2-Trucks drivers association can easily go into protest, if trains start becoming popular
3-Even, trains in this country run on fuel, not electricity. To set up electricity lines along railway tracks is another issue, can cost some serious money.
But, if the policy makers of this country start to counter every possibility of reducing dependence on oil and are even ready to fight wars in other nations causing millions of deaths and widespread unpopularity, just for more oil, despite of the fact that they already have other forms of fuel, then it is their choice!

TRAIN SYSTEM IN USA/CONSUMPTION OF COAL

If USA can have the consumption of fuel by railway in form of coal instead of oil, and people start commuting by trains, the energy equation can change dramatically.

You must be having one question, what about the emissions by coal. Well, it has a solution:

Concern for global warming has led to a call for a moratorium on all coal consumption, unless carbon capture is utilized. Coal is the largest potential source of CO₂ emissions. The simplest, most stable form of carbon sequestration is to simply leave the coal in the ground.

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the cleanest currently-operational coal-fired electricity generation technology. FutureGen is an experimental U.S. research project to investigate the possibility of sequestering IGCC CO₂ emissions underground.

Courtsey:WIKIPEDIA

The policies of any country can completely affect the lives of the people and also the state of economy, no matter how rich the country is in terms of resources.

The causes of the decline of passenger rail in the United States were complex. Until 1920 rail was the only practical form of intercity transport, but the industry was subject to government regulation and labor inflexibility. By 1930 the railroads had constructed, with private money, a vast and efficient transportation network, but when the federal government began to construct the National Highway System they found themselves faced with unprecedented competition for passengers and freight with automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft, all of which were heavily subsidized by the government road and airport building programs. At the same time the railroads were subject to property and other taxes. Every foot of rail was taxed, and some localities treated them like cash cows.

Courtsey:WIKIPEDIA

Some people might still question, but coal, why coal? What about emissions?

Look at this question this way,

This country goes to Iraq looking for oil. So many, people die, for oil. USA imports enormous amounts of oil from other countries increasing its dependency on different countries. USA can be self sufficient and have different forms of efficient transport system, using its own resources, like coal along with oil.

-Once I asked the Dr Webber this question, why doesn’t this country have an efficient railway system?

There are many reasons he could think of which goes against trains

1-Not a large population which travels by trains, unlike in India or Japan

2-Trucks drivers association can easily go into protest, if trains start becoming popular

3-Even, trains in this country run on fuel, not electricity. To set up electricity lines along railway tracks is another issue, can cost some serious money.

But, if the policy makers of this country start to counter every possibility of reducing dependence on oil and are even ready to fight wars in other nations causing millions of deaths and widespread unpopularity, just for more oil, despite of the fact that they already have other forms of fuel, then it is their choice!

TRAIN SYSTEM IN USA/CONSUMPTION OF COAL

The aim of this particular post is to shed some light on the train system in USA. I had this thought that why don’t people in USA use train system to travel in between cities, instead of airplane or their own cars. There is always an option of running trains on electricity by having electricity lines along the railway tracks. This country has an enormous amount of coal reserves, more than oil. If this coal is used in generating electricity, which is used in running trains, with lot of people commuting in trains in place of driving their own vehicles or taking a plane, railway system can become extremely profitable and reliable.