WebberEnergyBlog

Charge!

2009-11-22T22:52:00.001-06:00

Carmakers are shifting towards electric vehicles. Policymakers must do their part, too

The amount of global vehicles is expected to quadruple over the next few decades and if car companies fail to produce more energy efficient vehicles, then the “world would explode” claims Carlos Ghosn. The companies Nissan and Chevrolet have begun to assemble cars that are solely propelled by electric motors, slowly replacing the conventional car industry we have today. As seen in the lectures, every electric car produced has substantial effects on the environment and could eventually lead to a reduction of man-made greenhouse gases.

The cost of redesigned components and the cost of generating electricity could slow the process of transferring to zero emission vehicles. These high costs could be avoided if the transformation became worldwide and the industry completely switched to electric vehicles, that way the price of buying all new equipment to produce a small volume of cars would be eliminated. The government can also play a part to stimulate the switch by raising the price on gasoline or by placing a tax on the carbon emissions released. Either way, the cost is a fleeting manner when it comes to the health of the world.

Green Energy in the Rust Belt

2009-11-22T22:36:00.003-06:00

When you think of green energy you do not generally think of the Rust belt. Once known for many smokestacks, Ohio has become a location for the expansion of the green energy movement for the rest of the country. Many solar start ups are moving to Ohio because the large availability of skilled workers, many of whom have been out of work since the downturn in the economy. In automotive manufacturing cities such as Detroit, where plants to stamp metal are already largely available, it seems the logical choice to move mirror manufacturing for solar power. Stamped metal used for cars is very similar to the metal used for the mirror backing in solar array fields. This means much of the manufacturing is cheaper because the existing machinery is there and can be used which saves a lot on the overhead costs of building it. Adding to the buzz is the belief that solar and wind energy is and will continue to one of the fastest growing businesses on the market and the business can only increase. Not only that but many wind turbines are already made in Ohio. The once bleak future of the aging rust belt states is starting to look much brighter.

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

2009-11-22T17:56:00.002-06:00

This article is the exact opposite from "No peak in oil before 2030, Study says" that I've posted.

This article states that "the world has already past it's oil peak production," but people like the US are trying to bend the truth so that there will not be panic in the financial markets. Also, "Americans fear the end of oil supreacy because it will threaten their power over access to oil resources," no one wants to admit the truth of the future of oil, therefore, no one is saying it.

People need to know exactly what the oil supplies future has, so their eyes can open up to new resources. Being optimistic is good but when it is talking about oil and resources this world has I think the truth should be nice and clear. Like I stated before we need to start on planning for the future, but not just that, we also need to start putting into work and finding a way to have our nation changing their lifestyles; they are going to have to change it anyway why not now.

Read this article it is way more interesting than the one I posted before.

No Peak in Oil Before 2030, Study Says

2009-11-22T17:32:00.002-06:00

In this article, it is generaling saying that we are not running out of oil just yet. We will reach our highest level in 2030 or 2050, so the study says. Experts/researchers say that there is still oil on this planet in such places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq that we can still get oil from, therefore, oil supplies will keep growing in the next two decades.

What goes up must come down therefore I think we should prepare for when oil supplies gets low and we have to use other sources/reserves. If we do not plan ahead we might find ourselves in a bad situation. This whole article is just trying to be optimistic and keep people from panic.

Read my other article "Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower" that says the exact opposite about the "oil peak" in this article.

India Cabinet Approved a $19 Billion Solar Plan

2009-11-19T22:21:00.003-06:00

Summary: India cabinet approved a $19 billion dollar solar power plant in the whole India. The power plant is designed to generate about 20 gigawatts of electricity by 2020。 The plan is only under projection right now, and the India will spend future years research as well as construction. It is reported that the power plant will provide roughly 1-1.5 gigawatts of electricity in 3 years. The report says that this super expensive plan is India trying to narrow the gap between the solar leader like China, and in that way it would have more leverage in internationla talk. This is a Yahoo News posted on Novenber 19th. Click here to check the original article.
Comments: India is the biggest developing country right next to China. it consumes tremendous amount of energy in its industry. Also, India has about 1 billion population, the electricity demand of India is very high. The purpose of this giant solar power plant will certainly reduce the CO2 emission of India. However, the concern will also raise. Is the solar the suitable source for India? Or moreover, Is such a large-scale solar power palnt suitable for India? Is India has mature enough techonologies to build such a giant power plant? Is this just a comptetion to China? I certainly doubt that Indian can afford such a expensive budget, as well as the effect of this solar power plants. But it looks like we all going to find out soon, since it will start its operation in 2012 accroding to the article.

Digging for Oil; Canada Is Unlocking Petroleum From Sand

2009-11-16T12:24:00.000-06:00

Summary: In Canada, less than 1% of the available oil sands have been used to produce oil. “According to Canada's National Energy Board, there are at least 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil within a 250-mile radius of this northern city, about 15 percent more than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.” Canada’s oil sand production is expected to grow drastically in the next few years thanks to the new advancements in technology, which make the production of oil sands easier and cheaper.

Comment: As we already know, Canada is the largest oil supplier country of the United States. This means that if Canada’s oil sands production is going to increase drastically in the next few years, the amount of oil coming from oil sands in the United States is obviously going to increase as well. This is a really good thing because we need to take advantage of the other ways we can produce oil rather than just from petroleum, which we know is already running out.

New Books Help Students Investigate Energy

2009-11-15T21:59:00.002-06:00

The students who are learning a lot of the material about energy are mostly kids from the age of 9-12. From these new books they are learning plenty of material from energy such as the history and science of it. Also "Why do we need power and how we get it?". I just think it is a great idea to inform children about what all energy is and does. By doing such matters, kids will know what is going on in the world and have more interest in the world and energy. RIght now there are a lot of people who just do not know a thing about what is going on in the world, and it is for two reasons. Either they just do not know or they just do not care. Either way both reasons is quite a bad thing. It is best that the majority of humanity have interest in energy. So by giving these kids the education of Energy, can result to become a good thing.

India to Boost Funding for Solar Power

2009-11-15T21:48:00.002-06:00

Climate change is a global problem that many countries are working on tackling. Although it may not be a drastic enough step, India's move towards solar energy is beneficial to the world and India. Sunlight is abundant in India in contrast of other renewables: wind and hydroelectric. Right now, India produces about 7.5% if their energy from renewable sources with the majority being wind. The government's new policy is aimed at increasing solar-power generation to 20,000 megawatts by 2020 from three megawatts. India is also working on energy efficiency of cars and consumer appliances in their efforts to adapt to a more economical, and sustainable energy profile. America, Russia, and others who seem to show an unwillingness to act on climate change need to realize that if we all work together, we can significantly cut carbon emissions. If developing countries play their part in the action we collectively need to take, we are moving in the right direction. Solar power is a technology that should continue to develop and become competitive in the future, and investing in it is a sound strategy.

Turtles Are Casualties of Warming in Costa Rica

2009-11-15T19:13:00.000-06:00

While some people dedicate their summer nights to cookouts and fireworks, tourists on Costa Rica's northern Caribbean coast stroll the palm-lined beach of Tortuguero National Park to witness a more natural ritual, the annual nesting of green sea turtles. As many as 150,000 bury their eggs in the sands of Tortuguero in a good year, making it one of the world's top nesting beaches for the endangered green turtle. Four times as many green turtles now nest in Tortuguero than did in the 1960s. Tortuguero is one of many success stories in a long struggle to ensure the survival of the harmless marine reptile, which only recently faced an uncertain future.
But scientists fear that climate change could undo much of the progress made in sea turtle conservation. Global warming is linked to weather extremes. Rising temperatures from global warming are a major threat. Beach temperature during egg incubation determines turtle sex ratios, with higher temperatures producing more females.
A recent study at a Florida nesting beach found that all the turtle hatchlings were female, while on Costa Rica's Playa Grande, the sand was so hot between January and March of this year that turtle eggs buried there stopped hatching.
This is a clear consequence of climate change. It does affect more than we think, If we don’t measure what we do we can finish destroying all the life on the earth. There are some damages which are reversible but there are other that are impossible to fix. Contaminated water may be purified, but extinct species can’t be recovered. How will we stop the bad we have started?

Shower Time Could Get Shortened

2009-11-15T15:27:00.001-06:00

The average American spends about eight minutes in the shower using about 20 gallons of water. The most radical proposal would be to take fewer showers. Which would help the environment, and give you more workspace around your colleagues. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez wants shower time limited to three minutes without any singing. Another proposal was “Navy showers”, or turning the shower off while lathering up. However, the main focus of this article is to improve water usage through modification of the showerhead.

This is not the first time that governments have looked at setting restrictions on showerheads. In 1992, the government restricted showerheads to ones that pump 2.5 gallons of water per minute. This forced showerhead companies to add flow restrictors, often by adding simple washers. The small secrets were that these washers were easily removed with a knife and there were often directions in the box about where they were located and how to remove them.

The latest idea is to turbo charge the new showerheads like today’s turbo charged cars that force more air into the engine, which boosts the power. With restrictions on the flow rates of showerheads - of 1.5 gallons per minute in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and 2.0 gallons per minute in San Antonio, Texas - improvements will have to come from technology. Engineers believe mixing air into the water can still give people the same pressure and enjoyment as a regular shower. The current technologies use either a “Venturi Vacuum”, which is often used by hotels to save water, or a small turbine inside of the showerhead. Both these technologies provide great pressure, and a reduction in water usage. However, the only problem is that the addition of more air causes users to operate their showers at higher temperatures, which uses 10% more energy in the process.

I hope that the EPA will only consider making restrictions to showerheads and not on the number of showers that I can take. Otherwise, I think we would need more space for group projects, and swimming would make chlorine the most popular cologne. I am impressed with the progress and cannot wait to take a shower in a fancy hotel to test out the new technology!

Sources

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569223,00.html

IEA bets on Solar, Wind and Natural Gas to win the race to renewables.

2009-11-12T05:40:00.003-06:00

Seeing as we're getting ready to write our papers, I feel that this article complements our research very well by proposing a realistic assessment of the material future of alternative energy in the united states.

the article actually makes a few points:

first, to get our sources strait: it's quoting the International Energy Agency's "outline for world energy future for the next 20 years" - the article explains that this year marks their decision to focus on stimulating clean energy for the future.

secondly, it indicates that while natural gas, solar, and wind power are expected to a rapid increase in demand, nuclear power will continue to play quite a minimal role in the future of alternative energy.

thirdly, this entire report is all based on the assumption that the world will cooperate on environmental policy and carbon taxes will skyrocket among a host of other presuppositions, which makes this report perhaps seem less important than it is. However, even if its based on the above assumptions, if there's one thing i've learned in economics is that public perception influences the demand for a product. If the public percieves that the International Energy Association advocates and predicts a big boom in wind and solar power, they might just believe in it.

I think it is critical to ask why nuclear power is still being left out of the picture as a "clean renewable source of energy" by even a network of informed scientists as prestigious as the international energy association. I hypothesize that it is one of the following:
a. given that nuclear power plants are highly capital intensive and take time to be approved let alone built, so the IEA is skeptical of the worlds ability to stimulate the production of nuclear power plants quickly in the next 10 years. OR
b. nuclear power is still seen as "dirty" or "unsafe" in terms of it's public image despite the massive leaps in efficiency, disposal and safety technologies.

I really hope it's the former, because if it's the latter, we're on the verge of making perhaps the gravest mistake of our time. In a world where we are thirsty for a highly safe, efficient and clean sources of energy - nuclear power should be one of the leading contenders to supplement our energy portfolio.

- thoughts?

-Shikhar.

Solar incentives drop as cells get raised on roofs

2009-11-08T21:01:00.004-06:00

The popularity and demand for solar panels has increased as the price for their installment has dropped substantially. Another aspect of this spike in solar cell sales is the high rebate for the electricity produced by the cells. But because of this high spike in sales the cities and even countries such as Australia have placed cuts in the rebates. These cuts have received some argument because these cuts reduce the rebate by 50%. Cities such as Austin are behind the movement toward reducing the rebate.

The cut I find is logical as proposed. The rebate was used to give incentive to develop solar energies and replace polluting plants and hazardous emissions. As solar sales go up why should the rebate remain the same. The rebate is still in place-though at a lower level, and the people receiving the rebate are still receiving "free" energy. over time they are still benefiting from both. If the rebate were to stay at the current level the city would have to recover this money in some other program-maybe tax increases, which would mean a pretty vicious circle of people paying taxes to the city then the city paying the rebate to those with solar cell. In the end those without solar cells would be paying those with them. This would drive those without cells to install them then the whole system would be useless. The reduction is necessary in my opinion.

Clean Air for the future

2009-11-08T20:07:00.004-06:00

In response to a lawsuit brought on by the State of North Carolina the T.V.A must "significantly reduce" its air pollution from four coal-fired power plants by December 2013. In order to do so smokestack scrubbers are being installed to eliminate most of the sulfur emissions. However this system takes into practice creating a landfill area rather than polluting the air. The T.V.A. has been approved to use an area of 50 acres and 200 feet tall but the project is wanting to limit the land use down to a fraction of this size to further reduce its footprint. Also being used is a dry storage system for the coal ash in response to last year's coal-ash spill. Two plants are already online with new scrubbers and a third one needing some adjustments and the fourth one is still to be determined if it can make deadline.

Investing over $6 Billion since the late 1970's T.V.A. has been working to reduce air pollution from sulfur dioxide and particulates and smog forming nitrogen oxide. The emphasis has been toward the air and has been leaving landfills to fill. the trade off is fair according to Mr. Nash who commented, "but it is still better to clean the air," because "we all breathe the air." I believe this logic is somewhat flawed because landfills as already noted in the article coal ash can spill. These resulting spills can devastate the local area and leak into underground water supplies leaving it contaminated. It is important to clean the emissions produced by the plants but the long run effects lead to a need for cleaner fuels and energy sources.

Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me

2009-11-08T16:32:00.003-06:00

As the article state, "The holy grail of renewable energy is a solar power plant that continues producing electricity after the sun goes down". Essentially, SolarReverse, a company in Santa Monica, California, is looking to build a 150-megawatt solar farm that will store around seven hours worth of the sun's energy by heating molten salt and releasing that heat at night to create steam that will turn a turbine in order to compensate for the demand of electricity throughout the day.

The project, named Rice Solar Energy Project, will be built in the Sonoran Desert. The power plant will use thousands of mirrors, called heliostats, to concentrate sunlight to a tower with a receiver mounted on top of it. The receiver will be filled with 4.4 million gallons of liquid salt and will be heated by the focused sunlight to around 1050 degrees, which will flow through a steam-generating system.

This isn't the first time salt has been used for solar purposes, but in this case, the salt will be stored in tanks and used later. Solar Reverse also claims that it will air-cool the plant to avoid using water, another concern that comes with energy. This is yet another step in the right direction in our path to more reliable and renewable energy. Now that we are expanding the definition of solar energy with the introduction of using salt, this will urge scientists to find other mediums to where we can store the sun's energy, a source of energy that will be here to stay.

Although this may work in California, not all states have the available space need to commit to such a large project. This limits the effectiveness of a power plant like this dependent on its location. In the future, I believe that the big states with enough money and in an area that has high solar power potential will invest in this type of power plant. I do wonder however, if the current state of California's economy will have any effect on this specific project. Whether it will delay the completion of the project, or completely abandon it, if there is any effect at all.

Yemen could become first nation to run out of water

2009-11-08T15:20:00.002-06:00

Summary: Yemen is set to be the first country in the world to run out of water, providing a taste of the conflict and mass movement of populations that may spread across the world if population growth outstrips natural resources.

Comment: This really puts things into perspective. When the world is talking about cutting down on CO2 emissions, and finding ways of storing and producing energy, there are still areas of the world where the very basic needs are scarce. The crazy thing is, Dr.Webber's flyer about water policy talked about how water demanding many of the energy generation techniques were, but here in Yemen, the situation is completely different. They find themselves in a situation where energy...just doesn't even matter. They are in a situation where water policy is the most important matter to discuss and legislate. It is a matter of life and death. The amazing thing is that gangs protect trunks containing water with guns. The most powerful currency in Yemen without a doubt is water. The government has anounnced that wells will run dry within ten years. Without mentioning their unstable civil wars, which lead to gangs obtaining ilegal water.

One of the main problems also, is the fact that yemen's growth rate is very high, one of the highest in the world. This makes things even worse. More mouths to feed means more problems. Most people can't afford water, and end up spending almost half of their money on all the water they can find.

Something they need to look at is agriculture. With almost 40% of water being consumed by Qat trees, which is a local drug, little is left for essential daily water use. The idea of constructing a desalination plant is good, however very expensive. Disease will increase and Yemen will find themselves in a situation where, if no one helps them out from the outside, they will find themselves in extreme civil war. Desperate times will produce fear and hatred. So this really does look like a very serious problem.

Our Choice Al Gore,

2009-11-08T00:03:00.001-06:00

The Inconvenient Truth, when ever this title is heard some ideas that may come to mind might be global warming, recycle, or simply Al Gore. Well the former vice president once again helps the fight concerning the environmental movement; now in the article “Gore Calls for Student Efficiency in Energy Consumption”, Gore is shown with one of his most praised audiences, youth. The reason as to why this article caught my attention was how it connected to a blog posted about two weeks ago on the WebberEnergyBlog. The blog was on the article “Iowa Lakes Community College: Partnership for Academic and Economic Success in a Rapidly Evolving Wind-Energy Industry”, it spoke of how the Community College placed a course to help with energy expenses and is now a two year degree program for studies in wind energy. Similarly in this article George Washington University was the center of attention, and during the presentation the president of the university, Steven Knapp, mentioned “GW’s efforts to promote campus sustainability, one of the university’s three key strategic initiatives. The first university in D.C. to sign the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment in April[…]” Through this you can see the ripple affect the phenomenon known as energy efficiency is having on the United Stated nationwide. Of course this is happening all around the world, although it is still in its early stages energy efficiency and alternative forms of energy are booming!

Could shale change the fate of our energy supply

2009-11-01T12:50:00.002-06:00

Summary: Inside shale formations thousands of feet underground in Louisiana is what many people believe to be huge amounts of natural gas. Many people see natural gas as a way for America to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and also natural gas has the least environmental impacts out of available fossil fuels. There is a huge surge in this area of Louisiana with people buying large amounts of land and tons of money being spent in hope of developing this area to supply large amounts of natural gas to the rest of the country. Other people are still skeptical however of this and aren't really sure if it will deliver fuel that was promised.

Natural gas is a really great alternative to some of the other available fossil fuels that we have out there. The fact that it's so much more clean than even coal helps the company that are producing it promote it and the development in other places. This might even lead us to use electricity in other places besides a power plant which is a main use of it today. If natural gas becomes as abundant as other fossil fuels such as oil, we all might eventually see natural gas cars on the road. This is also important because it serves as a less traumatic way of making the switch from the dirtiest fossil fuels strait to all clean energy. If we had an energy system that was more natural gas/ wind/ solar energy, we would be so much better off. We don't have to solve every problem with pure clean energy.

Lone Star, Meet Red Star: China’s $1.5 Billion Wind-Power Deal in Texas

2009-11-01T10:23:00.001-06:00

The question of who pays for pollution is introduced when foreign companies, for instance China’s Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power, assemble power plants abroad. Chinese energy-related investments have begun to take place in Texas, where they are planning to install a $1.5 billion wind plant next year. Texas is already listed as the biggest wind-power state and with this new plant, their defeat over other states will continue to increase. Power leads to pollution, but whose responsibility is it? Chinese banks are funding the wind farm and supplying the components while Texas provides the land. Which element dominates; is the location more important or is the sponsor the responsible one? The producer may not even be accountable at all, the blame could be thrown onto the consumers of energy, therefore putting the weight of harming the economy evenly onto three groups, the supplier of sources & money, the producer of the pollution, and the consumer of electricity. I think countries should focus more on what emissions they’re putting out rather than concentrating on other countries’ rates of pollution. The article discusses the foreign competition to different sectors, proving that the entire world does contribute to global pollution, and therefore should all contribute to cleaning it back up.

Campaign Against Emissions Picks Number

2009-10-27T15:02:00.002-05:00

Many campaigns have been formed that focus on global warming. In this article the campaigners have become a bit more creative in their approach to their protest and focused on the number 350. This number means that "if the gas concentration exceeds 350 for long, they warn, the world can expect decades of disrupted climate patterns, rising sea levels, drought and famine."

The Earth is going to diminish slowly and we are obviously going to go down with it. There are many things that have been killing this planet, and carbon emissions is one form. Trees are important in reducing carbon emissions, yet many trees are being cut every day. I think people hesitate in making a sacrifice because they do not want to change their lifestyles. I do not understand why saving the environment would not be on every one's list of "Things to Do."

$105 million was ordered from Exxon to NYC

2009-10-26T12:09:00.001-05:00

Summary: A 105 million dollar punishemnt fee was ordered by a federal jury from Exxon to NYC. The fine was ordered to treat the gasoline addctive that can contaiminate the undergroud water in NYC. The addctive that NYC reported is methyl tertiary butyk ether, also know as MTBE, which is used to increase gasoline's octane level to reduce air pollution. Royal Dutch Shell, BP Plc, Chevron Corp, Citgo Petroleum Corp, Hess Corp and Sunoco Inc tried to settle a 15 million payment with NYC earlier. And Exxon is seeking for legal options now. It was a news posted Yahoo on Oct 19th. Please check orginal article here.

Commnets: This article reminded me aout the relationship between water and energy that Dr. Webber mentioned in his article. We always valued more about energy, since it might bring more profits in short term. But we mostly ignored the importance of water . We can't live without water, and there is no alternatives for that, but we can always invent alternative energy form. Specially, in this case, NYC is the most population intnesive area in the whole world, and rely mostly on underground water for its daily life. Pollution to the undergraoup water is extermely dangerous. So, I think those big oil company which have it all need think more about the side effects that energy exploring might bring, and think more about long-term effects. Moreover, we need to think the importance of water, and put that in the list of environmental protection, and maybe set an agency to control the water qualties.

China’s Bright Solar Outlook

2009-10-25T23:35:00.001-05:00

China’s new solar energy policy is very lofty proposing to increase its solar capacity from 50 megawatts in 2008 to 10 to 20 gigawatts in 2020. This increase would be about 20 or 40 times the solar capacity of the U.S. in 2008 (eia). This increase is to be accomplished through government subsidies for solar power plants and rooftop instillations. The program “Golden Sun” will subsidize 50% for on-grid plants, and 70% for off-grid power systems. This program should generate 500MW of power and lasts until 2011.

China’s solar policy should be good for many global companies and consumers. Companies such as First Solar, Solarfun, Canadian Solar Inc., and Trina Solar all have agreements to start building facilities. First Solar, which is an Arizona based company, has an agreement to build a 2GW plant in Ordos City, which should be one of the largest in the world. This would probably be like The Three Gorges Dam of solar plants a.k.a. huge! This 2GW plant will not even be completed until 2019. Solarfun, a Chinese company, also has a contract to build 2 plants that will total 600MW of power for the city of Hohhot. Canadian Solar Inc. has a contract to build a 500MW plant for the city of Baotau. Trina Solar also has plans to increase its plant by 500MW.

This is all being done by solar companies because of China’s availability of capital and lower prices of polysilicon, which is the raw material to make thin-film solar cells. This is all a play by China to make Solar power technologies economical for production. Solarfun and Trina Solar are good examples of this. Solarfun has taken out a 56.8 million dollar loan to increase its capital for its 600MW plants. Trina Solar has taken out a 304 million dollar loan to increase its capital to fund its expansion of 500MW.

These loans and expansions of power and solar technologies should come back to benefit the consumer. The increased use of capital should help start the flow of money again and help us out of our current recession. The increased renewable energy capacity will help China reach its desired solar energy capacity and supply power to more of its cities. This is also helpful for the U.S. in order to see how the production of these solar plants function economically and efficiently before we construct more of our own. Finally the most important thing is to see if China can meet more of its energy demands with more solar and less with its coal plants!

(The lithium part of the article, which I am not commenting on, but will be very important for the next generation of batteries for electric cars, and storage of large amounts of power from utility scale wind or solar plants.)

Sources

U.S. Electric Net Summer Capacity. EIA, 01 July 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. .

Iowa Lakes Community College: Partnership for Academic and Economic Success in a Rapidly Evolving Wind-Energy Industry

2009-10-25T22:36:00.003-05:00

Iowa Lakes Community College have demanded for a trained renewable energy workforce in order to reduce energy expenses. Their request for the program launched in 2004, since then it became a 2 year degree program for the studies of wind energy. Students join together and come up with a project involving wind energy. Most of their projects become a great use to the environment. Students work utilizing a 1.65 megawatts wind turbines as a laboratory. Their work has became a great help not only to the environment but also economically that America should "continue to pursue alternative energy resources and encourage citizens to pursue formal education in renewable energy." This program also pre-pairs students on becoming future technicians with high skills, great knowledge of wind energy. So far this Community College has became a success and hopes to grow and pass on to other schools.

Converting Carbon Chains Into Ethanol

2009-10-25T21:07:00.002-05:00

Summary: The competition is on to produce biofuels without needing food crops. Many companies around the country are developing methods and refining methods to convert many viable resources into ethanol. The industry is working towards reaching the goals Congress set in 2007. They are running a little behind schedule due in part to lack of capital because of the credit crisis, but mostly because discovering the keys of how to successfully break the materials down in an economically feasible way is proving to be difficult. However, progress is being made, and around the country small plants testing different methods of biofuel production are springing up. There are a variety of ways being used to create biofuel (Coskata, a leader among the group, uses an 8,000 degree torch to convert wood chips into its base elements which are then fed upon by bacteria who secrete ethanol), and many companies are pursuing different routes hoping to claim the prize of creating the second generation of ethanol.

Comment: As the actual costs of creating these fuels begin to surface, we will have a better picture of what the energy profile in the future may look like. The forms of ethanol production these companies are pursuing are carbon neutral, and could be very beneficial to the environment. Scaling the prototype factories into larger, more economical sizes is the key, as Wesley J. Bolsen, Coskata’s chief marketing officer, says, “the question is how rapidly we can scale.” If we could start creating environmentally friendly, cost efficient fuels from garbage, construction and demolition waste, trees or special crops we would be moving in the right direction.

Daniel Gellerup

Oil Industry Sets a Brisk Pace of New Discoveries

2009-10-25T21:04:00.000-05:00

Summary: Even though oil is harder to find nowadays, it is possible thanks to the technology that keeps on improving. This year, more than 200 oil discoveries have been made by big and small oil companies. This brings excitement for the industry as well as anxiety because of the fear that lower prices might injure the exploration. Companies are trying to keep up with the exploration while trying to reduce the costs. Thanks to this exploration drive companies have also found natural gas reserves and one of them could be Venezuela’s largest natural gas field.

Comment: We know that we need oil and people believe that there’s still a lot in the ground but it’s very expensive to explore and extract. It is reasonable that companies will explore more when the prices are high and that they won’t when the exploration is not worth the price. So, maybe there’s more oil left than we think, and the day when the price is high enough to explore the most difficult places will come.

California Tries to Solve Water Woes

2009-10-21T20:30:00.000-05:00

Earth, also called Blue Planet cause of the huge amount of water it has. Even if we want to see it or not it is becoming less and less blue every day. Depending on the part of the planet this is becoming a small, normal, big or huge problem.
In this case we do not need to look very far to find one of those problems, right here in the state of California. It should be a reason to worry about, but as usual it is turning into political stuff, the typical argument between Republicans and Democrats, but in this case both supporting the same goal, to solve the problem about the water supply.
The main idea is to repair the state’s fragile water ecosystem, to unleash new water supplies and to increase water conservation throughout the state. More specifically, negotiators hope to seal a deal that would make equal the goals of restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta ( a collection of channels, natural habitats and islands at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that is a major source of the state’s drinking water) and increasing the supply of water to residents, businesses and farms. Being the first one the largest environmental restoration project ever in the United States.
The discussion over how to distribute the water in California is decades old, but when it comes to water legislation, close to done never means done. There are many consequences cause of this problem with water, like water restrictions and increased prices for water, a federal order last year forcing water authorities to curtail the use of large pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to help preserve dying smelt has reduced water flows to agriculture, environmental problems in the Sacramento River have resulted in a collapse of the Chinook salmon population…
Of course there are some proposals to fix this. The construction of at least one dam is included in the plan, as well as a peripheral canal that would transport water from the Sacramento River around the delta to federal and state aqueducts for use in urban and agricultural areas.
One thing is clear, without water we can’t live. It’s necessary for us to survive, it’s a resource of energy we use continuously and it’s part of the nature where we live. It’s time to fix the damage we have caused during ages.

Too Fast Too Furious: Climate Change

2009-10-18T22:51:00.003-05:00

Many of us may know that we are at war, but what is missing is for what and with whom? Well the reason would be changing the old ways of using energy and exactly what is it that we use to simply new and improved forms. The who would have to be major companies in the energy industry and concerned parties, anyone and everyone from Exelon to Apple. Also now advocates from The American Petroleum Institute and Environmental Defense Fund , just to name a few, are also getting in on the action. Well in this article I found that even though companies in the energy business were so united once this blew over it was ever man for themselves.
The article, Energy Firms Deeply Split on Bill to Battle Climate Change by John Broder and Jad Mouawad, goes on to talk about how since it has become a war of everyone against everyone there have been bought protests and advertising campaigns thrown around the battle field. One comment that caught my attention was concerning lobbing and how energy producers have literally thrown money into such efforts. The comment more than anything gave a comical take on the situation of how desperately this was happening, “The fact that the lobbying is so fast and so furious is a positive sign that this thing is moving along,” said Mark Brownstein, a managing director at the Environmental Defense Fund and an advocate of climate legislation. “The fact that everyone is rushing to Washington tells you people believe it is real.” The war is far from over it goes from coal to natural gas, to congress from fake advertising, and well the list is endless but most exhausting to maintain.
I see all of this as just pointless; I do not necessarily mean that we should not concentrate on saving our environment but this fiasco just seems over rated. There is never a moment in which what was agreed upon is later respected let alone acknowledged. Well those in senate all I can say is beat of luck, because seems to me that you must deal with a four year old throwing a temper tantrum.

Renewable Energy Powerhouse

2009-10-18T22:43:00.002-05:00

The race for a state to claim leadership for clean-energy is on, and the two forerunners have different ways of going about it. Texas, is boasting wind power, and has recently opened the world's largest wind farm this month. Now, Texas has close to three times as much wind capacity as Iowa, the second rank state in wind energy. The other state, California, has invested in solar power and currently leads the nation.

As Congress considers ways to make America greener, these two states will serve as laboratories according to the policy makers under the Obama administration. Texas has loads of land and loose regulation, which makes it easy to build a wind turbine farm. California on the other hand does not have much extra space, which is why they turned to solar power. Although it may cost more money, it does not take up any land if they build the panels on the rooftops of buildings.

However, the one thing that both states have in common is that each has a renewable electricity mandates, stating that a certain amount of their electricity come from a renewable source. Congress is now considering on making such a mandate for the nation as a whole. As of now, renewable energy only accounts for 9.5 percent of the nation's supply of energy. Congress hopes that better technology will be developed soon so that the percentage will rise.

I believe that many other states will begin to follow in California's footsteps in solar power because it is a sure bet unlike wind power. Seeing as a majority of the states are not as big as California or Texas, they should take advantage of their building's rooftops and such. Also, as the concern for the environment rises, the creation of these energy mandates should satisfy many environmentalists.

Marine plant life holds the secret to preventing global warming

2009-10-18T15:49:00.005-05:00

Summary: Marine plant life sucks 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year, but most of the plankton responsible never reaches the seabed to become a permanent carbon store. Their capacity to absorb the emissions is under threat, however: the habitats are being lost at a rate of up to 7 per cent a year, up to 15 times faster than the tropical rainforests. A third have already been lost.

Comment: It seems that nowadays there really isn't much debate as to which gasses are harmful to the environment, or that global warming exists. We may or may not be right about this, but the fact of the matter is that correlations are simply too strong for us to ignore the situation. Talks of carbon sequestration are evermore a reality. Governments are paying more attention towards reducing CO2 emissions, whether it may be by forcing regulations on certain industries or cap and trade , tax...etc.

So, where do we need to look? The carbon cycle is a good place to start. The cycle gives us an indication of where everything goes, where everything is transformed, absorbed and so on. A closer analysis of this cycle gives us an idea of where exactly we are influencing the cycle. The main problem isn't really how much CO2 we emit, but how much of the CO2 emitted by us is excess. In other words, how much of it doesn't follow the cycle and simply accumulates. This really is the only CO2 that needs to be controlled as this is the main reason for global warming.

The carbon cycle indicates that on average, in modern day terms, the atmosphere has an excess of about 3.2 billion tons of carbon that it can not flow to other areas. If you click here you have an idea of what sort of flows exist. Now the ocean as we all know plays a huge part in absorbing most of what we emit into the atmosphere, and in fact has been one of the mains reasons why the world has not warmed up faster. Most of us don't know how important it trully is and yet we make no effort to protect it or maintain it. It in fact holds a major role in our future. Marine life absorbs so much CO2 that if we invest money into protecting the marine mangrove forests and actually plan to expand them, more and more CO2 may be absorbed naturally in the carbon cycle giving us more time to breathe and come up with alternate solutions to calm down the environment.

Wind offshore in the east...why not the west?

2009-10-15T18:35:00.003-05:00

Recent developments in offshore wind harvesting in eastern states reaching from North Carolina to Maine has inadvertently moved focus towards our west coast which has just as much if not more windpower offshore.
So why is there little interest in western states such as California in obtaining energy from its strong off shore winds? One answer is its topography offshore. Unlike eastern states which have a fairly continuous continental shelf on which turbines can be anchored, the west coast has a sudden shear drop to depths that do not allow turbines to be anchored with today's technology at an economic rate. Another reason is that California has large tracts of land that is recently being developed to obtain wind energy with less expense. With plenty of land to last them economically there is no need at the time to develop offshore wind systems. Power prices as well are cheaper than those in states such as New England and therefore there is little incentive to dump large amounts of money into new technologies as offshore wind when they are already stable. These technologies would have to deal with such things as the tremendous depths that the wind turbines would have to be anchored as well as earthquakes which the area is prone to. Other concerns in developing this technology include the high price for the research and engineering as well as maintenance.

From these reasons I believe it an understandable position of western states to resist the drive toward offshore wind power to some degree. I see it as beneficial however for small divisions of field research to develop basic groundwork. The potential for states such as California to establish this technology to produce electricity will come as a gain as it can produce enough for itself and for other grid systems in the long run. And as in the case of Texas which is proving to be a founder in the innovations of solar and nuclear plants California can also prove to be a key to such technologies as offshore wind technologies and gain world attention.

Citation: Galbraith, Kate. "Prospects Distant for Offshore Wind in West - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com." Energy and Green Business - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com. 09 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2009. .

Solar Living, Without Compromising on Lifestyle

2009-10-14T17:55:00.002-05:00

Twenty teams of university students from the United States, Canada, and Europe are going head to head in the Solar Decathlon, a federal Department of Energy competition. Their challenged is to construct and design a solar powered home. The 10 day competition will consist with a series of test that should prove their solar powered home to be livable. They will also be judged on the "architect design, engineering skill and comfort."

I like the fact that this competition exists because it gives students a chance to showcase their skills but also their great ideas. One will never know if any of these students will come up with an invention or idea that we will be using in the future. With success, these students can prove that there is a way to live a "green" life in your own home.

Climate: a bipartisan problem that needs a bipartisan solution

2009-10-14T15:00:00.002-05:00

As we know, global warming is not just a mundane myth, is is increasingly becoming a global reality and unless we do something to curb our effect on the environment now, we're going to see something close to an environmental rapture in the years to come. It seems like after quite sometime, the senate democrats seem to have gotten the message. Although previously, key democrats were strictly opposed to the Nuclear option - fearing it was unstable, radio-toxic and would only create more environmental problems - have recently decided to support the nuclear option - if it means more republicans will sign onto the climate bill.

Notably, senator Kerry who has been known for his long-time support for climate legislation said "We're going to work in a bona fide way with everybody to see how to bridge a gap here. We've got to get a 60-vote margin. That means you've got to legislate, which means you have to compromise."

The current legislation being debated includes a "preliminary section on nuclear power that provides greater incentives for worker training and research, as well as funding for the NRC's program to study the feasability...of expanding comercial reactor use beyond their current 40-year licenses"

How has the NRC responded? They believe it's a "step in the right direction" however more comprehensive nuclear reform will be needed to revitalize the industry.

The democrat's decision to barter with the republicans and make concessions is both monumental and proactive, especially at a time where there is such a great schism in congress over the healthcare bill. The Kerry-Boxer proposal is not just "a step in the right direction" it makes the necessary compromises that are at the heart of popular legislation, and potentially the signal of a new-wave of bipartisanship to come.

-Shikhar

The Financial Crisis' impact on CO2 Emissions

2009-10-12T13:16:00.002-05:00

Summary: In the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2009 Climate Change Excerpt released last week, the IEA found that the ongoing financial crisis has had a significant impact on worldwide CO2 emissions, predicting a fall in CO2 emissions of as much as 3% which would be the greatest drop in 40 years. IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka goes on to explain how “this gives us a chance to make real progress towards a clean-energy future, but only if the right policies are put in place promptly.”

Comment: The impact the financial crisis has had on worldwide CO2 emissions has been huge. At first, a fall of 3% from the previous year may not seem like much, but when you consider the fact that the worldwide CO2 emissions for the last decade has increased on average by about 3% annually, a fall of 3% becomes a huge deal. In fact, the press release even states that the predicted CO2 emissions in 2020 is now 5% lower than it was calculated to be last year, and that’s without any changes in climate change policies.

The drop in CO2 emissions this year will not solve the climate change issue, but it will be a small break if, and only if, we capitalize on it and work towards the goals of the IEA’s 450 ppm Scenario (“to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent.” At these levels, the average global temperature would be within the 2 degrees Celsius margin for dangerous global warming). In the press release, Dr. Tanaka stresses the importance of a worldwide energy transformation, especially by the two major contributors of CO2 emissions, China and the United States.

The financial crisis has provided us with a little relief, but we, as a world, need to use it as a window of opportunity to get on track towards the 450 ppm Scenario. Hopefully, the world will take swift action and come to an agreement when the UN Framework Convenction on Climate Change meets at Copenhagen in December.

The Power of Green

2009-10-11T20:02:00.003-05:00

Tom Friedman, author of “The Power of Green,” describes his ideas of green patriotism with his motto: “Green is the new red, white and blue.” The term green is slowly transforming from “tree-hugging” and “girly” to being considered geoeconomic and environment-friendly. This ideology could be the binding tool to revive America’s patriotism. The United States has made steps toward uniting after the 9/11 tragedy but a common interest or goal could help quicken the process.

Americans are continuously bombarded with issues regarding global warming, the economy and terrorism, and the solution of creating a green nation can be the beginning of a consolidating political movement. Painting the states green could erase over the divisions and differences of the red and blue states and transform the image of the US into one single hue and could drive us forward.

Tom Friedman believes that the highway system that President Eisenhower installed after the Communist threat helped America’s car culture grow and aided to our dependence of oil. Because of this “red menace” we have to pay for our reliance on harmful fossil fuels and the economic and environmental prices that came along with the habit.

We are in desperate need of a leader who can address the “profound economic, geopolitical and climate threats posed by our addiction to oil” (Friedman). By making more efficient ways of producing energy we can regain our “international stature” by leading the way in fueling our nation in a much cleaner way with alternative energy. These changes are in hopes that many countries will follow the example.

The Internet Takes Energy Too

2009-10-11T13:30:00.004-05:00

Summary: What many people don't realize when they are using some of their favorite websites is that they use a large amount of energy. 1.6% of the U.S. annual energy goes to operating these data storage centers. One of the biggest costs of this is the energy it takes to keep the technology cool. Microsoft recently tried to combat this problem by locating on of their data centers in Dublin where the weather could do this work for them. Another huge consumer is the computing chips themselves that consume huge amounts which are only expected to rise in the future.

Comments: This is something many of us really don't think about when we're logging on to our favorite websites. It also puts a new perspective on how we can save energy. As our technology and capabilities grow, so does our need for energy, and this is going to make it very difficult in the future to continue to provide the electricity while trying to cut down on our fossil fuels. So really the electricity that this technology takes goes hand in hand with the need for new sources of energy because in some regards our energy uses are only going to go up in the future.

Solar Energy Industry Facing Bind in German

2009-10-08T21:15:00.005-05:00

Summary: This news generally reported about that German solar energy firms are facing a hard time now. They said they had bad enough situation since the solar energy industry is failing due to the collapse in the sale, and the new German government made it worse. The firms reported that German government is abandoning solar energy industry. They reported that solar energy firms did not get much investment because solar panel is only good investment for household. The new German's great promotion on nuclear energy, the discontinue of the fund that reinforce the solar energy panel sale, and the competition from Chinese manufactures are the main reasons why solar energy is failing in German. The original article is from Yahoo! News on October 2nd. Please click here to check original article.

Comments: The energy is highly related to national and international politics. This article reminded me about the failing of solar energy in United Sates in 90s that we talked about in class. the causes of the failing in U.S. are similar to German, like the shrinking of the demands, the new government policy that do not support solar energy, and the competition from other energy sources. I personally do feel that solar energy is a competitive source compare to others. It is safe, clean, renewable, sustainable, and rather cheap. I think he reasons that solar energy did not become the major source to generate electricity are that first solar is rather unstable, cause we can only get them during the day, and we have to store them to prepare the usage during the night. Second, I think that the cost of building the panels is the main reason keep the low demands in the market. Third, the transition difficulties that caused great electricity loss made some it is impossible to use solar energy in certain regions. Last, I think another reason is we have enough other types of sources for current uses. However, solar energy can be our future, and also the great opportunities for the third world countries. Even though U.S. has plenty natural sources, lots of countries like islands countries in Asia do not. So, The solar could be a great solution for the electricity shortage.

Fungas Fuels?

2009-10-08T20:56:00.003-05:00

Fungal Fuel... could it be true? A recent MSNBC article suggests that researchers may have stumbled upon a newfound Fungus that can produce Biofuels better and more efficiently than any known method.

The report suggests that the fungus is "so good at turning plant matter into fuel that researchers say... [it] calls into question the whole theory of how crude oil was made by nature in the first place." The fungus' raw potential for converting plant matter into biofuels suggests that the fungus could be used to convert billions of acres of farmland into the raw material for biofuels. Not only is this highly effective, but it also helps us avoid some of the harmful side-effects of growing massive amounts of Corn and Switchgrass which both have adverse effects on soil and land trade-off.

The organism, named Gliocladium roseum, researchers find very interesting...

" "This is the only organism that has ever been shown to produce such an important combination of fuel substances," said researcher Gary Strobel from Montana State University. "The fungus can even make these diesel compounds from cellulose, which would make it a better source of biofuel than anything we use at the moment.""

The article goes on to suggest that this fungus might have been responsible for helping creating fossil fuels in the first place..

""The accepted theory is that crude oil, which is used to make diesel, is formed from the remains of dead plants and animals that have been exposed to heat and pressure for millions of years," Strobel said. "If fungi like this are producing myco-diesel all over the rainforest, they may have contributed to the formation of fossil fuels." "

From Turbines and Straw, Danish Self-Sufficiency

2009-10-05T00:22:00.000-05:00

How much of the renewal energy we produce do we need to cover all our consumption of energy? Would it be possible to subsist only with renewal energies? That is what a small neighborhood in Samso, Denmark is trying to do. It is time to do our best and exploit the natural and renewable energy sources, without damaging the planet or consuming the planets limited resources.
There are many ways to get energy, not only those of which we all have heard about like wind, sun or water. What about becoming energy self-sufficient? This can be accomplished, maybe it is not the most comfortable and fast way to do it, but it works. It can sound like taking steps backwards in our development, but it is worth it if we can keep preserve nature. Nowadays it is much easier to pay for fuel and natural gas and get all the energy without doing anything else, but what will happen when these reserves are consumed? Maybe it is time to realize what is happening around us, and have a look at this Danish island and learn from them. Even if we don’t want energy sources are not unlimited, at list the ones we use most.

Big Oil Goes Green For Real

2009-10-04T23:17:00.000-05:00

Summary: Oil companies in America are starting to go green and invest in alternative ways of energy. This is partially because of government regulations, China’s demand on alternative technologies, and because Russia and Venezuela are pushing them out. But the strongest reason for these companies to be investors is the profitable business that they think this alternative energy can be for them.

Comment: As we already know from the previous presentations in class, oil is not going to last very long and alternative sources of energy are needed. But are these alternatives going to be functional by the time the oil is almost gone? How is the transition going to be? When are we going to see a significant increase? I don’t see in the near future a reduction of oil demand and I think that the significant increase in these alternatives should be seen already.

Going Solar Yields Long-Term Economical, Educational Benefits

2009-10-04T22:09:00.007-05:00

More public and private schools across the country are making the responsible decision to go green. Solar power for the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that in 2006, schools nationwide spent about 8.3 billion on energy, creating opportunities for schools to input solar or other renewable energy into their budget.

Incorporating solar takes a long time to invest in schools. They depend on financial programs in order to make solar energy systems work. Schools usually end up paying the power purchase agreements (PPA) instead of paying their local electricity utility because it turns out that paying the PPA is much cheaper. The PPA is becoming well known to schools and is helping their clients reduce their monthly energy bills. Another solar program would be Borrego Solar System, which has helped many public and private schools with education factors just by going solar. By reducing energy cost just by using solar power energy, it has become a large green initiative that will benefit the community.

It is now easier than before for schools to be involved with renewable energy. Yet, even though solar energy did help out schools, that does not mean that solar is the only renewable energy, there are more types of energy that would help out the community. But Solar Energy made an impact for many schools giving them a better community.

Water an issue for some renewable energies

2009-10-04T18:40:00.002-05:00

Summary: Renewable energies can be very water demanding, especially solar thermal farms. This is a cause for much concern as renewable energies continue to grow in America. The high demand for water by renewable energies could cause conflicts over the scarce water resources. Our very own professor, Dr. Webber, comments on the issue in the article.

Comment: I found it ironic that the environmental impact of renewable energies is potentially harmful in some regards. Water is obviously a very important resource, and it will be interesting to see how we as a nation respond to the solar thermal farms high demand for such a precious resource. At the same time, many people are pushing for these sources of energy, and it will be interesting to watch our nation's energy policy in the future, and how we reconcile the many complex issues regarding our energy sources and their affects on the environment.

Daniel Gellerup

Brazil's New Energy from Offshore Oil and Hosting the Olympic Games

2009-10-04T10:42:00.002-05:00

Brazil has a lot of energy from its recent win to host the 2016 Olympics and its 50 Billion barrel offshore oil find. Both of these events are good news for Brazil’s economy, industrial capability, and recognition on the world stage.

The economic benefits will come from giving Brazil’s own oil firm, Petrobas, exploration and production rights of the crude. The government’s share of the oil revenue will be placed in a fund to invest in future development projects. Brazil will also gain economic leverage in the regulating oil prices and production volumes through its firm.

Brazil’s industrial benefits will be from acquiring and using the new technology needed for offshore drilling. Brazil may also see increased industrial activity from better infrastructure and cheaper transportation costs in the future, which will be helpful in preparing for and hosting the games in 2016.

The economic and industrial gains will help Brazil improve its position on the world stage. Their ability to join in the regulation of oil production and prices will allow them to be more influential in world markets. Brazil being acknowledged for the games will help them become recognized as “first world” or global cultural players, and economic players.

But before Brazil can get these benefits, they must make substantial investments and take substantial risks. The economic costs for Brazil will be from much greater debt, the high initial cost of oil production and building facilities and infrastructure for hosting the games. Brazil cant make any money from its oil if commodity prices stay high enough to cover the high initial and on-going costs of production. Brazil is going to have to pay for the technology to drill offshore and maybe give into lucrative deals in order to get to the oil. This means the first barrels of oil will be very expensive to produce. Regarding the games, Brazil will gain recognition for the games if they can successfully overcome the severe crime and infrastructure problems in its leading city, Rio de Janeiro. While there is great prestige, the difficulty for cities and countries hosting the games is that no city has ever come out ahead economically. This means that in the short run Brazil will be in debt for both the games and from drilling.

Nevertheless, the benefits from oil drilling and hosting of the Olympic games could help Brazil in the long run. If Brazil is able to get past the first barrels of oil being very expensive, the costs will begin to plummet after the first very expensive barrels. The greater availability and lower relative cost of oil in Brazil should help improve their infrastructure and industry creating more jobs and cheaper transportation. Hopefully helping improve the slums in Rio and helping expand the growing middle class in Brazil.

Brazil’s new energy should be good for most of us. The new oil and hosting of the games will rightfully put Brazil on the map as a world economic power and petroleum power. And given their sports history, we can imagine how good a soccer or “futebol” team they will put on the field when they host the games!

Energy Bill would create 5,000 new jobs in state

2009-09-27T23:19:00.000-05:00

In the day and age we live in, our society has become obsessed with CONSERVATION OF ENERGY and being eco friendly 24 hours per day 7 day a week. Now this is most evident through the importance that alternate forms of energy/green jobs had on our most recent presidential elections. Once in office president Obama gave a speech regarding “green jobs”, which in fact not only tied into issue of the economic chaos but gave a helping hand to the relationship between Mother Nature and the U.S. The article that I found talks about the bill pending to passes, in South Dakota, that would save the state around $226 per household by the year2020.
The article, “Energy bill would create 5,000 new jobs in state” written by Roger Larsen, has the same topics of green jobs, effects on the environment, and effects on the economy. Now an unfortunate twist to this “miracle plan” is that not everyone agrees on these changes, but they are rightfully justified. Some famers in South Dakota would not be able to work as efficiently with the new energy resources being used. I see both the pros and cons in this article, the article goes from both sides of how great this can truly be, but more importantly as seen in a short term point of view the effects out way the idea of an “eco friendly nation”. Clearly stated by Senator Tim Jonson, “Steps need to be taken to reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will take decades to correct the situation, Johnson said. In the meantime, however, there will be job creation and cleaner air”, and then there is the problem of how “if the bill fails to pass the Senate, it would stall the economy for the next few years.” I believe that to have such progress you must take in the good with the bad, although it may be a time lapse of 20 or 30 years, the nation will be that much closer on cleaning up mistakes made before. That is what the U.S. is; it is setting up a brighter future for future generations to come.

2009-09-27T15:40:00.003-05:00

China vows climate change action

2009-09-27T14:10:00.003-05:00

Summary: In an attempt to control climate change, China vows to control its carbon dioxide emissions. Joint with the USA, China is responsible for 20% of the worlds greenhouse pollution. 70% of China's energy comes from coal which during combustion releases great amounts of carbon dioxide. The question now is whether or not China actually goes through with this or not. The main problem resides in the fact that the Chinese government believes developed nations should do more than developing nations.

Comment:

This story is potentially groundbreaking. As one of the world's leading greenhouse polluters is talking about reducing their global emission. China is currently responsible for emitting 20% of the world's total carbon dioxide, this can only be matched by the USA. This therefore makes China into a very important and strategic nation in terms of overall pollution cutbacks. Reducing the amount emitted by a country such as China would have drastic consequences on the world's environment.

The main problem China has is that it is a developing nation, and as such has a necessity to consume all the energy it can create to further progress its economy. 70% of all the energy they produce comes from coal, which of course during its combustion generates great amounts of carbon dioxide. If they are true to their word then essentially the efficiency of the country will increase. The general goal is to reduce the carbon intensity of the nation, which is associated to the GDP of the nation. This is however very deceptive because one of the main problems is the speed at which the Chinese economy is growing. What would actually happen is that the overall emissions today would be exactly the same as those in 2030. In actual fact, no official figures have been published by the Chinese government so it is still uncertain as to what actually is going to happen.

One of the major factors in Chinese policy resides in the fact they believe they have a right to emit more carbon dioxide than developing countries. This of course is something which I am certainly in favor of. I feel it is unfair to force countries that haven't really contributed to what is now considered to be a global problem. Developed nations have been emitting all sorts of contaminants and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for years and years, without the slightest concern. This in turn has enabled us to progress, making us richer and more powerful. Whether or not this has contributed to global warming is a completely different debate which will continue to create conflict between experts. However what isn't debatable is the potential each country has to contributing to lowering emissions. It is unfair to ask a nation which finds itself in the position the US was back in the day, to cutback its progression. The Chinese have only been technologically competitive for a few years, and their accumulative pollution is not anywhere near the rest of developed nations. They are essentially still very economically immature and have a greater need to maintain their current status in order to make the next step into a developed country.

One of the major factors in global warming resides in the American energy policy. The fact the Kyoto protocol was dismissed completely proves just how much the Americans care about the overall well being of the world. The fact of the matter is that they only care about themselves and this in turn automatically gives China the right to not care about anything else but themselves and actually increase carbon dioxide emissions. However, thankfully some politicians are smart enough to understand that we all live on the same planet and therefore we all need to make an effort to cutback on any potentially harming policies. The Europeans have and are investing a great amount of their money into new technologies which have had serious effects on their carbon dioxide emissions.

The Chinese government is prepared to cutback on their emissions which in turn slows down their growth rate, but this should be seen as a good thing, as an example to the rest, that if we all pitch in, in the long run the earth will be in a better state. The Chinese have asked for help, they have asked for the developing nations to also make a move and actually make a greater effort in cutting back. This is simply because they have more power and a greater tolerance. The Chinese have also asked for the more powerful nations to investigate in cleaner technologies, which later on can be adopted by less developed nations. The general message is that everyone needs to contribute. With the Copenhagen summit later this year, where a general analysis of the state of the world will be evaluated, one can only hope that this time a step forward by the greater nations will be made.

NRG agreement with Houston

2009-09-26T20:51:00.006-05:00

Being from Houston, I was surprised when I came upon an article about the City of Houston making a 25-year agreement with NRG Energy to buy power from a solar power plant that will be built in July of 2010, which will then be the largest solar power plant in Texas. Its 10-megawatt capacity is estimated to provide the city with 1.5 percent of its energy needs. The cost per megawatt hour, estimated at $4 million per megawatt, is not much higher of those of its surrounding plants.

Issa Dadoush, the director of Houston's General Services Department hopes that this will give the city renewable energy credit, stating that "Houston always talks about being the energy capital of the world, but we'd like to see it transformed into the energy conservation and renewable capital".

This quote caught me by surprise because I doubt Houston can change their nickname to something pertaining to renewable when it headquarters a company like Halliburton, which opened a second headquarters in Duabi, a place not known for renewable energy, in 2007.

I found it interesting that the city is investing in a source of energy that will further diversify Houston's sources of fuel, which has been a concern after the natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which affected supply of oil and natural gas and caused a rise in the price of electricity.

I believe that if this investment is deemed a success that this could only push Houston in the direction to use more sources of renewable energy, aside from wind. Even if the plant's capacity is a mere 10-megawatts when being compared to plans on building a 14-megawatt plant in San Antonio and a 30-megawatt plant in Austin, this could be a small step towards a better future for the city.

The article, in its entirety, can be found here.

Algae in politics

2009-09-24T14:22:00.002-05:00

While reading through a few articles I came across one based on algae and its development and possible future as a biofuel. The research and development done for this project was through Sapphire Energy which has since its beginning in 2007 has over "200" patents of its "designer algae" mechanisms. The focus of the article was toward the "green" nature of algae ands its efficiency as a fuel in areas of cost and productivity. The part that really caught my attention however was the political and business portion of this green venture.

In one particular section Mayfield, one of Sapphire's founders, commented that " there are no senators for algae-growing states to go back to Congress and say, 'Stop giving money to corn and give it to algae'." This is a rather inverse affect of one of algae's positives that it can be grown virtually anywhere- that because it has no "official home" it receives little political support at the time. (Though at this time Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwomen, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Bob Bennett (R-Utah), chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, support algae and its development.)

Under the current writing of the House Bill toward carbon offset ventures and biofuel equivalences, algae does not yet qualify as being either. But with continual drive from such political backing and business networks the language of the bill will be rewritten in order for algae research to gain grants and other government support.

In order to strengthen its foundation Sapphire Energy has been building bridges in the world of business. Not wanting to project themselves as a competitor fuel source it has lent itself toward facilitating needs of other energy providers- such as coal burning plants. In one section it was noted that algae absorbs and fixes CO2 as part of its chemical metabolism and algae stations have thus become a factor in some power plants in reducing their carbon emissions to meet EPA standards.

For the full article click this link, it is a rather long article but I found it very interesting and gave me a better perspective on the energy issues and how politics and business interplay with new energy developments such as algae.

visit to a brazilian sugar cane mill

2009-08-02T19:53:00.001-05:00

I'm currently in Sao Paulo, Brazil attending the 1st Brazil-US Biofuels Short Course organized by Fulbright Brazil. This post was originally posted at www.davidwogan.us.

Today we visited the Iracema Sugar Cane Mill, which is a few hours northwest of Sao Paulo. The mill takes sugar cane stalks from nearby plantations and refines it into sugar and ethanol. All of the sugar mills in Brazil make sugar and choose whether or not to make ethanol based on market prices. I have never been to a sugar mill or ethanol refinery today.

While sugar and ethanol are the main products from the mill, leftover biomass, or bagasse, is burned to create process steam and electricity that powers the plant. All ethanol plants are required to be self-sustaining or else they're products are hit with a penalty. The flue gas from combusting the bagasse is scrubbed with water vapor to remove (most) particulate matter.

The exhaust is mostly water vapor.

They produce a lot of bagasse.

The scrubber system.

While most of the sugar cane is harvested mechanically a fair amount is still burned and delivered to the mill. Today's cane was milled. Notice the burn marks and full stalks. Mechanically harvested cane is shorter because it is chopped up into smaller pieces by the harvester in the field.

The cane stalks are milled by giant machines.

Juices from the cane goes off for processing while the bagasse is separated out.

The sugary juices are hit with steam and then left to turn into molasses. The solid sugar crystals are then removed from the molasses by a centrifuge. The remaining sugary liquid is sent off to be fermented and distilled into ethanol.

The sugar crystals are stored in a giant mountain of sugar bags.

We didn't get to walk through the refinery, but we did get to travel out into the fields and see the harvesting.

What a sight it must have been to see a bus full of Americans get out and take pictures of cane harvesting then get back in and leave.

The sugar cane is several meters tall!

We watched them dump cut cane into trucks.

We made sure not to get run over by the big machines.

The trip to the sugar cane mill was very educational. Before going I had a hard time visualizing the scale of biofuels production, but I have a better understanding about it now. Even though I'm not a huge fan of ethanol, you have to hand it to the Brazilians for having a large-scale system that is very efficient.

learning about brazilian sugar cane

2009-08-02T19:49:00.002-05:00

I'm currently in Sao Paulo, Brazil attending the 1st Brazil-US Biofuels Short Course organized by Fulbright Brazil. This post was originally posted at www.davidwogan.us

I've learned a great deal about the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol industry in the past few days and I have some thoughts... Brazil is intent on expanding their ethanol production, essentially doubling production by 2020 - producing 1000 million metric tons of cane. This amount will translate to approximately 54 billion liters of ethanol per year (based on 26.6 Blpy produced currently).

I wonder where all of this extra ethanol is going to go? Some of the presenters in attendance suggested that up to 60% of ethanol might go to external markets. This estimate is subject to change because no one really knows what will happen 10 years from now, but it opens up interesting scenarios. How will Brazilian ethanol fit into the US fuel mix? How will carbon regulation affect the import of Brazilian ethanol into the US? What about other world markets (Europe, Asia)?

What's certain is that Brazil is going full steam ahead with increasing sugarcane production. This most likely means detrimental impacts on the land. The Amazon won't be directly affected, but any planting on the cerrado (savanna in the central region of Brazil) will have negative impacts on the land because of water usage or displacing grazing land or other crops.

With that said, I have developed an understanding of Brazil's fascination with sugarcane biofuels. As in the US, Brazil is using a domestic resource that they have experience with. In the US we have a lot of knowledge with growing corn and grain crops, and the same holds for Brazil and sugarcane. They're trying to make the most out or a domestic resource and we need to understand and learn from their mistakes and successes.

2009-06-25T23:18:00.003-05:00

Tonight I attended the Eco-Change event at Austin City Hall. A lot of environmental groups and activists came out to get word out about their activities and also let the Council know what's important to them. Several city council members were there including Bill Spelman, Chris Riley, Laura Morrison, Randi Shade and I think I saw Sheryl Cole pop her head in. Mayor Lee Leffingwell gave a quick speech before heading off to another event.

After a brief meet-and-greet we went in to the chamber to decide what environmental and sustainable issues we'd most like to see the City of Austin act on.

There were many ideas, but here are the main themes:

Improved transportation: shifting away from a reliance on automobiles to mass transit, bicycling and walking. Shifting away from building new roads as the go-to option was one idea. Also changing the development process so other transportation options can be discussed.

Clean water: Austin is blessed with the Edwards Aquifer and many natural springs and swimming holes. Austinites don't want to see these polluted by development or industry. The Save Our Springs Alliance has been a major force in fighting for Austin's water gems for a long time. The 20 year anniversary of the major SOS fight is next year.

Managing growth, expansion and land use: Austin is growing rapidly and we are doing so at a cost to our environment. Gentrification is also a major concern to longtime residents of East Austin.

Keeping it local: encouraging locally grown, organic food. Incentives for restaurants to use locally grown food was also suggested.

Waste management: composting, recycling and diverting material from our landfills.

These are all great ideas and I'm glad to see the City Council interested in hearing the public's thoughts on where we think Austin should be headed in the future.

One problem I noticed time after time tonight was the perception people have of the solutions to a lot of our problems. I heard so many times that Austin needs 100 percent renewable energy, we shouldn't build more roads, or that 25% of the city's budget should be devoted to sustainability. The goals are noble, but the means aren't necessarily rooted in reality.

Education was brought up tonight as a crucial element for educating the public about sustainability, and I agree. But the public should also be educated about the realities of our options for a sustainable city. People want clean power, but don't want coal or nuclear plants - unless you want to pay significantly more for natural gas, coal and nuclear keep the lights on. People want solar and wind renewables all the time, but they're variable. There are certain realities that are often overlooked by the public that make or break policies.

From tonight's turnout it's clear that Austinites are very much concerned with making our city more sustainable. The details need a lot of work, but the conversation has been started. And that's a very good place to be at.

Use of paper in USA

2009-05-11T16:32:00.003-05:00

This is my second trip to USA. One thing which totally caught my attention and also surprised to me a huge extent was the use of paper in this country.

If the students taking this class get a chance to visit the east side of the world they will notice some systems in society is way more efficient than the system in this country which is so intensive.

Use of (paper napkins in the bath rooms for drying hands)/or even a dryer can easily be replaced by each guy carrying a handkerchief. It might sound funny to you guys, but you go to India, every hygienic conscious person carries one. Besides, use of paper in restrooms can easily be replaced by use of water. I wont go into more details, All I can say is there is wastage of paper everywhere in this country. paper industry is not only intensive energy wise, but you do not know how many trees are brought down to meet the paper supply of this paper intensive country.

Winners and Losers of Renewable Energy Policy

2009-05-11T15:59:00.008-05:00

On a recent trip to Memphis via the Fort Worth area I saw the “ethanol free” sign shown here. Just 40 miles west of Cow Town, this sign summarizes a common public sentiment towards corn ethanol that is held in that ranching community. Meanwhile, Midwesterners continue to display adamant support for the corn ethanol production that has increased to more than 9 billion barrels per year and is motivated by the nationally mandated Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS). The discord between these two regions demonstrates a significant hurdle for renewable fuels, in that many renewables are localized in particular regions (wind in west Texas, solar in the Southwest, biomass in the Midwest, etc) and their implementation will benefit some of the population more than others. Additionally, the discord between the two powerful agricultural regions demonstrates how government subsidies and mandates artificially create winners and losers in the marketplace.

The negative impacts of corn ethanol production on Texas agriculture have been significant. Many cattle ranchers could not afford to send their calves to the feedlots (due to high feed costs), therefore drastically reducing their annual income. In the wall street journal, Governor Perry stated that the increased corn prices drove the leading Texas pork producer out of business due to feed costs that rose 50% in four years.[1] Texas is a national leader for many agricultural products, particularly beef cattle, cotton, and broilers, but produces relatively little corn[2]. The agriculture sector employs about 14% of working Texans and yields about 9% of the state’s GDP [3], much greater percentages than the national average for these categories (2% and 0.7% respectively [4]). Negative impacts to the livestock industry can have significant effects on the Texas economy, particularly in heavily ranched counties.

Midwestern support of corn ethanol remains strong and seven Midwestern states account for nearly 80% of the ethanol production, a result illustrated in the map below.[5] The House Agriculture Chairman, Collin Peterson, a democrat from Minnesota demonstrated the region’s dedication to corn ethanol in a recent knee-jerk response to the EPA deciding to incorporate indirect land use change in the overall emissions balance for producing corn ethanol (a change which causes corn ethanol to be slightly worse or equal to petroleum gasoline regarding emissions [6,7]). He declared that, “I will not support any kind of climate change bill,” because believed the EPA would continually tinker with the RFS rules and could not be trusted.[8] The Iowa Corn Growers Association states that “as the first environmentalists, Iowa’s corn growers have worked to build market demand for our current viable source for energy independence,” and support $0.45/gal blender’s credit for ethanol and the $0.54/gal ethanol import tariff.[9] The continuation of corn ethanol production is in the Midwestern agricultural sector’s favor, and they understandably support strong measures to promote its continued growth. The contrast of public opinion towards corn ethanol in different regions of the country highlights a challenge that the deployment of many renewable energy sources will face. With a heterogeneous composition of resources, the U.S. Congress must find a way to promote alternative energy production and balance the interest of all regions. The resolution will undoubtedly be determined by the complex governmental proceedings in Washington as a compromise between regions with varying levels of bargaining power (i.e., corn lobbyists, cattlemen lobbyists, wind lobbyists, etc).

1. Perry R., “Texas is fed up with corn ethanol,” Wall Street Journal, Online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121850115460131741.html, August 12, 2008.

2. “The Texas Economy,” Netstate.com, Online at http://www.netstate.com/economy/tx_economy.htm

3. “Texas Agriculture Facts,” Texas Department of Agriculture, Online at http://www.agr.state.tx.us /gt/channel/render/items/0,1218,1670_1693_0_1692,00.html

4. “The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy,” Economic Research Service, USDA, Online at http://www.ers. usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm

5. Gottsschalk A., “The Impacts of the U.S. Corn Ethanol Policy on the U.S. Cattle Industry,” Range Beef Cow Symposium, University of Nebraska, 2007.
6. “EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels” Environmental Protection Agency, Online at http://epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f09024.htm, May 2009.

7. O’Hare et al., “Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gasdeficit versus petroleum,” Environmental Research Letters, 2009.

8. Geman B. and Samuelsohn D., “CLIMATE: 'I will not support any kind of climate change bill' -- House Ag chair,” Greenwire, Online at http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/05/06/archive/ 1?terms=Climate+Change+Bill+Peterson

9. “Sound Ag Policy Vital In This Presidential Race,” Iowa Corn Growers Association, Online at http://www.iowacorn.org/aspx/Public/News/NewsItem.aspx?item_id=23, October 17, 2008.

Corn ethanol, not bad??

2009-05-10T23:55:00.002-05:00

I know we all have been heard how bad corn based ethanol is for the environment generally bad policy. So I figured I wanted to hear the other side of the story and this is what I found.

Here is a report from Texas A&M university detailing the reasons why ethanol is not a driver of higher food prices.
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/treia/Effects_of_Ethanol_on_Texas_Food_and_Feed_4-11-08_TAMU.pdf

Also some more pages that detail other reasons why ethanol is not so bad.
http://www.treia.org/mc/page.do

I'm not sure if I am sold yet but it is interesting to think about.

My Biggest Energy Vice

2009-05-10T23:48:00.001-05:00

Admittedly I may have gotten overly-excited when I realized that the price of plane tickets had dropped significantly this spring. Within the last 40 hours I've made a quick round trip to DC, ~1500 miles each way, and have 3 more journeys of similar distance lined up over the next couple of months. We've heard about how big the carbon footprint of air travel is, but I really had no sense of what the order of magnitude is...According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) new aircraft today are 70% more efficient that those 40 years ago and 20% more efficient than 10 years ago. Airlines have a target increase of 25% by 2020. (http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm)

According to Margot Gerritsen, faculty member in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford, a Boeing 737 with 75% occupancy gives about 80 miles per gallon for each passenger (http://www.smartenergyshow.com/node/90). She further states that:

aviation accounts for about 1/7 of transportation-related carbon emissions
one round-trip from San Fransisco to Paris equates to about 15% of the average annual US household carbon emissions
airline growth world-wide is about 5-6% per year (a significant cumulative increase over the coming decades)
contrails are of interest because they lead to positive radiative forcing, however they dissipate relatively quickly

Airbus recently sponsored a global competition for new concepts in aircraft design and engineering, and has been narrowing down finalists. A group at Stanford is one of five finalists for an idea of using a "V" formation similar to migrating birds to reduce drag (up to 20% according to calculations). (http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE54653920090507?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

I am looking forward to dramatic improvements on this front, because while I love to conserve energy, buy local, bike, etc. I have a really hard time with the idea of reducing my travel!

China and coal

2009-05-10T19:32:00.002-05:00

Well, what do you know... It turns out that China is really doing something about its emissions. We have been listening for a long time now about how China has become the world's leader in carbon emissions. In this regard there are three typical excuses you hear from the Chinese, 1) we are manufacturing for the world, 2) we have lower per-capita emissions than other developed countries, 3) we are growing, we need to pollute before we can afford not to. Great excuses! To be honest they do make sense to me, however I have always had the feeling that they are not enough. It is not important. It turns that China is really doing something about its emissions (yes, I said it again). According to a recent article from the NY Times China is currently building 60% of its new coal power plants with high efficient less-pollutant technology than traditional coal power plants. So China is the new leader in clean coal power plants. I would have never guessed so. I have always been concerned about the efforts of countries such as Denmark and Austrialia in regard of climate change, I mean... does it matter what they do if China keeps growing? Now I now it does. It is still not enough, but 60% of new power plants in China means one a month. That is not bad, not at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=1&hp

Federal R&D for Fuel Cells Dropped

2009-05-10T16:22:00.000-05:00

On Thursday, the US secretary of energy, Stephen Chu, announced that the Obama administration will cut off funding for R&D into vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells in favor of more practical projects that can be implemented more quickly. Dr. Chu, a Nobel prize winning physicist and former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said hydrogen fuel cells face big challenges related to the their development as well as the transport of hydrogen.

Former President George W. Bush hailed hydrogen fuel cells as a “pollution-free solution for reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil” and went so far as to predict that children born today will be driving hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The Obama administration, however, is focusing on different research areas by establishing eight “energy innovation hubs” (coined as “Bell labletts”). The labs will focus on basic research and will be funded for five years in hopes of luring top scientists to develop practical solutions to the nation’s current and future energy needs.

Dr. Webber has talked a lot about the need for more R&D, from both industry and government. While the energy department’s budget has only been increased by less than 1% (not counting stimulus money), I am hopeful that the Obama administration’s focus and restructuring will make this R&D money more effective. I am also hopeful that Dr. Chu’s experience as chairman of Standford’s physics department, head of Bell Labs’ electronics research lab, and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will bring more science and academia into our energy policy.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/science/earth/08energy.html?ref=science
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/steven_chu/index.html?inline=nyt-per

Wave power potential

2009-05-10T16:10:00.002-05:00

I had originally posted this as a comment to another post below, but was hoping to see if anyone who is an expert on wave power might be able to tell me if my logic is close or just way off.

Waves have a very intense amount of energy. You can feel it when you go swimming at the beach and see it when you look at the aftermath of hurricanes on the shoreline.

I am not an expert on wind or wave power but I would bet that it is related to the density of the water itself. For wind, Pwind=.5*Pair*A*V^3 and I would imagine that the equation for water energy is similar. However, when waves move through water, they do not actually move the water in the direction of the wave. Rather they displace the water(medium) in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of the wave. Therefore, the speed part of the equation would be 2 times the height of the wave (h) divided by the period of the wave (t). Therefore, the power in the wave would be, Pwave=0.5*Pwater*A*(2*h/t)^3.

If air density (Pair) is 1.275 Kg/m^3 and salt water density (Pwater) is 1,025 Kg/m^3 than the energy density of water should be ~800 times more than that of air for a given cross sectional area moving at the same V. If 75% of our planet is covered by water and you assume an average wave height of 2 meters and an average period of 8 seconds (http://www.worldwildweather.com/forecast/Global/Wave%20period?t0=0&tz=0), earths water surface area of 361,132,000 Km^2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) , then you get total wave power of 2.3*10^16 watts or 23,130,000 Giga-Watts of total wave power availability on earth.

P=0.5*1025kg/m^3*361,132,000,000,000m*(2*2meters/8seconds))^3 = 2.3*10^16 watts

This seems like a lot. Maybe someone can tell me if I am way off on this.

Waste to worth!

2009-05-10T02:28:00.003-05:00

A comment from the Democrat candidate for the 2009 gubernatorial elections in Virginia caught my eye when I was browsing through few articles to get ideas for my blog. Terry McAuliffe words were, "We can turn not only chicken waste, but all agricultural waste into renewable energy." Even though this may sound almost crass, it makes a truckload of sense. It makes one think about actually how important it is to start thinking about changing wastes into something worthy. A little seriously, that is. It's been said that this technology is going to help nations become energy independent, if not completely, atleast upto an extent. It has to be acknowledged that various amazing techniques are being developed on this front. Thermal methods which are the least popular (apparently) due to their carbon emissions, are being replaced by other environment friendly methods like the ones employing wet sewage sludge, pyrolysis with limited air supply (gasification) etc. The general public tends to have a prejudiced opinion against incineration plants, but it is true that these WtE (Waste to Energy) plants are four times more regulated then a normal coal power plant. It has been said that EPA makes rules so stringent for this industry that it may as well be called one of the cleanest.

Though the WtE approach may not help in covering a huge part of the nation's energy needs or goals, it sure would be one of those initiatives that would help in a longer run. Let's hope it does!

References:

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/052009/05102009/465273

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-02j.html

http://www.wastetoenergy.co.uk/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/waste-to-energy.php

"Anaconda" a new way to harness wave energy

2009-05-08T22:37:00.003-05:00

A new method of harnessing wave energy was described in a recent New Scientist article. The anaconda, a rubber snake filled with freshwater, sealed at both ends, and tethered at one end to the ocean floor, is currently undergoing wave tank testing in preparation for full-scale trials. As waves push along the length of the snake, they exert pressure that is transmitted by the water inside which "forces anaconda's walls to expand outwards into the wave troughs where they are under less pressure, forming 'bulge waves' that travel along the anaconda's length." The bulge waves force a turbine to spin which generates electricity. One huge benefit of the anaconda is its simplicity - except for the turbine, no moving parts are required and only one tether to the ocean floor is needed. This minimizes construction and maintenance costs, which are typical disadvantages of wave harnessing devices. Fifty anacondas could generate enough electricity for 50,000 homes. I didn't realize that waves are much more energy dense than wind. Only one commercial wave farm is currently in operation; hopefully anacondas will spurn more development in this area.

Barras, Colin. New Scientist. "Sea 'snake' generates electricity with every wave." May 7, 2009.

Energy & Transportation

2009-05-08T15:34:00.000-05:00

We’ve learned about the pitfalls of biofuels. The negative effect on agriculture and land practices, for example, 16 billion gallons of corn – based ethanol is the limit because we cannot remove more than that amount of land from food production; thus, the nod to farmers has an inherent limit. We’ve examined the resultant emissions of NOX, how it is not logical to clear a carbon sink to replace it with a low carbon fuel, and the effect of biofuels on food prices, especially in developing countries. We’ve also learned about the secret agenda of hydrogen fuel cells, and how the system works well but getting at it is the tricky part since hydrogen is not a naturally occurring element. And we’ve also discussed the conventional technologies for transportation use and their impact on our environment, health, and more.

Yet what I think needs to be talked about more is moving away from these ‘alternative’ transportation technologies since most of them focus on the personal vehicle. While I do believe that the above-mentioned applications are great for the trucking industry (the largest culprit of emissions), the personal mobility model needs to shift. Technologies are wonderful additions or fixes to our “addictions” as Bush stated, but true benefit comes when people shift their values and change their behavior. So what will it take for people to change their ways? High gas prices? Unattainable new alternatives? A free plug-in hybrid solar electric vehicle? A train stop at their doorstep? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows.

About a year ago, Krugman (or was it Friedman) wrote a wonderful op-ed piece in the New York Times about a new initiative to bring thousands of smaller vehicles (like smart cars) to India. Similar to the $100 laptops available children in developing countries, these cars would be cheap, efficient, and attainable to varying socio-economic classes. But as the author pointed out, why would we want India to emulate us, to give people personal vehicles? Wouldn’t they benefit more from investments in light rail or other appropriate means of transit? It seems logical, the author pointed out, that if we could learn from the outcomes of the personal vehicle here, those lessons could be applied to countries about to take the leap.

In our own country, we need changes beyond advanced transportation or alternative fuels. In fact, I think advanced transportation should mean a layered approach of bikes, walking routes, buses, hard rails, light rails etc. Perhaps India should take lessons from European countries like Switzerland, instead of the U.S. when it comes to transportation.

Energy & Equity

2009-05-08T15:32:00.000-05:00

Austin is known for its progressive politics, especially in regards to municipal environmental policies. For example, Austin has a goal to make the city carbon neutral by 2020, in part through the savings of 700 MW of energy in energy-efficiency and conservation. As the infrastructural leader in this plan, Austin Energy runs many key programs such as solar rebates, green choice, weatherization, and others. Green incentive programs are good transitional interventions in the market, and are an effective way to encourage the adoption of technologies that increase energy efficiency. But, if those incentives are provided disproportionately to advantaged communities—by accident or intentionally—they serve to widen the gap between the most and the least privileged. So how does AE’s incentive programs disproportionately benefit advantaged communities? (Note: this blog is not suggesting that AE is doing so on pupose).

Austin has experienced large growth as of late, as well as changes in the population. It is now a “majority-minority” city, meaning more than 50% of Austin’s citizens identify themselves as Non-Caucasian. This is important to mention because of our history and issues of segregation and equity of minority populations.

In the 1800s, freed Black residents of Austin, about a 1/3 of the pop, had established communities, businesses and schools across Austin. But in 1928, the “Plan for Austin,” created a “negro district” to segregate the city. Aside from commercial/business zoning areas mapped on the plan, the two residential districts were listed as white residential and miscellaneous residential. Services were not provided to black residents on the west side, forcing them to move to the east side where the city said they would provide infrastructure. Essentially, they enforced segregation through the allocation of sewers, water, electricity, paved streets, street, lighting, and schools. But even after 1928, disproportionate services were still an issue. Large portions of East Austin remained unpaved through the 1960s, while Clarksville (formerly a black neighborhood on the west side) wasn’t paved or adequately provided with sewage until the mid 70s.

Though it was segregated, it remains geographically segregated along lines of race, class and socioeconomic status (most obviously with I-35 as the dividing line). Some have even claimed that the smart growth movement in the 90s, and thus the 2005 map of priority environmental conservation areas in Austin, for aquifer protection, pushed development to the east side causing gentrification and forcing minority populations to move even farther away from central Austin.

In 2008, through qualitative and quantitative analysis by several thesis projects in the school of architecture, data and maps demonstrated that the shifting demographics show the majority Black and Latino populations living east of 35 (20-80%) compared with under 20% on the west side. Median family income in 2000 was $70K for Anglo; $35K for Black and $36K for Hispanic. When examining education levels, less than 20% of the population on the west side has high school or less while east and far east Austin, 60-80% of population has a high school degree or higher.

However, something interesting arises when you compare these maps to the geographic distribution of participants in the Austin Energy rebate programs from 2004-2007. These maps indicate clearly that most participants live on West side. In particular, the solar photovoltaic program has a much higher participation rate in West Austin than in East Austin; however, participation in the free weatherization program is concentrated in Central and East Austin.

There are many reasons for the disparity in the solar rebate program: education, access, finances. One, it’s a cost issue. The solar rebate program requires money upfront. Two, it is perhaps the most technically difficult to understand of the rebate programs. Three, AE doesn’t do any real marketing of their solar rebate program, as they can meet their goals without it, meaning, clients are in effect self-selecting. And lastly, renters are not eligible for many of the programs offered and many east Austin residents are renters when compared with west Austin.

But these reasons don’t excuse efforts to make these programs more equitable. So what to do? If anything? Policy, such as these rebate and incentive programs, need to not just be applied equally, but equitably. That is, with a recognition that certain city residents are not being served, and that be serving them, not only are we addressing an (implicit) unjust issue but also increasing the amount of participants thereby helping AE reach their goal sooner.

Incentive policies need to shift to address these issues: more emphasis, education placed on minority pops so that they can essentially reach their target. Low-income residents already pay a proportionally larger amount of their total income to utilities than their higher income neighbors, and the inequality of this burden will only increase with the cost of energy if they are not able to take advantage of energy improvements in their homes or installation of solar technologies while wealthier members of the community receive public financial resources to do so.

The fact that a large portion of the participants in these programs are from a certain area of town is not necessarily indicative of a lack of equity. And I am not incriminating Austin Energy as having unethical policies. But the maps clearly indicate that a higher percentage of residents of west Austin are participating in AE rebate programs. So while some programs are more equitable, others are not. And the answer is not easy to find as no maps or written policies explicitly state purposeful unfair distribution of service. Nor do I personally think that they did it implicitly. Though not AE’s direct fault, they should target resources specifically toward outreach to members of the east Austin community in order to even begin to move toward widespread adoption of green technologies, which again, will help them reach their target (especially as large solar arrays are limited in geographic space but there are a lot of roofs in Austin).

Turbines in the Water

2009-05-08T15:29:00.000-05:00

In 2006, I saw a documentary at the Telluride Mountain Film Festival called “building the future – energy” which highlighted four innovative individuals making a difference to meet increased energy efficiency through technology. Or more pointedly, meeting new energy frontiers and advancements. I was struck by one person in particular whose class lecture the other day reminded me of: Trey Taylor. He is capturing hydroelectric power that does not require a dam. He and his team are putting windmills, if you will, in rivers to capture the large amount of constant energy created by tidal movements. Even Dr. Webber mentioned the other day in class that the best “wave” energy is not caught on the wave’s surface. Well maybe these guys have it right. After two failed attempts to lower their devices into the east river (each previous attempt resulted in the loss of either a blade or other malfunction due to strong currents), they successfully placed these turbines in the East River in NYC. Currently, they generate enough power for a small convenient store/market in Manhattan.

To me, this is quite a feat. It might take many trails and years for it to be mainstream, but it works! And when I think about all of our cities in the US that are built on rivers – Pittsburgh, Boston, NYC, Cleveland, Portland OR, all the ones along the Mississippi, Denver, Newark, Boise, Atlanta, Cincinnati, others– the potential for this technology grows. And lots of our (US) rivers are dirty – too dirty to swim or recreate in so we may as well put them to other productive uses. And while not all river flows are created equal, any technological application (or “fix”) is best applied when done so contextually – that is, with a full understanding and respect for the local climate and context. But…the East River is more productive and efficient than the other rivers alluded to in the above list of cities since it flows both ways, meaning, it’s a tidal straight with fluctuating currents.

But this cannot be the silver bullet to urban energy issues. They’re expensive – the NYC project cost $7MM, and I wonder if people will say that fish get caught in them the same way people say windmills kill birds. (They are 16 feet in diameter). And though dams are often objectionable to environmentalist – for good reason, primarily the downstream impacts such as siltation changes and community displacement – these seemingly less intrusive turbines might not be so objectionable. Often when things are ‘invisible to us, they really are out of mind. For example, we don’t always think about our water pipes coming in and wastewater pipes going out of our houses until one of them breaks and becomes visible to us.

The initial attempt that saw in 2007 in that movie failed, as did the second. But this past fall, NYC invested in a third attempt and now has 6 turbines rotate enough to generate electricity only about 77 percent of the time. But At full capacity, the 10 MW project could power an estimated 10,000 homes. Hmmmm…..not much of a dent for NYC, but every small step helps. Due to the so-far success of this third attempt (still by the same company, Verdant), NYC wants to eventually put in 300 of these turbines (which will also help Verdant get back the millions of dollars they lost in the first few attempts. Part of NYC’s reason for this project is that they want to have 80% of their energy generated within the city – through any way possible: wind, solar, tidal. ). Perhaps we can catch up to Nova Scotia, Australia or France. Apparently in 2000, the idea of turbines in the east river was way too far-fetched as it was rejected by NY state senate; but times have changed and our culture is more aware and accepting of, and more ready for, alternatives – perhaps especially ones that are not visible to us. Once underwater, it’s not a noise, sight, or other nuisance to consumers. This invisibility (along with the other positive factors) could enhance the success of the project and make the East River pilot study the benchmark for implementing other projects in other cities.

Shale Gas and Water : The Wrong Perceptions

2009-05-07T01:14:00.006-05:00

The United States has abundant natural gas resources. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the U.S. has more than 1,744 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas, including 211 tcf of proved reserves (the discovered, economically recoverable fraction of the original gas-in-place). Technically recoverable unconventional gas (shale gas, tight sands, and coalbed methane) accounts for 60% of the onshore recoverable resource. At the U.S. production rates for 2007, about 19.3 tcf, the current recoverable resource estimate provides enough natural gas to supply the U.S. for the next 90 years. Separate estimates of the shale gas resource extend this supply to 116 years.

There is a coomon perception that shale gas development used a lots of water and may impact the drinking water quality due to hydraulic fracturing. The quantity of water needed to drill and fracture a horizontal shale gas well commonly ranges from about 2 million to 4 million gallons, depending on geologic formation. These volumes may seem very large, but they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities, and generally represent a small percentage of the total water resource use in each shale gas area. Calculations indicate that water use for shale gas development will range from less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use by basin.

In some shale gas areas, the water needs may challenge supplies and infrastructure. As operators look to develop new shale gas plays, communication with local water planning agencies, state agencies, and regional water basin commissions can help operators and communities to coexist and effectively manage local water resources. A successful technique would be identification of supplies that do not interfere with the community needs. Similarly the concerns for fracturing fluid contaminating water may be low since fracturing fluid is 95% water and 5% chemicals. And the service companies doing a hydraulic fracturing job ensure through state of the art monitoring systems that fracturing fluid does not leak into fresh water aquifers.

The long-term sustainability of shale gas operations in a given region depends on several factors such as:
> Working closely with the local, state, and federal
regulatory environment
> Coping with the stress placed on the local fresh water supplies
> Effective and economical wastewater management plans

Thus, state regulation for the environmental practices related to shale gas development, usually with federal guidance, can effectively address the regional and state-specific character of the activities in comparison to single federal regulations.

Till now not a single case of water aquifer contamination or excessive use of water straining public supply of water has been observed or reported. Therefore before we make an issue out of everything we need to think that Shale Gas is the future of Gas supply and we need to encourage it.

.

Stop Ruining My Nap!.... I Mean the World

2009-05-06T21:02:00.002-05:00

It seems to me that we have a very large problem with lawn care. Absurd amounts of water keeping golf courses green in Arizona (Sierra), or use of fertilizers in cities where the run off pollutes the water (Biello). But what about the everyday maintenance machine, that we have mechanized, which contribute to the consumption of petroleum products, and produce CO2? Maybe I am a little extra sensitive to the use of gasoline powered tools to do yard work right now because I have just been woken up from one of my few opportunities at a nap by a man walking around with a reverse vacuum cleaner strapped to his back doing the same work a broom does, and from what I can tell with about the same efficiency. The push lawn mower is not fairing much better since it only travels as fast and the man is walking, which seems like would not be affected if the man was pushing a mechanical mower. The only difference it seems is that the latter two would not be producing any CO2, or noise! According to “Gas Mowers Belch Pollution” the EPA reported that mowers are responsible for 5% of the nation’s air pollution, and Americans burned 800 million gallons of gasoline each year keeping their yards trimmed.

Mechanical mowers (known as reel mowers) are simple (by comparison), lightweight, and comparable in price (“Push”) and have a 0 carbon footprint (“Push”), although I am sure they are not counting the energy required to build the mower. However, with the much simpler construction, I would guess that even this is lower than conventional mowers. Some even have rechargeable to batteries to aid when the grass is a little too long (People).

It is also reported in both “Gas Mowers Belch Pollution”, and “Cleaner Air: Gas Mower Pollution Facts” that gas powered mowers have a second serious problem. Apparently mowers are a little clumsy with their fuel, where the two articles cite the EPA as stating “17 million gallons of fuel… are spilled each year refueling lawn equipment” (People). 17 million gallons is “more fuel than all the oil leaked by the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Alaska in 1989” (Snider).

There are not any reported city crews that are using electric lawn equipment yet, mainly because the electric equipment is not yet powerful enough to handle that much work, however there are companies emerging that use electric equipment (Snider). Clean Air Lawn Care, in Boulder Colorado, is such a company, charging their equipment overnight or on the solar panels that company truck’s support (Snider).

This seems like it could be a relatively easy transition which would make a significant difference, in cities especially. The technology is already available, in the form of reel mowers, and only requires the public to stop being lazy. Not to mention, if there were more companies like Clean Air Lawn Care, then I might have been able to squeak my nap in between classes and work. I know it would make me happier, and better rested.

References:

Biello, David. “Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Stream and Rivers – Creating Vast ‘Dead Zones’”. Scientific America. Accessed 6 May 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runof-overwhelms- streams

People Powered Machines. “Cleaner Air: Gas Mower Pollution Facts”. Accessed 6 May 2009. http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/faq-environment.htm

“Push Reel Mowers”. Clean Air Gardening. Accessed 6 May 2009. http://www.cleanairgardening.com/reelmowers.html

Sierra, Christian. “Par for the Course”. Tuscon Weekly. Accessed 6 May 2009 http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/Currents/Content?oid=44981

Snider, Laura. “Gas Lawn Mowers Belch Pollution”. Scripps Interactive Newspaper Group. Accessed 6 May 2009. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/jul/27/gas-lawn-mowers-belch-pollution/

Untitled

2009-05-05T23:52:00.004-05:00

As we reach the end of something, it becomes important to go back and ask ourselves - why are we doing that we are doing? A course or active research at 'the intersection of energy, technology and policy' exists in recent times because we face a tricky situation whereby we run the risk of using up our rations, before it can be replenished. In the face of this never-faced-before problem, we collectively express our fears, with the coining of the term Sustainable Development. I, as my last entry on this blog, would like to present a few thoughts on this greater picture, the nexus of which with energy we now understand.

Sustainable development for most part, is a way of living, a sharp decision making tool and an evolutionary birthmark that keeps the species surviving. It is as simple as a poor farmer investing in his son’s education while he battles with repeated years of drought (research and development), as courteous as leaving the loo as clean as one found it (social awareness and sensitivity), as pragmatic as the ant saving for winter while the grasshopper danced away (farsightedness) and as eternal as giving a man the fishing rod instead of the fish (smart consumption and production). Sustainable development over the years have gained greater momentum in the micro level, from rural micro-finance scheme in Bangladesh, to harnessing renewable energy (micro hydro) in Iriri village in Solomon Islands, to waste management schemes with community participation in Rajasthan, India. Howsoever small their contribution to the global economy, it helps uplift the lives of the people in the societies where it is implemented.

These community-based success stories itself, prompts us to question, if it is possible to make good profit in a Sustainable developmental economy, or is it all about social service and charity? The answer probably lies in the Aristotlean doctrine of man being a social animal, Nash’s equilibrium of the good of the individual lying with the good of the flock and not with the misinterpreted notion of survival of the fittest (Darwin was talking about genes and not individuals fighting it out!).

The repartee isn’t complete without stating what isn’t sustainable development. Think of the smartest guys in the room, Enron, think of the great economic crashes (even the recent one!), think of devalued currencies of certain states in the recent past, think of the millions of refuges in Africa who rely on food programs of UN, think of blood diamonds and conflict zones. These are situations that could have well been avoided if at one point of time, we hadn’t been chasing wins (be it through GDP, stocks, money, dead bodies), without thinking of long-term consequences. The prefix sustainable serves as reminder to the goof-ups we have made over time, while in our pursuit of “riches”. It is also a pointer to the principle on which the most successful societies of the world are based on, equality of opportunity and growth.

So, in summing up, in the modern economic scenario, where the good of the flock is compartmentalized, where the hand doesn’t feed the mouth of the bearer, it is doubly important to ensure that while one part of the world thrives, other part doesn’t putrefy. Today in the wake of certain violent activities in Asia, Africa and Latin America, it is the added threat of short-term political turmoil, with the ubiquitous ecological stop-clock in the background, which confronts us. We need to solve the riddles of global iniquities faster, given, today, sound bytes reaches remote corners of the world faster than a loaf of bread, making one aware of one’s misery. Otherwise, the consequences can be fast and dire, as we have witnessed in recent times.

Beaming Solar Energy to Algae

2009-05-04T20:32:00.003-05:00

I came across an article in the Seattle Times, written by Michelle Ma, on a novel way of growing algae for biofuels. As we know from Dr. Webber's class, and David Wogan's lecture, algae needs water, CO2 and sunlight to grow. There is, however, a debate in the scientific community on which is the better way to grow algae: whether it is the controlled environment of a bio reactor or the more "natural" algae pond.
According to the article, a Redmond-based company, called Bionavitas, is tipping the scales of the debate in favor of the algae pond. The major drawback of growing algae in a pond is that one needs a large surface area to get a sizable crop, because algae only grows on the top of the pond, where sunlight is abundant. Bionavitas has suggested inserting glass rods into the pond, allowing light to pass through the top layer, in order to create a whole new layer where algae can thrive. That means that the production of an algae pond can increase many-fold and bring algae-based biofuels one step closer to a large-scale implementation.

Although inserting glass rods seems like a great, idea, I don't believe that the will provide enough light to increase the output of pond drastically. It seems to me that algae located below the sun-lit top layer would only grow around the glass rods and nowhere else, since light will not be available there. Although some improvement does seem plausible, I don't believe this technology will offer that big of a gain to the overall output of the algae pond.

Sources: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009168062_algae04.html

Alternative Energy Manufacturing

2009-05-04T15:47:00.002-05:00

Over the course of the semester, Dr. Webber and some of our guest speakers have pitched the idea of Austin becoming a manufacturing center for the technology required for new alternative energy sources. The basic arguments for creating policies that would promote such industry growth are compelling: Austin already has a high-tech manufacturing market, the demand for alternative energy technology appears to be growing, and Texas as a whole could clearly benefit from an industry that could build into its need/want for new and clean energy.
I find it interesting that this issue of attracting new clean tech industries is getting attention in places other than our classroom. Today, the New York Times posted an article on its Green Inc. webpage titled "Can Clean Energy Revive Manufacturing."[1] The article chronicled an interesting case of a manufacturing firm's siting decision. Focusing on SolarWorld, which chose Oregon as its site, the article discusses various financial and labor related incentives for attracting clean tech manufacturers, including tax incentives and the availability of trained/educated workforce. Based upon this article's reporting, the competition among states to host clean tech manufacturing is already occuring.
I think that a state such as Texas is uniquely poised to capture new clean tech manufacturing, particularly because of experience with similar firms in other sectors of the economy. I would caution, however, that it might be wise to not reach too far in attempting to attract clean tech firms; picking a winner in the renewables race could be a dangerous move. Still, I will be very interested to see if Texas or any other state manages to become a leader in this emerging industry.

[1] http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/can-clean-energy-revive-manufacturing/

Algae Breakthrough?

2009-05-03T23:57:00.002-05:00

The website "Technology Review," published by MIT, has an article from Friday regarding a company's announcement that it has developed a new, more efficient way to extract oil from algae. An excerpt:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22572/?nlid=1994

"The process combines ultrasound and an electromagnetic pulse to break the algal cell walls. Then the algae solution is force-fed carbon dioxide, which lowers its pH, separating the biomass from the oil."It's low energy, there's not a lot of machinery, and it's a simple process," says CEO Riggs Eckelberry. The algae and oil can be separated in a matter of minutes, he adds. A number of companies are attempting to take advantage of the fact that algae naturally produce oil. But growing algae and extracting its oil efficiently is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. While some companies are focusing on better growing and harvesting methods, others, such as OriginOil, are focused on finding new ways to access the oil. Each algal cell has a sturdy cell wall protecting it, making the oil hard to get at. The algae also have to be separated from the water that they are grown in and dried out before the oil can be removed. . . .
In OriginOil's process, the algae solution is channeled through a pipe to which an electromagnetic field and ultrasound are applied, rupturing the cell walls and releasing the oil. Carbon dioxide is bubbled through, which lowers the pH. The resulting solution is then piped into another container. The lowered pH separates the biomass from the oil, and the oil floats to the top, while the biomass sinks to the bottom. The oil can be skimmed off, the biomass can be further processed, and the water is recycled. The whole process takes a matter of minutes, says Eckelberry."

Hopefully this technique is actually as significant a breakthrough as the company is claiming, and will serve as a key step along the path to developing significant, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly energy production from algae. Encouragingly, it also represents a novel approach to bringing down the costs of this process. While other entities seek better ways to grow and harvest algae, OriginOil tackled the cost/efficiency problem from a different direction.

Multiple breakthroughs like these on several fronts will likely be needed for all kinds of alternative energy forms which might one day be viable. For example, in solar generation, advances will likely be needed in making manufacturing more efficient, improving the performance of the cells, finding a better way to maintain the cells, and improving transmission efficiency. While it would be wonderful to solve all these problems at the same time under the same roof, odds are we would be better off if companies and institutions focused their efforts on specific problems best suited to their expertise, coming at them from all different angles.

Cheers to OriginOil if their claims are accurate, and hopefully similar advances can be replicated across many of the alternative energy efforts researchers and entrepreneurs are active in today.

The McCombs CleanTech Initiative:

2009-05-03T23:56:00.009-05:00

Instead of writing my last blog for ETP on a specific energy technology or policy issue I want to use this opportunity to tell you all about what a few of us McCombs students are doing to try to help the business school to better prepare its students for careers in a rapidly evolving energy industry, and to help promote UT and Austin’s efforts to become the world leader in clean energy.

Many of you are engineering or LBJ students who are able to incorporate studies of energy into the programs you are in here at UT. For us business students though, it’s a bit tougher. McCombs has a strong reputation for preparing its students to work in trading or finance for traditional energy companies. Unfortunately, we have been a bit slow to adapt to the evolution of the industry. While we have many students who are interested in renewable energy, and quite a few alums working in the field, our curriculum only incorporates courses related to oil and gas.

Several of us business students found the lack of a comprehensive approach to energy to be nothing less than shameful. Texas has led the nation in energy production, and UT has produced some of the top business leaders in the industry. Texas has been investing in itself to retain its leadership position in the industry, but McCombs had not take the same steps to ensure that it produces the business leaders of the energy industry of the 21st century… until now.

I came to the McCombs MBA program not just because I wanted to earn a graduate degree in business form one of the best schools in the nation, but also because I wanted to prepare myself for a career in the clean energy industry. When I looked at schools there were ones that had programs designed to serve this area of interest, but none of them offered the comprehensive education and experience that I saw possible at UT. I was ultimately sold on McCombs and Austin because of the Austin Clean Energy Incubator, the McCombs CleanTech Group, and the number of clean energy companies set up to take advantage of Texas’s natural endowment of wind and sun.

While I saw great potential for Austin and Texas in the clean energy industry, I was surprised when I arrived and learned just how much the city and the state were already doing in the industry. I knew there was a lot of wind power in Texas, but I didn’t know that the state had more than twice the capacity of California (at the time). I also didn’t know that the inventor of the lithium-ion battery was a UT researcher, that UT was home to some of the best algae biofuel research in the world, or that cutting-edge solar technology was being developed and commercialized in Austin. I also learned that there were lots of start-ups and small renewable energy companies here in Austin, and that the city had ambitious plans for promoting and investing in clean energy (e.g. Pecan Street and Austin Energy’s plans for a solar farm).

With all of these great things going on it was clear that McCombs could be doing more to prepare students to work in the industry that UT researchers and Austin policymakers were helping to shape. So, Jeff Otto and I went to the new dean of McCombs, Tom Gilligan, to share our thoughts. Not only did Dean Gilligan agree that McCombs could and should do more, but he explained that strengthening McCombs’s approach to energy was part of his strategic vision for the school. And, he also agreed that there was a lot going on in Austin and at UT that few people outside of the Austin clean energy community new about… it was a story that was untold. To address the problem, he asked the McCombs communications department to help out by giving us some of the time of department’s photographer and camera man, Kris Maxwell.

As a result, we were able to develop a short film about why Austin should lead the clean energy revolution (If you haven’t seen the film, you can view this version produced by Jeff Otto at: http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/students/ctg/ ). The idea behind the film was to interview the leaders (the entrepreneurs, the policymakers, and the thinkers) of Austin’s clean energy community and ask them to tell their stories. Together, the stories would tell the clean energy story of Austin.

Further, we wanted help make sure that McCombs would continue to be known for producing leaders of the energy industry. So, along with another classmate, Jeff and I developed and proposed a CleanTech MBA Concentration. Other schools around the nation offer courses related to renewable energy, and joint degrees in business and environmental studies, but few offer the opportunity to specialize in clean energy. This proposed concentration focuses on developing project finance skills, but it also will help students to gain a broader perspective of the energy industry, and get first-hand experience through directed studies with clean energy companies and divisions.

While the decision to add the concentration has yet to be made, the Assistant Dean of the business school, Daniel Garza, liked the initiative we showed, so he showed the video to more than 100 prospective students during the McCombs Preview Weekend last month. Since then, several prospective students decided to attend McCombs to pursue an MBA offering the opportunity to focus in clean energy. Even though the concentration has yet to be officially created they see the potential, and are willing to continue to carry that torch until the vision comes to fruition. Ultimately, our hope is that this initiative will make a small contribution to the long list of proof that “What Starts Here Changes the World”.

Employment and Energy

2009-05-03T23:43:00.003-05:00

Partly inspired by Dr. Webber’s presentations on Energy & the Economy and Energy & Food, and partly inspired by the state of today’s economies, I thought it would be interesting to examine the relationship between unemployment and the economy. As Dr. Webber pointed out in the Energy & Food lecture, food is a form of energy too, although we don’t really account for it in our energy consumption statistics. According to the USDA, an average person is supposed to consume, on average, 2,000 kilocalories per day. Since 1 nutritional calorie, or kilocalorie, is equivalent to 1.163 Watt-hours, the average person consumes the equivalent of 2,326 Watt-hours, or 2.396 kWhs of food per day. For younger and more active people, this could range from about 2.56 kWhs/day for active 31-50 year-old females to 3.49 kWhs/day for active 19-30 year old males. Over the course of a year, for the average American (meaning, 2,000 kilocalories/day), this adds up to the equivalent of 849 kWhs per person per year. For the 300 million people currently living in the US, this translates into approximately 254 billion kWhs/year. This is the equivalent of 6% of total useful electrical energy generated in the US.

Of course, we can’t just “plug” people into the grid a la the Matrix—nutritional energy and electrical energy are very different forms of energy. It is worth remembering that the true meaning of energy is the ability do work. To the extent that we as a society have determined that we would rather have machines and robots perform certain work rather than people, we have preferred to have a “full employment” policy when it comes to capital investments, but a less than full employment policy when it comes to people. We tend to measure performance by comparing the value of outputs versus the value of the inputs. From a policy perspective, however, particularly from a labor policy and an energy policy perspective, simply using dollar values may not suffice. For example, a farmer may choose to use a tractor to harvest her crop rather than hire workers to perform that work because the dollar input to dollar output comparison is favorable for the tractor, but from a policy perspective, somebody is going to have to feed that worker.

Labor-saving devices are sort of euphemisms for energy-wasting devices if you look at it from the same perspective that people who examine the energy balance of ethanol do. They examine it as “fossil energy in” versus “energy out.” For this case, the comparison is even starker because for all intents and purposes, the nutritional energy usage for a person is fixed—they are going to need to eat whether they are working or not, whereas the energy required to run the tractor is discretionary—it does not consume fuel unless it is operating. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to fully employ every person possible in the economy—and to target “labor-saving” technologies first. The industrial revolution essentially took processes that required exclusively renewable energy in the form of human and animal work and firewood, and replaced it with processes that required fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. We should critically examine each process that currently uses fossil fuels that could instead use human labor. How might this work? In a rural area, for instance, the unemployment office could make unemployment benefits contingent upon volunteering 40 hours of work a week at a local farm. Depending on employment conditions, the farmer would have any number of people available to collect crops just the same way the a tractor would, and anything they were not able to collect, the farmer would use his tractor to collect. Or, in an urban setting, cities could require people collecting unemployment benefits to volunteer to sweep the streets or collect garbage. This would not help conserve energy, it would grow the economy because it would put people to work who otherwise would not be working and would be collecting unemployment benefits anyhow. So while the "performance" measures might appear poor in terms of dollars spent per unit of output, those dollars should be considered fixed for the purposes of decision-making because they would be paid out anyhow. Considering Dr. Webber’s analysis of today’s economy in which we have abundant people and scarce resources, perhaps it makes sense to employ more people so we can conserve more of our resources.

Nuclear Power

2009-05-03T23:43:00.000-05:00

The recent ruling in the Minnesota house banning nuclear power seems to have caused a surge in public opinions concerning whether or not nuclear energy is a viable option. Just skimming the headlines most people seem to be adamantly in favor of it or on the fence. Some of the headlines in favor read:

“HOW I SEE IT: Nuclear energy is America’s best option”

“Avoiding nuclear power is another big energy mistake”

“Remove ban on new nuclear plants

One headline on the fence reads, “Nuclear energy risks: flimsy or concrete”

The most recent public opinion survey by the Nuclear Energy Institute supports such observations. The November 2008 survey shows that about 74% of Americans are in favor. And interest is growing. So why aren’t more power plants popping up?

Consider the surge of other related nuclear articles:

“Power on the cheap it’s not”

“Projected nuke power’s price tag inflating”

“High price scramble for nuclear sites”

Nuclear power proves extremely expensive. The first power plant of next generation reactors in Missouri was put on hold because it would cost $6 billion.

In my mind nuclear power may be our only solution to America’s growing addiction to energy. It is the only alternative to fossil fuels with high enough energy capacity and density and also works where the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. However, the two main driving forces, public opinion and cost, seem to be working against each other.

One question looms in my mind: How will global climate change affect the efficiency of a nuclear power plant? Nuclear power requires excessive amounts of water, cold water. The temperature of water will go up in the near future. That will decrease the efficiency of the plant. Will it still work with slightly warmer than cold water?

Not a substantive entry

2009-05-03T22:37:00.003-05:00

No longer content just auditing Dr. Webber's class, Alden Martin Bruner made his way into the world on Friday, May 1st, at 10:20 am. He weighs 7 pounds, 15 ounces and is 20.5 inches long.

Indirect Impacts...To Count Or Not To Count

2009-05-03T22:32:00.001-05:00

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is debating whether or not to include indirect impacts from producing ethanol in the limits that would be set for greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production. The article “Ethanol test for Obama on climate change, emissions” by H. Josef Hebert analyzes both sides of the debate.

Senators who are from farming intensive states are arguing that indirect emissions do not be taken into account when analyzing the emissions limits. Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa thinks that it “defies common sense that EPA would publish a proposed rule-making with harmful conclusions for biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions.” Ethanol manufacturers agree with this opinion as well.

Personally, I think that the indirect emissions should be taken into account because of the impact that it will make on both the climate as well as our economy. If land that is specifically cleared to make way for ethanol production contributes towards emitting greenhouse gases, then I think the ethanol companies should be held accountable. But, I only think that they should be held accountable if the EPA can come up with an accurate way to quantify the emissions from clearing land. A subjective estimate could be argued as unfair from either side, so I think that if there is a way to scientifically quantify the amount emitted, that amount should definitely be used.

Also, one of the other indirect impacts that this article does not mention is the fact that using corn for fuel versus food will have a negative impact on the economy as well. This may not contribute towards greenhouse gas emissions, but it will drive up the price of corn and continue to strain the budgets of families that are already hard hit from the recession.

This article mentions that ethanol manufacturers would be able to meet the emissions requirements if only the direct emissions were counted, however they would most likely fail if the indirect ones were counted as well. The director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is an environmental advocacy group, believes that if the indirect emissions were taken into account, the ethanol industry would be able to adapt to the new standards.

And, I think this is another reason why the indirect emissions should be taken into account. If you put a restraint on an industry, they will find a way to meet that requirement. When the new CAFÉ standards for car mileage were set to be 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the automotive industry has a choice to either comply or go under. The same would apply to the ethanol industry. And, with the technological advances that we are making daily, I do not think that this would be an outrageous requirement for this industry to adhere to.

Booze to Biofuel

2009-05-03T22:10:00.000-05:00

Law enforcement in Sweden is now using its confiscated alcohol to fuel cars. Sweden has a problem with their citizens smuggling alcoholic beverages into the country to avoid paying high taxes locally [1]. Police catch the smugglers at the border, and they pour 200,000 gallons of confiscated alcohol down the drain each year [2]. Sweden now wants to put this waste to better use by turning it into biofuel.

The confiscated drinks are first mixed together with water, then sent off to a plant to produce biofuel. Sometimes the alcohols are mixed with animal and human waste. In this case, the mixture is allowed to break down its components for about a month, and the gases given off are captured for biogas [1].

Biogas is promoted in Sweden because it is carbon neutral, making it better for the environment, and it creates jobs, making it good for the economy. Biogas is also cheaper for Sweden’s citizens. A citizen using biogas in his or her car will save about 5 kronor per 10 kilometers, or about 10 cents per mile [1].

In an effort to become the first oil-free country, Sweden is offering incentives to those using green transportation. Toll road users in Stockholm don’t have to pay the tolls if they drive a car powered by biofuels or any other type of renewable energy, and some cities even offer these citizens free parking. Citizens driving clean energy company cars also get a tax cut on car taxes. With these incentives, Sweden expects 20% of cars sold this year to be green [1].

1. http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work-live/Sustainability/Reading/The-road-to-Swedens-oil-free-future/
2. http://www.hippyshopper.com/2008/07/theres_now_not.html

OTC.09 Highlights

2009-05-03T22:02:00.002-05:00

This week Houston will host the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), one of the world’s largest oil and gas conferences and trade shows. The event is anticipating an estimated 70,000 attendees from over 100 countries.[i]

Things have changed drastically since last years conference, with oil down from $100+ a barrel to around $50 a barrel and worldwide demand lagging in the midst of the economic slowdown so the conference should prove interesting.

The week’s agenda includes technical sessions, luncheon speakers, policy discussions, a young professionals program and a technical exhibit. One of the industry’s recent marvels, Shell’s Perdido Platform, will be showcased this year at OTC. The Perdido platform is floating in 8,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico 200 miles south of Freeport, TX. Last year Perdido drilled and completed the world’s deepest offshore well, nearly 2 miles below the water surface. [ii]

A few of the technical innovations of Perdido include minimizing the weight and size of the platform by setting strict weight limits, utilizing fewer risers than average, including both processing and living space on the same deck and using an innovative approach to separate water from oil and gas at the low pressure sea floor making it easier to pump the hydrocarbons. Interestingly, when Shell acquired the lease in 1996 from the Minerals Mgmt Service, the technology didn’t exist to install a platform in that deep of water. Lessons learned from its design and deployment will be included in some of technical sessions planned for the week at OTC.[iii]

In addition to the focus on technical developments, OTC will also hold a full day program, The Next Wave, on Wednesday for young professionals working in the industry. What began as a half day program two years ago has grown into a full day session with a keynote address this year from retired Shell President John Hoffmeister, a panel discussion, lunch and afternoon breakout session. The theme of this year’s program will be "Dispelling Myths, Informing People, and Creating Ambassadors for Our Industry" and will tackle issues such as the future of oil and gas prices, the environmental impact of the industry, US energy policies and career development in a renewable world. The Next Wave is only $40 so if you plan to be in Houston on Wednesday, you should check it out.

For more info on this year’s OTC, visit www.otcnet.com

[i] Neilsen, J. “Offshore Technology Conference draws thousands”, Houston Chronicle. May 1, 2009. URL: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6404205.html
[ii] Hays, K. “Shell Perdido Platform Offers Lessons in Innovation”, Houston Chronicle. May 2, 2009. URL: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6404208.html
[iii] Hays, K. “Shell Perdido Platform Offers Lessons in Innovation”, Houston Chronicle. May 2, 2009. URL: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6404208.html

Hazardous to Health and Environment

2009-05-03T17:50:00.002-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I read an interesting article in the New York Times that a friend forwarded to me . It discusses the large impact that cooking fires used throughout much of the world are having on global climate change. As the article explains, recent studies estimate that up to 18% of anthropogenic heating may be due to the soot produced by cooking fires and charcoal/wood burning stoves, making it the second largest cuase behind CO2 emissions. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that indoor air pollution caused by these cooking methods has been cited by the World Health Organization as the second largest environmental contributor to ill health behind sanitation issues (read it here). It is interesting that we often connect the solution of our energy woes with a movement toward a more simplistic organic lifestyle, when in fact in some areas of the world a progression away from aspects of traditional lifestyle is desperately needed.

My philosophical musings aside, I really wanted to introduce this topic because right now there is little being done as far as research goes about this problem. Most of the people involved are NGOs or corporations attempting to get carbon credits. Not to say this is bad, just to say that an increase in interest, funding and research is necessary to meet this problem head on. The main way in which involved parties are trying to reduce emissions (both those harmful to the environment and people directly) is by investigating new stove designs and fuel sources. The whole situation takes on a new dimension however when you bring into play cultural attitudes, economics and resource availability. Currently work in this area is being done in this area by Dr. Ellzey's research group in the Mechanical Engineering department so if you interested in getting involved shoot me an email at czak@mail.utexas.edu.

(Re)Fueling the Transition towards Renewable Fuels

2009-05-03T12:22:00.003-05:00

The lack of infrastructure for transporting and dispensing renewable fuels to end-users is a significant barrier that will need to be addressed if renewable transportation fuels and advanced vehicle technology are to penetrate the current market. However, there are several pilot projects that have been introduced that are paving the way for making this transition to cleaner transportation practices
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently released a press release stating that it is working on a prototype for a commercial hydrogen fueling station that uses wind and solar powered-energy to perform electrolysis to produce hydrogen. [1]The first plant is slated to be built in the Cleveland area next to the Great Lakes Science Center and will use water from Lake Erie. It will utilize wind and solar power from existing facilities at the science center. [1] The first objective of the project is to create a commercial scale hydrogen refueling station that generated hydrogen on-site through electrolysis that is powered by clean energy sources. The second is to build the plant with commercially available parts so that other stations may follow. The third is create an exhibit that publicizes the refueling station’s purpose and merit by taking advantage of its location at the Great Lakes Science Center.

This hydrogen refueling station is not the first commercial-scale clean technology refueling station. In Frankfurt, Germany, a new electric vehicle battery recharging station has been built in order to charge the city’s small scale electric vehicles (EV). [2] The station, fueled by panels provided by Evergreen Solar, supply free recharging to vehicles such as Velotaxis, Segways, electric bikes and scooters to promote the use of low-emission vehicles in this high-traffic area. [2] The station located in a major commercial shopping center, allows consumers to charge their cars at one of its six charging ports while they shop, since this type of refueling takes much longer than traditional gasoline and diesel fuel refueling. [2] The station is projected to produce approximately 21 kWh of electricity on peak days. [2] To provide a sense of scale, this is the amount of electricity that could fuel an electric scooter to travel about 71,500 miles a year. The cost of the stations was approximately $85,100 (USD). [2]

Pilot projects such as the refueling station in Cleveland, OH, and Frankfurt, Germany are paving the way for the transition to cleaner forms of transportation. Although they represent nascent attempts to penetrate the current transportation fueling system, they are integral in engaging the scientific and clean-tech community, as well as public interest.

1. Owens, J.P., NASA Leads Team in Establishing a Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Station in NASA's Glenn Research Center-Press Release. 2009: Cleveland, OH.
2. Press, A., Evergreen Solar PV Panels Power EV Recharging Station in Germany, in RenewableEnergyWorld.com. 2009: Massachusetts.

Synfuel - do we want to burn more money?

2009-05-03T00:55:00.003-05:00

Synfuel is a technology recently developed to harness the wasted natural gas produced from oil wells currently being flared off in the oilfields. Natural gas exists as associated gas in oil reservoirs. The difference in pressure and temperature between in-situ (inside the earth) and surface conditions also cause gas to form from the extracted oil. Due to the difficulty to transport the natural gas, it is commonly burned on-site. This causes environmental concerns and more importantly to oil companies, money is getting burnt and they have to just sit and watch it. With projections of $3.1 billion per year revenue at $70 per barrel of gasoline if only 10% of the wasted gas captured (nearly 5% of total natural gas production), the technology can offer drastic financial benefits to the producer.
In the event of oil price surge, it might even be a more profitable option for the producers to convert a portion of natural gas from gas wells to gasoline through synfuel technology if the effect on the natural gas supply and the price can be minimal. By developing a model for price and the viability of technology application, companies might see a time they could maximize the profit through selling a 1. wasted natural gas that would be burnt otherwise and 2. gasoline that was meant to be sold as natural gas.

Scientific American Article

Clean Coal: There's Money in it! But not for you

2009-05-02T15:36:00.010-05:00

Ever since coal powered the industrial revolution there has been controversy over its environmental impacts versus its ability to provide cheap abundant electricity. Even Mark Twain commented on the issue, “Filthy Coal: There's Money in it!" Today coal-powered electricity is just as controversial. The commercial blocks during the evening news are battlegrounds for special interest groups trying to persuade the opinions of Americans on coal-power. Respective TV ads claim that, “the reality is there is no clean coal” or “It’s time to re-power this economy with coal” (Reality.org 2009, America’sPower.org, 2009).

There are 1500 coal power plants in the U.S. that, under the new administration, may be required to reduce their CO2 emissions by capturing their emissions. This will require substantial infrastructure spending; the existing carbon capture technology may reduce coal power plant electricity production by about 1/3. This means that government spending would have to be allocated not only to equip existing power plants with sequestration technology but also to expand total capacity to make up for the loss. This is good news if you are a power plant construction specialist. If you are a tax payer or an electricity user I would be worried.

The following table shows the cost of replacing all coal powered electricity with other sources based on EIA Data and Dr. Webber's presentation on the electricity sector.

Given the costs outlined in Table 1, the economic impact of the decisions made by the government in regards to coal-powered electricity could surpass trillions of dollars. As a nation recovering from economic recession this sort of burden on the taxpayer and American utility companies could be immense. Maybe we should think twice before we take the energy we have for granted.

Greywater Reuse

2009-04-26T23:47:00.004-05:00

We have talked a lot in class about the water-energy nexus. In fact, there was an entire lecture dedicated to the topic. I think this is a fascinating study.
Water is essential for all organisms, and is required by every sector of our society/economy. Electricity generation, refining, manufacturing, and construction uses large quantities of water. The U.S. is blessed with enough rain that water scarcity issues don't cross the minds of many Americans. However, in the western U.S. and in Australia, South Africa, northern Africa, and the Middle-East, significant water concerns arise from the cost and/or lack of freshwater supplies. Water scarcity, unlike the dangers from global warming, are real, quantifiable, and truly a matter of life or death.
Therefore, countries around the world and states in this country ought to promote greywater reuse in populated areas as a viable option to conserve water. Greywater can be recycled to irrigate lawns, irrigate parks and golf courses, fill fountains, and flush toilets in buildings and houses. Some home builders are already jumping on the "green" marketing band-wagon to sell their eco-friendly pre-fab houses (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/reinventing-modular-housing-as-green/?scp=2&sq=greywater%20reuse&st=cse). The California companies manufacturing the homes mentioned in the article are selling houses that already include rainwater collection devices, greywater reuse treatment and plumbing, and tankless water heaters.
In terms of policy, states (or countries abroad) can offer tax rebates to people that buy grewater treatment devices for domestic or commerical purposes, can discount property taxes of those individuals or corporations that recycle greywater for flushing toilets, and can promote water conservation at public fairs that highlight the effectiveness and cost savings of greywater reuse. Austin Water Utility even has a toilet replacement program where you can receive a water efficient toilet that uses 1.6 gallons per flush for your old bowl (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/reinventing-modular-housing-as-green/?scp=2&sq=greywater%20reuse&st=cse). Even though some urban areas in Florida, California, and Texas are improving conservation measures, more studies need to focus on cutting plumbing (requires energy to move water) and treatment (requires energy) costs. Currently, the price of water in the U.S. is too low for greywater reuse to gain widespread acceptance. People in the U.S. do not value water enough to go out of their why to save or recycle it.

From GDP to Wealth: Measuring Economic Success

2009-04-26T23:36:00.006-05:00

Look up “GDP” and “Measurement” on nearly any Internet search engine and you will find a wide variety of criticisms for the way economists measure economic success. GDP, or GDP per capita, is the most commonly used index for gauging the health and future strength of a country’s economy, but a number of critics are concerned with several items that are left out of this important aggregate measure. GDP calculates the total amount spent on final goods and services in a region, including its net of exports minus imports. It does not, however, include a monetary assessment of that region’s natural capital (fossil fuel reserves, forests, fisheries etc.), a calculation of the financial impact that man-made pollution is causing to the environment, or even the normal depreciation that occurs in all man-made capital stock (such as buildings, vehicles, etc).

This challenge is difficult to meet precisely because it is so difficult to count and price the goods that nature provides. One recommendation comes from Partha Dasgupta, economics professor at the University of Cambridge, who believes that much can be gained by switching from GDP per capita to wealth per capita. He defines wealth as “the value of an economy’s entire productive base, comprising man-made capital, natural capital, knowledge, skills and institutions.” With this measure, it would be possible to define a sustainable economy as one capable of passing on at least the same amount of wealth to succeeding generations.

Dasgupta states that several economists and ecologists believe we must reverse our economic growth trends in order to slow global warming and environmental degradation. However, his alternative incorporates the natural environment and other capital depreciation into a measure that still allows for economic growth. As portrayed in data obtained from the World Bank below, there are significant differences in per capita trends in wealth and GDP. The Indian Subcontinent has shown greater GDP growth than the OECD average for the 30-year period between 1970 and 2000. However, the wealth per capita measure reveals that this growth in man-made capital (final goods and services) has not made up for significant losses in natural capital. In contrast, the OECD countries show roughly similar growth rates by each measure, indicating a more sustainable method of economic growth.

As noted above, it is difficult to quantify and ultimately calculate financial costs for the natural environment, and these World Bank numbers exclude several important elements: forests, ocean fisheries, freshwater, soil, wetlands and even the atmosphere’s ability to serve as a sink for pollution. With this data included, it is possible that all regions would show negative growth rates in wealth per capita.

People from around the world should know what the best scientific models estimate to be the costs of our current economic development. Even though it is difficult to model the depreciation of natural and man-made capital, I believe it is important that we begin to calculate even imperfect measures, provided the process is done with transparency and fairness across all regions. It is time to go beyond the few isolated examples (China calculated a “Green GDP” for 2004, and discontinued it after releasing its first annual result in 2006), and institute a global effort to model the total impact that our economic development has on both the environment and on future generations.

Partha Dasgupta, “Counterpoint: A Measured Approach,” part of the larger article “Economics in a Full World” by Herman Daly, Scientific American, September 2005. Available at: www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/faculty/daly/sciam-Daly5%20copy%201.pdf

Shrinking ice caps could be growing investment opportunity

2009-04-26T23:08:00.015-05:00

Earlier this month, the collapse of an Antarctic ice bridge precipitated a flurry of reports warning of accelerated global warming. According to Katie Couric’s Notebook, “At the North Pole, new satellite photos show Arctic ice is melting so fast, many scientists now predict it will be gone within 30 years. Some researchers think it could disappear in just six.” This sounds like serious business.

Although I am an engineer and not a businessman, I want to share an investment idea. Maybe I’d do better in business if I didn’t post my idea on a public blog, but I’m going to do it anyway. As dissent in the scientific community about impending climate change grows progressively quieter, the ways to make money off of climate change seem to be multiplying rapidly. Investment opportunities in renewable energy sources have been touted for some time and their appeal continues to grow. The green product industry is positively booming. Green cleaning solutions, eco-friendly personal care items, environmentally responsible [insert product type] products—are selling very well. All of these investment opportunities, however, are aiming at mitigating our negative environmental impact and reducing the “harm” we do. What I am proposing today is different—it’s the dark horse, the forbidden fruit of the climate change investment portfolio. Put simply, I propose investing in global disaster.

Put less simply and less dramatically, I propose investing in entities which will facilitate adaptation to a changing climate—the companies that stand to make money if global warming plays out like it’s expected to. For example, companies that will put your house on stilts if you live in a flood-prone area could become more profitable as ocean levels rise. How about emergency housing? With more powerful storms, more people can be expected to lose their permanent homes and require temporary housing. Disaster relief in general seems like a promising investment area. And the list goes on.

The most optimistic projection in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report calculates a 1.8 degree Celsius temperature rise of average global temperature within the next 90 years. Even if CO2 concentration in the atmosphere were kept at the level it was in the year 2000, significant warming is still predicted. Many see climate change as inevitable, even despite our best efforts to reduce carbon output.

Calls to ramp up adaptation measures are beginning to be heard, but I believe there’s money to be made as more and more people realize that along with our climate, our lives are going to change, and a slew of previously unneeded and unknown industries will become profitable.

Pulling the Plug on Callaway II

2009-04-26T22:49:00.002-05:00

The first of the new 26 nuclear power, the Callaway II, was suspended indefinitely last Thursday because the company financing it, AmerenUE, couldn’t secure financial stability from the state of Missouri before it began construction. According to KOMU and the New York Times, what really killed the plant was that the energy company couldn’t raise the electricity rates now to help pay for construction because of a law passed in 1976. AmerenUE had placed a bill in congress to overrule the law but withdrew it because it wouldn’t cover the cost of the new plant. The plant would have cost $6-$8 billion dollars and would have been the largest development in Missouri history. In this sort of economic turmoil, it’s no wonder that a project as big as this would be put on hold. On average, a new power plant costs $3600 to $4000 per installed kW. Companies have been financing this by charging customers 30 cents per watt the first thirteen years and then18 cents per watt for the remaining lifetime of the plant (the average resident pays about 10 cents/kWh.)

In the end though, it sounds like it’s all about politics. Those opposed to the bill thought it would raise the energy prices too much and they would be passing ‘the risk of a failed construction project onto the customer’ (Powering Down, 2009). The Sierra Club, a group strongly opposed the bill, said they will oppose any new proposals for power plants in Missouri. They would rather meet Missouri’s energy demands with renewable sources such as wind or solar. Ginger Harris, chair of the executive committee of the Missouri Sierra Club, thinks that if the money for the Callaway II project was put towards solar, that Missouri could reach a lot more customers and create a lot more jobs. But AmerenUE argues that there isn’t enough wind or solar in Missouri to meet the rising energy demands. Ameren UE Communications Executive Mike Cleary says that the only option the company was considering was nuclear, coal or natural gas. Now that nuclear is off the table, the only alternatives are energy sources that are more pollutant, exactly the kind of things that the Sierra Club hoped to avoid.

http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/d5ce5427-80ce-0971-018f-0c9661677d34
http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/11/How-Much-Will-New-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Cost/
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/a-setback-in-the-nuclear-renaissance/#more-6883

Correlation: Energy and Quality of Life

2009-04-26T22:29:00.002-05:00

Recently I was reading an interesting chapter from the book Energy at the Crossroads written by Vaclav Smil. The chapter is named Energy Linkages. In here I found an interesting study about Energy and quality of life.

Smil mentions that “all the commonly used measures of energy use are just handy indicators of the performance and the dynamics of processes whose aim should not be merely to secure basic existential needs or to satisfy assorted consumerist urges but also to enrich intellectual lives and to make us more successful as a social and caring species” (Smil, 2008). With this Smil suggests that the we, the society, should find ways to be less disruptive to the maintenance of irreplaceable environmental services. In addition, Smil mentions that high quality of life, physical and mental, is the goal; rational energy ise is the means of its achievement.

Furthermore, I got interested in how the author links and correlates critical measures of human well-being in 57 of the most populous countries. These correlations are based on nutrition, health care, and education. Each one of these countries analyzed had more than 15 million inhabitants, account for nearly 90% of the world’s population.

First, Smil studied the infant mortality and life expectancy. He found that during the late 1990s the lowest infant mortalities were in the most affluent parts of the world. For example, Japan showed only 4/1, 000 live births; Western Europe, Northamerica and Oceania 5 to 7 deaths for every 1000 persons; and the highest infant mortality was found in African countries with 100/1000 inhabitants. These findings were correlated with the amount of energy consumed by each region or country. The acceptable infant mortality corresponded to annual per capita energy use of 30 to 40 GJ. But in those countries were consumed 60 to 110 GJ were with among lowest countries with less infant mortality. The correlation was -.67.

In second place Smil related the Energy consumption and the Female life expectancy at birth. He found that during the 1990s the average female life expectancy in Africa was 45 years where most of the poor countries are located. In contrasts, in wealthy nations like Japan, Canada or European nations, the average female life expectancy at birth was 80 years. Here, countries with energy consumption of 45- 50 GJ p/p had female life expectancy of 70 years old. And, in those countries with average energy consumption of G0 – 110 GJ p/p were around 80 years old. The correlation was .71

In third place, I got interested with the correlation founded between energy consumption and average food availability. Here Smil states that “effective food rationing can provide adequate nutrition in a poor nation even as the variety of foodstuffs remains quite limited while high per capita food supplies in rich countries are clearly far beyond any conceivable nutritional needs and dietary surveys shows that as much 40% of all food available at retail level is wasted” (Smil, 2000 cited in Smil, 2003). He found that minimum adequate supply of food and good variety of 12MJ/day was on those countries with per capita energy consumption between 40 to 50 GJ.

These correlations make people think of the increasing disparity among nations and how energy is correlated directly to their quality of life. I believe that public policies of any country should be oriented to improve the quality of life of its citizens covering the basic needs. It also makes people think how fortunate they might be in comparison to others and how one person could start taking actions to save energy and help others as well.

Literature reviewed
Smil, Vaclav, Energy at the crossroads, The MIT Press, London, England, 2003.

Energy and the German Perspective
http://xray1.physics.sunysb.edu/~jacobsen/hdv102s2009/holzner.pdf

Earth Day with Obama

2009-04-26T22:27:00.002-05:00

So Earth Day just passed us by not too long ago…I was wondering if President Obama was going to cease the opportunity to try and give the nation a sense confidence in our time of pressing energy and economic concerns. He delivered.

Obama made blanket comments at times during his speech, such as, "The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy -- the choice we face is between prosperity and decline," he added. "We can remain the world’s leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy.” I thought it was genius of him to grab the attention of everyone by first relating energy to the economic crisis. I honestly have never thought of the U.S. as being the big exporter of clean energy. This proposal can do nothing but give hope to everyone…saving our country by creating jobs that help the environment. He takes it a step further by proclaiming that the U.S. will lead the 21^st century global economy. Hopefully his words of such confidence and hope are all realistic.

The mindset that should be maintained throughout the next several decades is: how do we solve our nation’s energy needs without compromising jobs or the wellbeing of our environment? I believe Obama is on target so far. He proposes green energy ideas and continuously supports his proposal with calculated effects. For instance, on Earth Day he said that federal waters would be opened to significant investments in clean energy – offshore wind turbines. And coastal states in the region of the offshore wind farms would receive almost 30% of the royalties generated from the production of electricity.

Obama wants $15 billion to be allocated over the next 10 years for developing wind farms, solar energy, and geothermal energy. He also wants to boost clean coal technology, similar to the British efforts, which are allowing large percentages of carbon to be captured and stored in the ground (read more here).

There is one industry that probably found the Earth Day propositions vital but disappointing…the oil industry. "As part of this comprehensive policy, we must crack down on the corporations that pollute the water we drink and the air we breathe […] tackle global warming and its potentially catastrophic effects.” We all know that the petroleum industry is responsible for a large chunk of the carbon emissions produced every day. It is only a matter of time before regulations become more strict on the effects of producing petroleum products.

Overall, Obama’s message was sent loud and clear, that he is not going to sit back and watch our nation spin its wheels when there are so many opportunities involved with green energy – a message that was much needed and hopefully not taken lightly. (more…).

Harnessing the Power of the Mighty Mississippi

2009-04-26T22:08:00.003-05:00

Hydrokinetics can be defined as: “the branch of hydrodynamics that deals with the laws governing liquids or gases in motion.” [1] It is not a newly devised concept. Works discussing this topic date back ages, such as George Minchin’s 1892 work, Hydrostatics and Elementary Hydrokinetics.

Currently, there are numerous methods being used to harness the energy of moving fluids—including hydro-, wind-, and wave power. The use of in-river turbines, however, is a relatively young field and one that has been gaining some interest as of late. The first in-river hydrokinetic project just got off the ground within the last year. [3, 4]

The Mississippi River and its tributaries constitute one of the largest river systems in the world. As many as 31 US states and 2 Canadian provinces contribute watershed. Near the end of the river system, in New Orleans, the average flow rate of the Mississippi River is roughly 600,000 cubic feet per second—an equivalent of 166 semi-trailer truckloads of water each and every second. [2]

This massive volume of river water quietly roars by the Crescent City 24 hours per day 7 days per week, going unnoticed by many. In the last few years, though, numerous groups of people have tossed around the idea that the Mighty Mississippi may actually be capable of providing a very potent source of energy to be tapped. There are multiple proposed sites for hydrokinetic projects along the Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO, and New Orleans, LA. [5]

One of the proposed benefits to this alternative energy source is the lack of intermittency—the river is constantly flowing, albeit at varying flow rates. This is in contrast to the sometimes unpredictable stagnations in winds. There are ecological concerns, however, about what massive turbines could potentially do to local wildlife and fisheries in the river. Ultimately, however, not enough is known yet about this young field as to its viability as a clean, alternative source of energy.

*****************************************
[1] "hydrokinetics." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 26 Apr 2009. Link.
[2] “Mississippi River Facts.” National Park Service, US Dept of the Interior. 23 Feb 2009. Link.
[3] “Hydropower – Industry Activities.” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 10 April 2009. Link.
[4] Thapaliya, R. “A MN city seeks approval to operate first in-river hydrokinetic project.” Hydropower Reform Coaltion. 27 June 2008. Link.
[5] Thapaliya, R. “In-river Hydrokinetics – Frequently Asked Questions.” Hydropower Reform Coalition. 21 August 2008. Link.

Revolutionizing US Transportation

2009-04-26T22:04:00.006-05:00

US transportation sector is one of the most oil exhaustive of all oil consuming end use areas in US. It consumes almost 70% of the total oil consumption in US, of which 3/4th is consumed on highway transportation. Highway transportation in US is very energy intensive, though technology has advanced in the areas of safety and fuel economy, but the overall oil consumption in the sector has increased over the years. It seems almost imperative now, that to reduce oil consumption (energy consumption) in transportation, railways will prove to be a viable option.

Recently, in a press release on 16th April, the US President announced his plans for a high speed passenger trains.

“The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service.”

According to the release, $ 13 billion would be provided from the Federal funds to develop this mass transit system ($ 8 billion from the stimulus bill and $ 1 billion each year for 5 years), which is basically regional in nature, as can be seen in the figure above. The investment will drip in with $ 1 billion every year for 5 years to give a jump start to the project. It is quite clear from such an initiative that the government plans to develop a good efficient energy saving system for transportation. President Obama went on to say “My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come.” The point in question is that, this project would equate to remove 1 million cars from roads, which would not only save a lot of fuel, but also contribute towards reduce CO2 emissions.

Even after such a huge impetus to roll out these high speed passenger trains, with the launch of plug in hybrids and electric cars in general, I wonder if this rail transit system would prove as economical and as energy efficient as plug-in hybrids are ? Initial capital investment is heavy in both, but which one proves to be more economical will hold the key for America’s future way of transportation. For PHEV’s we already have a well developed highway infrastructure, while the infrastructure for such high speed rails is being built now. I guess, speed holds the key in this case, present rail transportation has two problems 1. It is not as economical as driving a car and 2. It has speed limitation imposed. With high speed passenger trains rolling in, speed problem is almost solved but nothing can be said about how economical would it prove eventually.

References

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot5109.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/