Researchers at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Labs say they have solved one of solar energy’s biggest problems with a new kind of thin-film solar cell that will generate power at night.
Traditional photovoltaic solar cells absorb photons from visible sunlight, converting the absorbed energy into electricity.
The key technological breakthrough coming from Idaho Labs is a tiny nano-antenna that can absorb mid-infrared rays, otherwise known as heat. The Earth absorbs sunlight all day long, and emits infrared energy constantly.
These nano antennas are stamped onto a polyethylene sheet, and researchers said the production process is easy and inexpensive. Even better, they said the new design can capture up to 80 percent of the energy in the IR light, compared to photovoltaics, which are often only about 20 percent efficient.
Of course, there’s a snag. Once the nano antennas absorb all this energy, they begin to oscillate with alternating current at a trillion times per second; the researchers say they still have to come up with a new kind of rectifier that can convert that power into usable, direct current.
Existing rectifier designs can’t handle such high-frequency oscillation, and are way too big. The researchers now must create a nano-scale rectifier, which would have to be about 1,000 times smaller than commercial rectifiers that are currently available.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A Whale of a Reality Check
It was once considered the only energy source suitable for artificial light. It was one of the world’s first multinational industries, and generated massive fortunes. And it required a global infrastructure connecting the source, in some of the Earth’s most remote locations, to living rooms around the world.
And while some of the key players in this huge 18th century industry said their businesses would thrive indefinitely, a wonderful article in the New York Times Sunday points out that the whale oil business eventually died out for one simple reason. It was based on a finite resource, and when it was used up, there was no more product to sell.
Sound familiar?
And just as whale oil was replaced by petroleum, starting in the mid-1800s, oil can be replaced as well. Yes, the oil barons of today insist there’s enough oil in the ground to last for many more years, but let’s be realistic. Maybe oil has peaked, maybe not, but is there anyone who doubts that the tap will run dry someday?
And while some of the key players in this huge 18th century industry said their businesses would thrive indefinitely, a wonderful article in the New York Times Sunday points out that the whale oil business eventually died out for one simple reason. It was based on a finite resource, and when it was used up, there was no more product to sell.
Sound familiar?
And just as whale oil was replaced by petroleum, starting in the mid-1800s, oil can be replaced as well. Yes, the oil barons of today insist there’s enough oil in the ground to last for many more years, but let’s be realistic. Maybe oil has peaked, maybe not, but is there anyone who doubts that the tap will run dry someday?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Where the Wind Blows
The wind industry is getting a leg up from NASA.
The space agency has been collecting global weather data for almost a decade, which it initially used to predict storms and keep track of other weather patterns. But as part of that research, NASA’s QuickSCAT satellite has also been monitoring the speed, direction and power of wind traveling over the ocean’s surface.
That’s pretty useful information for anyone considering an offshore wind farm, and NASA published it all this week in a scientific journal. Some of the best sources of potential wind energy are off California’s Mendocino coast (I know it’s been plenty windy just about every time I visited), Tasmania, and Tierra Del Fuego, regions where land formations channel wind into a concentrated jet that blows almost year round. I’m sure the locals could probably have tipped off wind developers to these spots, but NASA’s findings also identified a few areas in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which could be candidates for floating wind farms.
The space agency has been collecting global weather data for almost a decade, which it initially used to predict storms and keep track of other weather patterns. But as part of that research, NASA’s QuickSCAT satellite has also been monitoring the speed, direction and power of wind traveling over the ocean’s surface.
That’s pretty useful information for anyone considering an offshore wind farm, and NASA published it all this week in a scientific journal. Some of the best sources of potential wind energy are off California’s Mendocino coast (I know it’s been plenty windy just about every time I visited), Tasmania, and Tierra Del Fuego, regions where land formations channel wind into a concentrated jet that blows almost year round. I’m sure the locals could probably have tipped off wind developers to these spots, but NASA’s findings also identified a few areas in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which could be candidates for floating wind farms.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Connecting the Dots
Texas, which currently has more wind power capacity than any other state, seems to have gotten ahead of itself.
The state has enough turbines to generate about 5,000 megawatts, almost 3 percent of its needs, and has plans to expand to 9,000 megawatts by yearend and 15,000 megawatts within a few years. Experts say that the wide open spaces in West Texas get enough wind to one day produce about 30 percent of the state’s power.
So where’s the problem? Turns out that there aren’t enough power lines in place to move the power from West Texas, where there’s plenty of wind and not so many people, to the rest of the state, where people need it. The Public Utility Commission is considering a few plans to build more lines, which will cost between $3 and $6 billion.
This hiccup in wind power seems to have opened the door to critics, who are, not surprisingly, closely tied to companies that operate traditional, coal and natural gas plants. Why spend so much money now, they argue, for an unreliable energy source that tends to die down in the afternoon, right when it’s most needed?
To that I say, why continue to support outdated power technologies that depend on resources that will eventually be exhausted? And if we continue to pursue short-sighted policies like refusing to build the lines to connecting turbines to the places where the power is needed, it’s pretty much certain that we’ll use up our finite resources faster and will have no backup plan in place for when they are gone.
The state has enough turbines to generate about 5,000 megawatts, almost 3 percent of its needs, and has plans to expand to 9,000 megawatts by yearend and 15,000 megawatts within a few years. Experts say that the wide open spaces in West Texas get enough wind to one day produce about 30 percent of the state’s power.
So where’s the problem? Turns out that there aren’t enough power lines in place to move the power from West Texas, where there’s plenty of wind and not so many people, to the rest of the state, where people need it. The Public Utility Commission is considering a few plans to build more lines, which will cost between $3 and $6 billion.
This hiccup in wind power seems to have opened the door to critics, who are, not surprisingly, closely tied to companies that operate traditional, coal and natural gas plants. Why spend so much money now, they argue, for an unreliable energy source that tends to die down in the afternoon, right when it’s most needed?
To that I say, why continue to support outdated power technologies that depend on resources that will eventually be exhausted? And if we continue to pursue short-sighted policies like refusing to build the lines to connecting turbines to the places where the power is needed, it’s pretty much certain that we’ll use up our finite resources faster and will have no backup plan in place for when they are gone.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Leadership
I’ve seen two major public policy initiatives in the past week that made me hopeful, at first, and then pessimistic, yet again.
First the good news. The United Kingdom is making a huge push in wind power. It’s planning to spend $200 billion over the next decade to install thousands of wind turbines all over the country and offshore, as part of a long-term goal to produce 15 percent of its power from renewable resources by 2020.
The U.K. government is under no illusions that this will be an easy, or inexpensive, fix, yet it’s still willing to move forward. Business secretary John Hutton said “it is absolutely imperative that we take as much carbon as possible out of the way we generate energy… There is a cost in going green, I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But it will cost us if we don’t, because we have to factor in the climate change cost.”
That seem like real leadership, doing the right thing rather than the easy, or popular thing.
Now, for the reverse. Here in the U.S., the Bureau of Land Management is putting a freeze on all new solar energy projects.
The agency said it has received so many proposals to build solar projects on public land, more than 130 since 2005, that it has decided to stop accepting new proposals until it can conduct environmental impact reports on the ones already filed, which could take up to two years.
Solar companies have filed proposals for more than 130 projects on public land since 2005
Certainly it makes sense to be careful about installing large solar farms, but I find it hard to believe the agency couldn’t find enough people to fast-track these studies. Shutting down all development, at such a critical time for the alternative energy space, seems amazingly short-sighted. Which, I guess, is not such a huge surprise.
First the good news. The United Kingdom is making a huge push in wind power. It’s planning to spend $200 billion over the next decade to install thousands of wind turbines all over the country and offshore, as part of a long-term goal to produce 15 percent of its power from renewable resources by 2020.
The U.K. government is under no illusions that this will be an easy, or inexpensive, fix, yet it’s still willing to move forward. Business secretary John Hutton said “it is absolutely imperative that we take as much carbon as possible out of the way we generate energy… There is a cost in going green, I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But it will cost us if we don’t, because we have to factor in the climate change cost.”
That seem like real leadership, doing the right thing rather than the easy, or popular thing.
Now, for the reverse. Here in the U.S., the Bureau of Land Management is putting a freeze on all new solar energy projects.
The agency said it has received so many proposals to build solar projects on public land, more than 130 since 2005, that it has decided to stop accepting new proposals until it can conduct environmental impact reports on the ones already filed, which could take up to two years.
Solar companies have filed proposals for more than 130 projects on public land since 2005
Certainly it makes sense to be careful about installing large solar farms, but I find it hard to believe the agency couldn’t find enough people to fast-track these studies. Shutting down all development, at such a critical time for the alternative energy space, seems amazingly short-sighted. Which, I guess, is not such a huge surprise.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Unhappy Picture
We’re going to need a lot more power plants.
According to the Department of Energy, global demand for energy will increase by 50 percent over the next two decades. That’s a huge increase, and it seems even bigger when you compare it to population growth rate of about 1.14 percent per year (thanks Wikipedia). In other words, the Earth will have a few more people every year, and all of them will be using a lot more power.
And according to the report released this week, most of that power will continue to come from oil, coal and nuclear. There are so many reasons why this is depressing I just don’t know where to start.
First, global warming. Burning more fossil fuels will only make our problems on this front worse.
Then there’s supply and demand. Fossil fuels are finite resources. How much is left to be extracted? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else, but we can be certain we’ll eventually run out, and there are a lot of smart people who say the world’s oil cup is less than half-full now.
The report said that coal use will increase by about 2 percent per year, with China accounting for almost three-fourths of that, and oil consumption will increase by a third, to about 113 million barrels per day. I was in China several years ago and was surprised to see how many people relied on coal for cooking and heating; once I noticed that, I certainly wasn’t surprised to look up at the sky and see only a haze.
And the really bad news: renewable energy will increase by only 2.1 percent per year, and most of that will be hydro plants in developing countries.
Let’s recap: in 2008, global oil prices are going through the roof, the world is clamoring for alternatives, and there are plenty of people working hard on compelling wind, solar an other viable renewable sources. But over the next two decades, the Department of Energy sees nothing to indicate that alternative energy sources will make any significant gains. Am I the only person who thinks there’s something wrong with this picture?
According to the Department of Energy, global demand for energy will increase by 50 percent over the next two decades. That’s a huge increase, and it seems even bigger when you compare it to population growth rate of about 1.14 percent per year (thanks Wikipedia). In other words, the Earth will have a few more people every year, and all of them will be using a lot more power.
And according to the report released this week, most of that power will continue to come from oil, coal and nuclear. There are so many reasons why this is depressing I just don’t know where to start.
First, global warming. Burning more fossil fuels will only make our problems on this front worse.
Then there’s supply and demand. Fossil fuels are finite resources. How much is left to be extracted? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else, but we can be certain we’ll eventually run out, and there are a lot of smart people who say the world’s oil cup is less than half-full now.
The report said that coal use will increase by about 2 percent per year, with China accounting for almost three-fourths of that, and oil consumption will increase by a third, to about 113 million barrels per day. I was in China several years ago and was surprised to see how many people relied on coal for cooking and heating; once I noticed that, I certainly wasn’t surprised to look up at the sky and see only a haze.
And the really bad news: renewable energy will increase by only 2.1 percent per year, and most of that will be hydro plants in developing countries.
Let’s recap: in 2008, global oil prices are going through the roof, the world is clamoring for alternatives, and there are plenty of people working hard on compelling wind, solar an other viable renewable sources. But over the next two decades, the Department of Energy sees nothing to indicate that alternative energy sources will make any significant gains. Am I the only person who thinks there’s something wrong with this picture?
Friday, June 20, 2008
Out in the Wilderness
What if you built a huge power plant and then couldn’t connect it to the grid?
That’s apparently a growing problem for some alternative energy projects. Wind farms must be installed in places where the wind blows and there’s enough room for dozens, or hundreds of turbines. Solar installations also take up a lot of space.
As a result, many of these projects end up far from major cities, often in undeveloped areas, and sometimes close to wilderness areas. The issue is that these plants eventually need to be connected to power companies’ lines, which requires some pretty major wiring stretching out to the middle of nowhere.
San Diego Gas & Electric is facing heat over plans to build a huge solar/wind/geothermal plant in the middle of the Southern California desert, and then string power transmission lines back to the city, 150 miles away, including a 23-mile stretch cutting right through a popular state park.
A Southern California Edison executive sums up the conflict succinctly in an AP article. “It’s a trade-off. Clean energy requires building infrastructure in potentially sensitive areas. There’s no way around it.”
Environmentalists just don’t know what side to pick in this fight.
That’s apparently a growing problem for some alternative energy projects. Wind farms must be installed in places where the wind blows and there’s enough room for dozens, or hundreds of turbines. Solar installations also take up a lot of space.
As a result, many of these projects end up far from major cities, often in undeveloped areas, and sometimes close to wilderness areas. The issue is that these plants eventually need to be connected to power companies’ lines, which requires some pretty major wiring stretching out to the middle of nowhere.
San Diego Gas & Electric is facing heat over plans to build a huge solar/wind/geothermal plant in the middle of the Southern California desert, and then string power transmission lines back to the city, 150 miles away, including a 23-mile stretch cutting right through a popular state park.
A Southern California Edison executive sums up the conflict succinctly in an AP article. “It’s a trade-off. Clean energy requires building infrastructure in potentially sensitive areas. There’s no way around it.”
Environmentalists just don’t know what side to pick in this fight.
Chips and Solar
We’re seeing even more connections between the semiconductor industry, which has perfected the art of cost-effectively producing high-tech silicon devices, and the solar panel makers, which need to make their products more affordable.
The latest is IBM, which is one of the world’s leaders in chip-making technology and has also been quietly working on solar technology. Big Blue said this week it would work the Japanese tech company Tokyo Ohka Kogyo to develop a high-output solar cell manufacturing process, which the companies hope to have ready in about two to three years.
Most solar cells today are silicon, just like the vast majority of computer chips, but IBM is planning to use a different material, copper-indium-gallium-selenide. This technology exists now, but CIGS solar cells today typically are less effective than silicon, able to turn about 6 to 12 percent of the solar energy they absorb into electricity, compared to 20 for silicon.
IBM is shooting for 15 percent, which is an improvement for CIGS, but still short of silicon. However, the CIGS cells could offer other advantages, notably price, as silicon prices are on the rise, and weight. Tokyo Ohka Kogyo’s specialty is laying down thin films, and they hope to develop ultra-thin CIGS solar cells that would weigh less than thicker silicon, and could be installed in places where traditional solar panels cannot.
IBM also pointed out that CIGS technology is still developing, and there’s plenty of room for innovation. One researcher has produced CIGS cells with 19% efficiency, in a lab setting, which makes people optimistic that the technology could eventually reach parity with silicon, or even exceed it.
The latest is IBM, which is one of the world’s leaders in chip-making technology and has also been quietly working on solar technology. Big Blue said this week it would work the Japanese tech company Tokyo Ohka Kogyo to develop a high-output solar cell manufacturing process, which the companies hope to have ready in about two to three years.
Most solar cells today are silicon, just like the vast majority of computer chips, but IBM is planning to use a different material, copper-indium-gallium-selenide. This technology exists now, but CIGS solar cells today typically are less effective than silicon, able to turn about 6 to 12 percent of the solar energy they absorb into electricity, compared to 20 for silicon.
IBM is shooting for 15 percent, which is an improvement for CIGS, but still short of silicon. However, the CIGS cells could offer other advantages, notably price, as silicon prices are on the rise, and weight. Tokyo Ohka Kogyo’s specialty is laying down thin films, and they hope to develop ultra-thin CIGS solar cells that would weigh less than thicker silicon, and could be installed in places where traditional solar panels cannot.
IBM also pointed out that CIGS technology is still developing, and there’s plenty of room for innovation. One researcher has produced CIGS cells with 19% efficiency, in a lab setting, which makes people optimistic that the technology could eventually reach parity with silicon, or even exceed it.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Solar Factories
One of the big issues with solar power has always been cost; producing all those panels makes the up-front expense of a major solar project dauntingly huge. So I’m not surprised to see a growing link between the solar field and the semiconductor industry.
Chipmakers have always been way out in front when it comes to manufacturing technology. Sure, designing a microprocessor is tough work, but that’s only half the job. The other part of the business, which doesn’t get nearly as much attention, is the chip factory where some of the world’s most complicated products are mass-produced. Designing a cost-effective method for turning out products with features that approach the atomic level comes close to a dark art, so if any field can figure out how to make photovoltaic cells affordable, it’s going to be the chip guys.
Today I heard that Intel Corp. is spinning off a solar start-up unit it’s been incubating, SpectraWatt Inc., which will begin building its own advanced production site later this year. Intel noted that the cost of producing electricity with solar power is about twice that of conventional methods, but the advanced solar technologies it is working on could eventually make solar comparable in cost.
And another chip company, Cypress Semiconductor, owns a majority stake in the solar cell company SunPower Corp., and is developing ways to produce the cells in its chip factories. Cypress CEO T.J. Rodgers has said that producing solar cells in a chip plant offers better returns that all but the most advanced microchip designs, and that his own company will probably be better known for solar technology than chips in a few years. The long-term goal, according to SunPower, is to halve the cost of turning out solar cells by 2012.
I wonder if Moore’s Law, the famous observation that the processing power on a chip will double every 18 months or so, has a corollary for the solar market.
Chipmakers have always been way out in front when it comes to manufacturing technology. Sure, designing a microprocessor is tough work, but that’s only half the job. The other part of the business, which doesn’t get nearly as much attention, is the chip factory where some of the world’s most complicated products are mass-produced. Designing a cost-effective method for turning out products with features that approach the atomic level comes close to a dark art, so if any field can figure out how to make photovoltaic cells affordable, it’s going to be the chip guys.
Today I heard that Intel Corp. is spinning off a solar start-up unit it’s been incubating, SpectraWatt Inc., which will begin building its own advanced production site later this year. Intel noted that the cost of producing electricity with solar power is about twice that of conventional methods, but the advanced solar technologies it is working on could eventually make solar comparable in cost.
And another chip company, Cypress Semiconductor, owns a majority stake in the solar cell company SunPower Corp., and is developing ways to produce the cells in its chip factories. Cypress CEO T.J. Rodgers has said that producing solar cells in a chip plant offers better returns that all but the most advanced microchip designs, and that his own company will probably be better known for solar technology than chips in a few years. The long-term goal, according to SunPower, is to halve the cost of turning out solar cells by 2012.
I wonder if Moore’s Law, the famous observation that the processing power on a chip will double every 18 months or so, has a corollary for the solar market.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Look, up in the air!
We’ve written about algae before, and now it seems like the goop is really gaining some traction in the biofuels world, and especially in aviation.
It’s no secret that airlines have been struggling for the past several years, and the skyrocketing cost of fuel is only making things worse, so it’s encouraging to see several aircraft companies taking the lead in promoting biofuels.
In February, Virgin Atlantic was the first to get biofuels into the air, testing a Boeing 747 running partly on fuel made from coconut and babassu oil, and Air New Zealand said last week it plans to test biofuels later this year. The carrier expects that 10 percent of its fuel needs will come from biofuels by 2013, replacing about a million barrels of jet fuel.
But most of the excitement in the air comes from algae. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, JetBlue and Airbus have all said they are developing planes that will run on algae-fuel, and the concept got a huge boost last month from Boeing.
The aircraft giant is one of the main backers of a new group, the Algal Biomass Organization, dedicated to commercializing algae as a source of fuel. In fact, it’s the only major company represented on the group’s steering committee; the rest are all academics, scientists, consultants and investors.
There are plenty of plusses to algae: it grows quickly, consumes little water, and can be produced almost anywhere, so it does not compete with food crops. Oh, and as it grows, it can be used to clean the gunk out of polluted water and suck carbon dioxide and other green house gases out of the air. This keeps getting better and better.
According to Billy Glover, Boeing’s managing director for environmental strategy and one of the co-chairs of the Algal Biomass Organization’s steering committee, “Boeing recognizes that algae biomass holds tremendous potential for use as jet fuel, and it fits into our plan to guide aviation toward commercially viable and sustainable fuel sources – fuels with substantially smaller greenhouse gas footprints that do not compete with food or require unacceptable quantities of land and fresh water resources.”
It’s no secret that airlines have been struggling for the past several years, and the skyrocketing cost of fuel is only making things worse, so it’s encouraging to see several aircraft companies taking the lead in promoting biofuels.
In February, Virgin Atlantic was the first to get biofuels into the air, testing a Boeing 747 running partly on fuel made from coconut and babassu oil, and Air New Zealand said last week it plans to test biofuels later this year. The carrier expects that 10 percent of its fuel needs will come from biofuels by 2013, replacing about a million barrels of jet fuel.
But most of the excitement in the air comes from algae. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, JetBlue and Airbus have all said they are developing planes that will run on algae-fuel, and the concept got a huge boost last month from Boeing.
The aircraft giant is one of the main backers of a new group, the Algal Biomass Organization, dedicated to commercializing algae as a source of fuel. In fact, it’s the only major company represented on the group’s steering committee; the rest are all academics, scientists, consultants and investors.
There are plenty of plusses to algae: it grows quickly, consumes little water, and can be produced almost anywhere, so it does not compete with food crops. Oh, and as it grows, it can be used to clean the gunk out of polluted water and suck carbon dioxide and other green house gases out of the air. This keeps getting better and better.
According to Billy Glover, Boeing’s managing director for environmental strategy and one of the co-chairs of the Algal Biomass Organization’s steering committee, “Boeing recognizes that algae biomass holds tremendous potential for use as jet fuel, and it fits into our plan to guide aviation toward commercially viable and sustainable fuel sources – fuels with substantially smaller greenhouse gas footprints that do not compete with food or require unacceptable quantities of land and fresh water resources.”
Friday, June 6, 2008
Renewables Reality Check
First, the good news. The United States invested in $9 billion in wind energy in 2007, and generating capacity increased by 46%, the world’s fastest growth rate for the third consecutive year.
Those figures, released this week by the U.S. Department of Energy, also show that wind projects accounted for 35% of all new electrical generation capacity last year, and there is more than 200 GW of wind plants currently in development.
Those figures all sound impressive, so here’s the reality check. Only 1.2% of U.S. electricity supplies were from wind at the end of 2007.
For perspective, several countries in Europe get a major chunk of their power from renewable sources. In Sweden, the region’s top producer of green power, the figure is 40%, and they hope to boost that to 49% by 2020. Latvia generates 35% of its power with renewables now, and expects to reach 42% by 2020.
And Portugal, which generates 21% of its power from renewable sources, has set out on an ambitious path. The world’s largest solar plant is currently under construction there, a 45 MW project that will be about twice the size of the biggest solar farms now, and Portugal’s economics minister Manuel Pinho, recently issued what amounts to a green energy declaration of independence.
“We have to reduce our dependence on oil and gas. What seemed extravagant in 2004 when we decided to go for renewables now seems to have been a very good decision,” he said.
“When you have a program like this, there is no need for nuclear power. Wind and water are our nuclear power. The relative price of renewables is now much lower, so the incentives are there to invest. My advice to countries like the U.K. is to move as fast as they can to renewables. With climate change and the increase in oil prices, renewables will soon become more and more important.”
And though he didn’t mention us by name, I’m pretty sure his advice would apply to the United States as well.
Those figures, released this week by the U.S. Department of Energy, also show that wind projects accounted for 35% of all new electrical generation capacity last year, and there is more than 200 GW of wind plants currently in development.
Those figures all sound impressive, so here’s the reality check. Only 1.2% of U.S. electricity supplies were from wind at the end of 2007.
For perspective, several countries in Europe get a major chunk of their power from renewable sources. In Sweden, the region’s top producer of green power, the figure is 40%, and they hope to boost that to 49% by 2020. Latvia generates 35% of its power with renewables now, and expects to reach 42% by 2020.
And Portugal, which generates 21% of its power from renewable sources, has set out on an ambitious path. The world’s largest solar plant is currently under construction there, a 45 MW project that will be about twice the size of the biggest solar farms now, and Portugal’s economics minister Manuel Pinho, recently issued what amounts to a green energy declaration of independence.
“We have to reduce our dependence on oil and gas. What seemed extravagant in 2004 when we decided to go for renewables now seems to have been a very good decision,” he said.
“When you have a program like this, there is no need for nuclear power. Wind and water are our nuclear power. The relative price of renewables is now much lower, so the incentives are there to invest. My advice to countries like the U.K. is to move as fast as they can to renewables. With climate change and the increase in oil prices, renewables will soon become more and more important.”
And though he didn’t mention us by name, I’m pretty sure his advice would apply to the United States as well.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Paying Our Share
Two-and-a-half cents.
That’s how much it will cost me to put my money where my mouth is, according to ConEd, the utility that supplies New York with electricity. ConEd recently sent out a brochure offering to deliver only wind-generated power to my apartment, for the nominal fee of an additions 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
ConEd helpfully points out that 60,000 other households have already done so (making me feel even more like the eco-villain if I decline), and that for the average customer, switching to wind power is the equivalent of not driving 5,763 miles when it comes to generating carbon emissions.
Certainly a few pennies doesn’t sound like much, though the figure seems much higher when you consider that ConEd says that will raise the average New Yorker's electric bill by about 10%. Am I willing to pay 10% more per month to support wind power? To be honest, I’m not sure.
What I find interesting about this offer is the completely shameless way that ConEd is trying to pass the buck to its customers. Does it really cost them more to produce wind power? Well, the wind is free, but installing turbines involves a significant upfront investment.
But contrast that with the expense of running a hydro plant, or a nuclear plant, or even a coal-powered generator. Lots of labor, lots of safety equipment, and (except for hydro), plenty of raw materials. I have to wonder how much utilities spend purchasing coal.
To be sure, green energy is part of an eco-friendly lifestyle, and I am willing to pay my fair share. And that’s exactly the point that ConEd’s brochure wants to drives home: “Together, we can make a difference,” wrote Peter Blom, their manager for renewable energy services.
But what happens when my 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, finally pays off its investment in turbines? Is ConEd really going to pass that on to consumers as well, by reducing their rates?
That’s how much it will cost me to put my money where my mouth is, according to ConEd, the utility that supplies New York with electricity. ConEd recently sent out a brochure offering to deliver only wind-generated power to my apartment, for the nominal fee of an additions 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
ConEd helpfully points out that 60,000 other households have already done so (making me feel even more like the eco-villain if I decline), and that for the average customer, switching to wind power is the equivalent of not driving 5,763 miles when it comes to generating carbon emissions.
Certainly a few pennies doesn’t sound like much, though the figure seems much higher when you consider that ConEd says that will raise the average New Yorker's electric bill by about 10%. Am I willing to pay 10% more per month to support wind power? To be honest, I’m not sure.
What I find interesting about this offer is the completely shameless way that ConEd is trying to pass the buck to its customers. Does it really cost them more to produce wind power? Well, the wind is free, but installing turbines involves a significant upfront investment.
But contrast that with the expense of running a hydro plant, or a nuclear plant, or even a coal-powered generator. Lots of labor, lots of safety equipment, and (except for hydro), plenty of raw materials. I have to wonder how much utilities spend purchasing coal.
To be sure, green energy is part of an eco-friendly lifestyle, and I am willing to pay my fair share. And that’s exactly the point that ConEd’s brochure wants to drives home: “Together, we can make a difference,” wrote Peter Blom, their manager for renewable energy services.
But what happens when my 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, finally pays off its investment in turbines? Is ConEd really going to pass that on to consumers as well, by reducing their rates?
Friday, May 30, 2008
BioTown USA
BioTown USA, also known as Reynolds, Ind., is getting ready to build a power plant that will convert cow manure into electricity, another step on its bumpy path to becoming the country’s first community to run completely on renewable energy.
It’s a noble goal, though the town has had trouble turning this vision into reality. It’s a flyspeck of a town, with a population just a bit more than 500, and according to one report, about a third are using Ethanol in their cars.
But the town took a major step back towards the grid in October, when a major refiner, VeraSun, suspended construction on a Ethanol plant in Reynolds, saying that prices for the fuel were too low to justify adding the production capacity.
Yes, gas prices are skyrocketing, but that hasn’t translated to the Ethanol market, where everyone apparently had the same idea, and increased their own production, driving up supplies and driving down prices. It certainly doesn’t help that increased production has also driven up the price of corn, further hindering manufacturers, and also contributing to global inflation for basic food products.
But back to BioTown. The community is clearing ground for an anaerobic digester, a machine that basically lets microorganisms eat poop, and in the process creating methane, which can be converted into electricity. The farming has always had a plentiful supply of manure, so this project is a two-fer, combining waste disposal with renewable energy.
Here’s the big question: can BioTown serve as model for the rest of the country? That remains to be seen. First, it’s not at all clear that the community can actually achieve its goal of meeting all of its energy needs with renewable sources. And second, even if it can, I wonder whether that model can scale upwards to support larger cities, or even if it can be exported at all. I know there aren’t many cows in my neighborhood (though there may be other sources of organic waste). Still, it’s heartening to see people making the effort, and I’ll be watching out for future BioTown developments.
It’s a noble goal, though the town has had trouble turning this vision into reality. It’s a flyspeck of a town, with a population just a bit more than 500, and according to one report, about a third are using Ethanol in their cars.
But the town took a major step back towards the grid in October, when a major refiner, VeraSun, suspended construction on a Ethanol plant in Reynolds, saying that prices for the fuel were too low to justify adding the production capacity.
Yes, gas prices are skyrocketing, but that hasn’t translated to the Ethanol market, where everyone apparently had the same idea, and increased their own production, driving up supplies and driving down prices. It certainly doesn’t help that increased production has also driven up the price of corn, further hindering manufacturers, and also contributing to global inflation for basic food products.
But back to BioTown. The community is clearing ground for an anaerobic digester, a machine that basically lets microorganisms eat poop, and in the process creating methane, which can be converted into electricity. The farming has always had a plentiful supply of manure, so this project is a two-fer, combining waste disposal with renewable energy.
Here’s the big question: can BioTown serve as model for the rest of the country? That remains to be seen. First, it’s not at all clear that the community can actually achieve its goal of meeting all of its energy needs with renewable sources. And second, even if it can, I wonder whether that model can scale upwards to support larger cities, or even if it can be exported at all. I know there aren’t many cows in my neighborhood (though there may be other sources of organic waste). Still, it’s heartening to see people making the effort, and I’ll be watching out for future BioTown developments.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Better Tax Policies
Gas prices are still on the rise, and I’m pleased to see Congress trying to do something that demonstrates more long-term vision than cutting the gasoline tax and encouraging people to drive, and consume, more.
Here’s a quick recap of current policies on the agenda in Washington. Last week, Congress approved a huge farm bill (actually, they voted to override a veto – take that, Mr. Bush!), which includes a production tax credit of a penny per gallon for biofuels derived from cellulose. The same bill also cut the tax credit for standard, corn-based ethanol by 6 cents, to 45 cents per gallon.
I like both of these policies, and I like it even more that they were packaged together. A year ago, gas was expensive and ethanol was hailed as the energy industry’s savior. Today, gas is even more costly, but so are corn, rice, bread and many other basic food products. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that farmers will sell their crops for energy production instead of food if it means they’ll make more money, and the higher price of gasoline has led to a surge in demand for ethanol. The crazy inflation at the supermarket this year was something that could have been easily predicted.
That’s why cellulosic fuels, which can be made from wood chips, switch grass, and many other plants that people don’t eat, are a very promising alternative. These two tax policies encourage people to develop energy sources made from crops that can be converted into fuel, without putting a dent in our dinner plate.
And in other encouraging news, lawmakers seem to have little interest in approving the gas-tax holiday that the presidential candidates have touted.
Here’s a quick recap of current policies on the agenda in Washington. Last week, Congress approved a huge farm bill (actually, they voted to override a veto – take that, Mr. Bush!), which includes a production tax credit of a penny per gallon for biofuels derived from cellulose. The same bill also cut the tax credit for standard, corn-based ethanol by 6 cents, to 45 cents per gallon.
I like both of these policies, and I like it even more that they were packaged together. A year ago, gas was expensive and ethanol was hailed as the energy industry’s savior. Today, gas is even more costly, but so are corn, rice, bread and many other basic food products. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that farmers will sell their crops for energy production instead of food if it means they’ll make more money, and the higher price of gasoline has led to a surge in demand for ethanol. The crazy inflation at the supermarket this year was something that could have been easily predicted.
That’s why cellulosic fuels, which can be made from wood chips, switch grass, and many other plants that people don’t eat, are a very promising alternative. These two tax policies encourage people to develop energy sources made from crops that can be converted into fuel, without putting a dent in our dinner plate.
And in other encouraging news, lawmakers seem to have little interest in approving the gas-tax holiday that the presidential candidates have touted.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Wise Tax Policy – Not!
I’ve been thinking lately about the gas tax – the one that both John McCain and Hillary Clinton want to waive during the summer when Americans (read: voters) hit the roads on vacation. It’s about 18 cents a gallon, and getting rid of it is something that would be immediately noticeable to anyone (read: voters).
Most people think of taxes as a way for the government to generate revenue, which they are. But taxes have another purpose, to steer behavior. The state imposes fees on things they want to discourage. Case in point: the well-publicized congestion pricing plan in New York, which may or may not be completely dead. To limit traffic, the city proposed a fee for people entering Manhattan by car. If they really want to drive in New York, they’ll be willing to pay for the privilege, or so the theory goes. And if they don’t want to pay the fee, they’ll take public transportation, which is exactly what the city wanted.
So apply that logic to the gas tax. If we really want to encourage people to be mindful about their driving habits, if we really want to encourage the auto industry to produce fuel-efficient vehicles, then we shouldn’t be getting rid of the gas tax, we should be RAISING it! Making people vote with their wallets will make them think twice about what’s really important, but making gas cheaper will just make people drive more.
And what kind of message does it send to waive the tax? I guess that people running for president don’t really care about the environment nearly as much as they care about making people (read: voters) happy. At least in the short term.
Because in the long term, it seems pretty clear that expensive oil will be with us for a while, and we need some really smart alternative energy ideas to make sure that gas and other forms of power remain reasonably affordable. And lowering taxes on gas – that’s not a smart idea.
Most people think of taxes as a way for the government to generate revenue, which they are. But taxes have another purpose, to steer behavior. The state imposes fees on things they want to discourage. Case in point: the well-publicized congestion pricing plan in New York, which may or may not be completely dead. To limit traffic, the city proposed a fee for people entering Manhattan by car. If they really want to drive in New York, they’ll be willing to pay for the privilege, or so the theory goes. And if they don’t want to pay the fee, they’ll take public transportation, which is exactly what the city wanted.
So apply that logic to the gas tax. If we really want to encourage people to be mindful about their driving habits, if we really want to encourage the auto industry to produce fuel-efficient vehicles, then we shouldn’t be getting rid of the gas tax, we should be RAISING it! Making people vote with their wallets will make them think twice about what’s really important, but making gas cheaper will just make people drive more.
And what kind of message does it send to waive the tax? I guess that people running for president don’t really care about the environment nearly as much as they care about making people (read: voters) happy. At least in the short term.
Because in the long term, it seems pretty clear that expensive oil will be with us for a while, and we need some really smart alternative energy ideas to make sure that gas and other forms of power remain reasonably affordable. And lowering taxes on gas – that’s not a smart idea.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Building Better Batteries
Though there are plenty of ways to create electricity from renewable sources, one of the problems with making them viable is making the power available whenever we need it.
Solar is great, during a bright, sunny day, but all those panels don’t do much good at night. And what are you going to do with all those wind turbines during a windless spell? Even if your solar parks and wind farms can put out more power than needed at peak output, there aren’t many options for storing the extra juice for a windless, rainy day.
Sure, there are batteries, but these aren’t very good for holding on power on an industrial scale. Plus they’re expensive and often packed full of some serious pollutants.
But in the past week, I’ve heard of two really cools ideas for doing exactly that: banking renewable energy. The first (covered in nice piece in the NYTimes Magazine by Clive Thompson) is the Iowa Stored Energy Park, a still-in-development project that will use wind turbines to generate electricity, which in turn powers a series of powerful air compressors. These force air down into the earth, into what is called a compressed air energy storage system. Think of it like a giant underground balloon.
When the wind dies down, simply let the air out of the balloon; any kid can tell you what happens when you let go of an inflated, untied balloon, right? But instead of propelling a little piece of latex across the room, the kinetic energy of air escaping from a CAES is heated, and used to power a turbine. The project sponsors say the stored air can power a pair of 134-megawatt turbines, generating enough electricity for 80,000 homes, anytime it’s needed.
The other idea is just as cool, but works with solar power. Solar cells can seem kind of mystical – just shine a light on that funky black panel and out comes electricity. It almost seems like producing power from nothing.
But sunlight isn’t just light, it’s heat. Really, what is the sun, but a giant exploding ball of hydrogen, right?
So several innovative companies are pushing solar thermal systems, which use lenses and mirrors to focus sunlight into super-hot beams of energy. There are a few different concepts in play here; one uses that energy to heat up a huge tank of molten salt, which can retain its temperature for hours. Another idea is to heat up miles of black piping, filled with a special fluid, again designed to retain that heat energy.
Both plans then take that stored heat energy to boil water into steam, which is used to power a steam turbine and produce electricity, whenever it is needed.
It’s like those gag gifts you can buy in Florida -- a can of genuine Florida sunshine -- except these projects are no joke; they really can store wind and solar power, and are no joke.
Solar is great, during a bright, sunny day, but all those panels don’t do much good at night. And what are you going to do with all those wind turbines during a windless spell? Even if your solar parks and wind farms can put out more power than needed at peak output, there aren’t many options for storing the extra juice for a windless, rainy day.
Sure, there are batteries, but these aren’t very good for holding on power on an industrial scale. Plus they’re expensive and often packed full of some serious pollutants.
But in the past week, I’ve heard of two really cools ideas for doing exactly that: banking renewable energy. The first (covered in nice piece in the NYTimes Magazine by Clive Thompson) is the Iowa Stored Energy Park, a still-in-development project that will use wind turbines to generate electricity, which in turn powers a series of powerful air compressors. These force air down into the earth, into what is called a compressed air energy storage system. Think of it like a giant underground balloon.
When the wind dies down, simply let the air out of the balloon; any kid can tell you what happens when you let go of an inflated, untied balloon, right? But instead of propelling a little piece of latex across the room, the kinetic energy of air escaping from a CAES is heated, and used to power a turbine. The project sponsors say the stored air can power a pair of 134-megawatt turbines, generating enough electricity for 80,000 homes, anytime it’s needed.
The other idea is just as cool, but works with solar power. Solar cells can seem kind of mystical – just shine a light on that funky black panel and out comes electricity. It almost seems like producing power from nothing.
But sunlight isn’t just light, it’s heat. Really, what is the sun, but a giant exploding ball of hydrogen, right?
So several innovative companies are pushing solar thermal systems, which use lenses and mirrors to focus sunlight into super-hot beams of energy. There are a few different concepts in play here; one uses that energy to heat up a huge tank of molten salt, which can retain its temperature for hours. Another idea is to heat up miles of black piping, filled with a special fluid, again designed to retain that heat energy.
Both plans then take that stored heat energy to boil water into steam, which is used to power a steam turbine and produce electricity, whenever it is needed.
It’s like those gag gifts you can buy in Florida -- a can of genuine Florida sunshine -- except these projects are no joke; they really can store wind and solar power, and are no joke.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Bad Corporate Citizen
I admit it. I fell for the spin.
Last year I posted an item praising Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for its green strategy. The retailer has built a few stores using all sorts of energy-saving designs, and is pushing suppliers to use eco-friendly packaging, and I went out on a limb to say the company was demonstrating a long-term vision tied to the bottom line, exactly the kind of business decision that can make alt-energy policies viable.
Turns out it was mostly hype.
At the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference last month, Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott Jr. all but admitted that the whole point of his company’s green push is mostly hype. “We are not green,” he said.
And despite its efforts to use alt-energy at a few stores, the company’s overall carbon emissions continue to climb, and Mr. Scott said that is unlikely to change since growing the company is his top priority, and other factors, like alternative energy, promoting the environment, saving the world, etc., are less important.
The best part: one conference attendee asked him when, if ever, Wal-Mart might meet its stated goal of eliminating waste and using only renewable energy. “I haven’t a clue,” Mr. Scott answered.
At least he was being honest.
As for me, I guess I can go back to trusting my gut instincts when multinational corporations try to claim they are doing good.
Last year I posted an item praising Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for its green strategy. The retailer has built a few stores using all sorts of energy-saving designs, and is pushing suppliers to use eco-friendly packaging, and I went out on a limb to say the company was demonstrating a long-term vision tied to the bottom line, exactly the kind of business decision that can make alt-energy policies viable.
Turns out it was mostly hype.
At the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference last month, Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott Jr. all but admitted that the whole point of his company’s green push is mostly hype. “We are not green,” he said.
And despite its efforts to use alt-energy at a few stores, the company’s overall carbon emissions continue to climb, and Mr. Scott said that is unlikely to change since growing the company is his top priority, and other factors, like alternative energy, promoting the environment, saving the world, etc., are less important.
The best part: one conference attendee asked him when, if ever, Wal-Mart might meet its stated goal of eliminating waste and using only renewable energy. “I haven’t a clue,” Mr. Scott answered.
At least he was being honest.
As for me, I guess I can go back to trusting my gut instincts when multinational corporations try to claim they are doing good.
Monday, March 31, 2008
River Power
Not that we needed it, but here’s another reason to be impressed with the creative thinking of chemists: the chemical reactions that occurs when fresh water in rivers runs into salty sea water could one day become a viable commercial power source.
Two European projects, in Holland and Norway, are testing systems to capture the energy released in estuaries, and though the concept is still in the very early stages, they estimate that the world’s estuaries could, in theory at least, put out enough power to meet 20 percent of the word’s electricity needs.
The basic idea is that when fresh water meets more concentrated salt water, the salt water, which is more concentrated, sucks in the fresh water as the two types of liquid seek equilibrium. In the process, the water becomes warmer, by about 0.1 degree C, and as we know, changing temperature requires power.
The two projects are both using specialized membranes to convert that temperature change into electricity, but with slight variations. The Dutch project captures salt particles in the process, and the salt crystals produce electrical current. The Norwegian one is trying to harness the physical force as the salt water sucks the fresh through the membrane; one researcher said the energy is comparable to the kinetic energy produced by water falling 270 meters.
Of course, there are plenty of complications, not the least of which is protecting a delicate membrane that stretches for acres and is vulnerable to tears and pollution. Oh, and one more thing. The membranes being tested are based on ones used in commercial desalination plants, which convert sea water to drinking water, But there isn’t really any design available that could be used in a commercial power plant, and there probably won’t be one available for a decade or more.
Still, I love the creative thinking that goes into finding new ways to harness the always-changing earth. And, let’s not forget that while the sun only shines in the daytime, and wind only blows when it wants to, the rivers and the tides never stop.
Two European projects, in Holland and Norway, are testing systems to capture the energy released in estuaries, and though the concept is still in the very early stages, they estimate that the world’s estuaries could, in theory at least, put out enough power to meet 20 percent of the word’s electricity needs.
The basic idea is that when fresh water meets more concentrated salt water, the salt water, which is more concentrated, sucks in the fresh water as the two types of liquid seek equilibrium. In the process, the water becomes warmer, by about 0.1 degree C, and as we know, changing temperature requires power.
The two projects are both using specialized membranes to convert that temperature change into electricity, but with slight variations. The Dutch project captures salt particles in the process, and the salt crystals produce electrical current. The Norwegian one is trying to harness the physical force as the salt water sucks the fresh through the membrane; one researcher said the energy is comparable to the kinetic energy produced by water falling 270 meters.
Of course, there are plenty of complications, not the least of which is protecting a delicate membrane that stretches for acres and is vulnerable to tears and pollution. Oh, and one more thing. The membranes being tested are based on ones used in commercial desalination plants, which convert sea water to drinking water, But there isn’t really any design available that could be used in a commercial power plant, and there probably won’t be one available for a decade or more.
Still, I love the creative thinking that goes into finding new ways to harness the always-changing earth. And, let’s not forget that while the sun only shines in the daytime, and wind only blows when it wants to, the rivers and the tides never stop.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Making Wave Power a Reality
Here’s a quick update on tidal power.
Looks like PG&E is willing to place a bet on this emerging source of power. The California utility said last month that it would purchase power from a Canadian company that is trying to build the first U.S. commercial power plant that would transform the movement of the sea into electricity.
Finavera hopes to park eight power buoys about 2.5 miles offshore from Eureka, Calif. The so-called “wave park” is expected to be complete in 2012, and the project should put out about 2 megawatts, enough to power 1,500 homes.
But first, there are a few hoops for Finavera to jump through. First, it needs to line up enough financing for the project; having lined up PG&E as a customer will certainly help.
More importantly, the company has to perfect its AquaBuoy technology. The basic concept is fairly straightforward. The cylindrical buoys float upright in the water. A few feet stick out, but most of the device is underwater. As it rises and falls with the waves, the motion drives an internal pump that forces water through a turbine. The kinetic energy of the moving turbine is then converted into electricity and delivered to shore through an underwater cable.
Sounds simple, but there’s a lot of work involved in making this work. An earlier prototype that was deployed off the Oregon coast sunk last year. The company still doesn’t know why, and the waterlogged AquaBuoy remains on the ocean floor.
Looks like PG&E is willing to place a bet on this emerging source of power. The California utility said last month that it would purchase power from a Canadian company that is trying to build the first U.S. commercial power plant that would transform the movement of the sea into electricity.
Finavera hopes to park eight power buoys about 2.5 miles offshore from Eureka, Calif. The so-called “wave park” is expected to be complete in 2012, and the project should put out about 2 megawatts, enough to power 1,500 homes.
But first, there are a few hoops for Finavera to jump through. First, it needs to line up enough financing for the project; having lined up PG&E as a customer will certainly help.
More importantly, the company has to perfect its AquaBuoy technology. The basic concept is fairly straightforward. The cylindrical buoys float upright in the water. A few feet stick out, but most of the device is underwater. As it rises and falls with the waves, the motion drives an internal pump that forces water through a turbine. The kinetic energy of the moving turbine is then converted into electricity and delivered to shore through an underwater cable.
Sounds simple, but there’s a lot of work involved in making this work. An earlier prototype that was deployed off the Oregon coast sunk last year. The company still doesn’t know why, and the waterlogged AquaBuoy remains on the ocean floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)