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?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)