8 posts tagged “alternative energy”

Audio Podcast here
San Francisco -
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to submerge giant turbines below the waters of the Golden Gate Bridge as a way to generate energy for the city, despite a study that recently concluded the idea would cost tens of millions of dollars and is not financially feasible.

Newsom, however, said the findings won't deter him from pushing ahead with the idea. On Tuesday, he said, "I am going to find a way to make it happen.

"I'm committed to it and am going to fight for it," Newsom said. "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it."

"It got a lot of attention and excited lots of folks, and while we're not going to give up on it altogether, we will turn our resources and attention to potentially more productive renewable resources," said San Francisco PUC spokesman Tony Winnicker.

The mayor's push to drop turbines below the bridge became part of a controversy surrounding the high-profile firing of San Francisco PUC General Manager Susan Leal, who said she backed away from the proposal when she received the results of the study commissioned by her agency.

"We're going from thinking this is an incredibly great site based on one study to believing that we're not one of the top 10 sites in the world" for tidal power, said Jared Blumenfeld, director of San Francisco's Department of the Environment. "We're actually maybe one of the top 100 sites in the world."

If officials eventually decide to submerge turbines in the bay, the hilly underwater topography in an area east of the Golden Gate Bridge, near the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito, makes for the best location, the study found.

A long list of state and federal agencies would have to approve any plan to install such tidal turbines. This is were projects always seems to get hung up.

San Francisco isn't alone in its interest in tidal power. Alaska, Washington state and Nova Scotia also have explored the idea.

NewYork -

The first of six underwater turbines has been anchored 10 metres deep in New York's East River between Manhattan and Queens. Soon a further five similar underwater turbine generators will be installed at the same location generating 150-200kW of electricity destined to meet 50% of the needs of a nearby Gristedes supermarket. On December 31st 2006 electricity was generated and used from the first turbine.

The flow of the water caused by the tides turn the 5-metre diameter turbine blades at around 30 rpm 18 hours a day silently, out of sight, and without risk to marine life. These 5-metre tall turbines, part of a demonstration project by Verdant Power, will eventually form part of the world's first kinetic hydropower plant, a $20 million 200 to 300 turbine farm with a total capacity of up to 10MW - enough to power 8,000 homes and cut annual CO2 emissions by 33,000 tonnes.

Thoughts on how mass support for a low carbon economy can transform the American economy in its wake.

July 25, 2008
Source: Clean Edge News

Solar, Inc. recently announced that it will build a 10 megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) power plant for Sempra Generation near Boulder City, Nevada. First Solar will design, engineer and construct the turnkey PV power plant and will provide monitoring and maintenance services for the plant over its lifetime. Sempra Generation will be the developer for the project, and will own and operate the PV power plant once completed. Construction began in July, and the 10 MW PV power plant is expected to be completed by the end of 2008. The solar modules to be deployed in this ground-mount project will be produced at First Solar's manufacturing facility in Perrysburg, Ohio.

"Sempra Generation has a proven track record for successful energy resource development and we are pleased to work with them to bring additional renewable electric generation to the region," said Mike Ahearn, chief executive officer of First Solar. The 10 MW PV power plant will be adjacent to Sempra Generation's existing El Dorado combined cycle natural gas plant. By co-locating this new PV power plant with existing infrastructure and the associated interconnection and transmission facilities, Sempra Generation will maximize their land and transmission. As a result, the impact to the immediate environment is minimal and the project completion timeline will be shorter. The PV power plant will serve customers in California and the Western United States.

"This new solar project is another step in Sempra Generation's long- range plan to emerge as a leading renewable-energy developer," said Michael W. Allman, president and chief executive officer of Sempra Generation. "The combination of Sempra Generation's experience in developing power-generation projects in the region with First Solar's expertise in advanced, thin-film photovoltaic solutions is a natural fit."

First Solar is the cost leader in the solar PV industry, driven by an advanced thin film semiconductor manufacturing process. At the end of 2007, over 300 MW of First Solar PV modules had been installed worldwide and First Solar expects to ship 420 to 460 MW of PV modules in 2008. Together with its project partners, First Solar modules have been deployed in several of the largest ground and rooftop PV power plants in the world.

We here at Future1investor firmly believe that solar and other viable alternative energy technologies is where our future should be focused. Not on oil and not on coal. Sure, coal and oil seem cheaper now, but only because we still have not exploited the possibilities and put our full support behind alternative energies.

For those who do not follow or quite understand what is going on...

This week, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke said that it will further extend cash to banks in financial trouble. It would also option setting up of a bridge bank to help failing commercial banks. This option would limit losses a bank would have to endure, prevent them from moral hazard (where as banks would not have to bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. Other parties left to bear the consequences would be the stockholders and creditors).

Pressure from other world leaders forced President George W. Bush to concede that there is a need for climate change actions. He agreed for the first time on Tuesday at the G8 Summit but the agreement was rather ridiculous perhaps.

The industrialized nations have set a goal of halving emissions by 2050. Will that be soon enough to prevent or even slow the course of the effects of climate change already happening? Here in the United States, it was the Bush administration who took over 1,000 water-ways off the clean water protection act. The reason can only be that it was to allow companies to pollute without consequence of the protection act.
 
Who are the key global CO2 emitters?

The people of the United States are #1 with 19.4 tons per person.
The people of Russia are #2 with 11.8 tons per person.
#3 Japan with 9.8 tons per person.
#4 European Union with 8.6 tons per person.
#5 China with 5.1 tons per person.
#6 Brazil with 2.0 tons per person.
#7 India with 1.8 tons per person.      Source: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

It may be possible to greatly curb emissions with mass support and resources for alternatives like wind, solar, geothermal, select biofuel, and other sensible solutions. Won't we as adults do something now rather than leave this to our children or our childrens' children?

Or some semblance of those words. This comes supposedly from one of our current leaders as I'm told. Well luckily every piece of actual evidence can not be destroyed. I found this at Reuters and Planet Ark. The pros of ethanol is left as is while the cons are highlighted in bold. Sorry about the underline. This article is in its entirety.

WASHINGTON - Supporters of ethanol like to describe it as a cleaner-burning fuel additive that helps keep the air clearer, but critics say its environmental drawbacks may outweigh some of the benefits.

While ethanol made from corn gives a boost to the incomes of American farmers, the alternative fuel poses complex trade-offs for US oil refiners, environmental groups and federal regulators trying to find cleaner gasoline to curb pollution.

"The short answer is ethanol is both good and bad for the environment," said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program.

Ethanol is in the spotlight because Congress and the administration of President George W. Bush are grappling with US energy problems, and supporters of ethanol tout the fuel as one of the solutions.

Unlike other fuel additives, ethanol does not contaminate ground water supplies but it produces more smog in some circumstances and tiny amounts of sulfur result when it is blended into gasoline.

"The benefits are that ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide when used in the winter time, but it increases smog when used in the summer," Becker said.

That's because a key drawback to ethanol is that it evaporates more quickly in certain conditions, which results in higher emissions of smog-forming compounds, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

When compared to conventional gasoline, ethanol yielded lower emissions of carbon monoxide than motor gasoline but higher emissions of nitrogen oxide that causes smog, EIA said.

"We are more concerned about solving the smog problem than about solving the carbon monoxide problem," Becker said.

Ethanol is a renewable resource that the Bush administration wants to help reduce US dependence on foreign oil imports. It also can raise octane in gasoline and prevent annoying engine "pings."

Ethanol is one of the main so-called "oxygenates" or oxygen booster added to reformulated gasoline to meet federal clean air requirements. The extra oxygen helps the fuel burn cleaner.

The Environmental Protection Agency requires most major US cities to use the cleaner-burning gasoline with more oxygen by weight during the hot summer months to reduce smog and air pollution.

Ethanol is the second most popular oxygen booster for fuel among refiners - ranking only behind MTBE, which is now used in almost 9 out of every 10 gallons of reformulated gasoline.

However, Ethanol use will soon soar now that a dozen states have decided to ban MTBE because that fuel additive can leak from underground storage tanks into drinking water supplies.

ETHANOL AND SULFUR PROBLEMS?

Separately, finished fuel-grade ethanol contains small amounts of sulfur, between 2 and 8 parts per million, to help distinguish it from drinkable alcohol, according to EIA.

This could become a problem for refiners when they begin meeting new federal low-sulfur requirements in a few years, EIA said. Beginning in 2006, the sulfur content of gasoline must be reduced to an average 30 parts per million.

In addition to environmental concerns, ethanol blended gasoline is more complicated to transport to markets.

The additive poses logistical problems because gasoline containing ethanol cannot be shipped in the nation's vast network of multi-fuel pipelines.

Moisture in pipelines and storage tanks causes ethanol to separate from gasoline.

As result, the petroleum-based gasoline components must be shipped separately to a terminal and then blended with the ethanol when the product is loaded into trucks.

Those higher shipping costs, which would likely be passed on to consumers, are a major reason California sought a federal waiver from having to use ethanol after the state banned MTBE.

The Bush administration denied the request last month, even though environmentalists insisted the White House decision would spew additional smog-forming pollution into the state's air.

"This will mean dirtier air and price hikes at the pumps in California," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust.

The ethanol industry defends the environmental benefits of its product.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the industry's trade group, acknowledged that when ethanol is blended with gasoline it slightly raises the volatility of the fuel that can lead to increased evaporation of smog-forming emissions.

However, blending ethanol reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions that are responsible for 20 percent of smog formation, the renewable fuels group said.

TRADE GROUP SAYS ETHANOL CUTS OZONE

In addition, ethanol-blended fuel cuts tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that form ozone in the atmosphere, according to the trade group.

"Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction," the association said.

However, some of ethanol's VOC reduction benefits have been scaled back.

Last week, the EPA finalized a rule allowing ethanol-blended gasoline sold in Chicago and Milwaukee to contain larger amounts of VOC pollutants.

The VOC standard was raised to 0.3 pounds per square inch Reid vapor pressure - a measurement of the volatility of fuel - from the previous 0.2 pounds. The EPA move was intended to reduce the cost of gasoline in the two cities, which depend almost exclusively on ethanol-blended motor fuel.

Environmentalists are also concerned over the amount of energy, and therefore the pollution, needed to make ethanol from processing corn.

The industry's trade group said ethanol generates more energy than used during production, and cites an 1996 Agriculture Department report that found ethanol contains 34 percent more energy that is used in the production process.

Story by Tom Doggett

Story Date: 16/7/2001

P.S.
Thats just 34 percent or barely over 1/3 more energy than that used to produce the product. So in other words, we must additionally continue to create a significant debilitating carbon footprint in the production of a product they are saying is better than say: electric vehicles or versus another bio-fuel which can produce far more energy than this from corn which produces only 34 percent.

So now that you've watched the documentary entitled "Who Killed the Electric Car?" guess what happened today?

The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative was re-announced today. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $130 million over three years, subject to Congressional appropriations, to advance the development and use of fuel cells for automotive, stationary, and portable power applications.

I'll make this as short as possible and instead of giving you my rant on the topic; I present reports from apparently reliable sources. But regardless, as in the Iraq war, when heavy research and experience has been reported to some of our key leaders, the research/reports have been ignored, joked about and/or ridiculed at great expense, consequence and death.

Title:		Environmental Impact of H2 from Hydrogen Fuel Cell on the Stratosphere
Authors:		Tromp, T. K.
Affiliation:		AA(California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 170-25, Pasadena, CA 91125 United States ; ttromp@dar.caltech.edu)
Publication:		American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #A72C-0192
Publication Date:		12/2002
Origin:		AGU
AGU Keywords:		0330 Geochemical cycles
Abstract Copyright:		(c) 2002: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:		2002AGUFM.A72C0192T

Abstract

Hydrogen fuel cell technology seems poised to replace the internal combustion engine in the upcoming decade. Environmentalists tout the technology as environmentally friendly and stress its low tailpipe emissions resulting in cleaner urban air. At face value the technology should have a negligible impact because the major byproduct is water. What has not been considered is that it will take billions of liters of H₂ to power the future national (and international) fleet of fuel-cell vehicles and that the leading contenders to make that H₂ are the very fossil fuels that cause smog and greenhouse gases. If that does happen, there will be two important consequences. First, the current fossil fuel pollutants will not disappear, rather they will be shifted from tailpipe sources to where the fossil fuels are extracted and the hydrogen is made. In addition, the fuel to make the cells work, H₂, is an important trace constituent (~0.5 ppmv) of the atmosphere [Novelli et al., 1999] and participates in reactions involving pollutants and greenhouse gases [Crutzen, 1977]. Thus, anthropogenic H₂ emissions could have significant indirect environmental consequences. The global annual H₂ production from current sources, anthropogenic plus natural, could be doubled in coming decades with the development of a hydrogen fuel economy [Zittel, 1996]. Such an increase could significantly impact the hydrogen cycle and other cycles with which it interacts in both the atmosphere and biosphere. We have examined the potential environmental impact of additional H₂ release for several emission scenarios. We calculated the ODP of H₂. Given that the oxidation of H₂ is an important source of water vapor in the stratosphere, which is otherwise isolated from direct sources of H₂O by the `cold trap' at the tropopause. We calculated what kind of elevated concentrations of stratospheric water vapor could occur for the different emission scenarios. Not only will additional water vapor cool the stratosphere, but also it will allow heterogeneous chemical reactions to occur when it forms PSCs in polar regions. H₂ also reacts with atmospheric OH radicals, the premier oxidant in the earth's atmosphere. We will calculate how increasing fluxes of H₂ to the atmosphere will shift the balance of the earth's oxidation chemistry, potentially increasing the lifetimes of other more harmful gases.

Until next time:
Nuff said!