Category Archives: burn free generation

The End Of The Smokestack Age – The move to a sustainable future

Posted on by
Reply

The terms he uses are different. Man has always extracted things. A  good case can be made that for much of our species existence we have caused things to go extinct as well. We need to quit both. The human race could survive off our garbage dumps from here to eternity if we just made product loops that left no waste. That is if we treated everything and everybody for their intrinsic value.

That last sentence is a little shaky but that is because we live in a throw away culture.

http://steadystate.org/the-end-of-the-age-of-extraction/

The End of the Age of Extraction

by Brent Blackwelder

BlackwelderToday’s global economy is causing shortages of natural resources (both renewable and nonrenewable) as we come to the end of what might be called the Age of Extraction. A true cost, steady state economy, on the other hand, would prevent resource problems by maintaining population and resource consumption well within the carrying capacity of the planet.

Energy and mineral shortages, along with depletion of forests and fisheries, are driving the extractors and harvesters to evermore remote places. No longer able to find gushing oilfields, vast stands of virgin timber, or waterways teeming with fish, the extraction companies are racing to the farthest reaches of the planet in search of profits.

The end of the Age of Extraction does not mean that such resources will disappear. In his recent book, The Quest, Daniel Yergin describes oil and gas discoveries that he predicts will turn the Western Hemisphere — from Canada to Brazil — into the next Saudi Arabia. But today’s extraction is pursuing fuels that are either dirty or hard to get. We see more pollution, both from accidents and mundane chronic causes, increasingly pushing civilization beyond the carrying capacity of the earth, wiping out more and more species, and accelerating climate destabilization.

Today’s global economic operating system tolerates and even abets severe pollution damages as industries externalize the costs from their books. Scarcity has made some of the most environmentally devastating energy and mining projects “short-term cost effective.” For example, according to price and revenue figures, it’s cost effective to extract oil from tar sands in Alberta, a process that requires huge energy inputs, grotesquely contaminates land and water, and poisons people, fish, and wildlife.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

The OIL Drum goes offline – Does that mean that Peak Oil Theory is wrong?

Posted on by
Reply

That is a very interesting question. At one level is is just a case of a bad attribution. It would be like saying if Jane’s stopped publication then there are no airplanes. At another level, as all the authors say that were involved, they may have just run out of new and bright things to say. It could also be that with many other things predicting the END OF THE WORLD, when it never happens, the readers got bored. That several major religions have preached that for thousands of years and nobody has gotten bored yet would speak against that. I have always been skeptical about the doom and gloom nature of the blog itself but when the CIA and the Defense Department believe something then, you have to believe it has some credibility and really oil is a finite resource. So with deep water drilling and fracking we may just be buying time. Then there is global warming. Anyway I drivel on.

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/our-clean-energy-future.html

Aug 19

Our Clean Energy Future

Posted by Big Gav

Following on my recent post bidding Farewell to The Oil Drum, I’d like to have a look at what I view as our longer term future for energy production and consumption.

As noted in my previous post, for the time being the combination of unconventional oil extraction and the ramping up of extraction of natural gas (from both conventional and unconventional sources) has continued to push the point of peak oil production out into the future, defying the predictions of the more pessimistic peak oil observers. During this period we have seen a boom in the research and development of solutions to help us eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels, which I’ll explore in this post.

Solutions can be divided into 3 groups :

 

  • Renewable energy – solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hydro power, ocean energy and biomass derived power (including biofuels)
  • Distribution of renewable energy – energy storage and the electricity grid
  • Adopting alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels – electric transport, bioplastic, alternatives to fossil fuel based fertiliser and new models for manufacturing, construction and agriculture

 

Renewable Energy

The graphic below shows the energy available from renewable energy sources annually compared to global energy consumption. The numbers are intended to give a rough idea of relative scale – for any given energy source a wide range of estimates can be found in the literature so the numbers are indicative.

 

These numbers in some ways understate the amount of energy potentially available (ignoring solar power potential at sea or in space, for example, or wind power at high altitudes or far offshore, or geothermal power deep below the surface of the earth) but still serve the demonstrate that the renewable energy available to us is orders of magnitude larger than our current global energy consumption.

The contribution made by renewable energy to our energy needs is expected to exceed that made by gas (and double that made by nuclear power) by 2016, though progress needs to be accelerated if we wish to create a sustainable energy system.

Solar power

Solar power is the largest energy source available to us, dwarfing all other sources – renewable and non-renewable. Approximately 36,000 Terawatts of power could be captured by land based solar power generation – compared to current global energy use of around 16 TW. As a result, most of the plans floated for shifting to 100% renewable energy (examples include proposals by Mark Jacobson and Stuart Staniford and local plans for countries like Germany and Australia) rely primarily on solar power.

Solar power is not only the largest energy source available to us but it is also the fastest growing energy source, with solar power generation increasing by over 58% in 2012.

There are a number of options for harnessing solar power – power generation using solar photovoltaic (PV) cells and solar thermal arrays along with passive solar techniques such as solar hot water heaters.

I have been of the view that solar thermal power generation (also known as concentrating solar power or CSP) would become our most important source of power in the longer term. This view was based on a number of advantages that solar thermal possesses – it does not require rare or expensive materials (enabling it to scale without hitting resource limits), it can be built on (and is best suited to) arid land that has few other uses, it can incorporate energy storage (thus avoiding the intermittency issue), it is compatible with the existing centralised generation model and it can be combined with traditional sources of power generation (coal or gas) in hybrid power plants that allow an easy transition using existing connections to the electricity grid.

An area of desert around 250 km by 250 km covered with solar thermal power generation could supply all the world’s current electricity demand.

:}

Go there and read a really long article. More next week.

:}

British Government Bribes Home Owners For Wind – Payoffs to accept wind turbines

Posted on by
Reply

This is so bogus. Wind Farms are seen as a “burden” on the community so money is made available from the government to compensate individual households. I do not really know how dollars are changed into pounds but lets call it 70%. That would mean that any household in the US would be eligible for 650 $$$ per year for being near a wind farm. That amounts to what?  Redistribution of tax income or is this actually a subsidy? Hard to tell but here it is:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/33978

The government’s planned compensation to households near new wind-farm developments may not be enough

The government this week announced a plan to compensate households near new wind-farm developments to incentivise them to accept them. Steve Gibbons, discussing provisional findings from on-going research, suggests that the level of compensation may not cover the costs involved.

News yesterday morning suggests that communities near new wind-farm developments could be in for some form of compensation, through lower electricity prices or other payment schemes. The BBC reports that the compensation could be worth as much as £100,000 per community. This is probably welcome news for residents potentially affected by wind-farm developments, although provisional findings from on-going research suggests that this level of compensation may not cover the costs involved, in terms of environmental, health and other impacts. I find that an operational wind farm reduces housing prices by around 7% up to 5km from the wind farm site. Some rough calculations based on these estimates suggest that the implied social costs on the local community (within 5km) amounts to about £80 million per operational wind farm, or about £500 per household per year.

An extended (user friendly) abstract of the research follows below:

Renewable energy technology has potential global environmental benefits in terms of reduced CO2 emissions and slower depletion of natural energy resources. However, like most power generation and transmission infrastructure, the plant, access services and transmission equipment associated with renewable electricity generation may involve environmental costs. This is particularly so in the case of wind turbine developments, where the sites that are optimal in terms of energy efficiency are typically in rural, coastal and wilderness locations that offer many natural environmental amenities. These natural amenities include the aesthetic appeal of landscape, outdoor recreational opportunities and the existence values of wilderness habitats. In addition, for residents local to operational wind turbines have reported health effects related to noise and visual disturbances.

:}

They even site the old “health related issues” which have never been proven to exist. Go there and read. More next week.

:}

I Believe The Future Is Not Thorium – But many many people disagree

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote the following rant in response to a question from my stepson Gus. I did it the way I write emails, minues capital letters and punctuation. I may change that later but for now here it is.

as one of my professors used to say.. think about the question before you ask it because it will have an answer….so my first answer is that nuclear anything is an inappropriate use of technology and worse yet design….at least here on the earth…at least until the END…now in space that is another matter…as a small is beautiful person schumacher said that – building nuclear power plants is like using a firehose to knock an ant off your toilet seat…it would do it but it would trash the rest of the bathroom….

using commercial grade nuclear power plants to generate electricity are by their natures large and complex with many moving parts.. they were larely invented by scientists who had a hard on for large complex machine and the military who needed cover for their nuclear weapons program…so it really has no relation to the actual generation of electricity in the world and represents a valid dichotomy in intellectual thinking .. ie. large and central vs. separate and continuous … to me diffuse power systems make a lot of sense…1. they require far fewer power lines so transmission lose is reduced and 2. there is much less of a chance of an actual power failure…then there is the cost

finland is currently the most committed nuclear power plant builder…i know that sounds very weird but it is true and they are right next door to norway the home of the first commercial thorium nuclear test reactor…(what a great segue and a return to your real question)…finland’s last nuke was projected to cost 3 billion $$$ and it came in last year (5 years late) at 8 billion $$$…now understand findland kinda models the earth towards the end of our sun’s useful life…where nukes make sense…they gots no fuel besides wood and it is colder than hell there much of the year…(plus as a political side note they got russia as a neighbor.. big yuk) still it really makes no sense…

so if you can accept the facts of large complicate expensive energy systems and find the current nuclear ones to be dangerous then thorium salt generators may seem to hold promise…i would argue that if the usa was going to go nuclear in the 1950s this is the direction we should have gone…in fact oak ridge build 2 such reactors one, a straight salts burner (remember fission is just a large fire) and 2, a burner with a “mat”….they were quickly shut down because they did not involve highly concentrated uraniun and plutonium…so from that perspective thorium reactors are much safer…generate higher temperatures and generate much “safer” waste…

again for me we got the biggest nuke that we need in the SUN…usens puny humans caint do no betters…so i say we use that until it begins to fail and then use all the stuff we could burn then…unfortunately we have burned 1/2 of it already so we better stop quick….and for the record…contrary to the science fiction models…i do not believe we are going anywhere in this solar system anytime soon so to all the capitalists that have been treating this planet as disposable i say tsck tsck tsck….the billionaires currently have a huge hard on for mars…well they have not solved the radiation, speed and food problems yet let alone the fuel problems so i say have a go at it bloke…i will stand by the side and watch…remember that voyagers 1 and 2 where launched when i was a child and they are just now leaving the solar system…thought votes are still out as to whether they have yet or not…

 

BUT THEN THERE IS SOLAR:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/07/08/germanys-solar-industry-is-imploding/?partner=yahootix

Germany’s Solar Industry Is Imploding

William Pentland, Contributor

I write about energy and environmental issues.

:}

The title says it all. Go there and read. More next week

:}

 

 

Petersburg Is An Energy Producer – At the high school no less

Posted on by
Reply

This story makes me so proud.

http://business-news.thestreet.com/sj-r/story/petersburg-school-nominated-solar-energy-program/1

Petersburg school nominated for solar energy program

Dan Petrella 06/18/2013 – 11:22 PM EDT

PETERSBURG — The PORTA School District could soon add more solar power to its alternative energy portfolio.

Thanks to a wind turbine, solar panels and geothermal heating installed in 2009 at PORTA High School, the district has been saving about $350,000 a year in energy costs, School Superintendent Matt Brue said.

Now, a former student who works for Joule Solar Energy in New Orleans has nominated PORTA Central School for a program that aims to bring solar panels to schools through crowdfunding

Oakland, Calif.-based Mosaic offers an online platform for individuals to invest in solar projects.

When Bob O’Hara received an email from Mosaic saying that the company was looking for schools to work with, he thought of PORTA Central.

O’Hara, 29, attended PORTA schools through eighth grade before enrolling at Sacred Heart-Griffin High School in Springfield. He moved to New Orleans after graduating in 2002 to attend Tulane University, but he still visits his parents in Petersburg regularly.

He likes to check out the wind turbine at the high school on his visits and thought PORTA Central would be a good candidate for solar panels because of its long, south-facing roofline.

O’Hara said he also knows the district has been facing budget cuts due to dwindling state funding.

“One way to be able to invest in a school is to help them with their energy costs,” he said.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

220 Megs Of Solar Power – The revolution gains speed

Posted on by
Reply

I promised Emily Hois that I would link up with her organization, Solar Reviews, last week. Since I am only blogging once a week, it took awhile to honor her request.  So here it is. Great story about where the world is going.

http://www.solarreviews.com/blog/Report-Anticipates-220-Gigawatts-Distributed-Solar-by-2018-4-29-13/

Report Anticipates 220 new Gigawatts of Distributed Solar Generation by 2018

by Chris Meehan on 04/29/2013 in Alternative Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar Cells, Solar Energy, Solar Panels, Solar Power, Solar Rebates

A recent Navigant Research report anticipates that the world will add 220 new gigawatts of distributed solar photovoltaics by 2018 as solar comes into parity with other energy sources, creating $540.3 billion in revenue in the process. That’s a significant jump in the amount of solar that’s currently installed throughout world, which the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) said reached 100 gigawatts at the end of 2012.

In recent years, much of the growth in solar is attributable to the giant PV projects being installed to meet utility demand in certain markets. The Navigant report anticipates that just the distributed generation projects—or projects under 1 megawatt in

size—being installed over the next five years will more than double the world’s total solar capacity that’s now online. “Used in applications ranging from residential to small commercial

to industrial settings, distributed solar generation offers significant benefits to consumers while adding resiliency to an electric grid evolving beyond the traditional centralized model,” says Dexter Gauntlett, research analyst with Navigant Research. “Though this market is still primarily driven by government incentives, distributed solar PV will continue its steady march toward grid parity in major markets over the next few years.”

The report anticipates the solar market is transitioning from one that relies on a financial and engineering model based on the wants and needs of utilities to own or source electric generation from large projects to a more diverse model. Under the emerging model, both the sources of generation and the ownership of the generation assets will be more diverse, include third-party financing from companies like SolarCity and SunRun and other new financing mechanisms. These changes will partly be driven by some of distributed solar’s advantages, which include generating electricity onsite to offset the need to build new transmission capacity while avoiding line losses, according to Navigant.

:}

Go there and read. Plenty to see. More next week.

:}

Wind Farm Gets Blown Away – It is a classic shame

Posted on by
Reply

It is true. Not in my backyard is a syndrome that can be defused but you have to start early and you have to speak often and sincerely. Utility Executives just do not have the right touch and even when they care they hire bright shiny faces that lack any sense of truthfulness.

http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/02/26/new-england-offshore-wind-planning-offers-lessons-for-great-lakes/

New England offshore wind planning offers lessons for Great Lakes

Posted on by

When Scandia, a Norwegian wind company, announced its plans to install 200 turbines in Lake Michigan four miles from the tourist town of Ludington, Michigan, in 2009, they likely didn’t anticipate the controversy that would erupt.

After all, the project would be delivering domestically produced renewable energy to replace planet-warming fossil fuels. It would create local jobs installing and operating the turbines. A nearby pumped-hydro facility for storing backup energy sat in the nearby dunes, complete with substations and high-voltage lines they could use to move electricity from their offshore turbines to the grid.

“The developer thought, We’ll build wind farms out in Lake Michigan, hook up in Ludington, and everyone will be delighted,” recalled Arn Boezaart, director of the Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center at Grand Valley State University.

Instead, “they were basically run out of town,” Boezaart recalled.

Residents of this picturesque town were outraged about the prospects of scores of wind turbines ruining their view. Nobody had consulted them. And Michigan, like every other Great Lakes state, lacks even a rudimentary procedure for regulating offshore wind farms, without which there would be little opportunity for public hearings.

:}

Go there and read. More later.

:}

Renewables Cheapest Downunder – Australia is in a good position to kick coal

Posted on by
Reply

This is actually happening all around the world. During one day last year the Germans got all the power they used from renewables. All the old bullshit it turning into compost and will be forgotten.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/renewables-cheaper-than-coal-in-australia-a-preview-of-things-to-come/

Renewables cheaper than coal in Australia — a preview of things to come

By:

David Roberts

Energy, politics, and more

I’m morbidly fascinated by the way conventional wisdom lags behind evidence, like the notion that renewable energy is expensive and fossil fuels cheap. In fact, there is a tectonic shift underway. Renewable energy prices are declining as technology improves, economies of scale kick in, financing mechanisms mature, and public policy begins to take some (inadequate) account of the negative externalities of fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the cost of coal-fired electricity is heading up. It’s getting harder to finance coal plants in the face of competition from clean(er) energy, activist opposition, and the inevitability of some kind of carbon policy. Construction costs are rising. Transportation costs are rising. It’s getting harder to reach the coal that’s left in the ground. Etc.

The two lines — falling renewable energy costs and rising coal costs — are going to cross. It’ll happen everywhere eventually. According to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) analysis, it’s already happened down under: “Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia.”

:}

Go there and read. More later.

:}

Fusion By 2050 – Probably not but these are good folks to link to

Posted on by
Reply

I got my doubts that fusion will ever work. It is kinda like the God particle. If you do not build a machine big enough, you are never going to find it. The machine does not guarantee that you WILL find the god particle it just gives you a chance. The fusion machine is the same sort of thing. Will it work and will it supply excess power. Stay tuned.

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/01/17/fusion-electricity-to-become-part-of-european-grid-by-2050/#.UPmy2WejInd

Fusion Electricity to Become Part of European Grid by 2050

By: on January 17, 2013

A road map that indicates how the energy of the stars , or fusion energy, can be added to the European grid by year 2050, was released by the European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA).

Detaileded review of the current status of fusion research, identification of open issues and development of new programmes and research will be the most important factors leading to accomplishment of the goal.

Fusion energy has been long studied due to the fact that it is unlimited, safe and does not produce greenhouse gas emissions or radioactive waste. Current initiatives to produce fusion energy, however, have not been successful mainly because the amount of input energy has always been higher than the output.

In this respect, a new international experiment, ITER, is about to start operating in year 2020. It is funded by Europe and six other nations and it is expected to be the first project that will produce net surplus of fusion power.

Considering that China is already launching a programme that will supply fusion electricity by 2050, Europe will have to catch up by pursuing a pragmatic approach. According to Dr Francesco Romanelli, EFDA Leader, the road map indicates how this will happen at a reasonable cost

:}

Go there and read more. More later.

:}

Humana Goes Green – Thank god they finally get it

Posted on by
Reply

But this should have happened 30 years ago. Will we ever catch up to Germany.

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/blog/morning_call/2013/01/humana-making-more-green-efforts.html

Humana making more ‘green’ efforts

Business First

Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 6:53am EST – Last Modified: Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 7:02am EST

Corporate giant Humana Inc. is making more efforts to be environmentally friendly at its Louisville headquarters.

As WDRB-TV reported, the company has installed 30 solar panels on the roof of its 27-story Humana Building, at 500 W. Main St.

The panels produce only 2 percent of the electricity needed to power the building but are part of a larger corporate initiative to lower energy use, the report said. Panels also may be installed at other locations across the city and in other parts of the country where Louisville-based Humana (NYSE: HUM) has operations.

Related links:

Louisville

Industries:

Energy

:}

Go there and read. More next time.

:}