Energy Future, Points to Ponder
One question I always hear is “what about domestic oil production”. It’s always asked a little bit differently but has the same basic meaning.
“Reassessing the Oil Security Premium”, an article on a discussion paper by Resources for the Future, states that “Our estimates suggest that energy security is more greatly enhanced by policies to reduce overall oil consumption …”
We have tremendous domestic oil reserves, do we really need to import oil? A family friend wrote a brief but insightful note to me this past week. The following is her note in it’s entirety:”Why we would till our fields to raise fuel for our cars when we have alternate energy resources of wind and sun? We need food for the many peoples of the world. Realize it will be costly to start these alternate fuels, but know in the long run it will benefit our grandchildren as well as the whole world.
Didn’t realize we have so much oil for alternate drilling. I’m for that, too. More people should be educated in what resources we have. Why pay other countries for what we can do; after all we are supposed to be “can doers? I’ve lived many years (87) and seen lots of achievements. You may send my thoughts to any one.
Glada Kelley”. Glada astutely notes that she “is for” “alternate(domestic oil) drilling”. She has the foresight, and hindsight, to see “the long run” implications involving energy use as it applies to our future.
Many of the alternative energy experts I’ve talked with stress maximizing energy efficiency along with implementing alternative energy methods of production. In other words, it would not accomplish our goals of efficiency if we don’t take advantage of reducing our demands through, already proven, efficient techniques, practices and known energy conservation methods.
In a more pointed article by the American Council for an Economic Efficient Economy, they point to the number of jobs that will be created by the alternative energy field.
Whether it’s conservation of our current resources or development of new sources, or a combination of both, we need to give this our due consideration.
What are you currently doing, energy wise, that may affect future generations? Let me know any of your thoughts, opinions or questions by clicking the “comments” link immediately following this post and leaving your comment.
As always, God Bless You. Tim
Denver Airport Gone Solar!
In the “Mile High City”, Denver, CO, the Denver International Airport dedicated a new 2 MegaWatt photovoltaic generating system. There are several good sites with a wealth of good information, I’ve listed just a few for you:
1. entechsolar.com
2. greenjobs.com
3. gpm.tecsa.com
4. www.solaramericacities.energy.gov
Denver International Airport’s new 2 MegaWatt system is located on 7&1/2 acres at the airport entrance. It’s designed to generate more than 3 million KW hours each year.
Through a “power purchase agreement”, as opposed to a “major capital investment”, the system will be cost effective from day 1. It, also, helps Denver International Airport reach it’s goal of “environmental friendliness”.
I have a technical question for you, will the “less-dense” atmosphere, at Denver’s altitude, have an effect on quantity of output for the photovoltaic panels? What benefits or detriments can this location have on photovoltaic performance? Let me know your thoughts or opinions on this by clicking on the “comments” link immediately following this post.
As always, May God Bless You. Hope to see you at next weeks post. Tim
Bloom Energy’s Bloom Box Revisited
Last weeks post on the “Bloom Box” fuel cell generated several e-mails and neighbor discussions. There are two good links on last weeks post. While I included a basic definition of a fuel cell on my post last week, I didn’t delve into many specifics.
My mother even sent me an article, that was in USA Today this past week, on the Bloom Box. The article states that “Bloom’s technology gives users the ability to produce electricity – as opposed to buying it from utilities…” The USA Today article by Julie Schmit contains the information that 20 companies have bought Bloom’s commercial-scale boxes at a cost between $700K and $800K. Some of the companies mentioned were Walmart, Google, Ebay, FedEx, Staples, Coca-Cola, Bank of America and Cox Enterprises.
Bloom’s CEO, KR Sridhar expects to have residential models available within 10 years with an expected cost of around $3000.
On ABC’s show, Good Morning America they did a segment on Bloom Energy’s Bloom Box. They reiterated the same basic information as the article in USA Today. Bloom is able to be more cost efficient than its’ competitors because of Bloom’s proprietary technology and using low-cost materials in the construction of the Bloom Box.
Another point brought up by my neighbors and several e-mails dealt with utility companies being able to suppress anything that might cause a loss of their customer base.
National and state incentives are currently available for implementing and using alternative energy, will it be enough to make it economically attractive?
Back on Julie Schmit’s USA Today article, Bloom’s lead venture backer stated that Bloom’s technology won’t solve the USA’s clean energy needs(by itself) but it is a piece of the clean energy economy. Bloom’s energy producing Bloom Box is said to be 2/3 cleaner than coal fired electricity producing plants. The main reason being that there is no burning.
Does this sound real or “pie in the sky”? Do you think that this technology will be suppressed? Let me know your thoughts by clicking the comment link immediatly following this post. Till next week, God Bless You. Tim
Eight year old Bloom Energy is going public and making their findings available to requests. They have been working and patenting “fuel cell” designs while going through some large amounts of money in preparation for this unveiling.
First of all, a fuel cell is an electrochemical cell used to generate electricity. Fuel cells differ from batteries in that they consume a “reactant” from an external source while batteries store electrical energy chemically.
Bloom Energy’s first customer was Google. Google uses Bloom’s fuel cell to power one of it’s op centers. You can view an interesting writeup at 10 things to know about bloom energy.
Another interesting site to view is Bloom Energy’s home site at bloomenergy.com
If the costs are right and it was developed on a residential scale, could you use a system such as “Bloom Box”? Let me hear from you by clicking the “comments” link immediately following this post. Till next week, May God Bless You. Tim
Tags: Bloom Energy, fuel cell
Is Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CSS) a Real Solution to Helping to Reduce the Amount of CO2 Released Into the Atmosphere?
Assuming that you “buy into” the man made CO2 output crowd as being significant, the following article might give a solution.
A new report from Pike Research states that the addition of CSS will add 50-70% to the cost of creating electricity. It states the costs will initially be underwritten by governments and gradually be passed on to the ratepayers. Also stated in the report is the fact that there is no commercial-scale integrated power plant currently using any CSS system. You can view this report at ,
http://www.pikeresearch.com/research/carbon-capture-and-sequestration.
If you are among the group that beleives that global warming is caused mainly by mankinds CO2 emmisions, how do you feel about CSS? If you are among the group that believe global warming is predominantly cyclical and not man made, do you see any value to CSS?
Let me know any input you may have on this by clicking on the “comments” link immediately following this post. If the “comments” link is not working, please send me an e-mail to: timsjs@yahoo.com.
Here’s to you having a good week and God Bless You. Tim
Tags: carbon capture, sequestration
Green vs. Green
The setting for this epic confrontation, the Mojave Desert. At one end of the spectrum is the large scale, solar power plant developers. The other end is comprised of the environmentalists wanting to prevent any “overdevelopment” of the desert. Another way of putting it is renewable energy developers(most are climate change advocates) are squaring off with the traditional environmentalists(protectors of the eco-system, wildlife, habitat preservation and pollution control). One group views the desert as a virtually untapped resource while the other group view the desert as untouchable.
President George W. Bush opened up the desert southwest for renewable energy development in 2005. A (solar) land rush started and developers put forward around 2 dozen proposals for solar power plants. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat Senator for California, indicated she favored making a large portion of the Mojave Desert “off limits” for solar farming. Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation both limits and designates where the solar energy projects can be located. Her proposed legislation scared off several developers and made most remaining developers very cautious.
August 2005, a company called BrightSource Energy, backed by Google, Morgan Stanley and a few oil companies, filed an application to build a 400MW solar power plant, to be located in Ivanpah Valley, which is incidentally outside of Feinstein’s proposed restricted area. After a 2 and 1/2 year study that ended late 2009, it was found that the solar project “would have a major impact to the biological resources of Ivanpah Valley, substantially affecting many sensitive plant and wildlife species and eliminating a broad expanse of relatively undisturbed Mojave Desert habitat”. I obtained the majority of this information from an article by Todd Woody, a veteran environmental and technology journalist based in California.
Do you think it’s a good idea to develop the Mojave Desert for solar power? How much development would you consider appropriate? Let me know your thoughts on this by leaving a question, comment or suggestion by clicking on the “comment” link immediately following this post. Let me know if you have any subjects about alternative energy that you would be interested presenting on this blog. Till next week, May God Watch Over You and Keep You Safe. Tim
Tags: Mojave Desert, solar energy farms
Smart Grid vs. Distributed Generation
The “smart grid” would be a system designed to work with and expand our current grid system. Much of the current grid in the United States would be replaced, updated and overhauled. The “smart grid” would take both alternative energy production and the conventional fossil fuel electricity producing plants as suppliers. It would enable communication between the suppliers and users equipment, allowing the supplier to determine whether to distribute or not based on what they determine the needs of the user to be.
Distributed generation, on the other hand, has the “user” producing and supplying their own electricity on the site where it is used. There are several alternative means(solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, tidal generators, etc.) or combination of means that may be used. It would not only cut down on the cost of transmission lines, power stations and many other associated expenses, it would take a considerable strain off of the already overworked electrical grid.
As I stated previously, the current electical grid is in much need of updating and overhauling. The current electrical grid is very well established(entrenched) within our society. The costs plus some are borne by us (users). If just a portion of this money would go into rebates, incentives, tax breaks to implement and use alternatives, it seems to me, it would be easy to justify the initial costs of using a distrubuted generation system.
Of course, “grid” supplied electricity would always be available. Some would use it as their “main source” while others could use it as a backup. Do you personally favor “smart grid” or “distributed generation” and why? Let me know your opinions, questions or suggestions on this by clicking the “comments” link immediately following this post. Stop in any time to see any of the comments. Till next week, May God Bless You. Tim
Politics? Alternative Energy? Do They Coincide?
Will the election of Scott Brown of Massachusets have any effect on the outcome of our move to alternative energy? Whether we like it or not, President Obama’s alternative energy agenda does affect our national interests and attitudes conscerning alternative energy advancement and fossil fuel production and use. Renewable/alternative energy is, without dispute, more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel but the fossil fuel advocates are very deeply entrenched and invested in maintaining the status quo. It is up to us to monitor their words and actions and decide if it’s in our best interests.
Most of our “common sense” tells us that we don’t want to deter the progress we’ve made, as far as r&d, implementation, use and the many financial(tax, incentives, etc.) advances. Renewables definitely help to provide a cleaner source of energy. We don’t want to return to more of the same… that brought us to this point. Fossil fuels are a limited resource with some undesirable results, along with their intended use, in obtaining and using them.
In looking at Scott Brown’s track record we find that he both supported and opposed the furtherance of renewables/sustainables. He supported the Massachusets Ocean Management Plan while opposing the Cape Wind Project. He stated that his decisions were based (mainly) on location. He supported the 2008 Green Communities Act but opposed “cap and trade”. He is a big supporter of nuclear energy, with no emmissions.
Where does this indicate his future decisions could lead? Let me know what you think by leaving me a comment. Just click on the “comment” link immediately following this post. Tune in next week for another interesting, controversial discussion on alternative energy. Till then, May God Bless You. Tim
Horizontal Oil Well Drilling in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin
I recieved a couple of e-mails last week about the worlds largest oil reserve field being found and explored bordering between Wyoming and North Dakota. If the technology we have make it feasable, financially competitive with imported oil and environmentally acceptable, then why should we still import our oil? It appears at this point, “horizontal drilling”, as opposed to “vertical drilling”, would best fill our needs.
Horizontal Well vs. Vertical Well
How Much Do Government Subsidies for Fossil Fuel Tilt the Playing Field?
A report from the Solar Energy Industries Association(SEIA) found that power from the sun could provide 15% of the U.S.’s power needs, in the next decade if subsidies were issued equally, based on production. Go to http://www.solarplaza.com for further reading on this.
A total of $72 billion in Federal subsidies has been issued during the past 6 years, from 2002 through 2008. $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and sequestration and r&d. During the same time period, the solar industry only received about $1 billion. Fossil fuel was the beneficiary of the remainder. Further information can be viewed at http://treehugger.com
Again we’re faced with several possible scenario’s as the outcome of government subsidies being equally distributed. What are some of your thoughts or opinions of subsidy redistribution? Let me know by clicking the “comments” link immediately following this post. We’ll explore another issue about technological breakthroughs and whether they’re sufficient to access our fields, like the Williston Basin, next week.
Till then, may God Bless You and Watch Over You. Tim
