Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Alabama Power to switch to biomass?

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

Alabama Power is considering powering a small power plant with biomass fuel instead of the coal it currently uses.

biomass types

According to this AP story

Alabama Power Co. is exploring the option of making electricity solely by burning wood or other “biomass.”
Under a study to be completed in the second half of this year, the state’s top power provider is looking into converting a coal-fired generating unit at one of its facilities.

Among the sites under consideration is Barry Steam Plant in north Mobile County.

The amount of power involved would be 70 to 80 megawatts, according to a description of the project recently released by the city of Mobile. That’s a fraction of the company’s total output but still enough to light thousands of homes.

“I think it’s more of a pre-emptive effort,” Adam Snyder, executive director of Conservation Alabama, said of the Alabama Power study, adding that he considers it “a great move.”
Along the same lines, Georgia Power Co., another affiliate of Atlanta-based Southern Company, is seeking regulators’ permission to convert a small coal-fired plant to biomass, said Anne Blair of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, another advocacy group headquartered in Knoxville, Tenn.

“I think they are doing a good job in terms of anticipating what is likely to be coming down the pipeline at the federal level and simply diversifying their energy mix,” said Blair, who is the alliance’s program manager for diesel and biofuels.

One of the new items of the Energy & Environment Agenda of the Obama administration is to “Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.”  It will be interesting how utilities without access to abundant wind or solar resources comply with new energy regulations.

More on biomass at WikiPedia.

More on biomass at Alabama Power’s Biomass Energy page.

Balloon solar power plant? Cooler than mini-nukes?

Monday, November 10th, 2008

So which is cooler (global warming or style wise, either way), a solar power plant made of balloons or min nuclear power plants?

Green Wombat describes a balloon solar collector:

It sounds like something out of one of those do-it-your-self magazines: Stitch together two buck’s worth of thin-film plastic – the stuff potato chip bags are made of – stick in a photovoltaic cell, inflate with air and, voilà, you’ve got yourself a “solar balloon” that will generate a kilowatt of electricity. String together 10,000 balloons and you’ve got a solar power plant that can power a town. California startup Cool Earth Solar believes this high-low tech approach is what will make its solar power plants competitive with fossil fuels.

Instead of using expensive optics to concentrate sunlight on the solar cell, Cool Earth manipulates the air pressure inside the balloon to change the shape of the mirrored surface so that it focuses the maximum amount of sunlight on the solar cell, boosting electricity generation 300 to 400 times. By replacing expensive materials like steel with cheap-as-chips plastic and air, Cool Earth aims to dramatically lower the price of solar electricity.

A prototype power plant is being built in a field across the street from Cool Earth’s offices and Lamkin says a 1.5 megawatt plant will be constructed early next year in the Central Valley town of Tracy.

Lamkin estimates that a Cool Earth power plant can be up and running in six months, which should appeal to [California] utilities [...], which are under the gun to meet state mandates to obtain 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010.

“Our major structural element is air, which so far is free,” Lamkin says. “And the sun isn’t taxed either.”  Yet.

Careful, don’t temp Obama.


A micro nuclear reactor in your garden?

According to The Guardian, a U.S. company based in New Mexico, Hyperion Power Generation, has designed mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes. The company has already received firm orders and expects to deliver about 4,000 ‘individual’ plants between 2013 and 2023.

In the U.S., where people spent more energy than in other parts of the world, such a reactor should be able to deliver power to only 10,000 households, for a cost of $2,500 per home. But in developing nations, one HPM could provide enough power for 60,000 homes or more, for a cost of less than $400. This is quite reasonable if you agree with Hyperion, which states that the energy from its HPMs will cost about 10 cents/watt.

Minnesotans FOR Global Warming

Saturday, September 6th, 2008

Turn your snow shovels into a lawn chair – that’s just one benefit of global warming for Minnesotans.

Minnesotans for Global Warming has to be the hottest political groups in the Twin Cities. They jokingly ask people to stop breathing since we contribute to CO2 the global emissions.

I had the good fortune of meeting the brains behind M4GW this past weekend.  Check out their blog.

National Electric Superhighway

Sunday, August 24th, 2008

Should the US build a “National Electric Superhighway” to transport wind and other renewable resources from the central US to the load centers? Here is one proposal showing what that system of high voltage lines would look like:

national electric superhighway

Further reading:

AWEA – the reliability of wind power (better than you think)

Interstate Electricity Transmission Superhighway Essential to Growth of Low-Carbon Technologies: CleanTechnica

FEATURE-Wind energy lobbyist maps U.S. power superhighway | Markets | US | Reuters

A National Electric Superhighway.pdf by Ed Krapels

Map showing Mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standards for the states, note that several states require 20 or even 25+% renewable in the near future:

rps

1st Commercial Ocean Power Project

Thursday, August 7th, 2008

The first commercial ocean energy project is scheduled to launch this summer off the coast of Portugal.

ocean generator

On the other side of the globe, New Zealand already gets 60 percent of its electric power from renewables but wants to raise that figure to an amazing 90 percent by 2025.

Huge Wind Farms (a.k.a. “Wind Parks”) on the Horizon

Monday, August 4th, 2008

There are some huge wind “parks” in the works that are coming to a state near you. Read on to find out about the latest developments in wind energy.

Clipper, BP Plan World’s Largest Wind Farm in S. Dakota

Clipper Windpower Plc (CWP.L) announced yesterday that it has entered into a 50-50 joint venture, with BP Alternative Energy, a unit of BP (NYSE: BP), to develop the Titan wind project, which if completed, will be the world’s largest wind facility–beating out the 4,000-MW project recently announced by T. Boone Pickens Mesa Power.

The farm will produce 5,050 MW with 2,020 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines.

s dakota wind

Website: www.clipperwind.com

Nation’s first offshore wind “park” in the nation’s “first state” Delaware

Bluewater Wind is developing the country’s first offshore wind “park” off the coast of Delaware. They expect that it will be barely visible or not visible at all.

delaware map

A contract to build what is being called the nation’s first offshore field of wind turbines was announced Monday by a Delaware utility and a firm that will build the generators off the Atlantic coast.

Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard said the power company will get about 16 percent of its electricity from a field of 150 wind turbines, anchored in the seafloor about a dozen miles off Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Bluewater has previously established an offshore “energy park” operating off Denmark.

Each turbine in the Delaware project is to sit on a pole about 250 feet above the waterline, where the ocean is about 75 feet deep. The poles are to extend 90 feet into the seafloor, and the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds.

bluewaterwind logo

More details about the project here: www.bluewaterwind.com/delaware.htm

The DOE recently reported that it thinks the US can generate 20% of our electricity from wind by the year 2030.

For reference, today wind accounts for only 1% of the nation’s electricity.

Currently, fossil fuels generate 85 percent of American energy, and about 70 percent of our electricity. Renewables (outside hydroelectric dams) are only responsible for a couple percent of our current electricity capacity. However, wind power has been expanding rapidly, growing 45 percent in 2007, as its cost has become competitive with traditional fossil fuel sources.

Major business players from General Electric to oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens have gotten behind its deployment. Pickens, for example, is planning a $10 billion, 4-gigawatt peak production wind farm. A major driver of these investments is the price of oil, which is sitting over $120 a barrel, with long-term futures contracts also over $100 a barrel. The cost of natural gas is pegged to the price of oil, so rising oil costs make alternative energy investments more attractive. At the same time, scaling wind technologies is bringing their price down.

But there are major questions about the actual electricity production that wind farms put out. As many wind critics point out, four gigawatts of wind power isn’t the same as four gigawatts of coal because the wind isn’t always blowing, reducing their average watt ouput. Many grid engineers also think wind is a nightmare because it is so inconsistent, a problem that mass deployment of wind will make more and more apparent.

Yet among the current renewable options, wind and solar thermal appear to be the only technologies that could produce power at the utility-scale. Traditional solar photovoltaics have long payback times and are even trickier for the dumb electric grid to handle than wind.

doe wind

Website: www.20percentwind.org

TransWest Express Transmission Superhighway Project

transwestlogo

Project to deliver wind energy from Wyoming to the southwest is underway.

Dual 500 kV circuits will deliver 3,000 MW of electricity to SoCal and Arizona.

westernmap

Website: transwest.azpsoasis.com

Texas to Spend $4.93 Billion on Transmission Lines for Wind Power

The Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas approved a plan on July 17 to build transmission lines to carry up to 18,456 MW of wind power from West Texas and the Texas Panhandle to metropolitan areas of the state. Back in April, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which oversees the state’s electrical grid, provided the PUC with four scenarios for transmission system upgrades, with the costs ranging from $2.95 billion to $6.38 billion. The most expensive option would have delivered 24,859 MW of wind power to the cities of Texas, but the PUC chose a less expensive option, Scenario 2, at a cost of $4.93 billion. The PUC estimates that the new lines will be in service within 4 or 5 years, at which point residential customers will be charged about $4 per month to pay off the cost of the transmission lines.

texas wind

According to ERCOT, the selected plan includes 6,903 MW of wind power capacity that was either in service when ERCOT started preparing its report in September 2007, or had progressed to the point that its developer had signed an agreement to connect the system to the grid. For that existing and near-term future wind power capacity, the new transmission lines will provide greater access to markets, allowing a more efficient and economical use of those wind power resources. In addition, Scenario 2 will allow the development of 11,553 MW of new wind power. That includes 2,393 MW of wind power in the “Panhandle B” zone, which is where a company founded by T. Boone Pickens plans to eventually build the world’s largest wind power plant, with a generating capacity of 4,000 MW [not any more, thanks to SD (above)]. The 1,000-MW first phase of that project, the Pampa Wind Project, is expected to go online by early 2011.

ERCOT map

Photovoltaic Moore’s Law Will Make Solar Competitive by 2015

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

Photovoltaic Moore’s Law Will Make Solar Competitive by 2015

Now there are some new twists and turns—essentially, three very positive developments that would not have been generally anticipated a decade ago. First, silicon-based solar technology has decoupled from the semiconductor industry and is achieving steady cost reductions, so that those following PV discern a kind of Moore’s law at work. In 2005, production of silicon for solar cells already surpassed production of silicon for semiconductors.

pv

Second, the industry has become so confident in that evolutionary path, policymakers and planners have started to set dates when they expect PV-generated electricity to be competitive with the major sources of electricity sold on the grid now. And third, while the incremental path promises a commercial breakthrough within ten years, it’s suddenly looking like second generation technology may be arriving after all—in which case wide commercialization of PV could occur much sooner.

 world us
[Above, maps showing average daily solar energy]

In recent years, global PV production has been increasing at a rate of 50 percent per year, so that accumulated global capacity doubles about every 18 months. The PV Moore’s law states that with every doubling of capacity, PV costs come down by 20 percent. In 2004, installing PV cost about $7 per watt, compared to $1/W for wind, which at that time was beginning to stand on its own feet commercially, Last, year, as recently noted in this blog, average global solar costs had come down to between $4 and $5 per watt, right in line with the PV Moore’s law. Extrapolate those gains out six or seven years, and PV costs will be below $2/W, making photovolatics competitive with 2004 wind.

Owning your wind farm: Trickier than it seems

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

The title is a little odd as I wouldn’t expect it to be a trivial process to own a wind farm.  I must not be optimistic enough?

wind

Nevertheless, the Twin Cities Daily Planet investigates all the hurdles and red tape one must go through in order to own a wind farm these days.  They find it’s not as easy for John Doe as it is for big utilities.  Most Americans don’t qualify for the wind farm tax credits that large utilities do.

The ideas the author promotes sound a lot like the Distributism (or distributionism) economic philosophy formulated by G. K. Chesterton.

According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of a few state bureaucrats (some forms of socialism) or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

MPR: Late spring delaying mosquito hatch

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

MPR: St. Paul, Minn. — The cool spring has slowed the annual mosquito hatch across Minnesota, but officials say the insects should appear soon.

mosquito

Local CBS Meteorologist: Global Warming ‘extremism’ uses ’squishy science’

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

Local Minneapolis-WCCO (CBS) meteorologist, Mike Fairbourne, says that the environmental movement is practicing “squishy science” when it ties human activity to global warming. Comments from WCCO.

Fairbourne is one of 31,000 scientists (9,021 PhDs) who agree that the human impact on global warming is overblown. Here’s the petition.

petition

“Do we need to be wise stewards [of the Earth]? Absolutely,” Fairbourne said. “Do we have to pin everything that happens on global warming? No, we need to have cooler heads.”

Asked why there has been so much momentum toward connecting human activity and global warming, Fairbourne said, “They’re doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political. We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it.”

Fairbourne, a University of Utah graduate, said he has talked “to a number of meteorologists who have similar opinions” as his, adding that he is concerned about “the extremism that is attached to the global warming.”

According to the Daily Glean, zero local MSP meteorologists publicly adhere to the theory that human activity is the cause of “global warming.” If the “evidence” supports global warming, why do so many scientists disagree?

Star Tribune readers respond:

worry poll link

squishy poll link