I can just hear people looking around sporting a big shrug and palms pointed upward with a questioning look on their faces. “What’s the problem? Things are fine, we’re on a decline!” The Energy Information Administration recently released analysis that carbon emissions decreased by a record 7% in 2009. Undeniably, this is great news. Since we began measuring releases of CO2, never has the country declined so much within a single year. The danger is for some to mistake this event as reason to slack off instead of the impetus to push harder. As economic recovery in the U.S. begins to take hold, more than ever, now is the time to tighten our belts so that economic expansion happens as sustainability as possible.
Archives For renewable energy
National efforts for efficiency and conservation continue to lead us to analyze aspects of daily life to find opportunities ripe for sustainable progress. Our transportation infrastructure is one of the largest and most energy intensive systems that our country needs to function. As a result, every time a mode of transportation is pitched it comes laden with facts and figures as to how it is responding to our needs for increased efficiency. But across the board, how do all of these various players (hybrids, buses, planes, trains) stack up in the amount of energy it takes to get someone from one place to another?
With a growing pressure from the government, our economy is beginning to weigh the costs and benefits of reviewing our means of transportation and deciding which deserve promotion while others are best left unaided. Only last week President Obama announced his landmark (albeit under-funded) promotion of High Speed Rail with the doling out of $8 billion in loans. As Americans, our transportation choices decide the course of huge amounts of GDP. When one considers automotive sales, public transit funding and commercial aircraft the order of magnitude is already in hundreds of billions of dollars. It is no surprise that industries are all fighting to shift the course of the next two decades towards their respective products.
Dear Mr. Droz,
I recently came across an article on Cleantech.com that lead me to your presentation critiquing wind power. The decree that wind power is “an insult to science and mankind” seems a bit alarmist and wrought with exaggeration. I understand that you have labeled wind power as a deficient source of power generation and based this conclusion on seven points of criteria that you claim reasonable power sources should strive to meet. These points include:
- Can it provide large amounts of electricity?
- Can it provide reliable and predictable electricity?
- Can it provide dispatchable energy?
- Can it serve as more than one grid element?
- Can its facility be compact?
- Can it provide economical energy?
- Can it make a consequential reduction in carbon dioxide?
According to you, wind energy has failed all but the first point, after which you claim it to be an overly expensive, intermittent and restrictive form of energy production–something the world should stop devoting time and money towards. Instead, we should focus on improving our existing technologies so that they can be improved and better utilized to achieve environmental progress.
Though your individual assessments cannot be labeled as “incorrect”, I think you are unfairly painting a grim picture of wind energy while denying it both its accolades and opportunities for further improvement. Wind energy is a great industry and one of a number of technologies that will eventually allow us to reduce our environmental impact and reach a more balanced, sustainable society. I think a full critique of wind should include not only the shortcomings (which we all know exist) but the possibilities.
Perhaps the largest bane of renewable energy is its intermittent nature that fails to provide a predictable, steady flow of “baseload” power to the grid. After all, the sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing; waves are not always crashing—but how often are all sources weak at the same time? European countries are embarking on a renewable energy master grid that will pair different technologies in different environments to help mitigate the natural ebb and flow of any one source.
According to an article in the Guardian, nine governments are involved in planning a €30 billion ($43.5 billion) network of high voltage, direct current cable that will connect the renewable power sources indigenous to their respective climates. The players include Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland and the UK. Together they can collectively utilize energy from solar, wave generation, tidal, wind, geothermal and hydro-electric.
While in the midst of an economy that is still viewed as fragile, state governments are limited in their ability to match all of their sustainability goals with appropriate funding. Money that is available, usually in the forms of grants and favorable loans, is small enough to rule out sweeping, societal changes but large enough to make people notice—and at this point that is a worthy goal. There are still far too many people far too uneducated about both threats and solutions.
Solaya Energy LLC and the State of Massachusetts are working together to install a 1.5 MW turbine near the Blandford Rest Area on the Massachusetts Turnpike. The press release from the governor’s office explains that the nearly 400-foot-tall turbine near the center of the 68-acre state-owned site, as well as a kiosk at the Service Area that will provide motorists with information about the turbine and its operation. Producing up to 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, the turbine could produce sufficient clean energy to power roughly 400 households.
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Court-Reinstates-Emissions-Related-Public-Nuisance-Suit-Against-Utilities_2189.html
The housing boom of the 90’s brought the explosion of “McMansions” across U.S. suburbs leaving us with hundreds of thousands of examples for a new wave for upper class living. While the recession may have created a lull in the construction of these shrines to excess, there is no data to suggest that Americans have outgrown their hunger for raw square footage and the public perception that space equals societal stature. The idea of a green home two, three or four times the size of the average house is a bit of an oxymoron with notions of efficiency and excess instantly butting heads, but perhaps there are ways for the lives of the luxurious to follow a more sustainable path. Continue Reading…
Sometimes the products of technology and infrastructure have a certain beauty that compliments their functional necessity, but all too often our aversion to the appearance of key service components conflicts with our desire for their services to be readily available. Renewable energy production, such as wind turbines and solar power stations, are increasingly becoming the targets of backlash, even from environmental supporters, when it comes time to locate them. A new strategy for overcoming the next generation of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiment is imperative to avoid our recent progress in sustainability from hitting a wall.
Polling from numerous sources repeatedly points to a growing population of U.S. citizens supporting the need to address climate change and transfer our production of energy to renewable sources. People will sign petitions, click “yes” on websites and maybe even call their Congressman in support of green energy. But in true American style, when it comes to actually implementing the goal the discussion turns into a barrage of finger-pointing with no one wanting to have to look at the finished product.
The lack of willingness to actively participate in the necessities of society is one of our blaring moments of shortsightedness. As a country that enjoys an elevated standard of living, its rise has been paralleled not only by an increasingly complex and expansive array of technology necessary to sustain it, but also a lack of responsibility for making it possible. Having a water treatment facility within a block from your home is a fallacy, but blame is thrown instantly at the onset of an E. coli breakout. No one wants to see high voltage power lines but brownouts are unacceptable.
One of the more famous examples is the repeated stalling of the Cape Wind Project that meant to erect 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound with a maximum capacity of 420MW. The program claims that in average winds the wind farm could provide 75% of the energy for Cape Cod and its surrounding islands. However, local residents have opposed the project due to the possibility of tarnishing their ocean view. Keep in mind that the wind turbines will be 5 to 13 miles from shore so that an onlooker could reportedly extend an arm and cover one with the fingernail on a thumb.
Unsurprisingly, continuously pushing renewables to the outskirts of society increases the amount of transmission (materials, land, installation, maintenance, replacement) needed to transport the power, increasing the amount of power lost in transit and raising the price of the power that gets there (which in turn compounds the problem.) Heaven forbid we need to pay more for power that is more sustainable and less polluting. Who would think that in a capitalistic economy the cheapest solution is not always the best?
One option is to give the federal government more power in making decisions for renewable energy sites and new transmission lines, but the prospect of increased government intervention is already causing politicians to butt heads on the Climate Bill. Another option is to use government policy that sweetens the deal for proximity to new energy solutions. (For Liberals, this would mean tax people the farther they get from renewable energy. For Conservatives, it would mean provide subsidies for those willing to live next door. For me, I would say do both.)
Yet another possibility is to redesign these facilities for a new aesthetic reading. After all, most of the time these components of infrastructure are designed by engineers. As an architect, I can respect and appreciate the simplicity and functional efficiency of how engineers design. Their goal of streamlined products that serve a specified purpose can be seen in old warehouses, factories and power stations. Nonetheless, they are usually not trying to win beauty contests. Some of these creations could not get a facelift to draw a different impression from surrounding onlookers.
Spanish architecture firm Abalos and Herreros has a portfolio of work that has reinvestigated the appearance and nature of industrial programs like their recycling center in Valdemingómez, Spain. Contrary to the American standard of cheap metal siding and standing seam roofs, their facility is wrought with light to illuminate a terraced interior designed with an elegant order for industrial function. Solar farms and biomass plants could conceivably be realized in a second generation that is more viewer-friendly.
I do not believe that the largest impediment in the path of environmental stewards is convincing people that changes should be made. Regardless of the debate on climate change, sustainability and efficiency just make sense. Preserving our resources, keeping our air, water and land clean; it is just smart and more people realize that everyday. The impasse is instilling not the notion, but the drive for everyone to contribute and accept part of the collective onus to change—and make no mistake, things will need to change. Sustainability is not a technological fix. Our levels of consumption cannot be supplemented with gizmos.
Personally, I think that wind turbines and CSP plants have their own manner of beauty to them, like an ipod or a 40” Samsung LCD television, but I do not know if my sentiment has reached the majority yet.
Photo Credit: Flickr via AbracaDebra
As our technological boundaries continue to be conquered and redrawn, there are some on the bleeding edge of innovation that seem to blur the line between technology and magic. What Cambridge, Massachusetts based Joule Biotechnologies is claiming to have accomplished seems nothing short of magical: putting organisms, sunlight and carbon dioxide into a box and making a viable petroleum substitute appear. No drilling, no burning off waste. According to the company, that has been operating in stealth mode for nearly two years time, they are ushering in the new standard of fuel as essentially, liquid solar power.
“There is no question that viable, renewable fuels are vitally important, both for economic and environmental reasons. And while many novel approaches have been explored, none has been able to clear the roadblocks caused by high production costs, environmental burden and lack of real scale,” said Bill Sims, president and CEO.
If correct, their plan can take two of the most abundant things on the planet—photons and carbon dioxide—and circumvent the need to be drilling more wells searching for oil. Their “black box” is dubbed a Solar Converter, which reportedly uses proprietary organisms to induce photosynthesis, creating a hydrocarbon liquid the company calls SolarFuel. Simms points out that this separates them from a biofuel process, like ethanol, which uses a plant base for its feed stock.
The prospect of sun fed fuel could impressively leap-frog the ethanol industry, replacing it as the renewable fuel of choice given that its carbon footprint could vastly outperform ethanol’s much debated, corn-based and energy intensive process. Eventually, such a model could propose to achieve the impossible: bring the use and production of our country’s fuel to a level of stasis with the net input of carbon equaling the net output of its use.
Joule Biotech says they can create 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre at roughly $50 a barrel with current subsidies, certainly a competitive price point out of the box. Furthermore, the fuel is purportedly going to be compatible with existing engines for diesel and gasoline, wiping out the potential snag of retooling an industry. With a pilot plant scheduled to come online in 2010, their next milestone could be a ramp up for commercial scale production in 2012 with additional investing. Despite not knowing how cleanly the fuel burns in comparison to ethanol or conventional gasoline, the prospects of carbon improvement on the national scale are far-reaching.
So where is the downside? I had trouble finding one myself. Though I have to admit that the claims bring to mind another magical fix that spawned years ago called Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) technology developed by a company called Renewable Energy Solutions.
Their process claimed to make synthetic petroleum from super-heating agricultural and industrial waste such as tires, plastics and paper. The idea seemed attractive when they claimed their only by-products were fuel gas (butane, methane, propane mix), synthetic oil and water. The prospects seemed to offer a solution to not only our foreign oil dilemma, but a significant portion of our waste issue as well with (similarly) a virtually unlimited feedstock. Unfortunately, it seems no new plants other than the pilot plant in Carthage Missouri have been constructed and for some reason, they have not catalyzed a new standard in fuel production. Hopefully, we will be hearing much more from Joule Biotech in the near future.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the U.S. is making strides on its goals to bolster its renewable power portfolio. In their recently released Electric Power Monthly, an overview of our country’s sources and usage, the EIA reports that renewable energy, including hyrdoelectric sources, have jumped to 11.1% of our total production. Of the individual sources, wind power posted the largest gain with a 34.8% increase. Hydroelectric power increased 18.4% The news is complimented nicely by a slide of 13.9% in coal power production, leaving it as producing 46.1% of our total power needs. The rise of cleaner energy sources has positive timing with the Waxman-Markey bill that recently passed through the House and is now being ravaged on the floor of the Senate.
However, the news does bear some caveats. The EIA said that total consumption by the nation declined 4.6%, undoubtedly linked to the recession and decreases in industrial and manufacturing draws. The same reason was used to explain the notable decreased in coal power with more factories producing less and thus using less energy. As a result, a recovery in the economy could add some strength back to coal’s share of the pie.
Nevertheless, the footnotes do not diminish the weight of the opportunity. Keep in mind that these figures come without money coming from stimulus funding or anything related to the Waxman-Markey bill, should it survive its journey through Congress. Moreover, it could be a blessing that more coal plants are running idle when jobs are tight and investments are low, leaving the possibility of having cleaner options to choose from when we have the reason to turn more switches back on. With all hope, we may be able to replace, or at least deter the new construction of, coal plants by buoying the power supply with new investment in green power. The more dollars that can be diverted to sustainable power creation is more jobs that the industry can tote creating as well as working to lower the prices of technology and its resulting kilowatt hours.