The Texas Clean Energy Project, also commonly known as the TCEP is one of the demonstration project regarding clean coal, has made an announcement that the primary agreement of power purchase for carbon capture, on a commercial scale, has already taken place in the United States.

United States biggest utility owned by the municipal; the CPS Energy, will purchase 200 megawatt of energy on a yearly basis from TCEP as soon as it becomes online in the year 2015.

The TCEP is among the very first in the United States to have combined technologies related to the capture and storage of carbon with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, IGCC .

In accordance to the DOE, with the use of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, the plant will be able to reduce its emission of carbon that is generated by an alike traditional coal plant by ten percent and less than twenty-five percent compared to a highly efficient natural gas plant.

The plant will be able to capture 90 percent of the generated carbon. It will also be able to capture 90 percent of nitrogen oxide as well as 99 percent of mercury.

As an alternative to burn coal, the latter will be preserved in a gasifier. A gasifier can be described as an hermetically sealed chamber which permits only controlled quantities of oxygen to come in. with the minimization of oxygen, instead of caused ignition, the coal bakes. As a result, sufficient pressure and heat is produced to squeeze carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the coal. These gases are subsequently turned into synthetic gas, most commonly known as syngas.

After that the syngas is mixed with water vapor. This causes a chemical reaction with the gas carbon monoxide in order to form additional carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Upon the removal of contaminations from the gas, the latter is separated into clean streams of carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

The hydrogen gas is utilized to power the turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust heats water that are free from any carbon is used to produce steam which is fed to the turbine to generate greater amount of electricity.

The amount of carbon dioxide captured in a yearly basis by the plant is approximately 2.9 million metric tons. 83 percent of it will be utilized to enhance the recovery of oil. The remaining will be employed to produce urea as it has various industrial uses.

The plant is costing 2.4 billion US dollars. 450 million US dollars ofit is being sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative.

Source: Sustainable Business

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2012. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Global Energy, Photovoltaics, Renewable Power.

Furthermore winners from Pakistan and India participated in the event VIP ceremony, presented by the British Minister for Change of Climate Greg Barker.

The Ghana News Agency in Accra last Friday mentioned that the Prince of Wales, who personally congratulated all winners at a meeting, said that with Ashden Awards, we all know what exactly can be done with energy and how to reduce emissions worldwide.

They have shown us how we can manage a lot in this world and that local activity in fact means global results.

Through Ashden Awards, reminds us how important constant adaptation to climate change is, to a country and to all over the world. Saving energy resources for poor people, is a way of compensating a whole developing world, in regard to new solutions in energy, included United Kingdom.

The Company Toyota Energy Limited Ghana was awarded with $ 340.000 being thus compensated for its great efforts in producing over 150, 000 charcoal stoves and launching them in the market for poor families at good prices.

Mrs Sarah Butler Sloss, Director and ’’Chairman’’ of the Ashden Awards said: The Toyota Energy Limited Ghana’’ has started with low technology, but has managed to produce high technology strong stoves, for poor people at an affordable price.

Forests of Ghana are protected and greenhouse emissions have been cut down. This is just a small sample of how much can be achieved in the field of clean energy, when strategies are applied.

The Toyota’ stoves use only a third of contemporary charcoal stoves. Enormous savings are thus generated to poor families.

These kinds of stoves are much better in quality, then the ones before, as the traditional ones, can cause breathing problems or irritation to eyes. Of course, these stoves are much more practical to everybody, by lowering the possibility of accidents by 90% compared to traditional stoves.

These stoves are affordable by the poor; they can be paid by credit as well, and the amount saved can be reused for paying charcoals.

Josephine Adjolojo, a user of Toyota stoves said that she was able to save enough upon getting the stove and the money box initially. When she opened the money box, she already had enough money saved for repurchase.

By using Toyota stoves in a country like Ghana, saving money and mostly cooking in an efficient and practical way is too important. Toyota’s stoves can save up to 26,000 tons of energy yearly, a figure applicable to the best quality of charcoal energy.

The reduction of around 150, 000 of carbon per annum has been luring investors such as Goldman Sachs, and who buys carbon materials, and selling them on the international market.

Toyota has opened already a center of production in Togo, planning to open two more centers in Benin and Sierra Leone in the following two years, estimates to increase its sales by up to 140000 stoves by the end of 2013.

Charcoal is used by round 1.3 million families in Ghana. This represents roughly 31% of the population. In Accra round 70% of households prefer charcoal for cooking.

Source: Ghana Web

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Energy Conservation, Renewable Power.

1. The first step is to filter used cooking oils through the wire mesh to get rid of food particles and other impurities. The oil is set aside and left to stand for a number of hours for any residue to settle in the liquid.

2. Second step is to pour the oil using a funnel-shape vessel. During this step, a titration test is done to determine the concentration of free fatty acids found in the oil, which is important in the preparation of catalyst required for the process.

3. The next step is to trigger a transesterification reaction. Sodium hydroxide, a catalyst, is added slowly to methanol to form sodium metaoxide. This is being infused to the oil container, which is being heated with a temperature of 55 degrees Celsius. This mixing together of oil and catalyst would last for about four to five hours to completely synthesize the mixture.

4. After eight to 10 hours, the glycerin would simply descend at the bottom of the settling vessel, separating itself from the biodiesel in the oil.

5 When glycerine is taken out, the next step would be purifying the biodiesel. To remove the methan

6 Old deposits, air bubbles are administered through the substance. For further eradication of contaminants, the biodiesel goes through a process of a resin-contained filter called “dry wash”.

7 After an hour of the purification process, the production of biodiesel is accomplished. It is now transferred into large containers, which will be distributed to consumers. It takes between 12 to 16 hours to complete the whole transesterification process.

Source: The Star

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Energy Conservation, Global Energy, Renewable Power.

Recently, 33 Chilean miners were safely rescued after having been underground for a period of two months. However, in other parts of the world like in West Virginia, China and New Zealand, the end-result of rescue measure for catastrophic drilling missions weren’t that successful.

They remarkable rescue operation in Chile, is recalled by most of us. However, the safety-record of Chile’s mines is something that most of us are unaware of. In West Virginia, the Upper Big Branch coal pit exploded causing the death of 25 men. These fatal news are extremely terrible for the energy industry. Even worse, for China’s mines, a record of 7 deaths per day was experienced in the first two quarters of 2010. This was reported by the Xinhua news agency.

The catastrophically accidents of 2010, pings some alarming questions – Are fossil fuel sources too dangerous? Or are we simply digging too deep? Or should we transcend towards more sustainable sources of energy?

In the search for oil, 2010 wasn’t good as well. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster, lead to 4 million barrels of oil spilled spread all over in the Gulf of Mexico. BP (British Petroleum) was actually extracting oil 3 miles below the sea surface. There are many reasons why the company was drilling for oil one-mile below the sea-surface and another two miles beneath the seabed.

1. World Energy Demand Is rising At Alarming Rates
2. The supply of energy (oil) is primarily situated in tense countries such as Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The chief economist of the International Energy Agency says that there is a need for innovative sources of energy. It is clear that drilling for oil at extensive depths is an uprising challenge. Even one of the world’s biggest oil tyranny, wasn’t able to handle disaster of oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yet, BP is still proceeding with further deepwater fields in Ghana, Greenland and Brazil. Oil companies will invest 100 of billions in 2011 to increase oil supply with some 12 percent for the year.

In addition, September 2010, grand nations such as Norway, Denmark, Canada, U.S., and Russia announced that estimated 90 billion barrels of oil exists under the melting ice in the Arctic region.

For these oil tyrannies, the Deepwater Horizon seems to be a forgotten history.

Source: Knowledge Allianz

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Renewable Power.

Based on its analysis, the London-established company stated that it will be more beneficial for nations of the Persian Gulf like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to sell their oil instead of using it to produce low-priced electricity. It further declared that solar power is proving to be a better alternative for domestic production due to the decreasing prices of photovoltaic panels.

The senior executive of New Energy Finance, Michael Liebreich, said that this exercise shows the lucid argument for major deployment of photovoltaic in the Middle East region. He added that the constant decline in the cost of photovoltaic will launch electricity markets in the Gulf very rapidly.

Based on the projections for oil prices from Standard Chartered Plc and supposing that the oil prices would climb to $163 when adjusted for inflation in the year 2030, New Energy Finance stated that, a thousand megawatt photovoltaic project constructed in the year 2011, in Middle East region would produce a rate of return of 9.4%.

Source: Bloomberg.Com

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2011. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Photovoltaics, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

Solar can be integrated with natural gas and coal to produce electricity. Recently, the Project Manager of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Cara Libby spoke about the development of a solar thermal hybrid plant. Libby is in command of the solar research effort under the Renewable Energy Generation Program.

The price of fossil fuel is increasing together with its emissions. Utility company might have to go for solar-augment steam cycle, as a solution.

Energy producers can increase the use of solar energy by either solar thermal or photovoltaics. However, now it is possible to create solar thermal hybrids using solar thermal energy combined with other sources like coal, oil, gas, biomass, geothermal and others.

According to Libby, thermal hybrid projects are maybe the most cost effective option when going for solar energy. Parabolic troughs, compact linear Fresnel reflectors (CLFR) and power towers can all be used to create the hybrid energy systems.

The system would make use of solar energy to create steam. This would reduce the amount of coal or natural gas required to assure effective steam cycles. There are several energy companies that are lured to integrate solar power into their current energy mix. The only problem is that solar energy is not cost-effective. Besides, the most intense solar energy generation is only sustained at a maximum output during peak summer hours.

Is it really better to create a hybrid plant compared to a standalone solar thermal or photovoltaic plant? A few reasons have been enumerated below:

1. It will decrease CO2 emissions.
2. It will decrease the amount of fossil fuel being burnt.
3. It will help to meet Renewable Portfolio standards.
4. These projects could be provided subsides and benefit from RECs

According to calculations done by EPRI, solar trough system could provide 20 percent of the energy required to stimulate the steam cycle.

Recently, an EPRI study was completed. The research considered the possibility of establishing solar augmentation plants for natural gas and coal. Various models were developed to consider the viability of a solar steam integrated designs.

The guidelines developed by EPRI were mainly targeted for two coal plants situated at North Carolina and New Mexico as well as two natural gas plants located at Arizona and Nevada. The research and evaluation consisted of cycling limitation, consistency consideration, environmental permits, plant controls and other commissioning schedules.

The study will help electric producers that are willing to decrease their current carbon footprint while equally increasing efficiency of their plants. The analysis did also show that it was economically beneficial to create integrated solar steam cycle in comparison to an isolated solar thermal plant.

The development of hybrid solar thermal plants is becoming more common. There are 14 projects under construction, using a total of 450 MW. This includes Xcel Energy’s Cameo project, which is underway in Colorado. The largest solar-augmentation project will integrate 75 MW of solar energy, and the plant is found in Florida.

However, according to EPRI’s analysis it is not really cost effective to create these hybrid plants. The efficiency of the power plants will to some degree decrease but savings will be done as less fossil fuel will be needed for burning.

EPRI are currently undertaking two projects to demonstrate how solar-augmentation plants can integrate renewable energy into fossil fuel. The plants are expected to commence operation by 2014:
1. A 1,100 MW natural gas plant will be having 95 MW of solar energy integrated into NV energy at the Chuck Lenzi Station at Nevada.

2. A 245 MW coal plant will have 36 MW of solar integrated to the Tri State G&T. Escalante found in New Mexico.

If these hybrid plants would be able to produce electricity at a cost of 11 cents per KWh then the levelized cost would be yield in 30 years.

Source: Green Tech Media

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Renewable Power, Solar Power.

However, in 2010 (2 years later), green products seemed hard to sell. Moreover, Mr. Polsky’s secured a contract with Virginia’s utility company to sell power. Nevertheless, the state regulators have denied the deal due to factors such as recession and cheaper alternatives like fossil fuels.

The regulatory said that ratepayers of Virginia shouldn’t be forced to pay an unfairly high cost of electricity. For instance, if wind power would be used the monthly bill of a regular resident customer would rise by approximately 0.2 percent.

The statement of reducing dependency on fossil fuel by substituting it for renewable energy is being echoed by consumers, environmentalist and politicians. Yet, several projects are being halted, postponed or even cancelled by the government due to diminutive increase to price of electricity.

There has been a decline in the volume of renewable power deals in states like Idaho, Florida, Virginia and Kentucky. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the third quarter experienced a decrease of 72 percent in new wind power installation compared to the same period in 2009.

Mr. Polsky says that regulators are emphasising on short-term costs. It is more important to focus on ratepayers’ long-term interest and not solely on the yearly bill.

On average the cost of solar and wind energy tends to be higher than natural gas and coal. Additionally, the cost of fossil fuels has been shrinking due fall in demand. For natural gas, innovative drilling techniques have made it possible to exploit a large repository of the source.

Regulators are considering their main job as preventing consumer to pay a high electricity rate. However, many consumers are willing to pay that higher price for renewable energy so that more alternative sources of energy will be available in the years to come.

For instance, in April, an offshore wind project power deal was rejected by the State public utility commission in Rhoda Island. The wind energy would be priced at 24.4 KWh while the cost of fossil fuel is currently 9.5 KWh.

However, the state didn’t blame price for refusing wind energy. They did instead introduce new bills that allowed other determinants to be considered. A small wind farm was thereafter approved by the commission.

This happened in Kentucky as well. The public service commission declined to purchase electricity from NextEra Energy Resources, (local Utility: Kentucky Power) in Illinois.

Kentucky Power claimed that it would help to meet renewable energy targets set by the government. However, Jack Conway, Kentucky’s attorney general was against the deal. He said that it would cause a rise in the price of electricity by 0.7 percent, which is a cost that consumers would hardly be able to pay.

On the other hand, James W. Gardner a commissioner says that there is an increasing need for renewable powers. He suggests that pressure steaming at Kentucky and national level are encouraging the use of clean energy.

The renewable industry is being put in an embarrassing situation. Wind and solar manufactures are calling for national energy policy to assure the expansion of the industry. They claim that clean energy is a growing industry worldwide. So, if the Federal government does not intervene by subsidizing the growth of clean energy, there is a high risk of falling behind other nations.

China is experiencing a booming growth in clean energy sources of electricity. According to a recent report by Ernst & Young, – China is the most attractive market for clean energy. In their analysis, there were references to the failure of United States in introduce appropriate national renewable energy policies and laws.

In developed countries in Europe, governments are subsidizing clean energy production. There are many countries that are committed in meeting European Union’s energy goal – 20 percent of EU’s energy supply should be derived from clean energy by 2020.

In America, there are federal tax credits and renewable energy mandates that support the growth to the green energy sector. However, a recent legislation that failed to pass the Congress this year was one that favoured pricing on carbon-dioxide emissions with established standards for the country’s energy mix.

John Cusack, the president of a sustainability management and investment consulting firm in Eastchester, N.Y., Gifford Park Associates, says that “investors …. Are nervous about all the uncertainty”

According to the American Wind Energy Association wind farms of a capacity of 6,300 MW are under-development. However, wind power installation is still growing 50 percent slower in comparison to last year.

Fortunately, solar power is experiencing a pioneering expansion as the cost of solar panels is falling. But, it does not account for even 1 percent of the country’s energy needs. It is only powering around 350,000 households.

Those who support renewable energy claims that increase in the price of fossil fuel will ultimately push clean energy to gain competitive-edge.

The cost of extracting fossil fuel is gradually increasing in terms of climate, environmental and human health damaged. Advocates say that if all the cost of fossil fuel is considered, then wind power is even cheaper than fossil fuel.

Paul Pipe, from the steering committee of the Alliance for Renewable Energy says that America hasn’t yet emphasized on the question, whether “…We really want Renewables? But he confirms that if the answer is, YES, then it time to start paying for it.

Source: New York Times

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Renewable Power, Solar Power, Wind Power.

Utility scale electricity is already offering commercial-scale solar for below 15 cents per kWh. Progress Energy and Duke Energy are refusing these offers by striving for new nuclear plants. If these new nuclear power plants will ever be finished, they will produce electricity at a cost of 14 to 18 cents per kWh.

A full report on solar And Nuclear Costs has been attached below:
Report entitled: Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover authored by John O. Blackburn, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Economics and former Chancellor, Duke University.

The fundamental finding of this report is that conventional sources of energy such as nuclear and fossil fuel is suffering from what economists refer to as an ‘upward sloping cost curve’. In simple terms cost will keep on increasing, unless new technology emerges in the field of fossil fuel, but the market for traditional energy is already saturated. Currently, research and innovation are only occurring in the field of renewable energy, and that explains the ‘downward sloping cost curve’ – that is cost of clean technology has constantly been decreasing (price) during the last decade.

Technological innovation is the pull force for this downward sloping cost curve for alternative sources of energy. The emergence of large manufacturing and expansion of wind and solar energy has led to economies of scale (lower cost per unit (kWh) due to efficiency derived from mass production).

Mass production is a result of the global renewable energy market, where we can find large players such as China. Recently, the Chinese government announced that their wind power supply is going to increase by 50 percent. Furthermore, Ontario has attracted the development of 8,000 MWs of solar development form feed-in tariffs.

The price of wind power is competitive with coal-fired power plants. Costs PV utility-scale solar panels have been decreasing radically during the recent years. During five years the price of solar panels has dwindled from $6 to below $2 per watt.

There is also another very significant factor in cost of energy, being volatility. The cost of fossil fuel keeps on increasing as its demand is rising while the global supply is uncertain. Supply is not easily increased. There is a high risk involved in augmenting supply due to deep sea drilling and other factors.

The cost of coal per tone is approximately $100 while the cost for oil is around $70 to $80 a barrel. In the recent years only natural gas has been able to maintain an equilibrium price at around $ 4 to $5 per mmbtu.

According to Blackburn/Cunningham study, nuclear power will equally be faced with this rising cost structure. This was claimed by reference to a study conducted by Mark Cooper, a Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy & the Environment. – The report suggests that nuclear power will cost around 12 to 20 cents per kWh while the average cost will be 16 cents, excluding transmission charges. –
Report Attached: Vermont Law

The real cost of energy has since long been hidden from consumers through confusing lobbyist forcing several government subsidies to be injected. Taxpayers have since long been injecting millions in energy making them less aware of the real costs. However, when talking about subsidies, we must acknowledge that taxpayers are currently subsidizing all sources of energy (renewable and fossil fuel). This was reported in the Blackburn/Cunningham study.

It can be deducted from the Blackburn/Cunningham report that price of electricity hasn’t reached its momentum and will keep on rising in the future. The retail price of electricity will go beyond 10 cents per kWh. Irrespective, whether solar or nuclear energy will be used the consumer price will go above current median price, if ever subsidies are reduced.

In America, there is a high need for energy conservation. According to U.S Energy Information Agency, statistic documents suggest that Americans represent nearly 5 percents of the world’s population while they consume around 21 percent of world’s energy. A Jato Dynamics Research says that 33.9 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States of America have a high consumption bracket (15 mpg to 20 mpg) while in Japan only 0.63 and in Europe 0.28 of vehicles sold falls in this parameter. Going for energy efficiency and conservations is a prerequisite condition to lower energy wastage.

Nevertheless, if energy efficiency and conservation are achieved, it should be noted that U.S and the World is currently facing an upswing in the demand for electricity. The growth of electric transportation as a remedy for dependency on gasoline and oil is boosting energy demands for renewable. Transportation electrification is providing lower cost per mile and also a solution to lower environmental impacts of fossil fuel (substituting petrol and diesel).

The rise of digital information is equally pushing up the demand for electricity. Digital tools are not only increasing labour productivity and augmenting revenue for Corporate America. It is calling more energy. The digital age is producing tools that ‘cost less’ but the bottleneck in the expense of technology is the requirement for electricity.

The application of digital technology to the current electrical grid is providing strong hopes of reaping higher energy efficiency and conservation potentials. However, the savings will be insufficient to compensate for the recharging of electric cars. The current challenge is to develop effective compressors to decrease energy consumption by cars as well as household applications such as refrigerators and televisions.

A potential solution to enhance the local distribution grid utilizing of renewable energy supply could be to introduce battery storage technologies. The development of smart grid technology would directly address issues of energy supply and conservation.

Consumers could be part of the supply chain for renewable energy; the purchase of electricity from third parties by utility companies represents a solid strategy to expand the use of sources of renewable. It does also significantly reduce the footprint and environmental impacts of generating clean energy.

There isn’t any clear cut explanation, whether renewable, nuclear or fossil technology will all grow in use. Nonetheless, Blackburn/Cunningham study suggests that over the long-run sources of renewable energy tend to be more cost-effective and environmentally sound. Renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power are all the appropriate sources to accommodate for increasing demand for electricity (transportation electrification).

Source: Green Economy Post, Triple Pundit and Report on Solar and Nuclear Costs

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Renewable Power, Solar Power.

The coal equation can easily be eliminated from our energy supply. However, there need to be a will to do so.

Here is a brief overview how United State can eliminate coal-fired electricity by 2030 without deploying an Olympian effort. More intriguingly they would even be able to enhance the economy. It is time to kill two birds with one stone.

Currently roughly 45 percent of US electricity supply is generated from coal. This represents a huge proportion. It is also a heavy source of pollution: mercury and other types of greenhouse gases. We might be accustomed to slogans like clean coal but “clean coal” is akin to dry water.

But how is it possible to end the dependency on coal-fired electricity while simultaneously assuring that dependency on foreign energy sources do not increase, and the economy improves as well?

Coal Elimination Formula

The idea is to cease the era of coal by 2030 but equally earn a profit while going towards that end.

Energy Efficiency

In the United States, a huge amount of energy is wasted. Some of the major sources of energy-misuse come from inadequate building standards (Lacking insulation), energy-inefficient appliances, inefficient-automobiles as well as loss of energy in grid transmission. These are only a few to mention.

A reduction in 20 percent of current electricity demand could be achieved by simply improving actual system in use. In other words, if the United States would be committed towards conservation and energy efficiency then energy requirements could drop by more than a fifth of the current usage.

Altering Transport Mediums

A large shift towards Plug-in-Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and complete electrification of rails would decrease the addiction to oil. However, this would practically augment electricity demands by 5 percent.

Combined-Heat-Power (CHP)

Changes in regulations could help industries to better provide electricity to the national grid. There is a dozen of industries that make us of a massive amount of heat. However, this heat is often wasted. It could be used to produce electricity. We know that industries have for long been selling electricity to the national grid but there are non-technological-barriers, including laws and regulations. In other words, CHP could provide as much as 5 percent of electricity needs if the legal framework would promote so. This would be achieved by using actual heat energy.

Renewable Energy

Renewable Power is no longer a holy grail. For instance, wind energy is expanding at a rate of more than 25 percent per annum. Biomass energy is growing in various regions, Brazil is a benchmark, but in the States ethanol is also being produced. Solar, ocean and geothermal sources of energy are gradually surfacing in the energy landscape. In other words, there is a multi-fold of renewable sources of energy.

If wind power reaches 35 percent of US’ energy needs, then coal dependency could be decreased by 70 percent.

Moreover, waste electricity or biomass could very easily provide 10 percent of electricity needs. This would together with wind energy represent the elimination of 90 percent of required coal-fired plants.

Additionally, concentrated solar power (CSP), solar PV, hot water heaters, ocean (wave or tidal power) and geothermal energy could provide more than 10 percent of US’s energy needs. This would mean that more than 110 percent of coal-fired electricity could be replaced by clean energy.

Now, adding John McCain’s suggested 45 new nuclear power plants, which would represent 15 percent of total energy requirements. A total of 140% percent of coal energy production is already substituted by carbon friendly solutions.

Spar Capacity of 40%

Coal energy could be eradicated with simply renewable energy. It would not be that hard to replace 140 percent of energy production of coal-fired plants by renewable energy.

Moreover, most of these figures can extensively be expanded. If we add energy efficiency, and more nuclear power in the coming decades figures could be multiplied. It is even possible to see wind energy representing roughly 50 percent of US electricity supply in 2030. Adding other renewable sources like solar, hydropower, geothermal, ocean power and biomass that are growing in use will raise the figure even more. – Coal energy would no longer be a primary source of energy -

The real point:

The challenge is hard with the absence of a silver Bullet solution. The outline mentioned requires huge investment. Is it possible to achieve with a weak economy?

A Blooming Economy without Coal Energy

People wonder whether coal can be substitute despite the weak economy. The answer lies in an in-depth cost and benefits analysis. The full implication of pursuing the use of coal energy can be colossal. Mercury is emitted from coal-fired electricity; this is referred to as an external cost, which does in real term affect health of people.

Energy efficiency is another topic to address. The fluorescent-bulb costs relatively more than an incandescent-bulb when we take to consideration the purchasing costs. However, the fluorescent bulb is cheaper as it uses less energy and has more lighting hours. This is how smart buildings are going to save energy.

An inevitable benefit of renewable energy is experienced as the law of return sets-in. Wind energy turbines might cost much more to erect than coal-fired plants but the wind doesn’t cost anything afterward. There is only operation, maintenance and construction cost associated with wind turbines. The long-term prospect of renewable energy brings not only cheaper energy but also decent employments.

Coal Eradicated & Renewable Energy Surfacing

It is highly feasible to formulate the elimination of coal energy, freeing US from immense pollution. The slogan of “less dirty coal” is a fallacy that should be unaccepted. The United States economy can be enforced with smarter, cleaner and greener energy solutions. The benefits will be unfolded in terms of addressing alarming issues such as global warming and pollution levels.

American’s Addiction to Coal Can Cease with birth of renewable energy.

Source: Get Energy Smart Now

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2010. | Permalink | One comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Alternative Power Sources, Renewable Power.

The path towards a green economy is not only halted due to oil industry lobbyists but as well as due to lack of political will.

For those unfamiliar to renewable topics, America is still far from abandoning their addiction to fossil fuels. On a general basis, natural gas, oil and coal do provide roughly “85 percent of the Nation’s energy needs”. According to “U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA)”, the energy consumption is expected to grow at a steady average 0.5 percent per annum for the coming 25 years (up to 2035). The cumulative figure for a quarter of a century is still as high as 14 percent. This means that energy generated from fossil fuel would continue to increase in quantitative terms. It will, in other words, represent 78 percent of total energy supply by year 2035.

More energy efficient solutions are needed. This could include electric cars, efficient light bulbs and energy-saving appliances, which could halt the energy expansion. Improvements in energy efficiency might unfortunately be offset by quantity. The American population will rise from 305 to around 391 million. This would be followed by a rise from 113 to 147 million households and equally the number of vehicles would escalate from 231 to 297 millions.

The speed at which solar, wind and biomass are growing is expected to augment tremendously, but they are only expected to provide 11 percent of total energy supply in 2035. It is merely 5 percent more than in 2008.

There are several obstacles even in new energy sources. Robert Bryce’s book entitled “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future” talks about difficulties. It explains that, even if America converted its total soybean production into jet fuel it would only account for a fifth of U.S jet energy fuel requirements. In America, Jet fuel represents 8 percent of the total oil requirements.

The same limitation applies for other renewable solutions. For instance, wind energy is limited during days when there are practically no breezes.

Now back to BP oil spill – There will be two unfolding consequences one being the disaster; anxious fisherman, coated birds, fire, damaged beaches, polluted water and animal death. The other issue is energy debates.

There are promising energy aims in America, including the significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This includes a decrease from 83 percent in the period 2005 to 2050. The solution is expected to be found in carbon capturing technology, in other words, low cost resolutions. Another approach is to go intensely for nuclear power. However, according to EIA’s projection, the emission of carbon emission will rise by 8.7 percent from 2008 to 2035. So the trend is definitely not that positive.

Obama did in a previous speech say that “If China can do it, so can we!” However, China’s expansions of solar and wind energy are only a piece of the story. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2008, fossil fuel represented 87 percent of China’s energy supply where coal stands for 66 percent. In 2008, China accounted for half of the world’s coal energy consumption. The usage of fossil fuels has since 2000 to 2008 grown at a steady rate of above 10 percent per annum. The recent progress in china is impressive, but they still have to reduce their coal consumption to become a global benchmark.

A straight forward energy policy would be to introduce more taxes on oil and carbon emission. This would stir support for energy-efficiency products. It would also be much better than the cap-and trade suggestions actually being proposed by the administration.

It would also be important to invest in Research and development to assure that cleaner energy sources emerge into use.

The BP spill seems to be related mainly to human errors. It is thus still necessary to support drilling and tapping into local oil and natural gas. This will definitely assure more employment and will reduce imports.

sources: Washington Post

© Jimmy Eriksson for Renewable Power News, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Add to del.icio.us

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati

Want more on these topics ? Browse the archive of posts filed under Global Energy, Renewable Power.