In UK, there is much hot air being generated by talk on wind energy. Are wind turbines a blot on the landscape, or a gift to the planet? Are they really clean?
For instance, does the energy used to construct a wind turbine outweigh the energy produced during its lifetime in operation? Some say so. Others think not. An evidence review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010, which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It also found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months.
A life-cycle analysis published in 2011 by Vestas, a Danish turbines manufacturer, of a 100MW onshore windfarm consisting of 33 3MW turbines concluded, unsurprisingly, that the siting of the turbines is crucial in maximising the energy return ratio. "Doubling the distance to the grid from 50 km to 100 km typically increases impacts per kWh by 3-5%," it concluded. "If the wind plant operates in low-wind conditions then the [negative] impacts per kWh electricity produced increases by 23% compared to medium wind conditions." But it stressed that the energy used to transport and install the turbines was "very insignificant".
There is the question of new jobs! (Don't ask about old ones lost.) According to the wind trade association RenewableUK, offshore wind could spark £3bn of investment in the UK supply chain by 2022, supporting more than 45,000 long-term jobs.
As to tech innovation, wind energy is constantly improvising. From onshore to offshore to floating turbines, the efficiency keeps rising and costs dropping.
What do you think? Write in.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Outlook moderate for clean energy this year
Despite record levels in investment in clean energy last year, the outlook for 2012 is much less certain, warn financial consultants Ernst & Young. According to the company’s latest Country Attractiveness Indices report (CAI), China, the US, Germany and India lead the field of 40 countries.
But the UK rose to fifth place from sixth, overtaking Italy, thanks to several large offshore wind projects, including the world’s largest wind farm planned for Caithness in Scotland where £4.5 billion will be invested in a 1500 MW facility. Increases in solar capacity of 762 MW last year and a new £120 million, 53 MW wood-fuelled biomass plant approved in Middlesex also boosted the UK’s standing.
But access to capital, particularly in the countries blighted by the eurozone crisis, is expected to be a major obstacle this year, with Ernst & Young suggesting that the value of deals is likely to fall.
But the UK rose to fifth place from sixth, overtaking Italy, thanks to several large offshore wind projects, including the world’s largest wind farm planned for Caithness in Scotland where £4.5 billion will be invested in a 1500 MW facility. Increases in solar capacity of 762 MW last year and a new £120 million, 53 MW wood-fuelled biomass plant approved in Middlesex also boosted the UK’s standing.
But access to capital, particularly in the countries blighted by the eurozone crisis, is expected to be a major obstacle this year, with Ernst & Young suggesting that the value of deals is likely to fall.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Parched times
It is summer. Temperatures are rising and land already wearing a parched look. The most sought commodity, water, is on a retreating march, and this at a time when it is needed most. But let us look at some data and studies to see if there is really a scarcity or simply bad management.
Take a city like Bangalore. It has a population of 85 lakhs, which will exceed 1 crore by 2016 and be 1.26 crores by 2020, 2 crores by 2030 at the current annual growth rate of 4%. Where does it get its water from? Most of it it from a distance - horizontal and vertical!
About 850 MLD to 900 MLD is pumped up from Cauvery across a distance 98 kms. This is after accounting for water meant for industrial purposes (50 mld) and a huge unnaccounted for water owing to leakages (45 percent or 450 mld).
Going by trends, in 2020 the average Bangalorean will be able to access 73 lpcd (litres per capita per day) while the GoI norm is 150!
Then there is the vertical drilling for groundwater which goes unchecked. There are about 312,000 borewells in the metropolitan area, of which only a third is registered! A recent study by the Department of Mines and Geology,Groundwater Hydrology and Groundwater Quality in and Around Bangalore City, showed that samples between 5% and 29% are having toxicity beyond permissible limit for drinking water in respect of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Fluoride, Nitrate, Magnesium, Manganese, Copper, Lead, aluminium and Zinc. The most alarming phenomenon is that the toxicity in underground water is steadily increasing.
Even more alarming is that the drawal of water from the borewells is almost thrice the recharging by rainfall! If this continues, within a couple of years the city will be dry.
What can be done is simple, as always, but avoids attention because it means a change of habits. River water pumped using electricity MUST be used sparingly and only for potable purposes and NOT for cleaning cars and gardening. Recycled, treated sewage water must be used for all other purposes. There are treatment plants, most running below capacity! Once tertiary treatment is included, we can have the NEWater that Singapore now uses for all its requirements.
Lakes must be restored and kept clean by not allowing sewage water to flow into them. Once upon a time it was this water that addressed the needs of the populace. Experts believe that lakes and rainwater alone can cater to the needs of the city.
Groundwater must be used only as an option where all else fails. Else, we will be depleting our million year old aquifer for ages to come.
Take a city like Bangalore. It has a population of 85 lakhs, which will exceed 1 crore by 2016 and be 1.26 crores by 2020, 2 crores by 2030 at the current annual growth rate of 4%. Where does it get its water from? Most of it it from a distance - horizontal and vertical!
About 850 MLD to 900 MLD is pumped up from Cauvery across a distance 98 kms. This is after accounting for water meant for industrial purposes (50 mld) and a huge unnaccounted for water owing to leakages (45 percent or 450 mld).
Going by trends, in 2020 the average Bangalorean will be able to access 73 lpcd (litres per capita per day) while the GoI norm is 150!
Then there is the vertical drilling for groundwater which goes unchecked. There are about 312,000 borewells in the metropolitan area, of which only a third is registered! A recent study by the Department of Mines and Geology,Groundwater Hydrology and Groundwater Quality in and Around Bangalore City, showed that samples between 5% and 29% are having toxicity beyond permissible limit for drinking water in respect of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Fluoride, Nitrate, Magnesium, Manganese, Copper, Lead, aluminium and Zinc. The most alarming phenomenon is that the toxicity in underground water is steadily increasing.
Even more alarming is that the drawal of water from the borewells is almost thrice the recharging by rainfall! If this continues, within a couple of years the city will be dry.
What can be done is simple, as always, but avoids attention because it means a change of habits. River water pumped using electricity MUST be used sparingly and only for potable purposes and NOT for cleaning cars and gardening. Recycled, treated sewage water must be used for all other purposes. There are treatment plants, most running below capacity! Once tertiary treatment is included, we can have the NEWater that Singapore now uses for all its requirements.
Lakes must be restored and kept clean by not allowing sewage water to flow into them. Once upon a time it was this water that addressed the needs of the populace. Experts believe that lakes and rainwater alone can cater to the needs of the city.
Groundwater must be used only as an option where all else fails. Else, we will be depleting our million year old aquifer for ages to come.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
UK can be world leader in wave, tidal power
According to a new report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, the UK could become one of the leading exporters of wave and tidal power equipment and expertise, but only if the UK Government adopts a more visionary approach to developing marine renewables.
The UK is already the world leader in the development of wave and tidal energy technologies, home to seven of the eight full-scale prototype devices installed worldwide. The report notes that this success is in part a result of the abundant natural resources that are specific to the UK, a long history of academic research, world-class testing facilities, and a strong skills base in other maritime industries.
But the report warns that other countries less afraid of taking risks could leap ahead of the UK if the government takes an overly cautious attitude. The report points to the country’s failure to capitalize on its 80s lead in the wind turbine market. Once the leader in terms of research and testing of wind turbines, the UK failed to establish a domestic manufacturing industry and lost out to Denmark, which now controls the lion’s share of the worldwide industry now.
The UK is already the world leader in the development of wave and tidal energy technologies, home to seven of the eight full-scale prototype devices installed worldwide. The report notes that this success is in part a result of the abundant natural resources that are specific to the UK, a long history of academic research, world-class testing facilities, and a strong skills base in other maritime industries.
But the report warns that other countries less afraid of taking risks could leap ahead of the UK if the government takes an overly cautious attitude. The report points to the country’s failure to capitalize on its 80s lead in the wind turbine market. Once the leader in terms of research and testing of wind turbines, the UK failed to establish a domestic manufacturing industry and lost out to Denmark, which now controls the lion’s share of the worldwide industry now.
Bacteria generators
A bacteria could be our next source of energy! By deliberately manipulating the microbial mix the team of scientists engineered a biofilm that is efficient at generating electricity.
Bacillus stratosphericus -- a microbe commonly found in high concentrations in the stratosphere -- is a key component of a new 'super' biofilm that has been engineered by a team of scientists from Newcastle University. Isolating 75 different species of bacteria from the Wear Estuary, Country Durham, UK, the team tested the power-generation of each one using a microbial fuel cell (MFC).
By selecting the best species of bacteria, a kind of microbial "pick and mix," they were able to create an artificial biofilm, doubling the electrical output of the MFC from 105 Watts per cubic metre to 200 Watts per cubic metre.
The use of microbes to generate electricity is not a new concept and has been used in the treatment of waste water and sewage plants. Microbial fuel cells, which work in a similar way to a battery, use bacteria to convert organic compounds directly into electricity by a process known as bio-catalytic oxidation.
A biofilm -- or 'slime' -- coats the carbon electrodes of the MFC and as the bacteria feed, they produce electrons which pass into the electrodes and generate electricity.
Of course more work is needed before we can think of having a factory of bacteria generators! But nature does show the way, doesn't it?
Bacillus stratosphericus -- a microbe commonly found in high concentrations in the stratosphere -- is a key component of a new 'super' biofilm that has been engineered by a team of scientists from Newcastle University. Isolating 75 different species of bacteria from the Wear Estuary, Country Durham, UK, the team tested the power-generation of each one using a microbial fuel cell (MFC).
By selecting the best species of bacteria, a kind of microbial "pick and mix," they were able to create an artificial biofilm, doubling the electrical output of the MFC from 105 Watts per cubic metre to 200 Watts per cubic metre.
The use of microbes to generate electricity is not a new concept and has been used in the treatment of waste water and sewage plants. Microbial fuel cells, which work in a similar way to a battery, use bacteria to convert organic compounds directly into electricity by a process known as bio-catalytic oxidation.
A biofilm -- or 'slime' -- coats the carbon electrodes of the MFC and as the bacteria feed, they produce electrons which pass into the electrodes and generate electricity.
Of course more work is needed before we can think of having a factory of bacteria generators! But nature does show the way, doesn't it?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Liquid batteries are the key
There is plenty of wind and plenty of sunshine to provide energy for the world many times over. But the wind does not blow always nor sun shine at night! That intermittency has been the bane of renewable energy. And bateries to store the energy when available have proven to be expensive and bulky.
Needn' be, says MIT. According to MIT, liquid batteries are inexpensive and last longer than traditional batteries. The three materials contained in the liquid batteries each settle in separate layers due to the difference in their densities, which, in this case, is a good thing. They need to be separate.
The negative electrode (anode) is in the top layer and is made of magnesium; the middle layer, the electrolyte, consists of a salt mixture containing magnesium chloride; and the bottom layer, which is the positive electrode (cathode), is made of antimony. This battery operates at a temperature of 700 °C.
The battery generates an electric current as each magnesium atom (this is in the negative electrode) loses two electrons, then becoming magnesium ions which travel to the other antimony electrode. The magnesium ions then reacquire two more electrons and become magnesium again because of this. This causes an alloy to form with the antimony.
When the battery is supplied with an electric current, this process is reversed and the electrons are driven out of the antimony electrode, and back to the magnesium electrode.
Not only does the battery act as storage but actually generates electricity through the chemical reaction! Liquid batteries could be used by utilities too, notes MIT.
Needn' be, says MIT. According to MIT, liquid batteries are inexpensive and last longer than traditional batteries. The three materials contained in the liquid batteries each settle in separate layers due to the difference in their densities, which, in this case, is a good thing. They need to be separate.
The negative electrode (anode) is in the top layer and is made of magnesium; the middle layer, the electrolyte, consists of a salt mixture containing magnesium chloride; and the bottom layer, which is the positive electrode (cathode), is made of antimony. This battery operates at a temperature of 700 °C.
The battery generates an electric current as each magnesium atom (this is in the negative electrode) loses two electrons, then becoming magnesium ions which travel to the other antimony electrode. The magnesium ions then reacquire two more electrons and become magnesium again because of this. This causes an alloy to form with the antimony.
When the battery is supplied with an electric current, this process is reversed and the electrons are driven out of the antimony electrode, and back to the magnesium electrode.
Not only does the battery act as storage but actually generates electricity through the chemical reaction! Liquid batteries could be used by utilities too, notes MIT.
Monday, February 20, 2012
A leaf out of nature
Turbo-charging photosynthesis in an "artificial leaf" could yield a vast commercial power source, say scientists.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert solar energy into chemical energy. In the presence of visible light, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20) are transformed into glucose and O2 during a complex series of chemical reactions. The glucose can be used as a fuel.
But the efficiency of photosynthesis is poor, as low as 5 percent.
When the enzyme that catalyzes steps in CO2 fixation, called Rubisco, becomes saturated, the process of producing carbohydrate slows down and that most absorbed light energy is lost as heat. When it’s sunny, a plant’s molecular machinery produces more electrons than the Rubisco carbohydrate-producing engine can handle, and a lot of those electrons are wasted.
Scientists want to harness the excess solar energy by transferring energy absorbed in a photosynthetic light harvesting cell via biological nanowires to a separate
cell that will produce fuel.
Given the low efficiency of photosynthesis, the top theoretical yield for squeezing energy out of the process with major crops such as wheat or sugar beets would be about five percent. But if efficiency could be forced up by even a few percentage points, they could be sitting on major biofuel production potential.
Efforts are on in various labs in the world. Can we prove one-up on nature?! Will the wonder-leaves we make churn out energy at the rate we guzzle, without affecting food production? With so less land arable, can we afford to turn over these lands to biofuels?
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert solar energy into chemical energy. In the presence of visible light, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20) are transformed into glucose and O2 during a complex series of chemical reactions. The glucose can be used as a fuel.
But the efficiency of photosynthesis is poor, as low as 5 percent.
When the enzyme that catalyzes steps in CO2 fixation, called Rubisco, becomes saturated, the process of producing carbohydrate slows down and that most absorbed light energy is lost as heat. When it’s sunny, a plant’s molecular machinery produces more electrons than the Rubisco carbohydrate-producing engine can handle, and a lot of those electrons are wasted.
Scientists want to harness the excess solar energy by transferring energy absorbed in a photosynthetic light harvesting cell via biological nanowires to a separate
cell that will produce fuel.
Given the low efficiency of photosynthesis, the top theoretical yield for squeezing energy out of the process with major crops such as wheat or sugar beets would be about five percent. But if efficiency could be forced up by even a few percentage points, they could be sitting on major biofuel production potential.
Efforts are on in various labs in the world. Can we prove one-up on nature?! Will the wonder-leaves we make churn out energy at the rate we guzzle, without affecting food production? With so less land arable, can we afford to turn over these lands to biofuels?
Friday, February 17, 2012
No big deal?
A drastic switch to low carbon-emitting technologies, such as wind and hydroelectric power, may not yield a reduction in global warming until the latter part of this century, new research suggests.
The study, published February 16, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, claims that the rapid deployment of low-greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies (LGEs) will initially increase emissions as they will require a large amount of energy to construct and install.
These cumulative emissions will remain in the atmosphere for extended periods due to the long lifetime of CO2, meaning that global mean surface temperatures will increase to a level greater than if we continued to use conventional coal-fired plants.
Delaying the rollout of the technologies is not an option however; the risks of environmental harm will be much greater in the second half of the century and beyond if we continue to rely on coal-based technologies.
SO what can we infer? Doomed if we don't, doomed if we do?? But there is a way out - energy conservation. Go slow on the use and wastage of energy. Things we have got used to plugging in and operating will have to be phased out or used wisely. Easier said, you think? For instance, how many of us can stop using the washing machine to conserve power and water?!
The study, published February 16, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, claims that the rapid deployment of low-greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies (LGEs) will initially increase emissions as they will require a large amount of energy to construct and install.
These cumulative emissions will remain in the atmosphere for extended periods due to the long lifetime of CO2, meaning that global mean surface temperatures will increase to a level greater than if we continued to use conventional coal-fired plants.
Delaying the rollout of the technologies is not an option however; the risks of environmental harm will be much greater in the second half of the century and beyond if we continue to rely on coal-based technologies.
SO what can we infer? Doomed if we don't, doomed if we do?? But there is a way out - energy conservation. Go slow on the use and wastage of energy. Things we have got used to plugging in and operating will have to be phased out or used wisely. Easier said, you think? For instance, how many of us can stop using the washing machine to conserve power and water?!
The cleaning excess
“Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age. Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution,” Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council, told the Guardian.
The average American uses 23.6 rolls of toilet paper a year — that’s about 7 billion rolls for the country. If a single eucalyptus tree yields 1,000 rolls, it amounts to seven million eucalyptus trees to clean Americans. With offices reducing use of paper, it has meant less recyclable paper in general.
Can't the Americans do without tissue? While this may seem simple to most of us in the east, in fact more hygienic to use water, only about 6 percent Americans are willing to reconsider!
Makes one think how simple things taken for granted have big stories behind them. Habits die hard.
The average American uses 23.6 rolls of toilet paper a year — that’s about 7 billion rolls for the country. If a single eucalyptus tree yields 1,000 rolls, it amounts to seven million eucalyptus trees to clean Americans. With offices reducing use of paper, it has meant less recyclable paper in general.
Can't the Americans do without tissue? While this may seem simple to most of us in the east, in fact more hygienic to use water, only about 6 percent Americans are willing to reconsider!
Makes one think how simple things taken for granted have big stories behind them. Habits die hard.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Virtual water looms large
A new study calculates that about one-fifth of all water goes toward the production of crops and commodities for export, part of a global phenomenon known as “virtual water” that researchers say could place pressure on finite water supplies in some nations.
Using worldwide trade indicators, demographic data, and statistics on water use, researchers from the University of Twente in the Netherlands mapped the world’s water footprint, including patterns of trade they say are creating disparities in water use.
According to the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, many desert and island nations are becoming increasingly dependent on water from other countries, as they import not just food products but the water needed to produce it. The nations most reliant on this virtual water include the island nation of Malta, which is 92 percent dependent, Kuwait (90 percent), Jordan (86 percent) and Israel (82 percent).
Some of the most water-rich nations — including the U.S. and Japan — are also among the biggest importers because the products they import require so much water to produce.
Truly a global challenge. It is no more possible to fix blame on any nation or region in these times where the world has become a global village.
Meanwhile, in connection to what we discussed yesterday about jobs and the renewable industry, clean energy jobs in the EU have now passed the 1 million milestone. According to a new report out by the European Commission, The State of Renewable Energies in Europe, 1.14 million people were working in the clean (or green) energy sector in 2010, after a 25% increase in jobs in that sector that year (compared to 2009).
Using worldwide trade indicators, demographic data, and statistics on water use, researchers from the University of Twente in the Netherlands mapped the world’s water footprint, including patterns of trade they say are creating disparities in water use.
According to the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, many desert and island nations are becoming increasingly dependent on water from other countries, as they import not just food products but the water needed to produce it. The nations most reliant on this virtual water include the island nation of Malta, which is 92 percent dependent, Kuwait (90 percent), Jordan (86 percent) and Israel (82 percent).
Some of the most water-rich nations — including the U.S. and Japan — are also among the biggest importers because the products they import require so much water to produce.
Truly a global challenge. It is no more possible to fix blame on any nation or region in these times where the world has become a global village.
Meanwhile, in connection to what we discussed yesterday about jobs and the renewable industry, clean energy jobs in the EU have now passed the 1 million milestone. According to a new report out by the European Commission, The State of Renewable Energies in Europe, 1.14 million people were working in the clean (or green) energy sector in 2010, after a 25% increase in jobs in that sector that year (compared to 2009).
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wave of the future?
It may be small, even minute but Nano is in the news most days. A MIT-led team has
published its accidental discovery in the December IEEE Spectrum Magazine, about ‘Nanodynamite: Fuel-coated nanotubes could provide bursts of power to the smallest systems’. They were measuring the acceleration of a chemical reaction along a nanotube when they found that the reaction they were monitoring actually generated power.
By coating a nanotube in nitrocellulose fuel and igniting one end, the team set off a combustion wave along it and learned that a nanotube is an excellent conductor of heat from burning fuel. Even better, the combustion wave creates a strong electric current!
But it will take some research before the researchers can learn to tamethese exotic waves and, ultimately, finding out if they’re the wave of the future!
In another paper published in Nature Communications, a team of engineers at Stanford describes how it has created tiny hollow spheres of photovoltaic nanocrystalline-silicon and harnessed physics to do for light what whispering galleries do for sound. The results, say the engineers, could dramatically cut materials usage and processing cost.
The researchers first create tiny balls of silica – the same stuff glass is made of –and coat them with a layer of silicon. They then etch away the glass center using hydrofluoric acid that does not affect the silicon, leaving behind the all-important light-sensitive shell. These shells form optical whispering galleries that capture and recirculate the light.light circulates around the circumference of the shells a few times, during which energy from the light gets absorbed gradually by the silicon. The longer the shells can keep the light in the material, the better the absorption will be.
Nano promises.
published its accidental discovery in the December IEEE Spectrum Magazine, about ‘Nanodynamite: Fuel-coated nanotubes could provide bursts of power to the smallest systems’. They were measuring the acceleration of a chemical reaction along a nanotube when they found that the reaction they were monitoring actually generated power.
By coating a nanotube in nitrocellulose fuel and igniting one end, the team set off a combustion wave along it and learned that a nanotube is an excellent conductor of heat from burning fuel. Even better, the combustion wave creates a strong electric current!
But it will take some research before the researchers can learn to tamethese exotic waves and, ultimately, finding out if they’re the wave of the future!
In another paper published in Nature Communications, a team of engineers at Stanford describes how it has created tiny hollow spheres of photovoltaic nanocrystalline-silicon and harnessed physics to do for light what whispering galleries do for sound. The results, say the engineers, could dramatically cut materials usage and processing cost.
The researchers first create tiny balls of silica – the same stuff glass is made of –and coat them with a layer of silicon. They then etch away the glass center using hydrofluoric acid that does not affect the silicon, leaving behind the all-important light-sensitive shell. These shells form optical whispering galleries that capture and recirculate the light.light circulates around the circumference of the shells a few times, during which energy from the light gets absorbed gradually by the silicon. The longer the shells can keep the light in the material, the better the absorption will be.
Nano promises.
Jobs is not the issue
An argument oft repeated is whether renewable energy will create new jobs. From the simple premise of any change bringing in new requirements, and hence jobs, but at the cost of earlier existing jobs, it is an impasse.
For instance, taking people off cars into mass transit will create jobs, but what of those who will lose jobs? But who? Those working in the petroleum industry, of course!
Or take the process of retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency - won't that employ many times more people than will be lost in producing the electricity?
Of course, in installing PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass facilities, nations will have to employ more people than will be lost from the ranks of the traditional sources of energy. But, what happens when all this stuff is installed and operational?
After all, renewable energy is about technology and every innovation in clean energy and transportation will add jobs. But being about technology, and given that technology has a tendency to displace human labor, what then??
Perhaps, it is the wrong argument to be having in the first place. Renewable energy must primarily be adopted for the clean tag it brings, as well as off-setting climate change, besides being abundant. Right?
For instance, taking people off cars into mass transit will create jobs, but what of those who will lose jobs? But who? Those working in the petroleum industry, of course!
Or take the process of retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency - won't that employ many times more people than will be lost in producing the electricity?
Of course, in installing PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass facilities, nations will have to employ more people than will be lost from the ranks of the traditional sources of energy. But, what happens when all this stuff is installed and operational?
After all, renewable energy is about technology and every innovation in clean energy and transportation will add jobs. But being about technology, and given that technology has a tendency to displace human labor, what then??
Perhaps, it is the wrong argument to be having in the first place. Renewable energy must primarily be adopted for the clean tag it brings, as well as off-setting climate change, besides being abundant. Right?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Solar matrix
There is an interesting article on viable alternatives to fossil fuels in Energy Bulletin. Borrowed from a do-your-math blog, this one sees the blogger, a physicist making some calculations to arrive at the answer.
For his matrix he chooses a few important characteristics - abundance (of the fuel), technical difficulty (in producing energy), intermittency, demonstrated (is it ready for use), electricity, heat, transport, acceptance, backyard (can it be deployed in our backyard), efficiency. Yes, cost is missing! But as he later explains, the lowest scoring ones are the costliest.
Except for abundance aspect where fossil fuels fail, there is no comparison with fossil fuels that tower over the alternatives in every other aspect. But abundance, and repurcussion, such as climate change, are two major aspects.
The best alternatives turn out to be soalr PV and solar thermal. Covering only 0.5% of land area with 15% efficient PV panels provides the annual energy needs of our society, qualifying solar PV as abundant. It’s not terribly difficult to produce; silicon is the most abundant element in Earth’s crust, and PV panels are being produced globally at 25 GW peak capacity per year.
As to solar thermal, it achieves comparable efficiency to PV, but uses more land area, generating electricity from concentrated solar thermal energy automatically fits in the abundant category—though somewhat more regionally constrained. It’s relatively low-tech: shiny curved mirrors tracking on (often) one axis, heating oil or other fluid to run a plain-old heat engine. Intermittency can be mitigated by storing thermal energy, perhaps even for a few days. Because a standard heat-engine follows, fossil fuels can supplement in lean times using the same back-end.
Finally, as the writer notes, the other controlled option is to deliberately adjust our lives to require fewer resources, preferably abandoning the growth paradigm at the same time. 'Can we manage a calm, orderly exit from the building? In either case, the first step is to agree that the building is in trouble. Techno-optimism keeps us from even agreeing on that.'
Check out the calculations for more.
For his matrix he chooses a few important characteristics - abundance (of the fuel), technical difficulty (in producing energy), intermittency, demonstrated (is it ready for use), electricity, heat, transport, acceptance, backyard (can it be deployed in our backyard), efficiency. Yes, cost is missing! But as he later explains, the lowest scoring ones are the costliest.
Except for abundance aspect where fossil fuels fail, there is no comparison with fossil fuels that tower over the alternatives in every other aspect. But abundance, and repurcussion, such as climate change, are two major aspects.
The best alternatives turn out to be soalr PV and solar thermal. Covering only 0.5% of land area with 15% efficient PV panels provides the annual energy needs of our society, qualifying solar PV as abundant. It’s not terribly difficult to produce; silicon is the most abundant element in Earth’s crust, and PV panels are being produced globally at 25 GW peak capacity per year.
As to solar thermal, it achieves comparable efficiency to PV, but uses more land area, generating electricity from concentrated solar thermal energy automatically fits in the abundant category—though somewhat more regionally constrained. It’s relatively low-tech: shiny curved mirrors tracking on (often) one axis, heating oil or other fluid to run a plain-old heat engine. Intermittency can be mitigated by storing thermal energy, perhaps even for a few days. Because a standard heat-engine follows, fossil fuels can supplement in lean times using the same back-end.
Finally, as the writer notes, the other controlled option is to deliberately adjust our lives to require fewer resources, preferably abandoning the growth paradigm at the same time. 'Can we manage a calm, orderly exit from the building? In either case, the first step is to agree that the building is in trouble. Techno-optimism keeps us from even agreeing on that.'
Check out the calculations for more.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Good News
In this International Year of Sustainable Energy, every bit of good news is welcome. Renewable energy investments in India increased by more than 52 percent in 2011, the fastest growth among major global economies, according to a new report.
More than $10.3 billion was invested in renewable energy projects in India last year, with about $4.6 billion targeting wind energy projects and another $4.2 billion going toward solar projects, the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report said. For solar, that represented a seven-fold increase from 2010, when investments totaled about $600 million.
According to the BNEF report, India is likely to exceed its target of adding 12.4 gigawatts of grid-connected renewable energy as set out in its current five-year plan, which ends next month.
But when it comes to new wind power China far and away leads the world. China's wind power push nearly tripled that of the United States, which installed the second-greatest amount. New figures from the Global Wind Energy Council show that China installed 18 gigawatts of new wind power in 2011, bringing its national total to 62.73 GW, a world-leading 26.4% of all our wind power.
Finally, there is news that wind and solar power were responsible for 68% of new European Union (EU) power installations in 2011 and renewable power as a whole was responsible for about 70%.
We are headed in the right direction though the destination is far beyond the horizon. Some cheer.
More than $10.3 billion was invested in renewable energy projects in India last year, with about $4.6 billion targeting wind energy projects and another $4.2 billion going toward solar projects, the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) report said. For solar, that represented a seven-fold increase from 2010, when investments totaled about $600 million.
According to the BNEF report, India is likely to exceed its target of adding 12.4 gigawatts of grid-connected renewable energy as set out in its current five-year plan, which ends next month.
But when it comes to new wind power China far and away leads the world. China's wind power push nearly tripled that of the United States, which installed the second-greatest amount. New figures from the Global Wind Energy Council show that China installed 18 gigawatts of new wind power in 2011, bringing its national total to 62.73 GW, a world-leading 26.4% of all our wind power.
Finally, there is news that wind and solar power were responsible for 68% of new European Union (EU) power installations in 2011 and renewable power as a whole was responsible for about 70%.
We are headed in the right direction though the destination is far beyond the horizon. Some cheer.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Making a volcano to cool the earth!
The hope never dies, nor the faith in technology. So what if climate change is bad, we will deal with it using technology. That is what the new generation may be expected to say. The implicit faith can be seen if you talk to youngsters whether on population problem or the fuel problem. "We will find a way to send people to other planets. We will find new fuels.' You can be sure to hear that.
And why not? We are talking the same language. When we talk of 'geo-engineering' for example.
How about creating sulphate particles in the thin air and provide a partial shade to the sun's rays, potentially reducing temperatures 1-2C? That is what a recent study focuses on. Dimming the sun by engineering the effects of an artificial volcano is a feasible and potentially cost-effective option to reduce temperatures on Earth, the first major study of the practicality of planetary-scale solar radiation management (SRM) concludes.
This can be done by lifting and releasing 1-5m tonnes a year of sulphur dioxide to altitudes approaching 100,000ft. But how exactly? Try batteries of 16-inch naval guns. But to lift 5m tonnes of particles a year 100,000ft into the stratosphere might need 70m gun shots a year and could cost an astronomical $700bn a year.
How about deploying a fleet of massive helium-filled blimps, costing $8-10bn a year to run, with each blimp costing possibly $500m? However, the technology of airships operating at this altitude is not developed.
It is technically feasible, even if costly or dealing with technology still on the drawing board. However, no attempt is made to quantify the potential benefits or the risks involved in the likely disruption of weather patterns on earth. From climate change to what fire may we be jumping, any guesses?
And why not? We are talking the same language. When we talk of 'geo-engineering' for example.
How about creating sulphate particles in the thin air and provide a partial shade to the sun's rays, potentially reducing temperatures 1-2C? That is what a recent study focuses on. Dimming the sun by engineering the effects of an artificial volcano is a feasible and potentially cost-effective option to reduce temperatures on Earth, the first major study of the practicality of planetary-scale solar radiation management (SRM) concludes.
This can be done by lifting and releasing 1-5m tonnes a year of sulphur dioxide to altitudes approaching 100,000ft. But how exactly? Try batteries of 16-inch naval guns. But to lift 5m tonnes of particles a year 100,000ft into the stratosphere might need 70m gun shots a year and could cost an astronomical $700bn a year.
How about deploying a fleet of massive helium-filled blimps, costing $8-10bn a year to run, with each blimp costing possibly $500m? However, the technology of airships operating at this altitude is not developed.
It is technically feasible, even if costly or dealing with technology still on the drawing board. However, no attempt is made to quantify the potential benefits or the risks involved in the likely disruption of weather patterns on earth. From climate change to what fire may we be jumping, any guesses?
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Aviation sector under scanner
India may soon join the European Union (EU) in efforts to reduce emissions from its aviation industry. The country’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DCGA) earlier this month required that the civil aviation sector begin monitoring all carbon emissions from airports to create a national carbon inventory.
All airlines and airports will have to track their emissions over the course of 2011, and must submit the data to DGCA by January 2012. This data will then be used to estimate the total aviation industry’s carbon footprint, develop a national emission inventory for the Indian aviation sector, and potentially serve as a point of reference to reduce emissions in the future.
Under the EU system, all airlines (even foreign ones)would have to account for their emissions and participate in a permit trading system for every ton of CO2 they emit or face fines. India has asked its major airlines to refuse turning over emissions data to the EU, and estimated it would cost Indian carriers $57 million in 2012.
The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports.
For example, in EU emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006. Reason enough to take aviation emissions seriously.
All airlines and airports will have to track their emissions over the course of 2011, and must submit the data to DGCA by January 2012. This data will then be used to estimate the total aviation industry’s carbon footprint, develop a national emission inventory for the Indian aviation sector, and potentially serve as a point of reference to reduce emissions in the future.
Under the EU system, all airlines (even foreign ones)would have to account for their emissions and participate in a permit trading system for every ton of CO2 they emit or face fines. India has asked its major airlines to refuse turning over emissions data to the EU, and estimated it would cost Indian carriers $57 million in 2012.
The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change, a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects. In addition to the CO2 released by most aircraft in flight through the burning of fuels such as Jet-A (turbine aircraft) or Avgas (piston aircraft), the aviation industry also contributes greenhouse gas emissions from ground airport vehicles and those used by passengers and staff to access airports.
For example, in EU emissions from aviation increased by 87% between 1990 and 2006. Reason enough to take aviation emissions seriously.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
More billions needed for universal electrification
Despite massive gains in global access to electricity over the last two decades, governments and development organizations must continue to invest in electrification to achieve critical health, environmental, and livelihood outcomes, according to new research published by the Worldwatch Institute.
Between 1990 and 2008, close to 2 billion people worldwide gained access to electricity. But the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that more than 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity, while the United Nations estimates that another 1 billion have unreliable access.
At least 2.7 billion people, and possibly more than 3 billion, lack access to modern fuels for cooking and heating. They rely instead on traditional biomass sources, such as firewood, charcoal, manure, and crop residues, that can emit harmful indoor air pollutants when burned. These pollutants cause nearly 2 million premature deaths worldwide each year, an estimated 44 percent of them in children.
“As new approaches to electrification evolve—ones that don’t rely on expensive regional or national grids but rather a diversity of locally available energy resources—we can begin to reach for the goal of access to electricity for all, rural as well as urban,” said Worldwatch President Robert Engelman.
Between 2010 and 2030, an average of $14 billion will be spent annually, mostly on urban grid connections. But this projected funding will likely still leave 1 billion people, largely those who live in the most remote areas of developing countries, without electricity. Average annual investments will need to rise to $48 billion to provide universal modern energy access, the IEA reports.
It is perhaps the biggest irony that developed parts of the world sees newer gadgets and appliances drawing electricity to bring more and more comfort to lives while a large population remains still struggling with basic energy sources for their basic needs! Will the gap be bridged??
Between 1990 and 2008, close to 2 billion people worldwide gained access to electricity. But the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that more than 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity, while the United Nations estimates that another 1 billion have unreliable access.
At least 2.7 billion people, and possibly more than 3 billion, lack access to modern fuels for cooking and heating. They rely instead on traditional biomass sources, such as firewood, charcoal, manure, and crop residues, that can emit harmful indoor air pollutants when burned. These pollutants cause nearly 2 million premature deaths worldwide each year, an estimated 44 percent of them in children.
“As new approaches to electrification evolve—ones that don’t rely on expensive regional or national grids but rather a diversity of locally available energy resources—we can begin to reach for the goal of access to electricity for all, rural as well as urban,” said Worldwatch President Robert Engelman.
Between 2010 and 2030, an average of $14 billion will be spent annually, mostly on urban grid connections. But this projected funding will likely still leave 1 billion people, largely those who live in the most remote areas of developing countries, without electricity. Average annual investments will need to rise to $48 billion to provide universal modern energy access, the IEA reports.
It is perhaps the biggest irony that developed parts of the world sees newer gadgets and appliances drawing electricity to bring more and more comfort to lives while a large population remains still struggling with basic energy sources for their basic needs! Will the gap be bridged??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
