Hydrogen Cars

We have all come to know that cars powered by combustion technology is getting too expensive with adverse environmental effects. There are other alternatives such as electric hybrids, corn oil and so forth. Hydrogen powered cars are another one.




Liquid hydrogen is combined with oxygen to generate electricity. The electricity is used to power the engine of the car. The energy produced by this reaction powers the car. The byproduct of the combustion is water, so it does not harm the environment at all. President Bush has allocated $2 billion dollars to research hydrogen technology. This is simply another way to lessen our dependence on oil in general no matter its origin.

There are currently many drawbacks to this idea. For one, the technology is still very expensive. Honda introduced the CFX, a car that gets 45% efficiency and costs $3 million. Regular cars that have hydrogen technology are generally more expensive because they require metals like platinum. A simple 134 hp fuel cell would be $3000. There also many concerns that productions costs for hydrogen could be vastly expensive.

Lastly, a concern is that hydrogen is very flammable. Tanks would have to be reinforced very much in order to avoid a disaster should a collision occur.

Sources: Hydrogen Car Difficulties
Hydrogen Car Vehicles
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles

Hydroelectric Generation

Did you know that Hydroelectric generation is the predominant form of electric generation in Canada? It is, nearly two-thirds of Canada's power is generated each year by this process. Hydropower is both inexpensive and nonpolluting.

How it works: So just how do we get electricity from water?

"Actually, hydroelectric and coal-fired power plants produce electricity in a similar way. In both cases a power source is used to turn a propeller-like piece called a turbine, which then turns a metal shaft in an electric generator, which is the motor that produces electricity. A coal-fired power plant uses steam to turn the turbine blades; whereas a hydroelectric plant uses falling water to turn the turbine. The results are the same" (USGS).

"The theory is to build a dam on a large river that has a large drop in elevation. The dam stores lots of water behind it in the reservoir. Near the bottom of the dam wall there is the water intake. Gravity causes it to fall through the penstock inside the dam. At the end of the penstock there is a turbine propeller, which is turned by the moving water. The shaft from the turbine goes up into the generator, which produces the power. Power lines are connected to the generator that carry electricity to your home and mine. The water continues past the propeller through the tailrace into the river past the dam. By the way, it is not a good idea to be playing in the water right below a dam when water is released!" (USGS).

"A hydraulic turbine converts the energy of flowing water into mechanical energy. A hydroelectric generator converts this mechanical energy into electricity. The operation of a generator is based on the principles discovered by Faraday. He found that when a magnet is moved past a conductor, it causes electricity to flow. In a large generator, electromagnets are made by circulating direct current through loops of wire wound around stacks of magnetic steel laminations. These are called field poles, and are mounted on the perimeter of the rotor. The rotor is attached to the turbine shaft, and rotates at a fixed speed. When the rotor turns, it causes the field poles (the electromagnets) to move past the conductors mounted in the stator. This, in turn, causes electricity to flow and a voltage to develop at the generator output terminals." (USGS).

Pros:

- "sustainable and nonpolluting power source that can help decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the threat of global warming" (USC).

-cost effective

Cons:

By blocking rivers with massive dams, we have created a number of serious environmental and social problems:

-habitat destruction

-prevention of fish passage

-decrease in Salmon population

-displacement of local communities

-dam failures

Personally I think Canada has the right idea and hydropower is the way to go. I think many people would like it because it is cost effective. Look at how high oil prices are now, why not choose something that is inexpensive and will save us money in the future. I think the pros of hydropower outweigh the cons. "The major advantage of hydroelectric power is reduction of CO2 or elimination of same. In addition, no nuclear waste is generated. Lastly, hydroelectric power gives some considerable immunity to fuel cost increases" (The Local).

Enough about what I believe, I am curious to hear what you think. Just remember, "In our modern world, hydroelectric has a great deal to offer. It's efficient and environmentally sensitive. It is sustainable in rural and urban settings. It emits no greenhouse gases, wastes or air pollution. It is renewable, efficient, flexible, uses existing technology, is low maintenance and decreases pollutants from fossil fuel. These advantages need to be weighed against disadvantages, including high initial cost, impact on habitats, potential disturbance of water quality and forced migration of local populations." So weigh the pros and cons for yourself and let me know your reactions.

Work Cited:

-http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-hydroelectric-energy-works.html

-http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/hyhowworks.html

-http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/consumption/hydroelectric/1

-http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=287121

Our role in the environment

I came across this image while searching online for new topics on alternative energy and thought that it was a creative way of displaying what we, as individuals, can do to protect our environment. Many people feel that any actions they take to preserve our environment, will have no real or lasting effect. However, any small step towards living a more sustainable life, will have an impact in the long run. I feel that it is important to be educated with the knowledge of what effects our actions have on the environment and how to make the best use of our resources. This does not mean that we must live like the Amish, with no current technology, but that we should maintain a standard of living for all, where our economy can flourish without permanently damaging the environment and the resources it provides. Alternative energy is one way to do this. Since fossil fuels are non-renewable, it is necessary for our world to begin turning towards other options. It might seem unrealistic to most people at the moment, but it is definite that in the future, we will be forced to become a more "green" economy. To each individual, I believe that this means not to "splurge" on things that are not necessary and to conserve as much as possible. I understand that there are still going to be those people that don't believe in global warming and will continue to consume much more energy than is necessary and have no desire to help the environment, but the trend needs to start somewhere. This is the idea that the image depicts and if everyone does their part in helping preserve the environment, then it will have a lasting effect on future generations.

Ethanol Political Cartoon

Carbon Emission – Better energy uses to offset your carbon foot print

Carbon Dioxide seems to be the bad guy now days when we look to environmental hazards. No matter where you turn, commercials, advertisements, and articles tell you to curb your carbon dioxide emissions. Every time I hear, read or see one of the warnings, I wonder how many tons of carbon I really emit as an individual. Believe it or no, it only takes seconds to figure out.

There are many means of determining your carbon dioxide emissions. Most commonly, scientists look to the cars you own, the house you heat and cool, and the trips you fly to each year. Logging on to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s website on climate change, you can fill out an entire form to calculate your personal emissions, and then walk through the steps to reduce this.

1. CARS: The US EPA notes that the average American vehicle drives 231 miles per week. Because we live in Chicago, our cars emit even more CO2 from simply waiting in traffic.
Solution: Take a bus, ride a train, or carpool with friends! By finding a means of transportation that is shared by many, each individual can cut their personal CO2 emissions.
It would be important to note that the average car emits 12,100 pounds of CO2 emissions a year, so any reduction to this would be wonderful. Simply driving 131 miles a week would reduce your vehicle CO2 emissions by nearly 50%

2. WASTE: A household of 2 people creates about 2,020 pounds of CO2 a year simply though their waste… talk about disgusting! But did you know recycling can fix this?
Recycle Newspapers = -184 pounds of CO2/year
Recycle Glass = -24 pounds CO2/year
Recycle Plastic = -47 pounds of CO2/year
Recycle aluminum = -166 pounds of CO2/year

In only two steps, personal carbon dioxide emissions can be curb drastically. If you are interested in finding out your personal emissions, visit www.epa.gov and click on the CO2 emissions calculator under climate change. It’s fascinating to see the difference by driving a few less miles or reusing a bit more paper.

Happy Recycling!

Carbon Sequestration: Could it really work?

If you're left wondering about an answer to the question in the title, the answer is yes. They've been doing it Europe, Norway specifically. Currently, Norway's Sleipner West is the only major plant in the world to capture carbon. Before I proceed, I shall provide a brief rundown of how it works.

First, coal, oil or natural gas are burned like regular to produce electricity. Then the emissions are captured and sent down pipelines underground. The carbon dioxide is pumped into already hollowed out formations in the Earth. This can come from emptied former deposits of oil, or natural aquifers. The carbon can also help with the obtainment of oil. The carbon builds up in the reserve and pushes the liquid petroleum to a more confined space, allowing for remnants to be drilled out by pumps. This is it basically. Here are a few picture illustrations.






The Norwegian plants captures about 2,800 tons of CO2 daily. The system has been so effective that is won an award for being especially efficient in 2000 and has been in operation since 1996. There are a few concerns with this method though. It is very expensive and slightly risky. Although Europe has a 250 meter thick deposit for storage and can roughly hold 600 billion tons of CO2 (more than enough to save Europe for 600 years of 0 carbon emissions), the carbon won't stay down there forever. The plant's manager Tore A Torp says that is is very likely to be stored for at least several hundreds of years, even 5-10,000 more into a new ice age. By that point, he says, the carbon age will be over. He also notes that the seepage would not be more than regular CO2 leakage from the Earth. The price for running this particular plant has only risen 50-80 cents. This pales in comparison to the 1 million (then) Norwegian dollars it would be taxed for regular carbon expulsion into the air.

Canada recently unveiled a similar initiative, with their Prime Minister allocating $155 million to R&D. Alberta, Canada has many natural underground deposits that would be useful in this. The R&D does not threaten regular industry but actually encourages it. It allows for the companies to continue doing what they do with no environmental impact and harnesses left over oil. The same concerns loom here as well. Prices are predicted to go up by 10-20 cents for the consumer.

Sources: Take your carbon and stuff it
Norwegian Energy

Gas and oil prices hit high...

As a result of an attack on a Japanese oil tanker in the Middle East, crude oil prices set a new record today, spiking above $117.40 a barrel. "The tanker, the 150,053-ton Takayama, was hit by an unspecified projectile during the attack early Monday morning" (Fackler)

This news ultimately benefits investement holders as they are making a profit off of this sudden, yet gradual spike. On the other hand, this rise in crude oil prices proves to be bad news for the average consumer. "Retail gasoline prices hit another milestone today, jumping to an average $3.50 a gallon at filling stations across the country" (Associated Press).

With retail gas prices constantly increasing, it is important to find and enforce new forms of alternative energy. Alternative energy, in my opinion, would most likely be cheaper and more affordable than gasoline. If gasoline prices continue to rise dramatically, consumers are going to look to other sources of fueling. With this being the case, why not take a turn towards a healthier environment and further investigate forms of alternative energy. Did you know that "Gas prices at the pump jumped more than a nickel over the weekend nationwide, and are up 23 percent from a year earlier," at this rate who knows how high they will be come summertime (Associated Press). It is important to recognize this problem and know that we have a way of working through said problem. Alternative energy allows us to use our everday resources, therefore it is cheaper than having to pay for crude oil.

I found an article that I believe to be very interesting, as it further discuses the idea of 'Crude Oil vs. Alternative Energy':

http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/crude-oil-vs-alternative-energy-which-is-really-better-52061.html

Sources:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/asia/22tanker.php

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/5716659.html

Geothermal Energy in New Zealand

Since I recently visited New Zealand in January and learned all about what sustainability means to their culture, I decided to do a little more research on the geothermal energy that is present there. One of the places that we visited were the hot springs in Rotorua. The city actually got its name, "Rotten" from the awful rotten egg smell from the sulfur released into the air from geothermic activity. And let me just mention, They were not joking around when they say it stinks there! Anyways, the Rotorua geothermal field underlies much of Rotorua City and the southern margin of Lake Rotorua. The natural features associated with the field, particularly the geysers and hot springs of Whakarewarewa, are one of New Zealand's foremost tourist attractions.

Some background on the creation of geothermic energy:

Geothermal energy is ultimately derived from the heat contained in the core of the earth and from radioactive decay within its mantle. At high temperatures and pressures within the mantle, melting of mantle rock forms magma which rises towards the surface carrying the heat from below. In some regions where the earth's crust is thin or fractured, or where magma bodies are close to the surface, there are high temperature gradients. Deep faults, rock fractures and pores allow groundwater to penetrate towards the heat source and become heated to high temperatures. Some of this hot geothermal water travels back to the surface through buoyancy effects to appear as hot springs, mud pools, geysers, or fumaroles. If the ascending hot water meets an extensively fractured or permeable rock zone, the heated water will fill pores and fractures and form a geothermal reservoir. These reservoirs are much hotter than surface hot springs, reaching temperatures of more than 350°C, and are potentially an accessible source of energy. Geothermal areas are commonly close to the edges of continental plates, and New Zealand straddles an active fault line where two giant pieces of the earth's surface are in a constant state of collision. Around the central North Island, one piece is creeping slowly under the other, generating enormous amounts of subterranean heat and volcanic and geothermic activity.

Geothermal and volcanic activity have sculpted the landscape at Rotorua in every direction. The many beautiful lakes are water-filled craters from violently explosive eruptions. Giant sleeping volcanoes rise all around and gently oozing lava has created conical hills and islands. Silica terraces and the edges of ponds have been beautifully coloured by minerals extracted from deep inside the earth by the rising superheated water and steam. Because of the extreme amount of geothermal activity, Rotorua has also been known for being a spa town. Also, More than 900 shallow wells have been drilled at Rotorua to provide hot water for private homes, hospitals, schools, motels, hotels, and other commercial and industrial uses. At peak use, around 430 wells were operating. About 90 of the wells are less than 200m deep and typically recover geothermal fluid at temperatures of 120 to 200C. Below are the potential energy usage at various temperatures:

30-69ºC- thermoculture, bathing
70-140ºC- space and water heating, drying
140-220ºC- drying, process heat, binary electrical plant
220+ºC- steam turbine and binary electricity or process steam

New Zealand's geothermal resources have a long history of utilisation. Geothermal areas are important to Maori, the original settlers of New Zealand, who use the heated waters for cooking, washing, bathing, warmth, preserving, ceremonial use and healing. Maori also use geothermal minerals as paints, wood preservatives and dyes. However, the main use of geothermal energy in New Zealand is for electricity generation. About 11% of New Zealand's primary energy supply comes from geothermal resources, which contribute about 7% of electricity supply. These geothermal features present in New Zealand are also a major tourist attraction, which the Kiwi's depend on for sustaining their economy.

So, what are the benefits of using geothermal energy, at least in New Zealand?

Well, when properly developed and managed, geothermal systems are a clean, abundant, and reliable source of renewable energy. Use of geothermal energy for electricity generation or for direct use conserves non-renewable and more polluting resources. Installed geothermal electricity generation capacity world-wide is equivalent to the combustion of nearly 30 million tons of coal or the output of about 10 nuclear plants. Geothermal energy is effectively a renewable resource that does not consume any fuel or produce significant emissions. Although some geothermal fields have been degraded in New Zealand, none have ever been exhausted and sustainable development is possible. Geothermal energy also has the advantage over other renewables that it is independent of climatic variation.

Geothermal energy is a relatively low-cost and indigenous generation option that can contribute to New Zealand's growing demand for electricity. It is uniquely reliable, with geothermal power stations typically achieving load factors of 95%, compared to typical load factors of 30 - 50% for hydro and wind power stations. The Wairakei power station has operated at a load factor of more than 90% for over 40 years with low operating costs. This inherent reliability makes geothermal generation a valuable component in a diverse electricity supply system such as New Zealand's.

Here is a link to a geothermal plant in New Zealand if you are interested in learning more:

http://http//www.bopelec.co.nz/generation/kawerau/

General Overview

I found a great website that discusses oil and alternative energy. It talks about all of the different types of energy known to us today.


Alternative Energy Sources


Nonrenewable
Oil sands, heavy oil
Natural gas
Coal
Shale oil
Gas hydrates
Nuclear fission
Geothermal1
Ocean thermal energy conversion
1. Renewable for space heating


Oil sands/heavy oil. The energy process of oil is not very efficient. The net energy that is recovered is not very efficient. Also even though there are large amounts of oil in many countries, it is not enought to sustain the 76 million barrels of oil the world consumes on a daily basis.

Natural gas. Made of methane (CH4). It is the cleanest of the fossil fuels to burn. This is why it is preferred over coal many times. Natural gas is used as a substitute for gasoline or diesel sometimes, for internal combustion engines. It is moved through piplines. The total energy in reserves of natural gas is roughly about the same as the world's oil reserves.

Coal. Coal is harder to handle and transport than oil, and has less energy density. But coal can replace oil in electricity in power plants. But to use it as a liquid fuel for vehicles would be too expensive. There are still many environmental problems with coal as well, even though it has gotten much better. There is more coal reserves in the world than oil though.

Shale oil. Shale oil is not very common. One major problem with this is there is no oil in shale oil. There is also a very large problem with waste disposal. Also the net energy recovery is not very high. Shale oil is not a very likely choice for a solution to our energy problem.


Nuclear fission. This can potentially be very dangerous and is still undetermined whether it could be a major energy source in the future. It has safety and environmental problems as well. It is not a renewable source of energy becasue uranium reserves are limited. But nuclear fission could replace oil.

Geothermal energy. There are places in the world where there is steam that can turn a turbine to generate electricity. But this source could only be a small contibuter of energy because there are not that many places that are hot enough to generate energy.

It doesn't seem like there are a lot of good options for energy sources in the world today. Hopefully this will change in the near future.

Here is the website, it has a lot of good information:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Youngquist/altenergy.htm

The sun is a source of energy that is forever reusable. Until the day the sun no longer exists, we will have the heat that is produced by the sun to use as a form of energy. Solar radiation is the sun's rays as they approach the earth and are used as various form of energy, like heat and electricity. Today, many people use the sun's energy that radiates onto the earth for many things. For instance, it can be used to heat water, which is useful not only in homes and buildings but as well in the heating of swimming pools. It is also used as heat in buildings like a greenhouse, or even homes. There are also 2 different ways that electricity can be formed by the sun's rays.




First there are PV (Photovoltaic) devices, which are using in changing the sunlight that is formed directly into electricity. Above is a picture that illistrates how the solar energy is transformed. They are used in random locations that are usually not near the electric grid. PV devices are also used in the powering of watches, and calculators. Then the other form of creating in solar electricity, is the use of Solar Power Plants. These generate electricity when the heat that is transmitted from the sun to solar thermal collectors, and then this heat is used to heat fluid, that creates steam and in turn powers a generator. There are only 15 known units that operate this way, and 10 of them are in California. The other 5 are located in Arizona. There may be other smaller plants that are located in other states but this is just data that has been collected by solar plants producing more than 1 megawatt of electricity.

There are however like most forms of alternative energy a downside and some disadvantages. For instance, the sunlight that radiates and hits the earth is never constant. The sunlight not only depends on the location of the plant, but the time of the day, year, and what the weather is like. We all know how unpredictable weather can be. Another disadvantage is that the sun does not distribute a lot of energy to one place at one time. There needs to be a large amount of area that is collecting this solar energy in order for it to be a useful form of energy.

Another problem that lies withing the solar energy that is transmitted to the earth is where all the heat and energy really goes. For instance, much of it is absorbed into the clouds and radiated back to the atmosphere. Below is also an illistration of where the sun's energy all goes?!

Car Companies and Big Oil; Is There a Hidden Agenda?

Since the Bush administration came into power, there seems to be a lot of speculation looming around the trustworthiness of big oil companies in the United States. Are they receiving unfair subsidies? Why are gas prices so high? Is it a coincidence that multiple members of the president's cabinet have former ties with big oil? These are a few questions that have been posed.

The recently released documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? focuses on yet another one of these questions. Is there an exclusive relationship between big oil and car companies? The movie focuses on the "death" of Paul B. MacCready's car design named the EV1. This vehicle was designed to run solely on battery power. MacCready's innovation was even sold by Saturn in California and Arizona until it's manufacturing came to a disgraceful halt. Since the production of this vehicle has been ceased, several people have been left wondering why.

The EV1 was practical - it was an acceptable alternative to gasoline powered automobiles. The machine was created to be efficient and environmentally friendly.

GM, the manufacturer of the EV1 has publically stated that their reasoning for stopping the production of this vehicle was that there was not enough consumer demand. The car company states that when they contacted the individuals on their 5,000 name waiting list for this automobile, only very buyers few still expressed interest in buying an EV1. However, in reality, even though they told the director of marketing to market the EV1 they did not give him the necessary resources to do so. Also, sales were limited to only Arizona and California.

In addition, GM would not renew the leases for any people who already owned an EV1. Basically, they took back all of the cars with the exception of a few that were given to universities and museums. These cars were spared, however, they were disabled so they could no longer even start. Sadly, the less fortunate EV1 were all destroyed.

Why was such a sudden action taken to rid America of these automobiles? There are a number of reasons that the documentary suggests. A few of these reasons are, pressure from the government and oil companies. When he took office, President Bush rescinded the Zero Emissions Mandate. The repealing of this mandate put the president in cahoots with big oil to take these cars off the roads. The mandate stated that for every gasoline burning car on the road there had to be a certain percentage of cars with zero emissions. With this mandate eliminated, big oil could put pressure on the the car manufacturers to ditch the electric cars and continue making the gasoline burning vehicles that they could gain profit from.

Whether or not this is the actual reason that battery fueled cars were taken off the roads, it is definitely a shame that progress toward ending dependence on oil has been stopped for now.

TIDAL POWER

Have you ever considered the idea of using the amazing massive waves that come washing up on the shores of the beaches as an alternative form of energy? I know that I have never considered this, until the other day when I viewed my friend's pictures from over spring break containing massive waves, that seemed like they had so much power as they pushed her towards the shore.

In order to use tidal power, one would need tidal fences, which is basically a fence that contains holes in it through which the water travels and then in doing so turns the turbines to create electricity. The most common form of using tidal power involves what is known as a barrage tidal plant which is usually constructed along a smaller channel that contains gates with the tidal fences present that generates power and in turn produces electricity. This to me seems like one of the most amazing things, and I had never really thought of it. I now that in the past I have heard of the mills that were present in creeks that used to be turned by the water and create electricity, but since those times I had never examined the use of tidal power that is present in the ocean. After all, it is not something that is thought of as extremely practical, or heard of being used daily by many individuals or groups. Then there are also tidal turbines, which work in many ways similar to wind turbines. When the turbine's blades are turned by the force of the water then electricity is also generated.

I would like to go into further detail about the barrage tidal plant. Specifically the various parts that make up this plant. First there is the barrage, which ultimately has the same duties as a dame does. For instance, it controls the releasing of the water into the area where the turbines are present. Then there is the sluice gates, which is the part that controls the entering and flow of the water into the plant. Then finally there are the turbines which are placed under the water, and is the part that is most responsible for generating the electricity.

There are multiple advantages to this form of energy for instance, there is no energy or waste that is being produced through this process. This electricity can be predicted (due to the ability to predict the tide) and is therefore a reliable source of energy. This could protect the coast from tidal storms because they could be prevented through the use of the barrage tidal plants. Another advantage is that this is a readily available resource that is present consistently, there is enough water and it is extremely inexpensive to use this as a form of energy. Like every story though there are also disadvantages to using this form of energy. For instance, they are quite expensive to build, and they are mainly constructed when there is little demand for electricity. The worst disadvantage of all is that there is little space to construct these plants because they must be constructed in a narrow channel which is not as readily available.

While this is a readily available resource, it is not something that is being considered long term because of many of the disadvantages that are associated with using this form of energy. After all it makes for a difficult form of transportation for other ships and barges when the barrage tidal plant is set up in the middle of a transportation channel.

Solar Power: Thoughts

I have always been interested in the idea of solar power. I am actually not too familar with the topic, which is why I wanted to INVESTIGATE (dun, dun dun...) Solar power is defined as "energy from the sun's radiation converted into heat or electricity"
(www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/farm/terms.asp). It's argued that solar power is cost efficient, though you have to pay for it in the begining, you'll reap the benefits as time goes on.

Politics:
Did you know...
"The White House has proposed $148 million for solar energy development in 2007, up almost 80 percent from what it invested in 2006". (http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/solar_power.htm)
With incresing gas/oil prices, the government has further looked into alternative energy sources. We have to look at what is going to save money for the nation as a whole. This is to ensure that future generations will have a place to live without fear of turmoil (Oooo! Turmoil).

Now for the corny Miss America answer...I think solar power is something that everyone is able to use, the fact that the sun's radiation is abundant is also a plus.

Solar power can be used to achieve many things, keep in mind that solar power can be used to heat your home, light your home, and heat your water so you don't have to use natural gas. Let's focus on solar power lights (What can I say? I like my garden scene. Plus it is something that is commonly used.) Though it costs money, "using solar lighting instead of electrical lighting to light up your landscape and outdoor areas will ultimately save hundreds or even thousands of dollars over the course of years" (http://ezinearticles.com/?Pros-and-Cons-Of-Solar-Powered-Outdoor-Lighting&id=1070671). Maintenance of the lights is also less taxing. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the idea of reliability. It is important to keep in mind that we are using a source that is only present for half the day. Also, if the weather is anything like this past winter in Chicago (snowy, fog, raining) it will be harder to gather the energy to illuminate the lights. ( You don't want another Christmas without lights do you?) However, newer technologies have allowed solar cells to store energy absorbed during the day to be used effectively at night time. Some criticisms such as not being reliable at night, or not being able to sustain themselves (very weak power output), are negated. Solar power reduces one's emissions to zero and frees up an overburdened petroleum industry.

In the words of The Beatles "HERE COMES THE SUN (doodoo doodoo)

Geothermal Energy

As we scramble to find new ways to provide to the country with energy, geothermal energy has been gaining popularity among eco-conscience minds in the western United States.

Geothermal energy is a very simple concept. A pipeline drilled into the Earth where a steam/hot water reservoir resides. That steam flows up into a generator that then cranks a turbine to produce electricity from that motion. The cooled water is then pumped back into the reservoir where it is reheated and reused again to power the turbine. The picture below illustrates this:




Currently, geothermal power represents the third largest source of renewable energy in the country, producing about 2800 megawatts of power. This equates to roughly 2.8 million homes. The amount of homes that can be powered by geothermal energy seems endless as new incentives and government programs have allowed for the great expansion of this technology.

For instance, Nevada has unveil programs that would allow for nearly 25% of the state's energy needs to come from this source. According to Dan Fleischmann, "A combination of federal and state policies have propelled substantial new geothermal power development in Nevada," author of "Geothermal Resource Development in Nevada -- 2006." It is interesting to note that the only way this was possible was for corporations and government to work together, sharing the costs because they both see an independent future for our nation. [Source: Nevada to quadruple its geothermal power]

Imagine an entire state (if R&D continues at this rate) being supplied with nothing but renewable energy. A virtually emission free, environmentally friendly source that generates a load of power to meet our demand. This type of technology could create a number of jobs as well as save money in the long term since we would not have to buy as much oil, pay for the refineries and so forth. Speaking of oil and natural gas, the geothermal energy generated yearly by the United States equates to roughly 25 million barrels of oil, the amount consumed by the United States daily. [Source: Geothermal Energy Association]

If we continue investing in this technology, the western United States could be entirely self-sufficient. An MIT report cited in the article "Scaling Geothermal for reliable baseload power" says that, "a cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MW from enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) can be achieved in the United States within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for R&D in several field projects in the United States." The articles also goes on to mention that geothermal plants have a huge baseload potential, leave virtually no footprint, and do not require storage, like refineries and such. It is a stable and practical alternative if investment is kept up steadily through the years.

Currently, only Nevada, California, Hawaii, Alaska an Utah are states to utilize this energy. But, several more are on the way. Projects in Oregon, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Washington are said to be complete in the years to come. Once completed, the plants will double the amount of geothermal power generated by the United States to 6,000 MW, or 6 million homes. Karl Gawell, GEA executive director said that tax credits have been crucial to the new projects. [Source: 6 million American households to be powered by geothermal energy]

We can overcome out dependence on oil and gas and use Earth without harming it.

Pros and Cons to Nuclear Energy

I found a good website that discussed a couple of the different pros and cons to nuclear energy. So here are some of the different things I found!

Pros:

• Less pollution than using fossil fuels: Burning coal produces a lot of carbon dioxide. Using nuclear energy would significantly lower the pollution in the world today.
• Lower dependence on foreign oil: If we can find ways to use more nuclear energy and less fossil fuels, especially petroleum.
• Reliability: Nuclear power is more reliable "because they are less vulnerable to shortages because of strikes or natural disasters." It is not vulnerable to shortages because it is not a fossil fuel, and therefore can be renewable.
• Safety: Nuclear power is very safe because of all of the restrictions and laws set in place to prevent any nuclear disasters. Because safety is such an important part of nuclear power, there are many restrictions and policies put in place to make nuclear power more safe than other forms of energy.

Cons

• Nuclear meltdown: There is a possiblity of nuclear meltdown, which could have potential grave danger. These are not very common though, but when they do happen it is a very big deal in the media, and many people hear about it then, and that is part of the reason for the negative conatation for nuclear energy.
• Waste Disposal: There is a major problem on where to store and/or put nuclear waste once it is used. This is the biggest compliant against nuclear power.

Even though there are many pros and cons to nuclear energy, I believe that it is a good source to consider and continue to improve for this world.

http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm

Solar Energy; Current Solution or Work in Progress?

When thinking about solar energy, most envision the renewable resource of the future. However, according to Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy and corporate communications of SunPower (a Silicon Valley-based solar equipment manufacturer), this is simply not true.

"Globally, by the end of 2008, we will have installed 10 gigawatts of photovoltaic power. That's the equivalent of about 20 coal plants. About a quarter of that was installed in the last year. So solar is shifting from being on the brink of commercialization. It's no longer in the future. It's current."

Solar panels can already be seen on the rooftops of tens of thousands American homes. Blunden expects this number to continue to increase as efforts are made to pass legislation which would award solar tax credits above the current $2,000 cap to residential solar energy consumers. Although both Congressional parties are motivated to make progress on solar energy incentives, these positive changes have been bogged down by ties to Democratic plans to cut benefits for the oil industry.

As a result, this seemingly bipartisan concern has become a polarizing political issue. The Bush administration along with the Republican leadership in Congress has consistently voted down the new energy package which would aid in increasing the use of solar energy.

Despite their frustrations with Washington, Blunden and other renewable-energy industry officials are hopeful. They are currently lobbying for "stand alone" legislation that will extend tax credits to American solar energy consumers.

Source:

Title:

Bright Days for Solar. By: Kriz, Margaret, National Journal, 03604217, 3/15/2008, Vol. 40, Issue 11

Database:

Academic Search Complete

TRANSFERRABLE WIND POWER

After reading a blog post on wind power I decided that I would elaborate more on my opinions of the idea of using wind power as a form of alternative energy. I am originally from a much more rural area compared to Chicago. I actually live on a farm surrounded by corn and soybeans. A few years ago, there were wind turbines that were put up near my home in order to generate electricity. Then again a few years later more and more were put up even closer to my home. I once questioned this idea, why was in necessary to use these wind turbines to provide electricity and other means to other areas of the state. I once heard that the electricity that was being generated was being sent to the Chicago land. I have decided to further evaluate these turbines, and get a greater understanding of effective they actually are. At the same time I would like to look into how much it costs to develop just one of these turbines and if they are extremely cost effective in the long run?


Since the millennium wind power has actually became more widely developed throughout the world. Wind power however produces only a little more than 1% of the world's electricity use. Wind has been though of as a very effective way of producing electricity. After all, it is renewable, clean, does not distribute green house gases, and can be distributed everywhere. Wind farms are only useful where the wind speed is around 10 mph. These turbines that I have found located throughout my area are referred to as wind farms because they are many wind turbines all combined together and connected with a medium voltage collection system. This electric current that is produced is then with the help of a transformer developed into a high voltage system and then transferred to the electric grid. Within the last 2 years the number of turbines that are used within the United States has nearly doubled.


There are many countries that use wind power to generate a majority of their energy. For instance, Denmark receives one-fifth of its electricity by means of wind power. This is astonishing, but there are some flaws with these wind turbines. For instance, they must be placed in an area where wind is commonly found, and is always present. It would not make any sense to place a wind farm in the middle of an open area, where there was seldom wind. Therefore, it is important that areas be evaluated over time before placing millions of dollars of wind turbines in an area that will not generate enough electricity by wind.


And individual wind turbine can cost anywhere from 6,000 dollars to 22,000 dollars. But in the long run the energy that is being created is of great use. For instance, although many people feel that the cost of wind energy is not of use at all because at instances it has actually been greater than the cost of other forms of energy. The cost of wind energy is not going to be increasing in the future, where the cost of other forms of energy is expected to. So in the long run, wind would be a great source of energy, the only issue is that people are not willing to spend more at this point and time. However, wind farms are still being generated throughout much of the country and the number of turbines being put up is increasing. Finally, the U.S. is planning for the future of electricity. As long, as the wind doesn't die and they continue to evaluate the most effective places to place these wind farms there should be no problems.


Another issue that I know has been addressed is won't the wind occupy farmland and forests that we will be harming by placing them there. I think that this is an issue as well. However, my only response to that is that in a way it is no different than the land being developed by homes and being made into a more urban area because of the convenience that it would provide for individuals. There have been so many areas where I live that have developed so much even over the last 5 years. Areas that used to be occupied by farm land and are now nothing but homes and stores. At least if we place wind farms there we are gaining electricity from something that is occupying our land. Also, while wind farms may seem like they occupy a lot of space in all reality they only take up about an acre of farm land, and farmers are still able to have the rest of the land that surrounds the turbine available for crops.



Sources
http://www.canren.gc.ca/tech_appl/index.asp?CaId=6&PgId=232
http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html#Howmuchdoesawindsystemcost
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/wind.html