EV Charging Station Now Available!

First Public Charging Station for EVs

The first public charging station for electric vehicles opened April 25, 2009 in East Woodland, California at the Gateway Center! A low-key ceremony was held to inaugurate the station. At the inauguration Tesla Motors demonstrated how use the chargers on six of their very own Tesla Roadsters.

There is one Tesla charger, two AVcons chargers, a small paddle inductive charger, in addition to two neighborhood EV standard outlets where – in approximately an hour – those eco-friendly car users can come and charge up their electrical vehicles.
It is the first station made available of its kind. We have the city of Woodland and other developers to thank for that. There are also hopes that in the future many more stations pop up following its lead. In fact, currently Tucson and Phoenix Arizona are in talks of opening EV-charging stations.

There are concerns, however, on how successful the stations will be. Consumers are left wondering how the minimal number chargers will be shared if an increase in purchases of EVs are expected of auto shoppers. Once a car is done charging, will the person next in line have to wait until the other’s car gets picked up? And how is someone supposed to occupy their time while waiting for their vehicle to charge? Some feel that more technology is needed before the new stations become more widely used.

Others are concerned that this step forward may end up being a step backward. It may delay research and possible advances in finding a renewable energy source for vehicles if they do become gradually more accepted by society. And not only that, but jobs could possibly be in jeopardy if these public charging stations become customary.

Without a doubt, charging stations are an improvement considering the current status on the world’s dependency on gasoline – especially in the United States. Yet, there are still a few flaws here and there regarding the technology and availability of the charger that still will need to be advanced before becoming accepted across the United States, as well as across the world.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/first-public-charging-station-for-electric-cars/

http://gas2.org/2009/05/01/first-public-electric-car-charging-station-inaugurated-in-woodland-california/

EPA tries to slam corn... but can't bring themselves to do it. Yet.

CNN recently published a news article about the EPA’s newly proposed ethanol law. They want to push more advanced biofuels over the use of corn-ethanol because they claim that the production cycle of ethanol emits too many emissions, and that ethanol itself produces too many fuel emissions when in use. The EPA gave two energy-use scenarios on which to base the legislative decision; one that favors corn-ethanol and one that would prohibit all but one corn-ethanol production process while favoring other alternatives like cellusic ethanol energy.
The reason the EPA gave two very different scenarios and has not yet favored either of them is to buy time for the agency to meet within itself and determine how to calm its corn-based ethanol industry as well as increase lobbying efforts.
The corn industry is concerned about what information is being used to determine that ethanol emits more emissions than it saves. RFA President Bob Dineen said there was too much uncertainty about how the EPA made the indirect land-use calculations and questioned the validity of the data the government used in those calculations.
"The science of market-mediated, secondary impacts is very young and needs more reliance on verifiable data, and less reliance on unproven assumptions. Done correctly, such an analysis will demonstrate a significant carbon benefit is achieved through the use of ethanol from all sources," Dineen said. There are so many different factors that contribute to how many greenhouse gases are actually emitted, that any scenario would be difficult to plot. One must consider the fuel for tractors and transportation, which are coal-based, but also that pastures and cornfields are a huge source of greenhouse gas sinks. It is almost impossible to tell if ethanol, including the production process, is any better or worse than using coal and oil-based energy.
This problem of data accuracy and predictions seems to be a common theme among scientists and in the EPA. We read about this issue in State of Fear, but right now we are also able to see it in action. The EPA has many supporters to please, and by reducing the corn industry they are hurting many people economically, as well as loosing support. This is why they have not made any decisions yet, they have only proposed the idea that a law may need to be changed.
However, the US department of Agriculture is providing credit programs for ethanol firms, and the Department of Energy is giving the corn ethanol industry an $800 million stimulus package. Maybe the EPA will not have to worry about losing its corn-growing support base, since the farmers will be too busy spending all that money to notice.

The news article can be read here: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200905051317DOWJONESDJONLINE000557_FORTUNE5.htm

The Pros and Cons of Coal Gasification

As we have learned in class, of the natural fossil fuels we have at our disposal, coal is pretty much the left handed, red headed step child of the group. It's the dirtiest, the hardest to harvest, and has less energy per kg than our other options, but it does have one thing going for it: it's really plentiful. Compared to the skyrocketing prices of natural gas and petroleum, coal is looking pretty good right now and as many proponents tout, it's a step towards energy independence. 

Now, we have talked in class about how much of the coal we have is laden with sulfur, which quite frankly, is not so hot for the environment and the process for cleaning coal can be expensive. Thankfully we have a "new" process called coal gasification that may just be the answer to our dirty coal needs. At least for now. Here is a summary of the coal gasification process, as well as the pros and cons of utilizing it.  (from popularmechanics.com)

1. The heart of gasification lies in (shocker) the gasifier, which takes coal, water and air and applies heat under high pressure to make "syngas"-a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Minerals in the fuel (i.e., the rocks, dirt and other non-carbon-based material) separate, leaving the bottom of the gasifier either literally in ashes or as an inert, glass-like slag-materials that can be reused for materials such as concrete and road fill.

2. The crude syngas leaves the gasifier piping hot and full of contaminants (hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, mercury and nasty particulates, to name a few). A combination of heat exchangers, particulate filters and quench chambers cool the syngas to room temperature and remove most of the solids.

3. Syngas then passes through a small bed of charcoal to capture mercury, removing over 90 percent of this toxic metal (click here to learn more). Used charcoal containing captured mercury leftover is sent to a hazardous landfill for disposal.

4. The final step for cleaning in gasification is the removal of sulfur impurities in acid gas removal units, where the impurities are converted into sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur-both valuable byproducts.

5. A combustion turbine then reheats the clean syngas, dilutes it with nitrogen for control of NOx (the greenhouse gas that makes smog) and burns it, driving a generator to make electricity.

6. Leftover heat from combustion is recovered in a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG), which generates steam to power the internal turbine. Some of that air is compressed and can be channeled back to the air separation unit for oxygen, which is then reused within the gasifier.

7. The steam generated in the HRSG and the steam made in Step 1 combine to drive a steam turbine for even more power production. The steam then cools and condenses into water, which pumps back into the steam generation cycle. In an IGCC plant, two-thirds of the total electricity produced comes from the gas turbine and one-third from the steam turbine.

The great thing is, once coal is converted to a gas, it's fairly straightforward to remove pollutants. Mercury, sulfur, and particulates can be stripped out and sold commercially. This "clean" gas can then be used for a variety of fuels such as oil for heating homes or fuel for cars. "The gas can also sub for natural gas, fueling "integrated gasification combined-cycle" (IGCC) power plants to create electricity. Pennsylvania hopes to replace many of its filthy coal-fired power plants with IGCC plants."

""You could put a million scrubbers on an old coal-fired power plant and never even approach the environmental performance of a coal gasification plant," says Kathleen McGinty, secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection."

So the benefits work out as a reduction of air pollutants, a solution to the waste-coal problem, and a boost to economy.

So what are the drawbacks?

"There are three drawbacks, and they are substantial:

• If gasification takes off, there isn't enough waste coal in the country to feed the beast. Thus, you're back to coal mining, which is a nightmare.
• Gasification is largely untested and unproven, at least in the U.S. And IGCC plants are more expensive than old-fashioned dirty coal-fired plants. Thus, gasification relies heavily on subsidies. State and U.S. Dept. of Energy tax incentives for the Penn. plant, for instance, add up to over $140 million. More big industries getting chummy with gov't; more semi-permanent corporate welfare recipients.
• Carbon dioxide. Global warming. That whole thing. IGCC plants are certainly an improvement over dirty coal-fired plants -- they use less coal to create more energy -- but they still produce plenty of CO2. They do make the CO2 fairly easy to capture, which is nice, but the question is what to do with it once it's captured. The big idea is to sequester it: pump it underground or into plant tissues and soil. However:

"The effectiveness of CO2 storage in those systems is completely unknown," says Anne Hedges, program director for the Montana Environmental Information Center. "It's a nice theory, and I sure hope it works. But there's absolutely no evidence it does on a long-term basis." "

To sum it up, as an alternative energy solution, don't waste your time with coal gasification. However, as an improvement to dirty coal, gasification is just that: an improvement. We need to look to other technologies, but as it is, this is a good step in the right direction.

sources:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4218251.html

http://www.grist.org/article/coal-gasification-clean-coal-or-subsidy-hungry-boondoggle

A Few Cartoons

I thought this was a humorous cartoon. It compares our use of fossil fuels to a person addicted to smoking. The smoker realizes smoking is a problem and is harming him, but is addicted, so he won't/can't quit. Similarly, we are addicted to using fossil fuels, and we can't cut our dependency from them.
























I thought that this was pretty funny, because I could actually see it happening. A solar tanning-powered tanning bed...a very amusing concept. I could seriously see a shop on a beach that advertised "green" tanning, and it being a huge hit!

















A crack at Americans tendency to take everything and make it bigger. We obviously have bigger cars than most of the rest of the world. This cartoon has taken an entirely electric Segway scooter and turned it into something that looks like it could plo
















Another entertaining cartoon. This cartoon comments on the price of producing alternative fuels. It jokingly states that people don't even realize that it takes as much energy to produce ethanol and hydrogen as it produces.



























I thought this cartoon was kind of cute. The young boy is looking outside of an airplane window to find a reindeer powering the plane. His mom is conveniently reading a news paper article about alternative energy.

just a few links

http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/

This site is not an informative site. Rather it is a site that points you in the right direction. It has very basic summaries about the most popular of the alternative sources and for those that are not as popular there are many links that provide resources for them.

http://www.icax.co.uk/alternative_energy.html

Since we all have been writing about alternative energies and since oftentimes those energies can be very... technical, I found a glossary that defines many of the terms that have anything to do with the ideas behind the energies as well as global warming.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant

After our ethanol debate I became really interested in the prospective use of cellulosic ethanol. This site gives all you would ever need to know about the pros and cons, the process used to convert the cellulosic into fuel and the likelihood of it actually being used.

Heres a short post of a few cartoons.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I really enjoy the one mocking the prospect to drill oil in Alaska. I have always been against this because of the pipelines imposition on the region's preserved natural state. There is simply too much risk involved in that plan of action for me to accept it as a viable option.

Here’s a website that is incredibly informative, as well as interesting…

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/index.cfm

This site provides knowledge for those who would like to learn more on the dangers that could potentially occur, in addition to some that have already occurred, as a result of global warming and the basic science behind climate change. It also addresses what we can do to turn our poor habits into habits that will benefit our Earth so that it is a healthier and better place – and believe me you will want to do all that is possible to help our Earth once you Calculate Your Impact at:

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm

There is also a blog called Climate411 that is accessible from the website where experts explain the facts, news, and policies relating to climate change:

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/category/science/

12 Year Old Boy Invents New Type of Solar Cell

Last year, a twelve- year- old boy named William Yuan who lives in Beaverton, Oregon invented a new type of solar cell that puts previous 3D cells to shame. According to Columbia Encyclopedia, a solar cell is a type of semiconductor that transfers light into energy that is made normally out of silicon crystal. From the silicon crystal a specially constructed diode is made. When light strikes the exposed active surface, it knocks electrons loose from their sites in the crystal. Some of the electrons have enough energy to cross the diode junction and, then, cannot return to positions on the other side of the junction without passing through an external circuit. Because the current gained from these devices is small and the voltage is low, they must be connected in large series-parallel arrays or solar panels so that useful amounts of energy can be converted.

The kid’s solar cell can absorb both UV and visible light though. Previous research focused solely on one or the other, but Yuan was able to combine the two. Normally, regular solar cells are only 2D and only allow light interaction once. The newly invented solar cell though can create 500 times more light absorption than current commercial solar cells and nine times more light than existing 3D solar cells. Overall, the solar cell invented by the boy is both more efficient and powerful; William Yuan was very surprised by his results.

According to KATU.com, the boy’s project is a highly-efficient 3-Dimensional nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light. William invented a novel solar panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. Nanotubes are cylindrical carbon molecules that have properties that make them useful in many applications in nanotechnology, show extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties, and are efficient conductors of heat(physicsworld.com). He also designed carbon nanotubes to overcome the barriers of electron movement. In the end, this doubles the light-electricity conversion efficiency. Yuan also developed a model for solar towers and a computer program to simulate and optimize the tower parameters. Because of the William’s innovative thinking, the Pacific Northwest may have a viable source of alternative energy in the near future. All Yuan needs now is a manufacturer.

It is quite amazing that a twelve- year- old could invent something so complex. William Yuan ended up receiving a $25,000 scholarship and earned the Davidson Fellow award, which is for those 18 and under. Even though William is so young he has already done great research in nanotechnology and nuclear fission, and it seems that he is on his way to solving the energy crisis we currently have at hand.

http://www.katu.com/news/28432984.html
http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/solarcel/solar_cell?flv=1
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1761

So you want to use solar energy...

Alternative energy is a great idea, but how many people actually know how to go about powering their home using renewable energy sources?
One of the most popular ways to alternatively energize your home is solar power. Not only does it reduce pollution but once you have the equipment set up, it doesn’t cost any more money because you don’t have to pay the sun a bill.
Conservation and Efficiency are the first two ways to begin reducing the need to use energy. Doing things like turning off lights when you don’t need them, unplugging phone and lap top chargers once the appliance has been fully charged, save energy, and are considered conservation. Energy efficiency comes from using ‘efficient’ appliances, like compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent. Conservation and efficiency are important when it comes to powering your house with alternative sources because for each dollar you spend on efficiency, you save $3-$5 on the equipment costs of renewable energy systems.
Solar energy is particularly useful because it can be stored, so the solar grid will soak up more than enough energy when there is sunlight, then you’ll still have electricity during seasons when the sun doesn’t shine as often. Another great thing about solar energy is that it’s actually really easy to set up - you basically attach the solar grid to a battery bank, which sends energy directly to your house’s main power grid -and voila! - you have electricity without the utility bill or pollution. Some types of grids also have a back-up generator, just in case you use a lot of electricity or the solar grid doesn’t produce enough, you won’t be without electricity.
A single solar panel probably won’t power your entire home. Using solar energy to its maximum is a process, as the solar grids can be somewhat pricey. Most grids are between $1500 and $2000, and you’ll need a few of them to power your entire house. Many companies will install them for you, though, and they don’t require much maintenance. Despite how expensive the solar grids seem, once you can power an entire home with them, the electric bill is nearly nothing, so the money saved may eventually pay back the money spent. And either way, a solar panel is great for the environment.

Reference
http://www.homepower.com/home/


http://www.earthtechproducts.com/grid-tied-solar-kit.html?gdftrk=gdfV2538_a_7c634_a_7c2338_a_7cgrid_d_tied_d_solar_d_kit

This is a link to what a solar grid looks like, and how it is installed in the home.

http://www.mrsolar.com/

This link will take you to an online retail store for solar panels which produce energy for residential and industrial use. They also have a calculator that will tell you how much solar power your house needs… but you have to insert the voltage and use information about all of your appliances and electricity usage so it’s kind of involved. However I think that for people who are serious about solar energy this is a great resource. Plus its kind of interesting to look at.

--

Also, I realized while I was writing this that today is Earth Day. Interesting that the earth only gets a day of our lives while we've been using its resources for thousands of years...

POWERleap!

I was interested in finding new, modern sources of alternative energy. After a quick search, I stumbled upon a concept called POWERleap. POWERleap is a flooring system that converts wasted energy from human foot traffic into electricity. The system uses piezoelectric technology and advanced circuitry design to convert the energy from footsteps into electric energy. The product will be among the first of its kind to take advantage of the unique properties of piezoelectric materials to actually produce usable amounts of electricity.
Besides transferring our wasted energy, how exactly does this alternative energy source work? Well, in simpler terms the product measures pressure, acceleration, strain or force by converting them to an electrical signal. Then, the energy harvesting components are housed in a flooring product that can be custom designed to suit specific applications.
In using piezoelectric technology, the energy source has an extremely high natural frequency and an excellent linearity over a wide amplitude range. Piezoelectricity is a naturally occurring occurrence exhibited by certain materials that generate an electric field when distorted. These materials range from crystals to ceramics and even some polymers, and in these materials, when no force is applied, the atomic structure is in equilibrium and there is no net electric charge. However, when a force is applied, an electric incline is created which generates a voltage across the material. When the material is integrated into a circuit, this voltage will create a DC current. The great advantage of piezoelectric technology is that it is insensitive to electromagnetic fields and radiation, enabling measurements under harsh conditions.
After learning how the product works, I wondered how much electricity the POWERleap could actually produce. According to POWERleap.net, the energy source can generate between 1-5 Watt hours per square foot, depending on the foot traffic volume. Over a 100 meter stretch of sidewalk in daily city traffic, pedestrians can generate around 1 kW of electricity each hour. That’s a lot of energy!
Not only is this particular energy source effective but the electricity generated from this product can be used on a wide variety of applications that meet client needs and create a closed loop system. The energy source can be installed into city sidewalks, public parks, university campuses, and in corporate campuses. It can be put into more entertainment- like atmospheres such as dance clubs, gyms and fitness clubs, sports stadiums, and retail chains as well. In the near future, we could be walking down the sidewalks of Chicago and be creating a new form of alternative energy on-site for immediate use.
The only problem with POWERleap and using piezoelectricity is that this type of technology cannot be used for true static measurements. A static force will result in a fixed amount of charges on the piezoelectric material. Working with conventional readout electronics, imperfect insulating materials, and reduction in internal sensor resistance will result in a constant loss of electrons, and yield a decreasing signal. Another problem concerning piezoelectricity is that elevated temperatures cause an additional drop in internal resistance(concept that helps model the electrical consequences of the complex chemical reactions inside a battery). This means that at higher temperatures only piezoelectric materials that maintain a high internal resistance can be used.

http://powerleap.net/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric_sensor
http://www.electronics-manufacturers.com/products/sensors-transducers-detectors/piezoelectric-sensor/

Solar Power: A Sci-Fi Solution?

For this blog post, I will be talking about solar power. I am interested in solar power because there is a house by mine that has solar panels attached to it. Solar power seems like such a simple answer to our energy needs. As otherpower.com points out, solar power is currently the only zero maintenance, zero fuel cost electric generator power source (http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar.html).

 Solar power is a completely renewable resource and doesn't have the same problems associated with coal in terms of creating electricity. It's cleaner, it's not dangerous to mine, and no parts have to replaced on panels and no energy is used to utilize them. So why isn't solar power more widely used? The problem has always been a matter of surface area. As I had pointed out in my last post with a cartoon, it would take an immense amount of space in order to create the energy we need solely from solar power. Logistically there is just no way to get all the power we need only by, say putting panels on each house, etc. There is no solution... until now.

How about solar panels in space?

In space you say? That's absurd! Complete science fiction! Maybe not. 

"Unfurled in space, the panels would bask in near-constant sunshine - uninterrupted by clouds or bad weather -  and provide a steady flow of electricity day and night.

An artist's impression of the planned solar array which will be launched into space on a rocket and will transmit solar power back to Earth in radio waves

The orbiting solar 'farm' would collect energy from the sun and then convert it into radio waves which would beam the power back to antennae in California.

The radio transmissions would then be converted into usable electricity and fed back into the conventional power grid.

Sunlight in space is at least ten times more powerful than that on Earth, making orbiting solar panels far more efficient than those which are land-based."

Nasa proved the theory of sending solar power through radio waves in 2008 when solar power was beamed 90 miles between two Hawaiian Islands. So what's stopping us from generating unlimited power? Why haven't we sent up armies of solar panels? Because with alternative energy, you know there is always a catch: "even though the solar array would unfurl on its own, the costs of sending the satellite into space are extremely high and repairs on the panels would be impossible." Even so, plans to send a prototype satellite are in place for within the next year. It is estimated that a solar array could create one gigawatt of power almost continuously, making it equal to the output of a nuclear generator. As a final note to this idea, "Daniel Kammen, professor in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Guardian: 'The ground rules are looking kind of promising. It is doable. Whether it is doable at a reasonable cost, we just don't know.' "

source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1170945/How-solar-panels-space-used-beam-renewable-energy-Earth.html

Alternative Energy Faces Challenges

Searching for something to write about for my post this week, I was curious to find something current about alternative energy. I wanted to see what was in the news now, something new, something relevant. I found an article on the New York Times website Published this past October. Here is the information and citation, if you care to read the article in addition to my comments.

Alternative Energy Suddenly Faces Headwinds
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: October 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/business/21energy.html?_r=1

The premise of this article is that because of the hurting economy, even the development/advancement of alternative energy sources is taking a hit. The credit freeze, in addition to the plunge in oil/natural gas prices is the primary driver for this problem.

As I'm sure we're all aware of, the recent recession in our economy has caused many negative things in our economy. We have seen the value of the dollar greatly decrease in the world economy. Also, the US stock market has taken a great hit. Most all stocks have dipped. Alternative energy companies have been no exception. In fact, these companies have even taken a sharper hit than many other industries. This has caused (and will cause) capital dedicated towards renewable energy projects to decrease.

The logic behind this, experts say,is that if oil prices continue to drop (or remain at a low level), consumers will have less incentive to pursue renewable energy resources. This would obviously lead to less funding. This would create a chain reaction, and less research and development would be done, thus any new innovation would be deterred.

This has created a greater reliance on government subsidies to further research. Common knowledge is that our economy is greatly hurting, and our government simply doesn't have the money to dedicate to so much research. President Obama, in his presidential campaign promised, "creating five million new jobs in renewable energy and nearly tripling the percentage of the nation’s electricity supplied by renewables by 2025." To me, this just doesn't seem realistic with the condition our economy is in. It just seems like another empty promise from presidential candidate that sounds good, but will never happen.

"Venture capital financing for some advanced solar projects and for experimental biofuels, like ethanol made from plant wastes, is drying up, according to analysts who track investment flows. "

There is simply just not enough money to go around to fund all of these projects. Several projects have been forced to be put on hold because of lack of funding. Wind energy companies and ethanol projects have taken the biggest hit. In fact, not unlike other industries right now, an ethanol producer had to file bankruptcy in recent months.

The true question is whether or not the issue of alternative energy is important enough to sacrifice to our nation? At this point, I can't evaluate this question. I don't know what will happen. I think it's obvious that research will be cut due to lack of money. The economy is hurting, and honestly I would think it to be foolish to dedicate large amounts of money to alternative energy right now when there are so many other economic problems the US is facing. I think it's important that we still pursue other options for energy, however I just don't know to what degree. Any thoughts?

Alternative Energy Links and Resources

This is going to be one of my smaller posts. I realized while I was researching my point for the Ethanol Simulation project that there are a lot of websites and organizations devoted to the research of and education about alternative energy.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

This website is basically just a collection of news links to things about renewable energy. It has a google-powered search engine and it seems like there is a lot of information, although some of it should probably be taken with a grain of salt because it is 'news' and its on a biased website. There are a lot of ads as well, but the content appears to be very broad and well organized.

http://www.altenergy.org/

Associated with the Alternative Energy Institute, this website provides educational information about various types of alternative energy, including wind, solar, and water energy, as well as information about renewable and non-renewable energy sources.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/index.html

This website is associated with the California Energy Commission. It was last updated in 2005, so there is some recent information or statistics that may be missing, but it provides a "Student's Guide" to alternative energy and fuels, as well as alternative fuel vehicles.

http://ncga.com/

This is a link to the National Corn Growers Association. They are an organization that promotes education about agriculture and its role in alternative energy. It also has information about ethanol and its impact on the environment and the economy.

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/

Another blog about alternative energy. Includes news updates and analyses about alternative energy. Also has some nice pictures and full-length news stories.

just a thought.

I found several articles when I was looking into the prospective use and success of algae as an alternative fuel that really seem to prove that it will be able to be used in the future. However when I was looking at several of the articles – one of which mentioned that Venice would be 100% powered by the stuff by 2011 – they mentioned that the algae would remove CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding to it. With that in mind, I thought of a few other things. How CO2 is not the only element attributing to a warming trend and how the claim of many eco-organizations is to bring the world back to normal.
Richard Branson, along with Al Gore, is sponsoring a contest to develop a technology that would take out CO2 instead of putting any in. It seems to me that much of the concentration of modern eco-groups is to revert back to normal, but wouldn’t a planet normal be a world without humans? I think so. Current studies indicate that there are elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and the claims that follow these studies state that the levels are so high that they are disrupting the carbon cycle. However there are other studies that show that there are more plants and photo reliant organisms than there ever have been. Further, these plants are growing higher than they ever have. It is true that the human species has created much more greenhouse gasses than any other species through our lifestyle and industry, but the planet seems to have balanced out our additions.
Taking a different approach, by taking the data from the ice cap extractions and condensing it into a graph, it can be shown that there have been trends of fluctuating temperatures due to CO2 levels and other variable elements in the atmosphere. Each of these trends has caused temperature changes to our environment on a planetary scale including times of intense cooling and times of equally intense warming. These fluctuations of those times are similar to the modern fluctuation of temperature, and they occurred without the human element involved.
So my question about the push to remove the CO2 through inventions and now fuels is whether or not we as humans need to think that our way of life is harming the environment. Maybe this developing trend is a natural occurrence, a way for the planet to correct itself. Yes humans can develop a better and less intrusive and environmentally abusive lifestyle. And there must be new studies and inventions in fuels for our way of life but I don’t think that humans should believe that we have had as much of an impact as many scientists would say that we have.

Is it worth it? The cost of alternative energy

For years alternative energy has seen much criticism due to it’s high cost. It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas. However with modern research, technological advances, and the potential of rising oil prices, alternative energy is starting to look really good to a lot of people. While the US depends heavily on fossil fuels, renewable energy sources such as biomass, wind, geothermal and solar are likely to account for a larger share of the electricity supply in future years.

For a very long time, the cost of capturing the free energy and converting it into electricity has been too high to be truly worth the investment. Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. For many reasons, people are becoming more and more interested in alternative energy sources, which has caused an increase in research and technology. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest. Although alternative energy still is far from competing with fossil fuels in price, the margins are narrowing. If you consider the environmental costs of the two, the cost margin shrinks very quickly even more.

“According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable resources produced 2.3% of the U.S. electricity supply in 2005. Bio-mass was responsible for 1.5%, wind for 0.44%, geothermal for 0.36% and solar power for a scant 0.01%. In contrast, coal-fired generation produced 49.7% of U.S. electricity supplies in 2005, followed by nuclear power at 19.3%, natural gas at 19.1%, hydropower at 6.5% and oil-fired generation at 3%.”

As it can be easily seen, non-renewable resources still dominate the area of energy. Some day all of this will run out, and alternative sources of energy will be required. Hopefully, we have that technology fully developed by the time this happens. Luckily much effort (and money) is going into developing this technology.

Some things that are being done include the following:

The US government is requiring the blending of more plant-based biofuels like ethanol with gasoline.

One of the most well known (and most talked about) sources of alternative energy is wind energy. There have been many improvements and advancements in wind energy technology. In 1980, wind-power electricity cost 80 cents per kilowatt-hour; by 1991 it cost 10 cents; today the cost is about 6-9 cents per kilowatt hour. As opposed to fossil fuel energy (natural gas, coal, nuclear) costs of about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, this cost is not far from being very competitive.

Advancement in the technology and production cost reduction are the reasons for this decrease in cost. Material and production costs have greatly decreased.

In general, solar energy costs around 35-45 cents per kilowatt hour to be produced.

Geothermal energy costs around 6-10 cents per kilowatt hour to be produced

Biofuels, such as ethanol cost up to $1.60 to be produced.

All in all, the monetary cost of alternative energy is much greater than the cost of using fossil fuels for energy. It seems to me that the use of alternative energy is nearing the day that it could be a very real possibility. As it can be clearly seen, the cost of producing wind energy is quickly nearing a point of being very competitive to the cost of using fossil fuels.

Links Used:
http://www.businessinsider.com/subsidies-for-alternative-energy-costs-less-than-subsidies-for-traditional-energy-2009-3
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8813
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternative_energy.html

Alternative Energy Viability in the United States

1.Coal (51%)
2.Nuclear (20%)
3.Natural Gas (17%)
4.Hydro (7%)
5.Petroleum (3%)
6.Renewables/other (2%)

Although fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas have their advantages, the overall effects of these fossil fuels are harmful. Yes, presently there is a great amount of availability of these fuels, they are inexpensive, and they are very easily distributed, but in the end they are the greatest contributors toward climate change, acid rain, and in the end they are exhaustible fuel sources.
A great alternative to coal and other fossil fuels is nuclear energy. Although nuclear energy can be quite dangerous and money will have to be spent on safety measures, nuclear energy costs the same as coal, causes no pollution, uses little fuel for the great amount of energy it produces, causes very little waste, and this source of energy is reliable.

*darker areas resemble greater natural wind energy

Another great alternative is wind power. Wind energy is the cheapest form of alternative energy, and with reasonably aggressive expansion of wind power, the Midwest United States could easily supply 5-10% of its power needs with wind generators. The only problem with this source is that wind power is geographically dependant and it can be costly, but for areas with a great amount of wind, wind power is inexhaustible and causes no pollution.

These are just two alternative sources that the U.S. can take advantage of. As a country and as the world’s leading Carbon Dioxide emitter, the country has a responsibility to embrace alternative energy.

<http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html>

<http://searchtools.lib.umich.edu>

<http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm>

Green Power and Other Ways to Save Engergy in Our Homes

Did you know that approximately 21% of the world’s global warming pollution roots from the homes here in the United States? By making energy efficient changes in our households we can reduce this pollution by almost 800 million tons! (www.fightglobalwarming.com)

Fossil fuel based energy sources are widely used in U.S. homes: electricity, natural gas, and oil. Currently, our sources of energy – i.e. power plants – are much too inefficient for us to continue using them the way we are. Coal is one major source the United States is highly dependent on for electricity. However, the lengthy process to convert coal into steam into eventually electricity only produces a minimal amount of electricity. There are alternative ways to heat, cool, cook, and provide light that will use less energy in order to achieve the results we are already used to.

Green power, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, may be more costly than what most homes are used to paying for energy sources, but is a highly beneficial alternative: reduces smog, soot, mercury, and acid rain pollution, reduces financial risks by giving us a way other than fossil fuels that can quickly fluctuate to use energy, will create new jobs which in turn will create greater income levels because green power relies on local labor forces. Wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, and energy from biomass will decrease heat-trapping pollution significantly.

Although at one time we did not have choice of who, or what “brand,” would supply our energy for our homes, that is no longer the case anymore. Gradually, this green power is becoming more widely available.

In addition to green power, there are a number of simple tasks people could get in the habit of in order to save energy…and money. In the summertime, keep the shades drawn to keep the cool air inside. In winter months, do the opposite – open the shades so natural light can heat up a room, and try to keep the thermostat cool in the nighttime or when no one is home. There are also programmable thermostats that can be installed now that heat or cool only when needed. Planting a few extra trees in the yard can give a little extra shade to reduce air conditioning costs in the summer. Insulating both your home’s walls and ceilings will keep either cool or warm from escaping. By replacing your old roof with one lighter in color, or more reflective, you will also keep unwanted heat out.

There is no reason why the United States should account for up one-fifth of the world’s global warming pollution. If we all make some changes by rethinking energy sources we use in our homes, it will make have a positive impact on our earth, and also our wallets.

www.fightglobalwarming.com

Alternative Energy Cartoons

1. I included the first comic because it shows how much we still need to accomplish in terms of alternative energy. We cannot just be satisfied with the products we know of because they still don't completely solve our problems. We can't just "stay the course" but need to be inventive and come up with new research.

2. Comic 2  depicts the U.S as a giant solar panel. This comic is showing how although solar energy may be a good alternative source of energy since Sun is free and abundant, it requires too much surface area to be the only source of energy.

3. The third comic is funny to me because this man who is obviously an environmentally friendly person who is ignoring the potential of nuclear energy that is right in front of him.

links:
http://planetforlife.com/images/h2cartoon.gif
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkrIvGVIi7BuiLp9u0PwIIT3uSB2y_ERVo5qi-XXLTQRyX73WpMEGyFu7cNOhkJEcO14aOFmDMZY0lrso5lsgAI0o4nlILK5lRzsdykMhgWBk3y-3iEwIxrd1fhhlKPpay5FwLMto915rr/s400/solar.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070824RZ1AP-NukeEnergy.jpg

What are our options?

One of the biggest problems for me in terms of alternative energy is that I never understood the purpose - I always thought, does the government just want to make more money off of us? Are they pushing different fuel sources just so we are forced to buy new cars, since gasoline won’t be available? And there was always the suspicion in my mind that the “energy crisis” was just some tree-hugging lunatics trying to scare us.

I have kind of grown out of these fears, and as I learn more about renewable energy sources the more sense the concept makes to me. Not only does gasoline produce high amounts of air pollution, but it is not a renewable energy source and will eventually run out - then where will we be? Well, we’ll be using one of our alternative energy sources, that’s where.

One source of alternative energy is natural gases and propane. They generally emit fewer pollutants into the air, and are safe to use in cars. The problem here, however, is that they release considerably higher amounts of nitrous oxide. Another problem is that this option does not produce as much energy as gasoline, so more is needed to power a car, and since natural gas still emits pollutants, this does not seem like the greatest or more efficient source. But still we try.

Alcohol fuels are another option. They lower ozone concentrations (in the troposphere, I assume) and carbon monoxide emissions as well. On the down side, many alcohol fuels emit carcinogens that can be equally as harmful to our health as the air pollutants emitted by gasoline. Alcohol fuel also emits high amounts of nitrous oxide.

Ethanol is yet another option. Ethanol is considerably better for the environment than gasoline, but it is much more expensive and not as energy-efficient.

Hydrogen is ok as an alternative fuel source. It is easy to produce, but very costly to store, especially in liquid forms. Also, like all the other alternative fuel methods, hydrogen is not as potent as gasoline when it comes to energy, so a considerably higher amount of hydrogen is needed to power an automobile than gasoline.

There seems to be many alternatives to gasoline, however none of them fit our needs perfectly. Obviously, we will have to find an alternative fuel source eventually, because the oil present on the earth will eventually run out. Also, one of the biggest problems with alternative fuel right now is that there is no economic demand for them - few people own cars that can operate on anything but gasoline, and in today’s economy not many people are spending lots of money on new cars, especially not the expensive hybrids and other environmentally friendly automobiles. However, this problem would disappear if hybrids and alternative fuels were the only products on the market - if gasoline was no longer produced, and ALL cars were made to run on alternative fuel, then people would be forced to buy them because they have no other option. This will probably not happen incredibly soon, but in my opinion it seems like we’re headed in this direction, especially as fuel-emission standards are constantly being lowered and “going green” becomes more and more popular.

References:
http://wf2dnvr14.webfeat.org/
Accessed 3-11-09

Alternative Energy Comics

(1.) This comic was interesting. It shows us how our actions we have been taking to help our environment may actually be harming the environment at the same time. Different forms of alternative energy may have its benefits, but simultaneously, there may be negative effects, such as getting in the way of birds’ lives. (2.) The Dilbert comic covers a variety of topics. For example, the comic states that fuel efficient cars make a statement, and it almost seems as if fuel efficient cars are a fad. The comic also touches on the idea that there’s a civic duty for us as American’s to help the world we live in. Lastly, Dilbert talks about funding toward other countries and that by us investing in these fuel efficient cars there’s no real solution to our links with other countries. A number of countries provide us with these cars and our oil we use on a day- to- day basis, and we will forever have to be connected these countries. (3.) This comic shows people the different types of alternative energy there are out there: solar power, biomass, wind power, and geo-thermal energy. In a way, I think that the comic is comparing the popularity of energy drinks to the new popularity of alternative energy. The picture displays the options we have now as consumers of energy. (4.) This comic in particular really made me laugh. We all know that body- heat is not a form of alternative energy, but the whole idea of the comic was very amusing.

http://blog.timothynary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/fungible.jpg

http://thebrianchronicles.blogspot.com/

http://www.gocomics.com/

http://www.cartoonstock.com/