Alternative Energy by Honors 203

Cermak Plaza goes Green!

2011-05-20T01:37:00.002-05:00

The newest addition to this shopping center is actually not a store. In fact, the newest addition to the shopping center Berwyn, a neighborhood in Chicago, called Cermak Plaza is actually artsy looking turbines. The plaza which already has quirky artwork outside in the parking lot has added to their collection in the form of an alternative energy source. Wind turbines that were fashioned to both reflect light and generate electricty were recently added amongside the sculpture. Tweleve wind turbines now blow in the parking lot everyday creating quick and green energy for the shopping plaza.
Here is the link to the complete article:

Cleaner Air, One Bike at a Time

2011-05-20T01:14:00.002-05:00

With most of us being freshmen this year, we didn't have the opportunity to have a car on campus, unless we found some way to jump around the school's usual policy against allowing freshmen students to have cars on campus. However, the year is over and next year will have new opportunites, including the chance to keep a car on campus. But in recent years, Elmhurst College has offered another opportunity to students as well - the Bike Program. As part of a way for Elmhurst College to "go gree", Elmhurst College has started allowing students to reject the opportunity to keep a car on campus and recieve a free bike instead. If the student promises to not bring a motorized vehicle on campus for an entire academic year (with the exception of a temporary winter permit) they will be able to recieve free bikes, helmets and locks. Little do people know, but this opportunity is open to staff as well. For many of the staff this request may be unreasonable, but for some staff that live close enough to the school, this is a nice opportunity for them as well. Not only will riding a bike to school help reduce the amount of gas you use daily (not to mention the extremely high cost of gas these days and all the money you will save) but it will also eliminate any parking troubles and force you to get daily excerise. This was new to me, being a freshman on campus so I looked into it. Something I found out that was interesting and nice to know for us for years to come is, that if you choose to do the bike program numerous years, each additional year you will recieve a free bike tune-up and a $25.00 gift card to spend on any bike accessories you choose. So after a few years, your bike will be able to be decorated to fit your personal style completely...while making Elmhurst a greener campus and reducing the amount of gasoline used yearly. To enroll for the bike program go to this link: http://public.elmhurst.edu/bicycleprogram/43338292.html
Its a great opportunity, so if you haven't already choosen to have a car on campus, you should check it out.

Alternative Energy in Chicago

2011-05-20T00:52:00.002-05:00

Solar power is coming to Chicago people! Invenergy, a Chicago wind and solar power company, plans on builing a solar power farm in Illinois. General Electric Co. says that they can demonstrate breakthrough solar power technology with their new thin film solar panels. The solar power farm will use the new panels from General Electric to produce power for Commonweath Edison (announced Dec 16th). They will also use a wind farm located in LaSalle county for power as well. GE said that their new thin fim panels are the most efficient panels on the market in today's society. The company called it, "a huge step toward making more solar available and affordable on a larger scale." Because these panels are so sucessful, GE plans on having a factory that will strickly make these solar panels. It is said that the new solar technology is more efficient by 13% and with each 1% increase in efficiency it inables a 10% cheaper cost. The new GE plant will make enough of these thin film panels, also know as cadmium telluride panels, to power 80,000 homes by the year 2013. The factory will also empoy 400 people in the are which will hopefully help the local economy. Because of this breakthrough, GE will become one of the lead creators of solar panels and will be comepeting against places like First Solar. This shows how involved the city of Chicago is trying to become in the idea of alternative energy, by creating many new solar panels and by using more power from solar energy farms and wind farms.

high purity hydrogen

2011-05-18T12:54:00.002-05:00

Researchers at Eindhoven University have developed a cleaner, more efficient way of producing high purity hydrogen from natural gas. Hydrogen is useful because it is a non-polluting, relatively efficient energy carrier. The most common way of producing hydrogen from natural gas is through steam formation, which wastes a lot of energy. Researchers have now developed new technology called "sorption enhanced catalytic reforming of methane.” The process uses a Rhodium-based catalyst, and would allow for the production of hydrogen at a significantly lower temperature and pressure, which results in less wasted energy. If the temperature is between 400-500 degrees and the pressure is around 4.5 bar they “Direct production of high purity hydrogen and fuel conversion greater than 99.5%” can be achieved (Halabi). This seems good to me because it would waste less energy, produce less carbon emissions, and use fewer materials. A downside would be that Rhodium is expensive.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512103946.htm

Biofuels in the aviation industry

2011-05-18T12:54:00.001-05:00

I read an article about how the aviation industry is trying to switch to biofuels in an effort to cut gas prices and greenhouse gas emissions. However, researches found large variability in the greenhouse gas emissions of the different biofuels they tested. The article cited MIT, who thought they should not make the switch, at least not as quickly as the aviation industry plans to. They found that when the origins of the biofuel is taken into consideration, what might seem like a promising source of renewable energy might actually be worse for the environment than fossil fuels. Although the article seemed schizophrenic at times, the general feel I got was that the author thought more care needed to be taken when choosing renewable sources of energy, and that industries needed to be thorough and studious, and do the research so they know how green the fuels are before they start to use them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511134335.htm

Windfarms Of The Water

2011-05-17T15:57:00.003-05:00

A new tecnology is currently under reasearch that will allow humans to generate energy from the waves of the sea. This technology, being named Wing Waves, can generate enough energy to power 200,000 houses with one square mile of wings. All this requires is an ocean coast, a depth of 50ft and a sand floor to be able to install. This pretty much opens up the entire coastline to this new form of alternative energy. Wing Waves as of now have no significant downside as they are very enviromentally friendly, produce electricty from the strongest to the calmest waves and have a huge area of operation. I would not be suprised to see this alternative energy begin to pop up all over the world's coast in the next few years.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/electricity-from-wing-waves/

Algae For Energy

2011-05-17T15:41:00.003-05:00

I found this report on some new reasearch on turning common algae into biofuel. At the University of Arkanasas chemical engineers and scientists are looking into butanol. In this process algae would be grown in long tanks from which they would be harvested every week. By drying the algae after harvesting it from the tanks, carbohydrates can be taken and fermented to create butanol. Butanol is more efficient then ethanol and they are also thinking of taking algae from dead water, where it choked the life out the wildlife, in an attempt to restore the waterways which is a plus. This process really does the potentional on making a new biofuel that will take ethanol and help relieve the food crysis as well as help restore the dead waterways.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/common-algae-biofuel-butanol-production/

War of the Atoms comic

2011-05-17T10:58:00.003-05:00

I thought that this cartoon was pretty clever. Since the atom has lost an electron, he is now considered a positive ion. When he says in the cartoon that he is "positive", it has two meanings. On one hand, it means that he is certain he has been hit and on the other hand it means he is now a positively charged ion.
http://www.lab-initio.com/screen_res/nz220.jpg

Acid Rain Comic

2011-05-17T10:19:00.003-05:00

I thought that this comic by T. McCracken was pretty humorous because the woman in it has no idea how acid rain works. While in theory it would make sense to counteract acid rain with alkaline rain (in other words, basic rain), it doesn't work like that. We should definitely worry about acid rain because not only does it poison our drinking water, but it also deteriorates statues and buildings. Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the atmosphere.
http://www.mchumor.com/chemistry3_bframe.html

Ionic Bonding Comic

2011-05-17T09:56:00.001-05:00

I felt proud of myself for understanding the chemistry principles behind this comic. The characters inside the classroom are metals. They form positive ions. They are attracted to the non-metal negative ions outside the classroom and want to form ionic bonds with them. Enjoy!

The original comic can be found here:

http://msflynn.edublogs.org/tag/chemistry/

Molecular Shape Comic

2011-05-17T09:39:00.002-05:00

I thought this was a funny comic that related to what we learned about in class. We spent some time talking about the various molecular shapes. I recognized that methane and nitrate both have a tetrahedral shape. However, I don't know what to call the shape of "bomberman"! Enjoy the comic

The original comic can be found here: http://www.willandbeyond.com/?page=2&tag=art

New Possible Alternative Energy Source

2011-05-13T20:01:00.003-05:00

I found this little blurb on using plastics by synthesizing them into crude oil and other fuels. The basis of this is on the abundance of plastic we have; 4 million pounds of plastics were recycled in 2009 and still more are filling up landfills. This news release claims that if this were done then there could be enough material to fuel the equivalent of 6 million cars annually. I think that this is astounding and if the technology could be implemented it would do a lot for the fuel issues we are all experiencing. It would be an interesting idea to watch and see if anything comes of it in the future.

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_news_article.asp?CID=206&DID=11929

Baseball

2011-05-13T19:45:00.002-05:00

I found this comic and it related really well to what our last test covered. It might take a minute to get but it is pretty funny once you get it. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I hope you do too! And for that matter I'm excited I actually understand what hydroxide ions have to do with baseball ;)

Burning Water - A Useful Oxymoron

2011-05-10T00:50:00.003-05:00

It is true that one would not typically think it is possible for water to burn, hence being considered an oxymoron. Most believe that water is the absolute opposite to fire, and that any mix of the two would result in the fire being extinguished. That didn't stop a man by the name of John Kanzius from realizing the potential of the seemingly impossible thing when he discovered it back in 2007. Kanzius, a cancer researcher, discovered this phenomenon when he attempted to desalinate water during a test in eliminating cancer cells via radio bombardment. According to National Geographic, Kanzius was suprised to see a small 'spark' when the radio waves interacted with the salt water. Going off a hunch, he lifted a flame to the water's surface and it actually lit the water on fire.

Word spread like wildfire on what was being called the greatest water related discovery of 100 years. Holding the potential for being a huge source of alternative energy and water treatment, this discovery went to Rustum Roy, a university chemist at Penn State, to find how this happens. Roy discovered that as long as the radio waves are trained on the water, it would continue to burn. When the radio waves strike the water, the bonds between the hydrogen and the oxygen begin to weaken, allowing them to burn. When burned the water breaks into hydrogen and oxygen gas with then immediately react back with each other to reform water. Because the salt water oceans cover the majority of the Earth, there is no lack of fuel for this process.

Now, the actual burning of the salt water isn't the new alternative energy, rather it is the hydrogen that is broken off from the water in this process that is so important. Hydrogen is a powerful alternative energy source that is almost never found by itself naturally. This process eliminates the need for expensive hydrogen extraction by other means. This process also rids the water of any chemicals within it, creating clean water from dirty ocean salt water. This process it truly useful and energy efficient. Even though the radio waves also require energy to be made, one could attach the radio emitter to something like a solar panel to limit the amount of fossil fuels being used.

THis discovery is probably one of the most important finding for alternative energy production in such a long time. Still, many things still need to be researched before this process can be used as an energy production technique. That does not deter scientists from becoming hopeful that this will one day become an important part in our energy production.

Links:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water_2.html
http://www.livescience.com/1861-remarkable-discovery-scientists-burn-saltwater.html

Water and Energy Use

2011-05-09T20:46:00.004-05:00

This picture shows some of the complexities connecting water use and energy use. The accompanying description on the website describes the connection also and states that energy conservation and water conservation are equally related and saving one can save the other. According to the description, 3% of the US water supply is used to generate power and 13% of our power production goes back to treating water supplies.

Water is often suggested as a better means of energy production, but especially with the world's supply going down due to the melting ice sheets and whatnot discussed in class, I'm not sure this is the best solution. Obviously, all solutions have their downsides but it seems to me water might be an unreliable alternative if the supply is already becoming an issue.

(Click on the picture for the full view)

Also found at:

http://www.eeweek.org/water_and_energy_wise/connection

Nanocarbon Batteries

2011-05-01T21:30:00.002-05:00

Researchers in Massachusetts are working on a new kind of battery. This battery, unlike current ones made of toxic metals like cadmium and lead, is made almost entirely of carbon. Essentially, this means it would just degrade after a time, or they could be incinerated though that risks releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. It would be a completely organic material, carbon, though in this case organic does not refer to being grown naturally. The new batteries would not release the heavy metal residue into the environment that current options release.

Another strength of the new development is the power packed into these much smaller batteries; smaller meaning up to ten times smaller. These smaller batteries however, would put out the same amount of energy as the currently used batteries. This means they will save energy. That may seem like an odd statement, but they really do save energy. They will not leak out energy like the batteries available today do when they are not being used. All those batteries sitting around on shelves leak out valuable energy but the new and smaller ones would do this significantly less or perhaps even not at all. Therefore, they would be saving energy by not letting it escape.

The new nanotechnology batteries operate by using carbon nanotubes. These are small wires that create a lot of energy. They are too small to be seen by the naked eye and can only be observed through a microscope. The wires receive a fuel coating and the resulting reaction involves thermopower waves. These waves move from one end of the battery to the other with the high level of energy needed for the operation of the battery. These new batteries could allow for many new developments in portable technology and energy saving fields.

All information in this post was found in the following web article: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-12/tech/mit.research.electricity_1_laptop-batteries-mit-researchers-power-electronics?_s=PM:TECH

Tax on Electric Cars?

2011-04-27T12:47:00.002-05:00

Recently in the Chicago Sun-Times there was an article about a possible bill being passed in the state of Washington about actually putting a tax on electric cars. For years of the government and state encouraging people to purchase electric cars and hybrid cars because they help reduce the amount of pollution and greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Residents used to recieve tax breaks after purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle. However, the state of Washington is now moving towards a completely opposite bill. They want to charge residents with electric cars a tax fee of one-hundred dollars per year. This would be the nation's first ever tax fee on electric cars. This is due to the fact that electric cars use the roads but do not have to pay the taxes placed on gas to help maintain the roads and help fund construction. On average, people with electric cars save 1,000 dollars a year on fuel. This includes taking the amount of money it costs to fuel electric cars. The average U.S. electricity rate is 12 cents per kWh (price ranges widely across the U.S. from around 3 cents in Washington to about 27 cents in Hawaii) the consumer would still be paying about a quarter as much for fuel costs with gas. Not to mention it can also save people thirty to forty dollars every few months without the need for a mechanic oil change. The Washington democratic state senate representative said, "Electric vehicles pit just as much wear and tear on our roads as gas vehicles. This [bill] simply ensures that they contribute their fair share to the upkeep of our roads" (Chicago Sun-Times). In the long run, even with the one-hundred dollar fee, residents with electric cars will be saving a significant amount of money. Electric cars can save the environment and , even with a possible tax, save money for the consumer.

Sources:
www.plugincars.com
www.suntimes.com

Save Yourself the Trouble! Tips on how to save fuel

2011-04-26T22:03:00.000-05:00

These last couple of weeks, I’ve been waking up feeling more and more anxious for summer to grace us with its presence, and I’m sure many of you share the same sentiment. I’ve been constantly checking the weather updates online, hoping that “maybe this week we’ll finally have every single day hit above sixty degrees” and “maybe this week the rain will finally stop”. I guess it’s pretty safe to say I’m completely fed up with spring and am entirely ready for Mother Nature to swing us right into the lazy dog days of beautiful summer. However, there’s one thing that I am dreading this summer: gas prices. Just like every summer, gas prices are on the rise yet again, and this year is especially bad what with the political turmoil roiling in the Middle East. Trust me, I have every notion of cracking out that bicycle and minimalizing my time behind the wheel, but I also have a couple road trips planned, and my twenty-gallon, eighty-dollar-to-fill-up gas tank ominously looms in my driveway. But what can I do? I have no choice but to fill my old Buick with gasoline, I can’t fill it with water or dirt. Thus, I decided to research ways that I can save fuel this summer, and the reason for posting this on an alternative energy blog? It turns out that saving fuel (and therefore reducing CO2 emissions) is actually good for the environment! Using less fuel means filling up less which means less fuel is inadvertently spewed into our atmosphere. But of course, being in Honors Chemistry and the Environment, we all already knew that, didn’t we…
One of the first rules for saving on fuel and reducing emissions into the atmosphere is to slow down while driving. On that note, another good rule of thumb is to accelerate moderately when coming from a red light to a green. If you lay on the gas you will waste fuel and emit carbon dioxide and other particles into the atmosphere that could have otherwise been moderately distributed in less quantities had you accelerated at a moderately slow pace so that the transmission can shift up into the higher gears (when dealing with an automatic vehicle). Shutting off the air conditioning during moderately slow speeds will help fuel usage, but using the air conditioner during high speeds will actually aid in reducing fuel consumption because having the windows open during high speeds will create a lot of resistance on the vehicle and therefore use more fuel to move said vehicle. Keeping the vehicle moving constantly (and not continuously stopping and going), even if it means rolling ever so slowly at a stoplight, will aid in reducing fuel consumption. By keeping the car moving at all times, this stops the need for pure acceleration, and therefore saves fuel. Another tip that I discovered is to make sure your vehicle’s tires have good pressure. If your vehicle’s tires have low air pressure, then that means you are driving dragging those wheels with you, and they are actually bringing you down in the sense that they are creating drag on the car. More drag on the car means more fuel is used to move said car, and more fuel means more money and more harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Checking your air filter can also help save fuel. A dirty air filter can restrict the flow of air into the engine, which can have harmful effects on the car’s performance and economy. One more tip to consider this summer (and always) is to keep the inside of your vehicle clean. Of course, everyone thinks to keep the outside clean, because that’s the part everyone sees, but keeping the inside clean can actually help you to save on fuel. The more unnecessary weight you put on a car, the more drag it will experience while on the road and the more fuel you will use. The lighter you car is, the more economical it is. And of course, there’s always those alternative forms of transportation that don’t require fuel at all: biking, walking, and skating.
Looking at all of these fuel-saving tips, the thing that they all have in common is that they are very doable, and highly effective. Every little bit counts, and if it means that I will save money on those road trips I have planned, as well as reduce harmful emissions into our precious atmosphere, then I’m all for it.
Sources:
http://cars.about.com/od/helpforcarbuyers/tp/ag_top_fuelsave.htm
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/fuel-efficient/5.asp
http://financialplan.about.com/cs/cars/a/SaveGas.htm

Major IT Companies' Emissions

2011-04-23T11:17:00.002-05:00

Greenpeace evaluates major IT companies' energy use and their efforts to use "green" energy. According to this article, Yahoo! had the best clean energy emissions index at 55.9% and Apple had the worst with 6.7%. It also gives an estimate of the coal intensity, and ratings of the companies' transparency, infrastructure siting, and mitigation strategy. Google, with the second-best clean energy emissions index, also just recently announced significant investments in wind energy.

https://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/04/21/greenpeace-hails-yahoo-google-akamai-green-power-leadership

The Downside of Alternative Energies

2011-04-23T08:22:00.006-05:00

Most of the articles in this blog have been about the benefits of alternative energies. However, there are also many downsides to solar, wind, and hydroelectric powers.

First of all, wind power is useful because it does not produce any air or water pollution. However, there are some major concerns over wind power. The public is concerned about the visibility and noise of the relatively large and unsightly wind turbines. There are also some that note that building wind turbines would cause many wilderness areas to be developed. The large wind turbines take many fossil fuels to make and transport to the field. Lastly, wind power is also one to one and a half times more expensive than the electricity generated from fossil fuels.

Next, solar power is a great source of renewable energy because they generate no emissions while in use. However, just like wind turbines, they require a substantial amount of fossil fuels to make and install. The solar panels also have many ill health effects for those that come into contact with them because of the arsenic and cadmium that are used in the panels. John Holdren also said, "Using sunlight to make electricity with photovoltaic cells remains 3 to 5 times more expensive than fossil-fueled electricity generation, despite very substantial reductions in the costs of photovoltaics over the last two decades."

Geothermal energy has come under fire in the last few years for causing many environmental problems. Acquiring geothermal energy is associated with pollution of water and air as well as unsafe disposal of hazardous wastes. The plants that produce the geothermal energy also need a large amount of water for cooling purposes. This could be a problem for the plants that are not close to a water sources, as they have to haul in the water, most likely using fossil fuels.

Hydropower is often criticized for destruction of natural habitats. In fact, existing dams are often attacked by environmental groups because they sometimes cause some of the native plant and animal species to become endangered. Also, the reservoirs that the dams create often damage existing forests, farmlands, and wildlife habitats. Lastly, hauling the enormous amounts of concrete and other materials that are necessary for construction of the dam uses a large amount of fossil fuels.

Clearly, there is no cure-all type of alternative energy. Every type has its positives and negatives. In the future, some of these negatives must be addressed to ensure that our environment is protected as much as possible.

Sources:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/environmental-impacts-of.html
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/01/john-holdren-on-renewable-energy-problems-part-v-in-a-series-on-obamas-new-science-advisor/

Using Energy Using Cars

2011-04-22T12:00:00.002-05:00

I found an interesting article on the same site from which Nicole got the 5 weird alternatives article. The article discussed a man's efforts to use cars and trucks driving over a plate in the road to compress hydraulic tanks under the road to produce power. The efforts are in the prototype stage, but it looks promising!

Photovoltaics

2011-04-21T18:53:00.004-05:00

Currently, researchers at MIT are developing transparent solar cells. This new technology could enable windows to generate their own electricity without obstructing the view. Photovoltaic cells could be coated onto a pane of standard window glass. These cells could then utilize infrared radiation to create energy, while still allowing visible light to pass through. The energy could then be used to power lights and other devices. Photovoltaics is the direct conversion of light into energy via the photoelectric effect, in which electrically charged particles are released upon the absorption of photons of EM radiation.

The best thing about this development is that it would be significantly less expensive than installing solar panel systems. What makes solar panels so expensive are the installation costs and the glass. But since this new technology would utilize existing infrastructure, the cost of installing them would be significantly lower. Another benefit is that the photovoltaic cells use organism molecules instead of silicon like some other solar cells. Since the energy would be coming directly from the sun, it represents a much cleaner way to get energy than burning carbon-containing fuels. Plus the sun is highly abundant, renewable energy source.

The downside is that the efficiency level is not yet up to par with existing solar panel technology. The highest efficiency that the solar cells have been able to reach is 1.7%. They’re hoping they can get it up to 12%, but even that would not be very efficient. This inefficiency occurs because some of the enrgy is reflected by the cell and some of the energy is transformed into heat. Another concern is that because the technology is so new, they have not yet been able to establish the lifetime of the photovoltaic cells.

Another downside is that the sun does not shine everywhere always. The energy can be stored using batteries for use at night, but this is still an inconvenience. The researcher at MIT see photovoltaics as one of a variety of green energy sources that will be needed to make the transition away from fossil fuel towards clean, carbon-free energy. I like the idea of this, but it is too early to see how effective it will be.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/solarcells/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/transparent-solar-windows-0415.html

Solar Energy

2011-04-20T00:39:00.001-05:00

Starting with the basics, solar power, like any other fuel source, has its advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantage is that the sun provides an unlimited resource. There is more than enough solar energy to sustain the Earth’s energy demands. Specifically, every hour, the sun delivers as much energy to the Earth as the entire population uses in a year. Also, solar power is clean and safe. However, the sun only shines in certain places at certain times. Thus, for solar power to be used as a primary source of power, it must be coupled with an alternative or a means must be found for reserving the power for rainy days. Furthermore, the startup costs of utilizing solar power deter people from using this resource. It is expensive to create the solar panels and solar cells which intercept the sun’s rays.

For solar panels to work, photons from the sun must strike the electrons within the solar panel and turn them into conduction electrons. This allows the electrons to carry an electrical charge. The electrical charge is extracted through the semi-conductive materials in the solar panel.

Recently, some intriguing advances have been made in solar energy. At TU Delft (a Dutch University), they discovered that amorphous silicon provides an alternative to crystalline silicon. Crystalline silicon is an expensive material that is used in most solar cells. When made with amorphous silicon, the solar cells can be produced at a fraction of the thickness and consequently at a fraction of the cost. Still, the process of making the solar cells (regardless of the type of silicon) is slow and contributes to the cost. Because of this, Michael Wank (PhD supervisor of TU Delft) examined an alternative production technique. This advances are exciting news when it comes to making solar cells affordable.

Unfortunately, I found that although the US was once the world’s leading producer of solar cells, we have fallen behind in production and now rank 5th. We are also lagging in solar installation. This is mainly because other countries have become devoted to the solar energy cause by enforcing stringent renewable energy requirements. Ironically, Japan and Germany, the highest ranking countries in installation, receive significantly less sunshine than the United States. By enforcing higher restrictions for global warming, the United States can be a competitive part of the solar energy market.

This post is based on the following sources:

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=23052&s_src=ggad&gclid=CMvl54bwgagCFYS8KgodpGINqQ

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/articles/how_solar_power_works.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317102557.htm

The Potential of Solar Power

2011-04-18T14:35:00.005-05:00

Here is an interesting infographic that I found about how much energy the sun produces. This demonstrates that if we could develop an extremely efficient way to harness the sun's energy, we would have many of our energy needs met. (http://solarenergyfactsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/solar-energy-infographic.gif)

**I know that the photo is a little large to be viewed on the blog itself, but if you click on the photo it will take you to the site where the infographic can be viewed in full.**

California's New Alternative Energy Law

2011-04-12T23:19:00.001-05:00

Recently there was a new energy mandate signed into law in California by the Governor Jerry Brown. This mandate is the most aggressive clean energy standard in the nation. “… Requires the state’s utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like geothermal, wind and solar by 2020” (Hull). This is a high standards bill but the details are being questioned by some. For example there are many permits needed and so the projects could be delayed and this would increase prices. However the law also contains provisions that are supposed to protect consumers from what is happening with the rising fuel prices and requires the approval of renewable energy contracts (Hull). In the article there is several different renewable energy sources cited but the two expected to make up the vast majority of new contracts in the coming years is solar and wind power.

Solar power is a powerful, inexhaustible and clean source of energy. “Every hour the sun delivers as much energy to the Earth as all humanity uses in a year” (Environmental Defense Fund). With this in mind one could wonder why we don’t use that energy as our only source. However, it is more complex to harness the energy in a widespread and inexpensive way. Because solar power is dependent on the sun, if the sun does not shine there is no power. Since the sun doesn’t shine every day all day there needs to be back up electricity and therefore other sources of power still need to be used. Not only this, but solar power is expensive making it undesirable to most. In recent years the price has decreased making the power a more likely method and hence the prediction for it to become a more preferred method.

The second predicted method to become a major source of power in new contracts is wind power. Wind power is considered a type of solar energy because wind is the product of uneven hearting of the atmosphere by the sun. Today it is possible to drive through a wind farm where there are hundreds of huge wind turbines converting wind into energy. “The wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator and makes electricity” (US Department of Energy). Because it is wind it is a clean fuel source and so doesn’t pollute the air. The wind supply in the United States is abundant because wind cannot be used up, it is a renewable power. It is also one of the cheapest forms of renewable energy available today. Even though this is true the initial investment for a wind farm is higher than fossil-fueled generators making it more difficult for someone to invest in the wind energy. Most signs point to wind power plants as being successful but many are simply concerned about the noise of the turbines. Which is the worse consequence, noise or pollution?

With this all in mind California now has to consider all types of alternative energy, costs of them and how to reach this 33 percent mark. Many are worried of costs and delays because of permits but it seems as if the CPUC has it under control. “We’ll make sure that ratepayers are protected” (Florio). If this law is enforced California will be an example for the nation. Some of the benefits also include economic ones such as increasing the number of jobs. The solar plant intended to be built is expected to create 350 jobs. Not only is this good for the environment but it would also help to boost the economy. The law has it’s downsides but there is a lot to factor into a standard such as this. Either way the idea of using more alternative energy is a step in the right direction. Whether it is upheld or goes as planned will be the real test of a law such as this.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_17828401?source=most_emailed&nclick_check=1

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=23052&s_src=ggad&gclid=CLzp7L2gmKgCFYjsKgodi2XuDg

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

Chemistry Joke

2011-04-11T20:52:00.001-05:00

Completly random I know but I was on stumble-upon and came across this. :) Enjoy!

Cars: “We Shouldn't Become Vegetarians, Yet.”

2011-04-04T23:27:00.002-05:00

Gas prices are rising and due to the conflicts in the oil-rich regions of the world, they don’t show any sign of coming back down. In response we humans began to do what we always do when our resources begin to look scarce, improvise and invent. So we begin to devise new ways for automotives to use less of our precious fuel and begin to switch to cleaner alternative fuel. Thus the idea of ethanol is born and with it we hope to find the answers of our fuel crisis. However, despite the growing popularity of ethanol, in this day and age it is most definitely not the answers to our problems, in fact it might even create more issues then solve.

In order to understand why this otherwise ideal fuel alternative is not the best for this time and age, one must understand what ethanol is. Ethanol is an alcohol formed from the anaerobic fermenting of either a type of sugar or a grain. Ethanol is found mostly in alcohol beverages such as beer. The two most common sources of ethanol as of now are sugar beets and corn. While other sources could be used, these two plants show the highest potential for ethanol production. Its chemical composition is very similar to that of petrol or the gas we use to power our vehicles. It has a good amount of oxygen in its composition which allows it to burn more cleanly then petrol. Because of all these things ethanol seems like the ideal choice of an alternative fuel for gasoline but there are many things that point to it not being the best idea as of now.

Mainly there are two reasons why focusing more on ethanol as an alternative fuel is a bad choice. The first reason is the amount of fuel it actually takes to produce the produce and then convert it into ethanol. This whole process, while it seems like its saving energy at the end, really is not. This process actually causes net loss in energy and while ethanol is seen as a great alternative to gasoline, it uses what it replaces to be created. The second major issue is how we would be able to grow enough corn and regulate it so that the fields don’t become barren from overuse. Corn fields take multiple years to get the nutrients back to that it can produce corn again. Also currently there are issues with the abrupt rise in food prices. If we were to start dedicating tons of acres of fields of corn to ethanol production, the prices would go even higher. With the economy as it is and the rising of gas prices, the additional rise of food will be more devastating. And it is for these reasons, though ethanol was a good idea, it is not suited for this time and circumstances.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/ethanol-facts1.htm
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/alternative-energy/ethanol-fuel/

Hydrogen Fuel

2011-04-03T19:23:00.002-05:00

As I began to research alternative energy, hydrogen fuel is one source that caught my eye since I don't know very much about how it works and how it is used, only that people are trying to utilize it as a fuel source in cars. I was curious to find out how hydrogen fuel works. Hydrogen fuel is typically produced through fuel cells, which has an electrolyte in between an anode and cathode. Hydrogen molecules enter at the anode, and the protons pass through the electrolyte while the electrons are directed through an external circuit which generates an electrical current. Oxygen molecules enter at the cathode, where they react with the protons and electrons of hydrogen. The products of the reaction are water and heat.

Like any alternative fuel, it has its advantages and disadvantages, specifically when it comes to its use in cars. An advantage is that it produces no pollutants; its only byproduct is water. It can be produced domestically, reducing dependence on foreign oil. However, it has some obstacles it must overcome before it can be widely used. It poses a risk to drivers when they’re refueling their cars, since there is a chance that the hydrogen can combust with oxygen which causes the pump to burst into flames. Secondly, hydrogen does not exist naturally, so it takes energy to produce and it is expensive to produce. Currently, it's only manufactured at a few sites. Because of the manufacturing costs, fuel cell cars are not affordable for consumers. Thirdly, compared to the same volume of gasoline, hydrogen has much less energy, so it is difficult to create cars that with effective on board storage that will get far in between fill ups.

It is also interesting to note some recent developments that have been made regarding hydrogen fuel. Cella Energy has developed electrospraying, in which hydrogen is absorbed in microscopic sponges. What this technological jargon means for consumers is that refueling can now be safer. The sponges can be exposed to the air, so there is less concern about hydrogen combusting when drivers stop to refuel their cars. Also, another advance in hydrogen storage was made at Los Alamos National Laboratory which addresses the limited amount of fuel that can be stored in a car’s fuel tank. They discovered that ammonia borane has a high hydrogen storage capacity. This new storage system would allow hydrogen powered cars to pass the US Department of Energy’s benchmark requiring that the cars can be driven at least 300 miles on a single tank. Also contributing to the efficiency is that the ammonia borane can be regenerated into a usable form within the fuel tank. This crucial factor increases the practicality of hydrogen cars.

Through this research I have discovered that although hydrogen power has made leaps and bounds, there are still many steps that need to be taken to improve its development.

This post is based on the following sources:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hydrogen.shtml

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20049733-48.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110321093701.htm

Hydropower: The Hoover Dam

2011-03-28T13:57:00.006-05:00

A few years ago, my family took a week-long trip to Nevada and Arizona. While driving from Nevada to Arizona, we stopped at the Hoover Dam for a few minutes and took pictures and marveled at the sheer size of the dam. However, while I was there, I never realized how much clean, renewable energy that the the Hoover Dam generates for our country.

The Hoover Dam is a great source of clean and renewable hydropower. The Hoover Dam began construction in 1931 and was completed in 1936. At the time, it generated more electric power than anywhere else in the world and was the largest concrete structure. Most of the energy produced by the Hoover Dam goes to one of four places, Met Water District of Southern California, the state of Nevada, the state of Arizona, or Los Angeles, California.

The Hoover Dam has many important functions for the surrounding areas, as well as the environment. The dam releases no greenhouse gases, except for the gases that were released during its construction. It also manages the Colorado River, prevents floods, and provides farmers with a regular water supply.

The Hoover Dam generates electricity using hydropower. Hydropower is the power generated by moving water. Dams are often built on a large river, so the water falls down from the top of the dam. At the bottom of the dam, the water rotates a large turbine, which results in energy production in a generator. Approximately 20% of the world's power is generated by hydropower.

There are two major factors that determine how much power will be generated by the dam: the amount of water and the height that it falls. Because Hoover Dam is so tall (approximately 726 feet) and is situated on a large river (the Colorado River) it provides a relatively large amount of energy that could be used to power all of Los Angeles, California.

The major proponents of hydropower argue that it is a great source of energy because it is free and readily found in nature. It also does not use up water in its production of energy, rather it just moves it. The people that argue against hydropower note that changing the way that the water flows greatly disrupts fish migration and disrupts the natural system. For example, because of building the Hoover Dam about four species of fish are considered endangered as a result.

http://www.enviro-news.com/article/hoover_dam_nevada.html
http://www.benefits-of-recycling.com/alternativeenergywater.html

For more information on hydropower:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=hydropower_home-basics-k.cfm
http://www.lenntech.com/water-energy-faq.htm

Thinking outside the box: wacky but effective alternative fuel sources

2011-03-17T23:57:00.002-05:00

So I’m researching alternative fuel sources online, and I come across this one website titled “Five of the World’s Weirdest Alternative Fuel Sources”. Of course, being the naively curious college freshman that I am, I click on the link, thinking it’s going to be some dumb practical joke on someone’s Twitter or personal blog. Well it turns out the site was a blog, but the information it totally legitimate! The blog is maintained by a company called Ecoble, which was created by Australian software engineer Brett Stark. Ecoble aims to raise online awareness of environmental problems and to propose solutions for these problems. Anyway, Stark’s threads on his Ecoble blog talk about strange alternative fuel sources and how they are actually completely viable options that could potentially be used in the very near future.
One of the proposed alternative fuel sources, believe it or not, is the use of dirty diapers! Basically, it has been proposed by one company that with the right machinery, 30,000 tons of dirty diapers can be annually transformed into over 10,000 tons of synthetic diesel fuel, and at a cost of just 50 cents per liter. Of course, diapers are not the only landfill material being thought of as a possible source for alternative fuel, but because of their constant output and mass quantities barraging landfills worldwide, diapers are a great item to start with. The supply, in theory, would be endless, and the transformation process these diapers go through into becoming synthetic fuels would be done in a closed system, therefore no harmful emissions will pollute the atmosphere!
Another alternative fuel source listed by Stark is confiscated alcoholic beverages. Every year, about 200,000 gallons of smuggled alcohol is caught by authorities before it can illegally make its way into Sweden. However, instead of throwing all of this alcohol away, the authorities have come up with a way to use this alcohol as an alternative fuel source. Through the mixture of certain alcoholic cocktails, buses and trains are powered with the resulting fuel source. As we discussed in class, yet another more popular method of attaining fuel sources comes from the siphoning of methane gas from garbage dumps. In fact, recently researches have even gone as far as proposing that garbage dumps be kept under more of a closed system so as to produce as much methane gas as possible so more fuel can be harvested. If you really think about it, there are so many everyday objects that can be used to quench our seemingly-insatiable thirst to find the best alternative fuel source out there…sometimes we just have to think outside the box a little bit.
http://ecoble.com/2007/12/02/five-of-the-worlds-weirdest-alternative-fuel-sources/
http://www.imaginelifestyles.com/luxuryliving/2010/10/top-8-strange-alternative-fuels
http://www.fromtheworkbench.com/top-5-strange-alternative-energy-sources/

Nuclear Energy as an Alternative Energy Source

2011-03-15T23:19:00.001-05:00

There are many proposed solutions to the issue of pollution, all sorts of types of alternate energy but there is a catch to all of them. Wind power is not consistent, solar power is inconsistent and expensive to build the necessary resources, geothermic can be a pollutant if not done right and is not long term, hydroelectric is expensive and needs a powerful flow of water, biofuels require a lot of natural resources and then hydrogen takes more to produce than it is currently worth. Then we come to the question of why not use nuclear energy? Nuclear energy has many advantages with two major disadvantages being the waste and health issues that come from producing the powerful energy.

With the current nuclear issues in Japan there is a focus on the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy is created through the fission or fusion of atoms and the reaction developed from this action is used as energy. Nuclear energy is one of the most powerful and so not as many plants would be necessary for the desired amount of energy needed. Environmentally this energy is clean. After a plant closes, however, there still is the concern for waste. For years after a nuclear plant is shut down there needs to be guards surrounding the waste so none gets out. The waste cannot be transported to one location without fears of it being released on the way there, or the people in that location protesting against nuclear waste being stored there.

For some time now a Germany-wide project sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) has been developing to find a geological repository for the waste. Recently there has been a breakthrough with using clay stone. This natural clay holds a great potential for hopes of permanently disposing of nuclear waste. Opalinus clay found in Switzerland was made into cylinders and in these was pore water with radioactive neptunium or plutonium. Chemists found, “The batch experiments show that radioactive plutonium in the oxidation state IV is nearly totally absorbed on Opalinus Clay, leaving almost no plutonium in the aqueous solution. In the case of neptunium (V), the corresponding ratio is 60:40. However, if neptunium is reduced to neptunium (IV) by iron minerals present in the clay, a near 100 percent sorption of neptunium on the clay is observed.” (Science Daily)

What this means is the clay is potentially a source of containment for the nuclear waste getting rid of that specific issue. With getting rid of the issue of waste leaves only the issue of a meltdown. Meltdowns leading to high or long term radiation can lead to certain cancers and respiratory issues. Health issues are an issue especially concerning the potential meltdown of a plant now seen in Japan and that can be seen in history as well. The area around Chernobyl, the site of a major 1986 nuclear meltdown, has just started being resettled in the last year. With this kind of consequence to a meltdown means major expenses. Another issue is the health dangers. Depending on the level of radiation released effects could be cancer and other dangerous issues. With these issues there is a controversy on using nuclear power. It is the most effective but can have some of the most dangerous long term consequences. So do we continue to use it or abandon the idea and focus on other means of energy?

Sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110308075849.htm

http://typesofalternativeenergy.com/

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

2011-03-08T16:47:00.000-06:00

I recently read an article in the Washington Post about natural gas drilling in Wyoming, and how the industry is becoming more profitable in the region. And now little dinky Cheyenne is seeing smog levels usually only seen in major urban centers like LA. When I think Cheyenne, I think cold, so I personally was surprised that they were having this problem. It’s the sunnier, urban areas that you usually associate with smog and haze.
People in the area have been complaining about bloody noses, watery eyes, and shortness of breath, which has been attributed to the high levels of ozone in the atmosphere over Cheyenne, which is higher than even the worse LA days. The drilling of the oil releases nitrogen oxide and VOCs. The article explained that the release of these chemicals, combined with the snow on the ground, sunshine, and temperature inversion are creating the high levels of tropospheric ozone, so it is only a problem in the winter.
The article cited that two days last week, ozone levels in the region rose above the highest levels ever recorded in the most populous U.S. cities (Gruver). On the bright side, Wyoming has an unemployment rate of 6.4%, one of the lowest in the nation (Gruver). But are the economic gains worth the trade-off in terms of human health. I say no.
Last Wednesday the ozone levels reached 124 ppb. The EPA’s limit for healthy ozone levels is only 75 ppb. The worse day in LA last year was 114 ppb (Gruver). I think that a city exceeding the ozone limit by 49 ppb, especially in a city as small as Cheyenne is definitely a problem. The gas officials claim that are “working hard to curb smog by reducing truck traffic and switching to drilling rigs with pollution control equipment” (Gruver). But clearly they are not working fast enough.
People should be allowed to go outside freely and not have to worry about their health or getting a nosebleed. Wyoming is generally an outdoorsy place, so the warnings to stay inside must be hard to take.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030802905.html

A Few Problems with Wind Farms

2011-03-06T14:50:00.005-06:00

Wind farms look like a very promising source for energy. However, they are not without their problems. Wind turbines stir the air bringing down the higher-level air and bringing up the lower-level air and mixing them together. This creates a cooling effect during the day and a warming effect during the night. In some regions, where winds are stronger at night and the warming effect dominates, some frost protection is provided and the growing season for crops may be locally and shortly extended (3). The warm air coming down is not always beneficial, however. The warm winds being brought closer to the surface can cause the evaporation of the moisture in the soil and cause problems for crops. This may lead to increased costs for irrigation (2). Also, in coastal areas, where the day winds are stronger and the cooling effect dominates, problems can occur (3).

Crops are not the only things affected by the stirring of the air caused by the turbines. Weather radars are also affected and the results can be dangerous. During storms, the turbulence caused by the wind turbines appears on the radar in the same way a tornado would. This is picked up by the computerized systems and warnings can be sent out when nothing is there. The weather forecasters often catch these mistakes and cancel the alerts. However, when forecasters are the ones making quick decisions, though frequently erring on the side of caution, may easily spot the signal and disregard it as a wind turbine when it may actually be a sever weather pattern (1).

One researcher suggests that replacing the routers that the blades spin around with more efficient and updated ones will significantly help the turbulence given off by the turbines (2). Also, some researchers have pointed out that the problems are increased when the farms are within 11 miles of the radar stations, which can be solved by working with the farm owners to move into locations that will have less effect on the radars. However, since both wind farmers and meteorologists both desire the same locations due to high elevations and flat clear lands being optimal for both purposes, this arrangement is a frequent problem (1).

All information above was found in the following articles:

1. http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/686890

2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/1012-wind_farms_impacting_weather.htm

3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101005121726.htm

EV Charging Station Now Available!

2009-05-06T13:29:00.001-05:00

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.

2009-05-05T14:11:00.001-05:00

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

2009-05-02T16:11:00.004-05:00

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

A Few Cartoons

2009-04-28T18:42:00.007-05:00

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

2009-04-28T17:32:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-04-28T17:06:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-04-27T20:42:00.003-05:00

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

2009-04-27T16:55:00.003-05:00

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...

2009-04-22T23:52:00.002-05:00

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!

2009-04-22T18:42:00.003-05:00

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?

2009-04-18T17:29:00.006-05:00

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

2009-04-15T15:53:00.002-05:00

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

2009-04-12T19:49:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-04-11T21:08:00.000-05:00

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

2009-03-31T20:32:00.002-05:00

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

2009-03-31T11:34:00.007-05:00

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

2009-03-30T20:07:00.002-05:00

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

2009-03-19T18:05:00.004-05:00

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
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SDbfN8u_lmI/AAAAAAAAEmc/CINbEyJdDFA/s400/solar.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070824RZ1AP-NukeEnergy.jpg

What are our options?

2009-03-11T20:42:00.001-05:00

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

2009-03-09T19:53:00.012-05:00

(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/

Alternative Energy Cartoons

2009-03-08T20:30:00.006-05:00

These cartoons, although did make me laugh at a first look, kind of got me to thinking... It seems as though we acknowledge there are more effiecient and eco-friendly sources of energy now available, however, we do not utilize them! Especially in the United States, we strive for new solutions to create energy, but when we come across one it just is never good enough. We are stuck in our old habits. If things keep up the way they are going now, we will never gravitate towards a healthier energy source for our environment. We are wasting too much time being stuck in our old ways, and even if we believe we are doing something good for our environment looking for alternative options, we are actually still doing harm to our environment by not adapting the alternative options we have already found.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/a/alternative_energy_gifts.asp

Nascar Energy

2009-03-08T20:20:00.003-05:00

This is supposed to be a blog about anything in regards to alternative energy. So I am making good on that option to write about anything by expanding on something our class touched upon in our discussion on emissions regulations: Nascar.

Nascar itself does a poor job on its website to inform those interested in how it is making the sport more ecofriendly. There are no links to facts or FAQs, no type of public statements and there is only a time limited selection of articles that pertain to any press releases that Nascar makes. So I turned to Google, and I found a lot of information just not a lot of subjects.

The key thing that nascar is starting is the research into alternative fuels. By 1996 everybody in America has switched from leaded to unleaded fuels because of the potentially hazardous levels of pollutants that are produced by leaded fuels. Everybody, that is, but Nascar. Like the military, Nascar is one of the very few organizations that is not monitored or regulated by the EPA. That being said their automobiles do not have to have catalytic converters, emissions monitoring systems or even minimum miles per gallon. It was not until 2007 that a viable unleaded alternative was chosen for Nascar cars to race on.

That is a whole ten years later. In one interview article I found via Google cache, Mike Lynch states this:

"[Alternative Fuel] is one of the long-term initiatives that is very important to us. As Brian France has said, we'll be working with Sunoco to step up our efforts, making sure we're doing everything we can to look at alternative fuel options. That solution may be well down the road, but it's very important."

Out of context this statement sounds promising, however in the rest of the interview, Mike states that he largely plans to leave the ecofriendly tasks up to the individual raceways. That means that it will be up to them how they integrate with their surrounding environments, how green they are and how big their carbon footprint is. The biggest plan overall the raceways is currently at Grand Prix Arizona where the track management is trying to balance out the emission produced by educating the crowds and giving them seeds to plant back at their homes. In my opinion it is both not the most effective and among the most optimistic of human responsibility. I say this for two reasons; the crowds who go to the races are generally not the type of people who are concerned for the impact one person will do to the environment. (Sorry to all the nascar fans out there, but it’s the truth) So the likelihood of those seeds making it past their container is slim. Second, even if the seeds do make it past the bag, it takes decades for trees to become carbon eating machines. By that time this world is going to be a completely different place and a small population of trees is likely not going to be very useful.

Nascar needs to modernize. Yes they may have the fastest cars and the most loyal fan base in America, but the sport is exactly what is wrong with America's perception of driving. In fact, I will be so bold as to say that across the world, racing organizations are what is wrong with the world's perception on driving. Everybody is saying that alternative fuels are needed for our cars but imagine what would happen if people realized the benefits of alternative transportation. For most humans, the majority of the times we use our cars is for small distance trips. Trips that could be achieved on public transportation, bicycles, electric scooters or *GASP* walking. Only once people realize that cars are not as essential to our daily live and are definitely not to be used for thrill or that speed induced adrenaline rush, will change start to happen. So am I saying that Nascar needs to simply close up shop? In one word, yes. It is a sport that uses large amounts of fuel and produces exceedingly large amounts of pollution. All for seemingly unnecessary reasons. Unless they come out with an amazing car that produces insignificant to zero emissions there is no real reason for Nascar to stick around in this Green 21st century.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Life/40854-NAScar-bon-neutral/?page=2#TOPCONTENT
http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlines/cup/01/20/nascar.fuel/index.html
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/02/18/nascar-contribution-to-co2-emissions/
http://www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/official/01/22/bfrance.transcript.media.tour/index.html
http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/headlines/official/11/11/mlynch.q.a/index.html

Interesting Innovations in Alternative Energy

2009-03-04T10:04:00.002-06:00

In attempts to create a post, I was browsing the internet in hope to find something that interested me. I came across a website that had some very interesting advances that are being applied to alternative energy sources. Here they are:

"Artificial Trees to Harness Solar and Wind Energy"
The title alone makes me wonder. But it seems legitimate. Here's the thing. Many people who are in support of the "green" movement, say that we should plant trees. This will help save our planet from global warming. Well, this article argues that, although this will help, we won't be able to see results for a very long time (as trees take several years to grow and mature). They don't suggest we stop forestation. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Forestation is still encouraged. However, a London based company came up with a concept of "planting" artificial trees. These trees will generate solar and wind energy. How this works? The answer to this question is left unanswered. However, I still find it to be a pretty entertaining concept.

"Energy from Solar Roadways"
An Idaho based company called Solar Roadways is making an attempt to create roads constructed of solar panels. Since roads are covered in sunlight whenever there is sun out, there couldn't be a better location for a solar panel to be. Efforts are still in the beginning stages. The company is currently working in tandem with universities and research laboratories to develop a 45-mile prototype solar road. Excitement is rising: "We can convert 25,000 miles of petroleum-based asphalt highways and byways of the lower 48 states into Solar Roadways! Similar results can be achieved with the parking lots, airports, malls, stadiums and driveways!"

"Robot Ranchers Could Maintain Future Wind Farms"
We've all heard of the concept of wind energy. In fact, we've all most likely seen a windmill of some sort on the side of the road at some point in our lives. The main problems with wind energy include the high cost and high maintenance. Although it would still be an expensive form of alternative energy (for now-until we're able to drive down the costs), robots would be able to maintain the "wind farms." This would be an effective alternative source of energy, as well as remaining clean and green!

I'm sure we've all seen documentaries or ran into media about alternative energy. There's no doubting that we need to find something that works that is practically attainable. These were a few innovations in this field that I have found interesting. If we don't begin to change soon, we may find that it's too late. Fossil fuels will run out, so we need to begin adapting our lifestyles now, before we run into problems.

The 2009 Chicago Auto Show: Are Our Efforts Really Getting Greener?

2009-02-28T13:35:00.007-06:00

Since we have been talking in class about passing Clean Car legislation in Illinois, I thought it would be interesting to see what our automakers have been up to lately, in terms of more environmentally friendly cars. What better place to look, then, than at the 2009 Chicago Auto Show?

Especially with this economy, car buyers want more bang for their buck. If not for environmental reasons, consumers are looking to automakers for fuel efficient cars to squeeze every last penny out of a gallon of gas. According to the article "2009 Chicago Auto Show: Sign of the Times," car manufacturers have refocused their efforts. As such, "hybrid vehicles and other alternative fuel concepts dominate the grounds, and the manufacturers who don't offer such vehicles are drawing attention to the efficiency of their products." But for all of this emphasis on going green, are these efforts enough?

According to Greenited, these five cars get the vote for Top 5 Green Cars of the show:

5. 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt sedan/coupe- not a hybrid, but this car gets an impressive 37 highway mpg

4. 2010 Honda Insight-not as good a mpg as the Prius, but much friendlier price

3. 2010 Toyota Prius- 50 mpg

2. 2010 Chevrolet Volt- "will be the first affordable, extended range electric vehicle on the market to have real practicality"

1. 2009 Ford Fusion Hybrid - combined mpg of 38 with aspects of a performance vehicle

While some of these cars are a genuine step in the right direction, there are cars being given the "green" label that are more of a sham than anything else. These are the Top Five Green Wannabe's according to Greenited:

5. Dodge Circuit concept- a "stolen" design with production issues

4. 2009 Lexus GS 450h- a pretty inefficient car, not worthy of the hybrid label with a high price tag

3. 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Hybrid- only eeks out a few more mpg than its non hybrid counterpart, a useless hybrid

2. 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid- see useless hybrid above

1. 2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid- see useless hybrid above and raise to extra useless.

These green cars aren't perfect. Although they cut back emissions, they are merely a triage until a feasible, maintainable, and environmentally sound energy solution is found. So do we buy these stopgap measures until the real deal solutions come out? I think it's a step in the right direction. Something that has to be changed first, though, is our perception about driving. Many consumers have trouble with hybrids and other green cars because they "lack performance" found in standard cars. Basically, there isn't as much "zoom," so these cars aren't as fun to drive. Therein lies our faulty viewpoint. Driving isn't meant necessarily to be fun, it's meant as a way to transport goods, people, etc. If it gets you from point A to B, it's a success. Stop worrying so much about which cars can go 0-60 in fractions of a second, worry more about how much carbon and other pollutants are being emitted from the tailpipe.

Works Cited:

2009 Chicago Autoshow: Top 5 Green Cars

2009 Chicago Autoshow: Sign of the Times

Earn Some Green While Going Green

2008-05-16T11:53:00.004-05:00

There are several envrionmental benefits that accompany using alternative engery. However, what some people fail to realize is that there are also numerous economic benefits that "going green" promotes.

In an article titled, "Everything's Gone Green" published in Business and Finance this issue is further explored. High fuel prices, crisis in the Middle East, and political insecurity have recently caused the United States economy to spiral out of control. As Americans across the country pull into gas stations to filll up, it is becoming increasingly obvious that gas prices are reaching record highs.

Investment banking groups are not letting this energy switch go unnoticed. Groups such as JP Morgan and Citigroup are establishing investing task forces in an effort to invest in alternative engery. These companies are seizing the chance to capitalize on the current "green" trends. Investment firms are jumping at the chance to get a piece of the financial pie as new energy sources such as wind-power turbines, hydro-electricity, and biofuels become more commonly used.

The CFO of Ecosecurities, Jack MacDonald commented on this occurance when he stated, ""With costs of energy going up dramatically, renewable energy is becoming more cost-effective than fossil fuel and is driving the development of renewable projects globally. Also, with climate change in the background, companies are increasingly focusing on alternative energy to reduce their carbon emissions footprint. The biggest investments being made are in sectors such as wind power, hydro projects, biomass, energy efficiency and the solar industry."

Making Light of a Heavy Subject

2008-05-14T13:43:00.003-05:00

The Clean Air Energy: Nuclear Power

2008-05-14T12:59:00.005-05:00

Despite some drawbacks when referring to the safety of disposal and maintenance of radioactive waste due to the long half-life of many byproducts, nuclear energy is one of the most promising technologies to help the human species reduce our carbon footprint.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, "nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel."

This graph clearly compares the production cost of several various forms of energy. Clearly, petroleum, which accounts for a high percentage of usage, has the highest production cost while the production cost of nuclear energy is much lower per kilowatt-hour.

Nuclear power plants aid compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which sets standards to improve the nation's air quality. Because nuclear power plants generate heat from fission rather than from burning fuel, they produce no greenhouse gases or emissions associated with acid rain or urban smog.

Additionally, nuclear energy keeps American business growth competitive, as well as provides local job growth in places where plants are built.

While nuclear energy should not be considered as the only source of alternative energy, allowing the construction of new plants and increasing the productivity of old ones would serve the environment and the economy positively.

It's time to pay attention:

2008-05-08T09:31:00.004-05:00

Maybe it is time for America to step up and take action!!!

Solar Airplane Concepts

2008-05-07T11:49:00.010-05:00

There has recently been an anouncement of the production of a portable solar charger for airplane avionics. Scientists and architects are looking into the possibility of airplanes being powered by solar energy. according to this renewable energy website I found, there are several different solar airplane concepts that are currently being considered and explored.

The Helios Prototype solar-electric flying wing was one of several remotely piloted aircraft, also known as uninhabited aerial vehicles or UAVs, that were developed as technology demonstrators under the now-concluded Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) project. Prior to its loss in an in-flight mishap in June 2003, the Helios Prototype set a world altitude record for propeller-driven aircraft of almost 97,000 feet.

Pathfinder was first developed for a now-cancelled classified government program in the early 1980’s to develop a high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft for surveillance purposes. Known as the HALSOL (for High-Altitude SOLar) aircraft, its eight electric motors — later reduced to six — were first powered by batteries.

The Centurion is a lightweight, solar-powered, remotely piloted flying wing aircraft that is demonstrating the technology of applying solar power for long-duration, high-altitude flight. It is considered to be a prototype technology demonstrator for a future fleet of solar-powered aircraft that could stay airborne for weeks or months on scientific sampling and imaging missions or while serving as telecommunications relay platforms. It also has a wingspan of 206 feet.

The “Hy-Bird” project plans to fly around the world with a 100% clean electric airplane powered only by renewable energies: solar energy and hydrogen. The goal is to design an airplane, which will use only renewable energies with no greenhouse gas emission.

Here is a link to see more of the solar airplane ideas and also videos of each:

http://http//www.alternative-energy-news.info/10-best-solar-airplane-concepts/

Why I don't buy a hybrid...

2008-05-05T23:41:00.004-05:00

A poll featured in Daily Fuel Economy Tip asked “What’s stopping you from buying a hybrid car?” Among the various responses were the following:

-49% of respondents stated that hybrid cars are too expensive
-29% of respondents stated that they were waiting for plug-in hybrid vehicles ( a vehicle combining the benefits of an electric car and a hybrid car)
-11% of respondents stated that they just are not interested in buying a hybrid vehicle
-9% of respondents stated that hybrid cars are too small

My response to "What's stopping you from buying a hybrid car?"... I think they are ugly. If we look at society today we see that society values materialistic as well as nice looking things. Take that coal commercial for example, viewers enjoyed the commercial because of its sex appeal, not because of their concern with using coal as a source of energy. People choose to drive Hummers because they believe they are what they drive. If you want to command a room and come off as powerful, than a Hummer is the way to go, not a hybrid. What can I say, Americans have good taste and expect to own nice things. I firmly believe that if car companies started to make fuel efficient cars that were more stylish and similar to the favorites we have now, people in general would be more willing to help the environment by buying one.

Is ethanol production increasing food prices?

2008-05-05T22:41:00.003-05:00

There has been much speculation about this very question for quite some time. Recently, a group of 23 GOP Senators have asked the EPA to roll back requirements on an energy bill that stipulates the increased produciton of biofuel/ethanol five fold by 2022. You can read the article here.

But, is that the real source of corn prices going up? The answer is complicated. Though ethanol has increased corn prices marginally, the impact is very little.

There are many different factors that go into the production of products that contain corn. The most widely used example of this is the cereal Corn Flakes. According to Ephraim Liebtag in his article "Corn prices near record high, but what about food costs?" states that in a box of Corn Flakes, the amount of corn in price is equal to about 3.3 cents after taking into consideration the price per bushel and corn used for the flakes. The rest is transportation, packaging, advertising etc. The then increase in corn of 49 cents a bushel, only pushes the cost up 1.6 cents. A negligible difference.

In addition to that, the USDA had predicted correctly for last year that 2007 would yield the largest corn crop ever seen. A 10.6% increase to 13.1 billion bushels from the previous record in 2004 of 11.8 billion bushels. More corn in the supply would dictate that even if demand increases, prices would stay relatively constant.

I am going to say that the reason food prices are increasing is because it is more expensive to bring the food to us. Oil is used to transport the food, make the packing and sometimes even cool the food in the fridge (We do, after all, use electricity). Soaring oil prices are the culprit for our woes. Ethanol, though not a permanent energy solution, is a nice first step. It has seen no real impact on the edible corn grown for humans.

Hydrogen Cars

2008-04-29T22:35:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-28T22:50:00.016-05:00

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

2008-04-28T12:01:00.002-05:00

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

2008-04-27T22:11:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-23T10:02:00.001-05:00

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?

2008-04-21T17:22:00.005-05:00

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...

2008-04-21T16:52:00.006-05:00

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

2008-04-16T12:33:00.005-05:00

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

2008-04-14T21:47:00.005-05:00

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

2008-04-14T21:24:00.008-05:00

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?

2008-04-13T23:47:00.003-05:00

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

2008-04-09T13:05:00.000-05:00

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

2008-04-07T22:54:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-07T17:09:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-04T22:11:00.004-05:00

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?

2008-04-04T17:23:00.006-05:00

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

2008-04-02T08:00:00.002-05:00

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

Earth Hour 2008

2008-03-31T22:35:00.002-05:00

As some of you may know, this past Saturday from 8:00-9:00 P.M. Earth Hour took place in 24 cities worldwide. Earth Hour is a global incentive to make a powerful statement about coal, the greatest contributor to global warming.

Earth Hour was initiated last year in Sydney, Australia and was a huge success. This year, Chicago was among the cities that participated in Earth Hour. This initiative is primarily about demonstrating how small steps that we can all take can add up to making a huge difference in the fight against global climate change.

Read more about local Earth Hour efforts here.

The official Earth Hour web page is located here.

Above is a picture of the Chicago skyline, both on a regular evening and during Earth Hour 2008.
Chicago is considered one of the "greenest" cities in the United States. Every year, a greater number of "green" buildings are built, and many of the loop's high-rises contain rooftop gardens.

To learn more about local efforts to support alternative energy, look to the City of Chicago's Center for Green Technology.

In the vein of Earth Hour 2008, which is considered largely a success, remember that it's the small things you can do that really make a difference. Recycle, turn out the lights when you're not using them, and ride your bike to class on the next sunny day!

Nuclear Power

2008-03-21T19:49:00.008-05:00

Here is a review of The Future of Nuclear Power, an Interdisciplinary MIT Study

Background:
This study discussed what would be needed to make nuclear power a fisiable option for reducing greenshouse gas emissions while still meeting the increase in demand of electricity supply.

The authors of this study say, "The nuclear power option will only be excerised if technology demostrates better economics, improved safety, successful waste management, and low proliferation risk, and if public policies place a significant value on electricity production that doesn't produce CO2."

"In 2002, nuclear power supplied 20% of the US and 17% of the world electrcity consumption."

Study:
This study believes that nuclear power is a realistic option to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the near future as well as the distance future.

Problems with Nuclear Power:
1. Cost: in an unregulated market nuclear power is not competitive enough to with coal and natural gas to become a major source of power.
2. Safety: There are many potential health, environmental, and safety risks involved in the use of nuclear power.
3. Waste: disposal for nuclear waste is feasible, but the execution for this is not yet demostrated or certain.
4. Proliferation: there are currently inadequate international safeguards to meet the large number of security challenges brought by nuclear power.

Benefits of Nuclear Power:
1. Would lower greenhouse gas emissions if there is an increase in the use of nuclear power.
2. Does not emit CO2.
3. Helps us not depend on fossil fuels that can eventually run out.
4. For the US, helps lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Review:
Overall I thought that the study did a really good job identifying the problems we face today with nuclear energy. But it also discussed how nuclear power is still a very realistic alternative energy source and that the world needs to look into making it more sustainable. This study did a great job discussing what government agencies and other people need to do to help solve this problems with nuclear energy. It made very good recommendations to people, like the US Department of Energy and others. I agree with most of this study and believe that we need to research nuclear energy further to help make it a better, more prevalent source of energy to the entire world.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

A Greener Elmhurst College?

2008-03-18T19:18:00.003-05:00

Despite being a registered arboretum and containing more than 3,000 trees and shrubs of 650 different species, the Elmhurst College campus has not, until recently, taken any major steps into becoming a "green" campus. Despite half-hearted efforts of various groups around campus, the cafeteria still provides only Styrofoam cups for use at the soda fountain, and shockingly few students choose to use reusable plates and silverware. Even recycling of paper and plastic bottles is an issue.

However, the College administration has recently stepped up to the plate in a large way. With the release of the new campus "master plan," the College has vowed to transform the campus from a campus green only in color to a sustainable campus. The first incarnation of the master plan is the construction of West Hall, a new residence hall that will contain solar panels in the roof, used to heat hot water in the building. Solar panels will reduce the cost of heating water by about 40 to 50 percent.

Solar panels, otherwise known as flat-plate solar-thermal collectors have an absorber plate to which fluid circulation tubes are attached. The absorber is coated with a dark selective surface to assure the conversion of the sun’s radiation into heat, and the fluid circulating through the tubes carries the heat away to where it can be used or stored. Heated fluid (water, in this case) is pumped to a heat exchanger, where it gives off its heat, and is then circulated back to the panel to be reheated.

Advantages to solar panels are many. Other than the obvious installation cost, solar heat costs nothing and will reduce energy bills involved with the heating of water. Using energy from the sun is very environmentally friendly, as they do not produce any of the byproducts of traditional energy. This is not to say, however, that there are no drawbacks. Initial cost of installing solar panels is high. Also, it is not a full-proof method for heating a large residence hall with no backup energy sources, as a few cloudy weeks could leave 170 students with no hot water!

Despite drawbacks, however, the pros of installing solar panels in West Hall far outweigh the cons. While traditional energy methods will still have to be used, the new solar panels will reduce heating costs by 30-40%--and decrease the College's negative footprint on the atmosphere. While the solar panels are a great step in making the College "green," it is ultimately the responsibility of all members of the campus community to take charge of their actions and push the administration to further improve the campus.

Sources:

www.elmhurst.edu

http://solar-panels.kulvis.com/tag/solar-panels/

More than lattes?

2008-03-18T10:55:00.003-05:00

This morning I ordered a soy latte at the local coffee shop. Have you ever watched your ‘barista’ make your latte? They heat the milk by simply blowing hot steam into the liquid until it froths and boils; a very odd process, but tasty results. As I watched the young girl make my beverage, I began to think of yet another use for steam: Geothermal energy.

Geothermal energy has been around for decades, yet is rarely talked about as a true alternative energy source. In an age that obsesses over ‘going green’, one would think more focus would be directed at this power source. Exploration of its history and plethora of uses reveals a wonderful possibility for the American – and world – energy sector.

The Greek word ‘geo’means earth and as many know, ‘thermal’ means heat. Putting this together, we see that geothermal energy comes from the earth’s heat. The process involves harnessing the heat and steam at the center of the earth to heat and cool buildings or generate electricity. This heat comes from the very core of the earth – about 4,000 thousand miles below the surface, a place that is hotter that the surface of the Sun.

One of the great benefits of geothermal energy is the sources availability. Unlike fossil fuels, biofuels, or other sources, geothermal energy is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year! Also, while hydrothermal energy is focused in certain areas, the earth’s heat and energy can be harnessed ANYWHERE.

There are three main uses for geothermal energy, each of which we will explore a bit:
1. Direct use and district heating system: hot water from springs or reservoirs.
2. Electricity Generation: creates energy from extremely hot steam or water, about 300 or 700 degrees.
3. Geothermal Heat Pumps: heats and cools buildings using the stable temperature of the earth

DIRECT
The direct use of geothermal energy involves using the hot water and steam from springs and reservoirs. History shows that ancient Romans, Chinese, and Native Americans used this hot water to cook and bath (hopefully not at the same time). When one thinks of hot springs in America, Yellow Stone National park frequently comes to mind and it is important to note that these national parks are protected by law and cannot be disturbed.
Modern direct uses of geothermal energy involve piping the hot water from the earth into buildings and a heating system (or through sidewalks to melt snow!).

ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Electricity generation from the earth’s energy is commonly called ‘hydrothermal’ power because it involves directly using the earth’s hot water. Wells with a depth of one to two miles can be dug, or power plants can be constructed. A hydrothermal power plant looks something like this:

The United States uses more geothermal electricity that any other country, yet our use of this power still only accounts to about 1% of our electricity power. California contains 33 geothermal power plants, Nevada contains 15, and Hawaii and Utah each have one plant.
As you envision these power plants, you may question the environment safety of this process, but do not worry! These power plants use no fossil fuel and emit about 1% of the carbon dioxide of a fossil fuel plant.

HEAT PLANTS
The upper 10 feet of the earths stays as a constant temperature of about 50-60 degrees, making it a perfect source for heating and cooling buildings. Harnessing this constant temperature is a perfect way to adjust building temperatures and is extremely energy efficient. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency calls geothermal energy the cleanest, most cost effective, and most energy efficient means of temperature (www.epa.gov ).

As the world looks at alternative energy sources, perhaps its time we start looking down…. That is, at the earth it self. Just a quick glance over the wonderful possibilities reveals a hope for cleaner energy through the harnessing of steam and hot water.
Maybe Starbucks has been onto something all along.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:
www.epa.gov
www.eia.doe.gov
www.dictionary.com
www.wikipedia.org

Photos From:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html

Hybrid Shoppers Guide!

2008-03-16T11:50:00.002-05:00

This week my roommate and I were lamenting our lack of personal transportation when she announced she plans on getting a car this summer. I said “oh, really?” and she grinned and exclaimed “yes, a hybrid too!” And while obtaining transportation is exciting, I was stuck on my roommate’s comment about hybrids.
It seems everyone is getting a hybrid, talking about getting a hybrid, or discussing the importance of owning one. Perhaps society’s new obsession with ‘going green’ has encouraged this phenomenon, or maybe it’s just American’s enjoying technology. Whatever the cause, hybrids have created some excitement.
According to many definitions, the term hybrid means ‘having two sources’ (hybrid). Following this logic, a hybrid vehicle would be a vehicle deriving power from two sources. In today’s auto markets, this means gasoline and electric power. But are these automobiles worth it? Some seem to think that one hybrid is as good as another; others have no idea of the wide range of gas and electric vehicles available today. Here is a short comparison to put it all in perspective:

Miles Per Gallon
Best Hybrid: Toyota Prius
City: 48
Hwy: 45

Worst Hybrid: GMC Sierra Classic
City: 18
Hwy: 15

Emmissions
Best Hybrid: Toyota Prius
4.o Tons/per of CO2

Worst Hybrid: GMC Sierra Classic
11.4 Tons/year of CO2

Note: 1 gallon of gassoline = 20 lbs of Carbon Dioxide
check out: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm

Air Pollution Score
scale: best 1 - 10 worst
Best Hybrid: Honda Accord and Honda Civic
Score: 9

Worst Hybrid: GMC Sierra Classic and Chevrolet Sivlerado
Score: 3

Annual Fuel Costs
Best Hybrid: Toyota Prius
Cost: $1051

Worst Hybrid: GMC Sierra Classic
Cost: $3028

Note: Some hybrids have federal tax incentives!

As we can see, not all hybrids are created equal; in fact, some are simply a more technical SUV in terms on fuel economy. But what is all this hype about saving the environment with hybrids? The green aspect of hybrids comes from their gas mileage. Hybrid electric vehicles run on both an electric motor and a small gasoline powered engine. When the break is pressed on the vehicle, the electric motor acts as a generator and takes some of the power out of the car, thus saving power. The majority of the hybrid energy savings happen through this process, making it a wonderful car for city driving, where frequent stops are made, but a not so wonderful car for long distances.

Some complain that hybrid vehicles are too expensive, and past studies have shown very little actual monetary gain in terms of fuel, though as oil prices continue to rise, this will become less of an issue. Car mechanics across the United States are becoming more familiar with the electric car and maintenance is also becoming less expensive. Manufactures have come out with hybrid jeeps, vans, and trucks this last year, advertising that more are on the way. It seems hybrids have really taken the plunge into mainstream vehicle markets.

I guess my roommate isn’t the only one who wants one.

Sources:
hybrid." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 16 Mar. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid.

www.howstuffworks.com
www.greenhybrid.com
www.hybridCARS.cm
www.Edmunds.com
www.fueleconomy.gov
www.epa.gov

Wind Power

2008-03-14T11:42:00.008-05:00

Wind power is produced by using wind generators to harness the kinetic energy of wind. It is gaining worldwide popularity as a large scale energy source, although it still only provides less than one percent of global energy consumption. In order to create enough energy to provide for several people, wind power must be produced at large scale wind farms that are connected to electrical grids. These farms are built in flat, open areas where the wind blows at least 14 miles per hour. Iowa currently has more than 600 wind turbines, producing enough electricity to power 140,000 homes. In order to produce the most possible electricity, the taller the wind turbine must be. Most wind machines being used today are the horizontal-axis type. Horizontal-axis wind machines have blades like airplane propellers that help to slow down the speed of the wind and create a "lift" to turn the blades. The largest wind turbine in the world, located in Hawaii, stands 20 stories tall and has blades the length of a football field. One of the largest wind farms in the U.S. is in Altamont Pass, California. It has more than 900 wind turbines that generate enough electricity to power over 300,000 homes per year. These large commercial size turbines may have a capacity of 5 million watts, or 5 megawatts. Good sites for wind plants are the tops of smooth, rounded hills, open plains or shorelines, and mountain gaps that produce wind funneling.

One large problem with wind turbines is what to do when the wind isn't blowing. During this time, there must be other forms of power generation. Along with this, there have been at least 40 fatalities due to construction, operation, and maintenance of wind turbines, including both workers and members of the public, and other injuries and deaths attributed to the wind power life cycle. Most worker deaths involve falls or becoming caught in machinery while performing maintenance inside turbine housings. Blade failures and falling ice have also accounted for a number of deaths and injuries. Deaths to members of the public include a parachutist colliding with a turbine and small aircraft crashing into support structures. Other public fatalities have been blamed on collisions with transport vehicles and motorists distracted by the sight and shadow flicker of wind turbines along highways.

Wind energy is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it displaces fossil-fuel-derived electricity. The amount of power transferred to a wind turbine is directly proportional to the density of the air, the area swept out by the rotor, and the cube of the wind speed. Because so much power is generated by higher wind speed, much of the energy comes in short bursts. The consequence is that wind energy does not have as consistent an output as fuel-fired power plants; utilities that use wind power must provide backup generation for times that the wind is weak. A different solution is to store the large amount of power generated in the bursts to use it later. There are many thousands of wind turbines operating, with a total capacity of 73,904 MW of which wind power in Europe accounts for 65% (2006). The United States ranks third in the world in wind power capacity. Wind power was the most rapidly growing means of alternative electricity generation at the turn of the 21st century. World wind generation capacity more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006. 81% of wind power installations are in the US and Europe.Wind power consumes no fuel for continuing operation, and has no emissions directly related to electricity production. Operation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, or any other type of air pollution, as do fossil fuel power sources (wilkipedia on Wind Power).

Ethanol

2008-03-11T13:38:00.004-05:00

On Sunday night I was watching "Broken Government" on CNN. The first topic that they were talking about was ethanol and pros and cons to using it. It had a couple different people on the show arguing both sides. Bob Dineen from Renewable Fuel Commission, Ken Cook and environmental expert, and Professor Pinintall from Cornell University.

Bob Dineen stated that the government is trying to move into a more doemstic fuel production so we aren't relying on foreign oil.

Ken Cook states that ethanol isn't as clean as people think. To produce ethanol we use coal plants, which are the biggest polluntants of all. We need to put more energy into producing to then we get out of it, so even though ethanol itself is "green," it is not efficient. He believes that politicans don't want to face "the wrath of the corn lobbyists."

Professor Pinintall states that we can't produce enough ethanol to even put a dent in our oil consumption. He brings up the point that using ethanol will not lessen our depedence on foreign oil.

One quick basic fact that was said during the show was that the government spends $5 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol. This iis a lot of money coming from the taxpayers pockets.

I thought it was a very interesting segment. I learned quite a bit more about ethanol. At first I thought it was a good thing, but now after watching this and doing some more research I would have to disagree with using ethanol (sorry Krista!!). If the government is paying $5 billion in subsidies and it is more expensive than oil then it is definitely not cost effective. Also it pushes the price of food as a whole up for consumers. Another negative I found on cnn.com is that "It takes about seven barrels of oil to make eight barrels of ethanol." (True or False: Ethanol") So it is not lowering our dependency on foreign oil, and it would not help gas prices go down. Another thing is that ethanol isn't as fuel efficient as oil so we will be using more oil and ethanol the more we produce ethanol as an energy source for vehicles. Lastly I think that it is negative because of Ken Cook's comment from above. He talks about ethanol being less environmentally friendly than most people think. And that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the output of ethanol energy.

There are some benefits of using ethanol, such as, it is a renewable energy source. It can be domestically produced for us. And lastly it burns cleaner than gas does. Even though these three things are positives, I believe that the negatives outweigh the positives and this country needs to begin to look for different alternative energy sources for vehicles.

Some websites to check out for more facts include:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/eco.myths.oil/index.html?iref=newssearch

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htm (this one has a lot of background information on ethanol)

http://www.ethanol.org/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/ethanol.html

Biodiesel Fuel

2008-03-10T08:00:00.002-05:00

Biodiesel fuel is a form of alternative energy that has been developed to produce energy through the use of various natural substances. These substances include soybeans, rapeseed, mustard, flax, canola, palm oil, and hemp. Biodiesel fuel is said to reduce the harmful emissions that are placed within the environment through gasoline powered engines, and is also said to reduce the damage that is caused to engines. Transesterification is the process by which the biodiesel fuel is created and leaves behind methyl esters and glycerin.

Here is a chart demonstrating the process of Transesterification.

While the following diagram shows the transesterification of vegetable oils.

It is believed that these two burn cleaners into the air than normal petroleum diesel. In comparison to diesel fuel all of the emissions released have been reduced except the nitrogen oxides that are produced. There have however been flaws that have contributed to researchers deciding that maybe biodiesel fuel is not an effective means of alternative energy. For instance, Texas has decided to ban biodiesel fuel on the grounds that it produces harmful nitrogen oxide emissions that assist in the production of ozone at the ground level. Biodiesel has however been the only fuel to past the emission test that is required by the Environmental Protection Agency to pass the Clean Air Act. This form of fuel does however lower the emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, as well was unburned hydrocarbons. One concern that is also associated with biodiesel fuel is that it will cost more than petroleum diesel fuel will. With gas prices already being as high as they are, people are not going to want to pay more to fuel their vehicles. However, the prices are higher because there is not as high of demand for biodiesel fuel. As the demand starts to increase, the prices as well will decrease because it will become a more popular form of energy. Although biodiesel will cost more to fuel vehicles, this is the cheapest form that has been developed as an alternative form of energy. There are not many modifications that are required in using biodiesel fuel. For instance, it could be currently used in any petroleum diesel engine, however there may be deposits that are released due to the deposits that have gathered up on the lining of the tank walls from the petroleum diesel.

Another reason that biodiesel fuel would be very beneficial, is that it would use resources that are located within the United States. For instance, biodiesel will not require the importation of petroleum to be used, and can instead be used for the natural resources that are created by farmers without our country. The money that will be used will be going back into the U.S. economy and therefore, benefiting our country in other ways as well.

I found a movie that goes into further detail about how Biodiesel fuel is formed by telling exactly how biodiesel works?