Alternative Energy Options

Roger-

I am well aware of you favoring fusion power, and I agree that there is serious potential in the long run for that technology. I did not mean to belittle the efforts and resources being expended in pursuit of that goal- in fact, I would rather see the $19 billion proposed for the space solar power system by the new administration being allocated for fusion research. But, from my understanding, the technical issues are significant, and we are still looking at a significant time period before we can see a commercially viable installation.

The biofuels fiasco has been well-documented. But many people claim solar and wind energy schemes are environmentally benign, which is not consistent with my personal experience. The largest solar installation I have ever seen was a solar farm in Southern California, between San Bernardino and China Lake, out in the middle of the desert. It was a field of reflectors, several acres in size. The point is that when one takes the sunlight from the environment, one impacts that environment significantly. With the exception of thermal vents in the ocean and possibly some other isolated biospheres, all life on this planet depends on sunlight. If one intercepts this sunlight for other purposes, it is not available for other purposes, like supporting plant growth, on which animals rely, etc. The desert is not dead, but rather supports unique life forms like gila monsters, rattle snakes, scorpions, pack rats, and any number of other species that you may or may not personally favor, but, non the less, form a part of the biosphere.

I actually recommend and install solar systems, where appropriate- I am not opposed to solar energy sources per se. (In a lot of cases, the biggest problem we face with our solar installations is left of the panels and batteries). I do not, however, see this as a panacea for all of our energy needs, or even a significant part of the demand. The primary concern is the storage issue, making the energy available when it is needed. Even in California, blessed with high energy costs and plenty of sun, it is my understanding that the payback period far exceeds the life expectancy of the system, when there are alternatives available, and there are material supply issues. Without tax credits, a form of subsidy, it is unlikely that many private systems would be considered viable.

My objection to wind is in a similar vein- seeing extensive wind farms in the vicinity of Livermore and Palm Springs, California. For me, not a pretty sight, but others have different esthetic opinions. The point is, you need a whole lot of land (or sea surface) that can not be used for much of anything else. I am not alone in this opinion- one reason wind farms must be sited so far from populated areas is the NIMBY attitude. Again, energy storage is an issue, and the wind is pretty unpredictable. Panama happens to be going through a honeymoon phase with wind energy technology, and I find that a bit frustrating, but, again, I acknowledge that is a personal prejudice. Again, wind energy is only viable (at least as implemented in the US) with significant tax incentives and other forms of subsidy (watch a given wind farm- how many of the turbines are actually turning, even when the wind is blowing?) I believe Denmark has had more favorable results with wind, but I have no data or personal experience to support this belief.

I am not a strong proponent of OTEC- one needs pretty deep water (on the order of 3000 feet, if memory serves) to achieve a viable system, and there are not many places in the world where such deep water is available; thus, a lack of serious commercial interest. But DOE is continuing to fund research and development in this area.

Yes, Panama is blessed with a lot of coast line, some of which is not suitable for wave or tidal energy. However, there is enough potential to significantly suppliment the energy demands with minimal environmental impact. In fact, as any fisherman off the Gulf Coast of Texas will tell you, some of the best fishing is in the vicinity of the offshore oil rigs (sort of an unintended artificial reef providing habitat for certain desirable species). Some tidal schemes, such as the La Racine plant in France, due pose more significant environmental issues, on par with the environmental issues of conventional hydroelectric systems (i.e., Three Gorges in China, Aswan in Egypt) associated with flooding a lot of real estate and rendering it useless for other purposes. But much of the new technology being developed does not require such modification of the environment. There are technical issues (the Pelamis installation in Portugal has had problems with moorings, and the New York river installation has had problems with blade failure, and the ocean environment can be hard on materials), but these are not show-stopper problems. What is a showstopper is a problem with the regulatory structure in the US, where various bureaus fight over who has licensing authority.

The most important point I was trying to make is that much of the effort being pursued in this area is privately funded (although in Europe, Australia and Japan, I believe there is significant public financial support of these technologies). That says a lot about the economic viability. There are a number of competing technologies being developed for this energy source, mostly with private money.

A good source of information, including discussions of the technical limitations and environmental concerns, is available on line on the EPRI web site. The Electrical Power Research Institute is not a government agency, but an industry-supported non-profit research organization.

I do not believe this, or any technology, is going to prove to be the panacea. What I do believe is that we need to pursue ALL options, and I believe ocean energy systems are a lot closer to realization than many of the ideas being floated about.

Well said. I agree with most of your responses above. I only disagree with your statement:

"But, from my understanding, the technical issues are significant, and we are still looking at a significant time period before we can see a commercially viable installation."

Fusion has been underfunded for decades which has made progress slow. This slow progress has created the misconception that there are significant technological hurdles. Proper funding would speed fusion innovation signficantly.

Aside from that statem I agree with your take on these ocean based power plant technologies and you make a good point that these technologies deserve federal funding as well. I also agree with you on where you point out money could be cut to provide funding for these projects.

Actually, I think federal funding for Fusion is far more important than funding for ocean energy technologies, because I think the market can fund these, if the government gets its licensing policies sorted out. I would far rather see public funding for fusion than for any space-based solar scheme, because fusion is more likely to yield viable results. I am not sure Obama's team is astute enough to sort this out.

You Wrote:"I am not sure Obama's team is astute enough to sort this out."

I'm afraid you're right, though lets wait and see. I think the real problem is that the American Physical Society (APS) and other major scientific societies have not taken a stance regarding the best alternative energy approaches. These societies make a big show of creating a community and providing leadership, but at the end of the day, they are slow moving and often reactionary. It's hard to expect politicians to make the right decisions when the leadership of the scientific community refuses to pick a side or an issue to champion. They call it good manners and politeness. I think they are going to good manner and polite science to death.

I'm not satisfied with the point of view you are developing towards alternative energy harvesting techniques.

To start you create the assumption that we should not use solar energy as it is meant for other creatures.

At the moment millions of square meters of roof exist, just there to be heated up by the sun and transferring that heat to the environment. Twiggle and turn how you want, these roofs are there, wasting solar energy.

Most households need hot water: where is the problem taking some of the wasted solar heat.

You can even think deeper: it is more immoral not to do this.

PV systems on roofs are installed where the energy is needed, it is known that the payback is at decent levels now. (approx 10 years where I live, when I add the fiscal bonus it becomes 5 to 7 years) when it is not economic in you're region the reason has to be found in the hidden costs you have to pay, which have nothing to do with the principles of PV but everything witch protectionism of existing energy suppliers.

The same with wind energy: "green" activists try to block the creation of wind farms as they kill birds. But burning fossil fuels will kill more birds than the turbines will ever do. They should invest their green mental energy in finding tricks to keep the birds away from the turbine. As with tidal turbines, in stead of discussing the potential danger they pose for the aquatic world we shoud be discussing how fast we can fill the golden gate and street of Gibraltar with them. It is known that special ultrasound sources can attract fish or scare them off.

I am not at all opposed to using solar energy where appropriate, and, in fact, I recommend, design and install solar systems. I do not, however, see this as an appropriate solution to mass power generation, and what I have seen of solar systems intended to feed the grid, they use a whole lot of real estate that could be used for other purposes. This is the same issue I take with wind energy- again, properly applied, wind can provide some useful power, but most wind farms I have seen (and I have not personally visited the large farms off Denmark), they use a whole lot of real estate that can not be used for much else, for limited benefit. All alternatives have their place, but most advocates do not acknowledge that the amount of energy required is far beyond the capability of these popular alternatives. I would like to see more focus on alternatives that do not have such negative impact on the environment. The one alternative that I find most questionable is the proposal by Obama's advisers regarding space-based solar energy. This is not a short term answer, and the $19 billion proposed could be better spent, pursuing something that could have real impact in the short term- like fusion power, or ocean energy.

I still don't see the problem between real estate and solar PV and heat collectors.

The roof is there, attacked severely by UV and heat, every day again.

I admit that the actual direction wind turbines evolve is a bit problematic: the bigger the better.

Some weeks ago there was a blog in which the idea of working with smaller turbines, replacing the light poles along highway's, was worked out. Vertical axis turbines, thousands in a row.

From time to time you have to leave the surface and go up in an helicopter view, overlook the complete picture and rethink your idea's. You will see that the problems which block actual evolutions are in fact benefits which should be exploited.

Some decades ago nuclear was the worst of all choices, now the same people are promoting it. Dare to do the same.

Rather than continue with my own limited perspective, I would like to offer the following extracts for consideration:

From Green Tech Blog, April 25, 2008, Posted by Michael Kanellos:

"4.2 billion.
"That's how many rooftops you'd have to cover with solar panels to displace a cubic mile of oil (CMO), a measure of energy consumption, according to Ripudaman Malhotra,

who oversees research on fossil fuels at SRI International... The world consumes a little over 1 CMO of oil a year right now and about 3 CMOs of energy from all sources.
"Put another way, we'd need to equip 250,000 roofs a day with solar panels for the next 50 years to have enough photovoltaic infrastructure to provide the world with a CMO's

worth of solar-generated electricity for a year.
"...You'd also have to erect a 900-megawatt nuclear power plant every week for 50 years to get enough plants (2,500) to produce the same energy in a year to equal a CMO.

Wind power? You need 3 million for a CMO, or 1,200 a week planted in the ground over the next 50 years...
"'In 30 years we will need six CMOs, so where are we going to get that?" Malhotra said...
"...Many of these stats and a far lengthier discussion of the issue will be found in a book coming from Oxford University Press by Crane, Malhotra, and Ed Kinderman called

A Cubic Meter of Oil.
"...A large hydroelectric dam can generate about 18 gigawatts of power a year. To get an annual CMO from new hydroelectric dams, you'd need to build the equivalent of 200

Three Gorges Dams. There aren't that many available rivers in the world left to dam up. Solar thermal? 7,700 plants, or 150 a year for 50 years, required for an annual CMO.
"...If consumers worldwide could replace 1 billion incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, it would save only 0.01 CMOs in a year..."

From New Scientist, 16 August 2007, By Catherine Brahic:

"It sounds counterintuitive, but burning oil and planting forests to compensate is more environmentally friendly than burning biofuel. So say scientists who have calculated the

difference in net emissions between using land to produce biofuel and the alternative: fuelling cars with gasoline and replanting forests on the land instead.
"...Righelato and Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, UK, calculated how long it would take to compensate for those initial emissions by burning biofuel instead of

gasoline. The answer is between 50 and 100 years. "We cannot afford that, in terms of climate change," says Righelato.
"...The researchers also compared how much carbon would be stored by replanting forests with how much is saved by burning biofuel grown on the land instead of gasoline.

"They found that reforestation would sequester between two and nine times as much carbon over 30 years than would be saved by burning biofuels instead of gasoline..."

I am sure someone, somewhere, has countered these points, but they do raise some interesting questions regarding the issues that our leaders should be addressing (and note the sources- not generally nay-sayers about alternative solutions).

When humans first started migrating from Africa to conquer the world, the ONLY energy they had available was solar- gleaned either from the plants they ate, or the animals who had eaten plants to store the energy. Until the advent of the steam engine, wind was a primary source of energy for international travel. Wind has also been used for centuries for such mundane tasks as grinding grain and pumping water. The problem is, the demand for transportation, grain, water, and many other fun things has far outstripped the capacity of traditional power sources.

Again, I am not at all adverse to proper application of various technologies, but I think we need to explore ALL options, and I believe the market is better at determining viability than any politician. Federal funding distorts the market, and actually will delay progress toward a viable solution...

What you address is the point of view from the supply side: let's just continue to do what we are used to. Let's not disrupt the market.

And please pay for the oil, that the money flow the big structures in the world is looking for.

Last summer they made it happen: $ 150 and more / barrel. The income from the already rich and wealthy was guarantied.

What they did not expect was the speed that the consumers reacted: so many decided to change from fuel supply in so short timing that other markets saw a real collapse in business and oil prices dropped enormously this winter.

What we need is federal market regulation: burning wood and crop is in the end the worst thing to do as soil depletion is the worst to happen. A mixture of energy harvesting is needed. Just install PV and solar heat collectors on roofs. Use heat pumps to generate household heat and store the summer heat for winter usage, in combination with a heat pump this is a very feasible technique to deploy on your own property.

In zones where this is not an option (cities) CHP is the way to generate power and use the heat for other purposes.

Traditional power production has an efficiency of 30 to 35% this means that 70% of the available heat is lost. Let's assume that 50% of the worlds power usage is lost. Using techniques as CHP this could be reduced to 5%.

The only problem is mobile power generation (cars, trucks, planes, ships, ...). They have no actual alternative. For short distance personal transport battery power storage is a good option but trucks and planes just can't use this option. Trains are a good alternative for long distance transport as they can be fed with electricity which can be produced in a greener way.

But after all: stop using fossil fuels for fixed applications, there are so many decent alternatives. (waste gasification is a good thing to start with)

The very least that should be done in the realm of energy conservation should be to discontinue the production of tank based water heaters. By shifting entirely to tankless systems we can alleviate a significant portion of energy usage worldwide.

You may be interested to see this article on tankless water heaters - I was surprised since I had long thought "Tankless" was the way to go. While it deals with the overall economics point of view rather than just the energy point of view, it IS the point of view of many when it comes to spending their money.

As someone who installed a tankless and then replaced it with a tank after 7 years of "unenjoyement" I understand the article's criticism of tankless.

I remember back in the Good Ole Carter days when we put timers and blankets on our tanks.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/appliances/heating-cooling-and-air/water-heaters/tankless-water-heaters/overview/tankless-water-heaters-ov.htm

Dear Panama resident, the difference in ocean level at two end of Panama, can generate good amount of Hydel power. Has there been any study on it ?

Although there is only about 60 miles between the two oceans at the narrowest point, there is a mountain range between them (well, you might consider them hills, but for us they look like mountains). A more likely source of energy for Panama would be to tap in to some of the water flow from the fresh water lakes that are used to operate the canal. Each time a ship transits, 50,000,000 gallons (yes, 50 million gallons) of fresh water is dumped into the sea from about 80 feet above sea level. This is a whole lot of energy going to waste. Unfortunately, it is intermittent, not continuous.

You seem to emphasize a lot on Tidle-wave energy. OK depending on your experience and cities associated with the Ocean. Briquetting Agro-waste happens to be the easiest available and never-ending Alternate energy which also happens to be known as "white coal" or green-fuel. I believe you missed this out.

My intention is to raise awareness of ocean energy options. "White coal" would be very attractive for this part of the world also- current practice is to burn the sugar cane fields every year, and a major waste product throughout Panama is coconut husks. Briquetting these could be a valuable source of energy, I am sure. Can you recommend any technical sources of information regarding the technology required and the energy available from different types of materials?

Can you recommend any technical sources of information regarding the technology required.

BIO-MASS FUEL BRIQUETTES : AGRO WASTE SOLID FUEL

Fuel Briquettes made from Forest & Agro Waste: Groundnut-shell, Sugarcane Biogases Caster Shells/Stalk, Saw dust, Coffee Husk, Paddy Straw, Wheat Straw, Sunflower Stalk, Cotton Stalks, Tobacco waste, Mustard Stalk, Jute waste, Bamboo Dust, Tea waste, , Palm husk, Soybeans husk, Coir Pitch Barks/Straws, Rice Husks, Forestry wastes Wood Chips and many other Agro wastes.

Briquette Size.32mm.40mm.50mm.60mm.70mm.90mm

This is Pollution Free and High Calorific Value . It is Low Ash after burning and NO Toxic Fuel Gases due to absence of Sulfur.

Calorific Value Of 3500 To 4500 K .Cal/Kg.

Biomass Briquetting is the process of converting low bulk density biomass into high density and energy concentrated fuel briquettes. Biomass Briquetting plant are of various sizes which converts biomass into solid fuels. Briquettes are ready substitute of Coal/wood in industrial boiler and brick kiln for thermal application.

Briquettes have high specific density (1200 Kg/m3) and bulk density (800 Kg/m3) compared to 60 to 180 Kg/m3 of loose biomass. These can stand the ardors of long distance transport. Loading/unloading and transportation costs are much less and storage requirement is drastically reduced. Compared to fire wood or loose biomass, briquettes give much higher boiler efficiency because of low moisture and higher density.

THE BIO-MASS / AGRO FORESTRY WASTE

Every year millions of tons of agricultural waste are generated. These are either non used or burnt inefficiently in their loose form causing air pollution. Handling and transportation of these materials is difficult due to their low bulk density. These wastes can provide a renewable source of energy by converting into high-density fuel briquettes without addition of any binder.

Among the non-conventional sources of energy, the use of the energy potential in agricultural wastes shows good promise. India produces nearly 350 million tones of agricultural waste every year.

Any types of Agro- Forestry waste will be used as a R.M. for Briquetting

Specifications of applicable Raw Material.

Major agro wastes available:

PRODUCTS

At present all over the world Binder less technology is most popular & successful. This technology has been adopted to suit all conditions according to the characteristic of raw materials available from various parts in different season. This binder less Briquetting technology is based on very high compact characteristic of combustible cellulose agro waste such as Baggase, Saw Dust, Groundnut shell, Rice Husk, Cotton Stalk, Custard Shell, Wheat Straw etc. into Cylindrical Briquettes through high processed heat.

Briquetting technology is well developed in most of the advanced countries and is becoming more popular in developing countries and has tremendous scope in underdeveloped countries.

Briquetting Unit

The Briquetting press is a ram type press designed for continuous heavy-duty operation with two load wheels. One of the load wheels acts as a pulley, and driven by the main motor through a flat belt forced lubrication is provided by oil lubrication system which gives a longer life to the press.

Dry and homogenous prepared powder in form of craw material is fed through the screw conveyor to Koop by means of vertical screws, with its own-geared motor. It pre-compress and forces the material downward into the feeder box. From the feeder box the material is forced by the ram through taper die and due to high pressure & heat, powder form is converted into solid cylindrical briquettes. Lignin content in the raw material is transformed into liquid form & acts as a natural binder. Therefore it is called the Binder less Technology.

Please visit website: www.demecosl.com for details of plant.

........and the energy available from different types of materials?

Caloric Values of Most Fuels:

Thank you. Very informative and helpful.

You welcome. Address of Plant Supplier:

Rochana De Silva
Chief Executive Officer

DEMECO ENTERPRISES
72A, Dehiwela Road, Pepiliyana
Boralesgamuwa 10290, Sri Lanka
Telephone +94 112 736 284 / 94 112 734 580 Fax 94 114 306 358
Mobile 94 777 707 572

email demeco@sltnet.lk

They also sell & export briquette-fuel apart from Plants.

Are moisture content levles in these briquettes as low as those of coals used in boilers? My experiences with most agro products are they are fairly high moisture resulting in reduced available energy.

About 6-8% moisture content as per the Supplier cited above.

Excellent point, RHABE. There is absolutely no way to extract energy from the environment without some effect. There is always a trade-off. Unfortunately, too many of the advocates ignore the trade-offs of their pet schemes.

The best place for agricultural waste is back in the ground.

I agree completely, RHABE, GA.. As an organic gardener for the last 30 years, I've learned, everything you take from your soil, you must put back. Otherwise, you end up with dirt. There is never, ever, a free ride. I go to great lengths to feed and maintain the health of my soil. Garden and household waste, (no meat), grass clippings, some pond weed, and an annual trip to a local farm for animal droppings all go into the compost pile. It's actually labor intensive, but the absolute best produce in the world is worth it.

Are there agricultural by-products that can be exploited? Yes. But don't think you getting something for nothing. And the answer is not only more chemical fertilizers. Do we need them? Yes. They have allowed us to feed the world. But they come at a price, as we all know what they are made from.

Do I sound like I'm contradicting myself here? Well, yes I am. I don't really think you can run huge agra-business farms economically with strictly organic practices. But they don't clearcut, a large percentage of the non-edible crop is plowed back in. And many find it economical to plant a cover crop, like winter rye, to hold the soil in place, and to be turned back into the soil in the spring. Feed your soil, or it will stop feeding you.

Anyway, my point is, you don't get anything for nothing.

I am an owner of a modest garden, only for our own needs. I would be interested to hear what the practises are from someone that's a real farmer.

So if you want to start briquetting then try to establish a recycling system to bring the ash back to the fields. And add the nitrogen that is gone after burning.

And try to bring the soil fertility up and constant. Really an excellent green-field advice Rhabe.

If by agro waste you are referring to say corn cobs, stalks, husks, dried leaves, etc which will burn, the problem you will run into is the earthy crunchie types saying that if you grind that stuff up and turn it into charcoal then you will be robbing Mother Earth and will soon deplete the farm land because you are not returning the bio-mass back to the soil.

Personaly I think it would be a straw dog, but that is the mind set of the leftist anticapitalist environmentalist.

Travis
KB0PWP

Where is Solomon Azar (noblefuse) now that we need him.

None of this B...S will work! What we have to do is to work with what we already have, but looking at things with a new mind.

More and more effort and $$ toward feeding a monster that never stops growing. The energy consumption should be addressed not simply making it greener, easier and cheaper.

The dollars spent on subsidizing currently under developed alternative methods of attaining energy is a waste of tax dollars and resources. I'm not suggesting that we not develop these alternatives but we should stop giving money to private companies whose sole purpose is to take advantage of us for profit.

From what I've seen, wind generation is the worst. But how much different would tidal generation be?

Money from these projects would be better spent on developing efficiency and proper conservation of energy. Money put toward this would build a more secure future than simply building more and more generators.

What is interesting is that, in the US at least, most of the money being spent at present appears to come from private interests, although one is beginning to see funding from public utilities. I do not know of any support received to date from the federal government for ocean energy conversion schemes except for the ocean thermal energy concept, although just because I am not aware of it, does not mean it does not exist. One of the points I was trying to make is that if a concept is really viable (i.e., potentially profitable), private money will find it. Any scheme that needs federal funds to get the interest of industry is of questionable viability. If politicians (including Al Gore) are singing the praises of your alternative energy concept, then I would immediately be suspect, but that is my opinion...