Posts tagged alternative energy
What is Clean, Abundant, Affordable and the Best Alternative Energy Source We Have?
Jan 25th
If you answered cold fusion, eeehhhhh! Your time’s run out! If you answered natural gas, have a 
cigar. Natural gas for the simple reason that it is one of the quickest ways to achieve a future in which an oil importing nation is no longer held hostage by foreign oil and carbon and other harmful emissions are sharply curtailed.
Seems like a heretical statement coming from someone who spent the last 15 years helping to develop an installed base of renewable energy projects. With 2010 Total Energy Production of 1.2% and 0.1% of wind and solar, respectively, the impact of renewable energy is a long way off. In fact, there are signs that the industry maybe softening in the U.S.
Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. The combustion of natural gas emits significantly lower levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide than does the combustion of coal or oil. When used in efficient combined-cycle power plants, natural gas combustion can emit less than half as much CO2 as coal combustion, per unit of electricity output.
Are there “issues” with the extraction of natural gas from shale plays? Most certainly. Can the issues be managed? Again the answer is “Yes.”
Problems, and there were fewer than one would think, were as much a “Drill First – Figure Out Regulations Later” attitude than and real technical issues with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing “Fracking.” The issues were traced to use of unproven methods buy unqualified drillers and frackers as well as misconception and perception.The fact of the matter is there were only 42 (<0.3%) documented incidents of casing failures from improper cementing out of over 15,000 shall gas wells drilled in U.S.
Another misconception is the public outrage over benzene emissions for wells. Again the facts show that there were little of no benzene emissions in the Barnett shale. Measurements ran about 0.001% or 1/1,000 of 1% benzene, compared to 0.5% to 1% in gasoline.
Environmental concerns with shale gas production are being raised throughout the global landscape where it is technically feasible to extract the natural gas. The primary driver is hydraulic fracturing’s impact on drinking water. The fracturing slurry is a mixture of 99% water and sand in combination with a proprietary mix of 1% chemical additives. The fluid is injected underground to fracture rock containing natural gas. This can impact drinking water from contaminated aquifers and wells. The other concern is the potential for water and air contamination by fugitive leakage of natural gas during extraction and delivery. Natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas with the ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide.
The brouhaha over water contamination arose from an unfortunate situation in Wyoming. Many news articles about the situation failed to highlight some key clauses in the EPA’s decision. First, the Agency was not definitive in blaming fracking for the water problems. Second, the EPA released the study before it had gone through the peer review process. Third, and most importantly, the Wyoming field is very different from most fracking areas. The gas-bearing rock being fractured in Wyoming was only about 1,220 feet deep and some water wells reached as far as 800 feet. By comparison, the gas-bearing rocks targeted by fracking operators in Texas and Pennsylvania are several thousand feet below any water supplies. Unlike shale formations like the Marcellus in Pennsylvania and the Barnett in Texas, the Wyoming gas was in a sandstone reservoir and did not have a geologic barrier or “cap” atop the gas-bearing layer. With so many major geologic differences between the fracked wells near Pavillion and those in shale basins, industry experts caution against extrapolating any conclusions from the Wyoming study.
Worldwide technical recoverable shale gas reserves is estimated to be about 32,500 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) U.S.’s reserves have the potential to produce 845 Tcf including “wet gas” wells that produce liquid petroleum condensate along with natural gas. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that there are 1,279.5 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas resources in the United States.
Natural gas can change the region’s economic landscape. Recently the IHS Global Insight reported:
“….. natural gas “shale gale” that began in the Barnett Shale is having “profound economic impacts” on the U.S. economy — creating jobs, reducing consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and escalating federal, state and local tax revenues,”
“….. shale gas development, after contributing $76.9 billion to the nation’s economic output in 2010, will add $118.2 billion in 2015 and $231.1 billion in 2035.”
“….. in 2010, the shale gas industry supported more than 600,000 jobs; that number will likely grow to nearly 870,000 by 2015 and 1.6 million-plus by 2035.”
“….. savings from lower natural gas prices, as well as associated lower prices for other consumer purchases, will add an average $926 in disposable income per household annually from 2012 to 2015 and more than $2,000 annually by 2035.”
“….. the shale gas industry and related jobs pay higher wages — an average $23.16 per hour — than those in manufacturing, transportation and education.”
“….. the boom in domestic gas production has held down natural gas prices and thus electric rates in Texas because gas is burned to generate much of the power.”
“….. as a transportation fuel, compressed natural gas is cleaner-burning and much cheaper than gasoline,”
The primary economic consideration is the need to boost demand of natural gas. As supplies increase, unless there is a corresponding increase in demand, the price will plummet until it becomes financially sound to stop productions.
The two primary sectors that use fossil fuels are electricity generation through coal-fired power generation stations and the transportation industry through petroleum. T Converting coal-fired to natural gas-fired electricity generation plant is on a relative basis a no brainer. However, the transportation sector is somewhat more problematic in terms of converting vehicles internal combustion energy from gasoline to natural gas. The cost of conversion can range from $12,000 for light-duty to over $35,000 for heavy-duty vehicles. When gasoline retail prices fall below $3.00 a gallon, it’s a difficult proposition to justify the cost to convert vehicles to run on CNG. However, over $3.25 a gallon, conversion is a sound investment.
Natural gas can also play an essential role in the export market. An article that ran early last year in the Huffington Post points in this direction.”U.S. Becomes Net Exporter Of Fuel For First Time In Nearly 20 Years”. Diesel and other oil-based fuels led the increase.
So what can be said about natural gas can be summed up in one phrase: “A thousand workers can provide it, hundreds of countries can benefit from it, billions can use it, and one earth can be protected by it.
In closing, more than any other fuel source today and for the near future, natural gas is the only fuel that can be utilized across major fossil fuel hungry sectors. As a sustainabilist would say, it supports the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit. Renewable fuels fail to satisfy these criteria.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0103
- The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study:http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html
- NaturalGas.org http://www.naturalgas.org/business/analysis.asp
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/us-becomes-net-exporter-o_n_857085.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of emerging and mature technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Natural Gas: The Clean Alternative
Dec 12th
It has been common knowledge for quite sometime now that natural gas is a suitable clean alternative to all fossil fuels. Natural gas can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its reserves are abundant. Sure, it’s not on par with renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. But let’s get real; solar, wind, biomass, geothermal lack the installed base to make a difference.
A quick review of the supply source and demand sector data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) given below shows that:
- Coal is the primary supply source for Electric Power Generation; the largest energy demand sector.
- Petroleum is the primary supply source for the Transportation industry; the second largest demand sector.
- The 8% contribution of renewable energy to U.S. energy pathway is primarily from biomass (50%) and conventional hydroelectric power (35%). Not including these sources, solar and wind makeup only 0.8% of the entire energy supply for the U.S. economy; see EIA Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009.
OK, the U.S. and for that matter most developed countries of the word are fossil fuel based economies. Will renewables ever make an impact on the economy? As far back as the mid 90’s, some of us thought they would. But due to the high capital cost, poor reliability, site specificity, intensive real estate requirements, and the need for local, state and federal incentives, renewables are creeping forward at such a small pace society needs an interim alternative to alternative energy.
In such a scenario, natural gas comes to the rescue and serves as the clean energy bridge to the future. Shale gas the new source of today’s natural gas, which has contributed to an increase in domestic reserves, has had a deep impact on the U.S. economy. A report from IHS Global Insight points out that shale gas created jobs, reduced consumer costs for natural gas and electricity and increased local, state and federal tax revenues. Furthermore, natural gas requires no innovation to burn in an electric power generation station or combust in any internal combustion energy on the road. And finally, natural gas is cheaper. If this is not what is needed to bolster our economy, then someone better come forth ASAP with a more viable solution.
Although, environmentalists will argue that natural gas is a limited fossil fuel, it seems like the industry is Robbing Peter to Pay Paul! On face value this appears to be true, but as we wait to realize the benefits of clean energy, society is burning lots of coal and petroleum, while exporting dollars to feed our thrust for harmful fossil fuels. For the foreseeable future, burn we must!
The following chart clearly shows that natural gas is a much cleaner source of energy than other more ‘conventional’ fossil fuels.
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels | |||
Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input | |||
| Pollutant | Natural Gas | Oil | Coal |
| Carbon Dioxide | 117,000 | 164,000 | 208,000 |
| Carbon Monoxide | 40 | 33 | 208 |
| Nitrogen Oxides | 92 | 448 | 457 |
| Sulfur Dioxide | 1 | 1,122 | 2,591 |
| Particulates | 7 | 84 | 2,744 |
| Mercury | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
Source: Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998 | |||
The only conundrum is the slow rate of adoption of compressed or liquefied natural gas vehicles (CNG and LNG) in the transportation industry. Here too, natural gas is cheaper than fossil fuels, the cost of conversion is significantly less than Electric Vehicles (EV), and does not have the range anxiety of EVs. NGV America reports that there are about 112,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and more than 13 million worldwide. Considering the fact that there are about 255 million registered vehicles in the U.S. the number of CNG and LNG vehicles are pitiful.
In closing, either go natural gas today or live with an ever-increasing environmental and economic threat from coal and petroleum. As of now, seeing our economy run by a large percent of truly clean and renewable fuels is unfortunately a distant dream.
References:
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm
- EIA: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
- IHS Global Insight: http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx
- NGV America: http://www.ngvc.org/about_ngv/
- Bureau of Transportation Statics: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a global technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading the development of new and emerging technology driven enterprises in the shale gas, natural gas, renewable energy and sustainability industries. To learn more about TBD America, please visit: http://tbdamericainc.com/
Palo Alto Green Program: A Green Power Road Map For Cities
Dec 5th
Andrea Hart, Palo Alto’s Green Program Manager, discusses how their green power initiatives have evolved over the last decade.
Can Renewables Survive in the U.S.?
Nov 23rd
For renewable energy in the U.S., the question of survival and growth is still unanswered. After all, the Department of Energy has been funding renewable energy research and development since its inception some 34 years ago from the consolidation of the Federal Energy Administration, the Federal Power Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration, which was tasked to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs. Concurrently, support for biofuels, photovoltaic and solar thermal energy systems, wind and geothermal systems and hydrogen have pervaded all government leaders’ speeches as the way to achieve energy independence and environmental stewardship.
Furthermore, the New York Times (NYT) reported that by 2009 the renewable energy industry supplied 8% of the energy consumed in the U.S. (see following chart). Though not counting conventional geothermal, which today is not considered a renewable source of energy, renewable energy still supplied about 5% of all our energy needs. One could say, 5% is better than no percent. Additionally, the same NYT report claims the U.S. solar market has grown to a $6 billion industry.
In comparison, American Petroleum Institute’s (API) report “Putting Earnings into Perspective” suggests that the U.S. Oil and Natural Gas (O&G) industry brought in about $1.2 trillion in revenues in 2010. Another API report states that, “since 2000, (O&G) has invested over $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives.” With this enormous market potential and federal and industry spending on alternate energy, surely the renewable energy industry has to succeed, or so it would seem.
Additionally, a Times article in April 2001 reports “in one sense green energy is already achieving scale—in new power generation. Solar is growing faster than any other form of energy, and new statistics from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) showed that wind added 5,116 MW of new capacity last year. That’s 26% of all new energy generation added in the U.S. in 2010, second only to natural gas, which supplied 40% of new power. (Shale gas—it is for real.) Since 2007 wind has added an average of 35% of all new capacity—twice the amount of new coal and nuclear combined”
Renewable Energy Consumption in the Nation’s Energy Supply, 2009
Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels
So why the skepticism? It appears that the growth of the U.S. solar and wind segments of the industry is slowing down. The Times article noted above goes on to say that, “2010 wasn’t the best year for the wind industry. Thanks in part to regulatory uncertainty last year and the post-recession collapse of the tax equity market that helps fund many renewable energy projects, just half as much wind was installed in 2010 as in 2009. And the U.S. has fallen behind China as the world’s wind leader—China now has some 45,000 MW of wind installed, compared to 40,000 MW in the U.S. China added 18,900 MW of wind in 2010, nearly four times more than the U.S.” The slack and uncertainty in the U.S. solar industry was readily apparent at the Solar Power 2011 International tradeshow recently held in Dallas, TX. The myriad of solar module manufactures (vast majority Chinese) all indicated the same theme – the current situation in the U.S.is less than desirable. Hence the reason why there is an oversupply and large inventory of solar panels being dumped on the U.S. market, possibly below cost.
This uncertainty, whether temporary or the start of a downward spiral, may be due to a combination of factors such as:
• High capital cost for installed capacity.
• Lack of reliability to satisfy demand 24/7.
• Low PPA rates.
• SREC / REC fluctuations and inability to lock-in long-term purchase agreements.
• Geographic constraints.
• Regulatory hurdles.
• Large real estate requirement for solar.
• Costly maintenance for wind turbines.
• Erosion of support for subsidies by congress.
• Lack of a federal energy policy.
• Demise of some key federal incentives.
• Erratic retail gasoline prices.
Another look at the Energy Consumption chart shows biomass to comprise 50% of the renewable energy capacity. Without biomass and hydrothermal, the renewable energy industry is almost negligible, i.e., about 1.2% of the energy consumed in the U.S.; though, this deficiency presents a tremendous opportunity for growth of renewables.
Biomass which will continue to grow is more of a sustainable than renewable energy technology. In any event and no matter what it is called, biomass will continue to grow. Why, because the factors stated above, for the most part do not come into play. Take the case of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The technology exists to convert MSW into biofuels or electrons. Problematic MSW that is brought to landfills can be converted onsite to useable energy. Economic benefits exist on both ends, i.e., disposal cost saving on the front-end and revenue generation on the back-end.
The cost of solar modules which were +$3.00 per watt a few years ago can be purchased today around $1.00 per watt. This trend is in the right direction. While manufacturing efficiencies and competition have contributed to the rapid drop in prices, the glut of solar panels in the market and dumping by Chinese manufactures may have more to do with lowering prices. At the end of the day, a solar farm will cost about $3.25 watt, at best; a gas-fired electricity power generation plant will cost south of $1.25 per watt. Therefore, a utility that is not faced with gross penalties for using conventional fuels will install new capacity with gas.
Theoretically, sooner or later a business has to stand on its own two feet. Long-term subsidies are the wrong tool. However, until the subsidies are removed from the oil industry, renewables need subsidies to compete on a level playing field. Either remove subsides for both renewable and O&G or provide equal incentives for both. For starters, O&G subsidies include:
• Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit.
• Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs.
• Tertiary Injectants Deduction.
• Passive Loss Exception for Working Interests in Oil Properties.
• Percentage Depletion Allowance.
• Manufacturing Tax Deduction.
• Reduced Geological and Geophysical Amortization Period.
In closing, growth of renewable energy market (solar, unconventional hydropower, geothermal and wind) will only be achieved if the factors stated above are addressed in a strategic U.S. energy policy that reflects the long-term interests of our country. If not, solar and/or or wind won’t cut the mustard in the foreseeable future.
Let’s not criticize the power company for using inexpensive fossil-fuels. Customers scream bloody hell every time the retailer raises their electrical rate. Few if any are overjoyed at a rate increase. Everyone likes a low cost of energy. Today, the most effective way to hedge the trend against renewables is to be energy efficient, adopt sustainable energy technologies, and be smart about how you use a precious commodity like the little electron.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author Dr. Barry Stevens, an accomplished business developer and entrepreneur in technology-driven enterprises. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a technology business development group. In this role, he is responsible for leading technology driven enterprises through ideation, development and commercialization. To read his other discussions, please visit: http://barryonenergy.wordpress.com
Ioxus Introduces New Module Series for Alternative Energy Markets
Oct 25th
Ioxus introduces new module series for alternative energy markets
Ioxus Inc. has unveiled its first 16V/58F iMOD series of ultracapacitor modules that provides the high performance, high efficiency and high reliability the energy storage market needs as it continues to grow.
In addition, the 16V/58F iMOD series cuts development time by delivering a ready-to-use package at the lowest cost in the industry. The company is committed to providing the technology through its 16V/58F iMOD modules for wind turbine pitch control, starting systems, automotive subsystems, backup power/UPS/ride through and power conditioning for renewable energy systems.
Pepco Energy completes 10-kW solar project for Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
Pepco Holdings Inc. subsidiary Pepco Energy Services Inc. has completed a 10-kW demonstration solar power project in McLean, Virginia. The solar, designed by Pepco Energy, has been installed at the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s Dulles Toll Road administration building in McLean.
Eco-Energy, Utica Energy sign multi service margin management agreement
Eco-Energy has executed a three-year integrated margin management agreement with Utica Energy to manage the corn and ethanol of Utica’s 50 million gallon per year ethanol production facility in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Eco-Energy’s integrated platform would provide systematic risk management, optimization of available storage and transparent ethanol marketing, all coordinated towards effective margin management, according to Utica Energy President Bryan Cieslak.
Hidden Valley Lake breaks ground on solar power project
The Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District has broke ground on a solar power project that will provide 100% of the energy for its water reclamation plant. GHD unit Winzler & Kelly developed the project, which includes 1176 photovoltaic panels located on one acre at the water reclamation plant. The project received significant support from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development.
China is Interested in Biofuels – Why Not the West?
Sep 15th
China, arguably the world’s most influential and dynamic economy, is beginning to eye renewable as a partial solution to its voracious and growing energy needs. If Beijing determines that biofuels represent the future, expect to see the current modest western investment field to change dramatically.
As yet, China’s involvement is modest. According to a PetroChina company official, the firm intends to increase its production of biofuels by 2015 to 1.1 million tons and import and additional 470,000 tons. PetroChina, a traditional hydrocarbon company, is clearly thinking outside the box to increase its alternative energy portfolio.
According to PetroChina’s Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer Fu Xingguo, China is looking at generating 933,000 tons annually of fuel ethanol and 165,000 tons of biodiesel.
According to Fu, China is looking to import biofuel from countries such as Brazil, the world’s largest producer of ethanol, which will then be blended with regular hydrocarbon-derived traditional fuels and sold to southern Chinese provinces.
Looking towards the future, Fu added that some PetroChina Jet A-1 civilian aviation biofuel will be used in a test flight next month, but gave no further details, such as the feedstock used to produce the fuel.
Finally, Fu noted that China has around 1.52 million tons of fuel ethanol capacity, which mainly use grains as feedstocks.
In those accustomed to reading between the lines, Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer’s last comment is the most significant.
Grains as feedstocks.
The United States now devours approximately one-third of its corn output to produce ethanol, thanks in large part to a bloated bureaucracy and an influential farm lobby sucking down subsidies.
China has no such luxury to shift agricultural land from food production to renewables, as its arable land is needed to support the appetites of approximately 1.3 billion people.
Chinese indigenous production of domestic biofuel will accordingly remain marginal at best.
That said, should China determine that renewable biofuels are an important future component of the country’s diversified energy portfolio, the fiscal resources that it could throw at the issue would completely transform global biofuel production, particularly in the Third World.
A number of issues are blunting the introduction of increased biofuel production in developed countries.
First and foremost is that no one has yet figured out how to produce biofuel on an industrial scale that could compete with oil prices, even at $100 a barrel. Like solar and its kilowatt issues, biofuels at present remain a more expensive option.
Secondly, particularly in the United States, the biofuel market has been captured by the ethanol lobby, which provides farmers not only with subsidies, but crop insurance as well.
Last but hardly least is the fact that no single potential biofuel feedstock has emerged as a clear winner, although camelina seems to moving increasingly into first place.
That said, even in the U.S., a slow groundswell of support for renewable biofuel production is emerging, with both the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs selectively investing in various projects. Neither firm is overly adventurous in risk-taking, which indicates that eventually biofuels will receive the funding which it currently lacks.
Should China exercise its immense fiscal clout, particularly in the developing world where it has spent decades cultivating governments and contacts, the picture could change quickly. A major focus of Chinese investment over the past decade has been Africa, and if Beijing decides that biofuel is the way to go to diversify is energy portfolio, given the land constraints within China itself, expect to see a major drive to produce renweables on the Dark Continent.
Furthermore, expect to see China completely ignore environmentalists’ concerns about shifting land from food production to biofuel.
Amongst China’s many economic accomplishments, an overriding signal concern for human rights, either in China or in the countries it invests in, is notable by its absence.
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. John C.K. Daly. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com
Honeywell Green Jet Fuel Powers First Trip From N. America To Europe
Jun 20th
Google & SolarCity establish $280 solar project fund
SolarCity® and Google, have established a new $280 million fund to help get residential solar projects off the ground. The Google-backed fund is the company’s largest investment in clean energy and the first partnership with a leading solar power and energy efficiency service company. The fund will give residential customers in in Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas options to lease the solar panels or pay for the power as its being produced, which is called a power purchase agreement.
D.O.D. develops first ever energy plan
In 2010, U.S. armed forces consumed more than five billion gallons of fuel in military operations. The number one factor driving that fuel consumption is the nature of today’s defense mission. In an effort to transform the way the military consumes fuel, the Pentagon has released a new operational energy strategy that calls for the military to cut consumption of fuel through the use of alternative fuels, rely on alternative fuels to power bases in the field and establish energy efficiency as a core element of the long-term strategy for military operations. This is the first time that the Pentagon has released such a report.
Honeywell successful in powering TransAtlantic Flight with Green Jet Fuel
The first transatlantic biofuel flight powered by Honeywell‘s Green Jet Fuel was successful. This weekend, a Gulfstream G450 become the first plane to travel with a 50/50 biofuel and petroleum-fuel blend from North America to Europe. The flight left Morristown, New Jersey on June 17th at 9pm and landed in Paris, France about 7 hours later. The aircraft’s flight path closely resembled the route taken by Charles Lindbergh’s famous first flight across the Atlantic.
Arizona State University #1 For Solar Panels Used By A University
May 27th
Arizona State University Becomes #1 In Solar Power Production For A University
According to Princeton Review’s 2011 Green College Honor Roll, ASU’s Tempe campus has the most solar panels on its campus than any other university in the country. Kyocera Solar, Inc. and APS Energy Services have just completed four solar energy systems totaling 3,572 solar panels on ASU’s Tempe campus. The project is expected to generate more than 1.2 million kilowatt hours (kWh) each year. The rooftop systems were mounted on the Carson Student Athletic Center, Weatherup Center, Hayden Library (249kW) and Packard Drive South Parking Structure (290kW). ASU has a goal of reaching 10 MW of solar generating capacity by the end of the year.
Details about the DOE’s new America’s Home Energy Education Challenge
U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu teamed up with U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan to begin a new energy education initiative called America’s Home Energy Education Challenge. This program is geared towards educating America’s young people about energy efficiency advantages and motivate students to play an active role in how their families use energy, and help families across the country save money. This fall, elementary and middle schools will be challenged to perform energy efficiency activities as part of the Home Energy Challenge. For 3 months, students will monitor and calculate their energy consumption and see if they are saving energy from the previous year.
Solar Power Industry Efficiency Opportunities
May 16th
Dr. Charles Gay Ph.D., President of Applied Solar, discusses how his company is looking at ways to increase solar power production. This is the second part of a two part series.
Fuel Cells: Let The Truth Be Told
May 9th
Fuel Cells. What began as a straightforward concept before evolving into a buzzword in the energy industry has now become part of the technology running our daily lives. We’re seeing them pop up everywhere- fuel cells are currently being developed small enough for the portable electronics we use every day (my cell phone, your laptop), and large enough to provide power to telecommunications relay towers, corporate buildings, water treatment plants, electricity grids, as well as transportation (trains, bikes, boats and so on). Fuel cells offer an attractive combination of benefits including low/zero emissions, high quality power production, fuel flexibility, efficiency and low nosie! It is a technology with wide applications and a technology we will continue to see around us.
There are different types of fuel cell technologies (i.e. solid oxide, molten carbonate, phosphoric acid etc), each with their unique advantages and disadvantages. Some are “packaged” systems (comprised of a reformer and inverter along with the fuel cell stack) while some are just the stack itself.
While fuel cells are immensely popular, they are a technology the public is still getting comfortable with, and so questions – and myths—abound. In this article, I attempt to dispel a few of the biggest myths about fuel cells today. For the most part, when I refer to “fuel cells” in these examples, I am referring to stationary fuel cells whose primary purpose is to provide power to a facility and/or utility grid, but will note when I’m speaking of one of the many other types on the market or in development today.
Myth #1: FUEL CELLS ARE IN THE FUTURE
Say “fuel cells” and people think of the Jetsons. Many people do not realize that fuel cells are around you everywhere already. For example, a stationary fuel cell may provide primary or secondary (backup) power to a corporation, a hospital, or a factory producing something you use.
Futuristic? Far from it. The original principle behind fuel cells was first discovered in 1838, while the technology has advanced nicely in the past few decades, the concepts have been around for a long time. And though we will certainly see improved fuel cell technology down the line, today it is making its way in cars, powering buildings, and small devices. Fuel cells provide a steady source of power and can provide power in remote locations – it’s a technology we need today, and fortunately… we have it!
Myth #2: Fuel cells store fuel.
This is a fair enough myth, and is usually believed by those who don’t understand the functions of fuel cell technology. Without going into the specifics, fuel cells don’t store energy (the way a battery would). Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat, and in some cases water. So fuel cells don’t store fuel, they create energy. And as long as fuel is supplied to them the fuel cell will produce electricity.
For example, most stationary fuel cell applications are grid-connected, which means they are connected to the traditional power grid. In those cases, the natural gas used for the fuel cell is fed from the standard utility grid (there are no tanks storing the gas, etc). Most of the larger (100 kilowatts +) fuel cells already have a reformer within the system packaged with the fuel cell stack, and this reformer separates the hydrogen from the rest of the gases. For some biogas applications, off-grid, or smaller systems there could be some sort of gas storage. But the idea of a “fuel cell” as a big block of fuel a la battery, is simply wrong. Fuel cells don’t come with electricity in them, but they have within them what they need to create the electricity you require.
Myth #3: Fuel cells are dangerous:
Some people mistakenly believe that fuel cells are dangerous due to their use of hydrogen. This is absolutely false. While many think of hydrogen and think fire or explosions (H-bomb, the Hindenburg), the reality is that if there is a fire it burns very quick and with far less heat when compared to other flammable gases. Hydrogen is the lightest element in our known universe, and confining it is not easy which actually is safer as it dilutes quickly into a non-flammable concentration. Also, a fuel cell has NO combustion, which is why its emissions are very minimal and it’s considered so clean and “green”. Hydrogen is as safe, if not safer, than many conventional fuels on the market today (think… gasoline!) Hydrogen can be safely produced and transported, but it can also be produced renewably and from local conventional energy sources. This is a great combination of fuel flexibility and energy security. And what’s even better news is that the hydrogen industry has a great safety record. Like any industry, it must be regulated and care must be taken, but fuel cells do not appear to be more dangerous than many other options. Since there are typically no combustion-related emissions from the fuel cell itself, emissions depend on the choice and quality of fuel.
Myth #4: You Can Only Choose One Alternative Energy Source.
So if you use a fuel cell, you shouldn’t – and can’t – use any other alternative energy source, right? You’ve made your choice? — think again.
Some folks mistakenly believe that when looking for alternative energy, it’s either solar, fuel cell, OR something else. The reality is that certain alternative technologies actually work very well together and can have a bigger impact when combined. For example, fuel cells are a base load technology, meaning that as long as they are fed a fuel source (natural gas/biogas/methane) they produce consistent, efficient power at consistent levels, and are well-suited to produce much of the minimum power needed for a facility.
Solar, on the other hand, does not produce consistently, so its power output fluctuates. It generally is producing most of its power during the afternoon, when the sun is in full view and hitting the solar PV modules optimally. This usually coincides with most facilities’ peak electricity usage (air conditioning may be on, lights are on, businesses are in full swing). If you combined these two (fuel cells and solar PV), the solar can produce when a facility is at or near its peak usage, and the reliable fuel cell is still producing the bulk of what the site always needs. That is a great combination.
Myth #5: Fuel cells are expensive.
Can you put a price on saving the planet? Just kidding!
The relative “expense” of a fuel cell depends on where you place value. When using pure hydrogen, the emissions are zero. These sorts of environmental benefits are beginning to be factored into people’s purchasing decisions.
Also, most types of fuel cells produce useable “waste” heat, which can be used to offset a facility’s heating hot water, domestic hot water, or even cooling loads and therefore those costs. Even just using the electricity but not the heat can still make economic sense. Cox Communications in southern California put in 4 fuel cell systems totaling 1.6 megawatts but are not able to use any of the heat. The project still pencils out nicely, especially when considering that Cox is utilizing renewable biogas as the fuel source. Total price will vary according to the system type and size, but if you factor in the environmental benefits plus the available incentives and rebates, fuel cells are a very affordable and very smart solution.
In addition, for organizations that require a steady ongoing stream of electricity they could be the cost-efficient choice. Some organizations can’t depend upon the traditional power grid alone; having a fuel cell on site allows a facility that absolutely needs to be in operation 24/7 (think hospital or hotel/casino) to supplement the electricity they get from the grid or possibly even use the fuel cell as a backup. Fuel cell installations offer relatively low maintenance costs, which is a consideration.
Loading ...
Recent Comments