Archive for the 'Environment' Category
Chinese Antiques Brilliance, Coal Plants CO2 - Filters, or Hell on Earth
Derek Dashwood asked:
From Chinese antiques history, the way we speak of carbon depends on which kind we relate to best. Marco Polo did not drag sacks of coal back from China, rather diamonds and gemstones. This was Chinese carbon that had risen above it’s station, as my English cousin Sir Frawncis would say, and blossomed into diamonds that enlighten our hearts. Amazing, versatile diamonds which can also on a drill bit, cut through everything else on a construction site. Or carbon is most often seen and found as dirty old coal, causing fear that the coming Olympics will become a farce on many levels.
The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute have created a color map of the pollution around mother earth. Pollution on this world map measures NO2 in the air, that is dirty coal emissions. Red, which is most of east China from Beijing to below Shanghai,is dirtiest. Dark blue, as in most of Canada and the Sahara desert is clean air. While America and Europe have cleaned up in recent decades, central Germany, London, Moscow, north Italy are red zones. So we know they are not creating diamonds in those locations, but filthy poisoned air.
These foul coal plants without the new filters are powering their energy needs with something that emits poisonous NO2 into the air we breathe. Hello, there Black Hat Wong Coal. Not wearing your newly designed diaper filters again we see. Look at you spew, Bart Coal: you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at that red map zone, watch those people in filthy air with masks to their faces as they hurry to get inside out of the filthy air. And this is the air to breathe for elite athletes of the world in the coming Olympic Games.
No surprise that the world’s faster marathon runner has studied the terrain and decided it would exact too much damage to his lungs and body to run that fast, up and down those demanding hills. He, not a Roman slave, decided after several practice runs in which he ran past people holding masks to their faces, that forcing greater inhalation of that air, into those perfect lungs, was not worth the risk. So one by one, participants to these rather Black Bart Coal Olympics decide they will pass until the Committee decides on a more democratic and less hypocritical Diamonds Olympics.
Australia and Canada, democracies with the new diamond finds and minds, would say pick me, pick me. China has much dirty coal, Canada and Australia also has the coal. But we have diamonds, and democracy too, and in such volume anew, that the net has created short cuts for diamonds from mine right to you. We do not ship coal, you know who to see for that. But our net warehouse keys are unlocked and nobody’s in there, to sniff down her nose and say you’d pay me that little for this much, what do you take me for?
Well, we took you for a hindrance, a lump of coal, so instead you no here any more. Just smiling bins of diamonds, gemstones, net price low bids. Bid low, sweet chariot, come back and see if you won. If not, then carry on, some low bid auction diamonds coming round again. Have fun. Skip the traffic accident and the fat lady who grabs; is that why the news says we will shop 17 percent more on the net this year, while retail sales stay stagnant. Oh, the kettle’s boiling, I will just click this low bid, make the tea, and we shall see, if that blue sky is the true blue diamond for the world, air we can breath, water we can drink. It could happen.
From Chinese antiques history, the way we speak of carbon depends on which kind we relate to best. Marco Polo did not drag sacks of coal back from China, rather diamonds and gemstones. This was Chinese carbon that had risen above it’s station, as my English cousin Sir Frawncis would say, and blossomed into diamonds that enlighten our hearts. Amazing, versatile diamonds which can also on a drill bit, cut through everything else on a construction site. Or carbon is most often seen and found as dirty old coal, causing fear that the coming Olympics will become a farce on many levels.
The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute have created a color map of the pollution around mother earth. Pollution on this world map measures NO2 in the air, that is dirty coal emissions. Red, which is most of east China from Beijing to below Shanghai,is dirtiest. Dark blue, as in most of Canada and the Sahara desert is clean air. While America and Europe have cleaned up in recent decades, central Germany, London, Moscow, north Italy are red zones. So we know they are not creating diamonds in those locations, but filthy poisoned air.
These foul coal plants without the new filters are powering their energy needs with something that emits poisonous NO2 into the air we breathe. Hello, there Black Hat Wong Coal. Not wearing your newly designed diaper filters again we see. Look at you spew, Bart Coal: you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at that red map zone, watch those people in filthy air with masks to their faces as they hurry to get inside out of the filthy air. And this is the air to breathe for elite athletes of the world in the coming Olympic Games.
No surprise that the world’s faster marathon runner has studied the terrain and decided it would exact too much damage to his lungs and body to run that fast, up and down those demanding hills. He, not a Roman slave, decided after several practice runs in which he ran past people holding masks to their faces, that forcing greater inhalation of that air, into those perfect lungs, was not worth the risk. So one by one, participants to these rather Black Bart Coal Olympics decide they will pass until the Committee decides on a more democratic and less hypocritical Diamonds Olympics.
Australia and Canada, democracies with the new diamond finds and minds, would say pick me, pick me. China has much dirty coal, Canada and Australia also has the coal. But we have diamonds, and democracy too, and in such volume anew, that the net has created short cuts for diamonds from mine right to you. We do not ship coal, you know who to see for that. But our net warehouse keys are unlocked and nobody’s in there, to sniff down her nose and say you’d pay me that little for this much, what do you take me for?
Well, we took you for a hindrance, a lump of coal, so instead you no here any more. Just smiling bins of diamonds, gemstones, net price low bids. Bid low, sweet chariot, come back and see if you won. If not, then carry on, some low bid auction diamonds coming round again. Have fun. Skip the traffic accident and the fat lady who grabs; is that why the news says we will shop 17 percent more on the net this year, while retail sales stay stagnant. Oh, the kettle’s boiling, I will just click this low bid, make the tea, and we shall see, if that blue sky is the true blue diamond for the world, air we can breath, water we can drink. It could happen.
Wind Power Battery Storage System
Munya Chinongoza asked:
There is a new Canadian technology could make wind power a much more reliable source of energy with their new wind power battery storage system. VRB Power Systems Inc. (www.vrbpower.com) is a company in Vancouver that has developed a large-scale storage unit which allows it to a hold significant amount of power.
These batteries could be the solution to the main problem that we have with wind, the fact that it is unpredictable. Five percent of the electricity produced in Saskatchewan comes from wind. Wind power would be a great alternative to using coal if they could only predict the amount of wind they would be receiving.
Hydro offers a dependable power supply to meet basic industrial and residential needs. Wind adds to the mix of hydro and gas however it does not do it consistently. Wind can decide to blow at night when there is no demand for it at all, or it may decide to be unavailable when people actually need it.
Although coal is a much more dependable resource, it has a huge downside and that is the amount of pollution that it sends off into the atmosphere. To use clean coal technology would be very expensive. The new power plant that might be built in Saskatchewan will cost roughly $1.5 billion to produce 300 MW of power that we could actually use.
If they decided to spend the same amount of money on wind the plant would be able to give off 1,000 MW of power. However unfortunately for the reasons that have been already stated they can not rely on wind power to satisfy the people’s basic needs. It would be wonderful if we could store large amounts of wind power and then use it when it is necessary. Although storing wind power in batteries is not feasible, the VRB wind power battery storage system technology just may allow it to be possible of us to do so.
There is a new Canadian technology could make wind power a much more reliable source of energy with their new wind power battery storage system. VRB Power Systems Inc. (www.vrbpower.com) is a company in Vancouver that has developed a large-scale storage unit which allows it to a hold significant amount of power.
These batteries could be the solution to the main problem that we have with wind, the fact that it is unpredictable. Five percent of the electricity produced in Saskatchewan comes from wind. Wind power would be a great alternative to using coal if they could only predict the amount of wind they would be receiving.
Hydro offers a dependable power supply to meet basic industrial and residential needs. Wind adds to the mix of hydro and gas however it does not do it consistently. Wind can decide to blow at night when there is no demand for it at all, or it may decide to be unavailable when people actually need it.
Although coal is a much more dependable resource, it has a huge downside and that is the amount of pollution that it sends off into the atmosphere. To use clean coal technology would be very expensive. The new power plant that might be built in Saskatchewan will cost roughly $1.5 billion to produce 300 MW of power that we could actually use.
If they decided to spend the same amount of money on wind the plant would be able to give off 1,000 MW of power. However unfortunately for the reasons that have been already stated they can not rely on wind power to satisfy the people’s basic needs. It would be wonderful if we could store large amounts of wind power and then use it when it is necessary. Although storing wind power in batteries is not feasible, the VRB wind power battery storage system technology just may allow it to be possible of us to do so.
4000 Mw Ultra Power Project - Sasan
asked:
I am a proud citizen of this nation which has made great strides in many fields including the power sector.
The Sasan 4000 MW ultra power project is certainly a boon for the nation given its immense potential and long-term implications for power self-reliance. However, there are inherent complications and problems that require immediate attention compelling me to write this note.
You would be aware that Union Government has given coal linkage for the proposed 4000 MW power project in Sidhi in Madhya Pradesh to give boost to the ultra mega power projects program being undertaken by the union power ministry. Coal ministry has allocated Moher, Moher-Amlori Extension and Chhtrasal coal blocks with combined reserves of about 800 million tonnes to this project to meet its coal requirement. The Sasan power project is planned as a pit head power plant at an estimated cost of Rs 16,000 crore.
The intent and action in this regard has been extremely novel, however, there are some tricky issues calls for immediate attention and prudent interventions by the government.
If one looks at the long-term calculations some startling facts come to light. One, it is apparent that there is a huge windfall for the promoter Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group vis a vis volume of the coal that is being made available to it. It is common knowledge that the 4000 MW plant would require upto 20 MT of coal per year. If we take the life of the PPA of 25 years, and it is a simple calculation, only upto 500 MT of coal would be consumed. What would be the fate of the rest volume of the coal? Would this precious natural resource become a tool for a private operator to fill its coffers? These are scary thoughts and as someone who swears by every bit of natural resources that Mother India carries in her womb, I am alarmed because this would mean both financial and natural loss to the Government of India. Hence I submit that the entire additional volume be monitored and should be made available on easy (and not ruthlessly commercial) terms to the people of the country. The government should play the role of an active referee here and should ensure that the coal price is lower than that offered by the Coal India Limited. It is also of importance to note that government should spare no efforts to ensure that the linked coal mine does not fall prey to the coal mafia prevalent in the region.
Two, there is a pressing need to bring in a policy issue also here given the high-decibel talk on natural resources these days. I wish to understand what is the government policy vis a vis utilization of coal (like in gas) and how does it ensure that the excess coal be utilized judiciously during the course of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or thereafter?
The operator may rightly argue that it incurs a cost in developing the mines and hence needs to recover that cost as well. Anyone who understand the nuances of this business would reckon that this cost could be easily recovered through the power tariff’s variable charge. The variable mine cost for the additional quantity, in fact, would be negligible. I am pained to point at the lack of clarity on the policy front on this count. For unlike in the E&P business where beyond a threshold much of the hydrocarbon is actually for the benefit of the government, in this instance a small royalty is all that the government will end up earning. Isn’t that a grave disregard for a premium and limited natural resource?
Three, there is another critical issue that I wish to emphasize here. We have recently heard much hoopla over the capital expenditure estimates by a company for gas explorations. Taking a cue from the same case, I am of the opinion that the government should ensure that operator be made to commit the running expenses for the mine upfront. It is also of immense significance to note here that much like in the Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA), the PPA in the power project should ensure that the mining risk should rest entirely on investor and in the case of mine failure alternate fuel must be supplied by ADAG at the cost charged for coal from captive mine. The GSPA for the gas industry had a similar clause.
Four, the government may also want to ensure that the best possible technology is used in design, operation and maintenance of the coal mine.
Also given the stakes involved I would want the government to closely monitor the progress of the project at each level. Given the multiplicity of interests that are associated with voluminous projects, like in any other business, I urge the government to ensure strict surveillance at each stage of the critical power project.
Five, in case there is coal available on expiry of PPA and no agreement is reached for sale of power with the off-taker government must have the right to take possession of the power plant as well as the coal mine.
As a proud citizen, I am certain good sense would prevail and government would do every bit to ensure that no vagueness is left in this critical project. All these issues must be addressed through a transparent process. Any leniency on this could spell big perils for the critical power sector and may even derail the project
I am a proud citizen of this nation which has made great strides in many fields including the power sector.
The Sasan 4000 MW ultra power project is certainly a boon for the nation given its immense potential and long-term implications for power self-reliance. However, there are inherent complications and problems that require immediate attention compelling me to write this note.
You would be aware that Union Government has given coal linkage for the proposed 4000 MW power project in Sidhi in Madhya Pradesh to give boost to the ultra mega power projects program being undertaken by the union power ministry. Coal ministry has allocated Moher, Moher-Amlori Extension and Chhtrasal coal blocks with combined reserves of about 800 million tonnes to this project to meet its coal requirement. The Sasan power project is planned as a pit head power plant at an estimated cost of Rs 16,000 crore.
The intent and action in this regard has been extremely novel, however, there are some tricky issues calls for immediate attention and prudent interventions by the government.
If one looks at the long-term calculations some startling facts come to light. One, it is apparent that there is a huge windfall for the promoter Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group vis a vis volume of the coal that is being made available to it. It is common knowledge that the 4000 MW plant would require upto 20 MT of coal per year. If we take the life of the PPA of 25 years, and it is a simple calculation, only upto 500 MT of coal would be consumed. What would be the fate of the rest volume of the coal? Would this precious natural resource become a tool for a private operator to fill its coffers? These are scary thoughts and as someone who swears by every bit of natural resources that Mother India carries in her womb, I am alarmed because this would mean both financial and natural loss to the Government of India. Hence I submit that the entire additional volume be monitored and should be made available on easy (and not ruthlessly commercial) terms to the people of the country. The government should play the role of an active referee here and should ensure that the coal price is lower than that offered by the Coal India Limited. It is also of importance to note that government should spare no efforts to ensure that the linked coal mine does not fall prey to the coal mafia prevalent in the region.
Two, there is a pressing need to bring in a policy issue also here given the high-decibel talk on natural resources these days. I wish to understand what is the government policy vis a vis utilization of coal (like in gas) and how does it ensure that the excess coal be utilized judiciously during the course of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or thereafter?
The operator may rightly argue that it incurs a cost in developing the mines and hence needs to recover that cost as well. Anyone who understand the nuances of this business would reckon that this cost could be easily recovered through the power tariff’s variable charge. The variable mine cost for the additional quantity, in fact, would be negligible. I am pained to point at the lack of clarity on the policy front on this count. For unlike in the E&P business where beyond a threshold much of the hydrocarbon is actually for the benefit of the government, in this instance a small royalty is all that the government will end up earning. Isn’t that a grave disregard for a premium and limited natural resource?
Three, there is another critical issue that I wish to emphasize here. We have recently heard much hoopla over the capital expenditure estimates by a company for gas explorations. Taking a cue from the same case, I am of the opinion that the government should ensure that operator be made to commit the running expenses for the mine upfront. It is also of immense significance to note here that much like in the Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA), the PPA in the power project should ensure that the mining risk should rest entirely on investor and in the case of mine failure alternate fuel must be supplied by ADAG at the cost charged for coal from captive mine. The GSPA for the gas industry had a similar clause.
Four, the government may also want to ensure that the best possible technology is used in design, operation and maintenance of the coal mine.
Also given the stakes involved I would want the government to closely monitor the progress of the project at each level. Given the multiplicity of interests that are associated with voluminous projects, like in any other business, I urge the government to ensure strict surveillance at each stage of the critical power project.
Five, in case there is coal available on expiry of PPA and no agreement is reached for sale of power with the off-taker government must have the right to take possession of the power plant as well as the coal mine.
As a proud citizen, I am certain good sense would prevail and government would do every bit to ensure that no vagueness is left in this critical project. All these issues must be addressed through a transparent process. Any leniency on this could spell big perils for the critical power sector and may even derail the project
Nuclear Power Becomes Popular Again
Davinos Greeno asked:
Construction of nuclear power plants declined following the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments, the public, and some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants, and the low emission rate of greenhouse gas which some governments need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned.
As of 2006 there are 442 licensed nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 different countries. Nuclear power plants currently provide about 17 percent of the world’s electricity, yet how much of the world’s current and future environmental problems does Nuclear Power contribute to? Nuclear power has both powerful enemies and friends but does the bottom line come down to costs? The December 2005 World Nuclear Association report The New Economics of Nuclear Power states that “Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels”. The need for cheap energy can not be argued when every week price increases are announced from all the gas and electricity suppliers in the UK. The Ukraine recently had their gas supply stopped by Russia, how long is it before this happens to the UK? Do we not need to be self-sufficient when it comes to the generation of power? Can renewable energy not begin to take a larger role in this supply? See GuideMeGreens green directory for renewable energy companies and recycled products in the UK.
The report goes on to say that fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants. At the NIA 2006 launch of the Commission’s position paper on the role of nuclear it confirmed “that nuclear is a low carbon technology with an impressive safety record in the UK” and “Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.” While we have an impressive record of safety in the UK, Chernobyl has proved that a nuclear accident thousands of miles away can effect the UK for decades to come. The Tsunami also caused problems at Nuclear Power plants around Asia as the plants are built near the sea due to the large amount of water needed to cool the rectors. Greenpeace has always fought vigorously against nuclear power because they believe that it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity and that the only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
Construction of nuclear power plants declined following the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments, the public, and some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants, and the low emission rate of greenhouse gas which some governments need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned.
As of 2006 there are 442 licensed nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 different countries. Nuclear power plants currently provide about 17 percent of the world’s electricity, yet how much of the world’s current and future environmental problems does Nuclear Power contribute to? Nuclear power has both powerful enemies and friends but does the bottom line come down to costs? The December 2005 World Nuclear Association report The New Economics of Nuclear Power states that “Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels”. The need for cheap energy can not be argued when every week price increases are announced from all the gas and electricity suppliers in the UK. The Ukraine recently had their gas supply stopped by Russia, how long is it before this happens to the UK? Do we not need to be self-sufficient when it comes to the generation of power? Can renewable energy not begin to take a larger role in this supply? See GuideMeGreens green directory for renewable energy companies and recycled products in the UK.
The report goes on to say that fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants. At the NIA 2006 launch of the Commission’s position paper on the role of nuclear it confirmed “that nuclear is a low carbon technology with an impressive safety record in the UK” and “Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.” While we have an impressive record of safety in the UK, Chernobyl has proved that a nuclear accident thousands of miles away can effect the UK for decades to come. The Tsunami also caused problems at Nuclear Power plants around Asia as the plants are built near the sea due to the large amount of water needed to cool the rectors. Greenpeace has always fought vigorously against nuclear power because they believe that it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity and that the only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
Wind Power: What Can One Person Do?
Chris A Watkins asked:
Could wind power be a viable alternative to conventional methods of power generation?
If looked at from a slightly different perspective, wind power may already be a viable alternative - the link below is a web page where you can buy your own domestic wind turbine.
It produces around 1Kw at moderate wind speeds and costs around 1500GBP.
Okay, so it’s not cost effective, but it is a step along the road. The manufacturer and retailer must believe they have a market. If they have, the unit cost will fall as sales rise. Once competition gets hold, the performance of equipment from alternative suppliers will improve.
This and commercial wind farms still won’t meet the rising thirst for cheap energy. The real issue is – How do we get people to use less?
Let’s not forget that there are still coal reserves in the ground sufficient for between two and three centuries. The UK in recent decades has stopped mining coal on a national basis, yet the few mines that continued in private ownership are profitable and expanding. We now have the technology to produce much cleaner power from coal. Much the same could be said of other fossil fuels, but whichever way you cut it, the end result is still environmentally unfriendly.
On a global scale nuclear power generation, with all its waste management issues, produced 366 Gw in 2005. Wind power produced 74 Gw in 2006. Comparing one to other indicates that wind power has lots of ground to make up, but this is where the comparison falls down and fails to demonstrate the potential.
With conventional power production, coal, oil, gas and nuclear, the only interaction an individual may have is to say yes or no to the power production plans of a government. With wind power generation, the consumer can produce private power and reduce the demands on the grid at an individual level.
There are over twenty-one million households in the UK. Imagine, if every residence produced 1Kw of power whenever the wind blew, the scale would be phenomenal. Around 21 Gw peak power.
May the power be with you…
Domestic Wind Generator
© Copyright 2007
Could wind power be a viable alternative to conventional methods of power generation?
If looked at from a slightly different perspective, wind power may already be a viable alternative - the link below is a web page where you can buy your own domestic wind turbine.
It produces around 1Kw at moderate wind speeds and costs around 1500GBP.
Okay, so it’s not cost effective, but it is a step along the road. The manufacturer and retailer must believe they have a market. If they have, the unit cost will fall as sales rise. Once competition gets hold, the performance of equipment from alternative suppliers will improve.
This and commercial wind farms still won’t meet the rising thirst for cheap energy. The real issue is – How do we get people to use less?
Let’s not forget that there are still coal reserves in the ground sufficient for between two and three centuries. The UK in recent decades has stopped mining coal on a national basis, yet the few mines that continued in private ownership are profitable and expanding. We now have the technology to produce much cleaner power from coal. Much the same could be said of other fossil fuels, but whichever way you cut it, the end result is still environmentally unfriendly.
On a global scale nuclear power generation, with all its waste management issues, produced 366 Gw in 2005. Wind power produced 74 Gw in 2006. Comparing one to other indicates that wind power has lots of ground to make up, but this is where the comparison falls down and fails to demonstrate the potential.
With conventional power production, coal, oil, gas and nuclear, the only interaction an individual may have is to say yes or no to the power production plans of a government. With wind power generation, the consumer can produce private power and reduce the demands on the grid at an individual level.
There are over twenty-one million households in the UK. Imagine, if every residence produced 1Kw of power whenever the wind blew, the scale would be phenomenal. Around 21 Gw peak power.
May the power be with you…
Domestic Wind Generator
© Copyright 2007
Environmental Problems Associated With Burning of Coal
Dr.Badruddin Khan asked:
naturally occurring combustible material consisting primarily of the element carbon. It also contains low percentages of solid, liquid, and gaseous hydrocarbons and/or other materials, such as compounds of nitrogen and sulfur. The physical, chemical, and other properties of coal vary considerably from sample to sample. Coal is usually classified into subgroups known as anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and peat. At some periods in Earth’s history, however, conditions existed that made other forms of decay possible. The bodies of dead plants and animals underwent only partial decay. The products remaining from this partial decay are coal, oil, and natural gas—the so-called fossil fuels. To imagine how such changes may have occurred, we may consider the following possibility. A plant dies in a swampy area and is quickly covered with water, silt, sand, and other sediments. These materials prevent the plant debris from reacting with oxygen in the air and decomposing to carbon dioxide and water, a process that would occur under normal circumstances. Instead, anaerobic bacteria attack the plant debris and convert it to simpler forms: primarily pure carbon and hydrocarbons, the simplest compounds of carbon and hydrogen. The initial stage of the decay of a dead plant is a soft, woody material known as peat. In some parts of the world, peat is still collected from boggy areas and used as a fuel. It is not a good fuel, however, as it burns poorly and produces a great deal of smoke. If peat is allowed to remain in the ground for long periods of time, it eventually becomes compacted. Layers of sediment, known as over-burden, collect above it. The additional pressure and heat of the overburden gradually converts peat into another form of coal known as lignite or brown coal. Continued compaction by overburden then converts lignite into bituminous coal and finally, into anthracite coal. Coal has been formed at many times in the past, but most abundantly during the Carboniferous Age (about 300 million years ago) and again during the Upper Cretaceous Age (about 100 million years ago). Today, coal formed by these processes is often found layered between other layers of sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed when sand; silt, clay, and similar materials are packed together under heavy pressure. In some cases, the coal layers may lie at or very near Earth’s surface. In other cases, they may be buried thousands of feet underground. Coal seams usually range from no more than 3 to 200 feet (1 to 60 meters) in thickness. The location and configuration of a coal seam determines the method by which the coal will be mined. Coal is classified according to its heating value and according to the percentage of carbon it contains. For example, anthracite contains the highest proportion of pure carbon (about 86 to 98 percent) and has the highest heat value of all forms of coal. Bituminous coal generally has lower concentrations of pure carbon (from 46 to 86 percent) and lower heat values. Bituminous coals are often subdivided on the basis of their heat value, being classified as low, medium, and high volatile bituminous and subbituminous. Lignite, the poorest of the true coals in terms of heat value, generally contains about 46 to 60 percent pure carbon. All forms of coal also contain other elements present in living organisms, such as sulfur and nitrogen, that are very low in absolute numbers but that have important environmental consequences when coals are used as fuels. By far the most important property of coal is the hard fact that it burns. When the pure carbon and hydrocarbons, found in coal burn completely, only two products: carbon dioxide and water are formed. During this chemical reaction, a relatively large amount of heat energy is released. For this reason, coal has long been used by humans as a source of energy for heating homes and other buildings, running ships and trains, and in many industrial processes. However, the complete combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons rarely occurs in nature. If the temperature is not high enough or sufficient oxygen is not provided to the fuel, combustion of these materials is usually incomplete. During the incomplete combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons, other products besides carbon dioxide and water are formed. These products include carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and other forms of pure carbon, such as soot. During the combustion of coal, minor constituents are also oxidized. For example, sulfur is converted to sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, and nitrogen and its compounds are converted to nitrogen oxides. The incomplete combustion of coal and the combustion of these minor constituents results in a number of environmental problems. For example, soot formed during incomplete combustion may settle out of the air and deposit an unattractive coating on homes, cars, buildings, and other structures. Carbon monoxide formed during incomplete combustion is a toxic gas and may cause illness or death in humans and other animals. Oxides of sulfur and nitrogen react with water vapor in the atmosphere and then settle out in the air as acid rain that is thought to be responsible for the destruction of certain forms of plant and animal, especially fish -life. In addition to these compounds, coal often contains a small percentage of mineral matter (quartz, calcite, or perhaps clay minerals). Since these components do not burn readily, they become part of the ash formed during combustion. This ash then either escapes into the atmosphere or is left in the combustion vessel and is discarded. Sometimes coal ash also contains significant amounts of other elements such as lead, barium, arsenic etc. Whether airborne or in bulk, coal ash can therefore be a serious environmental hazard. Coal is extracted from Earth using one of two major methods: sub-surface or surface (strip) mining. Subsurface mining is used when seams of coal are located at significant depths below Earth’s surface. The first step in subsurface mining is to dig vertical tunnels into the earth until the coal seam is reached. Horizontal tunnels are then constructed off the vertical tunnel. In many cases, the preferred way of mining coal by this method is called room-and-pillar mining. In room-and-pillar mining, vertical columns of coal (the pillars) are left in place as the coal around them is removed. The pillars hold up the ceiling of the seam, preventing it from collapsing on miners working around them. After the mine has been abandoned, however, those pillars may collapse, bringing down the ceiling of the seam and causing the collapse of land above the old mine. Surface mining can be used when a coal seam is close enough to Earth’s surface to allow the overburden to be removed easily and inexpensively. In such cases, the first step is to strip off all of the overburden in order to reach the coal itself. The coal is then scraped out by huge power shovels, some capable of removing up to 100 cubic meters at a time. Strip mining is a far safer form of coal mining for coal workers, but it presents a number of environmental problems. In most instances, an area that has been strip-mined is terribly scarred. Restoring the area to its original state can be a long and expensive procedure. In addition, any water that comes in contact with the exposed coal or overburden may become polluted and require treatment. Coal is regarded as a nonrenewable resource, meaning it is not replaced easily or readily. Once a nonrenewable resource has been used up, it is gone for a very long time into the future, if not forever. Coal fits that description, since it was formed many millions of years ago but is not being formed in significant amounts any longer. Therefore, the amount of coal that now exists below Earth’s surface is, for all practical purposes, all the coal available for the foreseeable future. When this supply of coal is used up, humans will find it necessary to find some other substitute to meet their energy needs. Large supplies of coal are known to exist or thought to be available in many parts of the world. For many centuries, coal was burned in small stoves to produce heat in homes and factories. As the use of natural gas became widespread in the latter part of the twentieth century, coal oil and coal gas quickly became unpopular since they were somewhat smoky and foul smelling. Today, the most important use of coal, both directly and indirectly, is still as a fuel, but the largest single consumer of coal for this purpose is the electrical power industry. The combustion of coal in power-generating plants is used to make steam, which, in turn, operates turbines and generators. The gravity of the situation may be realized from the fact that for a period of more than 40 years beginning in 1940, the amount of coal used in the United States for this purpose is said to be doubled in every decade. Although coal is no longer widely used to heat homes and buildings, it is still used in industries such as paper production, cement and ceramic manufacture, iron and steel production, and chemical manufacture for heating and for steam generation. Another use for coal is in the manufacture of coke. Coke is nearly pure carbon produced when soft coal is heated in the absence of air. In most cases, 1 ton of coal will produce 0.7 ton of coke in this process. Coke is valuable in industry because it has a heat value higher than any form of natural coal. It is widely used in steelmaking and in certain chemical processes. A number of processes have been developed by which solid coal can be converted to a liquid or gaseous form for use as a fuel. Conversion has a number of advantages. In a liquid or gaseous form, the fuel may be easier to transport. Also, the conversion process removes a number of impurities from the original coal that have environmental disadvantages. One of these conversion methods is known as gasification. In gasification, crushed coal is forced to react with steam and either air or pure oxygen. The coal is converted into a complex mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons with appreciable heat values. One day it may be possible to construct gasification systems within a coal mine, making it much easier to remove the coal, in a gaseous form, from its original seam. In the process of liquefaction, solid coal is converted to a petroleum-like liquid that can be used as a fuel for motor vehicles and other applications. On the one hand, both liquefaction and gasification are attractive technologies because of its very large coal resources. On the other hand, the wide availability of raw coal means that expensive new technologies have been unable to compete economically with the natural product.
naturally occurring combustible material consisting primarily of the element carbon. It also contains low percentages of solid, liquid, and gaseous hydrocarbons and/or other materials, such as compounds of nitrogen and sulfur. The physical, chemical, and other properties of coal vary considerably from sample to sample. Coal is usually classified into subgroups known as anthracite, bituminous, lignite, and peat. At some periods in Earth’s history, however, conditions existed that made other forms of decay possible. The bodies of dead plants and animals underwent only partial decay. The products remaining from this partial decay are coal, oil, and natural gas—the so-called fossil fuels. To imagine how such changes may have occurred, we may consider the following possibility. A plant dies in a swampy area and is quickly covered with water, silt, sand, and other sediments. These materials prevent the plant debris from reacting with oxygen in the air and decomposing to carbon dioxide and water, a process that would occur under normal circumstances. Instead, anaerobic bacteria attack the plant debris and convert it to simpler forms: primarily pure carbon and hydrocarbons, the simplest compounds of carbon and hydrogen. The initial stage of the decay of a dead plant is a soft, woody material known as peat. In some parts of the world, peat is still collected from boggy areas and used as a fuel. It is not a good fuel, however, as it burns poorly and produces a great deal of smoke. If peat is allowed to remain in the ground for long periods of time, it eventually becomes compacted. Layers of sediment, known as over-burden, collect above it. The additional pressure and heat of the overburden gradually converts peat into another form of coal known as lignite or brown coal. Continued compaction by overburden then converts lignite into bituminous coal and finally, into anthracite coal. Coal has been formed at many times in the past, but most abundantly during the Carboniferous Age (about 300 million years ago) and again during the Upper Cretaceous Age (about 100 million years ago). Today, coal formed by these processes is often found layered between other layers of sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed when sand; silt, clay, and similar materials are packed together under heavy pressure. In some cases, the coal layers may lie at or very near Earth’s surface. In other cases, they may be buried thousands of feet underground. Coal seams usually range from no more than 3 to 200 feet (1 to 60 meters) in thickness. The location and configuration of a coal seam determines the method by which the coal will be mined. Coal is classified according to its heating value and according to the percentage of carbon it contains. For example, anthracite contains the highest proportion of pure carbon (about 86 to 98 percent) and has the highest heat value of all forms of coal. Bituminous coal generally has lower concentrations of pure carbon (from 46 to 86 percent) and lower heat values. Bituminous coals are often subdivided on the basis of their heat value, being classified as low, medium, and high volatile bituminous and subbituminous. Lignite, the poorest of the true coals in terms of heat value, generally contains about 46 to 60 percent pure carbon. All forms of coal also contain other elements present in living organisms, such as sulfur and nitrogen, that are very low in absolute numbers but that have important environmental consequences when coals are used as fuels. By far the most important property of coal is the hard fact that it burns. When the pure carbon and hydrocarbons, found in coal burn completely, only two products: carbon dioxide and water are formed. During this chemical reaction, a relatively large amount of heat energy is released. For this reason, coal has long been used by humans as a source of energy for heating homes and other buildings, running ships and trains, and in many industrial processes. However, the complete combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons rarely occurs in nature. If the temperature is not high enough or sufficient oxygen is not provided to the fuel, combustion of these materials is usually incomplete. During the incomplete combustion of carbon and hydrocarbons, other products besides carbon dioxide and water are formed. These products include carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and other forms of pure carbon, such as soot. During the combustion of coal, minor constituents are also oxidized. For example, sulfur is converted to sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, and nitrogen and its compounds are converted to nitrogen oxides. The incomplete combustion of coal and the combustion of these minor constituents results in a number of environmental problems. For example, soot formed during incomplete combustion may settle out of the air and deposit an unattractive coating on homes, cars, buildings, and other structures. Carbon monoxide formed during incomplete combustion is a toxic gas and may cause illness or death in humans and other animals. Oxides of sulfur and nitrogen react with water vapor in the atmosphere and then settle out in the air as acid rain that is thought to be responsible for the destruction of certain forms of plant and animal, especially fish -life. In addition to these compounds, coal often contains a small percentage of mineral matter (quartz, calcite, or perhaps clay minerals). Since these components do not burn readily, they become part of the ash formed during combustion. This ash then either escapes into the atmosphere or is left in the combustion vessel and is discarded. Sometimes coal ash also contains significant amounts of other elements such as lead, barium, arsenic etc. Whether airborne or in bulk, coal ash can therefore be a serious environmental hazard. Coal is extracted from Earth using one of two major methods: sub-surface or surface (strip) mining. Subsurface mining is used when seams of coal are located at significant depths below Earth’s surface. The first step in subsurface mining is to dig vertical tunnels into the earth until the coal seam is reached. Horizontal tunnels are then constructed off the vertical tunnel. In many cases, the preferred way of mining coal by this method is called room-and-pillar mining. In room-and-pillar mining, vertical columns of coal (the pillars) are left in place as the coal around them is removed. The pillars hold up the ceiling of the seam, preventing it from collapsing on miners working around them. After the mine has been abandoned, however, those pillars may collapse, bringing down the ceiling of the seam and causing the collapse of land above the old mine. Surface mining can be used when a coal seam is close enough to Earth’s surface to allow the overburden to be removed easily and inexpensively. In such cases, the first step is to strip off all of the overburden in order to reach the coal itself. The coal is then scraped out by huge power shovels, some capable of removing up to 100 cubic meters at a time. Strip mining is a far safer form of coal mining for coal workers, but it presents a number of environmental problems. In most instances, an area that has been strip-mined is terribly scarred. Restoring the area to its original state can be a long and expensive procedure. In addition, any water that comes in contact with the exposed coal or overburden may become polluted and require treatment. Coal is regarded as a nonrenewable resource, meaning it is not replaced easily or readily. Once a nonrenewable resource has been used up, it is gone for a very long time into the future, if not forever. Coal fits that description, since it was formed many millions of years ago but is not being formed in significant amounts any longer. Therefore, the amount of coal that now exists below Earth’s surface is, for all practical purposes, all the coal available for the foreseeable future. When this supply of coal is used up, humans will find it necessary to find some other substitute to meet their energy needs. Large supplies of coal are known to exist or thought to be available in many parts of the world. For many centuries, coal was burned in small stoves to produce heat in homes and factories. As the use of natural gas became widespread in the latter part of the twentieth century, coal oil and coal gas quickly became unpopular since they were somewhat smoky and foul smelling. Today, the most important use of coal, both directly and indirectly, is still as a fuel, but the largest single consumer of coal for this purpose is the electrical power industry. The combustion of coal in power-generating plants is used to make steam, which, in turn, operates turbines and generators. The gravity of the situation may be realized from the fact that for a period of more than 40 years beginning in 1940, the amount of coal used in the United States for this purpose is said to be doubled in every decade. Although coal is no longer widely used to heat homes and buildings, it is still used in industries such as paper production, cement and ceramic manufacture, iron and steel production, and chemical manufacture for heating and for steam generation. Another use for coal is in the manufacture of coke. Coke is nearly pure carbon produced when soft coal is heated in the absence of air. In most cases, 1 ton of coal will produce 0.7 ton of coke in this process. Coke is valuable in industry because it has a heat value higher than any form of natural coal. It is widely used in steelmaking and in certain chemical processes. A number of processes have been developed by which solid coal can be converted to a liquid or gaseous form for use as a fuel. Conversion has a number of advantages. In a liquid or gaseous form, the fuel may be easier to transport. Also, the conversion process removes a number of impurities from the original coal that have environmental disadvantages. One of these conversion methods is known as gasification. In gasification, crushed coal is forced to react with steam and either air or pure oxygen. The coal is converted into a complex mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons with appreciable heat values. One day it may be possible to construct gasification systems within a coal mine, making it much easier to remove the coal, in a gaseous form, from its original seam. In the process of liquefaction, solid coal is converted to a petroleum-like liquid that can be used as a fuel for motor vehicles and other applications. On the one hand, both liquefaction and gasification are attractive technologies because of its very large coal resources. On the other hand, the wide availability of raw coal means that expensive new technologies have been unable to compete economically with the natural product.
Types Of Solar Power And How They Work
James Nash asked:
Some people enjoy baking cookies in the oven, some people enjoy baking themselves in the backyard. Even if oil-soaked sun-worshipping Saturday afternoons are the most direct experience most of us every get with the energy of the sun, we know picture of the sun instinctively that the sun is essential for life. It turns out it’s also essential for just about any type of energy you can think of.
Solar energy is free and inexhaustible, and has been for the 5 billion years or so that the planet has been in existence. In the broadest sense, solar energy supports all life on earth and is the basis for almost every form of energy we use.
1) The sun makes plants grow, which are burned as fuel or rot in swamps and are compressed underground for millions of years to become coal and oil.
2) Heat from the sun causes temperature differences between areas, causing the wind to blow.
3) Water evaporates because of the sun, falls on high elevations, and rushes down to the sea, spinning turbines as it passes.
But the term “solar energy” usually refers to ways the sun’s energy can be used as heat, lighting, and electricity.
One simple, obvious use of sunlight is to light our buildings. The sun can also affect a building’s heating and cooling costs: If properly designed, a building can capture the sun’s heat in the winter and reject it in the summer, while using daylight year round for lighting. With the exception of that guy down in the bowels of the Grinning Planet accounting department who seems to thrive on flickering fluorescent lighting, most of us prefer natural light.
Besides using design features to maximize use of the sun, some buildings have active systems to gather and store solar energy. Solar collectors sit on the rooftops of buildings to collect solar energy for space heating, water heating, and space cooling. Most solar collectors are large flat boxes, painted black on the inside, with glass covers. In the most common design, pipes in the box carry liquids that take the heat from the box and bring it into the building. This heated liquid, usually a water-alcohol mixture to prevent winter freezing, is used to heat water in a tank or is put through radiators to heat the air.
Oddly enough, because of the cooling effect moist air has when it evaporates, solar heat can also drive a cooling system. Such systems are currently at work in humid southeastern climates, like that of Florida.
By using mirrors and lenses to concentrate the rays of the sun, solar thermal systems produce high temperatures that can be used to heat water for producing picture a trough style solar energy system steam to drive an electric turbine or for industrial applications, like boiling water to sterilize soup cans.
Solar concentrators come in three main designs: parabolic troughs, parabolic dishes and central receivers. The most common is parabolic - long, curved mirrors that concentrate sunlight on a liquid inside a tube that runs parallel to the mirror. Parabolic dish concentrators and central receivers can produce much higher temperatures and produce electricity more efficiently but are more complicated and are not in common use.
In 1839, French scientist Edmund Becquerel discovered that certain materials would give off a spark of electricity when struck with sunlight. Solar cells work because the silicon substrate has a weak grip on its electrons. The cells are made of two layers of silicon, one with too many electrons (the n-layer) and one with too few (the p-layer). When light hits the first layer, electrons are knocked loose. As they flow toward the layer with too few electrons, they pass through an electric circuit, the current from which can be used to power equipment and devices.
In the 1970s, a serious effort began to produce photovoltaic panels that could provide cheaper solar power. Experimenting with new materials and production techniques, solar manufacturers cut costs for solar cells rapidly, as the following graph shows.
Many solar panels are used today to power cellular phone transmitters, road signs, and water pumps, as well as millions of solar watches and calculators. But most of the market for solar electric is concentrated in off-grid homes, in the villages of developing countries and the vacation homes of industrial countries. Developing nations see PV as a way to avoid building long and expensive power lines to remote areas.
Recently, even utilities in developed countries have been attaching photovoltaics to their power grids. In some locations, it is less costly and politically difficult to install distributed solar panels than to upgrade the transmission and distribution system needed to meet ever-growing electricity demand.
This distributed-generation approach provides a new model for the utility systems of the future. Small generators, spread out in a city and controlled cartoon drawing of a solar panel by computers, could replace the large coal and nuclear plants that dominate now.
As the cost of photovoltaic systems continues to decline, they will find increasingly larger niches. No other electrical generator is as easy to install or maintain. Even among the various types of renewable energy, photovoltaics have great potential. The cells are made of silicon, one of the most plentiful materials on earth, and they draw power from the everlasting sun, so they will never run into the problem of fuel scarcity. As PV prices continue to fall, solar power will become a significant source of electricity in the 21st century.
We now pause to remember our dear departed surfing Uncle Sandy, who once started a referendum in Beach City to annex “the warmth of the sun and all of the gnarly waves.” We suspect that all those years of sunlight striking his head must have knocked loose a few cranial electrons.
Some people enjoy baking cookies in the oven, some people enjoy baking themselves in the backyard. Even if oil-soaked sun-worshipping Saturday afternoons are the most direct experience most of us every get with the energy of the sun, we know picture of the sun instinctively that the sun is essential for life. It turns out it’s also essential for just about any type of energy you can think of.
Solar energy is free and inexhaustible, and has been for the 5 billion years or so that the planet has been in existence. In the broadest sense, solar energy supports all life on earth and is the basis for almost every form of energy we use.
1) The sun makes plants grow, which are burned as fuel or rot in swamps and are compressed underground for millions of years to become coal and oil.
2) Heat from the sun causes temperature differences between areas, causing the wind to blow.
3) Water evaporates because of the sun, falls on high elevations, and rushes down to the sea, spinning turbines as it passes.
But the term “solar energy” usually refers to ways the sun’s energy can be used as heat, lighting, and electricity.
One simple, obvious use of sunlight is to light our buildings. The sun can also affect a building’s heating and cooling costs: If properly designed, a building can capture the sun’s heat in the winter and reject it in the summer, while using daylight year round for lighting. With the exception of that guy down in the bowels of the Grinning Planet accounting department who seems to thrive on flickering fluorescent lighting, most of us prefer natural light.
Besides using design features to maximize use of the sun, some buildings have active systems to gather and store solar energy. Solar collectors sit on the rooftops of buildings to collect solar energy for space heating, water heating, and space cooling. Most solar collectors are large flat boxes, painted black on the inside, with glass covers. In the most common design, pipes in the box carry liquids that take the heat from the box and bring it into the building. This heated liquid, usually a water-alcohol mixture to prevent winter freezing, is used to heat water in a tank or is put through radiators to heat the air.
Oddly enough, because of the cooling effect moist air has when it evaporates, solar heat can also drive a cooling system. Such systems are currently at work in humid southeastern climates, like that of Florida.
By using mirrors and lenses to concentrate the rays of the sun, solar thermal systems produce high temperatures that can be used to heat water for producing picture a trough style solar energy system steam to drive an electric turbine or for industrial applications, like boiling water to sterilize soup cans.
Solar concentrators come in three main designs: parabolic troughs, parabolic dishes and central receivers. The most common is parabolic - long, curved mirrors that concentrate sunlight on a liquid inside a tube that runs parallel to the mirror. Parabolic dish concentrators and central receivers can produce much higher temperatures and produce electricity more efficiently but are more complicated and are not in common use.
In 1839, French scientist Edmund Becquerel discovered that certain materials would give off a spark of electricity when struck with sunlight. Solar cells work because the silicon substrate has a weak grip on its electrons. The cells are made of two layers of silicon, one with too many electrons (the n-layer) and one with too few (the p-layer). When light hits the first layer, electrons are knocked loose. As they flow toward the layer with too few electrons, they pass through an electric circuit, the current from which can be used to power equipment and devices.
In the 1970s, a serious effort began to produce photovoltaic panels that could provide cheaper solar power. Experimenting with new materials and production techniques, solar manufacturers cut costs for solar cells rapidly, as the following graph shows.
Many solar panels are used today to power cellular phone transmitters, road signs, and water pumps, as well as millions of solar watches and calculators. But most of the market for solar electric is concentrated in off-grid homes, in the villages of developing countries and the vacation homes of industrial countries. Developing nations see PV as a way to avoid building long and expensive power lines to remote areas.
Recently, even utilities in developed countries have been attaching photovoltaics to their power grids. In some locations, it is less costly and politically difficult to install distributed solar panels than to upgrade the transmission and distribution system needed to meet ever-growing electricity demand.
This distributed-generation approach provides a new model for the utility systems of the future. Small generators, spread out in a city and controlled cartoon drawing of a solar panel by computers, could replace the large coal and nuclear plants that dominate now.
As the cost of photovoltaic systems continues to decline, they will find increasingly larger niches. No other electrical generator is as easy to install or maintain. Even among the various types of renewable energy, photovoltaics have great potential. The cells are made of silicon, one of the most plentiful materials on earth, and they draw power from the everlasting sun, so they will never run into the problem of fuel scarcity. As PV prices continue to fall, solar power will become a significant source of electricity in the 21st century.
We now pause to remember our dear departed surfing Uncle Sandy, who once started a referendum in Beach City to annex “the warmth of the sun and all of the gnarly waves.” We suspect that all those years of sunlight striking his head must have knocked loose a few cranial electrons.
Solar Power Generation for a New World Order
Juan Trevino asked:
A home solar dish that activates a Stirling engine and moves a 3 kilowatt/hour power generator would make most electrical power generation and distribution grids, obsolete. This small, apparently insignificant Solar Generator installed at each of the 124 million households in America would deliver the energy that is needed to power up homes for heating, lights, cooking, water heater, TV sets and all the electrical amenities required to provide modern human comfort, now and years to come. A small equipment or appliance could solve a problem of gigantic proportions and would surely provide a more sustainable and new world order.
A series of articles along these topics will explore the solar power generation equipment, the centralized power generation and distribution system, demand for electricity and world growth, international energy agency position, sustainability of the electric industry and more related issues. These articles wish to make a modest contribution toward world sustainability and fairness in energy distribution. Finding investors that can contribute in developing the home solar power generator would be the largest plus for these articles.
Solar Equipment.- The Appliance
Homes in the US require an average of 25 to 35 kilowatts per day, or about one megawatt per month. Average homes need about 12 megawatts per year which may cost about 1,800 USD, every years. On the other hand, a home solar generator with an electrical storage system should cost less than $1,800 for the equipment and free sun power from then on. The solar generator receives about 10 hours of sun light per day, and can produce the temperature change needed to activate a Stirling engine. The Stirling engine in turn would drive a 3 KW hour power generator during sun light hours and deliver a direct current that is stored in a battery bank. Then the battery bank would provide on demand, 24 hour electricity to the home outlet.
Centralized Power Generation
Our current electrical power grids are the product of big business, big lobbyist and big government because they require large investments. An electrical power grid can be integrated using Nuclear, Coal, Gas, hydro power, or thermal turbines, to generate the steam which drives the power generator. The electrical energy is then sent though cables thousands of miles and delivered to homes, offices, and industrial buildings. Consumers need to be tied to electrical grids to have power. Having large number of consumers in a location maintains the electrical delivery systems within cost. This central power generation and distribution system, needs a large institutional infrastructure, including institutions such as the Department of Energy, a Nuclear Commission, an International Energy Agency, agencies to handle clean coal, liquid Natural gas to say the least. This complex power development model established in the past century and current today, increases entry cost to all societies and furthers development and underdevelopment of nations, in favor of countries that created the model and can afford the energy.
Power Plants require either carbon base fuels, uranium, thermal or hydo power as the energy source. Powerful special interests exists for the carbon based fuels, such as coal, natural gas and petroleum, to continue its usage and its proliferation. American foreign policy has been shaped to protects fuel supplies, and inhibit US participation in Green House Gas emission treaties. The centralized power generation model is so strong that it has elevated the initial investment for these plants, and position them at the Billion dollar marks. This situation has further contributed to the need for a World Bank, and an International Monetary Fund, who would fund those countries that need to buy Power Plants.
Freeing homes from electrical power grids implies that any home, anywhere, can power up if they have installed their $1,800 home solar generator, having the same human comfort that city dwellers now enjoy. . Governments or Power Companies would no longer need to invest 5 billion USD per Nuclear reactor to provide 1.5 Gigawatt capacity. Land used for the electrical transmission cable, would be recovered once the electrical power grids were dismantled.
A home solar dish that activates a Stirling engine and moves a 3 kilowatt/hour power generator would make most electrical power generation and distribution grids, obsolete. This small, apparently insignificant Solar Generator installed at each of the 124 million households in America would deliver the energy that is needed to power up homes for heating, lights, cooking, water heater, TV sets and all the electrical amenities required to provide modern human comfort, now and years to come. A small equipment or appliance could solve a problem of gigantic proportions and would surely provide a more sustainable and new world order.
A series of articles along these topics will explore the solar power generation equipment, the centralized power generation and distribution system, demand for electricity and world growth, international energy agency position, sustainability of the electric industry and more related issues. These articles wish to make a modest contribution toward world sustainability and fairness in energy distribution. Finding investors that can contribute in developing the home solar power generator would be the largest plus for these articles.
Solar Equipment.- The Appliance
Homes in the US require an average of 25 to 35 kilowatts per day, or about one megawatt per month. Average homes need about 12 megawatts per year which may cost about 1,800 USD, every years. On the other hand, a home solar generator with an electrical storage system should cost less than $1,800 for the equipment and free sun power from then on. The solar generator receives about 10 hours of sun light per day, and can produce the temperature change needed to activate a Stirling engine. The Stirling engine in turn would drive a 3 KW hour power generator during sun light hours and deliver a direct current that is stored in a battery bank. Then the battery bank would provide on demand, 24 hour electricity to the home outlet.
Centralized Power Generation
Our current electrical power grids are the product of big business, big lobbyist and big government because they require large investments. An electrical power grid can be integrated using Nuclear, Coal, Gas, hydro power, or thermal turbines, to generate the steam which drives the power generator. The electrical energy is then sent though cables thousands of miles and delivered to homes, offices, and industrial buildings. Consumers need to be tied to electrical grids to have power. Having large number of consumers in a location maintains the electrical delivery systems within cost. This central power generation and distribution system, needs a large institutional infrastructure, including institutions such as the Department of Energy, a Nuclear Commission, an International Energy Agency, agencies to handle clean coal, liquid Natural gas to say the least. This complex power development model established in the past century and current today, increases entry cost to all societies and furthers development and underdevelopment of nations, in favor of countries that created the model and can afford the energy.
Power Plants require either carbon base fuels, uranium, thermal or hydo power as the energy source. Powerful special interests exists for the carbon based fuels, such as coal, natural gas and petroleum, to continue its usage and its proliferation. American foreign policy has been shaped to protects fuel supplies, and inhibit US participation in Green House Gas emission treaties. The centralized power generation model is so strong that it has elevated the initial investment for these plants, and position them at the Billion dollar marks. This situation has further contributed to the need for a World Bank, and an International Monetary Fund, who would fund those countries that need to buy Power Plants.
Freeing homes from electrical power grids implies that any home, anywhere, can power up if they have installed their $1,800 home solar generator, having the same human comfort that city dwellers now enjoy. . Governments or Power Companies would no longer need to invest 5 billion USD per Nuclear reactor to provide 1.5 Gigawatt capacity. Land used for the electrical transmission cable, would be recovered once the electrical power grids were dismantled.
Powering Paradise - Maui’s Clean Energy Environment
Jesse Francis asked:
We call it paradise and “No Ka Oi” (the best) but behind Maui’s pristine beaches and tropical waterfalls lies a polluted history of energy production that to this day exaggerates the unhealthy and wasteful ways of our country’s industrial past. While much of the U.S. has cleaned up with green laws and initiatives, Maui lingers in a world of burning coal, diesel andbagasse. Even though Maui has fallen behind in greening its act, it may become an economic proving ground for clean energy.
An early adopter of electricity, Maui had its first electric lights powered by burning bagasse (the solid waste remains of burnt sugar cane) in 1881. The lights were used to help the Spreckels mill increase nightly production. The majority of Maui’s energy supply now comes from burning diesel. This puts residents and visitors wallets hostage to the cost of crude. The cost of energy on Maui is the highest in the nation. Businesses transfer this cost on to goods and services.
With state and federal initiatives and laws and under pressure from the community Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is striving to create renewable sources of power. HECO is advertising with more than one million to increase public support for alternate energy in the islands.
The Current State of Wind.
First Wind’s Kahea Wind project installed on the South West side of the West Maui Mountains has been producing 30Mega Watts since June of 2006. According to First Wind’s website, “the 20 GE 1.5 megawatt turbines generate enough clean, non-polluting power to meet 9% of Maui’s total electricity needs during peak hours and up to 30% during non-peak hours.”Kahea Wind is actively seeking to double the number of towers and energy output of their farm.
Shell WindEnergy and Ulupalakua Ranch announced jointly on June 30, 2006 that they planned to install a 40 megawatt wind farm in Ulupalakua Maui which is on the South West Slope of Haleakala. If the same formula used for Kahea Wind holds this would produce 12% of Maui’s total peak requirements and 40% during non-peak hours. In May of 2008 Rob Parsons reported in Maui Time Weekly that ShellWindEnergy had scaled back its plans to produce only 20 megawatts, is considering battery storage to prevent fluctuating input to the Islands grid and is in the process of drafting the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) required to move forward.
Tapping in to Hydroelectric.
An Australian company named Oceanlinx is moving forward with a project to harness a mere 2.7 Megawatts of energy by installing floating generators off the North Shore.
In March 2008 Oceanlinx hired Planning Solutions to draft an EIS that is expected to be finished in 2009. The turbines would use air pressure generated by wave swells pushing into a semi submersed chamber.
Makila Hydro, LLC Makila Hydro, LLC was formed in 2001. It has restored a generator at the Pioneer Mill in Lahaina that was originally constructed in 1914. The plant has has been pushing a half a megawatt into Maui’s energy grid since September 2006.
Other prospects for ocean energy include tidal power, Auau channel turbines that run deep between Maui and Lanai, and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Difficulties with deep ocean power plants include the protection of sea life and keeping the generators free of accumulated debris.
Plugging in to the Solar Source.
Despite advances in Solar Power, cost still outweighs benefits. There are researchers trying to change that and some innovators in the field on Maui are finding ways to skirt the high costs.
Solar thermal energy production employs a rooftop system made to heat water. By heating water with solar energy, households can expect large reductions in monthly energy use, (from 15% - 25%). The State of Hawaii, The U.S. Government and Maui Electric, a branch of HECO , all offer incentives for these energy saving installations. There are state and federal income tax credits and no interest loans available.
The photovoltaic method of energy production employs cells that turn light into electricity. These are the cells you find on your solar powered calculator. The high cost of these cells has remained the main obstacle for solar power but with some unique business models photovoltaic energy is inching forward.
Although Maui has a very long way to go to achieve energy sustainability, the greening of paradise continues. I for one look forward to an island that can live up to its sparkling reputation.
If your coming to experience the “No Ka Oi” of Hawaii, consider these affordable Maui Condos to provide a balance of luxury and cost.
We call it paradise and “No Ka Oi” (the best) but behind Maui’s pristine beaches and tropical waterfalls lies a polluted history of energy production that to this day exaggerates the unhealthy and wasteful ways of our country’s industrial past. While much of the U.S. has cleaned up with green laws and initiatives, Maui lingers in a world of burning coal, diesel andbagasse. Even though Maui has fallen behind in greening its act, it may become an economic proving ground for clean energy.
An early adopter of electricity, Maui had its first electric lights powered by burning bagasse (the solid waste remains of burnt sugar cane) in 1881. The lights were used to help the Spreckels mill increase nightly production. The majority of Maui’s energy supply now comes from burning diesel. This puts residents and visitors wallets hostage to the cost of crude. The cost of energy on Maui is the highest in the nation. Businesses transfer this cost on to goods and services.
With state and federal initiatives and laws and under pressure from the community Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is striving to create renewable sources of power. HECO is advertising with more than one million to increase public support for alternate energy in the islands.
The Current State of Wind.
First Wind’s Kahea Wind project installed on the South West side of the West Maui Mountains has been producing 30Mega Watts since June of 2006. According to First Wind’s website, “the 20 GE 1.5 megawatt turbines generate enough clean, non-polluting power to meet 9% of Maui’s total electricity needs during peak hours and up to 30% during non-peak hours.”Kahea Wind is actively seeking to double the number of towers and energy output of their farm.
Shell WindEnergy and Ulupalakua Ranch announced jointly on June 30, 2006 that they planned to install a 40 megawatt wind farm in Ulupalakua Maui which is on the South West Slope of Haleakala. If the same formula used for Kahea Wind holds this would produce 12% of Maui’s total peak requirements and 40% during non-peak hours. In May of 2008 Rob Parsons reported in Maui Time Weekly that ShellWindEnergy had scaled back its plans to produce only 20 megawatts, is considering battery storage to prevent fluctuating input to the Islands grid and is in the process of drafting the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) required to move forward.
Tapping in to Hydroelectric.
An Australian company named Oceanlinx is moving forward with a project to harness a mere 2.7 Megawatts of energy by installing floating generators off the North Shore.
In March 2008 Oceanlinx hired Planning Solutions to draft an EIS that is expected to be finished in 2009. The turbines would use air pressure generated by wave swells pushing into a semi submersed chamber.
Makila Hydro, LLC Makila Hydro, LLC was formed in 2001. It has restored a generator at the Pioneer Mill in Lahaina that was originally constructed in 1914. The plant has has been pushing a half a megawatt into Maui’s energy grid since September 2006.
Other prospects for ocean energy include tidal power, Auau channel turbines that run deep between Maui and Lanai, and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Difficulties with deep ocean power plants include the protection of sea life and keeping the generators free of accumulated debris.
Plugging in to the Solar Source.
Despite advances in Solar Power, cost still outweighs benefits. There are researchers trying to change that and some innovators in the field on Maui are finding ways to skirt the high costs.
Solar thermal energy production employs a rooftop system made to heat water. By heating water with solar energy, households can expect large reductions in monthly energy use, (from 15% - 25%). The State of Hawaii, The U.S. Government and Maui Electric, a branch of HECO , all offer incentives for these energy saving installations. There are state and federal income tax credits and no interest loans available.
The photovoltaic method of energy production employs cells that turn light into electricity. These are the cells you find on your solar powered calculator. The high cost of these cells has remained the main obstacle for solar power but with some unique business models photovoltaic energy is inching forward.
Although Maui has a very long way to go to achieve energy sustainability, the greening of paradise continues. I for one look forward to an island that can live up to its sparkling reputation.
If your coming to experience the “No Ka Oi” of Hawaii, consider these affordable Maui Condos to provide a balance of luxury and cost.
Power Games to Hide the Sun With a Finger
Juan Trevino asked:
Solar energy is the most abundant energy and it is free to all. Solar provides us with light and warmth. It provides the energy for all plant growth. It should be harness by individuals for their homes. If energy is free from the Sun, why must we pay for our electricity?
Power-generating companies, Government, and International organizations (IEA) in the field of energy and power, have not base their development strategies on Solar. In fact solar is the energy they least would invest. Florida Power and Light (FPL) now generates less than 1% of its energy from thermal solar. FPL in their 2008-17 Power Plant Site Plan, has schedule considerable growth in capacity to generate electricity, but very little growth will come from solar energy. Although FPL’s plan does not commit to anything.
The Solar American Initiative from the US Department of Energy (USDOE) focuses on thermal Solar to power up big plants using steam. They do not have a strategy for solar power generation for homes, nor do they spend the time in discussing this technology. They do however, lead everyone to believe that the home technology is based on photovoltaic panels, which compete poorly against current electricity suppliers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) analyzes all energy sources, but they never emphasize the need to develop solar home power generation, when this would provide everyone the independence they would need. IEA approach is to reduce fossil fuels and into more renewable energy, without solar as a central energy source. Of course, IEA interests, is to protect foreign oil supplies, maintain the world’s oil stockpile for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country members, and to steer countries to develop other centralized power generating sources.
Protecting their turf, large power-generating companies prefer renewable and non-renewable energy sources, including solar, but never, the solar which could be scaled down to the home level. It really doesn’t matter how much they could be damaging the planet or creating matter which could later hurt people like nuclear waste. All that matters is to maintain their way of life. They will spend millions into advertisement and lobbying to get everyone to agree to their solution, like the “Clean Coal” option, or “America’s Coolest Clean Fuel” for Liquid Natural Gas, or Nuclear which is “Non Gas emitting” and therefore safe to use. Apparently, these companies do not evolve, changing their business into something that is sustainable is not part of their lemma.
Why is it that Solar power generating technology is available, but ignored? As if this technology was inadequate for its use. Some of these institutions may include solar in their plans, but only geared to develop big huge plants and continue using their central electrical power grids. Including Solar in their energy source menu, helps their PR departments to show them as a good environmental steward, that they are on top of energy solutions, hopefully luring more investors, getting politicians on board, discouraging other energy generating entrants and defusing the home solar power generation threat.
Developing a home appliance that harnesses electricity from the sun, turns all centralized power generation obsolete, and this must be avoided by all means by current market players. If home solar technology is allowed to develop, then anyone, anywhere in the world would be able to generate the power they need without the very high and steep billion dollar investments required for centralized power. Then, centralized power proponents will loose; big business would lose; big government agencies and international agencies may not be required to exists. Imagine the loss of orders which we don’t have, if Kenya in Africa or any other country in the world, would buy small solar power generation gear instead of the large nuclear reactor o LNG plant. What happens to those countries, and to us when we freed up energy generation?
Institutions dedicated to power-generation, power research and regulator institutions are the current major proponents of the products, services and regulations that proliferate the current centralized power generation model. Government programs are ineffective and guiding the home power generation market towards inefficient and expensive Photocells systems. A Photovoltaic Panel 4 kilowatt system for a home cost 41,000 dollars. Of course, the state and federal tax credits and incentives may bring down the homeowners final cost to 12,000. The final $12,000 USD investments can be offset by obtaining saving from the electric utility bills, at a rate of $1,500 a year, getting your money back is 8 years.
We need a new breed of entrepreneurs and government, not currently related to the current Power generation model, to approach the home solar power appliance, and manufacture the technology that could be sold through major home appliance retailer like Sears, Home Depot Lowe’s. Distributed Power generation and the elimination of the the centralized electricity distribution model is the way of the future, regardless of how much FPL, DOE, the IEA would like to hide it. This new model, which could finally integrated by Americans or any other nationality, placing all people of the world in equal footing. China and India would not need to invest so heavily into Nuclear and Fossil fuel plants to endanger our plants.
Solar energy is the most abundant energy and it is free to all. Solar provides us with light and warmth. It provides the energy for all plant growth. It should be harness by individuals for their homes. If energy is free from the Sun, why must we pay for our electricity?
Power-generating companies, Government, and International organizations (IEA) in the field of energy and power, have not base their development strategies on Solar. In fact solar is the energy they least would invest. Florida Power and Light (FPL) now generates less than 1% of its energy from thermal solar. FPL in their 2008-17 Power Plant Site Plan, has schedule considerable growth in capacity to generate electricity, but very little growth will come from solar energy. Although FPL’s plan does not commit to anything.
The Solar American Initiative from the US Department of Energy (USDOE) focuses on thermal Solar to power up big plants using steam. They do not have a strategy for solar power generation for homes, nor do they spend the time in discussing this technology. They do however, lead everyone to believe that the home technology is based on photovoltaic panels, which compete poorly against current electricity suppliers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) analyzes all energy sources, but they never emphasize the need to develop solar home power generation, when this would provide everyone the independence they would need. IEA approach is to reduce fossil fuels and into more renewable energy, without solar as a central energy source. Of course, IEA interests, is to protect foreign oil supplies, maintain the world’s oil stockpile for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country members, and to steer countries to develop other centralized power generating sources.
Protecting their turf, large power-generating companies prefer renewable and non-renewable energy sources, including solar, but never, the solar which could be scaled down to the home level. It really doesn’t matter how much they could be damaging the planet or creating matter which could later hurt people like nuclear waste. All that matters is to maintain their way of life. They will spend millions into advertisement and lobbying to get everyone to agree to their solution, like the “Clean Coal” option, or “America’s Coolest Clean Fuel” for Liquid Natural Gas, or Nuclear which is “Non Gas emitting” and therefore safe to use. Apparently, these companies do not evolve, changing their business into something that is sustainable is not part of their lemma.
Why is it that Solar power generating technology is available, but ignored? As if this technology was inadequate for its use. Some of these institutions may include solar in their plans, but only geared to develop big huge plants and continue using their central electrical power grids. Including Solar in their energy source menu, helps their PR departments to show them as a good environmental steward, that they are on top of energy solutions, hopefully luring more investors, getting politicians on board, discouraging other energy generating entrants and defusing the home solar power generation threat.
Developing a home appliance that harnesses electricity from the sun, turns all centralized power generation obsolete, and this must be avoided by all means by current market players. If home solar technology is allowed to develop, then anyone, anywhere in the world would be able to generate the power they need without the very high and steep billion dollar investments required for centralized power. Then, centralized power proponents will loose; big business would lose; big government agencies and international agencies may not be required to exists. Imagine the loss of orders which we don’t have, if Kenya in Africa or any other country in the world, would buy small solar power generation gear instead of the large nuclear reactor o LNG plant. What happens to those countries, and to us when we freed up energy generation?
Institutions dedicated to power-generation, power research and regulator institutions are the current major proponents of the products, services and regulations that proliferate the current centralized power generation model. Government programs are ineffective and guiding the home power generation market towards inefficient and expensive Photocells systems. A Photovoltaic Panel 4 kilowatt system for a home cost 41,000 dollars. Of course, the state and federal tax credits and incentives may bring down the homeowners final cost to 12,000. The final $12,000 USD investments can be offset by obtaining saving from the electric utility bills, at a rate of $1,500 a year, getting your money back is 8 years.
We need a new breed of entrepreneurs and government, not currently related to the current Power generation model, to approach the home solar power appliance, and manufacture the technology that could be sold through major home appliance retailer like Sears, Home Depot Lowe’s. Distributed Power generation and the elimination of the the centralized electricity distribution model is the way of the future, regardless of how much FPL, DOE, the IEA would like to hide it. This new model, which could finally integrated by Americans or any other nationality, placing all people of the world in equal footing. China and India would not need to invest so heavily into Nuclear and Fossil fuel plants to endanger our plants.