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
Stop TXU: Profits and Pollution
pmasoned asked:
Environmental Defense ad urges Texas citizens to help stop TXU’s proposed coal-fired power plants.
Desert Rock Power Plant
jsefick asked:
Is Tom Johns of Desert Rock in the business of suppressing public opinion about this project ??????????? The water from the San Juan river is precious and should not be used to cool a dirty power plant
Electricity and Power Shortage Holding India Back
asked:
As the hot Indian summer progresses, the nation and the people in the northern plains and a large part of the Southern Peninsula writhe in the heat, looking for respite and electricity to carry on with the business of nation building.
That just about happens and many times it may not as was noticed in Uttar Pradesh only days after Bahujan Samaj party government assumed political power in there. the situation in Assam was no better.
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati after assuming office hinted at increasing power tariff asked state government offices to switch on CFLs bridging the demand-supply gap.
The industrial units in Uttar Pradesh are not sure if the situation will change very soon after the Mulayam Singh government was booted out.
The Bahujan Samaj party did not even have a manifesto in the election. But entrepreneur in the state admit that the situation cannot get worse than when Mulayam Singh ruled, because during his rule, there was not even recognition of the fact industry was suffering hugely because of crippling power shortage.
Noting that the state was passing through a serious power crisis, Mayawati said the demand for power had risen to 8500 mw while supply was confined to 6500 mw. She said that different power sector utilities in the state had incurred a loss of Rs 5500 crores till last year, creating a financial crisis.
Industry sources in up say it had an installed capacity of just 4000 mw while gap between the demand and supply is about 1800 mw. The UP government had stated some months ago that 7000 mw generation capacity in the state are in various stages of completion. What irks industry in UP is that power cuts in UP is the attitude of the state government.
In Assam, a drought like situation leading to poor hydropower generation and a weak distribution network have led to the state facing the worst ever power crises, prompting the state government to approach neighbouring states as well as the Himalaya kingdom of Bhutan for power supply.
Already facing a shortage crisis, it had been compounded with a prolonged dry spell. Chief minister Tarun Gogoi in a SOS to the centre recently requested for immediate allocation of 400 mw from Oil and Natural Gas Commission’s Tripura based project, and also some power from the Tala and Kiruchu hydro electric projects of Bhutan and Assam.
Charging the public sector ONGC and Oil India Limited for failing to supply committed gas for power generation in Assam and Gogoi said as a result of that generation in the Namrup thermal power station (TPS) and Lakwa TPS as well as Kathalguri TPS of North East Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) have suffered badly.
Media report from Maharashtra gives the same kind of picture that shows progress of small and medium industry in severely hampered by power shortage.
In this state, where industry is reeling under the savage power cuts, which amounts to two days of forced shut down of production, the peak shortfall last estimated, was a whopping 5,085mw. The total demand in power in the state with the exclusion of Mumbai, is about 15,000mw, through the total generation is only about 9,840mw.
The small scale industry association is up in arms as they find that government twiddling its thumbs when it comes to adding capacity or set up any new power project. The last major project in the state was that of Enron, which till late was mired in controversy.
Maharashtra’s Dabhol project which has been in disputes ever since its concept was floated and the delays have cost the state dearly. In the middle of May this year, the state chief minister was summoned by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Delhi for an urgent discussion on the power situation in the state and ways to mitigate it.
The Centre agreed to bail out the state partly by promising to give additional 2,600mw power during the next one year, according to chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh. Essentially, the plan for the state is to provide coal linkages for Koradi and Chandrapur power plants which together have a capacity of 2,400mw and for the expansion project of Parali, Paras and Bhusawal station in the state.
In a country where about 20 percent production losses can be attributed to power shortage, surely there is much too done and regained, to upgrade economic and industrial abilities.
As the hot Indian summer progresses, the nation and the people in the northern plains and a large part of the Southern Peninsula writhe in the heat, looking for respite and electricity to carry on with the business of nation building.
That just about happens and many times it may not as was noticed in Uttar Pradesh only days after Bahujan Samaj party government assumed political power in there. the situation in Assam was no better.
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati after assuming office hinted at increasing power tariff asked state government offices to switch on CFLs bridging the demand-supply gap.
The industrial units in Uttar Pradesh are not sure if the situation will change very soon after the Mulayam Singh government was booted out.
The Bahujan Samaj party did not even have a manifesto in the election. But entrepreneur in the state admit that the situation cannot get worse than when Mulayam Singh ruled, because during his rule, there was not even recognition of the fact industry was suffering hugely because of crippling power shortage.
Noting that the state was passing through a serious power crisis, Mayawati said the demand for power had risen to 8500 mw while supply was confined to 6500 mw. She said that different power sector utilities in the state had incurred a loss of Rs 5500 crores till last year, creating a financial crisis.
Industry sources in up say it had an installed capacity of just 4000 mw while gap between the demand and supply is about 1800 mw. The UP government had stated some months ago that 7000 mw generation capacity in the state are in various stages of completion. What irks industry in UP is that power cuts in UP is the attitude of the state government.
In Assam, a drought like situation leading to poor hydropower generation and a weak distribution network have led to the state facing the worst ever power crises, prompting the state government to approach neighbouring states as well as the Himalaya kingdom of Bhutan for power supply.
Already facing a shortage crisis, it had been compounded with a prolonged dry spell. Chief minister Tarun Gogoi in a SOS to the centre recently requested for immediate allocation of 400 mw from Oil and Natural Gas Commission’s Tripura based project, and also some power from the Tala and Kiruchu hydro electric projects of Bhutan and Assam.
Charging the public sector ONGC and Oil India Limited for failing to supply committed gas for power generation in Assam and Gogoi said as a result of that generation in the Namrup thermal power station (TPS) and Lakwa TPS as well as Kathalguri TPS of North East Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) have suffered badly.
Media report from Maharashtra gives the same kind of picture that shows progress of small and medium industry in severely hampered by power shortage.
In this state, where industry is reeling under the savage power cuts, which amounts to two days of forced shut down of production, the peak shortfall last estimated, was a whopping 5,085mw. The total demand in power in the state with the exclusion of Mumbai, is about 15,000mw, through the total generation is only about 9,840mw.
The small scale industry association is up in arms as they find that government twiddling its thumbs when it comes to adding capacity or set up any new power project. The last major project in the state was that of Enron, which till late was mired in controversy.
Maharashtra’s Dabhol project which has been in disputes ever since its concept was floated and the delays have cost the state dearly. In the middle of May this year, the state chief minister was summoned by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Delhi for an urgent discussion on the power situation in the state and ways to mitigate it.
The Centre agreed to bail out the state partly by promising to give additional 2,600mw power during the next one year, according to chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh. Essentially, the plan for the state is to provide coal linkages for Koradi and Chandrapur power plants which together have a capacity of 2,400mw and for the expansion project of Parali, Paras and Bhusawal station in the state.
In a country where about 20 percent production losses can be attributed to power shortage, surely there is much too done and regained, to upgrade economic and industrial abilities.
Concentrated Solar Power
Anna Williams asked:
“CSP” stands for “Concentrated Solar Power.” The term refers to the type of solar energy which is created by concentrating sunlight onto a small area, thus creating intense light and heat, which in turn generates power and electricity. Concentrated Solar Power is one of several alternative energy technologies which have been developed in order to harness the energy emitted by the sun and turn it into useable electricity.
The main difference between concentrated solar power (CSP) energy systems and other solar power systems (such as photovoltaics and solar heating), is that concentrated solar power uses mirrors and reflectors in order to focus concentrated sunlight on a specific location.
- How CSP Solar Energy Systems Work
A simple but accurate comparison to CSP solar energy is the use of a magnifying lens to focus sunlight on a specific area. But the target of a CSP system is to heat fluids, not ants or other luckless insects.
The fluids heated by this concentrated solar energy are then turned into steam. The steam is in turn forced through a fan, and is used to drive a regular steam turbine, which uses its turning motion to generate electricity through electromagnetic means.
One advantage of concentrated solar power is that it is completely compatible with the contemporary power generators which are used in conventional power plants. But in the case of CSP solar energy, the “fuel” used to generate steam is sunlight, not fossil fuels such as oil and coal.
You may be surprised to learn that in the USA, several CSP power plants are already up and running - and that they have performed reliably for the past fifteen years.
At the time of this writing, the least expensive method of using solar power to produce electricity is the to use concentrated solar power systems.
Research and development projects are underway, with the aim of reducing costs even further, so that the cost of producing electricity with solar power can eventually compete with the costs of energy production in modern conventional power plants.
CSP Solar Energy is one of several methods of generating solar power and alternative energy on a broad scale. Another example of broad scale solar power production is the use of solar power towers. These towers use an assortment of moving mirrors (called heliostats) to continuously reflect sunlight toward a central area at the top of the tower. These heliostats are set up so that they follow the movement of the sun, thus maintaining the strongest reflecting power possible.
“CSP” stands for “Concentrated Solar Power.” The term refers to the type of solar energy which is created by concentrating sunlight onto a small area, thus creating intense light and heat, which in turn generates power and electricity. Concentrated Solar Power is one of several alternative energy technologies which have been developed in order to harness the energy emitted by the sun and turn it into useable electricity.
The main difference between concentrated solar power (CSP) energy systems and other solar power systems (such as photovoltaics and solar heating), is that concentrated solar power uses mirrors and reflectors in order to focus concentrated sunlight on a specific location.
- How CSP Solar Energy Systems Work
A simple but accurate comparison to CSP solar energy is the use of a magnifying lens to focus sunlight on a specific area. But the target of a CSP system is to heat fluids, not ants or other luckless insects.
The fluids heated by this concentrated solar energy are then turned into steam. The steam is in turn forced through a fan, and is used to drive a regular steam turbine, which uses its turning motion to generate electricity through electromagnetic means.
One advantage of concentrated solar power is that it is completely compatible with the contemporary power generators which are used in conventional power plants. But in the case of CSP solar energy, the “fuel” used to generate steam is sunlight, not fossil fuels such as oil and coal.
You may be surprised to learn that in the USA, several CSP power plants are already up and running - and that they have performed reliably for the past fifteen years.
At the time of this writing, the least expensive method of using solar power to produce electricity is the to use concentrated solar power systems.
Research and development projects are underway, with the aim of reducing costs even further, so that the cost of producing electricity with solar power can eventually compete with the costs of energy production in modern conventional power plants.
CSP Solar Energy is one of several methods of generating solar power and alternative energy on a broad scale. Another example of broad scale solar power production is the use of solar power towers. These towers use an assortment of moving mirrors (called heliostats) to continuously reflect sunlight toward a central area at the top of the tower. These heliostats are set up so that they follow the movement of the sun, thus maintaining the strongest reflecting power possible.
The High Costs of Solar Electric Power
Klaus H Hemsath asked:
of solar power generation is booming. After analyzing a few of these announcements one is left with quite a few questions. Why are solar farms built when financial data clearly show that solar power is still the most expensive electricity generation technology available?
Solar power plant developers and marketers obviously know that they need to lower costs. Cost reduction is, however, expensive and takes time. Many new enterprises have been formed and want to become profitable when the big construction boom in solar power plants will hit the road. In the meantime they must pay bills, advance their technologies, and stay alive.
There are two major technologies for solar energy conversion. One approach is based on the conversion of sunlight into heat and using the heat for the generation of steam. This concept has progressed to a relatively high readiness level. Electricity production with steam is a very mature technology. Remaining technical risks, therefore, relate exclusively to the design of the thermal concentrators or parabolic mirrors that optically transfer thermal radiation to a heat transfer medium and to the design of the heat receiving transfer and steam containment surfaces.
The other technology is the direct, photovoltaic conversion of sunlight into electricity. This technology will most likely become the dominant solar electric power generating technology - eventually. The big question for investors and for marketers is the uncertain duration of “eventually”. Converting sunlight directly into electricity is much more elegant and will almost certainly become less expensive than thermal conversion - eventually.
Very recently, IBM proposed a third concept, a kind of a hybrid approach. In this concept, the sunlight is concentrated onto a solar panel. This approach reduces panel area and saves lots of expensive silicon. But it generates another problem. The concentrated sunshine creates very high surface temperatures on the solar panel. To save solar panel area and make the solar panel price competitive, one must cool the surface of the solar panel very efficiently to prevent it from melting and destruction.
Installing highly effective cooling loops and providing a low temperature cooling medium presents a new set of technical challenges and costs. We will have to wait and see how IBM will solve these issues.
Present production costs for generating electricity with solar panels are hovering around $0.50 per kWh. This compares with an average US retail price for electric power of $0.095/kWh. Right now, solar power does not yet make economical sense.
All renewable energies share this distinction. None of the available technologies using renewable energy can compete with the cost of electricity generation from coal.
This is also one of numerous examples where free markets perform poorly. The technologies for generating electricity with solar power, wind power, marine power, and geothermal power are very well understood. What is missing is the industrial hardening of these processes and related hardware. This process of moving a technology from the demonstration plant stage to a more dependable and less costly mature system status is the most critical, costly, and dangerous step when developing industrial systems, which must operate uninterrupted 24/7 for thousands of hours on end.
The US cannot reduce its carbon dioxide emissions and cannot achieve energy independence without employing renewable energies for electric power generation and for the critical production of liquid transportation fuels.
At present, a respectable number of windmill farms and solar panel farms are being installed. Forward thinking industrial and public entities take the liberty to impose hidden taxes on the consumers of electric power in industry, in commercial enterprises, and in homes.
Solar power does not make economical sense, yet. However, by providing an income guarantee for investors, the crucial hardening and cost reduction phase of full size solar farms will be shortened tremendously.
There is one inherent danger in this approach. The consumers of electricity pay for this most crucial development phase while other participating parties make out handily. Effective controls for avoiding unproductive duplication of certain types of solar farms are sorely missing.
Duplication of experience is much less valuable than gaining broad experience from competing technologies and installations. Well engineered solar power farms can indicate their readiness for more widespread applications after a couple of uninterrupted, full capacity, generation campaigns. At completion, qualified technology leaders can begin to compete and can drive down total system installation costs by a variety of cost reduction measures.
Where are we now? A random sampling of recent announcements of solar farm installations reveals that system installation costs are in the $3000 to $7500 per kW installed capacity. These plant costs loosely translate into a cost of producing electric power at $0.30 to $0.60 per kWh. This very unfavorably compares to the cost of electricity generation by any other technology.
These figures do not yet contain the costs of energy storage. As long as solar power constitutes only a very small fraction of overall electric power generation, the additional costs of storing intermittently produced electric power are not yet of concern. If the US is going to depend significantly on the intermittent production of electricity from solar power and wind power, it must begin to develop storage technologies for huge amounts of electric energy. Frequent brownouts due to lack of wind and sunshine are unacceptable in advanced economies. Intermittent, renewable energies and electric energy storage are inseparable. This is a technology field where inventors, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists still can shine.
of solar power generation is booming. After analyzing a few of these announcements one is left with quite a few questions. Why are solar farms built when financial data clearly show that solar power is still the most expensive electricity generation technology available?
Solar power plant developers and marketers obviously know that they need to lower costs. Cost reduction is, however, expensive and takes time. Many new enterprises have been formed and want to become profitable when the big construction boom in solar power plants will hit the road. In the meantime they must pay bills, advance their technologies, and stay alive.
There are two major technologies for solar energy conversion. One approach is based on the conversion of sunlight into heat and using the heat for the generation of steam. This concept has progressed to a relatively high readiness level. Electricity production with steam is a very mature technology. Remaining technical risks, therefore, relate exclusively to the design of the thermal concentrators or parabolic mirrors that optically transfer thermal radiation to a heat transfer medium and to the design of the heat receiving transfer and steam containment surfaces.
The other technology is the direct, photovoltaic conversion of sunlight into electricity. This technology will most likely become the dominant solar electric power generating technology - eventually. The big question for investors and for marketers is the uncertain duration of “eventually”. Converting sunlight directly into electricity is much more elegant and will almost certainly become less expensive than thermal conversion - eventually.
Very recently, IBM proposed a third concept, a kind of a hybrid approach. In this concept, the sunlight is concentrated onto a solar panel. This approach reduces panel area and saves lots of expensive silicon. But it generates another problem. The concentrated sunshine creates very high surface temperatures on the solar panel. To save solar panel area and make the solar panel price competitive, one must cool the surface of the solar panel very efficiently to prevent it from melting and destruction.
Installing highly effective cooling loops and providing a low temperature cooling medium presents a new set of technical challenges and costs. We will have to wait and see how IBM will solve these issues.
Present production costs for generating electricity with solar panels are hovering around $0.50 per kWh. This compares with an average US retail price for electric power of $0.095/kWh. Right now, solar power does not yet make economical sense.
All renewable energies share this distinction. None of the available technologies using renewable energy can compete with the cost of electricity generation from coal.
This is also one of numerous examples where free markets perform poorly. The technologies for generating electricity with solar power, wind power, marine power, and geothermal power are very well understood. What is missing is the industrial hardening of these processes and related hardware. This process of moving a technology from the demonstration plant stage to a more dependable and less costly mature system status is the most critical, costly, and dangerous step when developing industrial systems, which must operate uninterrupted 24/7 for thousands of hours on end.
The US cannot reduce its carbon dioxide emissions and cannot achieve energy independence without employing renewable energies for electric power generation and for the critical production of liquid transportation fuels.
At present, a respectable number of windmill farms and solar panel farms are being installed. Forward thinking industrial and public entities take the liberty to impose hidden taxes on the consumers of electric power in industry, in commercial enterprises, and in homes.
Solar power does not make economical sense, yet. However, by providing an income guarantee for investors, the crucial hardening and cost reduction phase of full size solar farms will be shortened tremendously.
There is one inherent danger in this approach. The consumers of electricity pay for this most crucial development phase while other participating parties make out handily. Effective controls for avoiding unproductive duplication of certain types of solar farms are sorely missing.
Duplication of experience is much less valuable than gaining broad experience from competing technologies and installations. Well engineered solar power farms can indicate their readiness for more widespread applications after a couple of uninterrupted, full capacity, generation campaigns. At completion, qualified technology leaders can begin to compete and can drive down total system installation costs by a variety of cost reduction measures.
Where are we now? A random sampling of recent announcements of solar farm installations reveals that system installation costs are in the $3000 to $7500 per kW installed capacity. These plant costs loosely translate into a cost of producing electric power at $0.30 to $0.60 per kWh. This very unfavorably compares to the cost of electricity generation by any other technology.
These figures do not yet contain the costs of energy storage. As long as solar power constitutes only a very small fraction of overall electric power generation, the additional costs of storing intermittently produced electric power are not yet of concern. If the US is going to depend significantly on the intermittent production of electricity from solar power and wind power, it must begin to develop storage technologies for huge amounts of electric energy. Frequent brownouts due to lack of wind and sunshine are unacceptable in advanced economies. Intermittent, renewable energies and electric energy storage are inseparable. This is a technology field where inventors, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists still can shine.
Compact Electric Power Generator for the Home Based on Solar Energy
Juan Trevino asked:
The small solar-power generator for homes has not been built as of today, 2008. Parts and components for a solar power generator have been invented, developed, and are in operation for many years, but the full electrical equipment that powers up a home, has not been integrated as of today and not ready for the market place. Somehow it has been delayed, could be derailed or even obstructed from becoming a reality.
The home solar power generator requires a small solar dish, a small Stirling engine capable of moving a 3 KW per hour electrical generator, the power generator and a battery system to store electricity that is generated. The battery bank would then supply 24/7 electricity to any outlet upon demand. Components for this home power generator have yet to be integrated into an appliance homeowners can buy at Sears, Home Depot or other stores, and have it installed. However, additional investments and entrepreneurs are need to design and integrate an efficient solar power generator that can be massively produced and installed in any home without the need to tap into the electrical grid.
Large power generation and distribution companies, are staying away from the home markets. Developing technology for homes can hurt their central power generation business. Although their plans may include the diversification of their power source, such as: nuclear, hydro, solar, thermal power, as well as, continuing the use of coal, natural gas, oil, it does not include the home power generation market. Sunlight is the only energy available to all homes, free of charge, provided by nature. If sunlight was harness by each consumer to power up their home, central power generators and distributors may not be needed. Other power generating technologies coming from thermal power, hydro or nuclear power, are innocuous to these companies, because home owners will never use these energy sources to generate their own power. Thus we can expect that current power utility companies will continue to use these traditional sources of energy extensively, and will defer and try to derail home solar technology as much as they can, as long as they can.
The centralized Power Plant model established during late 19th century, continues to be main development model in USA. This requires multi-billion dollar electricity plants. Electricity generated from these plants, is then transported and delivered through high tension cables that run all over the country. Substations are used to lower high tension power to 110/220 volts alternate current, and supply individual consumers using lifted or underground cables that run through the streets. Except for communities with hidden or underground electrical and phone cables, all other communities have cables that are lifted from one pole to another in detriment to their own environments.
When there is no other alternative as we have had in the past, electricity supplied from this large plants is welcomed. But today, with so many more technologies available, large power generation plants and centralized business model is highly inefficient to all consumers and parties for many reasons. The principal reason is that consumers pay more and forever, to these virtual monopolies. A second reason is that homes need to be within the reach of the electrical grids. This means that country homes far from these grids will not get service. Owners of country homes will need to find other ways to power up their home. A third reason is that flying electrical cables through the streets provide for visual contamination and make streets and neighborhoods look bad. The last and final reason is that the land used for laying down the high tension cables is enormous. Obviously, to all these disadvantages we need to sum up the type of contamination the power source provides, i.e. nuclear = radioactive waste, Fossil Fuels = Carbon Dioxide.
Other investor free from current power generation interest are need, to develop a light weight Solar power generation industry, similar to the Air conditioning manufacturing plants, to develop and fabricate the home solar power generator which will be maintenance free, cost free, sold all over the world, powering homes and eliminating the high electricity entrance cost it has today.
The small solar-power generator for homes has not been built as of today, 2008. Parts and components for a solar power generator have been invented, developed, and are in operation for many years, but the full electrical equipment that powers up a home, has not been integrated as of today and not ready for the market place. Somehow it has been delayed, could be derailed or even obstructed from becoming a reality.
The home solar power generator requires a small solar dish, a small Stirling engine capable of moving a 3 KW per hour electrical generator, the power generator and a battery system to store electricity that is generated. The battery bank would then supply 24/7 electricity to any outlet upon demand. Components for this home power generator have yet to be integrated into an appliance homeowners can buy at Sears, Home Depot or other stores, and have it installed. However, additional investments and entrepreneurs are need to design and integrate an efficient solar power generator that can be massively produced and installed in any home without the need to tap into the electrical grid.
Large power generation and distribution companies, are staying away from the home markets. Developing technology for homes can hurt their central power generation business. Although their plans may include the diversification of their power source, such as: nuclear, hydro, solar, thermal power, as well as, continuing the use of coal, natural gas, oil, it does not include the home power generation market. Sunlight is the only energy available to all homes, free of charge, provided by nature. If sunlight was harness by each consumer to power up their home, central power generators and distributors may not be needed. Other power generating technologies coming from thermal power, hydro or nuclear power, are innocuous to these companies, because home owners will never use these energy sources to generate their own power. Thus we can expect that current power utility companies will continue to use these traditional sources of energy extensively, and will defer and try to derail home solar technology as much as they can, as long as they can.
The centralized Power Plant model established during late 19th century, continues to be main development model in USA. This requires multi-billion dollar electricity plants. Electricity generated from these plants, is then transported and delivered through high tension cables that run all over the country. Substations are used to lower high tension power to 110/220 volts alternate current, and supply individual consumers using lifted or underground cables that run through the streets. Except for communities with hidden or underground electrical and phone cables, all other communities have cables that are lifted from one pole to another in detriment to their own environments.
When there is no other alternative as we have had in the past, electricity supplied from this large plants is welcomed. But today, with so many more technologies available, large power generation plants and centralized business model is highly inefficient to all consumers and parties for many reasons. The principal reason is that consumers pay more and forever, to these virtual monopolies. A second reason is that homes need to be within the reach of the electrical grids. This means that country homes far from these grids will not get service. Owners of country homes will need to find other ways to power up their home. A third reason is that flying electrical cables through the streets provide for visual contamination and make streets and neighborhoods look bad. The last and final reason is that the land used for laying down the high tension cables is enormous. Obviously, to all these disadvantages we need to sum up the type of contamination the power source provides, i.e. nuclear = radioactive waste, Fossil Fuels = Carbon Dioxide.
Other investor free from current power generation interest are need, to develop a light weight Solar power generation industry, similar to the Air conditioning manufacturing plants, to develop and fabricate the home solar power generator which will be maintenance free, cost free, sold all over the world, powering homes and eliminating the high electricity entrance cost it has today.
The Dawn of Cleaner Coal Energy Breaks in the Sunshine State
GEreports asked:
In Florida, GE’s innovative technologies at the Polk Power Plant are changing the future of coal power in America. See how GE is working to produce cleaner power from coal.
Sustainable Development: the Role of Coal
Daniel Lafleche asked:
Copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Lafleche
The debate over the future of America’s energy policy is heating up, and it is liable to reach temperatures of near-combustion amidst the politics of this explosive election season. One industry that has long been a pillar of the American energy establishment is coal, and the case of coal is particularly compelling for two reasons. The first is that massive reserves in western US states such as Montana and Wyoming allow a viable pathway to improved energy independence from unstable and often unsavory oil-producing states. Montana’s reserves alone stand at a staggering 120 billion recoverable tons; at 2006 levels of consumption, this would be enough to meet in totality the coal needs of mighty China for nearly half a century. The negative, of course, is that coal-fired power plants are among the most heinous emitters of greenhouse gases.
This clashing of interests has given rise to vocal confrontations in Washington and across the country regarding the role that coal will play in America’s future. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other influential congressional figures such as Representative Henry Waxman have exhibited their outright opposition to the furthering of any coal interests, arguing that carbon costs are too great and that attention is better focused on renewables such as wind, geothermal and solar power. Aware of the mounting pressure, coal mining giants that reap billions in profits are seeking uses of the fuel that will belch less carbon into the atmosphere. But for Reid and others, the term “clean coal” will only ever be an oxymoron.
Montana’s Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer has built a largely deserved reputation as a champion of environmental causes. However his state is split between conservationist elements and a more traditional core composed of ranchers and agriculturalists and of course the interests of “big coal” to which he is not insignificantly beholden. As he straddles this divide, he is uniquely positioned to make a push for better uses of coal. “There is no choice but to go forward with coal,” he said recently. “The question is, how are we going to move forward and develop the technology that will make coal clean?”
Central to Schweitzer’s proposal is the implementation of large-scale coal gasification and coal-to-liquids (CTL) projects. Like other alternative energy initiatives such as biofuels, their ultimate effectiveness and desirability remain uncertain. But given America’s energy exigencies, and the fact that in the foreseeable future coal power will continue to play a large role, it seems to be worthy of our attention.
The process of coal gasification disintegrates coal into its component parts by subjecting it to very high temperatures and applying pressure using steam and oxygen. The resulting synthesis gas or “syngas” is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It is much easier to remove pollutants such as mercury and sulfur from the syngas, allowing it to burn more cleanly. In addition, once the snygas has been cleaned it is similar to natural gas, which allows it to be burned in more efficient gas turbines. The gas can be further reconstituted into a liquid fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process, and can then be used directly as a heating oil or indeed to power vehicles.
The prospect is not without unequivocal drawbacks. First of all, it would entail the continuation of coal mining, and the extraction in itself can be an abominable practice. Secondly, although it allows for a significant reduction of carbon dioxide from the levels emitted by dirty coal-fired plants, it still releases sizeable amounts. The releases are relatively easier to capture, but the prevalent idea of “sequestration”storing the carbon dioxide undergroundremains problematic. Finally, in the infantile stages, the costs of “integrated gasification combined-cycle” (IGCC) plants to generate electricity remain very high. However as with all new and untested technologies, these costs could be expected to diminish if the plants become widespread.
Because of the coal mining that it would continue to necessitate, and because it allows only for a reduction of CO2 levels and not their elimination, coal gasification cannot be considered a solution in the absolute sense. And there of course is the lingering external question of energy inputs for the gasification process. But it is when one adopts a more pragmatic view that the light of its desirability perhaps begins to shine through. Coal mining must be rigorously regulated. Early start-ups of IGCC plants will require hefty subsidies and other incentives. But if costs begin to fall, coal gasification and CTL technologies could prove vital catalysts for energy independence and cleaner fuels.
Copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Lafleche
The debate over the future of America’s energy policy is heating up, and it is liable to reach temperatures of near-combustion amidst the politics of this explosive election season. One industry that has long been a pillar of the American energy establishment is coal, and the case of coal is particularly compelling for two reasons. The first is that massive reserves in western US states such as Montana and Wyoming allow a viable pathway to improved energy independence from unstable and often unsavory oil-producing states. Montana’s reserves alone stand at a staggering 120 billion recoverable tons; at 2006 levels of consumption, this would be enough to meet in totality the coal needs of mighty China for nearly half a century. The negative, of course, is that coal-fired power plants are among the most heinous emitters of greenhouse gases.
This clashing of interests has given rise to vocal confrontations in Washington and across the country regarding the role that coal will play in America’s future. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other influential congressional figures such as Representative Henry Waxman have exhibited their outright opposition to the furthering of any coal interests, arguing that carbon costs are too great and that attention is better focused on renewables such as wind, geothermal and solar power. Aware of the mounting pressure, coal mining giants that reap billions in profits are seeking uses of the fuel that will belch less carbon into the atmosphere. But for Reid and others, the term “clean coal” will only ever be an oxymoron.
Montana’s Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer has built a largely deserved reputation as a champion of environmental causes. However his state is split between conservationist elements and a more traditional core composed of ranchers and agriculturalists and of course the interests of “big coal” to which he is not insignificantly beholden. As he straddles this divide, he is uniquely positioned to make a push for better uses of coal. “There is no choice but to go forward with coal,” he said recently. “The question is, how are we going to move forward and develop the technology that will make coal clean?”
Central to Schweitzer’s proposal is the implementation of large-scale coal gasification and coal-to-liquids (CTL) projects. Like other alternative energy initiatives such as biofuels, their ultimate effectiveness and desirability remain uncertain. But given America’s energy exigencies, and the fact that in the foreseeable future coal power will continue to play a large role, it seems to be worthy of our attention.
The process of coal gasification disintegrates coal into its component parts by subjecting it to very high temperatures and applying pressure using steam and oxygen. The resulting synthesis gas or “syngas” is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It is much easier to remove pollutants such as mercury and sulfur from the syngas, allowing it to burn more cleanly. In addition, once the snygas has been cleaned it is similar to natural gas, which allows it to be burned in more efficient gas turbines. The gas can be further reconstituted into a liquid fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process, and can then be used directly as a heating oil or indeed to power vehicles.
The prospect is not without unequivocal drawbacks. First of all, it would entail the continuation of coal mining, and the extraction in itself can be an abominable practice. Secondly, although it allows for a significant reduction of carbon dioxide from the levels emitted by dirty coal-fired plants, it still releases sizeable amounts. The releases are relatively easier to capture, but the prevalent idea of “sequestration”storing the carbon dioxide undergroundremains problematic. Finally, in the infantile stages, the costs of “integrated gasification combined-cycle” (IGCC) plants to generate electricity remain very high. However as with all new and untested technologies, these costs could be expected to diminish if the plants become widespread.
Because of the coal mining that it would continue to necessitate, and because it allows only for a reduction of CO2 levels and not their elimination, coal gasification cannot be considered a solution in the absolute sense. And there of course is the lingering external question of energy inputs for the gasification process. But it is when one adopts a more pragmatic view that the light of its desirability perhaps begins to shine through. Coal mining must be rigorously regulated. Early start-ups of IGCC plants will require hefty subsidies and other incentives. But if costs begin to fall, coal gasification and CTL technologies could prove vital catalysts for energy independence and cleaner fuels.
Real coal fire
hilgunas67 asked:
we had a power cut on the coldest day of the year. Good job we had some spare coal in the garden hut…