energy problems - solutions
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
1/23
There is probably one thing that we can all agree on: the worlds energy reserves are
not unlimited. Actually that's not strictly true, there is a near unlimited supply of
energy coming from the sun but we are pretty bad at converting it into useful energy.
Look around and ask yourself how much things will change in the near future. It is
pretty certain that we will run out of gas in your lifetime. Quite when it will happen is
up for debate but a guess of around twenty years would probably be pretty close.That's not long considering that, certainly in the UK, a good portion of houses have
only gas powered heating and cooking.
We have, in all likelihood, gone to war in Iraq to ensure a steady supply of oil for the
next twenty to thirty years but even if we can get exclusive access to that oil, and
that's unlikely, it's a rather sort amount of time before people start getting cold and
hungry. Make no mistakes, when the oil runs out the western culture will collapse and
we will be sent hurtling back to the middle ages. Starvation will become a real
problem, medicine will become scarce and transport will be by your own two feet or
not at all.
The UK currently has around sixty million people. Without oil it could support maybe
twenty million but probably less because there will be no oil to power farm machines,
no fertilizer to grow strong crops and no herbicides or pesticides to keep the weeds
and insects at bay. We will be sent back to a pre-industrial revolution world with no
hope of it ending.
Winter will be the worst time for us because there will be nothing to burn. The first
winter with no gas or oil will see every tree cut down for firewood even though burning
unseasoned wood is nearly pointless. Our houses will start to fail as there will be no
materials to maintain them with and rats will breed in their masses because we can't
transport out waste away. Basic raw materials like wood and steal will become
valuable commodities because we won't be able to produce them ourselves but they
won't last anywhere near as long as we are used to because we won't have lacquers,
paints and varnishes to protect them with.
Is there a bright side? Perhaps. There is no shortage of coal yet. Estimations put it at
maybe two hundred years if we are careful with it but that is based on usage values
from the late 1980's which are unlikely to be a good indication of the future. Once the
far and middle east, in particular China and India, starts serious industrialization our
world energy demand will sky rocket. Lets not forget Africa as well, one day they may
get their act together and when they do the wests energy needs will be tiny incomparison. So lets re-estimate that we have one hundred years of coal left. That's not
bad but it's still in the lifetime of our children. Won't somebody think of the children!
Of course the coal might be able to keep us warmassuming that we can develop
technology that allows us to actually get it out the ground as none of the currently
technology that uses oil will be workingbut the problem then is that it might keep
us to warm. Burning all that coal will release trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
2/23
the atmosphere. If you think global warming is bad now the forecast is that it's only
going to get worse from here.
It is fairly clear that we need to do something about this problem now and not in
twenty years when it start to really cause us problems. It takes huge amounts of
money and a long time to develop a new energy technology to the point where it isuseful. Look how long it took to develop the coal fired power station for instance
maybe one hundred years to get something really useful. We need to invest a good
portion of our countries GDP in researching renewable energy sources so that we don't
get caught out. There is no way on Earth the government will put even one percent of
the countries GDP into research, let alone into researching alternative energy sources.
This is bizarre because one of the few things that we will always need is power. If we
could become the world leaders in renewable energy technology we would have the
world eating out of our hand in the near future. If you agree even in part with what I
have said please write to your MP asking him or her to push for more funding for
alternative energy sources. Your way of life and your children's way of life depend on
it.
Five big energy problems for the 21st century
A piece by academic and author Vaclav Smil in theOECD Observer(undated,
unfortunately) paints a gloomy picture of energy transition this century:
An impartial examination of some basic principles reveals five factors that will make
the transition to a non-fossil world far more difficult than is commonly realised. These
are: the scale of the shift; the lower energy density of the replacement fuels; the
substantially lower power density of renewable energy extraction; intermittency ofrenewable flows; and uneven distribution of renewable energy resources.
More on those points:
1. The shift of the scale: He compares the current era to 1850, just before the last
large-scale shift of energy supplies. Then, Smil writes, most energy came from biomass
(eg woodburning). Today, it comes mostly from fossil fuels. Today, he writes, even if
we were to replace only 50% of all fossil fuels by renewable energies during the coming
decades, we would have to displace coal and hydrocarbons flows of about 6 TW. The
problem is, he says, there is no readily-available source of that scale of power.
2. Energy density: In the last two energy transitions, from biomass to coal and then
from coal to hydrocarbons, lower energy-density fuels were supplanted by more
concentrated sources of energy. Not this time around. Replacing petroleum with
liquid biofuels, for example, would require a 1.5 ratioand that will be more costly
and more difficult.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2083/21st_century_energy:_Some_sobering_thoughts.htmlhttp://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2083/21st_century_energy:_Some_sobering_thoughts.htmlhttp://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2083/21st_century_energy:_Some_sobering_thoughts.htmlhttp://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2083/21st_century_energy:_Some_sobering_thoughts.html -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
3/23
3. Power density of energy production - this refers to the rate of production per area
of land. Fossil fuels, Smil writes, yield a hefty 102103W per square metre; hydro
and wind power are more like 10W for the same area; while only solar gets above 20W.
4. Intermittency: Anyone familiar with energy knows about this; many newer sources
of energy such as wind and solar arent good for baseload supplies; while storage isalso a challenge for non-fossil fuel sources.
5. Geographic distribution: Much is made of an uneven distribution of oil and gas,
but renewable flows are also spread out unevenly: cloudiness in the equatorial zone
reduces direct solar radiation; whole stretches of continent have insufficient wind;
there are too few sites with the best potential for geothermal, tidal or ocean energy
conversions, etc.
Lots of interesting points there. Smil is a distinguished professorwere not sure in
what, as hisstaff pagerefers to interdisciplinary research in a range of areas, but hes
based in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, Canada. Weveseen him referred to as a futurist and his interests include energy, population, and
China.
We were intrigued by ablog post suggestinghe believed climate change hasnt been
visible in the past 10 years. His views on climate change are described in more detail
in this review of Smils recent book GLOBAL CATASTROPHES AND TRENDS: The Next
Fifty Yearsin American Scientist:
Smil is blunt in his criticisms of the global-warming pessimists, saying that we simply
dont know enough about the complex interactions and feedbacks that may take place
to be able to reliably quantify the likely consequences of the warming that isoccurring. His estimate is that there will be a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees to 3
degrees Celsius over the next hundred years, a figure that is about at the midpoint of
recent projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Apparently the
industrialized nations in the Northern Hemisphere have the wealth and technical
capabilities to handle this increase, but poor countries in the global South, which are
already carrying an unmanageable load, will find it quite burdensome. (Smils usual
concern with the interaction of variables is not in evidence in this case. Does he think
that the multitudes who cannot cope will quietly disappear?) Although he stresses the
difficulty ofestimating future sea levels, he says that a cautious conclusion would be
that they will rise about 15 centimeters by 2050clearly a noncatastrophic change.
He concludes surprisingly that the market impacts of a moderate warming will be a
trivial sum in all affluent countries (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita),
citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus. (Other respected
economists disagree.)
Smils analysis of climate change is more complex and nuanced than that suppl ied by
even sophisticated journalists and essayists. Thus we learn that our actions have
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/smil-on-hummers-hondas-meat-heat/http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/smil-on-hummers-hondas-meat-heat/http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/smil-on-hummers-hondas-meat-heat/http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-behttp://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-behttp://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-behttp://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-behttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/smil-on-hummers-hondas-meat-heat/http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/ -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
4/23
already changed the global nitrogen cycle much more than the carbon cycle (which
gets all the attention), and that those changes will create problems more intractable
than the ones resulting from excessive levels of carbon dioxide. Losses of biodiversity
and invasive species have impoverished our ecosystem and have had major economic
consequences. (Presumably these are not included in the trivial sum.) Finally, the
chapter on environmental change takes up the problem of antibiotic resistance. I willspare you the depressing details.
In his OECD article, Smil argues that there is no pressing need for a shift away from
fossil fuels, apart from climate change (he believes there is adequate fossil fuels for
generations to come). On climate change, he writes:
Even then, because of the enormity of requisite technical and infrastructural
requirements, many decades will be needed to capture substantial market shares on
continental or global scales. A non-fossil world may be highly desirable, but getting
there will demand great determination, cost and patience.
Solving the Energy Problem
William Schreiber
Global warming is now almost universally accepted as a serious problem caused by
human activitymainly burning fossil fuelsthat demands strong remedial action as
soon as possible. Past events, such as the temporary boycott by some of the major
petroleum producers in the 70s, showed that the US also has a national security
problem related to both price and availability of one of our main energy sources. This
note is intended as a contribution to the effort to devise a comprehensive solution to
all aspects of the energy problem.
Many others have also recognized various aspects of the problem and the need for a
rapid response. I have found that most workers in this field have not completely
defined the problem, but nevertheless have some favorite solutions to be exclusively
pursued.
When I began my engineering education long ago, I was lucky enough to have had the
tutelage of experienced engineers, not scientists. They all said (preached, actually) that
the indispensable first step in devising a solution in the real world was to define the
problem.
What is the energy problem? It has several parts.
In the early 70s, the temporary boycott of the world market by OPEC caused the price
of petroleum to rise dramatically, as petroleum is the most common source of energy
used in heat generation, production, commerce, transportation, and residential
facilities. (1) The ability of major petroleum producers to withhold the supply
reveals the importance of energy independence and price.
http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=wfshttp://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=wfshttp://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=wfs -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
5/23
(2) More recently, global warming has become unmistakably important with
widespread melting of ice, noticeable climate changes, and rising sea
levels. This is now recognized by nearly everyone as caused by greenhouse gases,
mainly carbon dioxide, produced by burning fossil fuels such as petroleum, coal, and
natural gas. While nuclear power plants are being advocated by some, dealing with
spent nuclear fuel is as problematic as greenhouse gases, and energy must be used toproduce nuclear fuel. Note there is now a worldwide shortage of nuclear fuel.
Others are pushing ethanol, which is such a bad idea that it is hard to understand
how its use has become as widespread as it has.
Ethanols production consumes nearly as much energy as it provides, and its use
generates greenhouse gas. With only about 1% of gasoline now replaced by ethanol,
some growers of corn have become rich, but many growers of domestic animals for
food are in dire straits because of the unanticipated rise in the price of feed corn.
Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, hydrogen power,methane from buried organic material, and other renewable power sources are
advocated by some, but so far, no solution has been proposed that would be both
affordable and complete. The purpose of this paper is to propose such a complete
solution, the development of which requires only resources that we already have in
abundance.
Unless, by some miracle, we find a substitute for petroleum fuel that can be used with
the same technology we use today, takes no energy to produce, has no noxious
residue, and has no unexpected consequences (like raising the price of corn) its
adoption will require rebuilding our entire energy infrastructure. This will be neither
easy nor cheap, but if we hope to preserve the Earth for our descendents, we have nochoice but to act now. This will involve diverting manpower and funds from current
uses. If we examine how these resources are now being used, military applications will
be found high on the list. Many of us believe that such diversions would make our
world a better place in which to live. The decisions, of course, will be political, which is
beyond the scope of this short paper.
Though expensive to build, the proposed system, which abandons fossil fuels, should
be cheap to operate, as the fuel, which is sunlight, has no operating cost.
Back to top
Some preliminaries
All the energy the earth has stored and almost all of the energy it receives every day
comes from the Sun. About 89,000 terawatts (1 TW = a million million (quadrillion)
watts) falls on the Earth, while total usage (in 2004) was only 15 terawatts, of which
87% was provided by fossil fuels. Their use produces most of the global warming that
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/196/schreiber.html#tophttp://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/196/schreiber.html#tophttp://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/196/schreiber.html#top -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
6/23
has become so obvious. If we were to get most of our useable energy from the Sun, we
would solve many of the most important problems, including the price and availability
of petroleum as well as (3) the noxious by-products associated with using nuclear
power and fossil fuels. (4) Relying on the Sun rather than petroleum would also
permit us to be much less involved with events in the Middle East. (Anybody who
does not realize how advantageous this would be is urged to read Seymour HershsAnnals of National Security inThe New Yorkerof 5 March 2007.)
Cleaning carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor) from the
Earths current atmosphere is not one of my fields of expertise, but greatly reducing
the rate at which we increase it is clearly a good idea. (Perhaps we shall discover that
if we stop adding these gases to the atmosphere, the existing unwanted gases will
slowly dissipate.) A way to do this is to move to an electrical economy, producing
electricity from sunlight, and then replacing as much of other fuels as possible by
electricity. There is cost associated with this, but mostly new technology is not
required. The one field in which this is not yet completely possible is transportation,
where better batteries (or their functional equivalent) are needed. Fortunately, we still
have a lot of competence in developing new technology, in spite of losing a good part of
our manufacturing skills. (A very promising battery project is underway at MIT.)
Solar power at present is faulted for being available only during clear days, for
requiring expensive solar cells of limited efficiency and life, and for not having enough
space for the receptors in crowded areas such as cities. This proposal concentrates on
dealing with these issues.
The main idea
When I was teaching in India in the 60s, I learned that some irrigation pumps weresolar-powered without using any electrical components. Small collectors concentrated
sunlight sufficiently to produce steam of high enough temperature and pressure to
operate water pumps. (The motivation was that pilferage of electrical components,
even copper wire, was then a problem in the outlying areas where the apparatus was
often located.) This idea is one of the elements in the proposal.
The other [idea] is to collect the sunlight on large steerable, focusable mirrors in
geostationary orbit that would direct the reflected light onto much smaller receptors
on the ground.
(The orbits would be inclined so that the mirrors would never be in the shadow of theearth.) Initially, the receptors would be located near existing hydroelectric plants,
where solar-powered pumps would be used to move water up into the lake(s) behind
the dam(s) for energy storage. At NASA, we have the skills to develop such devices as
the mirrors and perhaps even have the money if we give up such projects as the space
station, which produce no noticeable benefits for mankind. Should the initial
installations prove workable, new plants could be built in more remote locations.
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
7/23
Solar power like the kind I saw in India is still used to some extent in the U.S. Heating
of swimming pools seems to be the largest application. Some is used for domestic hot
water and some for space heating. Numerous small companies are in the business of
making and selling the collectors and the receptors for the various applications. The
same is true today in India.
Details
The orbiting mirrors would be, perhaps, a mile in diameter. They would be constructed
as transparent inflatable thin balloons, one of the inside surfaces of which would be
aluminized to provide the reflecting surface for the required concave mirror. The
mirrors would be lifted into orbit while folded, the inflated shape being determined by
the thickness of the plastic or other material and by the pressure. It is likely that
spherical reflectors would be adequate, and the focal length could be adjusted by the
pressure, thus avoiding high precision in their manufacture. Communication satellites
already use slanted orbits and incorporate sufficiently accurate steering mechanisms.
Note that since the Sun apparently moves through the sky while the mirror apparently
remains fixed to viewers on the Earth, the angle of incidence of the sunlight on the
mirror changes. Thus the mirror must be constantly redirected. This is preferably
done by using feedback from small sensors located around the edge of the mirror to
the steering mechanism of the satellite carrying the mirror. These same sensors can
also be used to adjust the focal length of the concave reflector by adjusting the air
pressure inside the plastic balloon so that the incident beam just fills the receptor
surface.
At the surface of the Earth, incoming solar radiation in clear weather averages
something over 300 watts/sq. meter, but it is much higher and nearly constant abovethe atmosphere. Measurements show the solar constant to be about 1366 watts/sq.
meter.
A reflector about 5000 feet in diameter thus collects about 3000 megawatts, which is
comparable to the capacity of a typical terrestrial electric power plant.
I am guessing that collectors might be 500 feet in diameter, but this must be verified.
The fraction of the collected power that would be received by the collectors depends on
the weather, and the fraction of that which becomes useful heat to make steam and
drive pumps remains to be seen.
Close to populated areas, it may be necessary to stop the transmission at night. For
these reasons, storage of the collected energy is essential, which makes the use of
dams holding pumped water a vital part of these systems. The ability to defocus the
mirrors is also important.
One of the reasons for using the solar energy directly to produce steam and drive
pumps is that solar electric cells, besides being expensive, are not very efficient in
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
8/23
converting light into electricity, and need replacement from time to time. At best, the
efficiency is about 20%, the rest of the light energy appearing as heat, which limits the
intensity of light that can be handled. There is no such limitation when converting the
incoming power into steam, but there probably are some limitations from safety
considerations. However the efficiency is surely higher than that of solar cells.
Space debris
It has been known for some time that thousands of pieces of debris, some very large
but most very small, abandoned from previous launches, are in orbit around the
Earth. Some objects that have been returned, such as shuttle vehicles, have been
found to have suffered minor damage from impact with small pieces. This raises
concern for us, since the mirrors we propose to place in orbit are actually quite fragile.
Fortunately, almost all space junk is in much lower orbit, where it will eventually burn
up as it enters the Earths atmosphere.
There are two possible approaches to deal with this problem. One is to make themirrors less fragile by abandoning the balloon approach and providing a structure to
support a single-surface properly shaped mirror. The other is to provide redundancy
by placing two or more mirrors in orbit for each receiving location on the ground. The
balloon approach is very attractive because it enables focus to be controlled by
pressure, rather than making and then placing in orbit a very precise mirror.
Although the redundancy approach seems better to me, my inclination is to leave the
final decisions to the engineers who will do the actual design, hopefully from NASA.
More thoughts
This proposal need not be the only scheme used. Higher efficiency in systems that do
burn carbon-containing fuels would lessen, but not eliminate contamination of the
atmosphere. Conservation, wind power, tidal power, and any other schemes that do
not burn fossil or carbon-containing fuels may also be used. I have no special
knowledge about hydrogen fuel cells, except to note that water vapor is also a
greenhouse gas. Carbon sequestration seems to involve significant new technology and
does not free us from the grip of OPEC.
References
Many of the numbers used here are from Wikipedia, World energy resources and
consumption.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumption
This piece also has a very good list of additional references. It is well written and
apparently accurate. However it uses the words energy and power as synonyms in
many instances, much to the discomfort of technically trained persons, such as
myself. In this paper, I have used these two terms only in their technical sense. Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy:_world_resources_and_consumption -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
9/23
(typical unit is watt) is the rate of providing energy (typical units are BTU British
thermal unitsor joules).
Global Energy Problems
When you look at the present time, you will see that energy problems are not only
encountered in your own country. The global energy problem faced by mankind today
is set to worsen comes a time that energy sources are not used properly.
For instance, one expensive commodity today is fuel, which comes from oil a non-
renewable energy resource. This is fairly abundant in Middle Eastern countries like
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya and Iraq. Other countries that produce oil are Russia,
United States, Canada and Mexico. There are still more countries that produce oil but
the large concentration of which are in Middle East countries.
Due to the growing number of world population, the demand for fuel also increased.
More vehicles are produced because a lot of people would like to have their own cars
instead of riding the public transportation. And with the increasing number of cars on
the road, fuel production is also increased. The sad thing is, the rate of replenishment
of oil could not equal the rate of depletion. This means that oil reserves decrease very
fast, but the creation of new underground oil is very slow.
Aside from oil, another global energy problem is the increasing demand for electricity.
The increasing population also contributed to this demand. More communities are
built resulting to more power consumption. Hence, the necessity to build power plants
also comes into existence. Before, most power plants that are built derive their energy
source from coal. Fortunately today, real efforts are made towards the utilization of
renewable sources like wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal and wave energy.
Although this global energy problem takes a heavy toll on the shoulders of individuals
in this planet, there is still hope that one day this problem could be overcome. All it
needs is the will to prefer renewable sources over fossil fuels.
Could Helium-3 really solve Earths energy problems?
If you watched the movie Moon, you remember Helium-3 as the substance Sam Bell
was sending back to Earth, during his onerous three year tenure on the Sarang lunar
base. Helium-3 is not a piece of science fiction, but an isotope of helium that really
could provide for all of our energy needs in the future. With absolutely no pollution.
Helium-3 is slightly different than the gas that fills birthday balloons. Rather, Helium-
3 is a stable isotope of helium that is missing a neutron, with this missing neutron
allowing for the production of clean energy. The moon holds a tremendous supply of
Helium-3 on its surface, but will Helium-3 really be the answer to our energy problems
on Earth?
Full size
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4h73urim57gif/original.gifhttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4h73urim57gif/original.gifhttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4h73urim57gif/original.gif -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
10/23
Clean energy is only a missing neutron away
Two types of fusion reactions make use of Helium-3 to produce clean energy. The first
uses deuterium (deuterium is hydrogen with a neutron) reacting with Helium-3, to
produce helium and a proton. The second type of reactions uses two atoms of helium-3 to create helium and two protons. The protons created during the reaction are the
crown jewel of Helium-3 fusion.
One of the best parts of the proposed Helium-3 reaction is the complete lack of
radioactive byproducts. No neutrons are emitted, and no isotopes are left as products
that could radioactively decay. The proton is a particularly nice side product, since
clean energy can be harnessed from this stray proton bymanipulatingit in an
electrostatic field.
Traditional nuclear fission reactions create heat, which is then used to heat water. The
boiling water forces turbines to spin and generate energy. In the Helium-3 fusionprocess, energy is created via the reaction itself, with no nasty radioactive material for
future generations to monitor.
The Helium-3 fusion process is not simply theoreticalthe University of Wisconsin-
Madison Fusion Technology Institute successfullyperformedfusion experiments
combining two molecules of Helium-3. Estimates place the efficiency of Helium-3
fusion reactions at seventy percent, out-pacing coal and natural gas electricity
generation bytwentypercent.
Finding Helium-3
Helium-3 is transmitted with solar winds, but Earth'smagneticfield pushes the
isotope away. Thanks to its negligible magnetic field, the moon doesn't suffer from this
fate, allowing Helium-3 to build up in regolith, the layer of rock and dust covering the
moon. The existence of Helium-3 on the moon isverifiedby samples retrieved on
Apollo and Luna missions. Geologist-turned-astronaut Harrison Schmitt acquired and
analyzed over200pounds of lunar rock acquired during 1972's Apollo 17 mission.
http://www.ijmer.com/papers/vol2_issue2/BI22365367.pdfhttp://www.ijmer.com/papers/vol2_issue2/BI22365367.pdfhttp://www.ijmer.com/papers/vol2_issue2/BI22365367.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/4-dtg-electricefficiency.pdfhttp://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/4-dtg-electricefficiency.pdfhttp://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/4-dtg-electricefficiency.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/research/he3http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/research/he3http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/research/he3http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/research/he3http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://www.npc.org/study_topic_papers/4-dtg-electricefficiency.pdfhttp://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/wisengr1111.pdfhttp://www.ijmer.com/papers/vol2_issue2/BI22365367.pdf -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
11/23
Helium-3 exists on our Earth, but in extremely small quantities. Tritium (hydrogen
with a total of two neutrons, or deuterium with an extra neutron if you
prefer)naturally decaysinto Helium-3 over time. Helium-3 is also created, oddly
enough, as a byproduct of nuclear weapons testing. The United States' Helium-3
reserves are just shy of30kilograms, much less than the theoretical25 tonsof
helium-3 necessary to provide for the energy needs of a country our size for one year.
Full size
Mining the moon
Obtaining helium-3 from lunar regolith will not be an easy task. Best estimates of
Helium-3 content place it at50parts per billion in lunar soil, calling for the refining of
millions of tons of lunar soil before gathering enough Helium-3 to be useful in fusion
reactions on Earth. Should we be so eager to strip mine the moon and destroy its
surface to provide a clean energy source for Earth?
Full size
After mining lunar rock, Helium-3 is separated by heating the mass to
over600degrees Celsius, consuming a large amount of energy in the process.
And meanwhile, transporting large quantities of Helium-3 back to Earth will be
another problem. A spacecraft would likely be able to only carry a few tons of Helium-
3 as payload, necessitating a revolving door of shuttles to supply enough Helium-3 to
care for the Earth's energy needs. Thus, it's likely that Helium-3 is more likely to
become a fuel source for lunar colonies, eliminating a need for start-up additional
supplies and costly flights to and from Earth.
http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/tgm-neutron-detectors.pdfhttp://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/tgm-neutron-detectors.pdfhttp://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/tgm-neutron-detectors.pdfhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4glghmxx9ujpg/original.jpghttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4glghmxx9ujpg/original.jpghttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..206..778Chttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..206..778Chttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..206..778Chttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4mgwmufk6rjpg/original.jpghttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4mgwmufk6rjpg/original.jpghttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4mgwmufk6rjpg/original.jpghttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..206..778Chttp://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m4glghmxx9ujpg/original.jpghttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.htmlhttp://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/tgm-neutron-detectors.pdf -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
12/23
Due to the effort and energy needed to mine, heat, and transport Helium-3 back to
Earth, it will not be a cheap energy source, but a clean alternative, one we might have
to turn to in the next 100 years. Frequent trips to the Moon may also open up the
lunar tourism industry, as passengers travel along with canisters of Helium-3 destined
for use in fusion reactions back on Earth.
"Claiming" the Moon
The first nation (or conglomeration of nations) to establish a Moon colony and begin
mining operations will likely set the standard for control of resources on the Moon,
especially if exploration of the Western world plays a role as precedent. Let's hope the
nation has kind, altruistic motives at hand - otherwise, we might be better off with a
private company (as inMoon) making it to the Moon first, with an intention of
harvesting its resources.
The Russian companyEnergiaclaimed in 2006 that it would have a permanent moon
base in 2015 and harvest Helium-3 by 2020. But the company appears to be woefullybehind in making these claims become reality.
A monopoly on clean energy would catapult any major nation into a "ultrapower" - will
we see this happen in the next century? Will the first country to create a permanent
moonbase share the wealth and help developing nations create a clean energy supply?
But even if the Moon's Helium-3 reserves are too expensive to transport back to Earth,
our only natural satellite could one day become a space-faring "gas station" for vessels
traveling into space, as humanity takes to the stars.
Energy Conservation is the Best Option for Solving Our Environmental and
Energy Challenges.
Reducing the amount of electricity and oil consumed is the most effective and
affordable way to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil.
Industrial Wind Power only adds energy to the system, it does not replace the fossil
fuel burned to create baseload electricity. Programs and incentives to reduce the
amount of electricity and fossil fuel used, however, do reduce carbon emissions,
pollution and dependence on foreign oil. Conservation works and every taxpayer dollar
spent on subsidizing industrial wind power, instead of energy conservation programs,
is a dollar wasted.
Energy Conservation Techniques
Insulation and Air Sealing Energy Efficient Doors, Windows and Skylights Efficient building heating and cooling systems
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/17-03-2006/77404-moon-0/http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/17-03-2006/77404-moon-0/http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/17-03-2006/77404-moon-0/http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/17-03-2006/77404-moon-0/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/ -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
13/23
BiomassInsulation and Air Sealing
The most effective way to reduce a building's heating and cooling costs and energy use
is through proper insulation and air sealing techniques. In addition to making
buildings more energy efficient, these techniques also make them more comfortable.
Proper moisture control and ventilation strategies will improve the effectiveness of air
sealing and insulation, and vice versa.
Thorough energy efficiency is achieved by combined all four elements:
Air sealing Insulation Moisture control Ventilation
Learn more aboutInsulation and Air Sealing Technology.
Energy Efficient Doors & Windows
Energy efficient doors and windows are an essential component of thorough insulation
and air sealing. Replacing old doors and windows of existing buildings is the most
complete method of lower heating and cooling costs and more efficient energy use.
Significant energy saving can also be achieved by adding storm windows and weather
stripping to doors and windows in good condition.
Replacement doors and windows Storm doors and storm windows Weathersealing older doors and windows
Learn more aboutEnergy Efficient Doors and Windows.
Efficient Heating Systems
Upgrading a furnace or boiler from 56% to 90% efficiency in an average cold-climate
house will save 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year with gas fuel, or 2.5tons with with oil fuel.
Heating and cooling account for about 56% of the energy use in a typical U.S. home,
making it the largest energy expense for most households. A wide variety of
technologies are available for heating and cooling your home, and they achieve a wide
range of efficiencies. In addition, many heating and cooling systems have common
http://www.wind-power-problems.org/insulation-air-sealing.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/insulation-air-sealing.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/insulation-air-sealing.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-doors-windows.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-doors-windows.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-doors-windows.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-doors-windows.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/insulation-air-sealing.html -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
14/23
supporting equipment, such as thermostats and ducts, which provide opportunities
for more energy savings.
Understanding the Efficiency Rating of Furnaces and Boilers Retrofitting Furnaces and Boilers Replacing Furnaces and Boilers
Learn more aboutEnergy Efficient Heating Systems.
Efficient Cooling Systems
Ventilation is the least expensive and most energy-efficient way to cool buildings.
Ventilation works best when combined with methods to avoid heat buildup. In some
cases, natural ventilation will suffice for cooling, although it usually needs to be
supplemented with spot ventilation, ceiling fans and window fans.
Avoiding Heat Buildup Natural Ventilation Ceiling Fans and Other Circulating Fans Window Fans Whole House Fans Air Conditioning
Learn more aboutEnergy Efficient Cooling Systems.
Biomass
Biomass is plant matter such as trees, grasses, agricultural crops or other biological
material. It can be used as a solid fuel, or converted into liquid or gaseous forms, for
the production of electric power, heat, chemicals, or fuels.
Sources of Biomass:
Wood Burning Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collecting landfill gas or biogas Ethanol Biodiesel
http://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-heating.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-heating.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-heating.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-cooling.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-cooling.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-cooling.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-cooling.htmlhttp://www.wind-power-problems.org/energy-efficient-heating.html -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
15/23
A Broad-Based Solution to Our Energy
Problem
With instability in the Arab world causing oil prices to surge, and Republicansproposing, with typical venality and idiocy, to solve the problem through
eitherrampant domestic oil drillingorstealing the oil in Iraq and Libya, President
Barack Obama is striking a more reasoned tone. In a recentspeechat Georgetown
University, the president proposed reducing America's foreign oil imports by one-third
by 2025. In itself, this sounds like a worthy goal, but given the breadth of the
environmental and economic problems that our oil consumption causes, it's
unambitious at best.
Part of the problem is that Obama's approach is entirely conventional. He calls for
reductions in oil use through boosting alternative-energy sources like natural gas and
biofuels and increasing domestic oil production. This shows a fatal flaw in Obama'sconception of the problem. He views our massive oil consumption as an issue that
should be solved through energy policy. In fact, the real solutions to our energy
problems lie in other policy areas: transportation, education, housing, and urban
development.
When Republicans chant "drill baby, drill" and the country's leading Democrat
responds with "drill but also build solar panels" as an opening offer rather than a final
compromise, the whole debate is skewed rightward. Our reliance on oil is a problem
caused by excessive demand, not inadequate supply. The way to solve such a problem
is not to scurry in vain to produce enough oil to match demand -- an exercise akin to
running in quicksand -- but to reduce demand. And to do that requires changing rules
that no president has ever identified as falling under energy policy at all.
Our rapacious oil consumption results from decisions made long ago, especially when
it comes to transportation. According to the World Resources Institute, in 2005 the
U.S. consumed 1,618.6 litres of petroleum per person; Japan and Germany -- two
nations with robust automobile industries -- used around a quarter of that per person
compared with the U.S. It's not that Americans can't enjoy the benefits of building or
owning cars but the U.S. has unwisely encouraged development patterns that forced
us to drive everywhere and to drive longer distances.
Because of this, the U.S. has set lower taxes on gasoline compared to other developed
nations, and we use the revenue to build roads -- about 80 percent of federal
transportation dollars go to highways -- rather than subways and regional rail lines.
We need to raise the federal gas tax, which hasn't even risen to keep pace with
inflation since 1993, and reapportion the way we spend that revenue.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/10/boehner-mcconnell-rev-up-gas-price-attack/http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/10/boehner-mcconnell-rev-up-gas-price-attack/http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/10/boehner-mcconnell-rev-up-gas-price-attack/http://www.conservatives4congress.com/2011/04/donald-trump-seize-oil-fields-in-libya.htmlhttp://www.conservatives4congress.com/2011/04/donald-trump-seize-oil-fields-in-libya.htmlhttp://www.conservatives4congress.com/2011/04/donald-trump-seize-oil-fields-in-libya.htmlhttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/obamas-new-plan-for-old-goal-cutting-oil-imports/http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/obamas-new-plan-for-old-goal-cutting-oil-imports/http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/obamas-new-plan-for-old-goal-cutting-oil-imports/http://www.conservatives4congress.com/2011/04/donald-trump-seize-oil-fields-in-libya.htmlhttp://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/10/boehner-mcconnell-rev-up-gas-price-attack/ -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
16/23
Housing policy, too, needs to change. Supporting consumer spending on buying a new
home instead of renting or rehabilitating an older home in the inner-city has led to
suburban sprawl. Not only does this mean people drive more and drive farther but
that they live in detached houses and work in suburban office parks and strip malls,
all of which consume more energy than apartment buildings, town houses, and urban
skyscrapers. We need to stop favoring new homeownership over renting (via themortgage interest tax deduction and other subsidies). Decreasing the emphasis on
homeownership and single-family home development will have the added benefits of
preventing future housing bubbles and increasing socioeconomic and racial
integration.
Middle-class families are also lured to the suburbs by education policies that allow
those schools to be so much better than the ones in inner cities. Whereas many
countries finance schools largely through general revenues at the national or regional
level, the U.S. leaves most school funding up to localities, which often rely largely on
property taxes. The result? Suburban school districts have more advantaged
populations andbetter resources. Most suburban students rely on school buses or
cars to get to school. This, of course, uses more oil than walking and the cost of all
that gas guzzling has become a major problem for districts struggling withrising gas
prices. But the bigger problem is that the socioeconomically segregated schools create
inequality of opportunity and, from a land-use perspective, this means that middle-
class families will keep leaving the city to give their children a better chance in life. If
we raised state and federal income taxes and provisioned funding more equally across
districts and also created regional mega-districts to integrate suburban and urban
school districts, we could remove this incentive for white flight and suburban sprawl.
Unlike domestic drilling or subsidizing the construction of nuclear reactors, thesepolicies do not risk catastrophic accidents. The "all of the above" approach to energy
independence Obama advocates also raises the risks of future disasters like the BP oil
spill. As a report released today by the NAACP to commemorate the one-year
anniversary of the spill illustrates, the economic, health, and environmental impact on
Gulf-area residents is still devastating and prevalent. April 2010 also featured the
Massey coal mine explosion in West Virginia and a deadly accident at a coal mine in
Kentucky. As a newreportfrom the Center for American Progress demonstrates, fossil-
fuel extraction is among the most dangerous industries for workers.
In theory, the best way to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels across all sectors of
the economy would be to put a price or tax on carbon emissions and let the marketsort out which are the best sectors to find efficiencies. With Republicans controlling
the House of Representatives, though, that will not happen. But fiscal conservatives
should in theory be amenable to removing market-distorting subsidies. On the federal
level, those include subsidies in the tax code for fossil-fuel production, our
disproportionate funding of highways over mass transit, and federal policies that
subsidize buying a new home but not renting or renovating an existing home in the
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.htmlhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/fossil_fuel_legacy.htmlhttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/03/08/26431/soaring_gas_prices_cause_angst_for_school_districtshttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.html -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
17/23
inner city. In fact, Obama favors many of these positions: He has released a forward-
looking model for reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act, proposed
expanded high-speed rail, and endorsed removing tax expenditures like the home
mortgage deduction. But Obama has not made any of these a political priority, letting
the overdue Surface Transit reauthorization languish and accepting cuts to high-speed
rail in the 2011 budget compromise. Most important, Obama has left these ideas intheir respective silos -- tax expenditures are tax policy, rail is transportation policy --
instead of calling them what they are: a plan to reduce our dependence on oil.
Some of the other elements of combating suburban sprawl -- such as integrating and
equalizing funding between school districts and changinglocal zoning codesthat
currently require parking lots, low-density construction, and segregated uses -- are
largely not within the president's control. Others are within his authority, but he has
avoided endorsing those policies -- such as increasing the tax on gasoline to fund
mass-transit priorities -- which are, admittedly, political nonstarters with a
Republican House of Representatives.
But our consumption of fossil fuels and its malign effects -- climate change, the Gulf
oil spill, worker deaths, the distorting effects on our foreign policy, and the tax we pay
to hostile foreign governments -- is the single biggest problem our nation faces. To
address such a sprawling problem requires leadership, political courage, and outside-
the-box thinking. In winning election and passing health-care reform, President
Obama showed he has all those qualities. Unfortunately, when it comes to combating
the real reasons for our oil dependency, Obama has yet to bring any of them to bear.
The Real Solution to the Energy ProblemWe have now spent over $1 trillion to get oil from the Middle East. We spend billions ofdollars to maintain military bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. We've stirred up a
hornet's nest in order to keep crude flowing out of the Middle East. Say what you will,
but everyone knows that the only reason we are in the Middle East is because of the
oil. We didn't get involved in Rwanda or Myanmar or Sudan because they didn't have
massive reserves of oil.
Next, we decided on using our food supply as energy in the form of ethanol. That's
benefitting companies such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and other ethanol
players, but how about the rest of us? We have skyrocketing corn prices. Along with
that, other food prices dependent on corn are skyrocketing. Corn is used to feed cows,
which provide us with milk and beef. It's used to feed chickens. Now the price of meat,
milk and eggs are going up. The Law of Unintended Consequences strike again.
It's about time that we turn to the real solution - conservation. Some people say that
the market will correct oil prices and the government should stay out of the market.
As prices get too high, consumer pain and a recession will reduce demand. Should we
wait and do nothing while tens of billions of our dollars are siphoned to other
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbshttp://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbshttp://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbshttp://seekingalpha.com/symbol/admhttp://seekingalpha.com/symbol/admhttp://seekingalpha.com/symbol/admhttp://seekingalpha.com/symbol/admhttp://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbs -
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
18/23
countries? It's about time that we leverage our technology to our advantage. We laid
down billions of dollars worth of fiber prior to and even after the dotcom boom. Let's
put that to use. Congress needs to pass a law that will give tax breaks or other
incentives to companies that allow as many of their employees as possible to
telecommute.
In today's global economy of laptops, broadband, Blackberries, wireless, email, instant
messaging and other technologies, why are office workers being forced to drive to the
office five days a week? Managers often have employees in several different cities,
states or even countries. Does it make a difference if those employees are sitting in a
cubicle or sitting in their home office or coffee table?
Imagine how many billions of gallons of gasoline will be saved with such an initiative.
Think of the tens of billions of dollars saved on energy that could be spent or invested
on other parts of the economy. Companies will benefit with reduced office space and
the associated costs. Parents can still work when their children are sick so that
projects don't falls behind schedule. Employees will benefit with a more flexibleschedule and lower transportation costs. How many people are exhausted and
stressed out after fighting through and hour of morning traffic? Then there are the
side benefits to the rest of society. Think of the reduction in smog and traffic without
cars idling on the highways. The reduced demand will even result in lower energy
prices for everyone. Over 60% of our oil consumption is used in the transportation
sector, which adds up to a staggering $453 billion dollars each year.
If we can cut transportation costs by just 20%, that would save this country over $90
billion per year, which could be used in other parts of the economy to create jobs and
pay down debt. That's nearly as much as the entire $600 tax rebate program passed
by the government this year. We could have that stimulus package every year! Along
with that, there will be a significant reduction in CO2 emissions due to fewer cars, and
fewer traffic jams every morning and evening. Whether you believe in man-made global
warming or not, everyone believes in having cleaner air to breathe. As for those
complaining of government interference in the free markets, what about the mandate
that car companies install seatbelts in every car? Was that such a bad idea? In rare
instances, government interference can be of benefit.
So let's look at the advantages of such an initiative: lower energy costs, cleaner air,
lower costs for companies, more flexible hours for employees, lower food prices, less
dependence on foreign oil, less traffic and wear and tear on our infrastructure, bettereconomy
I realize that not everyone can work from home, but a far greater number should be
able to than are currently allowed by their employers. We need to have a major
paradigm shift so that we can remain competitive as a nation in this global economy.
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
19/23
Distributed Energy - Solution for India's energy problems
In my view, renewable energy has the potential to solve power problems of India much
more than for the developed world. Because 70% of our population is in 600 thousand
villages across India, we need sources of energy which are distributed in nature andcan use local resources to generate energy avoiding grid capital costs and distribution
losses. Also most of our industries use captive power sources because of unreliable
grid availability and these power sources are either Diesel ot coal based.
Fortunately, renewable energy solutions are usually very modular in nature and fit
very well in a distributed infrastructure setting, be it solar, wind, biomass or small
hydro. If we see from an Indian lens, renewables is more an enabler of distributed
energy generation rather than a cleaner energy source (which may matter more for
developed world). It being clean is a by-product for us, which is good since then there
is no conflict.
India is by and large a sunny country with potential for lot of solar power year round
which can be captured using lower technology intensive solutions like micro Solar
Thermal. India has large arable land (55% of land is arable which is best in the world)
part of which can be used for energy plantation if agriculture yields are increased.
Weeds like Babool can be a great source for biomass power because water
requirements are very low for Babool and can grow on wastelands (55 million hectares
in India is wasteland). India has huge Agri-waste (600 million tonnes) which can be
used locally for power generation using either biomass gasification or bio-methanation
route. Biomass is a natural solar cell and storage issues, which exist in Solar PV, do
not exist because nature stores energy as plant material which can be used for base-
load /on-demand power unlike in Solar PV. We do not need Wests complex Solar PV
technologies if we can concentrate on growing and efficiently using our biomass
resources. The good thing is that economically too, the distributed energy sources like
biogas plants are cost competitive to grid electricity if you take into account also the
grid cost.
India has about 20 million agriculture pumps which are grossly inefficient. Of these
20 million, 5 million run on diesel which make them very costly to operate (farmers
usually pay minimal amount for grid connected electric pumps but they have to pay
for diesel). There is an opportunity to create distributed sources of energy which can
power these diesel pumps on a standalone basis. The cost of running a diesel pumpcan be very high (given that it costs close to 30-40 cents/KWh of electricity).
Distributed sources of energy therefore can be very useful in Indian context which
may not make sense from developed world perspectives. They usually prefer very high
concentrated scale of operation because of good grid connectivity and primary urban
power demand. In India, I see first Diesel Generators going out of fashion once the
distributed clean energy solutions start coming which are easy to operate, generate
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
20/23
power on-demand and are affordable. I think it is time somebody starts thinking
replacing DGs given that 25k MW of power is generated by DGs in India.
Entrepreneurs are you listening?
Energy Innovators: 4 creative solutions to energy problems
The nation is turning to alternative energy as never before amid concerns about global
warming and runaway fossil-fuel prices.
Wind and solar power, for example, each grew 45% last year, while the U.S. consumed
633,000 barrels of ethanol a day in June, up 43% from a year earlier.
But alternative energy has not broken into the mainstream because of myriad
roadblocks. Solar energy, for example, is expensive. Wind power is available only when
the wind blows.
But hundreds of companies are working to overcome the obstacles. Through June,
venture capital investments in alternative energy companies this year totaled $980million, up 92% from a year earlier, says Dow Jones VentureSource. Here are four
technologies that show promise:
Thin-film solar panels:
Printing process cuts down on the cost of silicon, a key material
Here's one way to bring down the price of solar energy: make churning out solar
panels as easy as printing a newspaper.
That's precisely what start-up Nanosolar has done. The company says it's poised to be
the first among dozens of manufacturers to make solar competitive in price with
conventional electricity.
While solar-system costs have fallen, they're still about 20 cents to 30 cents per
kilowatt hour, or more than twice the price of electricity from your local utility.
That's largely because traditional solar-system makers use expensive silicon as a
semiconductor to generate electricity from sunlight.
Thin-filmmakers have pushed down costs by using a tiny fraction of the
semiconductor. But most still employ a slow and expensive condensation method to
attach the semiconductor onto a base. Yet with production volumes rising, solarenergy generally is expected to be competitive with grid electricity in 2010 or after.
Nanosolar, a Northern California company, says it can achieve that next year because
of its printing process.
It embeds tiny semiconductor particles in ink, then coats a layer of it onto mile-long
rolls of aluminum foil, which is later cut into solar panels. The company says it can
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
21/23
turn out panels at a rate of 100 feet a minute, 20 times faster than typical thin-
filmmakers at a tenth of the cost.
"It's all about higher throughput," to more cost-efficiently leverage fixed labor and
equipment costs, Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen says.
In December, Nanosolar opened a factory in San Jose that's capable of pumping out
430 megawatts of solar capacity a year, nearly the size of an average coal-fired power
plant. It plans to produce huge solar panels for cities and other utility-scale users this
year and target businesses and homes next year.
Consultant Paul Maycock of Photovoltaic Energy Systems says Nanosolar's systems
"could be one of the more exciting products" in solar energy's history.
But he says the company has not delivered the production volumes it promised a few
years ago. Roscheisen would not discuss its output, noting Nanosolar is private.
E-Coal:
No greenhouse gas in coal substitute
Imagine an electricity source that kind of looks like coal and packs all of coal's energy
punch but is cheaper and produces no greenhouse gas emissions.
That's what Seattle-based NewEarth Renewable Energy says it developed with E-Coal.
It's biomass made from plants or other organic waste and heated to boost its energy
content.
"We can produce (clean) fuels that are pound-for-pound replacements for coal,"
NewEarth CEO Ahava Amen says.
In 2004, after making a small fortune in cosmetics, Amen and some former associates
reunited to tackle global warming.
They hunted for a substitute for coal, the biggest greenhouse gas producer. Biomass
emits carbon dioxide when burned but absorbs the same amount in its lifetime. Yet it
yields a third to half of coal's energy, raising fuel costs and limiting the size of current
biomass power plants. NewEarth boosts its energy content by placing the biomass in
an oxygen-deprived chamber and heating it to 250 degrees.
The resulting solid is condensed, and unwanted gases and moisture are removed. Theheating process was invented decades ago, but Amen says NewEarth has made it cost-
efficient. It's using as its feedstock a fast-growing plant, Nile reed.
Because the energy value equals coal's, he says, there's no need to spend millions to
upgrade plant boilers. Plus, he says, E-Coal costs 5% to 40% less than regular coal.
Initially, a utility likely would blend a small amount of E-Coal with its coal. But Amen
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
22/23
says a plant's entire fuel stock can be replaced. He says he's negotiating with dozens
of utilities.
Larry Joseph, former U.S. Energy Department official and investor in the company,
says utilities are very cautious and want clear evidence they're not going to harm their
equipment.
Algenol:
Company uses algae to make ethanol more eco-friendly
Corn-based ethanol is getting slammed for straining the world's food supply and
contributing to global warming by encouraging the plowing of grasslands.
Cellulosic ethanol, a more eco-friendly version derived from switch grass or wood
chips, is several years away. Maryland-based Algenol says it can solve the problems by
making ethanol from algae, starting next year.
The start-up recently agreed to license its technology to BioFields, which plans to
build an $850 million saltwater algae farm in Mexico's Sonoran Desert and churn out
100 million gallons of ethanol the first year. It will sell the gasoline substitute to
Mexico's state-run oil monopoly.
A handful of companies are working on turning the abundant marine organism into
biodiesel. That requires growing algae and killing them to extract their oil, a time-
consuming and expensive process.
Algenol adds enzymes to the organisms to enhance their normally limited ability to
convert sugar into ethanol, a waste product. To maximize ethanol production, thealgae are placed in regions with abundant sunlight and grown in 50-foot long tubes
filled with seawater. Ethanol is captured as a gas in the bottle and condensed to a
liquid. Since algae aren't destroyed, the same ones keep yielding ethanol, holding
down costs.
Algenol CEO Paul Woods says production costs are half those of corn-based ethanol,
and the fuel will wholesale for $1 less than gasoline. His goal: Woods wants to build 20
plants in sunny areas such as Texas and Florida to generate 20 billion gallons of
ethanol by 2020. "We don't have any limitations, because we're not competing with the
food supply," Woods says.
Philip Pienkos, of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, says Algenol's goal is
"definitely doable." But he says there will still be a need for fuels with higher energy
content than ethanol.
Compressed air:
Facilities put stored air to work when wind dies
-
7/31/2019 Energy Problems - Solutions
23/23
Wind farms are sprouting across the country as wind energy costs become competitive
with those of coal-fired power plants. But there's a rub: no wind, no electricity.
Batteries can store electricity generated by wind for use on a day when the wind
doesn't blow. But they're expensive.
PSEG Global, a sister company of a New Jersey utility, says it has the answer. It
recently teamed with energy storage pioneer Michael Nakhamkin to market
compressed-air technology.
Here's how it works: During off-peak hours, wind turbines compress air that's stored
in underground caverns or in more expensive above-ground tanks. The air is released
at peak periods to run turbines and generate power when gusts flag.
The nation's only compressed-air generator was built in Alabama in 1991. PSEG says
it has improved on the technology and hopes to deploy it with power providers.
PSEG says its advanced system can transform the industry. It's about half the price ofbatteries, partly because it uses off-the-shelf power-industry parts rather than
customized compressed-air gear.
The technology is more than 25% cheaper than current systems, says Stephen Byrd,
president of PSEG Energy Holdings.
Also, it can generate electricity in five minutes, vs. current systems that take 20
minutes. That's vital if the wind suddenly stops blowing. "It really is likely to further
enable the growth of renewable" energy, Byrd says.
While the system is largely designed to supplement intermittent wind or solar power, itcan be used to stockpile cheap electricity at night and use it midday when the grid is
strained.
Energy consultant Stow Walker says it sounds promising, but finding suitable
underground storage can be challenging.