energy News, Opinion and Issues | The Earth Times http://www.earthtimes.org the earth times is an environment specific news agency and news resource covering green news, environmental issues and opinion en-us PHP/5.2.17 earthtimes/environment/energyhttp://feedburner.google.com Shale gas, the 'clean bridge' to nowhere?
Illustration of a horizontal drill in Marcellus shale; Credit: Shutterstock


Shale gas and 'fracking' may be tangled up with concerns over dirtying water supplies and making the earth shake in the minds of most. But the boom in shale gas, forced out using hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), has had some other big knock-ons too. The vast increase in shale gas being pumped out in the US has caused gas prices to plummet; prices recently hit a low of $2.50 per 1000 cft (cubic feet). Surely a cheap energy prize for all? Not necessarily, that flood of cheap gas may be turn out to be anything but a boon.

Fracking for shale gas could is undermining the fragile shoots of the renewable energy industry, according to some observers as it is leaving solar and wind power uncompetitive. And shale gas may actually be doing something of a hit-and-run on US energy scene. US agencies have recently been rushing to slash forecast reserves, even as the short-term glut of gas wreaks havoc all round. Both these developments come against the background of growing worries over the impact of shale gas on climate change, which may be 'dirtier' than coal.

Renewables victims of hit-and-run: Shale gas has been a oft-touted 'clean bridge fuel to the future' recently, in recognition of its relatively low CO2 output, when burnt to produce energy. That claim hasn't just come from the shale gas industry. In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama said 'the development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy.'

Whilst those clean credentials are debatable-in-the-extreme thanks to mainly the neglected impact of methane leakage, such thinking has helped fuel a boom in drilling and fracking in the US over the last decade. As shale gas companies have competed for investment money, to frack in ever more areas, reserve numbers have swelled. And 'home-grown' shale gas has been marketed as a fuel that would guarantee energy security for decades. 'We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,' said President Obama.

But the rush to pump out shale gas, as well as spilling problems into water courses across the country, has also left stocks of gas higher than ever, and the price drastically down. Whilst that is great news, short-term, for energy consumers, it is leaving the push to 'zero-carbon' renewables treading water. Rachel Cleetus, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Washington Post last week that natural gas could 'take over the entire pie and crowd out renewables. Part of the reason this is happening is that there's a sense that natural gas resources will be around forever.' Which may be far from the case.

'100-year' reserves shrinking fast: First out the blocks was the U.S. Geological Survey, which said last summer that the Marcellus Shale formation, the gigantic mother-lode formation for shale gas in the US, could hold as little as 20% of its first estimate of unrecovered gas. Then, in the last 2 weeks, the US Energy Department followed suit, cutting its recoverable reserves estimate for the same formation from 410 trillion cubic feet (tcf), to a little over 140 tcf. And the total US potential shale gas production was nearly halved in the same report.

One of the problems of fracking to produce shale gas is that it is a relatively new technology. So predictions of what is likely to be produced are just that. And so far those predictions have only been revised dramatically down. If shale gas turns out to provide only a temporary boost to the nation's energy supply and moreover one that pollutes the planet as much as it does local water supplies, it could prove to be a damaging detour.

With investment wasted in chasing a fuel with few environmental benefits and which has helped to forestall the much-needed rush into truly renewable fuels the shale gas bridge may turn out to be a road to nowhere.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Frack the Earth, Frack the Water!
Half-way report in fracking from US DoE - full of half-measures?
New York body gives amber-light to fracking
Blackpool's 'rocking and rolling' down to fracking
UK Committee wrong to dismiss 'shale gas' worries as 'hot air'

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/shale-gas-boom-clean-bridge-nowhere/1810/ energy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:11:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/shale-gas-boom-clean-bridge-nowhere/1810/ Wind power generates 6% of EU electricity
Wind farm via Shutterstock


There is enough wind energy capacity in the European Union to generate more than six per cent of its electricity, a new report shows.

In 2011, 9,616 Megawatts of wind energy capacity was installed, bringing the total capacity to 93,957 Megawatts, the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) says. This equalled 21.4% of new power capacity, which is 5% above wind industry average annual growth over the previous five years.

EWEA policy director Justin Wilkes says, "Despite the economic crisis gripping Europe, the wind industry is still installing solid levels of new capacity.

"But to achieve the European Union's long-term targets we need strong growth again in future years.

"It is critical to send positive signals to investors by European governments maintaining stable policies to support renewables and for the European Union to commit to put in place a binding renewable energy target for 2030."

Offshore UK wind power installations grew, along with those in Germany, Sweden and Romania, but sales in France and Spain fell. Germany has the most wind power capacity in Europe, followed by France, Spain, Italy and the UK.

Last year was a record for renewable power installations in Europe, accounting for 71.3% of new installations, with generating capacity of 32,043 megawatts - up 37.7% on 2010. Oil and nuclear power installations dropped, with more capacity decommissioned than installed.

Europe's total installed power capacity rose by 35,468 megawatts to 895,878 megawatts. Wind power accounted for 10.5%, and renewable capacity to 31.1%, the EWEA report shows.

Investment in European Wind farms last year totalled €12.6 billion (£10.4 billion), on a par with the previous year. The onshore wind power sector accounted for €10.2 billion (£8.5 billion).

Germany added nearly 2,100 megawatts of new capacity and the UK accounted for the second biggest total with just under 1,300 megawatts with 752 MW coming from offshore sites. Spain had 1,050 megawatts, Italy (950 megawatts), France (830 megawatts), Sweden (763 megawatts) and Romania (520 megawatts).

Wind power accounted for 21.4% of new installations in the European Union in 2011, the third biggest share after solar power (46.7%) and gas (21.6%).

For the second year running, there was more coal capacity installed (2,147 megawatts) than decommissioned (840 megawatts).

"This hike in new coal power capacity highlights the urgent need for the EU to move to a 30% greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, to introduce an Emissions Performance Standard, and to end decades of subsidies for new coal build and its fuel," says the EWEA report.

The trend towards green energy power generation has increased over the last decade or so.

In 2000, new renewable power installations totalled 3.5 gigawatts. Over the past 11 years they have grown ten-fold to reach 32 gigawatts in 2011.

The share of renewables in new energy capacity generation has also grown. In 2000, renewables generated 3.5 gigawatts or 20.7% of new power installations. In 2012, renewables accounted for 32 gigawatts in 2011, (71.3%) of new installations.

The the full report is available via the EWEA website.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Trump opposes Aberdeen offshore wind farm
UN Clean Development Mechanism Hits 3,000 Projects
Evolving more efficient wind farms
US wind power strategy won't be stymied by warming climate
Google says cheap renewable energy will take longer than expected

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/wind-power-generates-eu-electricity/1809/ energy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:54:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/wind-power-generates-eu-electricity/1809/ The Earth Times Asks: Should We Embrace Wind Power?
Wind farm turbines in Cornwall, UK via Shutterstock


Continuing The Earth Times' series of debates on the hottest topics in the fields of the environment and conservation, we explore the arguments for and against wind power. Tackling the issue are Jonathan Pyke and Mark Duchamp.

Jonathan Pyke is the coordinator of Action for Renewables, which campaigns for the expansion of renewable energy in the UK. It works with the public, the energy industry and environmental campaigners at both the local and the national level. For more information, visit the Action for Renewables website or follow its latest news on Twitter: @Act4Renewables.

Mark Duchamp is the executive director of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW), which works to question the effectiveness of wind farms as a tool for solving a range of environmental problems. Mark is also the president of Save the Eagles International and serves as the chairman of the World Council for Nature (WCFN).

Q: Under the European Union climate change targets, around a third of all the UK's electricity will have to come from renewable sources. What role can wind power play in achieving this?

Jonathan: Wind is contributing over 6GW of energy already. Out of all renewable technologies it's the one we've got the most experience in, so the bulk of generation is going to come from on and offshore wind. But there's also a big role for solar photovoltaics, biogas and tidal generation too, as those technologies establish themselves.

The EU climate change targets are crucial, but this is also about increasing the security of energy generation as well as the cheapest and most technologically developed renewable energy source. In terms of cost, onshore wind is competitive with coal and gas, and with a quarter of the UK's coal stations shutting down over the next five years, we will need to replace that generation. Many people suggest we should ignore wind in favour of nuclear, which vastly overestimates how quickly new power stations can be built. A few years ago, early estimates suggested that the next generation of nuclear power stations, like Bradley and Hinkley Point, could be online by 2018; but now it's unlikely they'll be up and running before 2025. Wind can be deployed considerably faster, helping us plug that gap with something more sustainable.

Mark: There are no studies showing that wind farms achieve measurable savings in fuel imports or CO2 emissions. But there are at least five reports that demonstrate the opposite to be true: no savings at all, and some even suggest wind farms may increase the use of fossil fuels. The latest report on that is from Civitas. I refer you to our press release.

Q: How accurate is the argument that wind turbines have to be 'backed-up' by alternative sources of power, eg nuclear or coal, due to the irregularity of wind?

Jonathan: It's not accurate and I think it stems from a misunderstanding about what wind energy is for. It's better to think of wind as the back-up for gas, allowing us to make much better use of our existing fossil fuel power plants than relying on gas alone. There's no need to burn gas when the wind is blowing, which National Grid can predict extremely accurately. So comparing it to nuclear or coal is misleading because wind serves a different purpose; every time it blows there's a substantial decrease in carbon emissions, volatile fossil fuel costs, water for cooling, manufacturing and pollution. The 'back-up' argument just isn't valid.

Mark: It is not an argument, it is a fact. In Spain, the government paid over 1 billion euros in 2010 to compensate gas fired power plants for the losses incurred in backing up wind farms. An explanation of the intermittency/back-up problem can be seen here.

Q: Is opposition to wind farms mainly about 'Nimbyism'? Should, as Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, said, opposition to wind farms be a 'social taboo'?

Jonathan: I'm not keen on the 'Nimby' expression because people object to wind farms for all sorts of reasons. A lot of the time it stems from not being given the opportunity to talk it through over time, as well as not having access to properly sourced and peer reviewed information, especially when it comes to health impacts. Developers are doing these things but there's always room for more and the most successful wind farms are often the ones where a really committed sustained effort has been made to understand and respond to people's objections. There will always be a small vocal minority against any change or development, but stamping down on dialogue and objections rules out any opportunity to engage with a community. Increasingly, however, a small core is political and ideological. There are people who don't believe the global scientific consensus that as humans we are contributing to the change in our climate, therefore we shouldn't green up our energy sources. In this case, while I don't think it should be a social taboo, if you're prepared to ignore the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed and agreed science as some kind of greenwash conspiracy theory then I'm not convinced that should be taken seriously as a reasoned platform for decision-making.

Mark: I am not a nimby, there is no wind farm, existing or planned, within 20 km of where I live. I started to fight wind farms ten years ago, when I discovered they were killing scores of golden eagles yearly at Altamont Pass, California. This being said, I defend Nimbyism. As Terrence Blacker said an article in The Independent: "The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support." Additionally, research carried out at the University of Barcelona found that local protesters often address issues of bad planning that are ignored or discounted by authorities or developers. This study found that Nimbys could prevent the destruction of rural amenities and often work against public policy which defends private interests.

Q: Is there a difference between a good wind farm and a bad wind farm?

Jonathan: I think they're improving, which means yes. There's a high profile wind farm in the States called Altamont, which was built in the early 80's. It happened to be in the migration path of a number of eagle species, and each year there have been very high numbers of dead or injured birds. That's an example of a bad wind farm! The flip side of that is that the experience made sure that rigorous environmental regulations were put in place and modern farms are sited in places that won't disturb birds or other animals, and I'm pleased to say nothing like that has happened in the UK. The industry is always striving to improve siting to make sure that wind farms are in the best possible place for all concerned. In the case of birds, the RSBP is a supporter of renewable technology, including wind, so if they see a potential problem, it's taken seriously. But if wind energy really was that damaging to birds, why would the RSBP support it?

Mark: The onus is on governments to prove that there are "good wind farms" that help save on fossil fuel imports and on pollution. They haven't even attempted to do it, and for good reason: nowhere on earth have wind farms been shown to cut down on either. See why in my second answer.

Q: To what extent should local communities be given a say in wind power? Or should the issue of wind farms be pushed through by central government?

Jonathan: Absolutely not. Again, I think a lot of the opposition to wind power, especially in local communities comes from a feeling that things are out of their control, that they don't have all the facts, and people don't react well to that, but as I said before, the wind farms that have had the easiest development, and the best relationship with their neighbours are the ones where the developers have really spoken to and worked with local people right from the start. And some of the most exciting projects have been community-owned schemes, where local people actually own one or more of the turbines. In Fintry in Scotland they've used the community benefit scheme to save over £600 on each annual bill by installing energy efficiency schemes in over three quarters of the homes in the village. But it does need leadership from Government, and clear demonstrations that they are committed to supporting the wind industry and renewables more broadly.

Mark: First, governments should do their homework (see my first reply). Then, a nationwide public debate should be engaged (that is how democracy should work). In the meantime, a moratorium should be called.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

The effect of wind turbines on bats
Offshore wind farm provides shelter for some species
Celebrate the power of wind with Global Wind Day
Nuclear crutch needed says UK's Renewable Energy Review
Wind Farms paid to stop producing energy

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/should-we-embrace-wind-power/1807/ energy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:32:34 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/should-we-embrace-wind-power/1807/ Frack the Earth, Frack the Water!
Hydraulic fracturing via Shutterstock


Karoo, South Africa: The Earth is a colossal bio-geo-heritage entity worth protecting beyond measure. The Earth formed 4.6 billion (4 600 million) years ago, forming the inner layers of the planet, over slow-measured geological time, the upper layers, the atmosphere and water vapour formed making life on Earth possible. The Karoo, a semi-desert biome, is a site of ancient geological processes, from the layers of natural ground profile from the surface to deep within the earth's crust, to the underground water supply.

One would be none the wiser about the pristine liquid flowing beneath one's feet as one stands on this desert terrain. But indeed there is a supply of freshwater, the only drinking water source, in this arid landscape where hardy beautiful flora survive in co-habitation with the passionate rural-dwellers. The landscape is sparsely populated with farms, small-holdings and towns steeped in rich cultural and political history; it's a place once escapes to when the superficiality of the urban centres rankles your spirit. So, when the most distressing news was wired across the landscape that one of the biggest oil companies in the country was looking at cracking open the Karoo and extracting its gas resources and decimating its natural and socially-dependent life-giving resources, soil and water, all hell-broke loose and the quiet, tranquillity was transformed into a location of social-environmental mobilisation. The communities in the Karoo were adamant that they would not be steam-rolled by a unilateral heavy industry in economic collaboration with the state.

Sasol, the main contender, in a joint venture with Royal Dutch Shell, multinationals Statoil and Chesapeake Energy, Falcon Oil & Gas, and Bundu Oil & Gas; applied to the South African Department of Mineral and Energy for exploration permits. The state issued a moratorium last year on fracking due to the rising contention, and has yet to rule on its final decision. While the state deliberates, civil society has been lobbying and advocating international, generating massive support, and have exerted their 'Right to Know' in demanding through court procedures for full disclosure of all documentation on the project's. In the meanwhile the moratorium deadline ends this February. Sasol did withdraw from further exploration early December 2011, a brief respite for the Karoo residents, but uncertainty looms.

Deep within the earth archaic processes led to rock formations trapped with gas and oil. The Karoo, is underlain by the Karoo Supergroup, representing many different rock types formed under different accumulation conditions, with the oldest forming the base layers. Shale is one of these rock layers. Shale a distinguishable rock, smooth, fine grey, red, brown, black, it breaks easily due to the layered profile. Black shales have a high organic content, acted upon by high temperatures within the Earth creates conditions for the production of shale gas and shale oil. What happens is that gases no matter where they are above or below ground will rise due to lower density; however underground free movement is restricted and the gases are trapped between rock layers. The oil giants profiteering off natural resources, using polluting technologies to acquire wealth, are running out of conventional oil reserves and have found a panacea for new wealth, its shale gas. This way they continue with fossil-fuel energy unabated, with no regard to their existing environmental destruction, that is more a thorn in their side. They have no intention of redeeming themselves and becoming climate protection proponents moving to a green economy.

So the oil merchants want to embark on a deeply intrusive process, of drilling straight down into the earth's layers up to 6000m and then making a sharp left or right angle turn to access the horizontal layers wherein the gas lies trapped in the shale profiles. So besides the intrusive drills that alter the tectonic stability, immense quantities of water are required for the concoction of chemicals (toxicological impacts to the ecosystem and humans), the water is used at high pressure to break-down the rock, fracturing it for gas extraction. This is hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. In water scarce region like the Karoo, this seems absurd.

Biophysical Impacts of Fracking

The biodiversity of the Karoo on the surface and below will forever be altered, from surface and groundwater contamination, to geological instability and potential seismic activity caused by fracking into unstable zones or fault lines, floral and fauna habitat destruction. A consideration of high impact but never considered in macro impact assessments, the microlife decimation, the deep layers of the earth are home to some of our most archaic species that are older than humankind surviving in extreme environmental under extreme temperature and conditions. The list of impacts is endless yet specific.

Social Impacts of Fracking

The most critical social impact in a water-stressed, groundwater dependent semi-desert region is water. The livelihood and survival of the Karoo dwellers is intrinsically tied to their water supply from the aquifers. The industrialists never saw for fit to invade the Karoo landscape as it's been associated with barren resources, but their desperation to colonise new unconventional fossil-fuels is driving them beyond the traditional economic hubs. While the Karoo reeks of the inequities of apartheid with extreme poverty in black communities and more affluent white communities, the latter the farm owners who serve to lose land space due to the legality of mineral rights and land rights being held two divergent allotments. If one owns the land surface one does not necessarily own the mining rights. The reality of racial poverty dynamics is being preyed upon by big business that is well aware that its 17 years gone and the black communities are in dire straits, jobless, foodless and homeless. This target is age-old and has forever been used by industrialists in creating greater divides from the red (workers and labour unions) and green (environmentalists) to the desperate poverty divide versus white conservation concerns. While those imbalances need to be rectified, promoting an increase in the carbon economy is not the way to go. Promoting further environmental ruin and profits before health and environment, will not benefit the long-term sustainable of the poorest of the poor, but will line the pockets of the polluters.

If the arguments on the technicality and potential impacts of the process and trust in these industrialists and their spin doctors don't shake your indecision on this debate, then surely the track record of heavy industry and petrochemical complex should, all of whom have revealed unforgivable human health and biophysical lethal contamination to communities, workers and nature.

We need to unequivocally promote and fight for cleaner technologies that promote skills development, job creation and poverty alleviation and ensure that the very blue liquid that gives us life, is regarded as a national conservation heritage.



Any views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author


© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Fish and Fracking - A collection of eco stories from October
The environmental news this week: October 7th 2011
Texas struggles to manage hydrofracking water use
Half-way report in fracking from US DoE - full of half-measures?
New York body gives amber-light to fracking

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/frack-earth-frack-water/1786/ energy Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:33:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/frack-earth-frack-water/1786/ Searaser converts ocean wave power into clean renewable energy
Searaser; Credit: Ecotricity


Dale Vince, OBE., started his green energy company, Ecotricity, way back in 1996 and has introduced green gas and many other clean energy innovations. His Searaser, invented by Alvin Smith and manufactured by Ecotricity, solves the cost and variable output problems faced by those who wish to gain the power of the ocean.

It simply converts the wave's swell into a vertical push in a turbine onshore. A vertical piston moves up and down as a surface buoy and a seabed anchor and hose-raising buoy respond to wave movement. The piston pumps the pressured water to the turbine and electricity is created.

Searaser converts wave power into green energy

Searaser being deployed; Credit: Ecotricity


Many previous inventions have used an offshore assembly which is subject to corrosion and abrasion. Manufacture is therefore expensive and maintenance is very difficult in bad weather. With few moving parts, this system should last much longer and it can also be extended. The pumped water from a depth of 25m fills a coastal reservoir and this can perpetually supply a hydroelectric turbine. That solves the problem of variable output.

Alan Smith said, "There are over 150 reservoirs on our cliff tops already around the south west. A lot of these are becoming available. These tanks can be large or the size of a family swimming pool." He said that a full size machine would be about 1m wide and 12m deep and cost up to £250,000. By 2014, trials and experiments will cease and the two proposed eco- assemblies will be commercially available. Ecotricity wants to develop a commercial Searaser for testing off Falmouth in Cornwall and put hundreds around the coast in five years.

Searaser producing wave powered energy

Searaser producing wave powered energy; Credit: Ecotricity


"Our vision is for Britain's electricity needs to be met entirely from the big three renewable energy sources - the wind, the sun and the sea." - Dale Vince 2011

Alvin Smith is from Cornwall where the sea is always near. He has harnessed the almost constant energy in such a way as to guarantee perpetual motion converts into perpetual energy. Working in Dartmouth, he noted the potential of a beach ball rising and falling in a swimming pool and developed the idea. That ancient dream can now be extended to every home, cheaper than gas, coal, nuclear and other clean energies. It now looks as though Portland Bill and Falmouth harbour could see test machines within twelve months.



How SEARASER works




© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

UK wave power machines get new funding

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/searaser-converts-ocean-wave-power-clean-renewable-energy/1776/ energy Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:08:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/searaser-converts-ocean-wave-power-clean-renewable-energy/1776/ Seaweed farms may provide a sustainable biofuel of the future
Brown algae via Shutterstock




American scientists have engineered a microbe that takes the sugars from seaweed (brown macroalgae) and turns it into alternative energy that could replace oil and coal, according to a study published in Science magazine.

The researchers, from Bio Architecture Lab (BAL), in Berkeley, California, say the breakthrough enables brown seaweed to be used as the raw material for an advanced biofuel.

Daniel Trunfio, BAL's Chief Executive Officer, says, "About sixty percent of the dry biomass of seaweed are sugars, and more than half of those are locked in a single sugar - alginate.

"Our scientists have developed a pathway to metabolize the alginate, allowing us to unlock all the sugars in seaweed, which therefore makes macroalgae an economical alternative feedstock for the production of renewable fuels and chemicals.

"It is both an incredible scientific achievement and a distinguished honour to be published in Science and I am very proud of our team. It is yet another strong validation of BAL's breakthrough technology," he adds.

Seaweed is ideal to be used for biofuels and renewable chemicals because it contains high sugar levels without lignin and does not need farmland or sources of freshwater.

More than 60 billion gallons of alternative biofuel could be extracted from seaweed at just three percent of the world's coastlines. Brown seaweed is already grown commercially in many countries, including at four seaweed farms run by BAL in Chile.

Seaweed farming - Seaweed's rapid growth in native saltwater environments and high sugar content make it an ideal feedstock for renewable fuels and chemicals. This image relates to a paper that appeared in the Jan. 20, 2012, issue of Science, published by AAAS. The paper, by A.J. Wargacki at Bio Architecture Lab in Berkeley, CA, and colleagues was titled,

Seaweed farming - Seaweed's rapid growth in native saltwater environments and high sugar content make it an ideal feedstock for renewable fuels and chemicals. This image relates to a paper that appeared in the Jan. 20, 2012, issue of Science, published by AAAS. The paper, by A.J. Wargacki at Bio Architecture Lab in Berkeley, CA, and colleagues was titled, "An Engineered Microbial Platform for Direct Biofuel Production from Brown Macroalgae; Credit: Image courtesy of Bio Architecture Lab, Inc


BAL received U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) status for DuPont's research into how to convert sugars from seaweed into the fossil fuel substitute, isobutanol.

ARPA-E Program Director Dr. Jonathan Burbaum says the new discovery opens up new opportunities for the production of biofuel without using precious food sources.

"When fully developed and deployed, large scale seaweed cultivation combined with BAL's technology promises to produce renewable fuels and chemicals without forcing a trade-off with conventional food crops such as corn or sugarcane."

BAL has also received backing from the Concurso Nacional Grant from InnovaChile CORFO and Statoil, the Norwegian oil giant and the world's biggest offshore oil and gas producer, to help finance the project.

The Californian lab aims to help secure the production of the world's cheapest, most scalable, and sustainable source of sugars from native, aqua-farmed seaweed to create biofuels and the production of renewable chemicals.

BAL, which is a privately held company, is backed by various companies including Aurus Bios, Austral Capital, Statoil Venture and X/Seed Capital.

It also receives financial backing from the U.S. Department of Energy's ARPAE program and from InnovaChile CORFO, the Chilean Economic Development Agency in partnership with the Universidad de Los Lagos.

BAL has a strategic partnership with the Norwegian oil and gas company, Statoil.

Full details of the seaweed biofuel project are contained in the Science magazine article, An Engineered Microbial Platform for Direct Biofuel Production from Brown Macroalgae.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Those pesky bacteria
Sprinkle of seaweed to make more powerful, less toxic batteries

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/seaweed-sustainable-biofuel/1771/ energy Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:09:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/seaweed-sustainable-biofuel/1771/ Is there a future for nuclear energy?
The Fukushima nuclear plant before the tsunami wave via Shutterstock




We all empathise with the tragic Fukushima nuclear episode. One of the most prepared countries for such a disaster was unable to cope with a tsunami. We are relieved that fewer people are officially affected than was first thought, but there is doubt internationally that nuclear facilities are ever safe. With Japan as the biggest sufferer for 25 years in this third major nuclear accident, the nuclear industry is now hesitant continuing.

Politically, several Asian countries cause nuclear concern and another light-water reactor has been predicted to cause problems, since Chernobyl. China is in the forefront of the doubters, after many years of nuclear "progress." Many countries still continue with their nuclear fission programme, arguing that earthquake zones will not be used in future.

Western Europe with much less fossil fuel use than ever before, produces 50% of its electricity from nuclear reactors and could provide the stimulus for others to re-instigate their nuclear production. But if President Sarkozy goes, then many French nuclear plants will join the 17 German reactors in closure. Britain, the Czechs and the Netherlands are liable to continue their nuclear programmes and efforts to cut carbon emissions.

The Kyoto protocol of 1997 seems likely to be abandoned in 2012. Carbon emissions may actually increase unless China and the US agree to a similar protocol. The Copenhagen agreement of 2009 confirmed President Obama as somewhat green, but he will have to go further than promises.

nuclear power plant at Temelin in the Czech Republic

Nuclear power plant in Temelin (Czech Republic) via Shutterstock


We also have the prospect of the formation of North versus South blocs in the IAEA. With Iran and North Korea both alienated and as aggressive as they can be, nuclear weapons are on the agenda, when we have lack of agreement on almost every other nuclear race. India and Pakistan have over 50 nuclear weapons, after forty years of disparate development, with Chinese and other help. The two countries rarely develop in unison, with India now growing as Pakistan struggles.

The Non-Aligned Movement affords a unique possibility of influencing their members, with all but one of the problem countries involved. Those who followed President Tito in 1961 now include many countries who would agree with major powers on confining nuclear weapons. No-one knows how arguments would proceed in that forum.

Will any cross-fertilization between the weapons enthusiasts and those who enjoy nuclear fission take place? Alternatively will the disarmament lobby begin to agree with the anti-nuclear energy bloc. The politics is deep but the prospects for most progressive manoeuvres have always been bleak.

The four named nuclear stances are undoubtedly totally independent, but progress in one area affects sources and arguments for the others. 2012 could be predicted to have fewer power stations, less weapons and thereby a reduced risk for accident or war.

This article was based on a paper published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: 'Nuclear energy 2011: A watershed year'.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight
Nuclear waste from Cold War-era is here to stay
Fukushima six months on: scientists assess the impacts
Fatal accident at Marcoule nuclear facility
US seeks to implement lessons learned from Fukushima quickly

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/nuclear-energy-future/1752/ energy Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:40:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/nuclear-energy-future/1752/ New breakthrough in solar technology
Solar technology via Shutterstock




A new prototype solar cell has been designed by researchers at the University of Florida. They claim that it sees new levels of efficiency and could be made using a roll-to-roll process, a spokesman said, "Imagine making solar panels by a process that looks like printing newspaper roll to roll," said Franky So, a UF professor in the department of materials science and engineering.

This process of manufacture has been something of interest for many years but the biggest problem has always been that they simply cannot harness enough energy per square inch from this process to make it a viable option.

Solar Cell panel

Solar Cell panel via Shutterstock


However, this has now changed with the team at the University of Florida achieving 8% efficiency in their new prototype solar cells. They have achieved this by using a zinc oxide polymer blend as the electron charge transporting material.

They say it is the process of applying the zinc that is the secret behind their new success. The chemistry team, run by John Reynolds, has added an extra polymer coating that overlays the zinc oxide polymer blend and Reynolds claims that this is what has seen the increase in efficiency, "That's where the real action is," he said. The polymer blend creates the charges, and the zinc oxide layer delivers electrons to the outer circuit more efficiently."

This new creation will now be transported to Riso National Laboratory over in Denmark. There, they will be able to copy the materials and manufacturing processes to give them more thorough testing. It is a collaboration that could see a new era of solar power, "This sort of thing can only happen when you have interdisciplinary groups like ours working together," said Reynolds.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Nanotubes and the dawn of the flexible solar cell

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/new-breakthrough-solar-technology/1725/ energy Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/new-breakthrough-solar-technology/1725/ Jet stream winds show less renewable energy potential
A jet stream via Shutterstock




Jet stream winds are not an ideal source of renewable energy, scientists now claim. Some experts have previously believed the winds in the upper atmosphere might provide an abundant supply of renewable energy.

But studies conducted at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena suggest they would generate around 200-times less power than previously thought and have a dramatic impact on weather and temperature.

Axel Kleidon, head of the Max Planck Research Group on Biospheric Theory and Modelling, says, "Our investigations show that the potential of the jet streams as a source of renewable energy was overestimated. It is incumbent on us to carefully study the global impact of renewable energy technologies that seem environmentally sound."

Scientists have claimed the high speeds of the jet stream winds, from 7-16km up in the air, could drive rotary wind turbines hanging in the air like kites.

Rotary wind turbines could hang like kites in the upper atmosphere where the jet streams blow. This photomontage shows what they might look like

Rotary wind turbines could hang like kites in the upper atmosphere where the jet streams blow. This photomontage shows what they might look like; © Lee Miller


But the Max Planck researchers say the wind speed comes from the fact that there is hardly any friction in the upper atmosphere, rather than powerful propulsion. In addition, simulation tests show the climate might undergo significant changes if an enormous amount of energy was removed from the jet streams.

The geostrophic jet stream winds constantly move at more than 90km an hour and much work has gone into developing technologies to generate renewable power.

The streams themselves are created as radiation from the sun warms the tropics more than the poles. The difference in temperature in the atmosphere produced a reduction in air pressure, which drives the winds. This limits the wind strength and the amount of wind energy that can be taken from the jet stream.

The rising effect of changes in pressure and the Coriolis force from the rotation of the earth create the power and direction. Winds are forced to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere.

The streams travel quickly because they originate in the upper atmosphere, far away from the earth and any friction, so little energy is needed to create and maintain the wind flow.

Axel Kleidon explains, "It is precisely this low energy requirement that limits the potential for using the jet streams as a source of renewable energy."

A high level of kinetic energy does not necessarily mean that it can be used in wind power stations. Top: A model simulation of kinetic energy transport. Bottom: The maximum extraction rate. The transport of kinetic energy is often wrongly seen as a measure of wind output, whereas it merely reflects high transport in the near absence of friction. This is why the extraction rate (bottom) is several orders of magnitude lower

A high level of kinetic energy does not necessarily mean that it can be used in wind power stations. Top: A model simulation of kinetic energy transport. Bottom: The maximum extraction rate. The transport of kinetic energy is often wrongly seen as a measure of wind output, whereas it merely reflects high transport in the near absence of friction. This is why the extraction rate (bottom) is several orders of magnitude lower; © Lee Miller / MPI for Biogeochemistry


After carrying out atmospheric tests and climate simulations, the group says the maximum output of energy from the jet stream winds in 7.5terawatts (7.5million megawatts). This is 200-times less usable wind energy than detailed in earlier studies and around 40% of half of mankind's primary energy requirements.

Wind turbines create a resistance to convert wind energy to power and if energy was taken from the jet stream, it would upset the balance of jet stream forces in a major way, slowing the climate system and wiping out the temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, the group claims.

Lead author, Lee Miller, says, "If we used wind turbines to take 7.5 terawatts out of the atmosphere at the level of the jet streams, about 300 terawatts less energy would be generated in the atmosphere as a whole. This would have a drastic impact on temperature and weather."



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Searaser converts ocean wave power into clean renewable energy
Arizona argument: The impact of renewable energy
Scaling Down Ambitions on Renewable Energy Not Cost Effective
California aims for 'Solarfornia'
'Hinkley Point C' - Britain's newest nuclear power station

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/jet-stream-winds-lower-renewable-energy-potential/1708/ energy Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:55:18 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/jet-stream-winds-lower-renewable-energy-potential/1708/ Arizona argument: The impact of renewable energy
The Sonora desert is rich in biodiversity (eg, the biggest cactus, Carnegiea gigantean) via Shutterstock




Green versus, well, green too, face off in a problem that faces those who care about the American west, including Jeffrey Lovich and Joshua Ennen of the US Geological Survey, who co-wrote this important article.

Solar power and the Arizona desert is a good fit, with the highest radiation in North America, as shown in this map. Hundreds of thousands of hectares will be affected soon by the construction of photovoltaic power generators and various offsite effects.

solar energy potential


These basic impacts of renewable energy are listed as habitat fragmentation, dust creation, pollution by varied chemicals and heat and light generation. We can assume various wildlife species could be heavily influenced by this change, throughout the south-west. That argument leads to further conclusions on where exactly sites should be placed, whether in groups or spread throughout an optimal area.

Neglect of protected species in these areas with high biodiversity and related sensitivity of the habitats involved, is bound to lead to a clash of the two green cultures. The Mojave and Sonoran deserts have large human population and climatic changes occurring at present. More stress on certain species could cause greater effects than those stresses already threatening them. Sadly the effects of renewable energy on wildlife has been concentrated on wind power on bird spp. Scant information is current on solar power effects on local habitats and species.

Uniquely, the two local tortoises come to the fore in this desert scene. As "umbrella species," they engineer burrows for many other denizens of the desert, including several endangered lizard species affording them shade, cool temperature and living space.

Agassiz's desert tortoise

Agassiz's desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Large areas of desert tortoise habitat are developed or being evaluated for renewable energy development, including wind and solar energy. Photograph: Jeffrey Lovich


The various impacts of solar energy construction and eventual decommissioning of such constructions have been estimated as ground disturbance and mortalities and habitat loss/modification for local (mainly subterranean) species. As large areas are needed for solar energy generation, several relatively undisturbed regions are under consideration. Photovoltaic cells presently with an 10% conversion efficiency, could actually meet all US electricity demand, if 32,000 km2 (or the state of Maryland would do!) were employed.

Surface disturbance is affected by cooling technology. With a scant water supply, dry cooling systems are more suited to the system, but less so to the wildlife habitat as their footprint is larger. Human activity in the desert would be similar to many other such human interventions in the area. Unfortunately, most hibernating animals in the Coachella Valley, for example, are present at depths less than 33cm (13 inches).

A desert horned lizard

A desert horned lizard takes a stroll from the tortoise burrow it occupies in the Sonoran desert via Shutterstock


Flat-tailed horned lizards and fringe toed lizards* are easily trapped or killed, even when a motorcycle passes over them. Any heavy equipment could compress and kill very large numbers of these federally-protected* and other creatures. Dust would be expected to cause photosynthetic, gas exchange and water usage of plants. Burial, root exposure and physical damage must also be taken into account, which in turn indirectly causes loss of food supplies and the quality of habitat. As dust suppressants are needed to maintain solar panel cleanliness and hence efficiency, their various effects on plants (and animals to a lesser extent) have been recorded as hazardous. Magnesium chloride was particularly harsh on plants, partly because total suspended solids increase in the run-off water greatly increased damage.

From the literature available on related ground disturbance, many desert processes would be altered, grossly affecting many habitat qualities. So far the following have been found to be profoundly affected:

soil density

water infiltration rate

likelihood of erosion

secondary plant succession

invasion by alien plants, and

stability of soil crusts.

Drainage patterns would obviously be disturbed by ground preparation, changing plant communities' water supplies and killing by root dessication.

A desert with roads is changed far beyond the imagination of a road user. A study in southern Nevada found Agassiz's tortoise activity affected up to 4000m from a road. Edge enhancement (meaning plant and herbivore proliferation alongside roads) inevitably means attraction of species such as tortoise to the road, leading to previous figures being produced on increased vehicle strikes. Fragmentation of habitat by the roads has affected desert ecology in many ways, with bighorn sheep the tortoise spp. and mule deer already restricted in genetic exchange as well as migration (creating bottlenecks, for example) and general movement with resultant range reduction.

Noise pollution mainly during the construction (and decommissioning) phases would have great effects on many different species of animal. Rattlesnakes could have a field day, as kangaroo rats have been proved to be less able to detect predators (partly due to loss of hearing). The quiet nature of solar energy belies its ability to encourage traffic flow and the need for large numbers of pumps and fans, particularly for the preferred dry cooling systems. Uniquely worrying too are those concentrated beans of reflected light. These have been recorded killing birds and flying insects, but the heat involved can transport downwind to create drought conditions. That particular micro-climate can only be expected to damage these ultra-sensitive habitats.

In conclusion, J&J presume that old mine sites, overgrazed pastures, and abandoned crop fields could be recommended by authorities as they cause least distress to habitats and provide suitable simple infrastructure for development on a large scale. Mitigation is the key to saving tortoise and other protected species. Translocation is a poor choice unless better guarantees are given that in previous such attempts. Other mitigation strategies could only involve reduction or compensation for any impact of development.

A condition of the occupation of an area could be monitoring of the status of threatened habitats and/or species. Interestingly, Abbasi and Abbasi have stated that "renewable energy sources are not the panacea they are popularly perceived to be; indeed, in some cases, their adverse environmental impacts can be as strongly negative as the impacts of conventional energy sources." These strong references to environmentally disastrous consequences from what in effect should be a climate-altering success story must be divisive.

An array of photovoltaics in the Sonora Desert

An array of photovoltaics in the Sonora Desert via Shutterstock


Who should win the day, Green energy or Green (if that can possibly be appropriate) desert? The brave pair of authors suggest only extensive further research can possibly help the decision.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Searaser converts ocean wave power into clean renewable energy
Jet stream winds show less renewable energy potential
Scaling Down Ambitions on Renewable Energy Not Cost Effective
California aims for 'Solarfornia'
'Hinkley Point C' - Britain's newest nuclear power station

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/arizona-argument-impact-renewable-energy/1705/ energy Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:14:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/arizona-argument-impact-renewable-energy/1705/ Scaling Down Ambitions on Renewable Energy Not Cost Effective Positive Energy report by WWF-UK. This is contrary to KPMG's beliefs that scaling down renewable energy ambitions could save the economy £34 billion within the next ten years.]]>
Renewable energy via Shutterstock




According to the Positive Energy report by WWF-UK, cutting back renewable energy ambitions is a step backwards and could cost us in the long term. This is contrary to KPMG's beliefs that scaling down renewable energy ambitions could save the economy £34 billion within the next ten years. WWF-UK tackles global environmental issues such as climate change and reducing the use of fossil fuels. Developed in 1961, one of their ambitions is to work with businesses, communities and politicians to promote the use of sustainable energy sources.

WWF-UK states that the use of gas as a power source is directly correlated to the rise in the costs of energy bills. In contrast to the focus of the KPMG report, the use of unsustainable gas and nuclear power is actually contributing to the rising expenses in the home. Electricity was used to a lesser extent between 2004 and 2009, with approximately 21% more consumers relying on gas. The Climate Change Act requires the amount of carbon emissions produced to be cut by a certain amount by certain target dates and it has been recommended that they must be cut by 60% in the UK by 2030. This means that over-reliance on gas could prevent this target from being met.

The Energy Research Centre has found that, by encouraging energy efficiency in the transport and business sectors as well as in the home, the cost of using sustainable energy sources will be reduced by £70 billion: a massive £36 billion more than could be saved by scaling down these renewable energy ambitions.

WWF-UK also point out that moving towards a more energy efficient future could also create job opportunities and be a massive investment for the UK as a whole. Factories producing sustainable energy resources and technologies will be built all over the UK, creating employment for thousands which will greatly reduce the uncertainty that comes with cutting back on renewable energy ambitions. It is estimated that 115,000 jobs could be created, which will stabilise the economy somewhat and may be the most lucrative industry over all others.

In order to reduce carbon emissions to the targets set for 2030 and 2050, the UK's Committee on Climate Change made some recommendations. These include better insulation for homes and the widespread use of heat pumps instead of conventional heaters. Industries also must cut back on their energy emissions by 50% and the investment in wind and nuclear technologies could help achieve this.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Searaser converts ocean wave power into clean renewable energy
Jet stream winds show less renewable energy potential
Arizona argument: The impact of renewable energy
California aims for 'Solarfornia'
'Hinkley Point C' - Britain's newest nuclear power station

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/scaling-down-ambitions-renewable-energy-not-cost-effective/1607/ energy Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:52:01 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/scaling-down-ambitions-renewable-energy-not-cost-effective/1607/ 'Greener' hybrid power plants proposed
Electricity pylons via Shutterstock




First, there were hybrid cars, now 'green' hybrid power plants are on the way, say university researchers.

Many power plants use traditional fuel to make energy, says Tel Aviv University professor Avi Kribus, from the School of Mechanical Engineering. Others that are more environmentally friendly run on solar thermal power, but they can be costly to construct and operate. The turbines are powered by high pressure and temperatures produced by sunlight, but the cost of the equipment that harnesses the energy is expensive, as it made from valuable metals.

As a hybrid alternative, Professor Kribus has devised a new steam-injection gas turbine method that employs both fuel and steam from solar power, so plants can use green energy for up to half of their power needs.

Prof Kribus, who has worked with graduate student Maya Livshits on the project, says, "We combine a gas turbine, which works on hot air and not steam, and inject the solar-produced steam into the process.

"We still need to burn fuel to heat the air, but we add steam from low-temperature solar energy, approximately 200 degrees centigrade."

The hybrid method is an efficient way of producing energy and because it operates and lower pressures and temperatures, the solar equipment can be made out of cheaper materials.

Prof Kribus' work is set to be published in a forthcoming issue of Solar Energy Journal. He acknowledges that the hybrid system might not be totally environmentally friendly, but it is more affordable and practical than traditional methods.

Energy from plants powered by solar energy costs double that of plants using traditional fuel at present, which stops it being widely used.

Professor Kribus hopes that the costs of operating a hybrid plant could be similar to a traditional power plant and kinder to the environment.

The researchers have approached an Indian university to further develop the project and are interested in contacting corporate partners.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Wind power generates 6% of EU electricity
The Earth Times Asks: Should We Embrace Wind Power?
Searaser converts ocean wave power into clean renewable energy
Arizona argument: The impact of renewable energy
Examining Ice Age Hominins' adaptability to Climate Change

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/greener-hybrid-power-plants-proposed/1596/ energy Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:28:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/greener-hybrid-power-plants-proposed/1596/ Aluminium alloy allows affordable hydrogen storage
Aluminium example via Shutterstock




A fuel that is abundant and non-polluting would be the perfect alternative to the environmentally-damaging fossil fuels that are in use today. The fact that this fuel does exist and is readily available may surprise many, but the use of hydrogen is not without complications.

When hydrogen is used as a fuel it combines with oxygen in the air to form the by-product water. As water is not a contaminant the system is pollution free. The problems are found when the practicalities of storing the hydrogen are taken into account. In its natural state hydrogen tends to bond to itself, forming H2 molecules, and this molecular hydrogen requires high pressure and low temperature to store.

It is possible to break these bonds with a catalyst such as platinum or palladium, but these are rare and expensive metals that rapidly make the solution economically unviable. Researchers have been keen to find a cheaper alternative and researchers from Washington State University and the University of Texas may have had some success.

Using a foundation of aluminium the team added a thin titanium/aluminium alloy surface. This has allowed them to develop a catalyst without the need for the less abundant noble metals.

Although these are still the early stages of development for this material, the researchers hope that the future will lead to the development of a solid aluminium hydride-based storage medium. Aluminium hydride is a stable solid that on heating would release the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell or in a combustion system. The dangers and costs involved in the storage of large quantities of hydrogen gas would be eliminated and the possibility of fuel storage without complex equipment could become a reality.

This is clearly a positive step for the move towards hydrogen as a viable energy source and, with all of the benefits that this will involve, it seems like positive step for the environment in general.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

ESO travel through time with VLT
Semiconductor uses solar power to take H2 from water
Toyota builds hydrogen stations ready for new fuel cell vehicles
Hydrogen fuel-cells get a boost with a cheap catalyst makeover
Zero Emission Taxis to be Tested for Olympics 2012

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/aluminium-alloy-affordable-hydrogen-storage/1570/ energy Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:11:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/aluminium-alloy-affordable-hydrogen-storage/1570/ California aims for 'Solarfornia'
Solar panel farm in desert illustration via Shutterstock


California is very ambitious about its 33% renewable energy aim for 2020 (after a 20% objective for 2010). Governor Jerry Brown calls for 8,000 megawatts from various large-scale wind and solar installations. The idea of a large state like California as a world leader in energy development appeals to those who want to promote more employment, new industries and technological leadership.

California's electricity sector is one of its largest sources of greenhouse emissions, contributing almost one quarter of the greenhouse gases, as you can see in Figure 1 below. The effort to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions requires the state to reduce demand for energy through energy efficiency and switch from fossil fuel-based energy to cleaner renewable sources.

California's electricity sector is one of its largest sources of greenhouse emissions, contributing almost one quarter of the greenhouse gases

California greenhouse gas emissions 2002 - 2004; credit: California Air Resources Board


Firstly, 100,000 acres are needed to produce solar energy on degraded land, including the Mojave Desert. Ethan Elkind is the primary author of, "Harvesting Clean Energy" from law schools in both UCLA and UC Berkeley. In the text, he encourages farmers to use marginal cropland and any other degraded land. There are state regulations unfortunately that prevent non-agricultural use and state-wide definitions of marginal or impaired farmland need to be made. Ethan makes clear that these barriers to development need to be overcome with the need to:

- define suitable farmland for large-scale solar plant development;


- streamline and coordinate the permit process across jurisdictions; and


- upgrade the electricity infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy generation


"There's a whole mass of acres that aren't productive as agriculture lands, so it may be better to site renewable projects on them instead," says Michael Delbar of the California Rangeland Trust. Where water is short, it seems the best option could be to generate solar energy, rather than grow the few crops that tolerate low water availability.

Electricity sub-stations are unable to take on extra generation in areas where agricultural usage is the only light industry they are designed for. Areas with the least environmental and agricultural value and greatest sun exposure may lack access to transmission lines too.

Wildlife concerns are another obstacle to progress, as some hawk species have been able to adapt to crops such as alfalfa, but most species would be unable to use that land without crops. Several critically-endangered species live in field margins too. The San Joaquin kit fox and giant kangaroo rat are liable to be affected by a solar facility in the Panoche Valley, for example.

© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Shale gas, the 'clean bridge' to nowhere?
That Solar Wind and the Aurora Borealis
New breakthrough in solar technology
Arizona argument: The impact of renewable energy
'Greener' hybrid power plants proposed

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/california-aims-solarfonia/1545/ energy Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:16:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/california-aims-solarfonia/1545/ Forest fuel may need rethinking
Deforestation via Shutterstock


Biofuel production is not without controversy; the food or fuel debate cannot be avoided in developing countries and the impact on water resources is unavoidable. The drive to find alternatives to fossil fuels has caused as many arguments as it has found solutions. One of those arguments has concerned the carbon balance involved in the production of biofuel from forests. Forests are some of the world's greatest carbon sinks, taking carbon from the air and trapping it in a stable form until burnt, and, with some new research, their credentials as a green energy source are looking increasingly poor.

It had been hoped that the production of biofuel from forests would be a carbon-neutral process as it helps to avoid natural forest fires and has replanting as a core step. Unfortunately, a comprehensive study carried out by researchers at Oregon State University, and additional contributors from German and French institutions, has shown that, even with optimal management the net gain in carbon emissions from forest-based biofuel production is at least 14%.

Tara Hudiburg, lead author of the study, compared forest management for fuel purposes to traditional forest management techniques and noted that any method used would result in more CO2 being released. Beverly Law, co-author, said that misconceptions have influenced decisions in the past, "If our ultimate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, producing bioenergy from forests will be counterproductive... ...Some of these forest management practices may also have negative impacts on soils, biodiversity and habitat. These issues have not been thought out very fully."

Biofuel

Biofuel warning sign via Shutterstock


The study looked at a number of different scenarios and each, compared to the status quo, lead to an increase in carbon production. Scenarios involving changes for fire control or economic development showed small increases of 2% and 6% respectively. The changes for biofuel production led to the increases of 14% under optimal conditions and taking real-world inefficiencies would involve even higher levels, estimated at 17%.

The goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one that naturally calls for a reduction in fossil fuel use. The stark and negative conclusions provided by this report suggest that biofuel from forest-sourced fuel is not the route to take.

© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times


Related Articles

Seaweed farms may provide a sustainable biofuel of the future
Liquid costs of biofuel grasses
Algae-Based biofuel may not be economically viable for another 20 years
Airbus announces biofuels consortium
Biofuels may not be as green as you might think - new study sheds light on 'con'

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/forest-fuel-rethinking/1541/ energy Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:24:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/forest-fuel-rethinking/1541/