Techdiplomacy

When hydrogen is in a pure state, it is fairly safe.  However, add air and hydrogen is combustible.  While hydrogen is currently being used in various applications, mainly as a coolant for heat generated by electric power generators. Power plant operators use great care when using hydrogen in this application.  That brings me to the notion that hydrogen is a power source that could supply us with a clean alternative to fossil fuels, or that it should currently be considered as energy the same as wind or solar power.  This will probably be the case 30 years from now, but not currently.  Let me explain.         

Hydrogen Storage Presents Safety Issues

Since hydrogen is combustible when mixed with air, it is a dangerous substance.  The explosive range of hydrogen is broad, concentrations range from 4 percent to 75 percent.  All mixtures in that range are explosive.  Hydrogen can be ignited with very little energy, and has a wide range of flammability.  Hydrogen fire is pale blue and is almost invisible.  To detect hydrogen fires, brooms are often used to sweep an area of a suspected fire.  This is not what you want to do in your garage in the mornings when trying to get your hydrogen fueled vechile started.  Hydrogen is almost impossible to keep stationary, because of it’s light weight and it’s molecules are small. 

It is difficult to seal hydrogen, usually this means leaks.  Fortunately hydrogen is light weight so it dissipates rapidly.  When hydrogen does leak, it rises, so it would have to accumulate someplace near the leak, if at all, this would be a worry for anyone utilizing hydrogen.  I don’t know, I think this would concern anyone with a supply of hydrogen cylinders (fuel cells) in their garage.  Storing is the chief concern, because of the explosive energy in hydrogen if mixed with air.  A standard portable cylinder filled with hydrogen at 2,400 psig is equivalent to 35 pounds of TNT with regard to explosive potential.  A 12-pack of cylinders would equal 420 pounds of TNT and a typical tube trailer would equal 5,585 pounds of TNT.

Even though hydrogen is considered an alternative fuel under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, problems remain that could take decades to resolve.  This discussion is directed at the danger inherent when using hydrogen for any application.  Hydrogen will in future decades provide power for society, however there will be hopefully a full scale renewable energy scheme in place by that time.  The hydrogen economy is not going to be seen in the near future. 

How do you feel about all this?  Make a comment, we’ll print it, even if we don’t agree. In the meantime, see you around the galaxy…

Calloway Nuclear Power Station Fulton, Missouri

This is not a new subject for me I wrote a piece called Nuclear Power is Not Renewable Energy, last year, check the archives October 16, 2008, it’s there.

Now the Nuclear Power industry is actually challenging Solar and Wind power, they are claiming that they are far more ‘green’, than is the traditionaly accepted renewables, solar and wind.  This is almost criminal and I cannot see where this information has it’s basis in fact. 

I would like to reprint part of my post from October 16, 2008, in order to reinforce my thoughts, (I have done research!) there are a number of underlying problems that I don’t touch

I suscribe to Power Engineering, “the magazine of power generation”, (self described motto), most of it’s subscribers work in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, they often have heated discussions on this topic.  I used to work with these guys, I know the mind set.  They actually did a poll in which they asked the question, “is nuclear power a renewable energy resource”, the majority said, “yes it is”, I was not all that surprised.  This is giving a knee jerk opinion because you pay your mortgage by working in these industries.  You would like to believe that you’re doing good rather than destroying your environment.  These are not ‘bad’ men, simply ill informed.  They don’t spend a lot of time researching the topic, for the most part.  I’m not saying, no one does, just that, most don’t.  This is a subject that begs research, and there is a lot of information out there in this electronic age.

Please take a little time to read part of my post from October 16, 2008, the information still applies.  This has to do with the problem of bringing the nuclear power plants in operation up to speed.  I said this in regard to the costs associated with bringing our aging nuclear ‘fleet’ up to modern standards

The owners of some plants want to replace low pressure steam paths with higher pressure steam flow equipment. This theoretically could result in higher output. The emphasis on theoretically is mine. I have worked in the nuclear power industry as an engineer and one thing is certain, and that is nothing is certain. It is hoped that this solution will address reliability issues with these existing steam turbines.

The retrofit that most are opting for would include installing new low pressure rotors, rotating and stationary blades, inner casings and blade carriers. The scope of this type of retrofit would be large and costly. They would have to install or replace: high efficiency, integrally shrouded, reaction type blading for their front stages; longer last stage rotating blades to reduce the energy content of the steam leaving the turbine, thereby increasing turbine output; provide consistent and predictable vibration characteristics, snubbers at three quarter height will need to interconnect the last stage rotating blades and the second to last stage blades will need to be linked by integral tip shrouding; provide reduced stage leakage due to better sealing and reaction characteristics over the length of the blade; and select materials to provide erosion corrosion characteristics.

I at the time emphasized that I didn’t want to confuse anyone by using a lot of technical jargon to indicate that just updating a small portion of that which is huge, is a large almost impossible task.  I said that owners of utilities would better serve the public by investing in a new power grid, not endless repairs of our aging nuclear power stations. 

The current effort to paint themselves green is an effort to get the go-ahead to build new plants.  We are already paying dearly for the plants already in operation, by our rising costs for electricity.  The supporters of this notion are for the most part, people engaged in the nuclear power industry.  I once made a good living as a design engineer in this industry.  So I understand, I just don’t approve of this line of thinking. 

Renewable energy by it’s very name is energy that can be obtained in a fairly passive manner.  If you have to mine it, process it, or burn it, then it isn’t renewable.  Even the uranium required for nuclear power is not renewable and it is not forever.  The sun and the wind will be with us as long as man exists, for exist we will not if we don’t have these sources.  Solar power is from renewable sources, wind turbines spin because of a renewable source of energy.  The sun and wind are virtually omnipotent, uranium is not.

I won’t repeat the problems of nuclear waste, only to say that nothing has changed.  We still have no idea as to what to do with the waste or how to solve the problem that one of the components of nuclear waste is weapon’s grade plutonium.  I am researching this situation further, some strides have been made by the French, however there are still problems associated with nuclear power and the reactors required to operate these systems.

I wanted to say this because I believe to seriously give the nuclear power industry free rein, would harm mankind and our environment in the long run.  Any thoughts?  Make a comment, we’ll print it and we will answer any questions put to us, see you around the galaxy…

This is in response to Patrick Serfass who commented on my piece posted a few days ago. For those who have not guessed, it’s “Hydrogen Economy? Not In The Near Future”. Patrick is employed by the National Hydrogen Association, more about that later. First, I would like to point out, this is a huge organization. That being the case, why would they care enough to attack my humble little blog? I’ll tell you a little story. The National Hydrogen Association or NHA is a group that includes sustaining members and industry members. In his comment on my piece, Patrick states that I should do some research at the NHA website. Well, I was way ahead of him there, I had checked the site before I started the piece. He further states that I had my facts wrong. I would like to say that my information is different from the information on the site for the most part. However, I stand by my data, I listed a reputable source as a reference for a great deal of the information contained in my piece. Patrick listed his employer as his only source of information. Can you say, “conflict of interest”? It would be the same if I used a relative of mine to verify information, they would have to disqualify themselves on ethical grounds. Let’s talk about ethics, you’ll be surprised at the identity of some of the sustaining members of the NHA. Most of the sustaining members are large corporations. Some, are familiar to us all as they have had a lot of news coverage of late.

You could go to the NHA website and see the list of members and you would be at least mildly surprised. For instance, there’s General Motors Corporation, and there’s Chevron Oil. Why are these guys in bed with NHA? In an article from earlier this month, I detailed the funds that big oil and dirty coal were spending to defeat the Waxman-Markey (Energy) bill. I revealed fraudulent behavior on the part of dirty coal. (see “Dirty Coal Industries’ Dirty Tricks”) These guys are not interested in cleaning up our environment, they are interested in raking in big profits.

What exactly does Patrick Serfass do for NHA? He’s listed as the Director of their support staff over technology and communications. Apparently the truth does not enter the discussion when you are communicating with people you don’t agree with. Everything I put forth regarding hydrogen technology is backed up by their website and the business their members happen to practice. Let me illustrate this point.

There are several types of membership with NHA, two of which are industry members and sustaining members. For instance General Motors is a sustaining member, so are Indian Oil, and Chevron. Westinghouse, on the other hand is an industry member. Indian Oil and Chevron are part of the ‘Big Oil’ industry. Last year this industry took Americans to the brink of disaster when they drove gas prices to four dollars a gallon. They are in the process of repeating this again now! They want to go from a fossil fuel infrastructure to a hydrogen infrastructure. Westinghouse, who serves the nuclear power industry, wants to produce this hydrogen from nuclear driven steam methane reforming or from nuclear driven water splitting. You can get this information from the NHA website, if you dig deep enough. Nebraska Public Power District is an industry member of NHA. They currently get 60% of the power that they sell their customers from our old friends the Dirty Coal industry, whose lobbists like to write fraudulent letters to congressmen. NPPD gets 20% of their power from nuclear power. Another of their members is a company known as Entergy. They believe in a partnership between hydrogen and nuclear power. My point is NHA has members who espouse all of the points that I made in the previous article published last week.

Patrick, our NHA friend, stated that there were police groups, cell phone companies and others using hydrogen for backup power, however, he never said when or how. That is because this is something that may happen in the future, but it has not surfaced yet. There is another point that seems to suggest my article rubbed NHA the wrong way for the wrong reasons. NHA has a section on their website for the press. One of their ‘fact’ sheets is called “Hydrogen Economy”, how’s that for irony? (I was not aware of this fact until I looked closer at the site than I had previously) No one need take my word for any of this, everything I said in this and the previous article is based on facts supported by their members, you simply have to look harder than you might normally. Use the links provided by our friend Patrick in his comment on the previous article. Any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to leave them, we will respond. See you around the galaxy…

The following is from a study by E. Gerald Meyer, Arts and Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. He referred to it as the ‘good, bad and the ugly’ of hydrogen technology. Much has been written about the “hydrogen economy” with the theme that by substituting hydrogen for gasoline the nation can reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and have a pollution free transportation fuel. That is “the good”. However, the hydrogen must be transported, distributed and stored with safety. Also, it must be utilized in a vehicle either by a combustion system or by a fuel cell system. The former can perhaps be devised without too much difficulty but the latter poses many problems. Fuel cells currently lack the needed reliability, the stability and the energy output. In addition the cost of the fuel cell system far exceeds that of the present gasoline system. That is “the bad”. Hydrogen production is “the ugly”. The current level of 9 tons/yr must be increased eighteenfold to meet current demand, which increases by 4% annually. Hydrogen, not a renewable energy source, is a secondary energy type as is electricity. It must be produced by a primary energy type. In addition, hydrogen requires a hydrogen-containing substrate of which there are two types: the hydrocarbons and “hydrooxygen” (water). The former produce CO2 in addition to hydrogen as does direct use of fossil fuels. Water requires either thermal dissociation or electolysis with the primary energy of choice for either being nuclear energy. Electrolyis might be accomplished with solar energy but the quantities needed mitigate against this. Thus with so many problems to solve, the hydrogen economy is at least thirty years in the future.

I realize that there are a large number of people who disagree with what I have put forth here, but remember, hydrogen is not a renewable energy source as I stated earlier. This in and of itself should lead us to proceed with caution with regard to hydrogen. We are reeling from the damage fossil fuels have done to our environment. We have almost a moral duty to pursue renewables like wind and solar power. Please read this piece and give it serious thought, I’m sure you will come to a similar conclusion. That’s my take on the subject, leave a comment and we’ll print it even if you don’t agree. See you around the galaxy..:

Before he cast his vote on the Waxman-Markety bill in June 2009, Charlottesville, Virginia Representative, Tom Perriello, tried to determine what his constituents actually wanted his vote to be. He had coorespondance from thousands of voters. One letter he noticed was written by Creciendo Juntos, which is a nonprofit that works with the Hispanic community in Charlotteville VIrginia. He also had several notes from the Albemarle- Charlotteville Virginia branch of the NAACP. The gist of the letters was that these groups wanted the congressman to vote against the bill that was climate change legislation. None of the letters were authentic, they were all forgeries. Tim Freilich, who is an executive committee member of Creciedo Juntos said “they stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization.” He stated, “it’s this type of activity that undermines Americans’ faith in democracy.” The person who sent the letter has not been identified, but he or she was employed by a Washington lobbying firm called Bonner Associates. It is unclear who hired Bonner & Associates. Nonetheless, it has cast suspicion over the lobby, as well as the lobbying industry at large. A report Wednesday by the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that oil and gas companies greatly increased their spending on lobbying between April and June, which analysts say were efforts to combat the legislation. During the second quarter of 2009, these companies spent $37.7 million on lobbying congress, representing a 30 percent increase over 2008. Perriello did vote in favor of the bill, which narrowly passed the House on June 26 in a 219 to 212 vote.

Obviously the coal industry is anxious to defeat any efforts to pass clean air legislation. This is sad on many levels. They are willing to sacrifice our children’s future in order to maintain the status quo, which means increased global warming. Many groups are calling for crimInal prosecution of all involved. How do you feel about all this? Leave a comment, see you around the galaxy.

The relatively constant flow of ocean currents carries large amounts of energy that can be collected and used to generate electricity. Ocean waters move continuously. Ocean currents flow in complex patterns affected by the wind, water salinity and temperature, topography of the ocean floor, and the earth’s rotation. The ocean currents are driven by wind and solar heating of the waters near the equator, though some ocean currents result from density and salinity of water. These currents are relatively constant and flow in one direction, compared to the tidal currents closer to shore. Some examples of ocean currents are the Gulf Stream, Florida Straits Current, and California Current. While ocean currents move slowly, they carry a great deal of energy because of the density of water. Water is 800 times denser than air, so for the same surface area, water moving 12 miles per hour exerts about the same amount of force as a constant 110 mph wind. Ocean currents contain a substantial amount of energy. It has been estimated that taking just 1/1000th, of the available energy from the Gulf Stream would supply Florida with 35% of its electricity. The United States and other countries are researching ocean current energy, including Japan, China, and some European countries; however, marine current energy is at an early stage of development. There are no commercial grid-connected turbines currently operating; to date, only a small number of prototypes and demonstration units have been tested. Some of these technologies have been developed for use with tidal currents in near-shore environments; these near-shore tidal current energy technologies are not analyzed in the OCS Alternative Energy Programmatic EIS. The most likely scenario would be, energy would be extracted from ocean currents by using submerged water turbines similar to wind turbines. These turbines would have rotor blades, a generator for converting the rotational energy into electricity, and a means of transporting the electrical current for incorporation into the electrical grid. Also, there would need to be a way to keep the turbines stationary, such as concrete caissons, pile driven foundations, or cables anchored to the sea floor. Additional components might include concentrators (or shrouds) around the blades to increase the flow and power output from the turbine. In large open areas with fast currents, it would be possible to install water turbines in groups or clusters to make up a marine current “farm”, with a predicted density of up to 37 turbines per square kilometer. Space would be needed between the water turbines to eliminate wake-interaction effects and to allow access by maintenance crews and their vessels. Alternatives to water turbine designs have been proposed, including having a barge moored in the current stream with a large cable loop to which “parachutes” are fastened. The parachutes would be pushed by the current, then closed on their way back, forming a loop similar to a large horizontal water wheel. For ocean current energy to be utilized successfully at a commercial scale, a number of potential technical challenges need to be addressed, including: • avoidance of cavitations (bubble formation); • prevention of marine growth buildup; • reliability; and • corrosion resistance. Ocean current energy technology project planning will need to consider species protection (including fish and marine mammals) from injury from turning turbine blades. Consideration of shipping routes and present recreational uses, such as fishing and diving, will be required when considering where to locate the turbines. Other considerations include risks from slowing the current flow by extracting energy. Local effects, such as changes of estuary mixing resulting in temperature and salinity modifications, might affect species in estuaries.

This is not an overnight fix for our energy needs. However, in time, with more research, this could become a viable form of renewable energy. What do you think? Comment on this or any other post, you’ll start a lively conversation. See you around the galaxy…

Solar Power in urban areas is becoming more viable, and therefore more common. The following excerpts from various papers and magazines tell the story of the growth of urban solar power. Expanding America’s power grid to connect wind and solar power plants to the urban areas they fuel will require thousands of miles of transmission lines. Most of it will be built in rural areas where locals are not likely to be very welcoming, since this power will be used in urban areas. 30 June 2009 - 1:00pm The Daily Yonder Getting Solar Power Rolling This profile from Miller-McCune looks at a Berkeley, California official who made use of a 100-year old funding mechanism to take the city solar. 25 June 2009 - 6:00am Miller-McCune Closing the Loop on Energy Use Architect Michael Palwyn is designing sustainable architecture that combines solar power and seawater into an ultra-efficient loop of resource conservation. 22 June 2009 - 6:00am. GOOD Magazine Renewable Energy System is on the Way President Obama plans to spend billions on building an interstate highway-style system for energy. 17 June 2009 - 11:00am. Discover Magazine. Smart Grid for a Smart City Amsterdam has taken its smart grid live, installing solar panels and 300 electric car recharging stations throughout the city. 11 June 2009 - 5:00am. Business Week A Solar Car By 2010? Italian car designer Pininfarina has announced that it will release a fully-electric, partially solar-powered car in Europe in 2010. 9 June 2009 - 2:00pm. Inhabitat Making Brownfield Sunny A manufacturer of solar systems has planned to develop the country’s largest urban solar power plant at a brownfield in Chicago. 5 June 2009 - 9:00am The Architect’s Newspaper Train to Run on Sunshine? An Arizona company is proposing a solar-powered elevated train running between Tucson and Phoenix. 10 May 2009 - 1:00pm Arizona Star Making Clean Energy Reliable Clean energy is a major component of the Obama Administration’s plans for an upgraded electricity grid. But with variable outputs, clean energy generation from solar and wind will need to be augmented, according to this piece from NPR. 1 May 2009 - 10:00am. NPR Building the Smart Grid Smartly In the sixth of a ten-part series, National Public Radio investigates the sustainability of smart grid technology in the places where its likely to be applied. 1 May 2009 - 7:00am National Public Radio Vatican Reveals Solar Plant Plans Vatican City has plans to build the largest solar plant in Europe, which will supply enough power for 40,000 households in a state of 900 inhabitants. 23 April 2009 - 2:00pm. Bloomberg The Planetizen News Brief - 4/23/09 [1pixelout.swf] 4:25 minutes (4.05 MB)Condos converting to affordable housing in New York, bankrupt developments converting to parks in Florida, and solar power heads to the Vatican, all on this week’s Planetizen News Brief, airing weekly on the nationally-syndicated radio show “Smart City”. 23 April 2009 - 5:00am Vatican Embraces the Power of the Sun The Vatican has announced plans to build Europe’s largest solar plant to power the state. 21 April 2009 - 9:00am Bloomberg Solar City in the Works Developers in Florida have announced plans to build a new 17,000 acre city that will run entirely on solar power. 12 April 2009 - 5:00am The Miami Herald California Desert A Hotbed for Alternative Energy On the state’s path towards drawing 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by the end of 2010, California is focusing on its southern desert as the site of this alternative energy generation.

The final analogy is that we will see solar power being generated in our urban areas more and more. Whar are your thoughts on the subject, submit a comment, let’s talk. See you around the galaxy…

One of the major reasons for increasing the use of biofuels is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The same can be said for switching to electric vehicles.

Recently in a study done by researchers at the University of California, Merced, an electric SUV was compared to a SUV using ethanol for fuel. The electric vehicle was powered by bioelectricity created with the same amount of switchgrass used to make the ethanol.

Well, the electric vehicle won, are you surprised? The SUV powered by bioelectricity could travel 14,000 miles on electricity created from an acre of switchgrass. The ethanol fueled internal combustion engine in the other SUV could travel 9,000 miles on the same amount of switchgrass. Eliot Campbell, one of the researchers explained, “the internal combustion engine just isn’t very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles.” “Even the best ethanol-producing technologies with hybrid vehicles aren’t enough to overcome this.” The researchers concluded that the obvious course is to convert biomass to electricity, rather than ethanol. This course of action would double the greenhouse gas offsets to bring about climate change. The researchers warn that the problem is more complex than this particular study covered. These results only cover the issues of transportation and climate. The problems of water consumption, air pollution and economic costs were not addressed. What is your take on the subject? Leave a comment and we’ll have a lively discussion about this or any other issue involving saving our environment. Let’s talk, see you around the galaxy…

Wikipedia defines electric power transmission is the bulk transfer of electrical power (or more correctly energy), a process in the delivery of electricity to consumers. A power transmission network typically connects power plants to multiple substations near a populated area. The wiring from substations to customers is referred to as Electricity distribution, following the historic business model separating the wholesale electricity transmission business from distributors who deliver the electricity to the homes.[1] Electric power transmission allows distant energy sources (such as hydroelectric power plants) to be connected to consumers in population centers, and may allow exploitation of low-grade fuel resources such as coal that would otherwise be too costly to transport to generating facilities. Usually transmission lines use three phase alternating current (AC). Single phase AC current is sometimes used in a railway electrification system. High-voltage direct current systems are used for long distance transmission, or some undersea cables, or for connecting two different ac networks. Electricity is transmitted at high voltages (110 kV or above) to reduce the energy lost in transmission. Power is usually transmitted as alternating current through overhead power lines. Underground power transmission is used only in densely populated areas because of its higher cost of installation and maintenance when compared with overhead wires,and the difficulty of voltage control on long cables. A power transmission network is referred to as a “grid”. Multiple redundant lines between points on the network are provided so that power can be routed from any power plant to any load center, through a variety of routes, based on the economics of the transmission path and the cost of power. Much analysis is done by transmission companies to determine the maximum reliable capacity of each line, which, due to system stability considerations, may be less than the physical or thermal limit of the line. Deregulation of electricity companies in many countries has led to renewed interest in reliable economic design of transmission networks. However, in some places the gaming of a deregulated energy system has led to disaster, such as that which occurred during the California electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001.[2]

America’s infrastructure is changing in ways that its designers never anticipated. Distributed and intermittent electricity generation, such as wind power, is rapidly expanding, new smart meters are giving consumers more control over their energy usage, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles may someday radically increase the overall demand for electricity. The evolution of America’s energy needs has forced scientists and engineers to re-examine the operations, efficiency and security of the national power grid. The creation of a more secure and efficient national power grid requires significant innovations in the way we transmit electricity and monitor its use. To better assess the challenges facing the power grid, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory hosted a workshop that brought together power system and modeling experts from federal agencies, national laboratories and academia. “Modeling and simulation have proved to be effective tools for the power industry on many levels,” said Mark Petri, Argonne’s technology development director and one of the workshop’s organizers. “We need to develop a comprehensive and integrated approach that will enable us to better understand the full implications of an evolving power grid as we plan for future demand and power sources.” The workshop centered on the need for new methods to simulate the national power grid by modeling the creation and flow of electric power as well as the grid’s connection to other critical infrastructures, such as transportation, gas, water and communications. Through detailed simulations of how electric power is supplied and transferred around the country, researchers can bolster not only the grid’s security but also its reliability, efficiency and resiliency. “Implementing smart grid technologies on a large scale will not be trivial,” Petri added. “The challenges go beyond technical and economic issues. The smart grid technologies could fundamentally change how national power grid systems operate and respond to disruptions.” Because of the great diversity of ways in which electricity is created, distributed and consumed, engineers face a challenge in creating reliable models of large power networks. They have to deal with the intermittent nature of some of the sources (like wind or solar), optimize how power is transmitted and balance economic, security and environmental priorities when finding solutions. “In the short-term,” Petri said, “these simulations could help devise ways to solve the problem of grid congestion, which currently costs consumers many hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even small improvements in grid efficiency that better models and simulations would produce would make the investment cost-effective.” The workshop, which was sponsored by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, identified barriers that a national grid simulation capability would need to overcome to be effective. The findings of the workshop appear in the report “National Power Grid Simulation Capability: Needs and Issues.” According to Petri, an operational plan for a national power grid simulation capability that engages industry to better understand their needs, capabilities and concerns would support a more secure and reliable electric power grid system for the future. SOURCE: DOE/Argonne National Laboratory

Wind is not only a good, clean source of energy, it’s also a way of generating more power quickly. Unlike a nuclear plant that would take anywhere from 10 to 15 years to go online, a wind farm can be up and running in as little as two years. And with the incentives for renewable energy that are part of the economic stimulus bill passed by the Senate in February ─ including a $7 billion renewable energy loan guarantee program, tax credits and extended bonus depreciation ─ wind energy is a power source that makes economic sense. It is true that the recent crisis in the financial markets has made banks more cautious about lending, requiring developers to provide 1.5 to 2 years worth of data in their loan applications. However, this delay in the financing process is mitigated by the fact that turbine manufacturers now have sufficient inventory to fill orders. To make a long story short ─ it’s a good time to look into wind power. Building and maintaining a relationship with the utilityOnce it has been determined that “building” a wind farm in a particular location makes sense, connecting it with the existing transmission system is the key challenge electrical engineers have to tackle.  The system must be designed so a single component failure or outage does not impact the rest of the system. It must also be compatible with other stations owned by the host utility to ensure that maintenance personnel are familiar with basic operating functions and do not have to be retrained. The developer’s station needs to meet the bulk power design requirements up to the point of voltage transformation that takes place at the demarcation line between developer and utility. Every utility has specific design requirements, both for the physical design and CAD drawing format. Establishing a design protocol up front helps avoid duplicating efforts. Simple matters such as switch numbering, protection and communication software and hardware design can become costly issues if they are not addressed early on in the process. To ensure good collaboration, detailed task responsibilities should cover areas like relay settings, SCADA and security. If the developer is providing the design of the new substation or the retrofit of the existing point of interface station, all documents and drawings must be submitted for approval. The same applies to primary equipment specifications and purchases. The utility should also be kept up to date on project schedule and milestone points for drawing approval and commissioning testing. When drawing up a project schedule, keep in mind that before the station is energized, the utility field personnel is likely to want to witness or even perform itself all relay, metering and communications equipment tests. Designing the new substationSome utilities have the capability to design and build the station, others prefer to outsource. In either case, the design of the station will depend on the topology of the site, equipment rations, and utility requirements in the given service area. Since the substation that ultimately connects the wind park generation to the high voltage grid is designed to be part of the overall interconnected system it needs to meet its overall requirements. Equipment ratings are influenced more by the through power flows than by the output of the wind park, since the utility would not want the point of interconnection (POI) station to limit ratings for the adjoining networks. Requirements for utility point of interconnection substations vary according to region and utility. If the POI falls into the bulk power transmission category, design criteria must fit the reliability requirements set by the National Electric Reliability Corporation as well as the regional reliability authority, for example the Northeast Power Coordinating Council or the Southern Electric Reliability Corporation as well as those established by the respective utility. Bulk power classification is determined by the way the transmission line is used to transfer power within the network. Unless the wind park is located next to a utility transmission line, it is most economical to convert the wind park output to a higher voltage and transmit power via overhead transmission lines to the POI near an existing line. Since the latter is owned and operated by the developer, its construction is typically not subject to utility approval, unlike the line construction, which is regulated by state and local government agencies. Keep in mind that the extent of the regulations can vary and depend on the voltage level as well as the length of the transmission line. Fiber optic interconnections: The devil is in the detailsIn a typical wind park, turbines are connected by fiber optics networks at three points: the turbine, the meteorological tower(s), and at the substation control module. Via these fiber optics systems, turbines communicate with a centrally located wind park management system that is located in the wind park substation. The technology used to establish this connection is proprietary to the turbine manufacturer. Depending on the size of the wind park the meteorological (MET) tower also communicates with the management system that tells the controller which direction turbines need to move in and at what pitch they need to move to provide optimum energy generation under real time wind conditions. In other words, the turbines are in constant two-way communication with the management system relaying data such as generation, power factor, alarm status, and SCADA information. With underground installations, the fiber optic cable is typically bedded above the three phase power cables in a common trench. In overhead installations, it is lashed to a messenger that is strung underneath the power cables. In the event that the cables need to be placed in duct work, for example in the event of a direction drill underneath the highway, the fiber optic network receives its own conduit. The key to a successful fiber optic network is to create a minimum number of splices. Each splice introduces decibel losses into the system. While it is tempting to splice the cable whenever the power cable needs to be cut, a dynamic and cooperative relationship between the engineer and the contractor can eliminate or re-route the network in the field in a way that greatly reduces signal losses. It is also important to note that reel management of the fiber optics during installation is critical and will result in faster, more efficient, and more economical installation. Complying with transmission system protection requirementsFederal and regional regulators require bulk power transmission lines to feature redundantly designed and installed protection systems. Their goal is to prevent a single point of failure from downing the entire system. To create this redundancy, each protection system must be based on a different principle and it is generally supplied by a different manufacturer. To give an example: System A could be a directional comparison blocking scheme over power line carrier while System B would be permissive overreaching transfer trip scheme communication over telephone circuits. Ultimately, the host utility will provide its protection standards and help decide which schemes will work best. Before any scheme can be designed, however, the engineering team and the utility need to assess available communication possibilities. Ideally, one of the systems would be a fiber optic link installed on optical ground wire cable — which is installed in the shield wire(s) at the top of the structure to provide protection for the transmission from lightning strikes — if that can be designed economically. Other viable options are power line carriers, T1 lines and microwave. Each protection system should also be connected to dedicated current transformers and voltage transformers. Exceptions can be made in the case of a single voltage transformer with independent secondary windings. The DC tripping systems also need to be independent. This requires dual batteries, chargers, trip coils, and source of station service. Oftentimes, a backup generator is required to provide continuity in the event of power loss at both station service supplies. Regulators also stipulate a physical separation of the two systems. Typically, relay and communication panels are separated in the control house, sometimes in different rooms. All cabling needs to be separated into independent raceways and conduits. Ultimately, the independent protection systems trip the same circuit breaker. Still, breaker failure protection is required, isolating the failed breaker locally and remotely tripping the backup breakers. OutlookA record-shattering year for the wind industry, in 2008 more than 8,300 megawatts of new wind energy were brought online. In addition, 55 new wind-related manufacturing facilities were opened, expanded, or announced. Given the political will to make renewable energy the energy source of choice, the wind industry is in an excellent position to contribute to the nation’s economic recovery and to reduction of carbon emission’s necessary to deal with global warming. Author: Brook Knodel is Deputy Engineering Manager – Electrical with Careba Mott MacDonald (CMM) an engineering firm which specializes in design of major power generation projects — including wind power, biomass, biodiesel and coal fired plants — plus distribution and transmission projects for power plant operators, power plant developers, industrial facility operators, equipment manufacturers, contractors and power distribution utilities. Based in Westwood, Massachusetts, CMM is a division of Mott MacDonald, a global engineering and consultancy firm delivering solutions in energy, transportation, construction, water and environment.

I would like to thank the scientists in various fields of endeavor, who helped me along the way with their research and writing and their wisdom.  I have named a few and some others will know who they are without any recognition from me, and these men have gained my respect as well.  We must do what we can to update our power grid in this country or we will not survive our climate crisis.  I’ll see you around the galaxy…

On Saturday December 8, 2008, I posted “Green Jobs An Idea whose Time Has Come”. In the post I explained green jobs and what the term meant. Due to the number of questions I get about the subject, I will clarify the matter with the following text. In the meantime, please take a look at the post I mentioned earlier. You can locate it in the archive for December.

Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance, was interviewed by Time Magazine in 2008 before the presidential election. He gave his thoughts concerning the subject. He included green collar jobs, cleaning up the environment, controling global warming and creating a new type of employment. Some of the most prestigious universities have done significant work involving perfecting renewable energy’s mainstays, wind and solar power, thereby increasing the potential for creation of green jobs. There has been significant work in the private sector by research institutions and the academic community in general. The ‘thinktank’ RAND Corporation, University of Tennessee and others have found that if 25% of all American energy were produced from renewable sources by 2025, we would generate at least 5 million new green jobs. Today, I’ll try to explain what is a green-collar job? Where could you find those jobs ? Phil Angelides is the chair of the Apollo Alliance as well, a coalition of business, labor and environmental groups trying to bring green employment to the forefront. This is the way Mr Angelides defined green jobs in the interview by Time, “It has to pay decent wages and benefits that can support a family. It has to be part of a real career path, with upward mobility. And it needs to reduce waste and pollution and benefit the environment.” If you make wind turbines or solar panels, your job is green. Mr. Angelides and his groups are trying to broaden the definition of ‘green job’. They would like a green-collar job to be anything that helps America to a cleaner, energy efficient future. That means jobs in the public transit sector, jobs in green building, jobs in energy efficiency, traditional, blue-collar manufacturing jobs, as long as what you’re making is green. “You don’t want to greenwash,” says Angelides. “You don’t want to call something a green-collar job that doesn’t have the wages or background to support it.” Environmental groups like the Apollo Alliance say that the new green American economy will actually create millions of new jobs. Someone will produce alternative power, increase energy efficiency and overhaul wasteful buildings. Angelides notes that between now and 2030, 75% of the buildings in the U.S. will either be new or substantially rehabilitated. Our inefficient, and unstable electrical grid will be overhauled. The jobs that will go into that kind of work should be green-collar. “Green jobs will not only exist in new technology fields” like solar energy, says Angelides, whose group is calling for a $300 billion investment in green jobs over the next 10 years. “We’ll be creating jobs in the industrial sector.” One of the supporters of the Apollo Alliance is the United Steelworkers Alliance, labor leaders see green jobs as a way to fight outsourcing and keep manufacturing jobs here in America.
The creation of green-collar jobs can convince skeptical, blue-collar Americans that they have an economic stake in climate change.​

Below is a compilation of definitions with questions to help trigger questions and increase discussion.  The people who compiled these points are too numerous to mention, however they have my thanks. The current “Green Collar Worker” definition at Wikipedia reads,       “A green-collar worker is a worker who is employed in the environmental sectors of the economy, or in the agricultural sector.” Should green collar only cover environmental or agricultural sectors? Is an industry-based approach appropriate? Would a green collar worker be involved with the science of developing technologies that help produce more efficient energy or power systems? Could we develop something more inclusive which provides an indication of intent? Let’s look at a “Green Collar Job” definition. The short radio program, “the Environminute” stated, “Green collar jobs are blue collar jobs that help protect the planet.” A broader definition that seems to be role-based. A role-based approach is good but what if you are merely “conserving or preserving” that planet? What if you are just doing a job that produces little or no waste? Does this definition add confusion by defining something with an ambiguous term like “blue collar.” Will additional research reveal similar problems back in the days of the industrial revolution when folks were trying too define blue-collar worker?  Separately, Wikipedia, defines a Blue Collar worker as, “a member of the working class who performs manual labor and earns an hourly wage.” Is this also too exclusive? Must Green Collar Workers perform jobs which pay hourly? Do Green Collar Workers need to do manual labor to be considered green? RAQUEL PINDERHUGHES, Ph. D. definition in her Green Collar Jobs case study for the city of Berkeley, California states in part, “Green collar jobs are blue collar jobs in green businesses – that is, manual labor jobs in businesses whose products and services directly improve environmental quality (Pinderhughes, 2006).” Does this occupational-based approach to defining “Green Collar Jobs”, exclude folks that work behind a desk on a computer?  What about folks building websites iike this one) which in turn, support green efforts? Could we include folks that invest in “Environmentally-Friendly Portfolios,” as Green Collar Workers? What about salaried, County workers that are researching and implementing sustainability plans? Could politicians that sign and act in accordance with green sustainability pledge during their term in office be considered Green Collar Workers? The UNEP, ILO, ITUC GREEN JOBS INITIATIVE Report and GreenforAll orgnizations shoot a bit higher in their definition of Green Collar Jobs, “Green-collar jobs, as we define them, are wellpaid, career track jobs that contribute directly to preserving or enhancing environmental quality. Like traditional blue-collar jobs, green-collar jobs range from low-skill, entry-level positions to high-skill, higher-paid jobs, and include opportunities for advancement in both skills and wages.” Is the “opportunity for advancement” inclusion important? is this more of an outcome-based approach?  In a more recent report commissioned and funded by UNEP, also as part of the joint UNEP, ILO, IOE, ITUC Green Jobs Initiative you can find this Green Collar Jobs definition,  “We define green jobs as work in agricultural, manufacturing, research and development (R&D), administrative, and service activities that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high efficiency strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution.” Should the following questions also be considered when attempting to define the term, “Green Collar Worker” or “Green Collar Jobs” in Hawaii?   1. Should the definition of a Green Collar Worker be different depending on location?  For example, where you live has great impact on the way you work and what you do for work. A Green Colla Worker specializing in water systems might be involved in diverse occupations such as harvesting, treatment, delivery, research and education. We may find differences in impact, skills and success metrics among green workers in sandy deserts vs. the rain forests of Mountain View.   2. 2. Is the context in which you live or work in important to how you personally define a Green Collar Worker? A so-called, “Green Collar” means one thing to a researcher studing photo-voltaics and something potentially different to a farmer using sustainable growing techniques. An educator teaching green design may define a Green Collar Workers differently than a hydropower technician at the local power company. Similar differences in definition might exist between a LEEDS certified building contractor and a web professional using a green data center and energy efficient-coding standards to build online websites. 3. Is an outcomes-based approach the best dtermining factor? The workers intent may have a direct affect on the environment surrounding the worker on and off duty. Should the worker’s past performance be considered? Do commercial hazardous materials handlers have a special responsibility in the context of the environment? Are some workers inclined to be “greener” than others?   Is the term, “Green Collar Worker” a living or still evolving term? Is the definition actually changing as our understanding of a greener, more sustainable planet evolves? A somewhat innate understanding seems to exist. A solid understanding may eventually lead to NAICS job codes but for now local definitions need to exist to facilitate communication.  Know the difference between “Green Collar Jobs” and “Green Collar Workers”, workers are human beings, jobs are not.
This topic, like all the others shown here is open for discussion, make comments and submit questions, we will respond. See you around the galaxy…