Techdiplomacy

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..:

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…

This post will try to increase awareness of the benefits of wind energy and the possibility of using it in an urban environment.  Hopefully this post could provide an overview for individuals and groups who are interested in setting up an urban wind energy project, and covers the sorts of issues that will need to be addressed, including, but not limited to, technological environmental, political, and financial issues.  Urban wind energy has not been widely used as wind farms in rural areas and now offshore, where large turbines in very windy locations have the capacity to generate significant amounts of electricity. Urban wind projects, out of necessity will encompass projects that are smaller in scope and therefore require more installations of turbines. This is by comparison with large installations in offshore or rural areas. There are opportunities to harness the wind in our towns and cities.  Urban wind energy will help to reduce our energy demand, provide a source of clean, local power, and provide an education concerning the importance of renewable energy and the need to power our society using wind and solar power. The following technological advance will enable urban wind project managers connectivity to the grid. This solution is being utilized by wind turbines all around the world, in more traditional settings.

American Superconductor Corporation, a leading energy technologies company, recently announced that it has received an order worth more than $10M from ACCIONA Energy, a division of ACCIONA SA and a world leader in renewable power, for its new Dynamic VAR Ride Through (D-VAR RT) solution. Building on AMSC’s highly successful D-VAR platform, which provides critical dynamic reactive compensation required to connect many wind farms around the world to the power grid, the company’s D-VAR RT product enables individual wind turbines to continue operating smoothly by “riding through” voltage disturbances on power grids that might otherwise interrupt their operation. The D-VAR RT product meets stringent grid interconnection requirements, including Spain’s new Procedimiento de Operación 12.3 requirement for both existing and new wind turbines. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, Spain was the world’s third largest wind power market at the end of 2008 with an installed base of more than 16,000 megawatts (MW). Disturbances such as momentary voltage dips can disconnect many wind turbines and cause instability on the transmission grid.  Developed by Spain’s transmission system operator Red Electrica de España (REE), P.O. 12.3 requires that wind turbines remain connected to the grid through such events. After extensive field testing and operation by an AMSC-ACCIONA Energy team at a wind farm with one of Spain’s most difficult climates, the D-VAR RT solution recently received official certification of compliance. ACCIONA Energy has initially ordered D-VAR RT solutions for an important amount of first-generation “squirrel-cage” wind turbines that are currently providing more than 250 MW of electricity in Spain to meet P.O. 12.3. AMSC will deliver all of the D-VAR RT solutions covered under this contract to ACCIONA Energy over the next few months. The D-VAR RT solution can be installed inside or outside the tower of any wind turbine, enabling turbine manufacturers as well as wind farm developers, owners and operators to easily add the systems to new wind turbines or retrofit existing turbines. Utilizing AMSC’s PowerModule PM3000W wind turbine converter, this scalable solution is designed for a wide range of wind turbines with power ratings from 500 kilowatts (kW) up to 10 MW. This is the technology that will enable wind turbines to be deployed in urban areas. The powerful, cost-effective technology provides low and high voltage ride through capabilities to keep wind turbines running through grid disturbances. This product is based on AMSC’s patented D-VAR platform, which is supporting more than 3,300 MW of power at 40 wind farms around the world. “With more than 6,000 megawatts of wind power installed and more than 15,000 additional megawatts in development, ACCIONA Energy is a global clean energy powerhouse and is an ideal first adopter for our new D-VAR RT solution,” said Timothy Poor, AMSC’s Vice President of Global Sales and Business Development. “We see great potential for this product in Spain and other countries that adopt similar standards in the years ahead as wind power continues to play a more prominent role in the world’s electricity supply. ” ACCIONA Energy has been a renewable energy pioneer in its home market for well over a decade. In 1994, the company established its first commercial wind farms.  ACCIONA has contributed decisively to the growth in wind energy by developing and adapting innovative solutions that enable wind to become a main energy contributor. In this context, Acciona Energy has been involved in several technical working groups and committees with the aim of developing these new ride through capabilities.  This technology is key at this time to making urban wind generating projects a viable option immediately.

There are several companies manufacturing wind turbines that are  acceptable in urban settings.  There are critics of this technology, however their arguments are not reasonable or based on proven facts.  I read one critic of urban wind turbines whose main argument was he had done some calculations based on a lot of his own interpolation, and he had proved (to himself mostly) that you cannot have urban wind generating projects that produce enough electricity to make them viable options.  If we had listened to people like this we would not have air travel or vechicle travel not dependant on horses or other livestock.  We have the technology to generate wind power in urban settings, we need only implement this technology and work towards making this venture successful.  We are Americans and from the beginning we have been innovators.  Our President Barack Obama is a man who has taken responsibility to lead us through a period of change and transition.  He was and is the perfect choice for this moment in time, this is a period of transition.  We can and will use wind in urban settings for electrical power.  If someone says we can’t they are betting against American ingenuity.  It is not a good bet we will succeed in this as we have in all of endeavors that we attempted in order to improve the quality of life for Americans.  There is no choice, we have polluted our environment, used our natural resources, (oil, coal, etc.) until the resources have been depleted.  The only option is to look to renewable energy sources, wind, solar, and geothermal power are all we really have left.

The following is just one example of an urban wind turbine by virtue of it’s design.

This is a different design from the usual turbines seen in rural areas

The blades of the QR5 are gently tapered, to minimise noise – the blades being constructed from carbon fibre.

The QR5 also adheres to the principles of simplicity, sacrificing the complexity of a gearbox, for a direct-drive motor. The design aims to reduce maintenance costs by making all moving parts sealed units. The design incorporates a 6kW generator, and operates in wind conditions between 4 m/s and 16 m/s.

The design has an operational life of 25 years and has been constructed to be relatively maintenance free during that period. 

Assuming an average wind speed of 5.8 m/s, with 10, 000kWh being generated each year, the turbine will have a financial payback period of 15 years – however, as the price of oil continues to spiral, there is no reason why the turbine could not pay for itself in less time.

Vertical Shaft Turbines For Urban Use

This is a no brainer, we can and we will use wind power in our cities and towns.  There is simply no alternative.  I only hope that we will not listen to those who would tell us that we cannot do this for vague and dubious reasons.  We have proved time and time again that as Americans we can do anything we want. 

Once again, I invite anyone to comment on this (or any other) post and we will print your comments and try to engage you in a discussion, in the meantime, see you around the galaxy…

Callaway Nuclear Power Plant Fulton, Missouri

The nuclear power industry is, in it’s effort to revive the building of new reactors, closing it’s eyes to the actual facts with regard to cost and safety.  Their opinion is that nuclear power must be included if we are to change our climate.  They see a nuclear renaissance as the number of applications for construction and operating permits rises.  This information comes from the nuclear regulatory commission, they have not seen this type of activity in over 30 years. 

The Department of Energy keeps a ongoing count of nuclear licensing applications.  The DOE is predicting 23 licenses for 34 reactors.  The industry hopes this will continue in 2009 in order to shore up their hopes in an effort to build new reactors.

The same climate change legislation that the renewable energy sector wants to see, the nuclear industry is counting on that very same legislation to get the country to back their efforts.  Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel, however it has been shown in several studies that any gain in cleaner emissions are offset by the dangerous process that is nuclear power.  The nuclear industry has started to release real prices instead of the low estimates that had been their stock in trade.  Now you see prices have doubled to well over 5 billion dollars per reactor which is double estimates from early 2008.  The DOE loan guarantee program would be new hope for these people.

It would be hope misplaced.  Nuclear power is not the way to go at this juncture.  High construction costs and complicated licensing procedures make this option economically not feasible.  There is no solution to this, we should use renewable energy sources to power our society.  The nuclear option should not be an option.  We need to view this option with extreme caution.  We don’t have a solution for the energy woes that we are experiencing now that could be solved by the nuclear power industry.  This industry touts itself as the new way to avoid CO2 emissions, although they have their share of this global warming causing element.  There is a movement among the utilities that operate nuclear power plants to grab a share of funds that would be better spent investing in clean renewable energy.

We have a new administration taking office this month and they will be deluged with requests for funding for various reasons.  The nuclear power industry not withstanding will make their demands for funds known and they will use the arguments that they have used for decades, clean power.  How about clean, safe power.  The industry said that waste storage is improving due to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s reaction to the license application for Yucca Mountain.  The NRC did proceed with the docketing process and evaluations on items such as environmental requirements.  The general thinking is that geologic storage is necessary for nuclear energy’s future.  That does not solve any problems with regard to what is stored.  This is a problem currently and will continue to be a problem.  Some see the waste as valuable material and would like to recycle the material.

There are plans to build nuclear power stations in several states.  We as people with a desire to power our planet safely should protest this direction that these utilities are taking to provide electricity.  As we have stated here in the past clean and safe  renewable energy is the way to go.  Any thoughts on this?  Let’s hear from you in our comment section.  In the meantime work for renewable energy sources, new jobs, help for our failing economy and a clean environment are ours’ for the future.

Winner and New Champ, Wind Power!

There have been several studies lately that have wind coming out in front of all energy sources available today.  This includes renewables such as solar and geothermal power resources.  Wind has long been known to be more efficient and cost effective than nuclear or fossil fuel power.  With the advent of issues like climate change the consensus is wind would provide an overwhelming alternative to our dependence on fossil fuel and foreign oil. 

Stanford University Researcher Mark Jacobson held a news conference in order to clear the air about some misconceptions with regard to alternative energy and it’s various sources.  He feels that the subject needed clarification in order to more effectively give our leaders input on what can and should be done about our environmental problems. 

Mr. Jacobson considered nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel alternatives. The electricity sources included solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.  The liquid power fuel sources included corn ethanol (E85), and cellulosic-E85.  The electric and liquid fuel were examined by comparing their ability to power new-technology vehicles which essentially were:  battery electric vehicles (BEVs); hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs); and flex-fuel vehicles that run on E85.  After ranking each combination of energy source-vehicle type, twelve in all, with regard to any of 11 impact categories, 4 divisions of ranking, or tiers, result.  The first tier (highest ranked) includes wind powered BEVs, and HFCVs.  The second tier consisted of CSP-BEVs, geothermal BEVs, wave-BEVs, tidal BEVs, and PV-BEVs.  The third tier included hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.  The forth tier included  corn and cellulosic-E85.  Wind BEVs, were ranked number one in seven out of eleven categories, including mortality and climate damage that is reduced by the advent of the wind technology.  Wind HFCVs were deemed clean and although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind HFCVs were ranked second of all combinations.  The second tier options were recommended having provided ’significant’ benefits.  The third tier options proved to be ‘less desirable’, however hydroelectricity was ranked higher than coal and nuclear when load balance with climate change and health were considered and thus recommended. The tier 4 options (cellulosic and corn-E85)  were the lowest ranked in this study which considered climate, air pollution, wildlife damage, land use, and chemical waste.   Corn-E85 ranked higher than cellulosic-E85, this was largely based on consideration of a larger land use (footprint) and higher upstream air pollution over corn-E85.  In the area concerning human mortality, cellulosic-E85 seems to cause the greatest upper limit mortality risk.  However nuclear BEVs probably cause the greatest upper limit mortality risk, due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide.  Wind BEVs and CSP BEVs are the clear winners according to the paper by Mark Jacobson.  They cause the least mortality human and wildlife.  They are among the smallest comsumers of water. 

The paper goes on to conclude that in order to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave and hydro should be used.  Jacobson’s research paper states that using a combination of these technologies could be solutions to the problems of global warming, air pollution, and energy security. 

I agree with this research in that nuclear power, ‘clean’ coal, bio-fuels or the rest of the false solutions for a clean environment are pointless and dangerous to consider.  We should advance the notion that renewables are the only answer, with wind in the forefront.

We are losing ground with regard to our economy and global warming is costing us 3.6% of GDP. We have to do something about the climate changes or lose 3.8 trillion dollars according to a recent report. 

 Global warming is a problem for which we have an answer.  The country need only to switch to clean renewable energy resources.  We could lower CO2 emissions and reduce global warming by 25% of 1990 standards by 2020.  By 2050 we could reduce global warming by 80% of 1990 levels. We are obviously at the end of our time where fossil fuels can be any part of our energy needs.  We face serious losses in our economy and our way of life if the climate changes are not abated. The future can be seriously changed by the change to alternative energy in the form of renewable energy.

There must be a move by private and public investors to invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, along with energy efficient buildings, homes, automobiles and appliances.  In Texas, California, Missouri, Michigan, and New Jersey wind farms are being proposed and erected creating new jobs, helping the economic base in those states that are embracing renewable energy and creating new income for landowners and business owners.  

By August of 2008 there were 97 new geothermal projects being developed in 13 states generating 7000 full time permanent  jobs.

Green Jobs have the advantage of usually being the same jobs that the area in which they are located had to begin with.  The jobs are simply upgraded and new descriptions are given to more or less the same job.  The manufacturing skills these individuals have now become the means to creating products to be used to make renewable energy a viable power source and our only power source.  Having been in the power industry, I know that nuclear, coal, and fossil fuel production are not industries that will create new opportunities as they are capital intensive.  The new economy based on renewable energy resources will be labor intensive.

The switch to renewable energy will take action on a large scale from our elected officials.  They must legislate our country into the future or we will not get there.  The right incentives for renewable energy sources must be created and a cap on global warming pollution. (CO²)  There will be new clean renewable energy, high technology to replace our aging fossil fuel system.

The consensus is that converting to clean renewable energy will serve both urban and rural areas.  A study by The University of Tennessee suggests that 5.1 million new jobs in rural areas would be created by the year 2030 if politicians take action now to incentivize the next generation of electricity production. 

 The renewable energy sector alone, which includes wind, solar, and geothermal power, already employs over half a million people nationwide.  The energy efficiency sector includes the automobile, building, appliance and power plant industries.  There are hundreds of thousands employed in these industries.  The problems confronting our country today could literally be solved by embracing alternative energy in the form of renewable energy resourses.  The jobs that would be created would put our people back to work and this in turn would help stabilize the economy. 

We are in need of a new grid to transmit electrical power using digital technology whether or not we switch to renewable energy sources.  We are obliged to create this new grid and it makes the time for the move away from fossil fuels now.  A switch to wind, solar and geothermal power means we save our environment as well as our economy.  Our infrastructure is in serious disrepair.  All of these things need to be addressed immediately, we are simply out of time.  If we are to restore American confidence in our own products and self worth then we should do so by taking the first step.  This first step according to many studies being produced currently is to convert to clean renewable energy resources.

We have the right political outlook now, we have elected a president and a legislative branch that could take the steps necessary to save our environment and our economy now!  We need only to ask our elected officials to pass the legislation needed to bring about change.

The National Renewable Energy Laboritories have recently identified, “inadequate workforce skills and training as one of the primary obstacles to developing energy efficiency and renewable energy”.  We need to fully fund the Green Jobs Act detailed in the 2007 energy bill.  We can train and employ millions of Americans and save our environment as well.  Public job training can reach at risk young people and people who are unemployed and hit the hardest by the current economic crisis.

Green job development can serve the states hit hardest by the economic downturn.  Since 1998 the US has lost 7.2 million jobs to mergers, outsourcing, bankruptcies, automation, globalization and trade policy.  The states that are hit the hardest are home to manufacturing companies and workers who can be trained to produce the renewable energy products that we are importing from Germany and Japan.  These products include wind turbines, solar cells and other green building materials. 

At this moment there are thousands of people involved with many organizations whose main goals are to convert to a clean way to generate electricity and to shut down fossil fuel plants which are leading to ecological ruin.  We should convert to renewable energy resources and start to generate the 5 million jobs that would come from our efforts.  The people who would be the most affected by our inaction would be the poor and disenfranchised.  We have seen what major climate change does to those of our people fellow Americans that are not as well off as others.  We must not accept the status-quo, it is the time for change!  

The state of New Jersey is helping to fund an initiative by Garden State Offshore Energy to build wind turbines 16 miles offshore. The state would like to have 3000 megawatts of wind power from offshore wind farms by the year 2020, which is 13 percent of the state’s electricity needs. The Garden State initiative will provide 350 megawatts of electrical power, and represent the US’s first deepwater wind turbines.

Proposed wind turbines in this country have been challenged diligently by the public and shipping interests and this has slowed or outright stopped some proposed offshore wind farms. With the deepwater turbines this is no longer a problem. When the turbines are closer in to shore they are visible and some feel eyesores. Shipping interests say shipping lanes are compromised by the wind turbines. The problem was that no wind farms were allowed any further out than 3-4 miles. The federal government has now agreed to open up deep ocean waters, and by new federal government rules this will create vast areas of space to place wind turbines. The area that they have agreed to let companies develop is the outer continental shelf, it extends to the edge of U.S. territory 230 miles out. These wind farms would not obstruct views, or interfere with any other activity.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, the agency that is responsible for the new rules planned to finalize to rules by the end of 2008. They will lease plots of the shelf to developers of wind farms and other renewable energy projects. These other projects include ocean current and wave-harvesting technologies. States along the northeast coast where 80 percent of the population of the U.S. lives, have decided to providing some of the funding for these wind farms in the hope that they will have some of the energy from the farms transmitted into state grids and help meet renewable energy requirements. The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition’s founder Sean O’Neill thinks the leases may be too expensive and the environmental review process too extensive. Other groups are saying that there are too many barriers to overcome, and they want to know are these waters really open?

Opening the shelf is probably the only way to have offshore wind projects for the U.S. There have been problems in the past trying to get something like this done. Most proposed wind projects in state waters can be seen from shore, and there’s potential interference with shipping lanes. Wind turbines in these conditions have to have a smaller design and this leads to a reduction in the anticipated amount of electricity causing profits to fall. In addition no one seemed to know who had control, before the new federal government rules. As a result there is not a single offshore wind turbine operating in the U.S. today.

Nearly 80 percent of the population of the U.S. live in coastal states. In the heavily populated areas there is simply no room for wind turbine farms. Wind turbines located on the continental shelf will generate 1000 gigawatts of electricity. That number is more than the electrical capacity of the entire U.S. The U.S. is in the rear with regard to offshore wind turbines, Europe has more than 2 dozen wind parks in their waters.

New designs have to be developed for deep water wind turbines. At shallow depths it is a simple matter to drive a pole into the floor of the sea, this is called a monopile. The concept is like having to drive piles for reinforced concrete construction. Obviously they cannot have the deepwater turbines without new designs that will take the depth of the water into consideration.

Engineers and researchers are trying new designs like underwater tripods and lattice type structures called jackets. German developer Alpha Ventus is in the next few months going to build a dozen turbines with tripod and lattice structures in deep water. The leading developer in this type of technology are the engineering staff for Beatrice Wind Farm in the North Sea close to Scotland, with turbines 138 feet deep and over 15 miles from shore.

Engineers have determined these designs would be good for depths of 200 feet. The option they have for deeper water is floating structures used by the oil industry. The platforms would not be exactly the same as the oil industry has experience in using, however they would be very similar. Private developers in Europe say they are working on prototypes for this model. Otherwise this technology could take up to a decade to to get up and running.

The cost of deepwater windturbine installation is twice that of wind turbines on land. The industry here in the U.S. is being very careful, they don’t want to fail because of fear that would hamper or completely stop further offshore construction of wind turbine farms.