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…

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…

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…

Fluor forms renewable energy business line 15 May 2009. This was the headline from a trade publication. Engineering and construction firm Fluor said it is forming a business line to focus on global renewable energy for clients in the solar, wind and biomass power markets. Fluor said the line will complement its nuclear, gas and solid fueled, and air quality control offerings. It will be led by Brad Friesen, a Fluor executive and former head of the company’s gas fueled line. “Fluor has designed and built renewable energy projects for more than 20 years and we will leverage that expertise for the benefit of our clients,” Friesen said in a statement.

I don’t know much, but I once worked as a consultant for Fluor and I can’t remember them being all that environmentally concerned. I suppose we must give these companies the benefit of doubt, but we must be careful as well. Read on, you’ll see what I mean.

The following comments were written by Jean Jerome Baudry, there is more information concerning Mr. Baudry at the end of his comments.

More than ever before the population wants GREEN! Practices, products, organic food, recyclable packaging, the list is never ending and more than ever, businesses are giving it to them. Businesses far and wide are claiming to go green, to the point where society needs a term to describe consumers being misled by a company regarding their environmental practices. The term ‘greenwashing’ was claimed to have originated from a NY suburban environmentalist named Jay Westerveld in 1986, although the actual practice originated somewhere in the 60s alongside the emerging environmentalist movement. It’s no wonder that greening your business has become so marketable when over half of the baby boomer population – some 40 million – are environmentally conscience consumers. Therefore greening your business can be an all around profitable endeavor from a marketing standpoint as well as a cost savings standpoint. The danger is when it comes to advertising a practice or an approach as green which isn’t reflected in the day to day operations. It’s simply fraudulent or better known as …greenwashing. The Think Green Alliance aims to provide a safeguard against “greenwashing,” which is common in the marketplace today when so few standards and regulations exist for determining whether a company is truly environmentally friendly and if so, just how environmentally friendly they are. The criteria for membership, established by Cybernomics, are simple but telling. Think Green Alliance members (1) must show tangibly that they have incorporated green principles into their business plan, (2) must have a concrete, measurable, and step-by-step approach to integration of these principles, and (3) must be committed to a continuous cycle of improvement. Think Green Alliance members span multiple industry verticals and therefore lend a multidisciplinary approach to companies looking to start adopting green principles into their business plan and operations, as well as provide a benchmark to companies who have already embarked upon a green plan. For more information on the Think Green Alliance, or to apply for membership for your company, please visit http://www.thinkgreenalliance.com. Jean Jerome Baudry founded Cybernomics in 1993 as a Professional IT Consulting, Management, and Support firm. Today, Cybernomics is a leader in Green IT and financially and environmentally sustainable solutions. Mr. Baudry is also the founder of the Think Green Alliance, a green business community dedicated to the promotion, development, and awareness of fiscally sound green business practices. For more information on Mr. Baudry or on Cybernomics, please visit http://www.cybernomics.net.

Mr. Baudry has expressed concern and has provided solutions to keep companies honest with regard to being environmentally friendly. As an environmentalist I applaud these efforts and as a consumer, I vow to investigate claims by companies that claim they are ‘green’. We need to know the truth, therefore avoiding ‘greenwashing’ that is becoming rampant. Anyway that’s what I think, tell us your opinion. In the meantime, 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…

This is the first electric car

I know that everyone has seen or at least heard of, some version of an electric car. However did you know that they (electric cars) were first seen in the 1890′ s, with the advent of an electric vehicle invented by William Morrison.

That era was a time of innovators and people of vision. There were several versions of the electric car introduced in this period and New York City used the vehicles for taxis briefly. I mention these events in a time when we are bailing out our nation’s automakers for a good reason.

No, I didn’t mean that the bailout is a good idea, I meant bringing the history of the electric car into this is a good idea at this time. Maybe these geniuses would not be in the predicament they find themselves in, if they hadn’t discarded the idea of electric power for gas guzzling internal combustion engines. Let me explain, the story starts in the late 1800’s as I stated earlier.

There were around nine electric vehicles at the turn of the last century on the market so to speak.

Despite the notion that electric vehicles represent a new and what seems to be exotic technology, they have been around for a long time. During the early 1900s, cars powered by electricity were the fastest on the road. When the internal combustion engine was invented, electric cars dropped off the face of the planet, I’m sure the oil industry gave it a push. However, due to the many natural resource and environmental problems that we face now, electric cars, are in the mix once again. There are many kinds of electric vehicles. The most recognizable are electric cars, which can be the solution to our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. Scientists and corporations have developed new technologies and have refined electric car research and manufacturing. There are electric cars that are more efficient and more reliable than conventional cars, that are being developed and sold to the public. There are other kinds of electric vehicles available, such as buses and rail transportation.

This brings us back to the bailout, and the cars American auto manufacturers are producing, in this, their hour of need. There has been an increase in fuel prices over the last few years, everyone knows that this is the case. As a result of this, people have started looking for ways to save money on fuel. There have been various alternatives in recent years. Two of the alternatives are electric cars and hybrids. Electric cars are simply cars that run on electric energy. Hybrid cars are a combination of an electric engine system and a fuel engine system. What are the differences between electric cars and hybrid cars? Aside from how their engine systems work, there are a few notable differences between electric and hybrid cars. Hybrids perform differently on the road, since they have an engine that runs on fuel. They can travel longer distances using their gas components after their electrical charges have been depleted. However, electric cars are environmentally friendly, since they produce no emissions and do not use liquid fuel at all.

The point is, are the hybrids the answer? They use petroleum, only not as much. We as a nation need to learn about sacrifice. Electric cars, while not the perfect solution, yet, could solve that environmental problem once and for all. No emissions at all, ever again. We sacrifice a little to gain the world. It’s a no brainer, our children will thank us. No more petroleum powered cars of any sort. Let’s look at hybrids, since the industry that’s being bailed out has only hybrids to offer.

I know I’m repeating myself, but so there is no misunderstanding. Hybrid electric vehicles are vehicles that combine an internal combustion engine with a battery powered system. They are what you get when you mix a ‘regular’, petroleum fueled car with an electric one, which is why they are called hybrids. While hybrids do not have any advantages in performance that separate them from the rest, they are popular because the industry touts them as an environmentally acceptable alternative to ‘regular’ internal combustion engine powered cars. They are supposedly able to get the best of both electric and fuel powered cars. They are more efficient than fuel powered cars but not as efficient as those relying solely on electric power. Many large automobile manufacturers are offering hybrid versions of their cars. Companies (including the ones desiring bailouts) such as General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, and Honda are some of the car makers that have manufactured hybrid electric cars and trucks in the last few years.

We are at a fork in the road of our existence on this planet. We can transition into a new cleaner and sustainable future. Hybrids are not the answer, we mist go forward with all electric vehicles.

What is it that we will lose if we go with new ideas like the electric car? What is the sacrifice? Let’s see, we’ll need a new grid, however that’s a plus because it will create new jobs. Oh, I know, we’ll have to use electric cars, let’s look at that.

Unlike a hybrid car—which is fueled by gasoline and uses a battery and motor to improve efficiency—an electric car is powered exclusively by electricity. As battery technology improves—simultaneously increasing energy storage and reducing cost—major automakers are introducing a new generation of electric cars. Electric cars produce no tailpipe emissions, reduce our dependency on oil, and are cheaper to operate. Of course, the process of producing the electricity moves the emissions further upstream to the utility company’s smokestack—but even dirty electricity used in electric cars usually reduces our collective carbon footprint. Another factor is convenience: In one trip to the gas station, you can pump 330 kilowatt-hours of energy into a 10-gallon tank. It would take about 9 days to get the same amount of energy from household electric current. Fortunately, it takes hours and not days to recharge an electric car, because it’s much more efficient. Speaking of convenience, let’s not forget two important points: charging up at home means never going to a gas station—and electric cars require almost none of the maintenance, like oil changes and emissions checks, that internal combustion cars require. Electric motors develop their highest torque from zero rpms—meaning fast (and silent) zero-to-60 acceleration times.

The fact is we are in a transitional time with regard to life on this planet. The President of the United States recognizes this fact, and he is taking bold steps in the name of radical change. Citizens of the planet must unite and except this eventuality. Cars that need petroleum are causing great damage to us, and the environment. Manufacturing hybrids is not the answer, and it is an insult to our collective intelligence. They use petroleum and tease us with battery powered engines with very short ranges.

Finally, I would like to say that the answer lies within each of us, we hold the keys. If we want a future that does not allow the greed of the oil companies and the automobile industry to destroy our environment, well then we must draw a line in the sand now. Hybrids use petroleum and we don’t need them. Let’s go with the electric car. We need zero emissions from automobiles and other vehicles now. We simply have done too much damage as it stands to go for anything short of banning CO2 emissions from cars. We could accomplish this in the next 5 to 10 years. We need only look at this as an investment in our future, and not a sacrifice. Finally , I’d like everyone who reads this to comment. Its does not matter if you agree or disagree, give us your opinion on this and we’ll print it, it’s that simple.

See you around the galaxy…