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…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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…

Offshore Wind Turbines

 

Renewable energy grew in leaps and bounds in 2008, and the future is promising with wind, solar and  geothermal power gaining in the foreseeable future.  You have the nuclear and fossil fuel industries saying that renewable energy is a good thought but is it economically feasible?  The answer is yes, although those industries would have the public believe otherwise.

Wind Power

In the past year we have seen wind power grow in places where there is surplus wind to be harnessed.  That would include Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.  There is a wealth of wind in Texas and they have done their best to utilize this power to grow tax revenues, create jobs, create a large tourism industry (people actually come to see the wind turbines in operation) and increase educational resources.  Towns that used to see most of their population moving on as they reached the age of the majority.  Now these towns are witnessing a rebirth of sorts as young people are staying in droves. 

The year 2008 was the best year in United States wind power history.  The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has released reports stating that the industry will easily surpass 2007, they added Wyoming and West Virginia to the list of states with the highest volume of wind power.  The AWEA revealed that only Germany, India, and Spain had more wind power capacity than Texas at the end of 2007.  They noted that West Virginia had the fastest wind power capacity growth which tripled it’s capacity.  Wyoming reportedly could have added 1,856 more turbines and around 2,800 MW of wind generation capacity. 

On the eastern seaboard offshore wind turbines seemed to be the answer according to the AWEA and is more cost effective than fossil fuel and nuclear power.  Plans have been revealed to build 96 offshore wind turbines arranged in a grid 16 to 20 miles off Cape May and Atlantic counties.

Congress has awarded wind a one-year Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension in the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  AWEA advocates a long term extension of the wind PTC.

Geothermal Power

The Geothermal Energy Association said 47 new geothermal projects are in various stages of development in California and Nevada.  When completed they will provide more than 2,100 MW, and there are projects getting started in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.  The U.S. Department of the Interior said in October that more than 190 million acres of federal land in 11 western states including Alaska will open to geothermal energy resource development. 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency  and Renewable Energy report “Geothermal Tomorrow 2008″ stated that improved geothermal technologies have “the potential to access vast untapped geothermal energy sources.”  One such technology, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) involves digging wells into hot rock, fracturing it to create a reservoir and then extracting the heat with a second well, making geothermal a viable source of power generation in areas that don’t have naturally occuring hydrothermal reservoirs.  This would mean geothermal generation could take place in much of the United States. 

There was a two year congressional PTC extension for geothermal energy, however costs are becoming economical without the PTC.

Solar Power

Solar Photovoltaic Panel Roof Installation

A congressional investment tax credit (ITC) extension is helping solar’s fast track growth.  The 30 percent federal ITC is for residential and commercial solar installations, has been extended for 8 years.  The director of research, Mike Taylor at the Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA), stated that was the largest solar milestone for 2008.

New Energy Finance has seen a possible change in the photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal electricity generators markets.  Some analysts think that supply will exeed demand and the result could be price decreases and consolidation. 

SEPA noted the large number of solar projects announced in 2008, both CSP and distributed PV was considered to be worthy of milestone status.  Recent estimates have CSP plants with an estimated total of 4,000 MW are in the planning stages. 

In 2008 utilities and the general public started to see the benefits of rooftop solar photovotaic and(PV)  installations, that was very fortunate rooftop PV installations are now in great demand.  Southern California Edison in March 2008 started to build what they said would be the largest solar cell project in the US.  This will be built on two square miles of commercial building roofs where they would generate 250 MW of advanced PV technology.  Duke Energy in North Carolina has stated they will build a 50 million dollar solar rooftop installation, they will generate 8 MW of of power from 425 sites over the next two years.  In April of 2008 the Center for Revolutionary Solar Photoconversion (CRSP) was launched.  Fourteen companies belong to the CRSP, the newest research center of the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory.

The Future of Renewable Energy

The sector will show strong growth in 2009, although it may not be a record year due the economy.  The poor economy will not affect European expansion in wind.  The US is as usual having growing pains and they need to be overcome in order for our country to keep up with our European counterparts.  The renewable energy industry need only keep up with demand for transmission, match renewables with demand response.  This is our business model for this sector.  We’ll save Americans money and we’llsave the planet as well.  We will need intelligent infrastructure from the generating station to the customer.  This fits in nicely with our next President’s (Obama) plans.  We will need to give our president help, where is the old American spirit of invention?  Donate 50 cents or a dollar, it will go to organizations involved in saving the environment.   Let’s see what we can do working together!

This is a solar cap is the car a reality? Beats me!

I would not print the following under normal conditions, however I never sleep and I suppose I must be just a little giddy over the prospect of the new year being a better one for all mankind.  I mean, Americans made history close to two months ago by embracing a new, intelligent and young African American man as our 44th president.  I am still reeling from that one, so when the Nikkei reported that Toyota was actually developing a solar powered car I eagerly sought more information on the subject.  I have yet to find any, although I’m sure we’ll hear more about this development as offices open on the last day of the week.  Last day of the week but first day of work in the new year of our lord 2009.  See how giddy I am, I just made a religious reference and I don’t usually make religious references.  So I give the following in pretty much the same condition I found it in the Huffington Post who got it from the Nikkei, I can’t find anything in the Nikkei anywhere verifying this story.  The english or Japanese version of the Nikkei makes no mention of this story.  This is why I am printing Huffington’s version, I rarely print copy from other papers or blogs, this however is a different story altogether.  It’s good news if true, but if it is not true, I take no credit for this part of the story.  Therefore read, but question what you have read.

Toyota Motor Corp. is secretly developing a vehicle that will be powered solely by solar energy in an effort to turn around its struggling business with a futuristic ecological car, a top business daily reported Thursday.

The Nikkei newspaper, however, said it will be years before the planned vehicle will be available on the market. Toyota’s offices were closed Thursday and officials were not immediately available for comment.

According to The Nikkei, Toyota is working on an electric vehicle that will get some of its power from solar cells equipped on the vehicle, and that can be recharged with electricity generated from solar panels on the roofs of homes. The automaker later hopes to develop a model totally powered by solar cells on the vehicle, the newspaper said without citing sources.

The solar car is part of efforts by Japan’s top automaker to grow during hard times, the Nikkei said.

In December, Toyota stunned the nation by announcing it will slip into its first operating loss in 70 years, as it gets battered by a global slump, especially in the key U.S. market. The surging yen has also hurt the earnings of Japanese automakers.

Still, Toyota is a leader in green technology and executives have stressed they won’t cut back on environmental research despite its troubles.

Toyota, the manufacturer of the Lexus luxury car and Camry sedan, has already begun using solar panels at its Tsutsumi plant in central Japan to produce some of its own electricity.

The solar panels on the roofs add up in size to the equivalent of 60 tennis courts and produce enough electricity to power 500 homes, according to Toyota. That reduces 740 tons a year of carbon dioxide emissions and is equal to using 1,500 barrels of crude oil.

At this point the Huff goes on to say that Toyota may gain some expertise in solar energy because their partner in producing hybrid batteries, Panasonic is about to acquire Sanyo Electric Co. who is a recognized leader in solar energy. 

I will follow this story as well as I can and update this information here in the near future, in the meantime join me in rejoicing at this prospect.  I mean, if your car actually runs on solar energy you’d have the best of two worlds, low maintenance and, no fuel expenses.  I think that makes for a better future for our children as well as a greener future, there would be no carbon emissions from a vehicle like this.  We’ll keep hoping for the best.

I wanted to say to my readers Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, this is me and my son.  He is seventeen, with luck he’ll go on to a university in September 2009.  He wants to study law, I hope he’ll figure a way to make alternative energy by way of renewable energy resources the way we power our society by legislation.  Donate to renewable energy today, use one of the ‘Donate’ buttons located around our site.  We have decided to move into a home that we can power by wind in 2009, I cannot afford the power bills in our condo anymore!  Derek plays violin and he is one of the most gentle people you’ll ever meet.  Talk with him on MySpace sometime, he is dowboy2009, 2009 is when he graduates from high school.  I have raised Derek alone since he was six, his mother abandoned him.  Now we laugh and love here in Virginia by the beach all alone and we are happy!  Please support renewable energy sources to power our society by donating here on this site, we distribute the funds to groups like 1Sky and WeCanSolveIt, so help out today.  Enjoy the Holidays with your family and remember our environment, and help out anyway you can.  See you around the galaxy!

We Support Renewable Energy Resources, Solar and Wind Power Forever!

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.