Article Post:
A Closer Look At The Alternative Energy Sources Of Solar And Wind Power
Renewable Solar Power & Wind Power Could Help Solve Global Warming
By Gregg Hall
More and more scientists today agree that global warming is a serious issue and that the cause of global warming is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Politicians, too, are being swayed as they see increases in property damaged, injuries, and even deaths due to natural catastrophes which appear to have gotten worse in recent decades. Because fossil fuels appear to be the source of worldwide atmospheric change, people have began to look to other methods of producing energy. In addition to causing atmospheric change, there’s the reality that we will run out of fossil fuels. The world’s economy is based on fossil fuels but they are a finite resource. Eventually we will run out of them. Fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource. Two methods of producing energy which have little impact on the environment and are sustainable are solar and wind power.
First, we’ll take a look at solar power. Solar power is, of course, power derived from the energy of the sun’s rays. The limitation with this energy source is the sun itself. The sun will never run out, except at night. Solar power sources have been designed to compensate for the downtime of night or cloudy days, but solar power works best in sunny climates. Solar power is generally used in one of three ways: to generate heat, to generate electricity, and to desalinate salt water. Solar powered heating systems are usually either active or passive in design. An active solar heating system uses pumps to circulate water which has been heated by the sun. Passive solar heating systems use the nature of water to create circulation. This method relies on the fact that heat energy wants to move into areas of lesser heat. In generating electricity, solar power is harnessed by photovoltaic cells which convert the suns energy into electricity. These cells have been widely used to power calculators for decades. In solar desalination, the power of the sun is used to evaporate water to separate it from the salt and other undesirable minerals.
Another type of clean, renewable power comes from the wind. Wind power, while growing in popularity, still accounts for barely 1% of the world’s power supply. This is hard to believe considering how much the wind blows! Wind power is usually harnessed using wind turbines. A centuries old version of harnessing wind power is the windmill. These lovely structures used the wind to grind grains and pump water. Today’s wind turbines are advanced machinery employing the latest technologies. More and more "wind farms" are sprouting up around the world. These huge arrays of wind turbines can be found on land and offshore. The biggest ones in the US are land-based farms in California, Oregon, and Washington. There are also more and more popping up the Midwest. Because of energy costs and damage done to the environment, alternative energy sources are receiving a great deal of interest. Two of the most promising are solar and wind power.
Gregg Hall is an author living in Navarre Florida. Find more about this as well as science books at http://www.sciencekitsandbooks.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gregg_Hall
http://EzineArticles.com/?A-Closer-Look-At-The-Alternative-Energy-Sources-Of-Solar-And-Wind-Power&id=331904
Article Post:
Closing The Conservation Gap In Electric Power
Misconceptions Lead to Dismal Investment in Conservation at Electric Power Plants
Today, as U.S. electric power demand grows and environmental and energy security issues become more urgent, there is a growing concern that the current balance encourages the construction of new power plants rather than investment in the conservation of electric power.
This subject is coming to the fore, in part, because of the capacity challenges that the electric power industry will start facing in the next few years. But at least as important is that conservation is coming to the top of the agenda across the U.S. economy-an emphasis that has not been seen for decades.
That, in turn, forces us to focus on the dynamics of conservation or, as it is also called, energy efficiency. Most industry observers agree that there is indeed a "power conservation investment gap" in the U.S. But the gap does not exist for the reasons most people think.
Misperceptions about the reasons behind the conservation gap lead to a focus on the wrong set of fixes and set unrealistic expectations. To close the gap, we must first address these misperceptions and identify the gap’s real causes.
The First Misperception is that power conservation potential has hardly been tapped. The reality is quite different-a great deal of power conservation has already occurred. The U.S. has slowly but steadily reduced its electric intensity-the amount of power used per unit of economic output-over the past two decades.
Overall, the weather-normalized electric intensity of the U.S. economy has declined 18 percent since the mid-1980s. And most of these efficiency gains occurred during a period when the real price of power was steadily declining.
The cumulative effect is quite dramatic-if the U.S. consumed electricity with the same intensity it did in 1987, its power system today would need the daily operation of additional power supply equal in size to the combined power systems of Texas and California.
Misperception Number Two is that conservation and efficiency are free-that the benefits to consumers and producers far outweigh the costs-and that cost is not an issue. But conservation is not just a matter of switching off lamps and turning thermostats down in winter and up in summer. Substantial and sustained power conservation involves real effort and requires real up-front investment and ongoing costs.
Misperception Number Three is that power users underinvest in conservation because they are chronically ill-informed about its benefits. Due to this view, the most common public policy solution for conservation underinvestment today is funding consumer education programs.
Yet the concept that households make poor decisions when it comes to conservation simply does not square with observed data on consumer behavior. Over the past several decades, the statistical evidence is quite compelling-power consumers act quite rationally and in an informed manner by consistently responding to real increases in power prices by consuming less. Last year was a good example.
Consumers responded to some of the biggest price increases they have seen in quite some time by reducing their consumption of electricity. As a result, power demand stayed flat, even though inflation-adjusted economic growth exceeded 3 percent on the year.
Misperception Number Four is that power engineers are just genetically conditioned toward building big and advanced power plants rather than pursuing small and beautiful conservation options. This idea stems from the perception that if cost-effective conservation potential exists, then power producers should naturally invest in conservation rather than production.
Yet when power producers actually do invest in conservation, they find it hard to pay for the investment because the benefits naturally flow to the consumers who end up using less power.
So even if regulators do allow producers to treat these investments the same way they treat production investments-allowing these costs onto the balance sheet as the basis for approved cost recovery-the effect is that higher costs must be recovered from a smaller base of sales. In order to break even, the producer needs a price increase. And that is something customers and politicians typically resist. And this represents the current best case for producers.
Most states do not provide such cost recovery, and no state in the U.S. has put together a regulatory and incentive package that encourages power producers to seek the proper balance of conservation and production investments.
Although the conventional wisdom concerning power conservation underinvestment may not be accurate and current policy is lacking, there are nevertheless real reasons to expect a conservation gap. Power deregulation has created bigger and more liquid wholesale power markets that express the cost of power at any point in time. One lesson from the emergence of power markets is clear: the cost of electricity varies considerably through time and is often well above the price that most customers face.
This is especially true during peak periods of power demand when the cost of electric production (and conversely the value of conservation) is many times higher than the prices customers are being charged. This is intentional-consumers, regulators and politicians want stable and predictable power prices that do not reflect the cost of power during its most expensive times.
It is not surprising that these stakeholders work together to fetter wholesale prices with price caps and disconnect retail power prices from costs with a variety of mechanisms in order to make them less volatile and more predictable. The net result is that the prices customers see are often lower than the costs of the power they are consuming.
Customers invest in conservation based on the retail prices they face. Yet, it is the more volatile cost of power that determines how much conservation is truly cost effective. When confronted with typical retail prices instead of the costs of power, consumers quite sensibly invest in some but not all of the cost effective conservation. The unintended consequence of this well-intended retail price regime is the continuing underinvestment in power conservation from the consumer side.
From this perspective, the root cause of the power conservation investment gap is not an uneducated consumer but rather an informed consumer rationally responding to the prices they face.
The implication is clear: there is a very real electric power conservation gap, and it is on the consumer side of the power sector. Further, the simple fix of confronting consumers with real-time power prices is not desirable. There are very good reasons not to have grandmothers living on social security paying real power costs to keep their air conditioners going in August. Therefore, if the objective is to have power producers invest in the cost effective conservation that consumers do not invest in, then regulatory policies must create a set of incentives for them to do so.
Although some attempts have been made, so far, no state in the U.S. has created a structure that gives power producers sufficient incentive to close the conservation gap. With the renewed focus on energy efficiency, the time is right to meet the challenge and close the conservation gap in order to balance the investment playing field between new power plants and conservation.
Doing so will certainly not eliminate the need for new power plants in the future. But it will reduce power plant requirements, lessen price increases, create environmental benefits, increase energy security and create greater incentives for long-term research and development in efficiency.
Daniel Yergin, chairman of CERA, received the Pulitzer Prize for "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" and the United States Energy Award for lifelong achievements in energy and the promotion of international understanding. Vist CERA at http://cera.ecnext.com.
Article Source: High Quality RSS Feeds and Articles on 350+ Topics
Article Post:
Alternative Energy, The Dream And The Reality
Overview of Various Sources of Alternative and Renewable Energy
The Need for Alternative Energy Sources
Oil prices have recently surpassed $70 per barrel for the first time in history. With gas prices in the US hovering at $3 per gallon, many citizens are reevaluating their lives.Each day more Americans ask questions such as: Can I drive this big pickup or afford a car at all? What will I do this coming winter about my increasing utility bills?
These and other questions drive us to pay more attention to conflicts in the Middle East, Venezuela and elsewhere.
The first installment of this article will deal with the major sources of alternative energy: solar, ethanol, coal gasification and wind power. The second installment will discuss the potential financial benefits of investing in this growing segment of our economy.
Solar Energy
Solar energy breaks down into passive and active solar. Passive is typically dealt with in the architecture phase of a building. Basically, passive solar is about orienting a building and constructing it with materials and techniques that take advantage of the sun’s lighting and heating abilities when it is dark and cold and shading it when temperatures are hotter.Active solar involves installing solar collectors that capture the sun’s heat and transferring it to a liquid for household or commercial hot water applications.
The newer form of active solar utilizes photovoltaic cells similar to semiconductors that convert the sun’s energy to electricity. In simple terms, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms allowing them to flow through the material to form electricity.
Photovoltaic applications have been limited to low power devices like calculators or to remote locations where the electrical grid was not available. This is changing as the number of photovoltaic cells being manufactured increases, which has been lowering the costs per unit each year by 3 to 5%. At the same time, technology has been making them more efficient. The combination of these two factors has lowered the cost of producing a watt of electricity from $7.50 in 1990 to $4.00 in 2005 with the payback on installing a system coming down to 5 to 10 years.
Benefits of solar energy include the fact that it is free and has little maintenance once it is installed. When combined with lower costs and more efficient technology solar is sure to play an important role in the future.
Ethanol
No discussion of ethanol can take place without including the amazing success of Brazil in eliminating its dependence on imported oil from the Middle East. Brazil produces enough ethanol from sugar cane to provide 40% of its demand for gas. All fuel sold in Brazil is at least 25% ethanol.
In the US the primary source of ethanol is from corn. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that production of ethanol in the US will double to 7.5 billion gallons over the next 5 years. Projections are that private industry will exceed this level with no government intervention.
Ethanol is not without its challenges. It cannot be transported in pipelines and is currently moved in railcars and barges. When used in higher concentrations, which can be as high as 85% it can damage fuel tanks and filters, can cause improper readings on fuel gauges and can corrode iron parts and electrical fuel pumps. It also has problems with high levels of evaporation and only provides 66% of the energy content of gas.
With that said, in the short-term ethanol is one of the only solutions we have to the fact that transportation uses 67% of our nation’s petroleum consumption.
Coal Gasification
The 600 traditional coal burning power plants in the US produce 50% of the electricity that we use to run our country. Unfortunately, coal pollutes when it is mined, transported, stored and burned. Using current methods, coal is pulverized and burned to heat up boilers to produce steam that spins turbines that turn generators that produce electricity.
This process is the primary cause of global warming, acid rain and a number of other problems.
In coal gasification the coal is heated to 2000 degrees in a closed environment with steam and a limited amount of oxygen so that it breaks down to its component parts without burning.
A form of natural gas is created that can be burned more cleanly. One of the component parts is carbon dioxide, the primary culprit in the pollution of our world, but it can be captured and pumped underground to revive oil fields or stored underground in caverns. Currently there are several power plants in the US using this new technology known as IGCC, one in Indiana, one in North Dakota and a more modern one in Tampa, Florida. With 300 years worth of coal in existence, this may be the most important current technological advance on our planet.
Wind Power
Wind power currently provides less than 1% of the worldwide electricity capacity. This source of energy has tremendous potential with the cost to generate it having gone down by 80% over the last 15 years due to technological advances. It is abundant, renewable and clean and is currently growing by 38% per year in the US, faster than any other form of energy generation. The highest levels of wind are found at high altitudes where average wind velocities of 100 mph are not uncommon. But places where winds average over 12.5 mph are economically viable. The best locations are on cliffs or on the ridges of mountains where changes in ground elevation cause an increase in wind speed. The problem with wind is its inability to gear up to meet heavy load demand and the necessity to have backup power production capacity from other sources.
These four sources of energy production are the major alternatives we have today to eliminate our nation’s addiction to oil. As newer technologies such as fuel cells become more practical we should see less dependence on fossil fuels like oil and coal that can provide future generations with clean renewable energy.
Allen Goldstone is a Colorado based consultant who specializes in mergers/ acquisitions and corporate turnarounds. AllenG123@gmail.com
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Allen_Goldstone
http://EzineArticles.com/?Alternative-Energy,-The-Dream-And-The-Reality&id=257663