Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Alternative Energy
Sometimes I wonder about the hidden dangers, if any, of alternative fuels and energy sources. Windmill generators first caught my curiosity. Windmills seem to be a extremely clean, safe energy source. In some form, people have been using them for hundreds of years.
Windmills take the energy from moving air and transform it to electricity. But, what happens if too much energy is taken from the wind? Is this possible? Logic would say that the windmills would cause some slowing of the wind. If too many windmills are built, sapping the energy from moving air masses, would climatic changes occur? I'm curious. How many windmills would it take to have a detrimental effect on the climate? Should this be a concern?
We're already seeing in biofuels increased cost of food due to crops being diverted from food to biofuels. Some biofuels show promise. Brazil does quite well using sugar cane to make both sugar and ethanol. Algaes are beginning to show some promise as a source of bio-diesel.
Another seemingly endless and clean energy source is hydrogen which is drawn from water. With a shortage of fresh water in many parts of the world already, is using water for fuel wise? Can salt water be used to extract hydrogen?
Photo-electric cells also appear to be clean and efficient. Capturing the sun's energy and converting it to electricity, the cells take up a fair amount of space. But solar energy holds much promise if we can harness it efficiently. The amount of solor energy that falls on a square meter of the Earth is pretty amazing. But right now we don't capture that energy very efficiently.
It'll be exciting to see what energy sources become staples in the future. I just hope we give them more forethought than we did in the past.
Windmills take the energy from moving air and transform it to electricity. But, what happens if too much energy is taken from the wind? Is this possible? Logic would say that the windmills would cause some slowing of the wind. If too many windmills are built, sapping the energy from moving air masses, would climatic changes occur? I'm curious. How many windmills would it take to have a detrimental effect on the climate? Should this be a concern?
We're already seeing in biofuels increased cost of food due to crops being diverted from food to biofuels. Some biofuels show promise. Brazil does quite well using sugar cane to make both sugar and ethanol. Algaes are beginning to show some promise as a source of bio-diesel.
Another seemingly endless and clean energy source is hydrogen which is drawn from water. With a shortage of fresh water in many parts of the world already, is using water for fuel wise? Can salt water be used to extract hydrogen?
Photo-electric cells also appear to be clean and efficient. Capturing the sun's energy and converting it to electricity, the cells take up a fair amount of space. But solar energy holds much promise if we can harness it efficiently. The amount of solor energy that falls on a square meter of the Earth is pretty amazing. But right now we don't capture that energy very efficiently.
It'll be exciting to see what energy sources become staples in the future. I just hope we give them more forethought than we did in the past.
Comments:
<< Home
I have wondered about too much power being taken from the wind at some future time. I have seen where underwater turbines are to be tested in the Gulf Stream east side of Florida. The gulf Stream travels to, and provides warmth to, the coast of England.
Perfecting superconductors would be a dream. Over long distances, around 70 to 75% of the power in high tension lines is lost. Cables made of superconducting metals would allow all the power plants to be in the least objectionable places, and power could be distributed cross country with very little comparative loss. No new plants would need to be built, and perhaps even the less clean ones shut down, and torn down.
Overall, I am hopeful. In the 1880's, NYC was totally inundated with horse manure. It was piled up everywhere. Along came electric trolleys and motor cars. Mankind is due another breakthrough.
Perfecting superconductors would be a dream. Over long distances, around 70 to 75% of the power in high tension lines is lost. Cables made of superconducting metals would allow all the power plants to be in the least objectionable places, and power could be distributed cross country with very little comparative loss. No new plants would need to be built, and perhaps even the less clean ones shut down, and torn down.
Overall, I am hopeful. In the 1880's, NYC was totally inundated with horse manure. It was piled up everywhere. Along came electric trolleys and motor cars. Mankind is due another breakthrough.
# posted by 
: 6:59 PM
: 6:59 PM
Good points. Overall I'm hopeful too. Using the lessons of the past, we should be able to make fewer mistakes in the future.
weeeeel, there is one big gotcha...
I know Colorado, and I believe some other states have a law REQUIRING that you have full backup for alternative... so, a windfarm is required to have a powerplant to back it up at 1:1 power. Since powerplants aren't instant start, they have to be running at some level. So if you have to have a fossil fuel plant to back up wind power, then it becomes even more expensive.
Currently, of course, the power supplied is a drop in the bucket anyway, so it isn't an issue. What would eventually stunt the growth of ALT. is if the variability of that power cannot keep the grid supplied correctly. People aren't going to stand for transient or dirty power, and the grid itself would have problems with variability.
For myself, I have always thought they should be working fuel cell and other tech, so that individual houses power themselves. That not only creates a robust system where one thing like a storm doesn't kill power to a wide area, but we also sidestep the whole not-in-my-back-yard problem with powerplants. We are growing the need for power, but nobody wants plants, and heaven forbid if you mention a nuke plant. Variability is less of a problem because you are your own power.
Of course entrenched utility companies won't like that idea at all... at least until they figure out a way to be mortgager of individual power systems. Then they will realize the profit potential of it...
my take on it anyway...
I know Colorado, and I believe some other states have a law REQUIRING that you have full backup for alternative... so, a windfarm is required to have a powerplant to back it up at 1:1 power. Since powerplants aren't instant start, they have to be running at some level. So if you have to have a fossil fuel plant to back up wind power, then it becomes even more expensive.
Currently, of course, the power supplied is a drop in the bucket anyway, so it isn't an issue. What would eventually stunt the growth of ALT. is if the variability of that power cannot keep the grid supplied correctly. People aren't going to stand for transient or dirty power, and the grid itself would have problems with variability.
For myself, I have always thought they should be working fuel cell and other tech, so that individual houses power themselves. That not only creates a robust system where one thing like a storm doesn't kill power to a wide area, but we also sidestep the whole not-in-my-back-yard problem with powerplants. We are growing the need for power, but nobody wants plants, and heaven forbid if you mention a nuke plant. Variability is less of a problem because you are your own power.
Of course entrenched utility companies won't like that idea at all... at least until they figure out a way to be mortgager of individual power systems. Then they will realize the profit potential of it...
my take on it anyway...
# posted by : 11:58 AM
: 11:58 AM
D:
I agree with backups. They do exist. Many are gas turbine powered (huge jet engines) and even diesel engine powered. In my work, I service and consult with such plants, as part of what my company does. These back up or peak power plants can be (and are) fired up on a moment's notice. They cannot use steam turbines, because of the very nature of their use. Steam takes too long to build up for instant needs. And too long to shut down. On and off would destroy a steam plant in no time.
There are not enough peak plants at this time, though. There are many solutions. As with anything, economy of scale is a problem. Imagine having to tear down your house, and totally re-build it with the most modern of materials. A ten year old car getting 15 miles per gallon is still easier on the pocket book than a Prius with $425 a month payments. You can drive less, or consolidate trips. You don't get to make lower payments just because you drive less.
Most install new energy efficient windows and throw another layer of "pink" in the attic. That is constantly going on at power plants of all sizes and types. We don't hear about that, though.
Every day, babies are born. Every day, someone reaches the time and age in their lives where they decide to buy a house, move out of mom and dad's and get an apartment, etc. It's a never ending story. The clean air folks don't seem to recognize but one side of the equation. We need answers. Quick. But they all cost money (higher electric bills) and too many always say no to ANY alternatives.
We're going to have to drill and mine as a stop gap, and get moving on the alternatives. 50% of the citizens of NYC don't have automobiles. That won't fly in Kansas, Iowa, California - way too many places. Tractors plowing, combines harvesting. It HAS to be internal combustion engines for the foreseeable future.
Everyone has an answer. Yet no one truly has a plan.
Post a Comment
I agree with backups. They do exist. Many are gas turbine powered (huge jet engines) and even diesel engine powered. In my work, I service and consult with such plants, as part of what my company does. These back up or peak power plants can be (and are) fired up on a moment's notice. They cannot use steam turbines, because of the very nature of their use. Steam takes too long to build up for instant needs. And too long to shut down. On and off would destroy a steam plant in no time.
There are not enough peak plants at this time, though. There are many solutions. As with anything, economy of scale is a problem. Imagine having to tear down your house, and totally re-build it with the most modern of materials. A ten year old car getting 15 miles per gallon is still easier on the pocket book than a Prius with $425 a month payments. You can drive less, or consolidate trips. You don't get to make lower payments just because you drive less.
Most install new energy efficient windows and throw another layer of "pink" in the attic. That is constantly going on at power plants of all sizes and types. We don't hear about that, though.
Every day, babies are born. Every day, someone reaches the time and age in their lives where they decide to buy a house, move out of mom and dad's and get an apartment, etc. It's a never ending story. The clean air folks don't seem to recognize but one side of the equation. We need answers. Quick. But they all cost money (higher electric bills) and too many always say no to ANY alternatives.
We're going to have to drill and mine as a stop gap, and get moving on the alternatives. 50% of the citizens of NYC don't have automobiles. That won't fly in Kansas, Iowa, California - way too many places. Tractors plowing, combines harvesting. It HAS to be internal combustion engines for the foreseeable future.
Everyone has an answer. Yet no one truly has a plan.
# posted by : 5:50 AM
: 5:50 AM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
