http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/rooftop-wind-turbines-ready-for-commercial-use.html

As urban and suburban areas continue to grow, so does the demand for large buildings to find ways to power their increasingly massive structures. But in Chicago, researchers from University of Illinois - Chicago are taking it one step further by allowing new and old buildings to produce their own energy by taking advantage of technology mounted on their rooftops. Aerotecture turbines essentially make buildings into their "own power plants", and encourages the idea behind a decentralized system of renewable energy that forms networks instead of one grid. These new densely-packed turbines are much quieter and more convenient for urban and suburban communities than the current designs of wind turbines. The revolutionary architecture that includes wind energy within building design can help reduce the dependence of fossil fuels in densely populated work areas and communities that continue to struggle with the cost of energy.

MetaEfficient; October 1, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/fashion/25gym.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There is no shortage of incentives to working out: good for the cardiovascular system, helps lose weight, increases serotonin levels in the brain that help us feel better, relieves stress, etc. But while many people turn to home gym equipment or their neighborhood fitness center, electricity is eaten up by all this activity.

But what is happening to the energy we produce through sweaty, exhausting workouts? In the early days of our country, that energy was harnessed through labor and household chores that are now obsolete due to technology. Now, developers in places like Portland, Oregon are finding ways to put this hard work back to use. By fitting stationary bikes with an arm crank and hooking them up to generators, people can burn hundreds of calories while generating hundreds of watts of electricity in response. Clubs around the country are coming up with numerous ways to revolutionize exercise into an energy advocate rather than abuser.

The club has energy efficient treadmills, remanufactured elliptical trainers and barbells “rescued from negligent owners on Craigslist,” Mr. Boesel said. Wall-mounted solar panels, to be installed this fall, will generate about eight kilowatts of electricity, he said. The gym doesn’t have any showers or drinking fountains, and the club’s 70 members live within walking distance, “which is probably the greenest part of the gym,” Mr. Boesel said.

 

The idea to install power generating machines came from a Hong Kong club, California Fitness, that opened last year with similar equipment. On the same day the Microgym opened, the Ridgefield Fitness Club in Ridgefield, Conn., installed yet another version of the technology from a company called the Green Revolution — on 17 of the club’s stationary bicycles.

 

“There’s an undercurrent,” Mr. Boesel said. “In 20 years, all cardio equipment will probably have the capability of generating electricity.”

 

The typical health club uses a huge amount of energy and water, said John Kersh, a former director of international development for the International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub Association. But a growing number of conservation-conscious consumers are beginning to change that, he said. “It’s not just, ‘How do you get fit?’ ” Mr. Kersh said. “It’s: ‘How do you make your lifestyle healthier? How do you reduce your carbon footprint?’ ”

Of course, anyone can ride their bike or run outside and not need an electrical outlet. But several people utilize gyms when the weather conditions are bad, late at night, or when there are few desirable outdoor areas at their disposal. While the infrastructure costs of these new operations are also daunting, so is the cost of doing nothing. That may be enough incentive to get people off the couch and start generating some power of their own.

The New York Times; September 25, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107824722120577.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A recent newspaper article [Arizona Republic 06/30/08 - Cost Impediments Remain to AZ's use of solar power] summarized a lot of questions people are asking about the solar power industry in addressing the affinity people are developing for renewable energy technologies in this era of climate change, but decrying the costs of installation. The article was focused on the state of Arizona which would seem to be a very favorable climate and terrain for solar power, and questioned why there weren't more solar power installations. The reason for the lack of installations was given simply as cost: solar power plants are expensive propositions in a state where electricity is fairly inexpensive right now. In contrast, California with its relatively high electricity costs, was pointed to as a place where solar is doing better and solar photovoltaic (PV) technology was particularly singled out for its potential. But given the high energy costs currently plaguing consumers and the attention energy policy is receiving from Congress and the Presidential candidates, the time for renewable energy to finally reach its potential seems to be now. The issue is how this can be accomplished?

B&D Consulting put these and other questions to Mr. Jigar Shah, Chief Strategy Officer and founder of the SunEdison Corporation. SunEdison builds commercial to utility-scale PV installations, and has taken a different approach to providing solar-based electricity to its customers by owning, operating and maintaining the solar installations it builds on its customer's premises, and selling the electricity generated back to the customer who contracted for the plant.

How would you respond to those that say High Costs are the major obstacle to the more widespread deployment of solar power?

Most central station energy projects have a five to ten year "build-out", which represents the total time from planning to commissioning of the plant. When you consider the costs of a five to ten year duration for a build-out, solar PV costs the same or less than other peaking sources. The main obstacle to solar PV is the reluctance of some utility companies to empower their customers to take advantage of on-site instead of central-station power.

What's the payback period for a "typical" solar PV installation?

A more relevant question solar may be: "what is the risk adjusted cost of solar vs. grid power?" Over the 40-year life expectancy of a solar PV system, solar is projected to be between 5-25% cheaper than the grid alternative for peak power. Recent price hikes have pushed the predicted savings in future years to the higher end of the range.

What's on the horizon for future solar photovoltaic technology that will make it more efficient, or help with the intermittency issue?

The cost of solar PV has consistently declined 5% per year over time. Some short-term material shortages have increased price, but cost has continued to come down. Some of those reductions come from thinner silicon wafers, high efficiency, thin-film technologies, and other innovations. While we are seeing PV technology cost continuing its 5% annual cost reduction, we do not see dramatic improvements accelerating that trend.

Regarding the intermittency issues, these are really only relevant for wind power. Solar is very coincident with air conditioning loads. European utilities that have solar capacity installed love the technology. Combined with basic demand response which utilities are already investing in, distributed solar PV is a firm resource meaning that it can be counted on to reduce demand on utility systems during peak usage times.

Storage technologies are said to be key to solar's future; do you agree? Will new utility-scale storage battery technologies help with non-peak applications?

No, I don't agree. Storage is a technology for the utility to create a more robust grid, and is not tied to or essential for solar reaching a high penetration rate.

Would a discrete ten year program of declining federal government subsidies be enough to finally establish solar PV as a competitor to fossil electric power?

Absolutely. This was true for nuclear in the 60s & 70s ($66B invested), natural gas in the 80s, and wind in the 90s. This is the decade for solar PV where the government can serve the national interest for energy security and cleaner air by investing in the technology as it reaches scale. Once this scale is reached, the government incentives will just have to be normalized to the other energy technologies on a BTU basis. If the government is finally able to reduce coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil subsidies to zero given their high profit margins, solar can also live without subsidies.

With a number of state governments moving towards renewable portfolio standards or requirements, will this help the industry finally be competitive?

Solar is a distributed generation technology. Forcing utilities to buy renewable energy will still not incentivize nor empower their customers to install renewable energy.

If costs are a major obstacle to solar PV in Arizona, would it work in less sunny states like Massachusetts or Indiana?

If utility companies were to pay the exactly the same peak power premium for distributed solar PV as they are paying for central station solar thermal, solar PV would be more cost effective. The problem is that utility companies are afraid of distributed generation technologies, just like the traditional phone companies were afraid of distributed cell phones.

Given the concerns over Climate Change and the role of developing countries, what would you say are the prospects for solar power internationally?

Solar PV markets have grown over 40% per annum over the past 5 years. On an absolute dollar basis, the industry is bigger than the wind industry in 2007. Prospects are good.

Are the economics of solar PV more amenable to developing country markets and applications (i.e., with higher numbers of sunnier days in developing world markets, is PV more useful than for peaking applications)?

Solar PV is ideal for places all around the world from remote areas in Alaska with limited sun and high diesel fuel prices, to the deserts of Africa where there is ample Sun and little access to other energy sources.

While SunEdison is focused on commercial markets, what would you say to residential customers that would want to take advantage of solar PV technology to lower their energy costs?

For consumers interested in solar, they should advocate for local city officials and utilities to deploy a more cost effective centralized solar solution for their communities as a whole. It’s aggregation benefits the entire community and immediately helps the local environment.

It would seem that the next President and Congress will have the opportunity to help Solar PV and other renewable energy technologies to firmly and finally establish themselves. If a program of tax credits for renewables can be designed over a longer-term but discrete time frame, we may finally see renewables as a significant, self-sustaining contributor to US power needs and a new, greener economy for years to come. The end game is to provide one of many needed bridges away from high-carbon content fuels.

Submitted by R. Campbell; August 27, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/nyregion/26wind.html?ref=environment

In the race to become the premier alternative energy source, wind power seems to have a new selling point. While different stakeholders disagree about the best way to approach the problem of energy efficiency, advocates of wind turbines have a new technology to leverage their case. The new strategy to encourage wind power relies on air storage, which allows the energy to be stored for peak use and not necessarily only when there is a lot of wind to generate it. By compressing the air and then keeping it underground, the system prevents the fear of running on empty when the wind ceases to be present.

“This is a game-changing technology,” said Stephen C. Byrd, the president of P.S.E.G. Energy Holdings, which will invest $20 million over three years. “There is a desire for energy independence, and this will reduce the need for oil and natural gas.”

 

The venture has met with utilities that might buy the storage technology. Compressed air can be produced by a variety of fuels. But the new venture hopes to put wind power generated during off-peak hours to use during peak hours — typically 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. — and especially on hot days.

 

One of the main challenges to using wind power is that the wind, in general, is unpredictable, which makes it harder for utilities to rely exclusively on it since they prefer to buy energy a day or more in advance.

While the new feature for wind power sounds promising, the debate continues as to whether it is necessary, or if it is the best choice to reduce the dependency on oil. But with Mayor Bloomberg and T. Boone Pickens staking their claims behind the technology, their influence and financial stamina may be enough to blow the competition away.

The New York Times; August 26, 2008

Submitted by K. Rutherford

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/25/electricity-energy-power-biz-cx_wp_0725water.html?partner=alerts

Electricity generated from the flow of running water can be the cheapest power around, being even less expensive than power from nuclear facilities. However, large scale hydro has unique issues and detractors that tarnish the image of this clean energy source which otherwise generates virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. The allure of government-backed big hydropower projects in the developing world is proving too strong for some companies, as they seek to locate new manufacturing facilities alongside rivers where both power and water are abundant to use in industrial processes. And in this age of globalization, the merry-go-round search for low-cost venues has some companies relocating to the exact same places from which other companies have recently vacated.

Forbes; July 25, 2008

Submitted by R. Campbell

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071501654.html

Today the EPA released its first plans regulating how carbon dioxide should be sequestered in geologic formations to avoid contaminating drinking water pursuant to the 1974 Safe Water Drinking Act. Many interested in carbon capture and sequestration (also known as carbon capture and storage) are concerned with the long-term environmental hazards to injected rocks, old mines and old wells with copious amounts of CO2. In addition, the legal liability framework for CCS has yet to be established. However, with the announcement of this rule and last week's Congressional hearing on creating a $10 billion fund to advance CCS technologies, it appears the coal industry will have some protection against potential cap-and-trade legislation.

The proposal upgrades the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act to include a new category of injection wells solely for carbon dioxide storage, and creates extensive siting, testing and monitoring requirements to prevent leaks. The EPA already regulates injection wells used to boost oil production and dispose of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. 

While carbon dioxide in water itself isn't a problem - think Perrier or Diet Coke - too much of the benign bubbles can turn water slightly acidic, and leach toxic heavy metals and other contaminants out of the surrounding rock and into water supplies, according to scientists. Injecting carbon dioxide underground can also push other pollutants, such as saltwater, into underground aquifers.

The United States has the capacity to store 3,900 gigatons of carbon dioxide at 230 different underground storage sites, according to Energy Department estimates. The U.S. emits a total of about seven gigatons of carbon dioxide every year.

To date, the bulk of carbon dioxide being injected underground has been done to enhance oil production. But if coal-fired power plants, as expected, start to embrace carbon sequestration technology, more of the carbon dioxide belched out of smokestacks is expected to be entombed in microscopic spaces in underground rock.

Washington Post; July 16, 2008

Submitted by B.Shapiro

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478564162114625.html

An April 2007 Supreme Court Decision that found that carbon dioxide emissions from cars are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and therefore subject to regulation has prompted the EPA to start drafting regulations on how the government can effectively cut ozone-depleting emissions from the transportation sector. Wall Street Journalists have been privy to the unreleased draft.

The court's ruling centered on emissions from automobiles. But it set the stage for regulations affecting the entire U.S. economy -- from power plants to factories and ships -- by ordering the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, the legal criteria for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

In recent weeks, the Bush Administration warned that regulatory havoc would result if the EPA were to regulate greenhouse gases under the act. The White House argues the act restricts the EPA from considering costs when imposing regulations and could ultimately mean the agency would have to regulate nearly everything that created emissions, including hospitals, schools and apartment buildings.

The EPA draft document concludes that motor vehicles could be even more fuel efficient than currently required by law. Based on advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel efficiency could be improved to well above 35 miles per gallon between 2020 and 2025, it says. A 2007 energy law that has been supported by the Bush administration mandates an average vehicle fuel-efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

For other sectors, the EPA draft document shows how emissions such as carbon dioxide could be regulated through the government-permit process and through a cap-and-trade system similar to the programs the agency administers for acid rain and mercury.

Congress is currently investigating EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and the White House for denying California a waiver to regulate their own greenhouse gas emissions and for editing significant science out of government reports that were supposed to be politically non-biased.

Wall Street Journal; June 30, 2008

Submitted by B. Shapiro

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST171688

A group of eight of the richest states and other developing countries are scheduled to meet in Japan from May 24 to 26 to discuss and build support for long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Among the many countries that are expected to meet are China, India, Japan, the European Union and the United States. Any plans to halt greenhouse gas emissions will face obstacles because many of the countries differ on the level of actions that should take place that would not disrupt their economies.

Beijing argues that it should not have to sacrifice growth that rich countries enjoyed in the past, and wants the West to step up the transfer of technology that would make its economic rise less carbon-intensive.

In April, Bush unveiled a plan to halt the growth of U.S. emissions by 2025, toughening a previous goal of braking the growth of emissions by 2012.

The United States and China are the top emitters. The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental groups for letting emissions continue to grow for 17 years.

For real support to build on climate change, developing countries will have to make major sacrifices and not succumb to intractable dialogues and viewpoints.  

Reuters: May 23, 2008

Submitted by M. Lamarre

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0531028720080505

Carbon capture and sequestration is marketed as the silver bullet to allow coal-fired power plants continue operation while limiting the harmful emissions released into the atmosphere. After capturing the carbon dioxide, utilities will need to store it somewhere. Current technology allows us to inject it into the ground where it won't get back into the carbon cycle.

Greenpeace and more than 100 other environmental groups denounced projects for burying industrial greenhouse gases on Monday, exposing splits in the green movement about whether such schemes can slow global warming.

But Greenpeace issued a 44-page report about the technology entitled "False Hope".

"Carbon capture and storage is a scam. It is the ultimate coal industry pipe dream," said Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace International and author of the report.

Greenpeace and 112 green groups from 21 nations said governments should invest in wind, solar and other renewable energies rather than in capture technologies that would allow coal-fired power plants to stay in operation.

CCS projects are expensive, but are they worth it? Technologies can be applied to existing coal plants to slow climate change at a lesser cost to consumers than shutting down coal plants entirely. In the future, more focus should go towards large-scale renewable electricity projects and no new coal plants should be built.

Reuters; May 5, 2008

Submitted by B. Shapiro