If there's been one 'controversial' portion of my blog thus far, it's the posts where I've talked about the Japanese nuclear crisis, and the changes it might bring to energy around the world. And when I mean controversial, only in the sense that it has garnered the most attention. With that said, I look to bring one last story about the situation in Japan. Following the events and fallout from Fukushima, there has been a growing number of Japanese people calling out for a revolution of renewable energy. Apparently the crisis has spawned several antinuclear protests in Tokyo on a scale that hasn't been seen for decades. Japanese media have estimated that 15,000 have marched through Tokyo calling for the end to all of the nuclear plants in Japan. This may seem like a minimal part of the population, but Japan's people aren't normally known for doing something like this, and I don't blame them after the events that have occurred.
There are now a large growing number of the population that are in favor of completely overhauling their energy system to include a lot more renewable plants instead of updating the current ones to better safety standards. The sentiment, it seems is that there is a larger cost for these nuclear plants than what appears on the surface. The hidden costs of nuclear include aging plants that need to be updated as well as the issue of disposing of spent fuel. Renewables, on the other hand, don't have these waste issues and many in Japan believe that clean energy could supply the necessary energy to Japan through smaller scale production. The group in favor of these renewables wants all of Japan's nuclear plants removed by 2020, which doesn't seem like a reasonable request at all considering how many nuclear plants Japan has. So the culture surrounding nuclear energy has definitely changed within Japan, as expected, but it will be interesting to see if Japan's government follows. I definitely think the culture about nuclear around the world will go in a negative direction over the next few years, but we shall see.
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0503/Japan-s-nuclear-energy-debate-some-see-spur-for-a-renewable-revolution
Well that ends this blog at least in its current form. This will definitely be the last post concerning renewable energy and possibly the last post of this blog. I may turn this blog into something else (sports, music) if I get an itch to write. I'd like to thank any readers that I may have had over the past four months. It's been a pleasure writing...
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
The Feds not backing clean energy?
Here's a story that I had never considered and I'm sure most of you haven't either. Apparently, the government has done a very poor job of guaranteeing loans to alternative energy development. This is news to me, as I figured that these loans would be automatic since this sector will be growing in the next few decades. Clean energy companies need these federal loans because private investors are unwilling to fund expensive new technology. What's interesting about this is that the US Government Accountability Office examined the federal loan guarantee program and found that the Energy department has treated applicants for these loans inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others. It looks like if we want consistent results in our renewable energy production then we should be giving out these loans on a consistent basis.
Source: http://michiganmessenger.com/48707/lack-of-federal-loan-guarantees-slows-alternative-energy-development
Source: http://michiganmessenger.com/48707/lack-of-federal-loan-guarantees-slows-alternative-energy-development
Sunday, May 1, 2011
As Predicted...
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the outlook for cleaner energy doesn't look as good as it should by 2035. The EIA has released a report (Annual Energy Outlook 2011) that explains in detail future outlook of energy production in the US. There's definitely a lot of information in there, and I actually didn't read it, but took my information from: msnbc. Within this report there's some good news and quite a bit of bad news.
Our energy imports will drop from 25% in 2009 to 17% in 2035, which means that we are becoming less reliant on foreign oil, especially from Saudi Arabia. However, with this comes increased production in natural gas to meet increasing demands, so this doesn't necessarily mean that our energy will become cleaner. This also means that oil prices are expected to increase to about $135 a barrel, so gas will definitely keeping rising in the next 25 years. Renewable energy is also expected to increase, from about 8% of the country's total production in 2009 to about 13% in 2035. So its good that renewables will become a bigger part of USA's energy but its not the nearly 20% that we should have according to the Renewable Portfolio Standards. I believe that renewables are growing at a slower rate than we want is because of the ever increasing demand for more energy as well as the technology gap to get these renewables on the grid. For these renewables to work on the grid properly, many transmission lines with appropriate ratings and power electronics have to be built. Once this technology gets caught up, I think renewable energy production may rise at an exponential rate. That's pretty much where most of the good news ends.
With current laws and regulations set in place, we are set to make very slow growth in terms of renewable energy production. With this in mind, shale gas production will grow fourfold to meet growing energy demands. Coal will be looking at a 25% increase in production from 2009 to 2035, and carbon emissions are also expected to grow, but at a much slower rate than before. Keep in mind that this is a scenario where the current laws and regulations remain in place, but like I've stated earlier, much has to be done within the power electronics sector to get these renewables on the grid to begin producing at a stable rate. I also believe that if corporations became more incentivized to purchase clean energy like Google and Microsoft do, then growth in the renewable sector would increase a substantial amount.
Oh yeah... and GO AMERICA. As I wrote this, Osama was confirmed dead. Truly a historical moment in American history. We'll see how it plays out though.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Google brought to you by wind power
Not many think of internet companies like Google or Amazon as dirty, but much of the energy fueling these companies come from fossil fuels, according to How Dirty is Your Data: A Look at the Energy Choices that Power Cloud Computing. That's why Google is investing in a power purchase agreement (PPA) with NextEra wind energy. Under this PPA, Google has signed a 20 year energy contract to lock in electric prices. Last Year, Google purchased a PPA for 114 megawatts in Iowa, and this year they have purchased a PPA 100.8 MW in Oklahoma. These PPA's are in the same area where Google holds data centers.
This is definitely a practice of large companies like Google that I can get behind. If large corporations continue to invest in renewables, whether its for PR purposes or genuine it doesn't matter, then this will definitely help push better renewable technologies for the future. Currently, data centers consume 1.5-2 percent of the world's electricity and is growing by 12% a year. Moving away from fossil fuels to wind power will greatly effect the world's energy distribution in the near future. Microsoft has already started to do the same thing, and I would like to see more companies to do this as well.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/idUS264144745920110426
This is definitely a practice of large companies like Google that I can get behind. If large corporations continue to invest in renewables, whether its for PR purposes or genuine it doesn't matter, then this will definitely help push better renewable technologies for the future. Currently, data centers consume 1.5-2 percent of the world's electricity and is growing by 12% a year. Moving away from fossil fuels to wind power will greatly effect the world's energy distribution in the near future. Microsoft has already started to do the same thing, and I would like to see more companies to do this as well.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/26/idUS264144745920110426
Monday, April 25, 2011
Renewable Portfolio Standards may happen after all
It looks like those energy standards set by Congress have hope after all. According to the recently released report, Community Power: Decentralized Renewable Energy in California, the way to meet those standards for California is through focusing on decentralized renewable energy. For those of you that don't know, decentralized energy is basically energy that is generated at the point of use, as opposed to centralized energy which utilizes the grid to distribute power. Not only are these findings applicable in California, but according to the report, they are applicable to all states in the US.
One of the main benefits of decentralized renewable energy is that there is no longer a need for expensive, high-voltage transmission lines that take up to 10 years to put in place. This greatly reduces the cost of energy, as well as saving time in the engineering process to come up with more efficient renewable practices. The major beneficiary of decentralized energy is solar power. Decentralized production from photovoltaics has better economics than centralized solar thermal plants. The report shows that through rooftop solar alone, California can exceed its requirement of 33% renewables by 2020. Decentralized wind also has promising results as well, and this report states that the only way for the RPS goals to be met by the required dates are through decentralized energy. [1]
With all of these great benefits from decentralized renewable energy, there may be problems in terms of financing, at least in California. Apparently the state has been very lazy in terms of enforcing the standards on utilities. So, these utilities haven't been doing much to produce more renewable energy sources. Federal laws have also been established in support of large-scale centralized energy. This means that the money may not be there to focus on decentralized energy. In order to overcome these barriers, there has to be some legislation passed in support of these methods. Colorado, for example, has passed a “community solar gardens” law to encourage the development of solar power with multiple owners and to allow folks without sunny roofs to “go solar.”
Hopefully, the funding for decentralization happens so that we can actually meet these RPS goals set by the government. As you can tell from an earlier post of mine, I was very pessimistic of actually meeting these goals, but now it looks more promising.
One of the main benefits of decentralized renewable energy is that there is no longer a need for expensive, high-voltage transmission lines that take up to 10 years to put in place. This greatly reduces the cost of energy, as well as saving time in the engineering process to come up with more efficient renewable practices. The major beneficiary of decentralized energy is solar power. Decentralized production from photovoltaics has better economics than centralized solar thermal plants. The report shows that through rooftop solar alone, California can exceed its requirement of 33% renewables by 2020. Decentralized wind also has promising results as well, and this report states that the only way for the RPS goals to be met by the required dates are through decentralized energy. [1]
With all of these great benefits from decentralized renewable energy, there may be problems in terms of financing, at least in California. Apparently the state has been very lazy in terms of enforcing the standards on utilities. So, these utilities haven't been doing much to produce more renewable energy sources. Federal laws have also been established in support of large-scale centralized energy. This means that the money may not be there to focus on decentralized energy. In order to overcome these barriers, there has to be some legislation passed in support of these methods. Colorado, for example, has passed a “community solar gardens” law to encourage the development of solar power with multiple owners and to allow folks without sunny roofs to “go solar.”
Hopefully, the funding for decentralization happens so that we can actually meet these RPS goals set by the government. As you can tell from an earlier post of mine, I was very pessimistic of actually meeting these goals, but now it looks more promising.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Round 2. Fight!
So a couple posts ago I posted about industrial ecology and the economics around it, I now plan to look at a broader view of economics surrounding the environment and energy.
The first evaluation method is known as the economic evaluation method. This assumes that energy and environmental factors can be evaluated the same way that factors of production, goods and services are. Basically, this technique tries to put a price on natural resources, environmental and energy inputs, even on things like clean water, or pollution created from energy production. By assigning values to each of these inputs, we are able to include them into the economic models such as supply and demand curves. By looking at these economic models, one can apply the appropriate technique to get the model to the desired level, such as taxing companies that aren't "going green" or giving a subsidy to power plants that are using renewable forms of energy.
Then there's the ecological economics approach which understands that just looking at clean air, pollution, green energy, etc, in terms of just a price and quantity isn't always applicable or desirable. This method argues that the economic evaluation method doesn't take into account certain ecological concerns and things such as energy flows, carrying capacity, as well as ecological balance must be supplemented into the evaluation methods. This method usually calls for more drastic methods such as changing habits of people, or working more towards conservation techniques instead of just applying economic techniques such as taxes, or subsidies.
So thats some of the basics when it comes to economics with regards to energy and the environment. It seems a little boring to me, so I'm not sure if I'll right another one like I had planned to do. Anyway, to entertain you somewhat, here's what I was listening to while I wrote this post... along with the rest of Girl Talk's new album.
The first evaluation method is known as the economic evaluation method. This assumes that energy and environmental factors can be evaluated the same way that factors of production, goods and services are. Basically, this technique tries to put a price on natural resources, environmental and energy inputs, even on things like clean water, or pollution created from energy production. By assigning values to each of these inputs, we are able to include them into the economic models such as supply and demand curves. By looking at these economic models, one can apply the appropriate technique to get the model to the desired level, such as taxing companies that aren't "going green" or giving a subsidy to power plants that are using renewable forms of energy.
Then there's the ecological economics approach which understands that just looking at clean air, pollution, green energy, etc, in terms of just a price and quantity isn't always applicable or desirable. This method argues that the economic evaluation method doesn't take into account certain ecological concerns and things such as energy flows, carrying capacity, as well as ecological balance must be supplemented into the evaluation methods. This method usually calls for more drastic methods such as changing habits of people, or working more towards conservation techniques instead of just applying economic techniques such as taxes, or subsidies.
So thats some of the basics when it comes to economics with regards to energy and the environment. It seems a little boring to me, so I'm not sure if I'll right another one like I had planned to do. Anyway, to entertain you somewhat, here's what I was listening to while I wrote this post... along with the rest of Girl Talk's new album.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Update on Radiation Leak at Fukushima
A little bit of good news coming out of Japan, a radioactive leak that was dumping into the Pacific Ocean has been stopped according to the BBC. Chemical agents were were injected to solidify the soil at the source of the leak. That's basically where the good news ends though, because there is now a build-up of hydrogen in the No. 1 reactor. They're looking into pumping nitrogen into the reactor to stop the expansion of hydrogen but that has yet to be decided. Also, they have found that the fish in the ocean south of Fukushima to contain high levels of radioactive iodine, about twice the legal limit for vegetables.
Oh... and Fukushima had to be evacuated because of a 7.1 earthquake on April 7. Luckily there was no obvious damage. [1]
Oh... and Fukushima had to be evacuated because of a 7.1 earthquake on April 7. Luckily there was no obvious damage. [1]
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Industrial Ecology
Alright guys, after a bit of a hiatus, I'm about to start a series of posts focused on the economics of energy and "Going Green." As a reference, I'll be using the book, "Environmental and Natural Resource Economics," by Jonathan Harris. I would also recommend taking the class of the same name at Mines, or any other class related to environmental economics.
And here we go... Industrial Ecology
Right now, much of the US and other developed countries are focused on recycling because of the efficiency of it and the need for precious raw materials. Well, industrial ecology is essentially the large scale version of recycling. Instead of the straight-line approach to industry, where you go from raw materials, to production, to final product, to waste, industrial ecology takes advantage of a loop. Below is an example of industrial ecology in Kalundborg, Denmark.
The entire goal of industrial ecology is to turn the wastes produced in industry into inputs for another industrial process. As you can see in this city in Denmark, the excess steam produced from the coal power plant is distributed to the town to heat homes and also the oil refinery. The oil refinery utilizes this steam, and its excess gas is given to the power plant as well as the wallboard factory. This process of recycling wastes into inputs is utilized throughout the town. Unfortunately, not all cities are setup like Kalundborg, so this circular process of industrial ecology is not always possible.
However, we can learn from this example and implement recyclying methods such as dematerialization, materials substitution, remanufacturing, and waste mining. In order for these policies to be economically viable, the government must enforce policies such as taxes and subsidies. In the case of waste mining, which is the recovery of low-value byproducts and wastes for use as industrial raw materials, government policy must be used to internalize the costs of generating wastes (tax would be used here) or to encourage their reuse (subsidy). As you will see in future posts, the government plays a huge role in making "green" a reality.
And here we go... Industrial Ecology
Right now, much of the US and other developed countries are focused on recycling because of the efficiency of it and the need for precious raw materials. Well, industrial ecology is essentially the large scale version of recycling. Instead of the straight-line approach to industry, where you go from raw materials, to production, to final product, to waste, industrial ecology takes advantage of a loop. Below is an example of industrial ecology in Kalundborg, Denmark.
The entire goal of industrial ecology is to turn the wastes produced in industry into inputs for another industrial process. As you can see in this city in Denmark, the excess steam produced from the coal power plant is distributed to the town to heat homes and also the oil refinery. The oil refinery utilizes this steam, and its excess gas is given to the power plant as well as the wallboard factory. This process of recycling wastes into inputs is utilized throughout the town. Unfortunately, not all cities are setup like Kalundborg, so this circular process of industrial ecology is not always possible.
However, we can learn from this example and implement recyclying methods such as dematerialization, materials substitution, remanufacturing, and waste mining. In order for these policies to be economically viable, the government must enforce policies such as taxes and subsidies. In the case of waste mining, which is the recovery of low-value byproducts and wastes for use as industrial raw materials, government policy must be used to internalize the costs of generating wastes (tax would be used here) or to encourage their reuse (subsidy). As you will see in future posts, the government plays a huge role in making "green" a reality.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Recent Musings
It's a pretty terrible thing that's happened to Japan recently. It was bad enough that they got hit with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and the giant tsunami it created, and then they had to deal with stabilizing the Fukushima nuclear plant. Apparently the condition at the reactors is still serious but stable. [1] I'm not convinced that this is completely true as the Japanese government has a tendency to downplay crises as it seems they have been doing since the beginning of this catastrophe. However, even with this somewhat good news that the plant is stable, the people of Japan have a lot to worry about. Not only are there economic costs that the tsunami created that will takes probably decades to rebuild, the nuclear radiation that occurred and is still occurring from the Fukushima meltdown must be dealt with soon.
I hadn't really realized how serious the radiation situation is in Japan until two nights ago. Obviously, the cores of the nuclear plant melting would create a lot of serious problems but once they had stated that it was stabilized, I figured everything would become much better. As I was watching Letterman Monday night, I had found out that the situation was much worse. Letterman's guest for the night was renowned physicist Michio Kaku. In this interview, Kaku stated that he had family living in Tokyo and that they had to leave the city because everything was contaminated with radiation. This includes everything from their water supply, milk, bread, and other types of food. It's a pretty bad situation when not only are they getting radiation through the air but also the water that they need to survive.
This situation in Japan really allows to contemplate the need for nuclear energy in the US and around the world. Is nuclear energy really worth the risk? What can be done to prevent these nuclear disasters? I think that these questions should really be taken into consideration. It seems that any nuclear plant should not be placed on a fault or in any danger of being affected by nature, but this cannot always be guaranteed. What about existing nuclear plants that are in danger? There is currently a nuclear plant in New York City, Indian Pointe, that lies on two faults I believe. If there was two be a similar earthquake or other natural disaster to hit this plant, it would be devastating to not only New York City but the entire US. Do we need to just shut this facility down? These are a few questions that should be answered relatively quickly in order to avoid another incident like Japan is experiencing.
On a slightly related note, Germany has recently shut down 7 of their oldest nuclear reactors and their solar energy has been producing at an exceptional rate. They have been getting a max power output of 12.1 GW which is more than what the Fukushima plant was producing. [2] It looks like moving forward, that the US will focus even more on renewable energies such as solar and probably abandon the nuclear push that was starting to pick up.
I hadn't really realized how serious the radiation situation is in Japan until two nights ago. Obviously, the cores of the nuclear plant melting would create a lot of serious problems but once they had stated that it was stabilized, I figured everything would become much better. As I was watching Letterman Monday night, I had found out that the situation was much worse. Letterman's guest for the night was renowned physicist Michio Kaku. In this interview, Kaku stated that he had family living in Tokyo and that they had to leave the city because everything was contaminated with radiation. This includes everything from their water supply, milk, bread, and other types of food. It's a pretty bad situation when not only are they getting radiation through the air but also the water that they need to survive.
This situation in Japan really allows to contemplate the need for nuclear energy in the US and around the world. Is nuclear energy really worth the risk? What can be done to prevent these nuclear disasters? I think that these questions should really be taken into consideration. It seems that any nuclear plant should not be placed on a fault or in any danger of being affected by nature, but this cannot always be guaranteed. What about existing nuclear plants that are in danger? There is currently a nuclear plant in New York City, Indian Pointe, that lies on two faults I believe. If there was two be a similar earthquake or other natural disaster to hit this plant, it would be devastating to not only New York City but the entire US. Do we need to just shut this facility down? These are a few questions that should be answered relatively quickly in order to avoid another incident like Japan is experiencing.
On a slightly related note, Germany has recently shut down 7 of their oldest nuclear reactors and their solar energy has been producing at an exceptional rate. They have been getting a max power output of 12.1 GW which is more than what the Fukushima plant was producing. [2] It looks like moving forward, that the US will focus even more on renewable energies such as solar and probably abandon the nuclear push that was starting to pick up.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Turnin' Beer into Energy
Wouldn't it be great if beer could solve all of our problems?
Oh wait... it already can, I guess I'll just stop writing for a moment and go grab a cold one.
Ok, now that my problems are solved, it's on to the energy crisis here in the US and the rest of the world. Don't believe me? Well, according to Eric Fitch of Purpose Energy Inc. it's doing just that. Eric Fitch, a mechanical engineer from MIT, has created a device (anaerobic methane digester) that turns the waste from the brewing process into natural gas that's used to fuel the brewing process. This 42 foot structure, which costed $4 million, sits in back of the Magic Hat brewing company in Vermont and extracts energy spent hops, barley, and yeast. By reusing these spent materials directly, the brewing company saves on having to purchase natural gas and waste disposal. This isn't the first brewery to go green, as many breweries tend to recycle their waste or sell their byproducts from the brewing process, but this methane digester is the first of its kind.
This is a really great solution and one step closer to turning breweries into a self-sustaining system. Although, it doesn't solve the energy crisis alone, little steps like this put less of a strain on the overstrained grid, and also save companies a lot of money.
So I say, "crack open a beer, you're one step closer to saving the planet!"
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Nuclear Energy = Renewable Energy?
Many of you already know from previous posts that I am a proponent of expanding nuclear energy in America. Nuclear energy is a very efficient source of energy (98% efficient), it is also able to supply a constant supply of power that is needed for effective power distribution; this is unlike previous energies that I have posted about, such as wind and solar. In wind and solar energies, there aren't always wind currents or the sun isn't always shining to provide efficient energy. Nuclear power plants are able to provide this high capacity factor that is similar to coal power plants.
So now that I've explained the main benefits of nuclear power, what's so bad about it? It seems as if the main issues with increasing nuclear in the USA is the stigma behind the Chernobyl accident as well as the storage of nuclear "waste." Well according to this article, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. According to the article:
"Compared to other fuels used in the production of electricity, the energy density of uranium is remarkable, Klein said, noting that 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of spent nuclear fuel rods remains available to be re-used."
It has been this false stigma with nuclear energy that has slowed nuclear development in the US to a standstill. By learning how to utilize spent nuclear fuel, we could be on the road to a more sustainable energy source.
Although there is some worry because plutonium is produced from the nuclear waste, it is a baseless claim because according to the article: "no country in the world has ever made a nuclear weapon out of low-grade plutonium from recycled high burn-up nuclear fuel," he said. "It just doesn't work for a strategic or a tactical nuclear weapon."
I advise that we get past this negative perception of nuclear energy so that we can utilize it and turn it into a renewable energy.
So now that I've explained the main benefits of nuclear power, what's so bad about it? It seems as if the main issues with increasing nuclear in the USA is the stigma behind the Chernobyl accident as well as the storage of nuclear "waste." Well according to this article, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. According to the article:
"Compared to other fuels used in the production of electricity, the energy density of uranium is remarkable, Klein said, noting that 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of spent nuclear fuel rods remains available to be re-used."
It has been this false stigma with nuclear energy that has slowed nuclear development in the US to a standstill. By learning how to utilize spent nuclear fuel, we could be on the road to a more sustainable energy source.
Although there is some worry because plutonium is produced from the nuclear waste, it is a baseless claim because according to the article: "no country in the world has ever made a nuclear weapon out of low-grade plutonium from recycled high burn-up nuclear fuel," he said. "It just doesn't work for a strategic or a tactical nuclear weapon."
I advise that we get past this negative perception of nuclear energy so that we can utilize it and turn it into a renewable energy.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Offshore Wind Energy
Several people, especially in the US, are familiar with wind energy produced on land, but not many are aware of offshore wind farms. At least I wasn't aware of these until I read about one in Ontario that was closing down. This doesn't look very good so far, the very first time I hear about offshore wind is when one is closing down, must be a bad source of renewable energy, right?
Well, let's look at the economics of this Ontario case, because as we all know money is the driving force behind most government and corporate decisions.
Well, let's look at the economics of this Ontario case, because as we all know money is the driving force behind most government and corporate decisions.
| | CAD cents/kWh |
| Wholesale nuclear (Bruce) [1] | 6.3 c/kWh |
| Retail (tiered) [2-3] | 6.4 / 7.4 c/kWh |
| Retail (time-of-use) [2-3] | 5.1 / 8.1 / 9.9 c/kWh |
| Offshore wind [4] | 19.9 c/kWh |
As you can tell from this table, the cost of the offshore wind plants was extremely high compared to the other energy sources. This option of offshore wind energy didn't make economic sense for Ontario, although maybe they should have examined this before they invested so much money into it.
The main benefit of offshore wind farms is that winds that are present in the ocean tend to move at much higher speeds than on land. This higher rate of wind allows for much more electricity generation, although this is not without certain environmental externalities. [5] Offshore wind energy generation should be used only in areas where there is a constant wind force, because if there is no wind then there is no energy, and this creates a very inefficient power plant. Apparently, most of world's top 25 offshore wind farms are located mostly along the coasts of the United Kingdom and Denmark, or more specifically in the North Sea. This area of the world has wind constantly flowing through, thus these wind turbines are very efficient. [6]
Offshore wind energy appears as if it can harness a lot of electricity, but only if the price is right. It would be interesting to find out if there are currently any offshore wind farms in the US, and where would be the best place to put them.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Blog Self Evaluation 1
Overall, I have had a total of 6 blog posts of which 2 are communicating science related. Each of my posts have been focused on my topic of renewable energy. One brief post regarding solar towers in Spain, another post regarding the renewable portfolio standards, one focused on the optimization of solar energy and another on wind energy in Pueblo, CO. I believe that each of these posts encourages reader involvement but I could be putting a little more science into them. I have had 10 comments on my blog posts and a few of these include my own. I do read all of the comments that are put on my blog and try my best to answer questions readers may have. Half of my posts have been full of content from other sources and my opinions are expressed throughout the post, and the other half of posts are short posts that reference a good article or video I found related to renewable energy.
The design of my blog tries to complement my topic through a simple and clean design. The picture in the background of flower windmills and a power plant introduce the topic of the blog to the reader. I have also added links to videos on a side tab of my blog that introduce the reader to renewable energy if they are unfamiliar with the topic. I provide links and sources throughout my posts to help qualify my posts as well as give my readers more information on the topic.
I make at least one post a week related to my topic although I believe that I could be posting more content throughout the week. I have however, been very active in our blog community and have a total of 10 comments on other blogs in the class. I have yet to find other outside blogs related to renewable energy or power, but once I do I will become active on those blogs. I could also be posting more on other students' blogs that I haven't yet. I've done a good job at keeping up with a number of the blogs but if I start commenting on blogs I haven't yet I would be creating a larger community for my blog.
In my blog's current state, I would grade it between a C and a B. According to the grading rubric, I believe that I have met the minimum requirement of posts and stayed to the topic while keeping communicating science in mind. There are very few grammatical errors in my posts and most of my posts are encouraging to the reader. The design of my blog has a very clean and easy to navigate look. The posts stay focused on the topic and use a variety of sources and resources throughout the posts. I have also engaged in discussions on others' blogs frequently as well as had discussions on my own posts. I could do a better job of updating my own blog more frequently as well as providing more science in each of my posts.
The design of my blog tries to complement my topic through a simple and clean design. The picture in the background of flower windmills and a power plant introduce the topic of the blog to the reader. I have also added links to videos on a side tab of my blog that introduce the reader to renewable energy if they are unfamiliar with the topic. I provide links and sources throughout my posts to help qualify my posts as well as give my readers more information on the topic.
I make at least one post a week related to my topic although I believe that I could be posting more content throughout the week. I have however, been very active in our blog community and have a total of 10 comments on other blogs in the class. I have yet to find other outside blogs related to renewable energy or power, but once I do I will become active on those blogs. I could also be posting more on other students' blogs that I haven't yet. I've done a good job at keeping up with a number of the blogs but if I start commenting on blogs I haven't yet I would be creating a larger community for my blog.
In my blog's current state, I would grade it between a C and a B. According to the grading rubric, I believe that I have met the minimum requirement of posts and stayed to the topic while keeping communicating science in mind. There are very few grammatical errors in my posts and most of my posts are encouraging to the reader. The design of my blog has a very clean and easy to navigate look. The posts stay focused on the topic and use a variety of sources and resources throughout the posts. I have also engaged in discussions on others' blogs frequently as well as had discussions on my own posts. I could do a better job of updating my own blog more frequently as well as providing more science in each of my posts.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Hometown Energy
In honor of career day
Many of you probably went to career day at Mines today and possibly talked to Vestas, a world leader in wind turbines. Here's a tribute to my hometown of Pueblo, CO. This video explains a little bit about how the turbines are made and the facility there.
Many of you probably didn't know that this wind farm existed, but it's a good place for one as it's windy throughout much of the year in the eastern plains.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Maximizing Solar Cell Efficiency
Quick post about an article I stumbled across today.
From the article:
"While most conventional solar cells use the principle of ‘one photon in, one electron out’, whereby a photon particle of light hits the solar cell and produces one electron as an electrical current, according to Gergely Zimanyi, a professor at UC Davis, the researchers have been working on a method that will allow many electrons to be produced."
Although this is just in the initial testing stages, this technology could definitely be the first step towards maximizing solar energy.
From the article:
"While most conventional solar cells use the principle of ‘one photon in, one electron out’, whereby a photon particle of light hits the solar cell and produces one electron as an electrical current, according to Gergely Zimanyi, a professor at UC Davis, the researchers have been working on a method that will allow many electrons to be produced."
Although this is just in the initial testing stages, this technology could definitely be the first step towards maximizing solar energy.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Blog Self-Interview
A little bit about me and my blog.
What is the purpose of this blog?
The main purpose of this blog is to present information about renewable energy technologies. As I am an electrical engineer, this blog will focus on how these renewable technologies affect the power grid. However, topics related to making renewable energy possible will also be examined. From examining renewable energy from a power industry perspective, the audience will sometimes get a different view of renewable energies than that which is presented on mainstream television.
Who is the imagined audience(s) of this blog?
I imagine my audience to be people interested in finding out more about renewable energy. Possibly people that want to learn how it works and why there has been a large push towards renewable energy within the past 5 years. Those within the power industry are also welcome to read, especially to help define problems that I may not know the answer to.
Have my posts matched up with my purpose/audience? What/who might I be overlooking in
defining my purpose/audience this way?
To some extent I have matched up my posts to the audience especially in my post regarding the renewable portfolio standards. I presented an issue that many people know about but don't necessarily understand. I could have been more scientific in my approach however, instead of stating my opinion and backing it up with references. In defining my purpose, I might be overlooking those in the fossil fuel industry as I am not presenting their side to the energy debate.
What can I do to encourage more reader participation with my blog?
Posting blogs on a daily or regular basis would help show that this is a blog worth coming to for content about renewable energy. Also, don't just spoon feed the reader the information but present the information in an interactive way. Another way would be to post controversial blogs everyone once in awhile, or at least appeal to the readers' emotions to elicit a strong response from the reader.
How can I expand my audience in this class? Outside of this class?
To expand my audience in my class I could post comments on other peoples' blogs regularly and also respond to comments on my blog in a reasonable amount of time. The language that I use throughout my blog should be geared towards the class. Outside of this class, I could engage in other blogs related to science to help create a persona that other people would want to engage in my blog.
How would I characterize the tone of my blog?
The tone of my blog obviously shifts from topic to topic, but most the time I try to present an informal tone in order to relate to the audience. I also try to present and educated tone throughout my posts but also one that is questioning and try to learn.
What do I hope to get out of writing this blog?
I hope to gain a better understanding of renewable energies myself to help further my career in engineering. This blog will also help me to become a better communicator of complicated ideas.
What would I like others to get out of it?
I would like others to gain a better understanding of the power industry and the issues that renewable energy presents within the power field. I would also like the others to think about where their electricity is coming from and understand that.
What are the strengths of my blog/my blogging?
The strengths of my blog style include the ways in which I engage my audience at the beginning of the posts. I usually think of a good way to introduce my topic and provide preliminary information.
What are the weaknesses?
I tend to ramble on in my posts occasionally and go on a tangent instead of staying focused on one particular issue. I could also try and engage the audience in a better way.
Have I used a deficit model in my writing, or something else? How would I know?
To some extent I have presented a deficit model in my writing as I am just presenting information to the reader and giving my opinion about it. I do however tend to question my content or ask for my audience to add content to my blog posts.
How have I characterized (implicitly or explicitly) science, engineering, and/or technology in my blog?
I believe that I have characterized science, engineering. and renewable energy technology in my blog in a positive light explicitly. Yet, throughout my posts I have implicitly posted negatively about renewable energy.
How have I characterized myself?
I believe that I have characterized myself as someone who knows about renewable energy in certain aspects but wants to learn more about it through audience participation.
Media in Renewable Energy
Somewhat off-topic post here.
Regarding sections 2.2 and 3.1, media has definitely played a role and will continue to play a role in how the public perceives renewable energies. With an increased awareness in climate change (whether you believe in it or not) over the past 10 years, the media has helped shaped the perception of many publics. It could be argued that different medias and corporations are perhaps framing the issue of renewable energy in different ways. Of course most companies invested in coal, natural gas, and oil are still pushing towards the use of these fossil fuels to meet the energy demand, but for the most part I would say that the media has framed the issue of renewables in a positive way and something that must be done immediately. This urgency of a renewable energy supply is confirmed by the government's renewable portfolio standards that I mentioned earlier. I could definitely see that an open dialogue between the public and engineers in the energy industry would push the renewable industry in the direction needed.
Regarding sections 2.2 and 3.1, media has definitely played a role and will continue to play a role in how the public perceives renewable energies. With an increased awareness in climate change (whether you believe in it or not) over the past 10 years, the media has helped shaped the perception of many publics. It could be argued that different medias and corporations are perhaps framing the issue of renewable energy in different ways. Of course most companies invested in coal, natural gas, and oil are still pushing towards the use of these fossil fuels to meet the energy demand, but for the most part I would say that the media has framed the issue of renewables in a positive way and something that must be done immediately. This urgency of a renewable energy supply is confirmed by the government's renewable portfolio standards that I mentioned earlier. I could definitely see that an open dialogue between the public and engineers in the energy industry would push the renewable industry in the direction needed.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Renewable Portfolio Standards
I might as well get this controversial issue out of the way, as it's a bit boring but will have a large impact in America in the future. What's this so controversial issue? It happens to be the Renewable Portfolio Standards set by each state and regulated by the federal government. [1] Now, many of you may be thinking that this issue isn't controversial at all, but those within the power industry may disagree.
I actually really like this regulation from an environmental standpoint as renewable energy is clearly the way of power generation of the future (If done properly). With finite resources such as oil, gas, and coal, that are typically used to generate electricity, at peak or past peak levels another power generation method must rise to meet the increased demand (Nuclear could step-up to the task, but that's for another time). After taking classes from two well respected professors at Mines in the power department (Ammerman, P.K. Sen), I have come to the conclusion that these standards are perhaps unrealistic.
It seems pretty reasonable when you look at it initially, examining colorado alone it only asks that 30% of renewable energy take care of the power demand by 2020. Let's look at energy production by source though.
As you can see from the chart in 2009, about 10% of the US electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources, and that's including hydro. I'd like to point out that hydro consists of much of that, and most renewable energy is moving away from hydro because of other externalities and start-up costs associated with hydroelectric. So basically, take the 4% of other renewable energy sources and apply that to the state level of Colorado. Heck let's be liberal here and say 8% in Colorado(actual amount anyone?) is from other renewable sources and that level of production is supposed to increase by 3 times that amount in the next 9 years. Yeah... not gonna happen!
I actually really like this regulation from an environmental standpoint as renewable energy is clearly the way of power generation of the future (If done properly). With finite resources such as oil, gas, and coal, that are typically used to generate electricity, at peak or past peak levels another power generation method must rise to meet the increased demand (Nuclear could step-up to the task, but that's for another time). After taking classes from two well respected professors at Mines in the power department (Ammerman, P.K. Sen), I have come to the conclusion that these standards are perhaps unrealistic.
It seems pretty reasonable when you look at it initially, examining colorado alone it only asks that 30% of renewable energy take care of the power demand by 2020. Let's look at energy production by source though.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Welcome
Hello and welcome, this blog will be focused on renewable energy topics with some input from an electrical engineering student (me). A little bit about myself first, I go by Nate and currently in my last semester at Colorado School of Mines. I enjoy the topic of power systems within electrical engineering and look forward to becoming unemployed upon graduation. I want to point you to a video about this solar tower in Spain that is able to produce electricity for thousands of homes. This device definitely takes advantage of amount of sunlight that Spain receives. I'm aware that there is also one of these in Arizona but haven't heard of one in Colorado. What does everyone think about this? Would it be possible to have one of these in CO, perhaps on the eastern plains?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)