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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)