The Myth and Realities of Renewable Energy
By: Meir Shargal
Introduction
Electricity from the nature – many scientists all over the world are racing to create energy with out
damaging the earth, renewable energies uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain,
tides, and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished – technologies range from Wind
Power, Hydroelectricity, Wave, Solar, Biomass, and Biofuels. While most renewable energy
sources do not produce pollution directly, the materials, industrial processes, and construction
equipment used to create them may generate waste and pollution. Despite this the global use of
renewable energy sources continued its rapid growth in 2007, with 40 gigwatts of new renewable
energy capacity added throughout the world.
That capacity growth brings the world's renewable energy generating capacity to more than a
thousand gigawatts. Excluding large hydropower, renewable generating capacity grew by 33
gigawatts to a total of 240 gigawatts, a 16% annual growth rate. At 95 gigawatts, wind power is
the largest of the newer renewable energy sources, while grid-connected solar photovoltaic
systems increased by 53%, reaching 7.8 gigawatts. Among other renewable energy sources,
ethanol production reached 12 billion gallons, biodiesel production exceeded 2 billion gallons, and
there are now enough solar hot water systems to produce 128 gigawatts of thermal energy. The
United States now leads the world in new wind capacity added each year and in annual ethanol
production, and it also features the largest installed capacities for geothermal and biomass
energy power plants.
Renewable energy technologies are criticized for being unreliable or unsightly, yet the market is
growing for many forms of renewable energy. Wind power has a worldwide installed capacity of
74,223 MW and is widely used in several European countries and the USA. The manufacturing
output of the Photovoltaic industry reached more than 2,000 MW per year in 2006. Solar thermal
power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 MW SEGS
power plant in the Mojave Desert. The world's largest geothermal power installation is The
Geysers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW. Brazil has one of the largest renewable
energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol
now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel. While there are many large-scale
renewable energy projects there are also many myths scrounging those renewable technologies
that this paper trying to point.
Climate change concerns coupled with high oil prices and increasing government support are
driving increasing renewable energy legislation, incentives and commercialization. EU leaders
reached agreement in principle in March 2007 that 20 percent of the energy should be produced
from renewable fuels by 2020. In the US Senate - Lieberman-Warner bill is one of the first
attempts to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from utilities, transportation and manufacturing at
2005 levels by 2012. Those legislations are part of a global drive to cut emissions of carbon
dioxide, blamed in part for global warming.
As we will attempt to show in this paper the electric generation will go through a profound
transformation in the next decade utilizing more renewable energy sources. We will also argue
that it already started – investment capital flowing into renewable energy climbed from $80 billion
in 2005 to a record $100 billion in 2006. This level of investment combined with continuing double
digit percentage increases each year has moved what once was considered alternative energy to
mainstream. There are very interesting projects ranging from pure financial instruments to trade
carbon dioxide emission credits to innovative technologies to capture emissions.
There are no magic bullets in the renewable portfolio, no single answer that will magically solve
all the problems we have with energy consumption and we will have to address the demand side
of the equation as well, there is a rapid global growth in energy consumption, and it may not be
possible to keep it up. The fact about renewables is that there will be many more generators than
there are today if we want to shift to a more renewable footing and the electric grid will have to
get smarter to deal with distributed generation.
Renewable Sources
Renewable energy technologies encompass a broad, diverse array of technologies, including
solar photovoltaic, solar thermal power plants and heating/cooling systems, wind farms,
hydroelectricity, geothermal power plants, ocean power, and the use of biomass. The definition of
renewable energy has changed over time, and that definition is now subject to political pressure.
Mainstream renewable technologies (Solar, Wind, Water, Biomass, and Waste) have seen a
growth in interest and investment over the last decade. The venture capital community committed
th
over $1 billion dollars in 2007 to renewable resources, the 10 year in a row of double digit
growth in investment. Law makers and regulators will force a minimum level of renewable
resources by a specific time in the future.
One of the major issues is not only to integrate the renewable resources, but also to deal with the
growth in global electricity consumption. The estimate from the Energy Information Administration
is that usage will double from 2004 to 2030 globally and will reach 30,364 billion kilowatt hours.
Even at 20% of the portfolio, the increase in consumption will outstrip any Renewable Portfolio
Standards (RPS).
Solar Photovoltaic
Photovoltaic is a method for generating solar power by using solar cells packaged in photovoltaic
modules, often electrically connected in multiples as solar photovoltaic arrays to convert energy
from the sun into electricity. To explain the photovoltaic solar panel more simply, photons from
sunlight knock electrons into a higher state of energy, creating electricity.
Due to the growing need for solar energy, the manufacture of solar cells and solar photovoltaic
array has expanded dramatically in recent years. Photovoltaic production has been doubling
every two years, increasing by an average of 48 percent each year since 2002, making it the
world’s fastest-growing energy technology. At the end of 2007, according to preliminary data,
cumulative global production was 12,400 megawatts.
Over approximately the past ten years the ratio of off-grid to grid-tied PV installations has
reversed itself from about 80% off and 20% on to 80% on and 20 % off. While the market for offgrid –remote buildings, RV’s, signage, etc. – has continued to grow and operate as a true market,
the on-grid market is still dependant upon government subsidies for viability. After many years of
aggressive subsidies and electricity prices in the $.25/kWh range, Japan may be approaching the
point of viability without price supports. In Europe subsidies are still strong but are beginning to
be phased out. In the United States installations are concentrated in those states –California,
New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. – where state funds are available to
reduce the cost of installations.
Solar power is pollution free during use and facilities can operate with little maintenance or
intervention after initial setup. Once the initial capital cost of building a solar power plant has been
spent, operating costs are extremely low compared to existing power technologies and gridconnected solar electricity can be used locally thus reducing transmission/distribution losses. On
the other hand solar electricity is almost always more expensive than electricity generated by
other sources and it is not available at night and is less available in cloudy weather conditions.
The larger short coming of solar is that solar cells produce DC current which must be converted
to AC current this incurs extra cost and an energy loss of 4-12%.
Solar Thermal Power
Solar thermal energy is a technology for harnessing solar energy for heat. This is very different
from solar photovoltaic, which convert solar energy directly into electricity. Solar thermal
collectors are characterized as low, medium, or high temperature collectors. Low temperature
collectors are flat plates generally used to heat swimming pools. Medium-temperature collectors
are also usually flat plates but are used for creating hot water for residential and commercial use.
High temperature collectors concentrate sunlight using mirrors or lenses and are generally used
for electric power production.
Concentrating solar is gaining momentum. Several new designs for concentrating solar plants
have been proven in small scale developments and are now being scaled up under contracts in
California and Nevada. The problem with most concentrating solar is the location where the sun
shines the best, is not the location that has lots of water available for cooling and operation of the
plants. The second issue is that the best locations are far from major population centers – forcing
long transmission lines and long pipelines.
Wind Power
Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into useful form, such as electricity, using wind
turbines. Wind is one of the easiest renewable energy to build and install, it is the one that most
developing countries are serious about, because most of the construction can be done in low tech
manufacturing facilities.
Wind power is produced in large scale wind farms connected to electrical grids, as well as in
individual turbines for providing electricity to isolated locations. Wind energy is plentiful,
renewable, widely distributed, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it displaces fossilfuel-derived electricity. At the end of 2007, worldwide capacity of wind-powered generators was
94.1 gig watts. Although wind currently produces just over 1% of world-wide electricity use, it
accounts for approximately 19% of electricity production in Denmark, 9% in Spain and Portugal,
and 6% in Germany. Globally, wind power generation increased more than fivefold between 2000
and 2007. But to put it into perspective, by 2010, the U.S. will generate about 50 billion kilowatthours per year from wind power. In 2006, consumer electronics alone – TVs, computers, home
theater systems, answering machines, etc. – consumed 147 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.
Today windmills come in a wide range of sizes and capabilities. But the majority of the production
comes from just a couple of styles of windmill today that require a very specific band of wind
speed to work. That magic wind speed is in the 10 to 15 Meter per second range (22 to 35 MPH).
That magic wind speed range appears on a large number of coastal areas and in the foothills of
many mountain ranges. Unfortunately like the best solar areas, the best wind areas are away
from the majority of consumers. Winds mills come in sizes that start in tens of watts and run to
almost 10 megawatts, with larger ones are being designed today.
A small aside, when the wind blows too slowly the windmills stop making power and when the
wind blows to fast the windmills stop making power. This is the greatest challenge, getting the
windmills to work wherever there is wind. In today’s installations having the windmills producing
power 40% of the time is considered good efficiency. If the customers would turn off their
consumption 60% of the time, we might have a good match. We need to find a way to build
windmills that work in a wider range of wind speeds and work across a wider band for each
windmill – increasing the time that windmill is generating power. This is hard because the energy
in the wind increase by the by the cube of the speed of the wind. So doubling the speed
increases the energy by a factor of 8. Creating equipment that can harvest wind energy with this
relationship will take enormous engineering efforts.
Hydro Power
Hydroelectricity is electricity produced by hydropower. It is a renewable source of energy,
produces no waste, and does not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) which contributes to greenhouse
gases. Hydroelectricity now supplies about 715,000 Megawatts or 19% of world electricity (16%
in 2003), accounting for over 63% of the total electricity from renewable sources in 2005.
Although large hydroelectric installations generate most of the world's hydroelectricity, the
traditional large hydro locations are largely spoken for and the dams have been built. Finding new
large river sites will be difficult without flooding large areas. Many of these dam sites are also
under pressure to be dismantled to improve fishing or for other environmental reasons. The
answer is small hydro projects, run of the river hydro projects and current harvesting. Small hydro
schemes are particularly popular in China, which has over 50% of world small hydro capacity.
The major advantage of hydroelectric systems is the elimination of the cost of fuel. Other
advantages include longer life than fuel-fired generation, low operating costs, and the provision of
facilities for water sports. Operation of pumped-storage plants improves the daily load factor of
the generation system. Overall, hydroelectric power can be far less expensive than electricity
generated from fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and areas with abundant hydroelectric power
attract industry.
However, there are several major disadvantages of hydroelectric systems. These include:
dislocation of people living where the reservoirs are planned, release of significant amounts of
carbon dioxide at construction and flooding of the reservoir, disruption of aquatic ecosystems and
birdlife, adverse impacts on the river environment, potential risks of sabotage and terrorism, and
in rare cases catastrophic failure of the dam wall.
Hydroelectric power is now more difficult to site in developed nations because most major sites
within these nations are either already being exploited or may be unavailable for other reasons
such as environmental considerations.
Run of the river hydro assumes that there are places in the river where the flow drops suddenly
(e.g. a waterfall) and that catching the water at the top and then using that natural fall to produce
power is an environmentally sound way to produce power. This only works if the waterfall is tall
enough that no fish are able to jump it, and that the fish above the waterfall do not normally transit
the waterfall on a one way journey. In western Canada there are a number of run of the river
hydro projects in production using the spring snow melt to produce power without a dam. They
impound very little water (typically only enough to make sure the water is deeper than the pipe is
in diameter. They range in size from under a megawatt to over 50 megawatts. Most do not
operate everyday of the year, since they depend on seasonal water flow. Other parts of the world
can benefit from this sort of hydro capability, but again, like other renewable the source of
generation is normally far from the consumer.
Ocean Power
Ocean power includes wave and tidal. Tidal power is the result of the earth and the moon
interaction, wave power is the result of solar heating.
Wave power is harvesting the power of the sun, in an indirect way, but using the change in the
height of the surface of the ocean, in other words, using the waves to generate power. This works
best where the bottom of the ocean rises toward the surface, to that the wave heights are greater,
but it has been proven to be usable way off shore for powering buoys for years. The idea is that
the movement of the surface of the water will move a device up and down in the water (it can be
on the surface or under the surface). This can then be used as mechanical force to move a
generator.
Wave power generation is not a widely employed technology, and no commercial wave farm has
yet been established. On December 18, 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric announced its support for
plans to build America’s first commercial wave power plant off the coast of Northern California.
The plant will consist of eight buoys, 2.5 miles offshore each buoy generating electricity as it rises
and falls with the waves. The plant is scheduled to begin operating in 2012, generating a
maximum of 2 megawatts of electricity. Each megawatt can power about 750 homes.
Tidal power can be captured in one of two ways, from the current produced by the tide or by
capturing the head created by the tide and using it during the low tide periods. There are few
locations, the Bay of Fundy in Canada being on of the most famous where the tidal head is high
enough to make the generation of commercial power a good business case. In most of the world
the tide is less than a meter in height, making the head too small to commercially use. On the
other hand there are a large number of deep inlets and other places where the water has to rush
in and out during the tidal day to equalize the water height and the currents produced are strong
enough to make it possible to generate significant electricity from the current created by the tide.
Although not yet widely used, tidal power has potential for future electricity generation and is
more predictable than wind energy and solar power.
Biofuels and Biomass
Typically biofuel is burned to release its stored chemical energy. Research into more efficient
methods of converting biofuels and other fuels into electricity utilizing fuel cells is an area of very
active work. Biomass can be used directly as fuel or to produce liquid biofuel. Agriculturally
produced biomass fuels, such as biodiesel, ethanol, and bagasse (often a by-product of sugar
cane cultivation) can be burned in internal combustion engines or boilers.
Most transportation vehicles require high power density provided by internal combustion engines.
These engines require clean burning fuels, which are generally in liquid form. Liquids are more
portable because they have high energy density, and they can be pumped, which makes handling
easier. This is why most transportation fuels are liquids.
Liquid biofuel is usually either a bioalcohol such as ethanol fuel or a bio-oil such as biodiesel and
straight vegetable oil. Biodiesel can be used in modern diesel vehicles with little or no
modification to the engine and can be made from waste and virgin vegetable and animal oil and
fats. Virgin vegetable oils can be used in modified diesel engines. In fact the Diesel engine was
originally designed to run on vegetable oil rather than fossil fuel. A major benefit of biodiesel is
lower emissions. The use of biodiesel reduces emission of carbon monoxide and other
hydrocarbons by 20 to 40%.
Ethanol is being phased into the current energy infrastructure. E85 is a fuel composed of 85%
ethanol and 15% gasoline that is sold to consumers. There is growing international criticism about
biofuels from food crops with respect to issues such as food security, environmental impacts
(deforestation) and energy balance. Coal is a form of biomass that has been compressed over
millennia to produce a non-renewable, highly-polluting fossil fuel.
Solid biomass forms and sources include wood fuel, the biogenic portion of municipal solid waste,
or the unused portion of field crops. Field crops may or may not be grown intentionally as an
energy crop, and the remaining plant byproduct used as a fuel. Most types of biomass contain
energy. Even cow manure, still contains two-thirds of the original energy consumed by the cow.
Energy harvesting via a bioreactor is a cost-effective solution to the waste disposal issues faced
by the dairy farmer, and can produce enough biogas to run a farm.
With current technology, it is not ideally suited for use as a transportation fuel. Most transportation
vehicles require power sources with high power density, such as that provided by internal
combustion engines. These engines generally require clean burning fuels, which are generally in
liquid form, and to a lesser extent, compressed gaseous phase. Non-transportation applications
can usually tolerate the low power-density of external combustion engines that can run directly on
less-expensive solid biomass fuel, for combined heat and power.
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is energy obtained by tapping the heat of the earth itself, usually from
kilometers deep into the Earth's crust. It is expensive to build a power station but operating costs
are low resulting in low energy costs for suitable sites. Ultimately, this energy derives from heat in
the earth’s core.
The government of Iceland states: "It should be stressed that the geothermal resource is not
strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource." It estimates that Iceland's
geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100 years, compared to the current
production of 170 MW, and heating 86% of all houses.
Three types of power plants are used to generate power from geothermal energy:
1. Dry steam: Dry steam plants take steam out of fractures in the ground and use it to directly
drive a turbine that spins a generator.
2. Flash: Flash plants take hot water, usually at temperatures over 200 °C, out of the ground,
and allows it to boil as it rises to the surface then separates the steam phase in steam/water
separators and then runs the steam through a turbine.
3. Binary: In binary plants, the hot water flows through heat exchangers, boiling an organic fluid
that spins the turbine.
The condensed steam and remaining geothermal fluid from all three types of plants are injected
back into the hot rock to pick up more heat. The geothermal energy from the core of the Earth is
closer to the surface in some areas than in others. Where hot underground steam or water can be
tapped and brought to the surface it may be used to generate electricity.
Myth and Realities
Critics suggest that some renewable energy applications may create pollution, be dangerous,
take up large amounts of land, or be incapable of generating a large net amount of energy.
Proponents advocate the use of "appropriate renewables", also known as soft energy
technologies as these have many advantages.
Myth: Federal government research, tax, and regulatory policies help state policies
promote green energy.
State policies are the force behind the surge in green energy use. But if those efforts are to be
optimized they must be complemented with the appropriate federal research, tax and regulatory
policies. About 26 states have enacted renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to offer
a certain percentage of green energy within a specific time period. But they face a number of
issues ranging from transmission constraints to inconsistent permitting standards among the
jurisdictions.
Federal leadership is a must, particularly when it comes to funding research and development
and creating national standards for grid interconnection. Others, meanwhile, are vocal about
extending production and investment tax credits for wind and solar energy. Last year those
credits helped increase installations in both sectors by 45 percent and 43 percent, respectively.
But each tax break is scheduled to expire by year-end and their extension has been used as
political tool in the overall energy debate. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are at stake.
The production tax credit benefits utilities for about 2 cents for every kilowatt of wind they produce
over 10 years of operation while the investment tax credit provides residential installation credits
from $2,000 to $4,000. Together, they cost the federal treasury about $1 billion annually – a
pittance when compared to the tax breaks given to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Wind
installations, meantime, accounted for nearly a third of all new capacity last year, at more than
5,200 megawatts of new generation.
With concerns over climate change dominating many political agendas, policymakers must
collaborate to encourage more renewable energy development. The goal is to create demand,
which in turn attracts suppliers to the field and ultimately leads to the development of newer and
better products and services. Engagement between states and federal policymakers on
(facilitating green energy use) has been surprisingly limited, and is long overdue.
Myth: Plug-in cars could help reduce air pollution
The expected introduction of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could cut U.S. gasoline use but could
increase deadly air pollution in some areas. That's because a plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
lower tailpipe emissions may be offset by smokestack emissions from the utility generating plants
supplying electricity to recharge the big batteries that allow plug-ins to run up to 40 miles without
kicking on their gasoline engines.
About 49% of U.S. electricity is generated using coal, so in some regions a plug-in running on its
batteries is nearly the equivalent of a coal-burning vehicle. The trade-off is one that even plug-in
backers acknowledge. It could undercut the appeal of vehicles that appear capable of using no
gasoline in town and hitting 50 to 100 mpg overall fuel economy. There is a possibility for
significant increases of soot and mercury, if large numbers of plug-in hybrids were being
recharged with power from the least-sophisticated coal plants.
The longer a plug-in is designed to operate on just the batteries, the less gasoline it uses, but the
more electricity it needs to recharge the larger batteries. Thus, the better the Plug-in Hybrid car –
that is, the longer it goes just on its batteries – the greater the charge required and the more the
pollution that might result from an electric utility's power generation.
Myth: Current electric infrastructure can support the growth in Plug-in cars
U.S. government scientists have found the increasing use of plug-in hybrid electric cars and
trucks might substantially affect power distribution. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
researchers examined how an expected increase in ownership of hybrid electric cars and trucks
will affect the nation's power grid depending on the time of day or night the vehicles are charged.
In an analysis of the potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles projected for 2020 and
2030 in 13 U.S. regions, ORNL researchers ran several scenarios for each region for the times of
5 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., in addition to other variables. The report found in the worst-case scenario –
if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m. at six kilowatts of power – 160 large power
plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce
the reserve power margins for a particular region's system.
Myth: Transmission grid can support the transportation of renewable electricity generated
in rural areas to homes and business that need it in large metropolitan areas.
The US wind-power boom, especially in rural parts of Texas, the Midwest and California, is
poised to outstrip the capacity of high-voltage lines to send the electricity hundreds of miles to
population centers such as Dallas, Chicago and Los Angeles. The transmission-line shortage is
threatening to slow wind energy's breakneck growth and could prevent some states from meeting
renewable energy mandates.
Wind power depends on a robust transmission grid. Wind farms are in remote reaches where
gusts are strongest, while the greatest power demand is in cities. Until now, wind developers
have piggybacked on existing wires, but after wind energy soared 45% last year, spare
transmission capacity is depleted.
Wind developers won't go ahead with projects until transmission lines are in place, and utilities
are loath to build the lines until they're sure the developers won't back out. Also, the first wind
developer in an area is often asked to invest much of the $1.5 million-per-mile cost of a highvoltage line.
In Texas, which has about 25% of U.S. wind power, more eye-popping growth in 2008 is
expected to push generation past transmission capacity by 65% by year's end. Similarly, in
southwest Minnesota, dozens of wind projects have been proposed to serve the Twin Cities.
Even if just 30% of them, with 7,500 megawatts of capacity, are developed, that would far
outpace the 2,000 megawatts of transmission capacity planned. Similar bottlenecks are stalling
wind farms in the Midwest, Southwest and California.
Xcel Energy, a Midwest utility, says it can't raise money for transmission lines that might not carry
any juice. "You're committing $1 billion in capital in the hope the cost recovery will come, and
that's a tough proposition," says Paul Bonavia, head of Xcel's utilities group. To break the logjam,
officials in Texas, the Southwest, Minnesota and California plan to spread transmission-line costs
among multiple wind developers or utilities. But that won't offer near-term relief. A wind farm can
be built in 18 months, while a transmission line can take five to 10 years.
Myth: Wind energy provide security of electricity supply
Operators of the Texas state power grid scrambled several weeks ago to keep the lights on after
a sudden drop in West Texas wind threatened to cause rolling blackouts. A sudden uptick in
electricity use coupled with other factors and a sudden drop in wind power caused the
unexpected dip. As a result, grid officials immediately went to the second stage of its emergency
blackout prevention plan. The drop in wind power led to constraints on the system between the
north part of the state and the west.
Some critics have said that wind power, although providing a source of clean energy, also brings
with it plenty of hidden costs and technical challenges. Besides requiring the construction of
expensive transmission lines, the fickle nature of wind also means that the state cannot depend
on the turbines to replace other sorts of generators. Renewable energy is not the sole answer to
Texas power needs; Texas can't put all the eggs in one basket when it comes to any form of
generation, we need to consider the cost and the reliability issues, in addition to the
environmental impact.
Myth: There is a shortage of renewable energy sources on Earth.
The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of
energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year. Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules
(GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than
16 billion GJ of electricity – more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the
United States in 2000.
Annual photosynthesis by the vegetation in the United States is 50 billion GJ, equivalent to nearly
60% of the nation’s annual fossil fuel use.
Myth: Most renewable sources are intermittent in their nature and can not be relay on to
secure our energy supply.
A variety of renewable sources in combination can overcome this problem. Stormy weather, bad
for direct solar collection, is generally good for windmills and small hydropower plants; dry, sunny
weather, bad for hydropower, is ideal for photovoltaics.
The challenge of variable power supply may be further alleviated by energy storage. Available
storage options include pumped-storage hydro systems, batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and
thermal mass. Initial investments in such energy storage systems can be high, although the costs
can be recovered over the life of the system.
Wave energy is continuously available, although wave intensity varies by season. A wave energy
scheme installed in Australia generates electricity with an 80% availability factor.
Myth: Solar and Wind generating stations are not aesthetic.
Methods and opportunities exist to deploy these renewable technologies efficiently and
unobtrusively: fixed solar collectors can double as noise barriers along highways, and extensive
roadway, parking lot, and roof-top area is currently available; photovoltaic cells can also be used
to tint windows and produce energy. Advocates of renewable energy also argue that current
infrastructure is less aesthetically pleasing than alternatives, but sited further from the view of
most critics.
Myth: Biofuels does not have any environmental issues
Biomass and biofuels required large amount of land to harvest energy, which otherwise could be
used for other purposes or left as undeveloped land. However, it should be pointed out that these
fuels may reduce the need for harvesting non-renewable energy sources, such as vast stripmined areas and slag mountains for coal, safety zones around nuclear plants, and hundreds of
square miles being strip-mined for oil sands.
In the U.S., crops grown for biofuels are the most land- and water-intensive of the renewable
energy sources. In 2005, about 12% of the nation’s corn crop (covering 11 million acres (45,000
km²) of farmland) was used to produce four billion gallons of ethanol—which equates to about 2%
of annual U.S. gasoline consumption. For biofuels to make a much larger contribution to the
energy economy, the industry will have to accelerate the development of new feedstock’s,
agricultural practices, and technologies that are more land and water efficient.
Myth: Renewable energy facilities last forever.
Though a source of renewable energy may last for billions of years, renewable energy
infrastructure, like hydroelectric dams, will not last forever, and must be removed and replaced at
some point. Events like the shifting of riverbeds, or changing weather patterns could potentially
alter or even halt the function of hydroelectric dams; lowering the amount of time they are
available to generate electricity.
Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific
locations may cool down. It is likely that in these locations, the system was designed too large for
the site, since there is only so much energy that can be stored and replenished in a given volume
of earth. Some interpret this as meaning a specific geothermal location can undergo depletion.
Myth: Biofuel and Biomass energy is positively impact greenhouse gases.
All biomass needs to go through some of these steps: it needs to be grown, collected, dried,
fermented and burned. All of these steps require resources and an infrastructure. Some studies
contend that ethanol is "energy negative", meaning that it takes more energy to produce than is
contained in the final product.
However, a large number of recent studies, including a 2006 article in the journal Science offer
the opinion that fuels like ethanol are energy positive. Furthermore, fossil fuels also require
significant energy inputs which have seldom been accounted for in the past.
Myth: Greater efficiency results in lower energy consumption and, therefore, will hasten
the day of energy independence.
History shows that as the U.S. economy has grown more energy efficient, energy consumption
has continued to climb. In 1980, the U.S. was using about 15,000 Btu per dollar of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). By 2004, the energy intensity of the U.S. economy had improved
dramatically, so that just over 9000 Btu were required for each dollar of GDP. By 2030, the EIA
projects that energy intensity will fall to about 5800 Btu per dollar of GDP. But even with that
dramatic increase in efficiency, the EIA predicts that overall energy consumption in the U.S. will
increase by more than 30 percent, rising from 100.1 quadrillion Btu in 2005 to 131.1 quadrillion
Btu in 2030. (A quadrillion Btu is equal to about 172 million barrels of crude oil.)
Myth: If the U.S. tapped its vast coal reserves effectively with clean and efficient coal-toliquids (CTL) technology, America would achieve energy independence.
First, CTL plants are enormously expensive. A plant capable of producing just 50,000 barrels of
CTL fuel per day will likely cost $4.5 billion. For comparison, an oil refinery capable of processing
200,000 barrels per day costs about $5 billion.
Second, CTL plants, which generally use German technology developed in the 1920s, create
huge amounts of air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. In 2005 Toyota issued a report on
the “well-to-wheel” carbon dioxide emissions for 23 kinds of motor fuels. Fuel made from coal had
the highest carbon dioxide footprint, releasing about 50 percent more carbon dioxide than
gasoline. In its Annual Energy Outlook for 2007, the EIA predicted that CTL production in the U.S.
would be just 440,000 barrels per day by 2030 – less than 2 percent of America’s total oil needs.
Myth: Ethanol is an eco-friendly fuel.
Ethanol is hyped as an eco-friendly fuel, but in reality it is increases global warming, destroys
forests and inflates food prices. Boost over soaring oil costs and climate change, biofuels have
become the front line of the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations
to show they're serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing
global warming. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in
2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and
George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the Carlyle Group.
But several new studies show the biofuel boom dramatically accelerating global warming. Corn
ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Also, by
diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world
food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could
feed a person for a year. The basic problem with most biofuels is amazingly simple, using land to
grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous
amounts of carbon.
Deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions. So unless the world can
eliminate emissions from all other sources cars, power plants, factories, even flatulent cows it
needs to reduce deforestation or risk an environmental catastrophe. That means limiting the
expansion of agriculture and saving forests. The biofuels boom could haunt the planet for
generations and it's only getting started.
Energy Transformation
The transformation from surplus fossil fuel resources to constrained gas and oil carriers, and
subsequently to new energy supply and conversion technologies, has begun. However it faces
regulatory and acceptance barriers to rapid implementation and market competition alone may
not lead to reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The energy systems of many nations are evolving from their historic dependence on fossil fuels in
response to the climate change threat, market failure of the supply chain, and increasing reliance
on global energy markets, thereby necessitating the wiser use of energy in all sectors. A rapid
transition toward new energy supply systems with reduced carbon intensity needs to be managed
to minimize economic, social and technological risks and to co-opt those stakeholders who retain
strong interests in maintaining the status quo. The electricity, building and industry sectors are
beginning to become more proactive and help governments make the transition happen.
Sustainable energy systems emerging as a result of government, business and private
interactions should not be selected on cost and GHG mitigation potential alone but also on their
other co-benefits.
There is no single economic technical solution to reduce GHG emissions from the energy sector.
The future will depend on carbon offset and allowance market place and the timing of successful
developments for advanced nuclear, advanced coal and gas, and second-generation renewable
energy technologies. Other technologies, such as second generation biofuels, concentrated solar
power, ocean energy and biomass gasification may make additional contributions in due course.
The necessary transition will involve more sustained public and private investment in research,
development, demonstration and deployment to better understand our energy resources, to
further develop cost-effective and –efficient low- or zero-carbon emitting technologies, and to
encourage their rapid deployment and diffusion. Research investment in energy has varied
greatly from country to country, but in most cases has declined significantly in recent years since
the levels achieved soon after the oil shocks during the 1970s.
Carbon Offsets and Allowance
Carbon offsets today are largely bought by utilities and corporations that want to offset the carbon
dioxide they produce from trucks and cars or generating electricity. If the federal government
caps carbon emissions, certain industries would have to buy carbon allowances and offsets to
continue to pollute, which would give them an incentive to cut emissions.
The voluntary market for U.S. offsets more than doubled last year to $150 million to $200 million,
says research firm Ecosystem Marketplace. Sales in the USA, the world's biggest carbon emitter,
could be as high as $175 billion by 2020 if a federal cap is approved (says research firm New
Carbon Finance). Europe, which has complied with mandatory carbon limits since 2005 under the
Kyoto treaty, the offset market hit $10 billion last year.
Hedge funds and investment banks are starting to trade offsets like stocks and bonds, betting
they could soar in value if greenhouse gas caps are imposed. JPMorgan expects to buy and sell
hundreds of millions of offsets this year, up from tens of millions last year. Many are deploying
tried-and-true techniques such as burning the noxious emissions of landfills and cow manure and
restoring forests. Others are testing grander but more controversial strategies, such as growing
carbon-absorbing plankton in the South Pacific. There are close to 400 start-ups are operating
600 carbon-mitigation projects in the US, with the number of companies set to triple the next two
years.
Environmental Credit is going to generate carbon offsets for American Electric Power (AEP) by
burning the methane produced by the manure of 400,000 cows at 200 farms. Environmental
Credit is spending $25 million to buy equipment for the project and will share offset revenue with
farmers.
Blue source plans to capture the carbon dioxide spewed by a Kansas fertilizer plant and sell it to
petroleum fields to boost oil output. They are spending about $70 million on equipment to corral
the carbon as well as on pipelines to send the gas about 100 miles to the oil fields. Blue Source
already has five similar setups in the USA. It will snare about 650,000 tons of carbon a year from
the Kansas plant. At today's offset prices, Blue Source will recover its investment in about five
years.
Equator Environmental plans to restore forests, at a cost of about $1,000 an acre. Deforestation
accounts for about 20% of the world's global warming gases. Acre of trees swallowing just 2 to 8
tons of carbon dioxide each year and offset prices under $10, the business is barely profitable.
Climos dump up to 1,000 tons of pulverized iron over a patch of ocean as large as 15,000 square
miles in a bid to germinate plankton. Iron ore has been shown to promote the growth of the
microscopic ocean algae, which inhale as much carbon dioxide in six months as a forest
consumes in decades.
Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative is helping offset more than 375,000 tons of carbon by
matching up landowners that willing to plant trees on there land and companies that want to
voluntarily mitigate the pollution they create. Landowners earn credit for doing things like planting
trees and grasses, not tilling their farms and using devices that cook animal manure and turn it
into methane gas, which provides farmers with a source of renewable energy. Those credits are
then sold on the Chicago Climate Exchange, where they are purchased by private industries,
cities and academic institutions looking to offset their carbon footprint. The fledgling program is
the first state-sponsored initiative. Other, similar programs -- like the one Missouri farmers can
enroll in -- are run through the Iowa Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union.
If allowance prices get high enough, it will become economical for emitters to make permanent
fixes, such as adding pollution-cutting equipment to a carbon-belching coal plant. Emitters are
starting to buy offsets. In the largest such deal, American Electric Power the nation's biggest coalfired power generator and greenhouse gas emitter, agreed last year to purchase 4.6 million
carbon offsets from Environmental Credit from 2010 to 2017.
Cow Power
Launched by Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS) in 2005, the "Cow Power" program relies
on the willingness of thousands of customers – individuals and businesses – to pay a bit extra for
their electricity if that means expanding renewable power generation and helping their farmer
neighbors. Both federal and state government have pitched in as well, providing participating
farmers with grants and loans to help with the heavy startup costs of installing the equipment
needed to convert methane from cow manure into electricity.
The process used is a relatively simple one: manure and other agricultural waste is held in
underground concrete tanks and kept at 101 degrees Fahrenheit (about 38 degrees Celsius) -the temperature of a cow's stomach. Bacteria digest the stored material, creating methane even
as they kill pathogens and weed seeds. The methane, some 20 times more harmful than carbon
dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere, fuels an engine-generator.
Though manure-to-energy conversion is not a new idea, the Vermont utility's approach is unique
– they have created a new business model. They found a way to connect the supply side that's
being produced by the farmers with the demand side. Nobody believed that customers would pay
an extra 4 cents for every kilowatt-hour to select renewable energy."
Innovative Experiments
The sun is an endless source of energy but cellular power stations have several shortcomings.
The need large space, they are ineffective at night and they produce less energy when the sky
full of clouds. The latest innovation is cellular power station in space where there are no clouds
and they will be exposed to larger sources of energy. Scientists think that there is a way to
transfer large amounts of energy through microwaves from those space stations to underground
power stations.
Meanwhile to two Israeli scientists from the Technion space institute developed a patent to rape
large helium balloons with very thin photovoltaic cells – the cable that connects the balloons is an
electric cable that transfers the electricity to the ground. This patent won an international price in
the renewable energy area.
In a world that is getting wormer from emissions you can not dismiss even the smallest of a
solution. What will happen if each person that enters a train station will step on a small strip that
will generate electricity? Believe it or not a similar experiment was conducted in Japan – the
experiment proved that you can produce 30% of the electric needed for the station.
American Electric Power (AEP), the French engineering company Alstom and the German utility
conglomerate RWE are partnering to prove that carbon dioxide can be removed from a coal-fired
plant's exhaust and made harmless. The system being installed on the Mountaineer Plant will be
one of the first large-scale validations of carbon-capture technology in the world.
The system will separate the carbon dioxide from the exhaust and convert it into liquid through a
chilled ammonia process developed by Alstom. The liquid will be pumped two miles underground,
where it will be permanently stored in a porous, 100 to 140 foot-thick rock formation between
7,800 and 8,400 feet below the surface. The leftover exhaust will be sent back up to the
smokestack. Although the project will only take carbon dioxide out of about 20 megawatts' worth
of the 1,300-megawatt plant's exhaust, that will amount to up to 100,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide a year.
Conclusion
Electric utilities have advanced from a position of denial to one of delay to one of public relations
piety, but they have started to take several concrete actions of real significance. Renewables and
more efficient way to generate energy is one side of the equation – the consensus among
scientists is that the best way to address climate change is first find way to reduce our
consumption second create a smarter grid that will minimize the electricity losses than find
technological solutions that will supply endless energy. Improving energy efficiency represents
the most immediate and often the most cost-effective way to reduce oil dependence, improve
energy security, and reduce the health and environmental impact of the energy system. If we do
not change the trajectory of global energy consumption, we are not going to solve the problem.
By reducing the total energy requirements of the economy, improved energy efficiency could
make increased reliance on renewable energy sources more practical and affordable. Meanwhile
until we find this magical solution we will need to relay on clean energy organization to spread the
massage to the rest of us that do not conserve energy.
When examining the opportunities and problems, put them in context. Economic nationalism
seems on the ascendant, which means that the relatively small American companies that operate
with a profit motive will have to compete for resources against state-controlled national
champions that want to secure resources for their own use. Food shortages or sharp increases in
food prices cause unrest, and may reduce political support for biofuels. Drought affects food and
power production.
Entering a carbon constrained world will take time because transforming the global economy is
very complex. Unfortunately, many of us lack patience and expect quick fixes to our energy and
environment problems. They don't exist as it took decades to create the problems and will take
decades to fix them. To make our economy greener, we first need a regulatory policy framework
on climate change. The next step will be to let the markets work their magic by incenting
innovation. Mandatory carbon “Cap and Trade” will do that, and credible financial penalties need
to be in place for confronting noncompliance
In short, the world is not on course to achieve a sustainable energy future. The global energy
supply will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels for several decades. To reduce the resultant
GHG emissions will require a transition to zero and low-carbon technologies. This can happen
over time as business opportunities and co-benefits are identified. However, more rapid
deployment of zero- and low-carbon technologies will require policy intervention with respect to
the complex and interrelated issues of: security of energy supply; removal of structural
advantages for fossil fuels; minimizing related environmental impacts, and achieving the goals for
sustainable development.
The consensus among scientists is that the best way to address climate change is first find way
to reduce our consumption second find technological solutions that will supply endless energy.
Meanwhile until we find this magical solution we will need to relay on clean energy organization to
spread the massage to the rest of us that do not conserve energy.
The underinvestment in clean energy and clean technology is mind boggling, considering the
market opportunity. Capital outlays on research and development seem not to be focused on the
approaching carbon constrained world and the myriad opportunities presented. The outlays for
R&D last year were $4 billion for U.S. energy companies – that includes oil, gas and power
companies. The Federal government's outlay was $7.5 billion in many politically wired projects.
The energy industry is the most capital-intensive industry on the planet and requires vast
reservoirs of capital. The funny thing is that the industry is awash in capital but seems content on
stock repurchasing and dividend boosting. It's not a very enlightened approach to the future.