Nukes are not the answer! (via The Moderate Voice)
China solar giant Suntech falls back to Earth (via AFP)
Kansas Ignores Koch Brothers, Keeps Renewable Energy (via Clean Technica)
Biggest Solar Power Company in U.S. Could More than Double in Size (via Clean Technica)
New Way To Create Electricity Out Of Sunlight Discovered, A Solar Energy Funnel (via Clean Technica)
White House Holds Meeting to Address Coal Export Terminals (via Desmogblog)
Call it the Keystone of coal: a regulatory and public relations battle between environmentalists and U.S. coal miners akin to the one that has defined the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline.
Having long ago lost their bid to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels, environmental groups aim to close transport routes that bring those carbon fuels to market, pulling local and state politicians into the fight alongside regulators.
Mining interests won a battle last week when the Army Corps of Engineers called for a quick study of plans to open the first coal port on the west coast at Oregon's Port of Morrow on the Columbia River, a review that will weigh impacts of hauling coal, not burning it.
Instead of blocking an import, however, this fight is over whether to allow a growing surplus of coal to be exported to Asia, a decision that would throw miners a lifeline by effectively offshoring carbon emissions and potentially give China access to cheaper coal.What this would mean for the region is hundreds of uncovered coal hoppers moving through the scenic Columbia River Gorge everyday. They would in turn be loaded onto ships and ship it to China. There is also concern that it will clog the already inadequate rail lines interfering with other commerce.
Mining interests won a battle last week when the Army Corps of Engineers called for a quick study of plans to open the first coal port on the west coast at Oregon's Port of Morrow on the Columbia River, a review that will weigh impacts of hauling coal, not burning it.But we will get some of that coal back. The Pacific Northwest already has mercury from coal Chinese power plants in it's lakes and rivers.
Coal port skeptics say the ruling is ripe for challenge in the courts and they foresee a drawn-out fight over the review.
"I'm afraid that by choosing to perform a less stringent analysis today, the Corps will ultimately create a longer delay," Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. Wyden, who is due to lead the Energy and Natural Resources Committee if Democrats hold the Senate, has said he supports a full review of the project and is reserving judgment until it is completed.
Rise of cheap natural gas appears to be bigger threat than environmental regulation
Let me be the last in the greenosphere to note that Nanosolar has shipped its first panels, and it's no exaggeration to say that this moment will likely be seen as a historical turning point.So what is Nanosolar and what do they do different?
[.....]
Nanosolar's claim is that power from their panels will pencil out at about $0.99 a watt. The implications are pretty stunning:"With a $1-per-watt panel," [CEO Martin Roscheisen] said, "it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems."
According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. With backing from Google’s founders and $20 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, Nanosolar’s first commercial cells rolled off the presses this year.This is perhaps the greatest threat the corporate energy industry has seen. Coal was seen as the only alternative to large scale energy production. Alternatives have been far too expensive - until now. It represents an even greater threat; it can be decentralized making those thousands of mile of transmission lines unnecessary and eliminating the monopoly that electric power has been. There are no big profits in roof top electrical generation. Look for the powerful to attempt to erect roadblocks to stop it's widespread use. This represents a bigger threat to big energy than global warming.
Cost has always been one of solar’s biggest problems. Traditional solar cells require silicon, and silicon is an expensive commodity (exacerbated currently by a global silicon shortage). What’s more, says Peter Harrop, chairman of electronics consulting firm IDTechEx, “it has to be put on glass, so it’s heavy, dangerous, expensive to ship and expensive to install because it has to be mounted.” And up to 70 percent of the silicon gets wasted in the manufacturing process. That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.
Nanosolar’s cells use no silicon, and the company’s manufacturing process allows it to create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells for as little as 30 cents a watt. “You’re talking about printing rolls of the stuff—printing it on the roofs of 18-wheeler trailers, printing it on garages, printing it wherever you want it,” says Dan Kammen, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. “It really is quite a big deal in terms of altering the way we think about solar and in inherently altering the economics of solar.”
However, we have another source of domestic petroleum that has the potential to make a big difference: oil shale.There are of course several problems with oil shale production.
Oil shale is a type of rock that has a petroleum precursor called kerogen trapped inside of it. Using a variety of mechanical and chemical processes, this kergoen can be extracted and upgraded into liquid fuels like synthetic gasoline and synthetic diesel. The United States has the largest oil shale resources in the world. Most of America’s oil shale deposits are located in the undeveloped Green River Formation, which straddles Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. According to the Rand Corporation, as much as 1.1 trillion—yes, trillion— barrels of synthetic petroleum could be recovered from the Green River Formation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is four times the size of Saudi Arabia’s proved reserves of conventional oil, and approximately equal to all of the proved reserves of conventional oil on earth!
Oil shale has received little attention in recent decades, but some Americans probably remember hearing about the resource during the Arab oil embargoes. In 1980, at the height of the embargoes, the U.S. Congress created the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, which was, in part, intended to develop America’s oil shale industry. When the Synthetic Fuels Corporation was created it was incredibly expensive to squeeze petroleum out of oil shale, and the plan was to invest in research and development to pioneer cheaper methods to produce shale oil. House Majority Leader, Rep. Jim Wright of Texas, thought so highly of the bill that created the Synthetic Fuels Corporation that he described it as “the most important bill we’ll act on during this decade, beginning an initiative we should have started in the 1950s.” However, by 1985, after the Arab embargoes ended and the price of oil plummeted, the incentive to invest in oil shale plummeted as well. Nearly every oil shale project in America was abandoned. With conventional oil selling at less than $25/Bbl, why would anyone want to invest in oil shale, which looked like it would never break the $80/Bbl profitability threshold?
Over the past few years though, a few things have changed. First, the price of oil has again skyrocketed. And, unlike in the 1980s, the price of oil does not look like it will come down again. This is because the peak in global production is fast approaching while demand is surging: limited supply and higher demand can only mean higher prices. Moreover, the Persian Gulf oil powers will likely continue to inflate oil prices as their stranglehold over the petroleum market tightens. As a 2005 Citigroup report noted, “…the days of $25 oil are long gone and unlikely to return any time soon.” Governments and businesses around the world are now forecasting long-term oil prices above $40, $50, and even $60 a barrel. These could all be conservative estimates.
The second major change relevant to oil shale is that several companies operating under the radar screen have developed radically cheaper oil shale production methods over the past few years. Shell is confident that a new technology it is pioneering could produce shale oil profitably if the price of crude settles above ~$25/Bbl.
A commercial oil shale industry is projected to have a dramatic effect on Colorado’s water supplies and potentially its water quality. Water requirements for traditional mining and surface retort oil shale development are well documented, but estimates for in-situ production, which is being proposed at five sites in the Piceance Basin of Colorado, haven’t been made public. This water would have to come from a combination of Colorado’s unused share of the Colorado River– if any remains – and from existing users such as the agricultural and ranching operations.Oil shale is not a solution.
“Drought and population growth are already affecting valuable water supplies across the West,said David Atkins, an independent hydrologist with Watershed Environmental. Adding the substantial requirements for a commercial-scale oil shale industry to this mix might bring the region to the tipping point.
”Producing oil from shale uses water on site both during and after production (to cleanse the production zone after the oil has been extracted). For example, Shell recently disclosed in a permit application for its small research and demonstration site that it will have to rinse its underground production area over 20 times, requiring up to 4 acre-feet each day for over two years and resulting in massive water disposal challenges.
[.....]
The oil shale deposits of the Green River Basin lie in one of the country’s most arid regions, one whose vulnerability to drought was laid bare in the past six years. The availability of new water to meet the needs of a commercial oil-shale industry is far from certain. Decisions made about oil shale leasing today could have ramifications for the next 400 years, the period of time that western oil shale resources are expected to provide a significant portion of our nation’s energy needs.
“Hydrogen, after all, is “the most common element in the universe,” as Secretary Abraham pointed out. Since it is so plentiful, surely President Bush must be right when he promises it will be cheap. And when you use it, the waste product will be nothing but water—“environmental pollution will no longer be a concern.” Hydrogen will be abundant, cheap, and clean. Why settle for anything less?I have discussed the non-promise of hydrogen "fuel" here at MEJ in the past.
Unfortunately, it’s all pure bunk. To get serious about energy policy, America needs to abandon, once and for all, the false promise of the hydrogen age.”
“Hydrogen is only a source of energy if it can be taken in its pure form and reacted with another chemical, such as oxygen. But all the hydrogen on Earth, except that in hydrocarbons, has already been oxidized, so none of it is available as fuel. If you want to get plentiful unbound hydrogen, the closest place it can be found is on the surface of the Sun; mining this hydrogen supply would be quite a trick.
Hydrogen: We should have known that if George W. Bush is talking about it it's not a good idea. The reality is hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy transfer medium. It does not occur naturally and has to be produced by by splitting water. It requires more energy to split the water than you get back when you burn it to create energy.Monday, September 26, 2005
Make no mistake, when they talk about a hydrogen economy they are really talking about a nuclear economy. If you are alright with nukes then a hydrogen car is for you. If your not OK with nukes then hydrogen is not what will be powering your car.To be honest there are groups like, The Phoenix Project Foundation, who think they have solutions.
General Motors Corp.'s Washington spokesman, Chris Preuss, told the newspaper GM welcomes calls by other auto makers for more action on energy independence.Don't let them fool you. As I explained a couple of weeks ago:
"We believe the US needs to begin aggressive energy policy moves away from petroleum toward hydrogen," Preuss was quoted as saying. "We should diversify our energy stocks away from foreign sources."
Hydrogen: We should have known that if George W. Bush is talking about it it's not a good idea. The reality is hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy transfer medium. It does not occur naturally and has to be produced by by splitting water. It requires more energy to split the water than you get back when you burn it to create energy.Make no mistake, when they talk about a hydrogen economy they are really talking about a nuclear economy. If you are alright with nukes then a hydrogen car is for you. If your not OK with nukes then hydrogen is not what will be powering your car.
Kunstler describes the future as "the end of affluence". The old 70's hippy in me wonders if that's true. What has our "affluent" life style given us? More mental health problems, drug and alcohol addictions, broken families, living next to someone for years and not knowing them, mindless hours in front of a television set, the list goes on.We can view the upcoming changes as an opportunity for a better life or we can view it as the end of the world. I vote for better life.