Dr. Nina Pierpont describes a new trend with Wind Turbines and the trend is not positive. The article can be read here:
http://counterpunch.org/pierpont10292010.html
What she dubs is "Wind Turbine Syndrome" and seems to make people who reside within a 2kM (1.24 mi) radius of the turbine fall ill. The symptoms are:
(1) Sleep disturbance. Not simply awakened, but awakening in a panic (“flight or fight” response).
(2) Headache.
(3) Tinnitus.
(4) Ear pressure.
(5) Dizziness.
(6) Vertigo.
(7) Nausea.
(8) Visual blurring.
(9) Tachycardia.
(10) Irritability.
(11) Problems with concentration and memory.
(12) Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep. (This latter involving other, non-vestibular organs of balance, motion, and position sense.)
This is not a good sign for the establishment of Wind Turbines. It seems like they can be more apparent to surrounding populations than even high powered electric lines. This only ads a burden to the establishment of wind energy but it is still a technology worth harnessing due to the prospects of possible peak oil.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Brazil taking charge... again
http://www.energycentral.com/news/en/15337059/Brazil-puts-399-wind-farms-79-other-energy-projects-out-for-bids?
The Brazilians really are taking the lead on 21st century energy. First they utilize sugar cane to produce unsubsidized biofuels and now they are expanding other alternatives. Gotta give them a pat on the back for that.
The Brazilians really are taking the lead on 21st century energy. First they utilize sugar cane to produce unsubsidized biofuels and now they are expanding other alternatives. Gotta give them a pat on the back for that.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What is Demand Response?
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2271
This article does a great job explaining Demand Response with clarity and brevity. Demand response services firms are growing this is a potential new job market for professionals in and out of the energy field. Salesmen, computer engineers, and technicians could all potentially qualify for positions, therefore anyone in search of a job or in a field with high turnover, this short article might be enough to give you the background information on a potential new career.
This article does a great job explaining Demand Response with clarity and brevity. Demand response services firms are growing this is a potential new job market for professionals in and out of the energy field. Salesmen, computer engineers, and technicians could all potentially qualify for positions, therefore anyone in search of a job or in a field with high turnover, this short article might be enough to give you the background information on a potential new career.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Corruption in various places
This is a compelling article about corruption and money involved with going "green."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari/single
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari/single
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Geothermal: Underutilized?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html
MIT released a study on Geothermal technology that contains some startling conclusions. Using current drilling and mining technology, we can access hot spots in the Earth's crust to make steam, which will then power a electric power plant. We currently use fossil fuels to boil water for steam to spin our turbines, but this process requires no imports and has virtually no environmental impact.
The report shows that the Western part of the country has extraordinary heat potential at depths of 3 and 6.5 km and the entire country has boiling capacity at 10 km. Existing technology is capable of tapping this energy source. The report states: "By almost any criteria, the accessible U.S. EGS resource base is enormous –greater than 13 million quads or 130,000 times the current annual consumption of primary energy in the United States."
Geothermal could provide our country with enough energy to meet all our electricity needs and, assuming we could move our to a fleet of cars to all electric, our transportation needs as well.
Fascinating stuff that does not seemed to be talked about or funded.
MIT released a study on Geothermal technology that contains some startling conclusions. Using current drilling and mining technology, we can access hot spots in the Earth's crust to make steam, which will then power a electric power plant. We currently use fossil fuels to boil water for steam to spin our turbines, but this process requires no imports and has virtually no environmental impact.
The report shows that the Western part of the country has extraordinary heat potential at depths of 3 and 6.5 km and the entire country has boiling capacity at 10 km. Existing technology is capable of tapping this energy source. The report states: "By almost any criteria, the accessible U.S. EGS resource base is enormous –greater than 13 million quads or 130,000 times the current annual consumption of primary energy in the United States."
Geothermal could provide our country with enough energy to meet all our electricity needs and, assuming we could move our to a fleet of cars to all electric, our transportation needs as well.
Fascinating stuff that does not seemed to be talked about or funded.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Consumers do not know best, reduction is important
Accenture did a survey of 9,000 individuals in 22 countries pertaining to energy issues. The most striking finding of the survery was that, despite worries about limited energy supplies, climate change, and high prices, only 37% of consumers do feel that usage reduction is the answer to reducing their countries reliance on fossil fuels and "36 percent say that using less energy is the answer to reducing reliance on foreign countries providing oil and gas."
"We cannot address climate change or energy security unless we both create new sources of clean energy and reduce consumer demand," said Sander van 't Noordende, Group Chief Executive of Accenture's Resources operating group. "But our survey shows that consumers do not think lower energy use is a priority. It will take many years before renewable alternatives come fully on stream. Until they do, governments and energy companies will have to find creative ways to transform consumer habits and improve energy efficiency."
Mr. van't Noordende is absolutely correct. Excluding hyrdo, renewables are not as cheap as fossil fuels and the main reason they are playing any kind of role is subsidities and government incentives. Consumers have been spoiled by cheap energy and this gluttony must eventually come to an end. At some point renewables and alternatives to fossil fuels may suppliment our energy needs, but consumers should also renew focus on the one thing they can control REDUCTION. Reduction saves the consumer money, helps reduce strain on the grid, and will indirectly benefit the environment.
Some tips would be to hang dry your clothes during the warm days of the year. It will make them feel fresher and will not wear them down as bad as a dryer. The savings can be significant: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-to-finance-2 Some other tips can be found at: http://suncountry.myenergymatters.net/tips-home-0
*All quotes are sourced from: http://www.energycentral.com/news/en/14742520/
"We cannot address climate change or energy security unless we both create new sources of clean energy and reduce consumer demand," said Sander van 't Noordende, Group Chief Executive of Accenture's Resources operating group. "But our survey shows that consumers do not think lower energy use is a priority. It will take many years before renewable alternatives come fully on stream. Until they do, governments and energy companies will have to find creative ways to transform consumer habits and improve energy efficiency."
Mr. van't Noordende is absolutely correct. Excluding hyrdo, renewables are not as cheap as fossil fuels and the main reason they are playing any kind of role is subsidities and government incentives. Consumers have been spoiled by cheap energy and this gluttony must eventually come to an end. At some point renewables and alternatives to fossil fuels may suppliment our energy needs, but consumers should also renew focus on the one thing they can control REDUCTION. Reduction saves the consumer money, helps reduce strain on the grid, and will indirectly benefit the environment.
Some tips would be to hang dry your clothes during the warm days of the year. It will make them feel fresher and will not wear them down as bad as a dryer. The savings can be significant: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-to-finance-2 Some other tips can be found at: http://suncountry.myenergymatters.net/tips-home-0
*All quotes are sourced from: http://www.energycentral.com/news/en/14742520/
Monday, March 8, 2010
Hemp: A Weed Will Solve Our Energy and Environmental Woes?
INTRODUCTION
Jack Herer, author of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" states that "Farming only six percent of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass [from hemp] crops would provide all of America's gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence up on fossil fuels." He also adds, "Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recycling of paper [from hemp], etc., would be enough to run America virtually without oil."(1)
Jeremy Briggs writes: “Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre every four months. Enough energy could be produced on 6% of the land in the U.S. to provide enough energy for our entire country (cars, heat homes, electricity, industry) -- and we use 25% of the world's energy. To put which in perspective, right now we pay farmers not to grow on 6% (around 90 million acres) of the farming land, while another 500 million acres of marginal farmland lies fallow. This land could be used to grow hemp as an energy crop.”(2)
These are compelling words that warrent addition investigation.
HISTORY OF HEMP
“Hemp is an erect, slender, rather tender dioecious annual herb growing up to 4m tall.”(3) Hemp has been used as an idustrial crop dating back to the agricultural revolution up until it was illegalized in 1937. Cannabis, family Cannabaceae; species: Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalia, and Cannabis sativa L., has been found on every continent, excluding Anartica, and has been used by most ancient cultures. It uses were typically for the hempen fibers for fabrics, oil from the seeds, the seeds for food, a medicine, and for its narcotic properties. Hemp has ancient roots in Sumer, what is considered the first "civilized society" where it was used for clothing fabric and its oil was used in lamps. The Chinese used it heavily for medicinal purposes.(4)
History is littered with examples of leaders promoting hemp cultivation. Among others, Queen Elizabeth I of England and King Philip of Spain both issued mandates requiring its growth. In 1619, the leaders of the Jamestown colony issued a decree that all farmers to grow Indian hemp seed.(5) Later, "the General Court in 1637 at Hartford Connecticut, and the Massachusetts courts in 1639 ordered all families to plant one teaspoon of hemp seed. “that we might in time have supply of linen cloth among ourselves.”(6)
Hemp had a big place in American colonial history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both cultivators and hemp. "Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were drafted on hempen paper. Colonial women sewed soldiers’ uniforms and flags from the tough hemp fibers, and bagging, cordage, twines, ropes, and sails were all made with hemp." (7) "The rags Betsy Ross used to sew the first flag were made of hemp."(8)
Beyond lamp oil and as a substitute fuel in wood burning fires, it did not have much use as an energy source until the turn of the 20th century. That is until Henry Ford, who designed his first Model T to run on a methanol based petrol derived from hemp seeds!(9)
ILLEGALIZATION AND ASSOCIATION WITH MARIJUANIA
Hemp cultivation ceased in 1937 with the passing of the Marijuana Stamp Act. Although law did not explicitly prohibit cultivation, the law necessitated a permit, or “stamp,” to grow it. But, with the exception of a few years during World War II(10), no stamps were issued, indirectly criminalizing all cultivation. Hemp is currently classified as a drug under the Controlled Substance Act, making cultivation a federal crime.
Hemp and marijuana are related, essentially cousins but the psychotropic substance in marajunia, THC, Tetrahydrocannabinol, is virtually absent in industrial grade hemp. According to David West, Ph.D., “… THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could ever get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called anti-marijuana.”(11) Associating and criminalizing industrial hemp because of its THC content would be the equivalent of illegalizing the poppy seeds on bagels because of their opiate content.
There has been a recent movement to legalize hemp. David Monson of North Dakota, a state representative, is currently fighting an intense legal battle with the DEA in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota to become the first industrial hemp farmer in the country. North Dakota is one of seven states that have authorized industrial hemp farming. The others are Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana and West Virginia.(12) Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx) introduced HR 1009 in 2007, which would have legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp. The bill did not become law because it did make it out of committee, therefore was not even put up for a vote. (13)
Hemp advocates have alleged that the Marijuana Stamp Act was the work of lumber and cotton lobbies, which saw hemp’s ability to make paper and fabric as a threat.
HEMP AS AN ENERGY SOURCE
Hemp can be used as a biomass fuel, its oils can be used to produced biodiesel fuel for cars, as feedstock for conversion of cellulose to alcohol using the same methods we currently use with corn, and to produce methane gas using an anaerobic digester.
Hemp’s energy potential lies in it’s highly dense cellulose content. Hemp does converts carbon-dioxide into cellulose through photosynthesis faster and better than its rivals, such as corn and sugarcane.(14) This makes hemp an ideal feedstock of biomass fuels. It is also worth noting that hemp is easier to cultivate. It requires no fertilizers or pesticides and can be cultivated in a wide variety of environments, ranging from temperate to arid. The nickname “weed” for marijuana can be applied to hemp as well, because it accurately describes how easy it grows.
Biodiesel from hemp could be used to supplement oil imports used to fuel our cars. Biodiesel is made by mixing any oil or fat with an alcohol – in most cases methanol (which can be produced with the biomass from the rest of the plant) and some kind of catalyst – in most cases sodium hydroxide. Processing costs are estimated to be $0.66 per gallon, plus the cost of the oil. Total production costs of the oil are, based on calculations from 1999 study done Canada, approximately $5.20 per gallon. (15) These cost projections seem high but, unlike oil and corn-based fuels, they are not subsidized and are being done on a very small scale. Yields vary and this sample might not be vindicative of yields in the United States. In addition, there has been significant amount of research and development, as well as infrastructure growth, done in the last ten years regarding ethanol production(16), so these numbers may not reflect the current market. Further investigation is warrented.
Beyond biodiesel, hemp can provide fuel for automobiles as a feedstock for ethanol. This can be done in a variety of ways, including gasification, acid hydrolysis, or the current method used on corn which is using engineered enzymes to convert cellulose to glucose, which is then fermented to make alcohol. There are even enzymes available that convert the cellulose directly into alcohol.(17) Castleman estimates that the conversation process will cost $1.37 per gallon plus the cost of the feedstock. Again, this is using numbers and projections that are approximately ten years old. Beyond supplementing oil imports, ethanol fuel helps engines burn cleaner.
Gasification, an emerging technology could yield even better results “produce ethanol and/or methanol from the cubed biomass, or to make high-octane lead-free gasoline from the methanol using a catalytic process developed by Georgia Tech University in conjunction with Mobil Oil Corporation.”(18)
Hemp, through the process, can play a large role as a fuel source, beyond a substitute for gas, through the process of Pryolysis. Pryolysis is the application of heat to biomass with little or no air. It chars the organic matter without burning it. This is how we currently make charcoal out of wood. Through this process, hemp charcoal could supplement coal. Hemp coal would have cleaner emissions with no sulfur and less toxic ash. The charcoal is also close to mined coal in terms of BTU content. The process can also produce gasoline, ethanol, non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, aceton, methane, and methanol.(19)
These are methods we are aware of to produce fuel from hemp.
HEMP’S ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL AND OTHER USES
Using hemp as a feedstock for fuel could solve the problem of excessive carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. Hemp could possibly produces enough oxygen throughout its growing season to counterbalance all the carbon dioxide it will later put into the atmosphere when burned as fuel. It could be the closest fuel source available, beyond hydro, solar, wind, and tide, that is essentially carbon-neutral. I do not have any studies to substantiate that claim, but it would be a great idea for a scientific study.
Our current farming techniques for our main monoculture crops, such as corn, require a significant amount of fertilizers and pesticides. This has created a environment crisis because the fertilizers and pesiticides have made there way into our water stream, particularly the Mississippi River. It has also led to siginifcant erosion of the top soil, threatening our bread basket. This is further detailed in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
Hemp requires no fertilizers and pesticides. It also has a deep root structure that decays and fertilizes the soil naturally when it is cut. It’s deep roots protect anchor the top soil and hemp has shown that it can remove heavy metals for the soil as well! It can monoculture or serve as an excellent rotation crop.(20)
Beyond fuel, hemp has a variety of other uses that could benefit the consumer and the environment. It can reduce deforestation because it can be manufactured into biodegradable paper. It can be manufactured in various plastics and industrial grade fiberglass, both of which are biodegradable as well. Hemp is currently in imported building material and plastics used in millions of cars today.(21) Also worth noting, biodiesel from hemp is biodegradable as well in the event of a spill. It’s can oils also have nutritional value and can be used to make organic foods. Hemp can also be used to make fabric for clothing, sails, bags, etc. It’s cultivation is better for the environment than cotton and its fibers have shown to be more durable.(22)
CONCLUSION
Hemp production shows great promise as a fuel source as well as a feedstock for other valuable goods. Beyond providing the potential for energy independence it could also serve as a solution for several environmental problems.
However, the stigmatation surrounding it is preventing scientists, farmers, and industrialists from giving us a full view of its potential. Nothing but good could come from the legalization of industrial hemp and I would urge all US citizens to let your representatives know you feel the same way.
Sources*:
1. John Fennucio, “Hemp seen as fuel substitute,” The Massachusetts Daily Collegian September 20, 2005. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2005/September/hemp-seen-as-fuel.html (Accessed March 5, 2010)
2. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
3. “Hemp, ” Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, Found at: http://www.ienica.net/crops/hemp.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2010)
4. "Hemp History," Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/History/hemp_history.html (Accessed March 8, 2010)
5. "Marijuana Timeline" Found at: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm (Accessed March 8, 2010)
6. "Hemp History," Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/History/hemp_history.html (Accessed March 8, 2010)
7. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
8. Buck Wolf, “High on Hemp: America’s most controversial crop may one day fill supermarkets and fuel automobiles” Australian Broadcasting Corporation April 21, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/high_on_hemp.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
9. Pamela Sossi, “Cannabis for Fuel,” Opinion Editorials April 19, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/cannabis_for_fuel.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
10. Brian Tschiegg, “Government should look toward hemp as a viable alternative fuel,” The Retriever Weekly Vol. 44 Issue 19 . Found at: http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=3867 (Accessed March 9, 2010)
11. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
12. Susanne Retka Schill, “U.S. industrial hemp development continues,” Biomass Magazine November 20,2008 Found at: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2230&q=hemp (Accessed March 8, 2010)
13. Govtrack.us “H.R. 1009: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007.” Found at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1009 (Accessed March 9, 2010)
14. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
15. Tim Castleman, “Hemp Biomass for Energy,” Fuel and Fiber Company, 2001. Found at: http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
16. “Promising Biofuel Made From Commercial Yeasts Upgraded With A New Enzyme,” Science Daily March 9, 2009. Found at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224230751.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
17. Tim Castleman, “Hemp Biomass for Energy,” Fuel and Fiber Company, 2001. Found at: http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
18. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
19. Ibid
20. “Hemp, ” Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, Found at: http://www.ienica.net/crops/hemp.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2010)
21. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
22. Pamela Sossi, “Cannabis for Fuel,” Opinion Editorials April 19, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/cannabis_for_fuel.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
*Many of my sources lack empirical evidence for their claims. But I cannot blame them. Because it is criminalized, good research is all but impossible.
Jack Herer, author of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" states that "Farming only six percent of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass [from hemp] crops would provide all of America's gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence up on fossil fuels." He also adds, "Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recycling of paper [from hemp], etc., would be enough to run America virtually without oil."(1)
Jeremy Briggs writes: “Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre every four months. Enough energy could be produced on 6% of the land in the U.S. to provide enough energy for our entire country (cars, heat homes, electricity, industry) -- and we use 25% of the world's energy. To put which in perspective, right now we pay farmers not to grow on 6% (around 90 million acres) of the farming land, while another 500 million acres of marginal farmland lies fallow. This land could be used to grow hemp as an energy crop.”(2)
These are compelling words that warrent addition investigation.
HISTORY OF HEMP
“Hemp is an erect, slender, rather tender dioecious annual herb growing up to 4m tall.”(3) Hemp has been used as an idustrial crop dating back to the agricultural revolution up until it was illegalized in 1937. Cannabis, family Cannabaceae; species: Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalia, and Cannabis sativa L., has been found on every continent, excluding Anartica, and has been used by most ancient cultures. It uses were typically for the hempen fibers for fabrics, oil from the seeds, the seeds for food, a medicine, and for its narcotic properties. Hemp has ancient roots in Sumer, what is considered the first "civilized society" where it was used for clothing fabric and its oil was used in lamps. The Chinese used it heavily for medicinal purposes.(4)
History is littered with examples of leaders promoting hemp cultivation. Among others, Queen Elizabeth I of England and King Philip of Spain both issued mandates requiring its growth. In 1619, the leaders of the Jamestown colony issued a decree that all farmers to grow Indian hemp seed.(5) Later, "the General Court in 1637 at Hartford Connecticut, and the Massachusetts courts in 1639 ordered all families to plant one teaspoon of hemp seed. “that we might in time have supply of linen cloth among ourselves.”(6)
Hemp had a big place in American colonial history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both cultivators and hemp. "Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were drafted on hempen paper. Colonial women sewed soldiers’ uniforms and flags from the tough hemp fibers, and bagging, cordage, twines, ropes, and sails were all made with hemp." (7) "The rags Betsy Ross used to sew the first flag were made of hemp."(8)
Beyond lamp oil and as a substitute fuel in wood burning fires, it did not have much use as an energy source until the turn of the 20th century. That is until Henry Ford, who designed his first Model T to run on a methanol based petrol derived from hemp seeds!(9)
ILLEGALIZATION AND ASSOCIATION WITH MARIJUANIA
Hemp cultivation ceased in 1937 with the passing of the Marijuana Stamp Act. Although law did not explicitly prohibit cultivation, the law necessitated a permit, or “stamp,” to grow it. But, with the exception of a few years during World War II(10), no stamps were issued, indirectly criminalizing all cultivation. Hemp is currently classified as a drug under the Controlled Substance Act, making cultivation a federal crime.
Hemp and marijuana are related, essentially cousins but the psychotropic substance in marajunia, THC, Tetrahydrocannabinol, is virtually absent in industrial grade hemp. According to David West, Ph.D., “… THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could ever get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called anti-marijuana.”(11) Associating and criminalizing industrial hemp because of its THC content would be the equivalent of illegalizing the poppy seeds on bagels because of their opiate content.
There has been a recent movement to legalize hemp. David Monson of North Dakota, a state representative, is currently fighting an intense legal battle with the DEA in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota to become the first industrial hemp farmer in the country. North Dakota is one of seven states that have authorized industrial hemp farming. The others are Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana and West Virginia.(12) Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx) introduced HR 1009 in 2007, which would have legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp. The bill did not become law because it did make it out of committee, therefore was not even put up for a vote. (13)
Hemp advocates have alleged that the Marijuana Stamp Act was the work of lumber and cotton lobbies, which saw hemp’s ability to make paper and fabric as a threat.
HEMP AS AN ENERGY SOURCE
Hemp can be used as a biomass fuel, its oils can be used to produced biodiesel fuel for cars, as feedstock for conversion of cellulose to alcohol using the same methods we currently use with corn, and to produce methane gas using an anaerobic digester.
Hemp’s energy potential lies in it’s highly dense cellulose content. Hemp does converts carbon-dioxide into cellulose through photosynthesis faster and better than its rivals, such as corn and sugarcane.(14) This makes hemp an ideal feedstock of biomass fuels. It is also worth noting that hemp is easier to cultivate. It requires no fertilizers or pesticides and can be cultivated in a wide variety of environments, ranging from temperate to arid. The nickname “weed” for marijuana can be applied to hemp as well, because it accurately describes how easy it grows.
Biodiesel from hemp could be used to supplement oil imports used to fuel our cars. Biodiesel is made by mixing any oil or fat with an alcohol – in most cases methanol (which can be produced with the biomass from the rest of the plant) and some kind of catalyst – in most cases sodium hydroxide. Processing costs are estimated to be $0.66 per gallon, plus the cost of the oil. Total production costs of the oil are, based on calculations from 1999 study done Canada, approximately $5.20 per gallon. (15) These cost projections seem high but, unlike oil and corn-based fuels, they are not subsidized and are being done on a very small scale. Yields vary and this sample might not be vindicative of yields in the United States. In addition, there has been significant amount of research and development, as well as infrastructure growth, done in the last ten years regarding ethanol production(16), so these numbers may not reflect the current market. Further investigation is warrented.
Beyond biodiesel, hemp can provide fuel for automobiles as a feedstock for ethanol. This can be done in a variety of ways, including gasification, acid hydrolysis, or the current method used on corn which is using engineered enzymes to convert cellulose to glucose, which is then fermented to make alcohol. There are even enzymes available that convert the cellulose directly into alcohol.(17) Castleman estimates that the conversation process will cost $1.37 per gallon plus the cost of the feedstock. Again, this is using numbers and projections that are approximately ten years old. Beyond supplementing oil imports, ethanol fuel helps engines burn cleaner.
Gasification, an emerging technology could yield even better results “produce ethanol and/or methanol from the cubed biomass, or to make high-octane lead-free gasoline from the methanol using a catalytic process developed by Georgia Tech University in conjunction with Mobil Oil Corporation.”(18)
Hemp, through the process, can play a large role as a fuel source, beyond a substitute for gas, through the process of Pryolysis. Pryolysis is the application of heat to biomass with little or no air. It chars the organic matter without burning it. This is how we currently make charcoal out of wood. Through this process, hemp charcoal could supplement coal. Hemp coal would have cleaner emissions with no sulfur and less toxic ash. The charcoal is also close to mined coal in terms of BTU content. The process can also produce gasoline, ethanol, non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, aceton, methane, and methanol.(19)
These are methods we are aware of to produce fuel from hemp.
HEMP’S ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL AND OTHER USES
Using hemp as a feedstock for fuel could solve the problem of excessive carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. Hemp could possibly produces enough oxygen throughout its growing season to counterbalance all the carbon dioxide it will later put into the atmosphere when burned as fuel. It could be the closest fuel source available, beyond hydro, solar, wind, and tide, that is essentially carbon-neutral. I do not have any studies to substantiate that claim, but it would be a great idea for a scientific study.
Our current farming techniques for our main monoculture crops, such as corn, require a significant amount of fertilizers and pesticides. This has created a environment crisis because the fertilizers and pesiticides have made there way into our water stream, particularly the Mississippi River. It has also led to siginifcant erosion of the top soil, threatening our bread basket. This is further detailed in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
Hemp requires no fertilizers and pesticides. It also has a deep root structure that decays and fertilizes the soil naturally when it is cut. It’s deep roots protect anchor the top soil and hemp has shown that it can remove heavy metals for the soil as well! It can monoculture or serve as an excellent rotation crop.(20)
Beyond fuel, hemp has a variety of other uses that could benefit the consumer and the environment. It can reduce deforestation because it can be manufactured into biodegradable paper. It can be manufactured in various plastics and industrial grade fiberglass, both of which are biodegradable as well. Hemp is currently in imported building material and plastics used in millions of cars today.(21) Also worth noting, biodiesel from hemp is biodegradable as well in the event of a spill. It’s can oils also have nutritional value and can be used to make organic foods. Hemp can also be used to make fabric for clothing, sails, bags, etc. It’s cultivation is better for the environment than cotton and its fibers have shown to be more durable.(22)
CONCLUSION
Hemp production shows great promise as a fuel source as well as a feedstock for other valuable goods. Beyond providing the potential for energy independence it could also serve as a solution for several environmental problems.
However, the stigmatation surrounding it is preventing scientists, farmers, and industrialists from giving us a full view of its potential. Nothing but good could come from the legalization of industrial hemp and I would urge all US citizens to let your representatives know you feel the same way.
Sources*:
1. John Fennucio, “Hemp seen as fuel substitute,” The Massachusetts Daily Collegian September 20, 2005. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2005/September/hemp-seen-as-fuel.html (Accessed March 5, 2010)
2. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
3. “Hemp, ” Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, Found at: http://www.ienica.net/crops/hemp.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2010)
4. "Hemp History," Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/History/hemp_history.html (Accessed March 8, 2010)
5. "Marijuana Timeline" Found at: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj004.htm (Accessed March 8, 2010)
6. "Hemp History," Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/History/hemp_history.html (Accessed March 8, 2010)
7. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
8. Buck Wolf, “High on Hemp: America’s most controversial crop may one day fill supermarkets and fuel automobiles” Australian Broadcasting Corporation April 21, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/high_on_hemp.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
9. Pamela Sossi, “Cannabis for Fuel,” Opinion Editorials April 19, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/cannabis_for_fuel.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
10. Brian Tschiegg, “Government should look toward hemp as a viable alternative fuel,” The Retriever Weekly Vol. 44 Issue 19 . Found at: http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=3867 (Accessed March 9, 2010)
11. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
12. Susanne Retka Schill, “U.S. industrial hemp development continues,” Biomass Magazine November 20,2008 Found at: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2230&q=hemp (Accessed March 8, 2010)
13. Govtrack.us “H.R. 1009: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007.” Found at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1009 (Accessed March 9, 2010)
14. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
15. Tim Castleman, “Hemp Biomass for Energy,” Fuel and Fiber Company, 2001. Found at: http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
16. “Promising Biofuel Made From Commercial Yeasts Upgraded With A New Enzyme,” Science Daily March 9, 2009. Found at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224230751.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
17. Tim Castleman, “Hemp Biomass for Energy,” Fuel and Fiber Company, 2001. Found at: http://fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRGRV3.htm (Accessed March 9, 2010)
18. Jeremy Briggs, “Hemp as a Fuel/Energy Source,” Radio Free Exile, May 21, 2009. Found at: http://exileguy-exileguy.blogspot.com/2009/05/hemp-as-fuel-energy-source.html (Accessed March 9, 2010)
19. Ibid
20. “Hemp, ” Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, Found at: http://www.ienica.net/crops/hemp.pdf (Accessed March 9, 2010)
21. “Dennis Kucinich on Industrial Hemp,” Kucinich for President, Inc. February 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/February/dennis_kucinich.php (accessed March 8, 2010)
22. Pamela Sossi, “Cannabis for Fuel,” Opinion Editorials April 19, 2004. Found at: http://www.globalhemp.com/News/2004/April/cannabis_for_fuel.php (Accessed March 8, 2010)
*Many of my sources lack empirical evidence for their claims. But I cannot blame them. Because it is criminalized, good research is all but impossible.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
MXI's Ethanol Production: The Greatest Renewable Energy Source
I must being this post with a disclaimer. MXI was founded and grown by my father and I currently work for him. While some can call this essentially a fluff piece about our company, I'm very proud of our distillation program and am honored to rave about it.
Our company takes waste streams containing alcohol, such a beer, wine, perfume, and mouth wash, captures the alcohol and refines it into FUEL GRADE ETHANOL. We take trash, most of which would be poured down a drain (like beer and wine) or incinerated, and turn it into a viable, DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED, fuel source. Unlike corn-based ethanol (which some researchers claim the processes uses more than 1 gallon of gas for each gallon of ethanol create) ours does not come at the expense of food production. We are recycling waste in a way never done before and prodiving our country with an additional stream of fuel production; something it needs desperately.
MXI began as a trucking company that specialized in transporting hazardous waste. In the mid-90's MXI began to diversify in the environmental management field which eventually led to the creation of the sister company MXI Environmental. MXI Environmental began recieving significant amounts of alcohol-based waste, mostly perfume, which it processed for disposal. But CEO Ron Potter saw more than just waste being prepared for incineration. "I saw all this alcohol in this perfume being thrown away, which, in my eyes, was a waste and a shame. I knew there was a way to use it and I knew there was a market developing for it. So I began to read about the process of distillation and started my journey to find a way to make it happen."
MXI began building a distillation column in early 2001 and was operation by September of that year. The column itself was purchased from a former distiller of rum in Puerto Rico. Tony Skeen, at the time local contractor who specialized in metalwork, was hired to install the distillation column and develop the complex piping system necessary to run it. After completion Tony was hired as the Head of Operations for the Ethanol Division. "After finishing the column I was hoping I could play some king of role, in maintainence or anywhere, because I thought this was such an innovative idea. I wanted to be a part of it. So, needless to say, I was floored when Ron asked me to oversee it."
The initial column had the capacity to produce 4000 gallons of 190 proof ethanol per day. That was initially sold to a refinery which processed it into fuel grade ethanol.
Despite some initially obstacles, Mr. Skeen had the column processing ethanol faster than we could find usable waste streams within two years of completing the project. "Every year we increased production until finally we were doing too well. When Ron told us we needed to cut back, I told him to get off the phone with me and find some more alcohol-based waste! So, after a 1 day stint on unemployment, Ron hired me back again!" But that's exactly what MXI did.
In 2005, MXI purchased a piece of equipment called a Molecular Sieve, a machine capable of processing our ethanol into 200 proof fuel grade ethanol. In 2007 a new column purchased and installed that more than doubled capacity to 8600 gallons of ethanol per day.
Today we are capable of holdings 112,000 gallons of raw material and 26,000 gallons of 200 proof storage. Our ethanol is sold to Wawa's fuel division, amongst others.
Not only is this a great way to domestically produce fuel, it is also a service to our customer. Since we use their waste as a fuel source, they are subject to large tax incentives and less regulatory hassles.
We are currently close to reaching our goal of operating at full capacity and we are excited about the future of what is in store for our Ethanol Division.
UPDATE: The calculations for our Hydrogen Fuel Cell question is in the process of being worked out.
Check out the site next week. I will be profiling Hemp and hemp oil a potential energy source!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Military's New Energy Paradigm: Energy Security
My work with E Source entailed preparing a document to help utility account managers better serve military bases. During my research I found a widely read new document that has changed the way the military views energy. The Defense Science Board's 2008 report directly challenged the integrity of the U.S.-Canadian electric grid, citing "its design metric is efficiency more than resiliency. As a consequence, it is vulnerable to natural disaster or deliberate attack." The report cites the Northeast blackout of August 2003 as the best example of its ability to be compromised, asserting that "the incident highlights how easily the grid could be taken down."
This has framed energy in a new light for the military. "Energy Security" is the term used to describe the military's energy needs. The Army has created a list of five energy security goals:
• Reduced energy consumption
• Increased energy efficiency across platforms and facilities
• Increased use of renewable and alternative energy
• Assured access to sufficient energy supplies
• Reduced adverse environmental effects
Generally, energy security constitutes meeting the energy needs of the military with optimal reliability and minimal footprint. However those in military circles, particularly the Army, have taken it to a new level with a concept popularly known as "islanding." "Islanding" is the ability of a military base to disconnect from the grid and self-sustain its own energy needs, usually through renewable generation that does not require fuel imports. The concept of "islanding" has grown in popularity and we have already seen the beginnings of its implementation.
The Army has set a goal of islanding 25 bases. The best example for the Army’s drive towards islanding is taking place at Fort Irwin, California. Located in the Mojave Desert, the army is building a 500 MW solar array that will be capable of meeting all its energy needs.
Renewables are not without their shortcomings. Wind and Solar, the two most popular, are dependent on uncontrollable factors, like the availability and consistency of wind and sunlight. Total reliance on these technologies has troubled some base officials, particularly with regards to the backup generation systems necessary to temper wildly changing loads.
So energy security has an inherit paradox. The appeal of islanding is alluring, however base commanders are not willing to sacrifice operational readiness to fit in unreliable technology.
Heads of large utilities have welcomed these developments with mixed enthusiasm. Although large renewable projects are exciting, increasing efficiency with small cost effective methods should come first. But the military is serving as a launching pad for innovative, large scale renewable projects.
UPDATE: Last Friday I had an excellent meeting with Dr. Chen of JMU regarding oxygen depletion. Dr. Chen and I are both working on the calculations necessary to make the various forecast necessary for a concrete conclusion. I will keep my loyal audience updated on this issue on a consistent basis.
This has framed energy in a new light for the military. "Energy Security" is the term used to describe the military's energy needs. The Army has created a list of five energy security goals:
• Reduced energy consumption
• Increased energy efficiency across platforms and facilities
• Increased use of renewable and alternative energy
• Assured access to sufficient energy supplies
• Reduced adverse environmental effects
Generally, energy security constitutes meeting the energy needs of the military with optimal reliability and minimal footprint. However those in military circles, particularly the Army, have taken it to a new level with a concept popularly known as "islanding." "Islanding" is the ability of a military base to disconnect from the grid and self-sustain its own energy needs, usually through renewable generation that does not require fuel imports. The concept of "islanding" has grown in popularity and we have already seen the beginnings of its implementation.
The Army has set a goal of islanding 25 bases. The best example for the Army’s drive towards islanding is taking place at Fort Irwin, California. Located in the Mojave Desert, the army is building a 500 MW solar array that will be capable of meeting all its energy needs.
Renewables are not without their shortcomings. Wind and Solar, the two most popular, are dependent on uncontrollable factors, like the availability and consistency of wind and sunlight. Total reliance on these technologies has troubled some base officials, particularly with regards to the backup generation systems necessary to temper wildly changing loads.
So energy security has an inherit paradox. The appeal of islanding is alluring, however base commanders are not willing to sacrifice operational readiness to fit in unreliable technology.
Heads of large utilities have welcomed these developments with mixed enthusiasm. Although large renewable projects are exciting, increasing efficiency with small cost effective methods should come first. But the military is serving as a launching pad for innovative, large scale renewable projects.
UPDATE: Last Friday I had an excellent meeting with Dr. Chen of JMU regarding oxygen depletion. Dr. Chen and I are both working on the calculations necessary to make the various forecast necessary for a concrete conclusion. I will keep my loyal audience updated on this issue on a consistent basis.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Off Topic: Common Computer Problem
http://theosmblog.com/2009/06/16/solve-stacsv64-processor-usage-problem/
Is your laptop or computer running slow? Check out this link. There is a common, and unneccessary application, that is taking up most of your usage memory. Check this out.
My next piece will appear on Monday! Today I have an interview planned today with Physicist, energy expert, and JMU professor Dr. Tony Chen. Have a good weekend everybody!
Is your laptop or computer running slow? Check out this link. There is a common, and unneccessary application, that is taking up most of your usage memory. Check this out.
My next piece will appear on Monday! Today I have an interview planned today with Physicist, energy expert, and JMU professor Dr. Tony Chen. Have a good weekend everybody!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
New Fuel Cell: NYT Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/energy-environment/24bloom.html?em
Bloom Energy claims to have developed a fuel cell that, using natural gas, can produce electricity at 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt-hr. That is a competitive price for electricity. However, no mention of oxygen depletion in this article.
With this announcement fuel cells have taken a big step to becoming more mainstream. Excessive oxygen depletion must be investigated before this technology is adapted on a mass scale.
Bloom Energy claims to have developed a fuel cell that, using natural gas, can produce electricity at 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt-hr. That is a competitive price for electricity. However, no mention of oxygen depletion in this article.
With this announcement fuel cells have taken a big step to becoming more mainstream. Excessive oxygen depletion must be investigated before this technology is adapted on a mass scale.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Part 1: A Breath of Fresh Air or Lack Thereof?
Hydrogen fuel cells come across as a miracle technology. This box, or fuel cell, that can take hydrogen gas (usually from methanol) and take oxygen from the ambient air and produce nothing but electricity and water? A battery that runs on air sounds too good to be true. Promoters of the technology always note that since, ideally, there is no carbon involved in the reaction, there is a way we can engineer fuel cells to produce no carbon based emissions. However, whenever the industry talks about fuel cells there is never any mention of oxygen, a key part of the reaction and key part of sustaining human life. How much oxygen will be necessary to produce the amount of electricity we need? Technology like fuel cells seem like a breath of fresh air, but will it rob us of all the fresh air we have?
Hydrogen fuel cells were invented in 1839 but, until recently, could never put out enough electricity to have any practical use. Our government and academics have put their weight behind this technology and made it part of our country's comprehensive energy strategy. The U.S. government has dedicated over a billion dollars towards research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made a goal of developing "practical" fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Beyond cars, scientists and academics have envisioned using fuel cells in a variety to ways, ranging from large scale power plants to a replacement for laptop batteries.
I'm going to directly quote Mary Bellis of about.com to give a brief technical description of how the basic hydrogen fuel cell works: "The hydrogen fuel cell operates similar to a battery. It has two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other. The hydrogen reacts to a catalyst on the electrode anode that converts the hydrogen gas into negatively charged electrons (e-) and positively charged ions (H+). The electrons flow out of the cell to be used as electrical energy. The hydrogen ions move through the electrolyte membrane to the cathode electrode where they combine with oxygen and the electrons to produce water."(found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/ss/Physics_Illustr_2.htm)
A key aspect here is that the mechanism takes breathable oxygen from the ambient air and, after it processes it, comes away with water and free flowing electrons. Is this oxygen a problem? By the lack of discussion one would assume not. But not according to former Harvard physicist Dr. Ruggero Santilli who writes "hydrogen combustion implies the permanent removal from our atmosphere of directly usable oxygen, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the combustion turns oxygen into water whose separation to restore the original oxygen is prohibitive due to cost. We then show that a conceivable global use of hydrogen in complete replacement of fossil fuels would imply the permanent removal from our atmosphere of 2.8875x10^7 metric tons of oxygen per day."
Dr. Santilli's claims warrent additional investigation. This concern certainly makes logical sense. The amount of oxygen necessary would be incredible given that the energy stored within the bond of two hydrogen atoms is not large by any means. I will be addressing this concern throughout this series.
Another question that should be addressed is the necesity of oxygen in the process. If the Anode Catalyst seperates the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom and then sends the electron on its merry way as a current to begin with, why do we even need the oxygen?
By converting molecules and atoms in our air into water, we are going to be concentrating our air into water. Could this create problems by essentially taking air out of our atmosphere? With prolonged use, could it possibly effect atmospheric pressure?
I invite comments and questions regarding this issue. This technology is being pushed as part of the solution to our reliance on non-renewable energy resources. But is the solution worse than the problem? Lets find out!
Hydrogen fuel cells were invented in 1839 but, until recently, could never put out enough electricity to have any practical use. Our government and academics have put their weight behind this technology and made it part of our country's comprehensive energy strategy. The U.S. government has dedicated over a billion dollars towards research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made a goal of developing "practical" fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Beyond cars, scientists and academics have envisioned using fuel cells in a variety to ways, ranging from large scale power plants to a replacement for laptop batteries.
I'm going to directly quote Mary Bellis of about.com to give a brief technical description of how the basic hydrogen fuel cell works: "The hydrogen fuel cell operates similar to a battery. It has two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other. The hydrogen reacts to a catalyst on the electrode anode that converts the hydrogen gas into negatively charged electrons (e-) and positively charged ions (H+). The electrons flow out of the cell to be used as electrical energy. The hydrogen ions move through the electrolyte membrane to the cathode electrode where they combine with oxygen and the electrons to produce water."(found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/ss/Physics_Illustr_2.htm)
A key aspect here is that the mechanism takes breathable oxygen from the ambient air and, after it processes it, comes away with water and free flowing electrons. Is this oxygen a problem? By the lack of discussion one would assume not. But not according to former Harvard physicist Dr. Ruggero Santilli who writes "hydrogen combustion implies the permanent removal from our atmosphere of directly usable oxygen, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the combustion turns oxygen into water whose separation to restore the original oxygen is prohibitive due to cost. We then show that a conceivable global use of hydrogen in complete replacement of fossil fuels would imply the permanent removal from our atmosphere of 2.8875x10^7 metric tons of oxygen per day."
Dr. Santilli's claims warrent additional investigation. This concern certainly makes logical sense. The amount of oxygen necessary would be incredible given that the energy stored within the bond of two hydrogen atoms is not large by any means. I will be addressing this concern throughout this series.
Another question that should be addressed is the necesity of oxygen in the process. If the Anode Catalyst seperates the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom and then sends the electron on its merry way as a current to begin with, why do we even need the oxygen?
By converting molecules and atoms in our air into water, we are going to be concentrating our air into water. Could this create problems by essentially taking air out of our atmosphere? With prolonged use, could it possibly effect atmospheric pressure?
I invite comments and questions regarding this issue. This technology is being pushed as part of the solution to our reliance on non-renewable energy resources. But is the solution worse than the problem? Lets find out!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Nuclear Energy: Does It Make Economic Sense?
On February 16th, President Obama announced that the federal government would guarantee a loan of $8.3 billion to build two nuclear power plants in Georgia. This is the first time new nuclear power plants would be built in the United States since the 1970's. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html) According to the New York Times article the government takes on all the risk. If the plants operate profitably, they will pay back their creditors, most likely banks, and pay the federal government a fee for guaranteeing the loans. If the plants default, the federal government will repay the creditors with taxpayer money.
President Obama cites nuclear energy as part of his comprehensive energy strategy because it will create jobs, does not require imported fuel, and is "clean" source of energy because it produces no carbon emissions. Opponents to the idea argue that the nuclear waste creates greater environmental hazard. Regardless of the environmental impacts, is the fact that federal loan guarantees are necessary for construction a sign that nuclear energy does not make economic sense?
The answer is no according to a paper produced by Citibank titled "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No." (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308) The report cites five major risks that all parties involved must confront. According to the IPS report, "these risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning." Power price seemed to be of primary concern in the report. The paper cites a case in Britain where the price needed to sustain the plant reached that point only 20 out of 115 months. According to the paper, "It was a sudden drop in power prices that drove British Energy to the brink of bankruptcy in 2003."
There are several other contributing factors, such as construction, decommissioning, and liability in the case of an accident. But for the sake of time, I refer interested parties to the link provided above. However, the Citibank paper concludes that without government assistance, or taxpayers money, there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built … by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
So if nuclear power is not sustainable economically, is it a viable technology? A pure capitalist would have to say no. However, the government has more to think about than pure profit. The energy market currently has the potential for extreme volatility. Our demand is in right in line with production, meaning if the supply is disrupted we have no alternative but huge price spikes or rationing. Domestic natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, have already shown how susceptible energy markets are. Potential geopolitical strife around key energy resources and trade routes could also violently disrupt energy markets, tension with Tehran being the most glaring example.
Is assisting private developers a smart way the United States government to guarantee itself energy security? Even if the government loses money, is that capacity valuable as a source of energy "insurance?"
The United States government needs to be very careful how it spends taxpayer money. Recently polls suggest trust in the government is at an all time low, with only 21% believing the government is serving the interests of the people. These numbers probably rival the approval colonials would give the English government in the 18th century. Therefore, investing in nuclear energy in this manner has its risks regardless of what happens. The current model seems to put the government in a lose lose situation. If the government has to pay for defaulted plants, those investors do not lose, the taxpayer does. If the plants succeed and profit, then the government does not really get any direct benefits, the investors do. The only benefit to the government would be if those plants guaranteed service to key assets like hospitals and military installations in the case of a full fledged energy catastrophe. I am not sure that is the case at this point.
Our best option would be to start simple by focusing on energy efficiency and reduction. The smaller the better. I recently made a rack outside to air dry my clothes this summer. These small gestures can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, that won't happen en mass without a spike in energy prices.
Regardless, I found this article to be quite insightful and am happy to share it in my first post.
President Obama cites nuclear energy as part of his comprehensive energy strategy because it will create jobs, does not require imported fuel, and is "clean" source of energy because it produces no carbon emissions. Opponents to the idea argue that the nuclear waste creates greater environmental hazard. Regardless of the environmental impacts, is the fact that federal loan guarantees are necessary for construction a sign that nuclear energy does not make economic sense?
The answer is no according to a paper produced by Citibank titled "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No." (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308) The report cites five major risks that all parties involved must confront. According to the IPS report, "these risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning." Power price seemed to be of primary concern in the report. The paper cites a case in Britain where the price needed to sustain the plant reached that point only 20 out of 115 months. According to the paper, "It was a sudden drop in power prices that drove British Energy to the brink of bankruptcy in 2003."
There are several other contributing factors, such as construction, decommissioning, and liability in the case of an accident. But for the sake of time, I refer interested parties to the link provided above. However, the Citibank paper concludes that without government assistance, or taxpayers money, there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built … by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
So if nuclear power is not sustainable economically, is it a viable technology? A pure capitalist would have to say no. However, the government has more to think about than pure profit. The energy market currently has the potential for extreme volatility. Our demand is in right in line with production, meaning if the supply is disrupted we have no alternative but huge price spikes or rationing. Domestic natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, have already shown how susceptible energy markets are. Potential geopolitical strife around key energy resources and trade routes could also violently disrupt energy markets, tension with Tehran being the most glaring example.
Is assisting private developers a smart way the United States government to guarantee itself energy security? Even if the government loses money, is that capacity valuable as a source of energy "insurance?"
The United States government needs to be very careful how it spends taxpayer money. Recently polls suggest trust in the government is at an all time low, with only 21% believing the government is serving the interests of the people. These numbers probably rival the approval colonials would give the English government in the 18th century. Therefore, investing in nuclear energy in this manner has its risks regardless of what happens. The current model seems to put the government in a lose lose situation. If the government has to pay for defaulted plants, those investors do not lose, the taxpayer does. If the plants succeed and profit, then the government does not really get any direct benefits, the investors do. The only benefit to the government would be if those plants guaranteed service to key assets like hospitals and military installations in the case of a full fledged energy catastrophe. I am not sure that is the case at this point.
Our best option would be to start simple by focusing on energy efficiency and reduction. The smaller the better. I recently made a rack outside to air dry my clothes this summer. These small gestures can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, that won't happen en mass without a spike in energy prices.
Regardless, I found this article to be quite insightful and am happy to share it in my first post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
