Florida's renewable energy efforts have gone nowhere
The planned Babcock Ranch project near Fort Myers is trying to become the first completely solar-powered city.
Photo BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
« Previous Page 2 of 2
''He did a masterful job,'' said Gaston Cantens of Florida Crystals. ``Not everyone liked everything in it, but it had just enough of what people wanted so nobody was really upset.''
The bill stalled in the House. ''This session was so weird, with the speaker's indictment and the budget crisis,'' said Glickman, referring to charges brought against Rep. Ray Sansom for getting the Legislature to approve a $6 million hangar for a buddy.
The new House leadership was somewhat disorganized and not at all enthusiastic about renewables. ''I think it was disingenuous for the House to act like this was a new area,'' said Glickman, considering that the Legislature had asked the PSC to return with a recommendation. But they'd say, 'The House doesn't have any appetite for this.' 'We did energy last year.' ''
Ultimately, House leaders added off-shore drilling to an energy bill, guaranteeing that environmentalists would oppose it. ''On the last day of the session, the governor physically came down to the House and pushed very hard'' for a renewables bill, said Glickman.
Some environmentalists have questioned Crist's commitment. The popular governor had gained a lot of publicity for demanding more fuel efficient cars -- a concept that didn't even make it out of committee. Then his backing of urging of renewables led to nothing.
Glickman said Crist shouldn't be faulted for that. ``I think the governor continues to deserve an enormous amount of credit. He fought back.''
Meanwhile, FPL tried a separate maneuver, attaching a rider to a large spending bill that would have given it full cost recovery for several of its solar projects, including the world's largest photovoltaic power plant for the new city of Babcock Ranch, 17,000 acres near Fort Myers.
FPL supports solar projects as long as its costs can be completely recovered from its customers. It has three solar projects already under way because of an earlier arrangement from the Legislature.
But this time, renewable energy groups were upset that FPL was getting a solar deal when they were being left out in the cold. Especially upset was Florida Crystals. Cantens complained FPL has been paying less than 4 cents a kilowatt-hour for the power produced by Crystals' sugar cane waste plant. That's about a third of what customers pay for electricity. Crystals has to accept what FPL pays because in the state's regulated system, there is no open market for selling power.
Not wanting FPL to prosper while other renewable companies had nothing, Florida Crystals sent lobbyist Sean Stafford to talk to a Senate leader. The FPL deal died. Stafford did not return a call seeking comment but both lobbyist Glickman and Crystals spokesman Cantens confirm this story.
FPL spokeswoman Jackie Anderson said, ``We were obviously disappointed that the Legislature did not carry forward the existing state policy supporting the development of renewable energy in Florida.''
Anderson and many environmentalists point out that construction of clean-energy plants can boost the economy. ''For example, the 75-megawatt solar thermal facility we are building in Martin County will generate more than 1,000 construction jobs, and a recent job fair to fill these positions brought in more than 8,000 applicants,'' Anderson wrote in an e-mail.
''The Babcock Ranch solar project would bring additional renewable energy, more than 400 jobs and significant economic benefits to the state. We would like to move forward on the project,'' Anderson wrote. ``We are committed to pursuing additional renewable energy projects like this one and will move forward when the necessary regulatory framework is in place.''
Developer Syd Kitson said he's continuing with his plans for Babcock Ranch. ''We're hopeful of starting construction next year,'' he said, and he still wants the city to be solar powered. That means action by the Legislature. ``It's not hurting us at the moment, but it's important we do get action.''
Congress is now discussing a national renewable standard. If that happens before action in Florida, renewable energy companies in other areas will continue to have a head start on companies trying to get started here, say environmentalists.
''By dragging their heels in the Legislature,'' Glickman said, ``Florida is more likely to miss out on the economic development opportunities.''
Friday, May 22, 2009
Florida's renewable energy efforts have gone nowhere
Florida's renewable energy efforts have gone nowhere
The planned Babcock Ranch project near Fort Myers is trying to become the first completely solar-powered city.
Photo BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
For a year, while the green movement was at its height, Florida environmentalists, new solar companies, utility lobbyists and state regulators spent thousands of hours trying to determine how much of the state's power supply should come from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
They did it because the Legislature in 2008 ordered them to do it. After sifting through thousands of pages of documents and sitting in lengthy workshops, the Public Service Commission sent its recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. A renewable bill passed the Senate but died in the House. The result: A year of work wasted.
Among the major victims: The much ballyhooed Babcock Ranch project, which is trying to become the first solar-powered city in the world, and thousands of construction workers who would have been hired to build new power plants.
''We are extremely disappointed,'' said Stephen Smith, head of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. ``The people of Florida should feel cheated by their legislative leadership.''
In the final days of the Legislature, the drama became intense. Gov. Charlie Crist at one point visited the House to plead for a renewable standard. When that failed, a major renewable energy producer, Florida Crystals, turned against Florida Power & Light, which was trying to craft its own solar deal. That deal died.
The renewable saga began in July 2007 when Crist asked the PSC to develop rules to make power companies produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The PSC held four workshops in 2007 attended by dozens of major environmentalists and utility representatives.
The issues were complex. Would solar and wind power cost customers more? Yes, probably, said the experts. How much more? The experts weren't certain. The PSC didn't come to any conclusions and neither did the 2008 Legislature, which debated the issue at length and then ordered the PSC to study the matter again.
Three more workshops were held. The PSC commissioned a study on the costs and potential for renewables from the Navigant consulting firm, which produced a 200-plus page document at a cost of $135,000.
FPL sparked intense debate by insisting that, instead of a renewable standard, nuclear power should be considered in a ''clean energy'' standard, because nuclear can produce huge amounts of power while emiting no greenhouse gases. Environmentalists objected, saying huge nuclear plants would eliminate any need for solar, which they much preferred.
The PSC ended up sending a 167-page report to the Legislature recommending that by 2020, 20 percent of power come from renewables, as long as it didn't increase customers' bills more than 2 percent a year. The report said the Legislature ''may wish to consider'' adding nuclear to the standard.
To support the push for renewables, a coalition was created that included major environmental groups and renewable energy companies, such as Florida Crystals, which produces electricity from sugar cane waste.
Susan Glickman, longtime environmental activist, coordinated the coalition's lobbying, serving as ``cat-herder-in-chief. . . . The entrenched utility interests have so much clout that the best chance we had was to stick together.''
In the Senate, Sen. Jim King crafted a compromise bill that included nuclear, but only up to five percentage points of the 20 percent standard. Environmentalists didn't like the nuclear provision, but King told Glickman it was the only way to get it to pass. (continued)
The planned Babcock Ranch project near Fort Myers is trying to become the first completely solar-powered city.
Photo BY JOHN DORSCHNER
jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com
For a year, while the green movement was at its height, Florida environmentalists, new solar companies, utility lobbyists and state regulators spent thousands of hours trying to determine how much of the state's power supply should come from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
They did it because the Legislature in 2008 ordered them to do it. After sifting through thousands of pages of documents and sitting in lengthy workshops, the Public Service Commission sent its recommendations to the 2009 Legislature. A renewable bill passed the Senate but died in the House. The result: A year of work wasted.
Among the major victims: The much ballyhooed Babcock Ranch project, which is trying to become the first solar-powered city in the world, and thousands of construction workers who would have been hired to build new power plants.
''We are extremely disappointed,'' said Stephen Smith, head of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. ``The people of Florida should feel cheated by their legislative leadership.''
In the final days of the Legislature, the drama became intense. Gov. Charlie Crist at one point visited the House to plead for a renewable standard. When that failed, a major renewable energy producer, Florida Crystals, turned against Florida Power & Light, which was trying to craft its own solar deal. That deal died.
The renewable saga began in July 2007 when Crist asked the PSC to develop rules to make power companies produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewables to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The PSC held four workshops in 2007 attended by dozens of major environmentalists and utility representatives.
The issues were complex. Would solar and wind power cost customers more? Yes, probably, said the experts. How much more? The experts weren't certain. The PSC didn't come to any conclusions and neither did the 2008 Legislature, which debated the issue at length and then ordered the PSC to study the matter again.
Three more workshops were held. The PSC commissioned a study on the costs and potential for renewables from the Navigant consulting firm, which produced a 200-plus page document at a cost of $135,000.
FPL sparked intense debate by insisting that, instead of a renewable standard, nuclear power should be considered in a ''clean energy'' standard, because nuclear can produce huge amounts of power while emiting no greenhouse gases. Environmentalists objected, saying huge nuclear plants would eliminate any need for solar, which they much preferred.
The PSC ended up sending a 167-page report to the Legislature recommending that by 2020, 20 percent of power come from renewables, as long as it didn't increase customers' bills more than 2 percent a year. The report said the Legislature ''may wish to consider'' adding nuclear to the standard.
To support the push for renewables, a coalition was created that included major environmental groups and renewable energy companies, such as Florida Crystals, which produces electricity from sugar cane waste.
Susan Glickman, longtime environmental activist, coordinated the coalition's lobbying, serving as ``cat-herder-in-chief. . . . The entrenched utility interests have so much clout that the best chance we had was to stick together.''
In the Senate, Sen. Jim King crafted a compromise bill that included nuclear, but only up to five percentage points of the 20 percent standard. Environmentalists didn't like the nuclear provision, but King told Glickman it was the only way to get it to pass. (continued)
The Ultimate in Reecycling
Drink up: Space station recycling urine to water
Email this Story
May 20, 9:21 PM (ET)
By SETH BORENSTEIN
(AP) In this photo provided by NASA, astronauts John Grunsfeld, left, and Andrew Feustel, both STS-125...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
S FL - Water Purification - South Florida's #1 Choice for Drinking Water Purification Systems
www.PureWater-USA.com
Sierra Springs® Water - Official Site. Free Bottle Internet Offer! Adjustable Monthly Quantity.
SierraSprings.com/Water_Deli
HOUSTON (AP) - At the international space station, it was one small sip for man and a giant gulp of recycled urine for mankind.
Astronauts aboard the space station celebrated a space first on Wednesday by drinking water that had been recycled from their urine, sweat and water that condenses from exhaled air. They said "cheers," clicked drinking bags and toasted NASA workers on the ground who were sipping their own version of recycled drinking water.
"The taste is great," American astronaut Michael Barratt said. Then as Russian Gennady Padalka tried to catch little bubbles of the clear water floating in front of him, Barratt called the taste "worth chasing."
He said the water came with labels that said: "drink this when real water is over 200 miles away."
The urine recycling system is needed for astronaut outposts on the moon and Mars. It also will save NASA money because it won't have to ship up as much water to the station by space shuttle or cargo rockets.
It's also crucial as the space station is about to expand from three people living on board to six.
The recycling system had been brought up to the space station last November by space shuttle Endeavour, but it couldn't be used until samples were tested back on Earth and a stuck valve was fixed on Monday.
So when it came time to actually drink up, NASA made a big deal of it.
The three-man crew stood holding their drinks and congratulated engineers in two NASA centers that worked on the system.
"This is something that had been the stuff of science fiction," Barratt said before taking a sip.
NASA deputy space shuttle manager LeRoy Cain called it "a huge milestone."
On the Russian side of the space station, moisture in the air - not urine - is turned into drinking water.
The new system takes the combined urine of the crew from the toilet, moves it to a big tank, where the water is boiled off, and the vapor collected. The rest of contaminants - the yucky brine in the urine - is thrown away, said Marybeth Edeen, the space station's national lab manager who was in charge of the system.
The water vapor is mixed with water from air condensation, then it goes through filters, much like those put on home taps, Edeen said.
When six crew members are aboard it can make about six gallons from urine in about six hours, Edeen said.
Some people may find the idea of drinking recycled urine distasteful, but it is also done on Earth, but with a lot longer time between urine and tap, Edeen said. In space, it takes about a week, she said.
The technology NASA developed for this system has already been used for quick water purification after the 2004 Asian tsunami, Edeen said.
Wednesday's urine celebration included subtle bathroom humor.
"We are happy to have this water work through the system - we're happy to have it work through our systems," Barratt said
Email this Story
May 20, 9:21 PM (ET)
By SETH BORENSTEIN
(AP) In this photo provided by NASA, astronauts John Grunsfeld, left, and Andrew Feustel, both STS-125...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
S FL - Water Purification - South Florida's #1 Choice for Drinking Water Purification Systems
www.PureWater-USA.com
Sierra Springs® Water - Official Site. Free Bottle Internet Offer! Adjustable Monthly Quantity.
SierraSprings.com/Water_Deli
HOUSTON (AP) - At the international space station, it was one small sip for man and a giant gulp of recycled urine for mankind.
Astronauts aboard the space station celebrated a space first on Wednesday by drinking water that had been recycled from their urine, sweat and water that condenses from exhaled air. They said "cheers," clicked drinking bags and toasted NASA workers on the ground who were sipping their own version of recycled drinking water.
"The taste is great," American astronaut Michael Barratt said. Then as Russian Gennady Padalka tried to catch little bubbles of the clear water floating in front of him, Barratt called the taste "worth chasing."
He said the water came with labels that said: "drink this when real water is over 200 miles away."
The urine recycling system is needed for astronaut outposts on the moon and Mars. It also will save NASA money because it won't have to ship up as much water to the station by space shuttle or cargo rockets.
It's also crucial as the space station is about to expand from three people living on board to six.
The recycling system had been brought up to the space station last November by space shuttle Endeavour, but it couldn't be used until samples were tested back on Earth and a stuck valve was fixed on Monday.
So when it came time to actually drink up, NASA made a big deal of it.
The three-man crew stood holding their drinks and congratulated engineers in two NASA centers that worked on the system.
"This is something that had been the stuff of science fiction," Barratt said before taking a sip.
NASA deputy space shuttle manager LeRoy Cain called it "a huge milestone."
On the Russian side of the space station, moisture in the air - not urine - is turned into drinking water.
The new system takes the combined urine of the crew from the toilet, moves it to a big tank, where the water is boiled off, and the vapor collected. The rest of contaminants - the yucky brine in the urine - is thrown away, said Marybeth Edeen, the space station's national lab manager who was in charge of the system.
The water vapor is mixed with water from air condensation, then it goes through filters, much like those put on home taps, Edeen said.
When six crew members are aboard it can make about six gallons from urine in about six hours, Edeen said.
Some people may find the idea of drinking recycled urine distasteful, but it is also done on Earth, but with a lot longer time between urine and tap, Edeen said. In space, it takes about a week, she said.
The technology NASA developed for this system has already been used for quick water purification after the 2004 Asian tsunami, Edeen said.
Wednesday's urine celebration included subtle bathroom humor.
"We are happy to have this water work through the system - we're happy to have it work through our systems," Barratt said
Cape Wind Completes State, Local Permitting
Cape Wind Completes State, Local Permitting
SustainableBusiness.com News
Cape Wind completed its state and local permitting process Thursday with a unanimous vote of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board.
The proposed offshore wind farm will be granted a ‘Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest’ that rolls up all state and local permits and approvals into one ‘composite certificate’.
Completion of the Federal Permitting process for Cape Wind is expected soon when U.S. Secretary Ken Salazar issues a Record of Decision on Cape Wind. The Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior issued Cape Wind a favorable Final Environmental Impact Statement in January.
Cape Wind President Jim Gordon welcomed the news, “Today's vote marks not just a successful conclusion to a seven-year state regulatory review of the Cape Wind project but the beginning of a new era of clean energy jobs and renewable power from the endless wind resources off our shore."
The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board), was created by the Legislature to ensure the siting of needed and least environmental impact energy facilities and was granted the statutory authority to issue a comprehensive approval to an energy facility it has previously approved, where that facility has been denied a permit by any other state or local agency in the Commonwealth. The Siting Board exercised their statutory authority in their vote Thursday, which was necessitated by a procedural denial issued from the Cape Cod Commission in 2007.
In 2005, the Siting Board approved Cape Wind’s electrical interconnection at the conclusion of a 32-month review of unprecedented length that included 2,900 pages of transcripts, 923 exhibits and 50,000 pages of documentary evidence.
The Siting Board found that Cape Wind would meet an identified need for electricity and would provide a reliable energy supply for Massachusetts, with a minimum impact on the environment. The Siting Board’s approval of Cape Wind’s electrical interconnection was upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Many of Cape Cod's well-known and wealthy residents, including Senator Edward Kennedy, are opposed to development of the wind farm. However, two public opinion polls have found statewide support for the project to be 86%.
As planned the Cape Wind project would included 130 wind turbines, capable of providing power for 400,000 homes at a cost of roughly $1 billion.
The project developer said construction could begin early next year, aiming for completion in 2011 or 2012.
Cape Wind is one of two planned offshore wind projects in the U.S. vying to be first in the water. Deepwater Wind off the coast of Rhode Island could begin construction in 2010
SustainableBusiness.com News
Cape Wind completed its state and local permitting process Thursday with a unanimous vote of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board.
The proposed offshore wind farm will be granted a ‘Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest’ that rolls up all state and local permits and approvals into one ‘composite certificate’.
Completion of the Federal Permitting process for Cape Wind is expected soon when U.S. Secretary Ken Salazar issues a Record of Decision on Cape Wind. The Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior issued Cape Wind a favorable Final Environmental Impact Statement in January.
Cape Wind President Jim Gordon welcomed the news, “Today's vote marks not just a successful conclusion to a seven-year state regulatory review of the Cape Wind project but the beginning of a new era of clean energy jobs and renewable power from the endless wind resources off our shore."
The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (Siting Board), was created by the Legislature to ensure the siting of needed and least environmental impact energy facilities and was granted the statutory authority to issue a comprehensive approval to an energy facility it has previously approved, where that facility has been denied a permit by any other state or local agency in the Commonwealth. The Siting Board exercised their statutory authority in their vote Thursday, which was necessitated by a procedural denial issued from the Cape Cod Commission in 2007.
In 2005, the Siting Board approved Cape Wind’s electrical interconnection at the conclusion of a 32-month review of unprecedented length that included 2,900 pages of transcripts, 923 exhibits and 50,000 pages of documentary evidence.
The Siting Board found that Cape Wind would meet an identified need for electricity and would provide a reliable energy supply for Massachusetts, with a minimum impact on the environment. The Siting Board’s approval of Cape Wind’s electrical interconnection was upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Many of Cape Cod's well-known and wealthy residents, including Senator Edward Kennedy, are opposed to development of the wind farm. However, two public opinion polls have found statewide support for the project to be 86%.
As planned the Cape Wind project would included 130 wind turbines, capable of providing power for 400,000 homes at a cost of roughly $1 billion.
The project developer said construction could begin early next year, aiming for completion in 2011 or 2012.
Cape Wind is one of two planned offshore wind projects in the U.S. vying to be first in the water. Deepwater Wind off the coast of Rhode Island could begin construction in 2010
Geothermal Sector on Verge of Expansion
Geothermal Sector on Verge of Expansion
SustainableBusiness.com News
Geothermal energy capacity in the U.S. is far less than that of wind and solar power, but that could be about to change, according to a New York Times article.
Recent actions by the departments of Interior and Energy have prepared the renewable energy sector for unprecedented growth on federal lands, particularly in California and Nevada.
The Energy Department is expected this month to announce its list of geothermal projects that will be helped along with the $400 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are working together to streamline permitting for new geothermal projects that could occur on federal lands.
According to Interior's estimates, by 2025 geothermal power generated from federal lands will produce enough electricity to power more than 10 million homes.
Read the in-depth report below.
Website: www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/21/21greenwire-geothermal-the-undervalued-renewable-resource-12208.html
SustainableBusiness.com News
Geothermal energy capacity in the U.S. is far less than that of wind and solar power, but that could be about to change, according to a New York Times article.
Recent actions by the departments of Interior and Energy have prepared the renewable energy sector for unprecedented growth on federal lands, particularly in California and Nevada.
The Energy Department is expected this month to announce its list of geothermal projects that will be helped along with the $400 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are working together to streamline permitting for new geothermal projects that could occur on federal lands.
According to Interior's estimates, by 2025 geothermal power generated from federal lands will produce enough electricity to power more than 10 million homes.
Read the in-depth report below.
Website: www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/21/21greenwire-geothermal-the-undervalued-renewable-resource-12208.html
Ford Begins EcoBoost Engine Production
Ford Begins EcoBoost Engine Production
20 May 2009
Ford Motor Company began production of its EcoBoost engines (earlier post) at Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1. Ford invested $55 million to retool and reopen the plant, which had been idled in 2007. Approximately 250 employees are returning to the plant to build the new engines.
EcoBoost technology combines turbocharging and direct gasoline injection to deliver up to 20% improved fuel economy, 15% fewer CO2 emissions and superior driving performance compared with larger displacement engines. The “downsize and boost” strategy provides consumers better fuel economy without sacrificing the power for driving performance.
Ford will deliver EcoBoost across the full range of its product portfolio, from small cars to large trucks and by 2013, will offer EcoBoost engines, V-6s and I-4s, on 90% of its North American nameplates. Within three years, Ford expects to deliver 750,000 EcoBoost-equipped vehicles per year in North America and 1.3 million vehicles globally.
The first EcoBoost engine in the family—the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine—is the first V-6 direct-injection twin-turbocharged engine produced in North America, and will debut in the 2010 Lincoln MKS, Lincoln MKT, Ford Taurus SHO and Ford Flex this summer. A V-6 EcoBoost engine will be available for the F-150 in 2010.
Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1 opened in 1951 as Ford’s first engine plant in Ohio. Since then it has produced more than 35 million engines, including 24.3 million engines in the famous 302 and 5.0-liter V-8 family. In 2004, Ford invested $350 million into the plant for redesign and installation of an all-new assembly line as well as block, crankshaft and cylinder head machining lines.
Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1 has been outfitted with a flexible powertrain manufacturing system that can be reprogrammed to perform new tasks with minimal disruption to production.
Plant upgrades also included a special turbocharger installation and test line. After the turbos are added, each EcoBoost engine is turned on speeds between 60-600 RPM using an electric motor to simulate running conditions. Unique to the Cleveland site, this “cold test” checks for proper buildup of pressure on the turbo output side before the engine ever leaves the factory.
To ensure quality is built into the engine from the outset, Ford developed a new, internal database for its operations. Each engine will be built with an embedded engine “birth history” that allows plant engineers to track every stage of production.
The engine history, maintained in a microchip database, includes hundreds of metrics and allows engineers to trace the precise path taken by any part so any quality control issue can be traced back to its source.
The twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine’s enhanced fuel-charging system can deliver as much as 2,150 PSI of fuel pressure—more than 35 times the pressure seen in a conventional port-fuel-injected V-6. Ford worked in tandem with Bosch, the fuel system supplier, to ensure that manufacturing and assembly was prepared for the demands of the advanced design.
The EcoBoost line has a fully automated fuel-charging assembly and rundown station. It’s a new technology in manufacturing that’s only been made possible by close collaboration between Ford and our suppliers.
—Joseph Basmaji, Ford direct injection fuel system technical specialist
20 May 2009
Ford Motor Company began production of its EcoBoost engines (earlier post) at Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1. Ford invested $55 million to retool and reopen the plant, which had been idled in 2007. Approximately 250 employees are returning to the plant to build the new engines.
EcoBoost technology combines turbocharging and direct gasoline injection to deliver up to 20% improved fuel economy, 15% fewer CO2 emissions and superior driving performance compared with larger displacement engines. The “downsize and boost” strategy provides consumers better fuel economy without sacrificing the power for driving performance.
Ford will deliver EcoBoost across the full range of its product portfolio, from small cars to large trucks and by 2013, will offer EcoBoost engines, V-6s and I-4s, on 90% of its North American nameplates. Within three years, Ford expects to deliver 750,000 EcoBoost-equipped vehicles per year in North America and 1.3 million vehicles globally.
The first EcoBoost engine in the family—the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine—is the first V-6 direct-injection twin-turbocharged engine produced in North America, and will debut in the 2010 Lincoln MKS, Lincoln MKT, Ford Taurus SHO and Ford Flex this summer. A V-6 EcoBoost engine will be available for the F-150 in 2010.
Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1 opened in 1951 as Ford’s first engine plant in Ohio. Since then it has produced more than 35 million engines, including 24.3 million engines in the famous 302 and 5.0-liter V-8 family. In 2004, Ford invested $350 million into the plant for redesign and installation of an all-new assembly line as well as block, crankshaft and cylinder head machining lines.
Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1 has been outfitted with a flexible powertrain manufacturing system that can be reprogrammed to perform new tasks with minimal disruption to production.
Plant upgrades also included a special turbocharger installation and test line. After the turbos are added, each EcoBoost engine is turned on speeds between 60-600 RPM using an electric motor to simulate running conditions. Unique to the Cleveland site, this “cold test” checks for proper buildup of pressure on the turbo output side before the engine ever leaves the factory.
To ensure quality is built into the engine from the outset, Ford developed a new, internal database for its operations. Each engine will be built with an embedded engine “birth history” that allows plant engineers to track every stage of production.
The engine history, maintained in a microchip database, includes hundreds of metrics and allows engineers to trace the precise path taken by any part so any quality control issue can be traced back to its source.
The twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine’s enhanced fuel-charging system can deliver as much as 2,150 PSI of fuel pressure—more than 35 times the pressure seen in a conventional port-fuel-injected V-6. Ford worked in tandem with Bosch, the fuel system supplier, to ensure that manufacturing and assembly was prepared for the demands of the advanced design.
The EcoBoost line has a fully automated fuel-charging assembly and rundown station. It’s a new technology in manufacturing that’s only been made possible by close collaboration between Ford and our suppliers.
—Joseph Basmaji, Ford direct injection fuel system technical specialist
Hybrid Survey Surprising
Survey Finds Americans Believe Hybrid Technology Is Strategically Important for US, Too Expensive to Buy
20 May 2009
A new Johnson Controls survey, conducted by Harris Interactive, finds that 88% of US adults believe the United States must become a leader in hybrid vehicles and 84% that the government should support the advancement of battery technology in this country.
While the survey found that 90% of US adults are open to choosing a hybrid if they were in the market for a new vehicle, it also determined that 80% of US adults think financial barriers such as purchase price and/or insufficient cost savings prevent people from buying a hybrid car.
At the same time, 84% see incentives and tax credits as an effective way to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid cars. Among adults who do not already own a hybrid, more than one in three (35%) would buy a comparable hybrid vehicle as long as it was priced the same as the gasoline-powered equivalent, and more than one in five (23%) would be willing to pay more. However, one-third would expect to pay less.
In addition to cost barriers, many consumers may also think hybrid vehicle performance should be equivalent or better than that of a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. When asked what might prevent people from buying a hybrid car, 49% of adults cite reluctance to sacrifice features such as size and horsepower, and 42% express concerns that hybrids might mean inferior performance, lack of speed, or a poor driving experience. Further, nearly half (47%) believe lack of understanding about hybrids in general prevents people from buying them, and an even greater number (59%) have no idea what the distinctions are between different types of hybrids.
Johnson Controls commissioned the survey, “Powering the United States Hybrid Vehicle Industry,” to understand consumer sentiment regarding hybrid vehicles and to gain insight into the challenges and opportunities for broad market acceptance in the United States.
The online survey of more than 2,000 US adults, conducted in March 2009, finds that the biggest reasons why US adults think it is important that America become a leader in hybrid technology are to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil (81%), create jobs (67%), and reduce the US impact on the environment (64%).
The survey makes one message abundantly clear: despite recognizing the importance of hybrid technology and the role of government support, consumers need costs to come down for the hybrid industry to thrive. The survey also suggests a need for consumer education, because most people admit they don’t really grasp how hybrids work or understand the differences between the types of hybrid applications that are available.
—Kim Metcalf-Kupres, Vice President of Global Sales and Marketing for Johnson Controls
The Johnson Controls survey, “Powering the US Hybrid Vehicle Industry,” was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive between March 9 and March 11, 2009 among 2,309 adults ages 18 and older, of whom, 35 (2%) already own a hybrid car.
Results were weighted as needed to reflect the composition of the US population of adults ages 18+ using targets for region, age within gender, education, household income, race/ethnicity, and propensity to be online. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
20 May 2009
A new Johnson Controls survey, conducted by Harris Interactive, finds that 88% of US adults believe the United States must become a leader in hybrid vehicles and 84% that the government should support the advancement of battery technology in this country.
While the survey found that 90% of US adults are open to choosing a hybrid if they were in the market for a new vehicle, it also determined that 80% of US adults think financial barriers such as purchase price and/or insufficient cost savings prevent people from buying a hybrid car.
At the same time, 84% see incentives and tax credits as an effective way to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid cars. Among adults who do not already own a hybrid, more than one in three (35%) would buy a comparable hybrid vehicle as long as it was priced the same as the gasoline-powered equivalent, and more than one in five (23%) would be willing to pay more. However, one-third would expect to pay less.
In addition to cost barriers, many consumers may also think hybrid vehicle performance should be equivalent or better than that of a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. When asked what might prevent people from buying a hybrid car, 49% of adults cite reluctance to sacrifice features such as size and horsepower, and 42% express concerns that hybrids might mean inferior performance, lack of speed, or a poor driving experience. Further, nearly half (47%) believe lack of understanding about hybrids in general prevents people from buying them, and an even greater number (59%) have no idea what the distinctions are between different types of hybrids.
Johnson Controls commissioned the survey, “Powering the United States Hybrid Vehicle Industry,” to understand consumer sentiment regarding hybrid vehicles and to gain insight into the challenges and opportunities for broad market acceptance in the United States.
The online survey of more than 2,000 US adults, conducted in March 2009, finds that the biggest reasons why US adults think it is important that America become a leader in hybrid technology are to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil (81%), create jobs (67%), and reduce the US impact on the environment (64%).
The survey makes one message abundantly clear: despite recognizing the importance of hybrid technology and the role of government support, consumers need costs to come down for the hybrid industry to thrive. The survey also suggests a need for consumer education, because most people admit they don’t really grasp how hybrids work or understand the differences between the types of hybrid applications that are available.
—Kim Metcalf-Kupres, Vice President of Global Sales and Marketing for Johnson Controls
The Johnson Controls survey, “Powering the US Hybrid Vehicle Industry,” was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive between March 9 and March 11, 2009 among 2,309 adults ages 18 and older, of whom, 35 (2%) already own a hybrid car.
Results were weighted as needed to reflect the composition of the US population of adults ages 18+ using targets for region, age within gender, education, household income, race/ethnicity, and propensity to be online. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
Plasma Gasification Facilities for Synthetic Fuels and Power
Waste Management and InEnTec Create Joint Venture to Develop and Operate Plasma Gasification Facilities for Synthetic Fuels and Power
21 May 2009
Waste Management, Inc. and InEnTec LLC (earlier post) have formed S4 Energy Solutions LLC, a joint venture to develop, operate and market plasma gasification facilities using InEnTec’s Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) technology. The joint venture is expected to process waste from the country’s increasingly segmented commercial and industrial waste streams to produce a range of synthetic fuels and chemicals as well as to generate electricity.
S4 Energy Solutions’ initial focus will be to process medical and other segregated commercial and industrial waste streams. The company’s future commercialization plans may also include the processing of municipal solid waste once the technology has been demonstrated to be economical and scalable for such use.
We see waste as a resource to be recovered, and this joint venture with the PEM system will help Waste Management’s commercial and industrial customers maximize high energy value waste streams to generate valuable renewable energy products based on their unique environmental and logistical considerations.
—Joe Vaillancourt, managing director at Waste Management
The system uses a two-stage gasification process. After sizing, waste is introduced to a Stage 1 downdraft pre-gasifier. The pre-gasifier converts approximately 80% of the organic portion of the feedstock to syngas, which is ducted to the Thermal Residence Chamber (TRC). The remaining feedstock, which consists of inorganic materials, carbon, and un-processed organics, pass through an outlet at the bottom of the chamber into the PEM Process Chamber—the Stage 2 plasma enhanced melter chamber.
The plasma arc in the PEM Process chamber rapidly gasifies the remaining organic materials to syngas. The remaining inorganic components are incorporated into the molten glass bath. The syngas exits the plasma chamber and flows to the Thermal Residence Chamber.
The Thermal Residence Chamber provides additional residence time at a high enough temperature to fully process any remaining organic materials presents in the syngas, and allows the gasification reaction to reach equilibrium.
Syngas leaving the TRC is cleaned and conditioned in a series of standard processes. Because the PEM operates at very high temperatures, in an oxygen depleted environment, NOx, SOx, PM and VOCs are greatly reduced, and further reduced in the syngas clean-up phase. The clean syngas which can be transformed into energy products (power generation or transportation fuels production, using the syngas) and industrial materials (chemicals from the syngas; roofing tiles, insulating panels, sand-blasting media and other construction-related products from the glass; and recoverable metals).
May 21, 2009 in Fuels, Gasification | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
I've always wondered what the Return on invested energy these processes have?
Since you can't burn water, I wonder how well it works on waste streams that have any substantial water content?
For medical waste that has to be burned anyway, this is just making that process more cost effective and yeilding new exploitable outputs (syngas).
Making the leap to burning everything else...??
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | May 21, 2009 at 09:06 AM
I think the moisture in the feedstock becomes steam and is used for heat in the process. If nothing else, that heat can be used to preheat the incoming mass.
Posted by: SJC | May 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Transforming all waste (via various process) info useful energy is a worthwhile objective even if it cost slightly more than dumping it into huge smelly grabage piles.
Every city should be coerced (with the help of fEd anti-recession funds) to transform all their waste by 2020.
Posted by: HarveyD | May 21, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Actually, they do 'burn' the water content. If you transform dry biomass - or any other organic waste - to syngas, you have CO2, CO, H2, ... and a lot of char.
if there is more water in the feed, you do :
H2O + C --> CO2 + H2
Actually it is again a mixture of CO2, CO, H2, CH4, ...
So the hydrogen atoms of the water are translocated to hydrocarbons ; the oxygen of the water is translocated to CO2.
In short, if you want to maximize (bio)char production, use a feed that is as dry as possible. If you want to maximize you biofuel production, add enough H2O.
So, the water content is not a problem at all
21 May 2009
Waste Management, Inc. and InEnTec LLC (earlier post) have formed S4 Energy Solutions LLC, a joint venture to develop, operate and market plasma gasification facilities using InEnTec’s Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) technology. The joint venture is expected to process waste from the country’s increasingly segmented commercial and industrial waste streams to produce a range of synthetic fuels and chemicals as well as to generate electricity.
S4 Energy Solutions’ initial focus will be to process medical and other segregated commercial and industrial waste streams. The company’s future commercialization plans may also include the processing of municipal solid waste once the technology has been demonstrated to be economical and scalable for such use.
We see waste as a resource to be recovered, and this joint venture with the PEM system will help Waste Management’s commercial and industrial customers maximize high energy value waste streams to generate valuable renewable energy products based on their unique environmental and logistical considerations.
—Joe Vaillancourt, managing director at Waste Management
The system uses a two-stage gasification process. After sizing, waste is introduced to a Stage 1 downdraft pre-gasifier. The pre-gasifier converts approximately 80% of the organic portion of the feedstock to syngas, which is ducted to the Thermal Residence Chamber (TRC). The remaining feedstock, which consists of inorganic materials, carbon, and un-processed organics, pass through an outlet at the bottom of the chamber into the PEM Process Chamber—the Stage 2 plasma enhanced melter chamber.
The plasma arc in the PEM Process chamber rapidly gasifies the remaining organic materials to syngas. The remaining inorganic components are incorporated into the molten glass bath. The syngas exits the plasma chamber and flows to the Thermal Residence Chamber.
The Thermal Residence Chamber provides additional residence time at a high enough temperature to fully process any remaining organic materials presents in the syngas, and allows the gasification reaction to reach equilibrium.
Syngas leaving the TRC is cleaned and conditioned in a series of standard processes. Because the PEM operates at very high temperatures, in an oxygen depleted environment, NOx, SOx, PM and VOCs are greatly reduced, and further reduced in the syngas clean-up phase. The clean syngas which can be transformed into energy products (power generation or transportation fuels production, using the syngas) and industrial materials (chemicals from the syngas; roofing tiles, insulating panels, sand-blasting media and other construction-related products from the glass; and recoverable metals).
May 21, 2009 in Fuels, Gasification | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
I've always wondered what the Return on invested energy these processes have?
Since you can't burn water, I wonder how well it works on waste streams that have any substantial water content?
For medical waste that has to be burned anyway, this is just making that process more cost effective and yeilding new exploitable outputs (syngas).
Making the leap to burning everything else...??
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | May 21, 2009 at 09:06 AM
I think the moisture in the feedstock becomes steam and is used for heat in the process. If nothing else, that heat can be used to preheat the incoming mass.
Posted by: SJC | May 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Transforming all waste (via various process) info useful energy is a worthwhile objective even if it cost slightly more than dumping it into huge smelly grabage piles.
Every city should be coerced (with the help of fEd anti-recession funds) to transform all their waste by 2020.
Posted by: HarveyD | May 21, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Actually, they do 'burn' the water content. If you transform dry biomass - or any other organic waste - to syngas, you have CO2, CO, H2, ... and a lot of char.
if there is more water in the feed, you do :
H2O + C --> CO2 + H2
Actually it is again a mixture of CO2, CO, H2, CH4, ...
So the hydrogen atoms of the water are translocated to hydrocarbons ; the oxygen of the water is translocated to CO2.
In short, if you want to maximize (bio)char production, use a feed that is as dry as possible. If you want to maximize you biofuel production, add enough H2O.
So, the water content is not a problem at all
California-to-Canada Hydrogen Road Rally Starts 26 May
California-to-Canada Hydrogen Road Rally Starts 26 May
22 May 2009
The 2009 Hydrogen Road Tour, an annual road rally to demonstrate the advancements in fuel-cell technology, will begin May 26 in San Diego, California and end June 3 in Vancouver, British Columbia. Organized by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Fuel Cell Partnership, National Hydrogen Association and US Fuel Cell Council, the tour will travel more than 1,700 miles and have 28 stops. The public will be invited to test drive the vehicles and experience first hand their range, performance and road readiness.
Fuel cell technology is on the verge of becoming a practical alternative to burning gasoline. This year’s road tour demonstrates how far the industry has come and how near we are to putting these cars in the public’s hands.
—Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols
Currently, 300 fuel-cell vehicles have been placed on California roads and manufacturers expect to increase that to 4,300 by 2014. Fuel cell technology is also being used to power transit buses and forklifts, and to produce electricity for industrial uses. Examples of these will be showcased at some of the tour’s stops.
California is a proponent of diversifying the fuels used to power transportation. As part of ARB’s 2006-2007 budget, the California legislature allotted $25 million for the purposes of encouraging the use of biofuels and high efficiency, low-emitting vehicle technologies. These funds were used to support projects that reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by using alternative fuels.
In April 2009, ARB adopted a low carbon fuel standard aimed at driving down greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for 40% of the state’s total emissions of climate changing gases. To achieve this goal, 20% of petroleum used in California cars will be replaced with clean alternatives, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen and other options by 2020.
Recently, the Air Resources Board awarded Mebtahi Station Services, San Francisco Airport, Shell Hydrogen and UCLA $1.7 million each to supplement the construction of hydrogen refueling stations. When these stations are constructed the amount of hydrogen available to the public will be double
22 May 2009
The 2009 Hydrogen Road Tour, an annual road rally to demonstrate the advancements in fuel-cell technology, will begin May 26 in San Diego, California and end June 3 in Vancouver, British Columbia. Organized by the California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Fuel Cell Partnership, National Hydrogen Association and US Fuel Cell Council, the tour will travel more than 1,700 miles and have 28 stops. The public will be invited to test drive the vehicles and experience first hand their range, performance and road readiness.
Fuel cell technology is on the verge of becoming a practical alternative to burning gasoline. This year’s road tour demonstrates how far the industry has come and how near we are to putting these cars in the public’s hands.
—Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols
Currently, 300 fuel-cell vehicles have been placed on California roads and manufacturers expect to increase that to 4,300 by 2014. Fuel cell technology is also being used to power transit buses and forklifts, and to produce electricity for industrial uses. Examples of these will be showcased at some of the tour’s stops.
California is a proponent of diversifying the fuels used to power transportation. As part of ARB’s 2006-2007 budget, the California legislature allotted $25 million for the purposes of encouraging the use of biofuels and high efficiency, low-emitting vehicle technologies. These funds were used to support projects that reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by using alternative fuels.
In April 2009, ARB adopted a low carbon fuel standard aimed at driving down greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for 40% of the state’s total emissions of climate changing gases. To achieve this goal, 20% of petroleum used in California cars will be replaced with clean alternatives, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen and other options by 2020.
Recently, the Air Resources Board awarded Mebtahi Station Services, San Francisco Airport, Shell Hydrogen and UCLA $1.7 million each to supplement the construction of hydrogen refueling stations. When these stations are constructed the amount of hydrogen available to the public will be double
Save the Icing for Last
From the Editors from Environmental Building News
May 1, 2009
Save the Icing for Last
Alex Wilson
There’s a tendency in the green building industry to focus too much on the high-profile, glamorous features at the expense of sensible measures that achieve most of the environmental benefit. The subject of our feature article this month, building-integrated wind—capping buildings with turbines that spin out a few kilowatt-hours from the turbulent, unpredictable wind at a building’s roof—is perhaps the most glaring example of this trend, but it’s not the only one.
Every time I read a description of a green building that starts off touting a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) array, I immediately look for evidence that that there is enough substance in the project to warrant the expense of this power-generation system. It’s not that I’m against PV—I’m a huge advocate of nearly everything renewable—it’s just that I want to make sure that the other features of the building, and the building’s performance, justify the expense of the solar array.
A green building is not green because it has PV on the roof—or a ground-source heat pump or a vegetated roof or integrated wind—it’s green because it has an energy-conserving envelope, because it relies on natural daylighting, because it effectively controls unwanted heat gain, because it reduces dependence on automobiles, because it’s compact and resource-efficient, because it’s healthy, and because it’s stingy on water use. The heavy lifting in green design has to come from these measures, not from the window dressing.
Only after we’ve reduced the energy loads so low that PV or solar-powered absorption chillers or other such measures can satisfy a significant chunk of those loads are building-integrated renewables justifiable in my book. Construction budgets are tight these days. Let’s not squander these limited budgets on high-profile visual statements. Let’s instead do the right thing and create sensible, cost-effective, transit-accessible buildings that reduce heating and cooling loads by 80% and trim lighting energy use by close to that. Then, if we’ve done a good enough job with minimizing these loads—and perhaps if we’ve freed up some money in the budget by limiting unneeded square footage—let’s look at supplying some or all of that remaining load with renewable energy. We will have earned that icing.
– Alex Wilson
May 1, 2009
Save the Icing for Last
Alex Wilson
There’s a tendency in the green building industry to focus too much on the high-profile, glamorous features at the expense of sensible measures that achieve most of the environmental benefit. The subject of our feature article this month, building-integrated wind—capping buildings with turbines that spin out a few kilowatt-hours from the turbulent, unpredictable wind at a building’s roof—is perhaps the most glaring example of this trend, but it’s not the only one.
Every time I read a description of a green building that starts off touting a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) array, I immediately look for evidence that that there is enough substance in the project to warrant the expense of this power-generation system. It’s not that I’m against PV—I’m a huge advocate of nearly everything renewable—it’s just that I want to make sure that the other features of the building, and the building’s performance, justify the expense of the solar array.
A green building is not green because it has PV on the roof—or a ground-source heat pump or a vegetated roof or integrated wind—it’s green because it has an energy-conserving envelope, because it relies on natural daylighting, because it effectively controls unwanted heat gain, because it reduces dependence on automobiles, because it’s compact and resource-efficient, because it’s healthy, and because it’s stingy on water use. The heavy lifting in green design has to come from these measures, not from the window dressing.
Only after we’ve reduced the energy loads so low that PV or solar-powered absorption chillers or other such measures can satisfy a significant chunk of those loads are building-integrated renewables justifiable in my book. Construction budgets are tight these days. Let’s not squander these limited budgets on high-profile visual statements. Let’s instead do the right thing and create sensible, cost-effective, transit-accessible buildings that reduce heating and cooling loads by 80% and trim lighting energy use by close to that. Then, if we’ve done a good enough job with minimizing these loads—and perhaps if we’ve freed up some money in the budget by limiting unneeded square footage—let’s look at supplying some or all of that remaining load with renewable energy. We will have earned that icing.
– Alex Wilson
China: Rich Nations Must Cut Emissions By 40 Percent
China: Rich Nations Must Cut Emissions By 40 Percent
digg Huffpost - China: Rich Nations Must Cut Emissions By 40 Percent
ELAINE KURTENBACH | May 22, 2009 02:58 AM EST |
Compare other versions »
Compare 02:58 AM EST02:53 AM EST and 02:58 AM EST02:53 AM EST versions
Read More: China, China Pollution, Climate Change, Copenhagen 2009, Developing Countries, Green Politics, Pollution, Rich Countries Pollution, Green News
Wealthy nations, as history's biggest polluters, should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, China says in a policy document on climate change. The government also rolled out fresh help for solar power and other "green energy."
The reductions China is calling for are based on the principles of "historical responsibility and fairness," the position paper says, and set a hard line ahead of international negotiations on addressing global warming.
A U.N. conference set for December in Copenhagen aims to draft a new agreement on controlling carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases that scientists say are causing the Earth to warm. Delegates will meet in Bonn, Germany, next month to begin discussing the text of that agreement.
China's position paper was posted Thursday on the Web site of the National Development and Planning Commission, the country's main economic planning agency.
Meanwhile, the government announced new support for solar and wind power and other renewable energy sources.
In a meeting Thursday with provincial officials, the Ministry of Finance promised 38 billion yuan ($5.6 billion) in subsidies to promote wider use of wind and solar power and encourage the use of energy efficient cars and appliances, state-run media reported Friday.
China, which relies on heavily polluting coal for about three-quarters of its electricity, has sought to spotlight its efforts to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions, but has not committed to specific targets in climate talks.
The policy document issued this week gave no specific targets for China or other developing countries, but instead reiterated demands for technology transfers and other support.
Rich countries should provide at least 0.5 percent to 1 percent of their annual gross domestic product to help developing countries upgrade technology, cut emissions and adapt to the consequences of climate change, the document said.
China has welcomed President Barack Obama's commitment to tackle climate change and re-engage in the international negotiations to come to an agreement in December.
But despite that shift, "the developed world has yet to do its due part in tackling climate change," the official newspaper China Daily said Friday in a commentary.
"No solution to fight global warming will be genuine enough, and thus practical enough, if developed countries keep glossing over their historical responsibility on this issue," it said.
The U.S. _ which also has not issued targets for reducing emissions _ has said that any agreement to combat global warming should require developing countries like India and China to reduce emissions.
Together, the U.S. and China are the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, accounting for 40 percent of the global total.
While visiting Prague this week, Premier Wen Jiabao shrugged off pressure from the European Union for China to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, though he backed EU efforts to reach a new global climate change accord to replace the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The EU says it will reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and will go to 30 percent if major world nations will make similar cuts.
Experts say emissions must peak in 2015 and then fall by half by 2050 to limit global warming
digg Huffpost - China: Rich Nations Must Cut Emissions By 40 Percent
ELAINE KURTENBACH | May 22, 2009 02:58 AM EST |
Compare other versions »
Compare 02:58 AM EST02:53 AM EST and 02:58 AM EST02:53 AM EST versions
Read More: China, China Pollution, Climate Change, Copenhagen 2009, Developing Countries, Green Politics, Pollution, Rich Countries Pollution, Green News
Wealthy nations, as history's biggest polluters, should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, China says in a policy document on climate change. The government also rolled out fresh help for solar power and other "green energy."
The reductions China is calling for are based on the principles of "historical responsibility and fairness," the position paper says, and set a hard line ahead of international negotiations on addressing global warming.
A U.N. conference set for December in Copenhagen aims to draft a new agreement on controlling carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases that scientists say are causing the Earth to warm. Delegates will meet in Bonn, Germany, next month to begin discussing the text of that agreement.
China's position paper was posted Thursday on the Web site of the National Development and Planning Commission, the country's main economic planning agency.
Meanwhile, the government announced new support for solar and wind power and other renewable energy sources.
In a meeting Thursday with provincial officials, the Ministry of Finance promised 38 billion yuan ($5.6 billion) in subsidies to promote wider use of wind and solar power and encourage the use of energy efficient cars and appliances, state-run media reported Friday.
China, which relies on heavily polluting coal for about three-quarters of its electricity, has sought to spotlight its efforts to improve energy efficiency and cut emissions, but has not committed to specific targets in climate talks.
The policy document issued this week gave no specific targets for China or other developing countries, but instead reiterated demands for technology transfers and other support.
Rich countries should provide at least 0.5 percent to 1 percent of their annual gross domestic product to help developing countries upgrade technology, cut emissions and adapt to the consequences of climate change, the document said.
China has welcomed President Barack Obama's commitment to tackle climate change and re-engage in the international negotiations to come to an agreement in December.
But despite that shift, "the developed world has yet to do its due part in tackling climate change," the official newspaper China Daily said Friday in a commentary.
"No solution to fight global warming will be genuine enough, and thus practical enough, if developed countries keep glossing over their historical responsibility on this issue," it said.
The U.S. _ which also has not issued targets for reducing emissions _ has said that any agreement to combat global warming should require developing countries like India and China to reduce emissions.
Together, the U.S. and China are the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, accounting for 40 percent of the global total.
While visiting Prague this week, Premier Wen Jiabao shrugged off pressure from the European Union for China to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, though he backed EU efforts to reach a new global climate change accord to replace the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The EU says it will reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and will go to 30 percent if major world nations will make similar cuts.
Experts say emissions must peak in 2015 and then fall by half by 2050 to limit global warming
Dialogue Between Smart Homes and Utilities
Itron and Tendril Create Dialogue Between Smart Homes and Utilities
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 10.24.08
Tendril and Itron are pairing up to solve the issue of communication between smart meter-equipped homes and utility companies. Their new solution would allow for a two-way communication between smart meters and utilities without the need for a home to have a broadband connection.
The whole point of a smart home energy system is to allow interactive communication between utilities and the home. While smart meters seem to be going up everywhere, the issue of standards in terms of broadband connection abilities by the home and appliances is problematic. But standardization could be less of a problem with Tendril and Itron’s new networking system.
OpenWay by Itron is an advanced metering infrastructure, and a collaboration with Tentrials Residential Energy Ecosystem means two-way communication that goes beyond the smart meter and into the home to the appliances themselves through a Home Area Network (HAN). Using the ZigBee platform, the connection allows users’ appliances and utilities to talk to each other without the need for a broadband connection.
"This collaboration is a big step on the nationwide path to energy efficiency," said Adrian Tuck, CEO, Tendril. "It's one thing to turn down a thermostat but quite another to enable a true two-way conversation between utility and consumer. That's where the benefits of AMI accrue and energy efficiency becomes a reality."
Since cable, broadband and other networking capabilities vary among utility markets, smart energy is just as much a royal pain to utilities as it is the best way forward for energy consumption and monitoring. Extending a utility’s ability to communicate with homes means faster and easier adoption of smart metering across the board.
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 10.24.08
Tendril and Itron are pairing up to solve the issue of communication between smart meter-equipped homes and utility companies. Their new solution would allow for a two-way communication between smart meters and utilities without the need for a home to have a broadband connection.
The whole point of a smart home energy system is to allow interactive communication between utilities and the home. While smart meters seem to be going up everywhere, the issue of standards in terms of broadband connection abilities by the home and appliances is problematic. But standardization could be less of a problem with Tendril and Itron’s new networking system.
OpenWay by Itron is an advanced metering infrastructure, and a collaboration with Tentrials Residential Energy Ecosystem means two-way communication that goes beyond the smart meter and into the home to the appliances themselves through a Home Area Network (HAN). Using the ZigBee platform, the connection allows users’ appliances and utilities to talk to each other without the need for a broadband connection.
"This collaboration is a big step on the nationwide path to energy efficiency," said Adrian Tuck, CEO, Tendril. "It's one thing to turn down a thermostat but quite another to enable a true two-way conversation between utility and consumer. That's where the benefits of AMI accrue and energy efficiency becomes a reality."
Since cable, broadband and other networking capabilities vary among utility markets, smart energy is just as much a royal pain to utilities as it is the best way forward for energy consumption and monitoring. Extending a utility’s ability to communicate with homes means faster and easier adoption of smart metering across the board.
Energy Companies Pay Schools to Go With Energy Efficient NComputing
Energy Companies Pay Schools to Go With Energy Efficient NComputing (Video)
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 05.22.09
NComputing is a California-based company that has created a $70 networked computer that uses about 1 to 5 watts of power for each networked device. Through virtualization software, as many as 30 users can share a single PC, and still be able to do what they would on a regular dedicated PC, from running videos to accessing the Internet. Such a set-up is ideal for many schools and businesses since it accomplishes their needs while sipping power. And that's just why energy companies are actually paying people to use these devices instead.
Many electric utilities in the US and Canada have decided that NComputing products qualify for some big rebates and discounts. The rebates cover some or all of the cost of buying NComputing products. Seattle Light, for example, offers a $25 rebate on each NComputing device. San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and BC Hydro offer rebates that range all the way up to full product cost. That's a huge help for schools undergoing budget cuts, and businesses feeling the economic pinch.
Not only could the users save money on the machines, but also on the energy bills. For example, Duke Energy offers an $.08 per kWh rate reduction for qualified users.
The company is already aligned with utilities that serve millions of customers in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin and Manitoba and British Columbia in Canada. And they're working on getting linked up with many more.
NComputing also tosses out some interesting facts about the impact of using virtualization software and hardware:
Worldwide, there are 850 million PCs in use, and each one requires at least 110 watts of electricity. If NComputing systems were used at a ratio of six seats to each PC, energy use would decline by over 120 billion kilowatt hours per year. That would reduce CO₂ emissions by 96 million metric tons – the equivalent of planting 460 million trees. NComputing also reduces e-waste. The devices weigh just a few ounces (compared with 20 pounds for an average desktop PC) and could reduce e-waste by 6.7 million metric tons per year.
Not only do the rebates help cash-strapped organizations like schools and small businesses get hooked in to energy efficient computing, but will also take some of the burden off a power-strapped grid that needs an overhaul. It could be a great solution for a lot of PC intensive environments.
More on Networked Computing
NComputing: An Energy-Savvy PC Experience for $70
Economics of Virtualization May Be "Off Planet"
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 05.22.09
NComputing is a California-based company that has created a $70 networked computer that uses about 1 to 5 watts of power for each networked device. Through virtualization software, as many as 30 users can share a single PC, and still be able to do what they would on a regular dedicated PC, from running videos to accessing the Internet. Such a set-up is ideal for many schools and businesses since it accomplishes their needs while sipping power. And that's just why energy companies are actually paying people to use these devices instead.
Many electric utilities in the US and Canada have decided that NComputing products qualify for some big rebates and discounts. The rebates cover some or all of the cost of buying NComputing products. Seattle Light, for example, offers a $25 rebate on each NComputing device. San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and BC Hydro offer rebates that range all the way up to full product cost. That's a huge help for schools undergoing budget cuts, and businesses feeling the economic pinch.
Not only could the users save money on the machines, but also on the energy bills. For example, Duke Energy offers an $.08 per kWh rate reduction for qualified users.
The company is already aligned with utilities that serve millions of customers in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin and Manitoba and British Columbia in Canada. And they're working on getting linked up with many more.
NComputing also tosses out some interesting facts about the impact of using virtualization software and hardware:
Worldwide, there are 850 million PCs in use, and each one requires at least 110 watts of electricity. If NComputing systems were used at a ratio of six seats to each PC, energy use would decline by over 120 billion kilowatt hours per year. That would reduce CO₂ emissions by 96 million metric tons – the equivalent of planting 460 million trees. NComputing also reduces e-waste. The devices weigh just a few ounces (compared with 20 pounds for an average desktop PC) and could reduce e-waste by 6.7 million metric tons per year.
Not only do the rebates help cash-strapped organizations like schools and small businesses get hooked in to energy efficient computing, but will also take some of the burden off a power-strapped grid that needs an overhaul. It could be a great solution for a lot of PC intensive environments.
More on Networked Computing
NComputing: An Energy-Savvy PC Experience for $70
Economics of Virtualization May Be "Off Planet"
Miscanthus is a biofuel
updated 3:15 p.m. ET, Thurs., May 21, 2009
SOUTH SHORE, Ky. - A biofuel company is hoping the future of energy consumption in Kentucky may be in the soil, not the coal mines.
Midwestern Biofuels unveiled its ambitious plan to turn acres of eastern Kentucky land into a source of cleaner fuel last week.
Gov. Steve Beshear and several other state officials planted four rows of miscanthus seedlings at the dedication ceremony last week, the first step in an operation the company hopes will provide years of energy to the state.
Miscanthus is a perennial grass native to Asia and Africa. The grass will eventually be turned into energy pellets. The pellets will then be used by coal-fired electricity generating plants as a source of low-emissions fuel.
The company is planting about 800 acres of miscanthus across the area and plans to enlist local farmers to join in the effort. Midwestern Biofuels will pay farmers within a 50-mile radius of the facility to grow the grass on a per-acre rate.
The plant is considered perfect for a biofuel because it grows rapidly, has low mineral content and a high biomass yield. Once planted, miscanthus can be harvested yearly for up to 20 years.
The facility will produce the first pellets by early June said Midwestern Biofuels president Jeff Lowe. The facility is also a boon to the local economy. Lowe estimated 200 to 300 people will be employed at the facility when it reaches full capacity.
"What's only being talked about in other places is being done right here," Lowe said.
State Environmental and Energy Secretary Len Peters said miscanthus is the "right crop" for Kentucky.
Beshear said the plant is a natural fit for the area and praised the way it will continue the state's agriculture and manufacturing traditions.
"Energy is going to be the driver of economies all over the world," Beshear said.
SOUTH SHORE, Ky. - A biofuel company is hoping the future of energy consumption in Kentucky may be in the soil, not the coal mines.
Midwestern Biofuels unveiled its ambitious plan to turn acres of eastern Kentucky land into a source of cleaner fuel last week.
Gov. Steve Beshear and several other state officials planted four rows of miscanthus seedlings at the dedication ceremony last week, the first step in an operation the company hopes will provide years of energy to the state.
Miscanthus is a perennial grass native to Asia and Africa. The grass will eventually be turned into energy pellets. The pellets will then be used by coal-fired electricity generating plants as a source of low-emissions fuel.
The company is planting about 800 acres of miscanthus across the area and plans to enlist local farmers to join in the effort. Midwestern Biofuels will pay farmers within a 50-mile radius of the facility to grow the grass on a per-acre rate.
The plant is considered perfect for a biofuel because it grows rapidly, has low mineral content and a high biomass yield. Once planted, miscanthus can be harvested yearly for up to 20 years.
The facility will produce the first pellets by early June said Midwestern Biofuels president Jeff Lowe. The facility is also a boon to the local economy. Lowe estimated 200 to 300 people will be employed at the facility when it reaches full capacity.
"What's only being talked about in other places is being done right here," Lowe said.
State Environmental and Energy Secretary Len Peters said miscanthus is the "right crop" for Kentucky.
Beshear said the plant is a natural fit for the area and praised the way it will continue the state's agriculture and manufacturing traditions.
"Energy is going to be the driver of economies all over the world," Beshear said.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
New York State Aims for 100 MW of Rooftop Solar Power by 2015
New York State Aims for 100 MW of Rooftop Solar Power by 2015
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 05.18.09
Science & Technology (alternative energy)
New York State Governor David Patterson wants your rooftop! Well, the rooftops of public and private facilities which are willing to enter into a public-private partnership with the New York State Power Authority so that the state can install 100MW of solar power:
The whole thing is intended to help the state meet its goal of getting 45% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Proposals for facilities wishing to participate are due by July 7 (here's the Request for Expressions of Interest document); selected proposals are expected to begin in 2010.
Reuters Entirely Mis-Characterizes Why Solar is Important
That's all the good news. But to digress into a bit of media analysis for a moment: I first noticed this announcement in Reuters and find the way the whole thing presented to be off.
After presenting the basic details of the announcement, the piece briefly goes into the financial details of the project (of which we don't really know all that much about, the specific being fairly vague at this point) and focuses on the cost of solar power versus wind power and fossil fuels.
Now solar power does cost more than wind power, and both more than fossil fuels on average—thanks in large part because of hidden subsidies on and externalized environmental impacts of fossil fuels—but none of the benefits are mentioned.
There is a one line mention that natural gas and coal emit carbon dioxide, but there is no mention that CO2 is linked to global climate change, only that it's going to be regulated by the federal government.
If this sort of coverage is all part of Reuters' rebrand their environmental coverage as 'green business' first and foremost, I'm not overly impressed.
More: New York State Governor's Office (press release
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 05.18.09
Science & Technology (alternative energy)
New York State Governor David Patterson wants your rooftop! Well, the rooftops of public and private facilities which are willing to enter into a public-private partnership with the New York State Power Authority so that the state can install 100MW of solar power:
The whole thing is intended to help the state meet its goal of getting 45% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Proposals for facilities wishing to participate are due by July 7 (here's the Request for Expressions of Interest document); selected proposals are expected to begin in 2010.
Reuters Entirely Mis-Characterizes Why Solar is Important
That's all the good news. But to digress into a bit of media analysis for a moment: I first noticed this announcement in Reuters and find the way the whole thing presented to be off.
After presenting the basic details of the announcement, the piece briefly goes into the financial details of the project (of which we don't really know all that much about, the specific being fairly vague at this point) and focuses on the cost of solar power versus wind power and fossil fuels.
Now solar power does cost more than wind power, and both more than fossil fuels on average—thanks in large part because of hidden subsidies on and externalized environmental impacts of fossil fuels—but none of the benefits are mentioned.
There is a one line mention that natural gas and coal emit carbon dioxide, but there is no mention that CO2 is linked to global climate change, only that it's going to be regulated by the federal government.
If this sort of coverage is all part of Reuters' rebrand their environmental coverage as 'green business' first and foremost, I'm not overly impressed.
More: New York State Governor's Office (press release
Detroit Recycles Rail Line into Bike Path
The Dequindre Cut is Now Open to the Public!
A Detroit railroad line that has been abandoned since the 1980s has now been turned into a 1.2 mile biking and walking path, and Detroit officials assure us that this is only the beginning, part of a grander vision. "The Dequindre Cut is the latest in a growing network of greenways -- nonmotorized community links -- that eventually could encompass 100 miles of such trails throughout Detroit." The Cut was open to the public with festive ceremonies yesterday (just in time for Bike to Work Day.
The City of Detroit recycled a railroad line into a bike and walking path that could be extended to 100 miles in the future.
A Detroit railroad line that has been abandoned since the 1980s has now been turned into a 1.2 mile biking and walking path, and Detroit officials assure us that this is only the beginning, part of a grander vision. "The Dequindre Cut is the latest in a growing network of greenways -- nonmotorized community links -- that eventually could encompass 100 miles of such trails throughout Detroit." The Cut was open to the public with festive ceremonies yesterday (just in time for Bike to Work Day.
The City of Detroit recycled a railroad line into a bike and walking path that could be extended to 100 miles in the future.
MIT-Led Study: Geothermal
MIT-Led Study: Geothermal Could Supply Substantial Portion of Future US Power Need
22 January 2007
Schematic of a conceptual two-well Enhanced Geothermal System in hot rock in a low-permeability crystalline basement formation. Click to enlarge.
A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.
Overall, the panel concluded that EGS can likely deliver cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D. The panel estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ), with an estimated extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ—about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005.
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled The Future of Geothermal Energy. Sponsored by the US Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal.
The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using EGS technology to greatly increase the fraction of the US geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially.
The Department of Energy defines Enhanced (or engineered) Geothermal Systems (EGS) as engineered reservoirs that have been created to extract economical amounts of heat from low permeability and/or porosity geothermal resources. EGS recovers thermal energy contained in subsurface rocks by creating or accessing a system of open, connected fractures through which water can be circulated down injection wells, heated by contact with the rocks, and returned to the surface in production wells to form a closed loop.
In its assessment, the panel adapted that definition to include all geothermal resources that are currently not in commercial production and require stimulation or enhancement. In addition, it added coproduced hot water from oil and gas production as an unconventional EGS resource type that could be developed in the short term and possibly provide a first step to more classical EGS exploitation.
The study viewed the quality of a geothermal resource as a continuum in several dimensions: temperature-depth relationship (i.e., geothermal gradient), the reservoir rock’s permeability and porosity, and the amount of fluid saturation.
High-grade hydrothermal resources have high average thermal gradients, high rock permeability and porosity, sufficient fluids in place, and an adequate reservoir recharge of fluids.
All EGS resources lack at least one of these, according to the study. For example, reservoir rock may be hot enough but not produce sufficient fluid for viable heat extraction, either because of low formation permeability/connectivity and insufficient reservoir volume, and/or the absence of naturally contained fluids.
The analysis considered three main components:
Resource: estimating the magnitude and distribution of the US EGS resource.
Technology: establishing requirements for extracting and utilizing energy from EGS reservoirs including drilling, reservoir design and stimulation, and thermal energy conversion to electricity.
Economics: estimating costs for EGS-supplied electricity on a national scale using newly developed methods for mining heat from the earth. Developing levelized energy costs and supply curves as a function of invested R&D and deployment levels in evolving US energy markets.
Specific findings of the report include:
EGS is one of the few renewable energy resources that can provide continuous base-load power with minimal visual and other environmental impacts. Geothermal systems have a small footprint and virtually no emissions, including carbon dioxide. Geothermal energy has significant base-load potential, requires no storage, and, thus, it complements other renewables—solar (CSP and PV), wind, hydropower—in a lower-carbon energy future. In the shorter term, EGS would provide a buffer against the instabilities of gas price fluctuations and supply disruptions, as well as nuclear plant retirements.
The accessible geothermal resource, based on existing extractive technology, is large and contained in a continuum of grades ranging from today’s hydrothermal, convective systems through high- and mid-grade EGS resources (located primarily in the western United States) to the very large, conduction-dominated contributions in the deep basement and sedimentary rock formations throughout the country. The panel estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ), with an estimated extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ—about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005.
With technology improvements, the economically extractable amount of useful energy could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making EGS sustainable for centuries.
Ongoing work on both hydrothermal and EGS resource development complement each other. Improvements to drilling and power conversion technologies, as well as better understanding of fractured rock structure and flow properties, benefit all geothermal energy development scenarios.
EGS technology has advanced since its infancy in the 1970s. Field studies conducted worldwide for more than 30 years have shown that EGS is technically feasible in terms of producing net thermal energy by circulating water through stimulated regions of rock at depths ranging from 3 to 5 km. Current technology can now stimulate large rock volumes (more than 2 km3), drill into these stimulated regions to establish connected reservoirs, generate connectivity in a controlled way if needed, circulate fluid without large pressure losses at near commercial rates, and generate power using the thermal energy produced at the surface from the created EGS system.
Initial concerns regarding five key issues—flow short circuiting, a need for high injection pressures, water losses, geochemical impacts, and induced seismicity—appear to be either fully resolved or manageable with proper monitoring and operational changes.
At this point, the main constraint is creating sufficient connectivity within the injection and production well system in the stimulated region of the EGS reservoir to allow for high per-well production rates without reducing reservoir life by rapid cooling. US field demonstrations have been constrained by many external issues, which have limited further stimulation and development efforts and circulation testing times—and, as a result, risks and uncertainties have not been reduced to a point where private investments would completely support the commercial deployment of EGS in the United States.
Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) in certain critical areas could greatly enhance the overall competitiveness of geothermal in two ways. First, it would lead to generally lower development costs for all grade systems. Second, it could substantially lower power plant, drilling, and stimulation costs, which increases accessibility to lower-grade EGS areas at depths of 6 km or more.
In a manner similar to the technologies developed for oil and gas and mineral extraction, the investments made in research to develop extractive technology for EGS would follow a natural learning curve that lowers development costs and increases reserves along a continuum of geothermal resource grades.
The report presents the examples of impacts that would result from research-driven improvements in three areas:
Drilling technology: both evolutionary improvements building on conventional approaches to drilling such as more robust drill bits, innovative casing methods, better cementing techniques for high temperatures, improved sensors, and electronics capable of operating at higher temperature in downhole tools; and revolutionary improvements utilizing new methods of rock penetration to lower production costs. These improvements will enable access to deeper, hotter regions in highgrade formations or to economically acceptable temperatures in lower-grade formations.
Power conversion technology: improving heat-transfer performance for lower-temperature fluids, and developing plant designs for higher resource temperatures to the supercritical water region would lead to an order of magnitude (or more) gain in both reservoir performance and heat-to-power conversion efficiency.
Reservoir technology: increasing production flow rates by targeting specific zones for stimulation and improving downhole lift systems for higher temperatures, and increasing swept areas and volumes to improve heat-removal efficiencies in fractured rock systems, will lead to immediate cost reductions by increasing output per well and extending reservoir lifetimes.
For the longer term, using CO2 as a reservoir heat-transfer fluid for EGS could lead to improved reservoir performance as a result of its low viscosity and high density at supercritical conditions. In addition, using CO2 in EGS may provide an alternative means to sequester large amounts of carbon in stable formations.
EGS systems are versatile, inherently modular, and scalable from 1 to 50 MWe for distributed applications to large power parks, which could provide thousands of MWe of base-load capacity.
Using coproduced hot water, available in large quantities at temperatures up to 100°C or more from existing oil and gas operations, it is possible to generate up to 11,000 MWe of new generating capacity with standard binary-cycle technology, and increase hydrocarbon production by partially offsetting parasitic losses consumed during production.
A cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe from EGS can be achieved in the United States within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D in several field projects in the United States.
We’ve determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total US resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology.
EGS technology has already been proven to work in the few areas where underground heat has been successfully extracted. And further technological improvements can be expected.
—Jefferson W. Tester, the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, panel-leader
In its report, the panel recommends that:
More detailed and site-specific assessments of the US geothermal energy resource should be conducted.
Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems.
The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first.
Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested.
Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development.
A multiyear research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results.
Resources:
The Future of Geothermal Energy—Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century
January 22, 2007 in Geothermal, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
_This may well be a partial medium term solution. Unless we face a dire need for energy, in which other sources cannot feasibly replace, we should keep this as an Ace up our sleeves.
_As rock cools/heats up, it shrinks/expands, and may crack if cooled/heated too fast/unevenly. Long-term concerns include sinking land, new cracks in (overlaying) rock formations, water table disturbance and contamination.
_Perhaps we could use very large footprint (shallow-medium depth) geothermal as a large-scale solar energy storage reservoir. During the summer, the system pumps the heat down, to cool indoor living/working spaces. During cooler months, the stored heat is available to draw upon. Of course, to eliminate the risk of damagingly uneven, and abrupt heating, and cooling of rock formations, precise management is required.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | January 22, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Sounds like a natural for big oil companies. (They have the drilling technologies and imaging tech required)
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I think there was an article in the news in regards the Swiss test plant has resulted in two significant earthquakes. If the problems there are not resolved, I'm not sure if the idea will fly with commercial interests.
Posted by: Charles S | January 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Here's your story Charles
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16012007/323/swiss-geothermal-drilling-upsets-neighbours.html
I guess this means the US should be more than a little careful if trying this out around old faithful. (I understand that area has the potential to be a super volcano).
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
90 percent of icelands power is generated by using geothermal.
glad to read we are finally getting our act together.
Posted by: Majeasy | January 22, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Iceland also has a population that is about three orders of magnitude smaller than ours, and they sit atop an area that is very geologically active.
I do not know if this resource is properly termed renewable. Reading between the lines, it appears as if this technology would be capable of drawing heat out of the earth's crust faster than it is produced by the decay of natural isotopes embedded in the rocks. In this way it is simlar to petroleum. Both nuclear decay and the transformation of buried organic matter slowly recharge these resources, but at rates that are too insignificant to matter.
All the same, exploiting this resource would seem to have virtually no CO2 footprint, which makes it attractive. The whole earthquake business needs looking into, though.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | January 22, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I wouldn't discourage this research, since breaking fossil fuel's monopoly is so difficult it needs to be attacked from many directions at once. But we shouldn't let this take away from more promising sources. It should be understood that the total energy flux to the earth's surface coming from the sky is on the order of 5,000 times what it is coming from below. Other than that, we are talking about non-renewable energy with geothermal, and that means many of the same kinds of depletion (and other) problems we are familiar with from petroleum.
Also, I would be concerned about disturbing earthquake patterns and thus blowing our ability to eventually predict earthquakes. I would also be concerned about disturbing aquifers and causing bad things to leach into groundwater that had been stable for eons.
The technology will have several spinoffs. I fear the unspoken most motivating of these will be for oil barrel-scraping which could only hinder the rise of renewables.
Posted by: P Schager | January 22, 2007 at 01:26 PM
I think this study refers to granite type rocks not leaky volcanic rocks as in Iceland and elsewhere. The incident near Basel, Switzerland suggests the plants have to be well away from population centres. Moreover if the hot zone is overcooled new boreholes will have to be drilled some distance away. The rock may not be suitable for this and longer surface pipes to the turbines will lose heat. Maybe MIT's optimistic estimate is right but for practical purposes very few locations will prove suitable.
Posted by: Aussie | January 22, 2007 at 01:54 PM
No good technological solutions will be allowed until all the bad technologies are used up; because you can’t have benign geothermal energy (with potentially centuries of power production) undercutting Bush/Cheny’s breeder reactor nuclear plans. They won't allow it. Too much money to be made...
Posted by: bigelow | January 22, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Has anybody compared the global risk factor of geothermal versus getting energy from messy Alberta Tar sands?
Personnally, I agree with MIT, USA should rely more or such clean energy sources and stop/reduce OIL imports.
Posted by: Harvey D. | January 22, 2007 at 02:50 PM
To date, geothermal power has been cost-effective in just a few locations, e.g. Iceland and New Zealand. Both of these are located in highly active volcanic zones.
Except for a very few locations, geothermal wells tend to yield low-exergy heat at just 90-120 degC. Unless you're prepared to use a heat pump powered by fossil fuels to concentrate the exergy, that means you need to resort to fairly exotic and expensive technology such as the Kalina process. If you happen to have a ready source of fresh water, it becomes much easier aka cheaper to reject the waste heat from such a process.
The Western US has a lot of volcanic zones out West but few of them have plentiful available water - a direct consequence of overly generous water rights allocations. Also note that geothermal wells can have long useful lives but are not strictly speaking considered renewable sources.
On the other hand, the $300+ billion poured into Iraq so far, plus the many more that will need to be spent just to get the US armed forces to replace their lost equipment and ordinance, could easily have paid for a significant expansion of geothermal power plus a large fleet of PHEV vehicles to take advantage of it.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 22, 2007 at 02:53 PM
The best thing is that the report used SI units.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | January 22, 2007 at 05:10 PM
I'm not sure that water availability is a particular problem for the implementation listed here which seems to recycle the water in a closed loop.
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Neil -
water is needed for the initial drilling and stimulation (hydraulic rock fracturing) of the site. Certain power station designs operating at elevated temperature levels rely on periodic flashing of superheated steam, which involves emissions of low-grade waste steam.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 22, 2007 at 07:44 PM
On the other hand, the $300+ billion poured into Iraq so far...
You know, for once I'd like to enjoy a purely technical discussion on the merits without politics coming into it. Please?
Posted by: Cervus | January 22, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Raser Technologies, known to GCC readers for their innovative Symetron motor-generators, currently aqquired couple of geothermal properties and planning to build geothermal power stations. Raser has rights to employ Kalina cycle technology, which is best suited to generate electricity from low-temperature heat sources.
Posted by: Andrey | January 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM
The deeper you drill, the hotter it gets. I think we presently have the technology to get down where there is plenty of heat. Oil and gas companies sometimes drill to the 30,000 foot level. We might even think of redrilling some of our old oil wells for this purpose to cut down costs. You need two deep wells with cracked rock in between. It seems practical. Send down water on one well, bring up steam under pressure with the other well.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | January 23, 2007 at 02:57 AM
I think this technology has a lot of potential. The article just released probably has a lot of information, but there is already a lot out there if you Google "hot dry rock geothermal". I spent some time looking at this a couple of months ago and there was no lack of information.
The earthquake issue will have to be dealt with either by more study or by concentrating on areas with low potential for earthquakes (lower than Basel). The other issue is the limited life of each area IIRC reservoirs are expected to last about 40 years, then take 100-150 years to get hot enough to be useful again. However, they cover a fairly small area, so wells could be capped and plants moved a short distance to start again.
The process does require some water, but as it is a closed loop when operating the requirements are quite low once the reservoir is developed and the system running. I don't think anyone has a full-scale plant up an running yet, but once numbers come in from the plant in Australia there will probably be a lot of interest.
I don't understand the extreme pessimism about this source of energy. This is about as good as it gets. Even hypothesizing a short 25 year useful life for a given site the ROI (figuring in maintenance and disposal of equipment) has to dwarf that of solar or wind - and the plants would be much more unobtrusive than wind turbines. Oh, and the two words that put this in a whole different league: Base Load.
Posted by: Nordic | January 23, 2007 at 07:48 AM
"Personnally, I agree with MIT, USA should rely more or such clean energy sources and stop/reduce OIL imports."
I doubt that making electricity from geothermal (or anything) will have the slightest effect on oil imports.
All of the oil we import is used for transportation and to heat homes, neither of which will bein the least bit affected in any way shape or form by the method we decide to use to create electricity. This comment was almost as bad as that by our lowly regarded Sen Max Baucus, who said during a windfarm installation that it was good that the wind would replace oil. And this guy's up there in D.C. voting on laws for our country! I suppose he figures energy is energy, what's the difference. Yeah, right.
Posted by: kent beuchert | January 23, 2007 at 08:27 AM
More government handouts. We already are spending
money without a whole lot of thinking. Wind is getting massive subsidies and it, quite frankly, sucks as an energy source. Geoexchange heat pump subsidies would be
both a lot more effective in helping our energy situation and would reduce utility bills as well. Geothermal is very attractive when compared to wind (as is EVERY alternative energy source) - it is controllable, very dense (windfarms extend over hundreds of acres), NOT outlandishly visible, unlike those turbines that have had virtually no effect on our energy situation (case in point - last year saw the largest number of new wind turbines - 2700 megawatt nameplate capacity, but only able to produce around 800 megawatts, while 16,000 megawatts of new natural gas powerplants were built). As I said before, wind sucks. As of
today, wind power accounts for less than 1/4 of one percent of power generated. Should a cheap power storage device be invented, wind would benefit, but it would remain an expensive and ineffective method of producing electricity.
Posted by: kent beuchert | January 23, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Kent: Electricity production can have an effect on oil demand. Since I got my BEV I've used half the gas I used to.
Given how much money big oil gets in subsidies why not spend a little on renewables.
Wind generators just need to get off the ground and into the jet stream.
Posted by: Neil | January 23, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Atlantic Geothermal has posted a survey of blog headlines from the first week following the publication of the MIT-led study, "Future of Geothermal Energy."
Posted by: Atlantic Geothermal | January 30, 2007 at 11:10 AM
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared 400-plus pages of pure FICTION! What a load of PR rubbish.
There is only one commercial 2.5MW partial EGS plant in operation and MIT already declares "the technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact" Do earth quakes qualify as "environmental impact"??
There isn’t a SINGLE commercial full EGS plant on the planet. This report is like announcing commercial space flights will soon be a reality when they haven't figured out how to get into space yet and first space mission hasn't even happened. From what I've read in most cases the technology is still at the early R&D phase so 'engineered' geothermal, as a commercial replacement for fossil fuels, is just 400 pages of wishful thinking masquerading as an MIT 'report'
22 January 2007
Schematic of a conceptual two-well Enhanced Geothermal System in hot rock in a low-permeability crystalline basement formation. Click to enlarge.
A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.
Overall, the panel concluded that EGS can likely deliver cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D. The panel estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ), with an estimated extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ—about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005.
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled The Future of Geothermal Energy. Sponsored by the US Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal.
The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using EGS technology to greatly increase the fraction of the US geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially.
The Department of Energy defines Enhanced (or engineered) Geothermal Systems (EGS) as engineered reservoirs that have been created to extract economical amounts of heat from low permeability and/or porosity geothermal resources. EGS recovers thermal energy contained in subsurface rocks by creating or accessing a system of open, connected fractures through which water can be circulated down injection wells, heated by contact with the rocks, and returned to the surface in production wells to form a closed loop.
In its assessment, the panel adapted that definition to include all geothermal resources that are currently not in commercial production and require stimulation or enhancement. In addition, it added coproduced hot water from oil and gas production as an unconventional EGS resource type that could be developed in the short term and possibly provide a first step to more classical EGS exploitation.
The study viewed the quality of a geothermal resource as a continuum in several dimensions: temperature-depth relationship (i.e., geothermal gradient), the reservoir rock’s permeability and porosity, and the amount of fluid saturation.
High-grade hydrothermal resources have high average thermal gradients, high rock permeability and porosity, sufficient fluids in place, and an adequate reservoir recharge of fluids.
All EGS resources lack at least one of these, according to the study. For example, reservoir rock may be hot enough but not produce sufficient fluid for viable heat extraction, either because of low formation permeability/connectivity and insufficient reservoir volume, and/or the absence of naturally contained fluids.
The analysis considered three main components:
Resource: estimating the magnitude and distribution of the US EGS resource.
Technology: establishing requirements for extracting and utilizing energy from EGS reservoirs including drilling, reservoir design and stimulation, and thermal energy conversion to electricity.
Economics: estimating costs for EGS-supplied electricity on a national scale using newly developed methods for mining heat from the earth. Developing levelized energy costs and supply curves as a function of invested R&D and deployment levels in evolving US energy markets.
Specific findings of the report include:
EGS is one of the few renewable energy resources that can provide continuous base-load power with minimal visual and other environmental impacts. Geothermal systems have a small footprint and virtually no emissions, including carbon dioxide. Geothermal energy has significant base-load potential, requires no storage, and, thus, it complements other renewables—solar (CSP and PV), wind, hydropower—in a lower-carbon energy future. In the shorter term, EGS would provide a buffer against the instabilities of gas price fluctuations and supply disruptions, as well as nuclear plant retirements.
The accessible geothermal resource, based on existing extractive technology, is large and contained in a continuum of grades ranging from today’s hydrothermal, convective systems through high- and mid-grade EGS resources (located primarily in the western United States) to the very large, conduction-dominated contributions in the deep basement and sedimentary rock formations throughout the country. The panel estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ), with an estimated extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ—about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005.
With technology improvements, the economically extractable amount of useful energy could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making EGS sustainable for centuries.
Ongoing work on both hydrothermal and EGS resource development complement each other. Improvements to drilling and power conversion technologies, as well as better understanding of fractured rock structure and flow properties, benefit all geothermal energy development scenarios.
EGS technology has advanced since its infancy in the 1970s. Field studies conducted worldwide for more than 30 years have shown that EGS is technically feasible in terms of producing net thermal energy by circulating water through stimulated regions of rock at depths ranging from 3 to 5 km. Current technology can now stimulate large rock volumes (more than 2 km3), drill into these stimulated regions to establish connected reservoirs, generate connectivity in a controlled way if needed, circulate fluid without large pressure losses at near commercial rates, and generate power using the thermal energy produced at the surface from the created EGS system.
Initial concerns regarding five key issues—flow short circuiting, a need for high injection pressures, water losses, geochemical impacts, and induced seismicity—appear to be either fully resolved or manageable with proper monitoring and operational changes.
At this point, the main constraint is creating sufficient connectivity within the injection and production well system in the stimulated region of the EGS reservoir to allow for high per-well production rates without reducing reservoir life by rapid cooling. US field demonstrations have been constrained by many external issues, which have limited further stimulation and development efforts and circulation testing times—and, as a result, risks and uncertainties have not been reduced to a point where private investments would completely support the commercial deployment of EGS in the United States.
Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) in certain critical areas could greatly enhance the overall competitiveness of geothermal in two ways. First, it would lead to generally lower development costs for all grade systems. Second, it could substantially lower power plant, drilling, and stimulation costs, which increases accessibility to lower-grade EGS areas at depths of 6 km or more.
In a manner similar to the technologies developed for oil and gas and mineral extraction, the investments made in research to develop extractive technology for EGS would follow a natural learning curve that lowers development costs and increases reserves along a continuum of geothermal resource grades.
The report presents the examples of impacts that would result from research-driven improvements in three areas:
Drilling technology: both evolutionary improvements building on conventional approaches to drilling such as more robust drill bits, innovative casing methods, better cementing techniques for high temperatures, improved sensors, and electronics capable of operating at higher temperature in downhole tools; and revolutionary improvements utilizing new methods of rock penetration to lower production costs. These improvements will enable access to deeper, hotter regions in highgrade formations or to economically acceptable temperatures in lower-grade formations.
Power conversion technology: improving heat-transfer performance for lower-temperature fluids, and developing plant designs for higher resource temperatures to the supercritical water region would lead to an order of magnitude (or more) gain in both reservoir performance and heat-to-power conversion efficiency.
Reservoir technology: increasing production flow rates by targeting specific zones for stimulation and improving downhole lift systems for higher temperatures, and increasing swept areas and volumes to improve heat-removal efficiencies in fractured rock systems, will lead to immediate cost reductions by increasing output per well and extending reservoir lifetimes.
For the longer term, using CO2 as a reservoir heat-transfer fluid for EGS could lead to improved reservoir performance as a result of its low viscosity and high density at supercritical conditions. In addition, using CO2 in EGS may provide an alternative means to sequester large amounts of carbon in stable formations.
EGS systems are versatile, inherently modular, and scalable from 1 to 50 MWe for distributed applications to large power parks, which could provide thousands of MWe of base-load capacity.
Using coproduced hot water, available in large quantities at temperatures up to 100°C or more from existing oil and gas operations, it is possible to generate up to 11,000 MWe of new generating capacity with standard binary-cycle technology, and increase hydrocarbon production by partially offsetting parasitic losses consumed during production.
A cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe from EGS can be achieved in the United States within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D in several field projects in the United States.
We’ve determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total US resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology.
EGS technology has already been proven to work in the few areas where underground heat has been successfully extracted. And further technological improvements can be expected.
—Jefferson W. Tester, the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, panel-leader
In its report, the panel recommends that:
More detailed and site-specific assessments of the US geothermal energy resource should be conducted.
Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems.
The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first.
Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geopressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested.
Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development.
A multiyear research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results.
Resources:
The Future of Geothermal Energy—Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century
January 22, 2007 in Geothermal, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
_This may well be a partial medium term solution. Unless we face a dire need for energy, in which other sources cannot feasibly replace, we should keep this as an Ace up our sleeves.
_As rock cools/heats up, it shrinks/expands, and may crack if cooled/heated too fast/unevenly. Long-term concerns include sinking land, new cracks in (overlaying) rock formations, water table disturbance and contamination.
_Perhaps we could use very large footprint (shallow-medium depth) geothermal as a large-scale solar energy storage reservoir. During the summer, the system pumps the heat down, to cool indoor living/working spaces. During cooler months, the stored heat is available to draw upon. Of course, to eliminate the risk of damagingly uneven, and abrupt heating, and cooling of rock formations, precise management is required.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | January 22, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Sounds like a natural for big oil companies. (They have the drilling technologies and imaging tech required)
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I think there was an article in the news in regards the Swiss test plant has resulted in two significant earthquakes. If the problems there are not resolved, I'm not sure if the idea will fly with commercial interests.
Posted by: Charles S | January 22, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Here's your story Charles
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16012007/323/swiss-geothermal-drilling-upsets-neighbours.html
I guess this means the US should be more than a little careful if trying this out around old faithful. (I understand that area has the potential to be a super volcano).
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
90 percent of icelands power is generated by using geothermal.
glad to read we are finally getting our act together.
Posted by: Majeasy | January 22, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Iceland also has a population that is about three orders of magnitude smaller than ours, and they sit atop an area that is very geologically active.
I do not know if this resource is properly termed renewable. Reading between the lines, it appears as if this technology would be capable of drawing heat out of the earth's crust faster than it is produced by the decay of natural isotopes embedded in the rocks. In this way it is simlar to petroleum. Both nuclear decay and the transformation of buried organic matter slowly recharge these resources, but at rates that are too insignificant to matter.
All the same, exploiting this resource would seem to have virtually no CO2 footprint, which makes it attractive. The whole earthquake business needs looking into, though.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | January 22, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I wouldn't discourage this research, since breaking fossil fuel's monopoly is so difficult it needs to be attacked from many directions at once. But we shouldn't let this take away from more promising sources. It should be understood that the total energy flux to the earth's surface coming from the sky is on the order of 5,000 times what it is coming from below. Other than that, we are talking about non-renewable energy with geothermal, and that means many of the same kinds of depletion (and other) problems we are familiar with from petroleum.
Also, I would be concerned about disturbing earthquake patterns and thus blowing our ability to eventually predict earthquakes. I would also be concerned about disturbing aquifers and causing bad things to leach into groundwater that had been stable for eons.
The technology will have several spinoffs. I fear the unspoken most motivating of these will be for oil barrel-scraping which could only hinder the rise of renewables.
Posted by: P Schager | January 22, 2007 at 01:26 PM
I think this study refers to granite type rocks not leaky volcanic rocks as in Iceland and elsewhere. The incident near Basel, Switzerland suggests the plants have to be well away from population centres. Moreover if the hot zone is overcooled new boreholes will have to be drilled some distance away. The rock may not be suitable for this and longer surface pipes to the turbines will lose heat. Maybe MIT's optimistic estimate is right but for practical purposes very few locations will prove suitable.
Posted by: Aussie | January 22, 2007 at 01:54 PM
No good technological solutions will be allowed until all the bad technologies are used up; because you can’t have benign geothermal energy (with potentially centuries of power production) undercutting Bush/Cheny’s breeder reactor nuclear plans. They won't allow it. Too much money to be made...
Posted by: bigelow | January 22, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Has anybody compared the global risk factor of geothermal versus getting energy from messy Alberta Tar sands?
Personnally, I agree with MIT, USA should rely more or such clean energy sources and stop/reduce OIL imports.
Posted by: Harvey D. | January 22, 2007 at 02:50 PM
To date, geothermal power has been cost-effective in just a few locations, e.g. Iceland and New Zealand. Both of these are located in highly active volcanic zones.
Except for a very few locations, geothermal wells tend to yield low-exergy heat at just 90-120 degC. Unless you're prepared to use a heat pump powered by fossil fuels to concentrate the exergy, that means you need to resort to fairly exotic and expensive technology such as the Kalina process. If you happen to have a ready source of fresh water, it becomes much easier aka cheaper to reject the waste heat from such a process.
The Western US has a lot of volcanic zones out West but few of them have plentiful available water - a direct consequence of overly generous water rights allocations. Also note that geothermal wells can have long useful lives but are not strictly speaking considered renewable sources.
On the other hand, the $300+ billion poured into Iraq so far, plus the many more that will need to be spent just to get the US armed forces to replace their lost equipment and ordinance, could easily have paid for a significant expansion of geothermal power plus a large fleet of PHEV vehicles to take advantage of it.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 22, 2007 at 02:53 PM
The best thing is that the report used SI units.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | January 22, 2007 at 05:10 PM
I'm not sure that water availability is a particular problem for the implementation listed here which seems to recycle the water in a closed loop.
Posted by: Neil | January 22, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Neil -
water is needed for the initial drilling and stimulation (hydraulic rock fracturing) of the site. Certain power station designs operating at elevated temperature levels rely on periodic flashing of superheated steam, which involves emissions of low-grade waste steam.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 22, 2007 at 07:44 PM
On the other hand, the $300+ billion poured into Iraq so far...
You know, for once I'd like to enjoy a purely technical discussion on the merits without politics coming into it. Please?
Posted by: Cervus | January 22, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Raser Technologies, known to GCC readers for their innovative Symetron motor-generators, currently aqquired couple of geothermal properties and planning to build geothermal power stations. Raser has rights to employ Kalina cycle technology, which is best suited to generate electricity from low-temperature heat sources.
Posted by: Andrey | January 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM
The deeper you drill, the hotter it gets. I think we presently have the technology to get down where there is plenty of heat. Oil and gas companies sometimes drill to the 30,000 foot level. We might even think of redrilling some of our old oil wells for this purpose to cut down costs. You need two deep wells with cracked rock in between. It seems practical. Send down water on one well, bring up steam under pressure with the other well.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | January 23, 2007 at 02:57 AM
I think this technology has a lot of potential. The article just released probably has a lot of information, but there is already a lot out there if you Google "hot dry rock geothermal". I spent some time looking at this a couple of months ago and there was no lack of information.
The earthquake issue will have to be dealt with either by more study or by concentrating on areas with low potential for earthquakes (lower than Basel). The other issue is the limited life of each area IIRC reservoirs are expected to last about 40 years, then take 100-150 years to get hot enough to be useful again. However, they cover a fairly small area, so wells could be capped and plants moved a short distance to start again.
The process does require some water, but as it is a closed loop when operating the requirements are quite low once the reservoir is developed and the system running. I don't think anyone has a full-scale plant up an running yet, but once numbers come in from the plant in Australia there will probably be a lot of interest.
I don't understand the extreme pessimism about this source of energy. This is about as good as it gets. Even hypothesizing a short 25 year useful life for a given site the ROI (figuring in maintenance and disposal of equipment) has to dwarf that of solar or wind - and the plants would be much more unobtrusive than wind turbines. Oh, and the two words that put this in a whole different league: Base Load.
Posted by: Nordic | January 23, 2007 at 07:48 AM
"Personnally, I agree with MIT, USA should rely more or such clean energy sources and stop/reduce OIL imports."
I doubt that making electricity from geothermal (or anything) will have the slightest effect on oil imports.
All of the oil we import is used for transportation and to heat homes, neither of which will bein the least bit affected in any way shape or form by the method we decide to use to create electricity. This comment was almost as bad as that by our lowly regarded Sen Max Baucus, who said during a windfarm installation that it was good that the wind would replace oil. And this guy's up there in D.C. voting on laws for our country! I suppose he figures energy is energy, what's the difference. Yeah, right.
Posted by: kent beuchert | January 23, 2007 at 08:27 AM
More government handouts. We already are spending
money without a whole lot of thinking. Wind is getting massive subsidies and it, quite frankly, sucks as an energy source. Geoexchange heat pump subsidies would be
both a lot more effective in helping our energy situation and would reduce utility bills as well. Geothermal is very attractive when compared to wind (as is EVERY alternative energy source) - it is controllable, very dense (windfarms extend over hundreds of acres), NOT outlandishly visible, unlike those turbines that have had virtually no effect on our energy situation (case in point - last year saw the largest number of new wind turbines - 2700 megawatt nameplate capacity, but only able to produce around 800 megawatts, while 16,000 megawatts of new natural gas powerplants were built). As I said before, wind sucks. As of
today, wind power accounts for less than 1/4 of one percent of power generated. Should a cheap power storage device be invented, wind would benefit, but it would remain an expensive and ineffective method of producing electricity.
Posted by: kent beuchert | January 23, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Kent: Electricity production can have an effect on oil demand. Since I got my BEV I've used half the gas I used to.
Given how much money big oil gets in subsidies why not spend a little on renewables.
Wind generators just need to get off the ground and into the jet stream.
Posted by: Neil | January 23, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Atlantic Geothermal has posted a survey of blog headlines from the first week following the publication of the MIT-led study, "Future of Geothermal Energy."
Posted by: Atlantic Geothermal | January 30, 2007 at 11:10 AM
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared 400-plus pages of pure FICTION! What a load of PR rubbish.
There is only one commercial 2.5MW partial EGS plant in operation and MIT already declares "the technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact" Do earth quakes qualify as "environmental impact"??
There isn’t a SINGLE commercial full EGS plant on the planet. This report is like announcing commercial space flights will soon be a reality when they haven't figured out how to get into space yet and first space mission hasn't even happened. From what I've read in most cases the technology is still at the early R&D phase so 'engineered' geothermal, as a commercial replacement for fossil fuels, is just 400 pages of wishful thinking masquerading as an MIT 'report'
CARL HIAASEN
Posted on Sunday, 03.29.09
Paying higher taxes no fun -- but necessary
By CARL HIAASEN
If you're rich and think nobody loves you anymore, meet Rep. John Boehner.
He's the House minority leader from Ohio who is anchoring the opposition to President Barack Obama's proposed tax hikes on households making more than $250,000 a year.
Although my family falls into that category, I never asked Boehner to take up our cause. The idea of paying higher taxes doesn't make me want to turn cartwheels, but I understand why it's necessary. The math is pretty basic.
One of the richest guys on the planet, Warren Buffett, says he's totally cool with Obama's tax plan, even though it would personally cost him millions of dollars -- which he can afford.
We may safely assume that Buffett doesn't require, or want, any politicians out crusading on his behalf. Yet most rich people aren't as famous or influential as the iconic Omaha investor, and some of them are glad to have a friend in John Boehner.
And he's one friendly dude, if you've got money.
Corporate lobbyists adore the man, and the feeling is mutual. Boehner is well known for letting private interests fly him all over the place on golf excursions disguised as speaking gigs -- to Pebble Beach in California, Green Briar in West Virginia, St. Andrew's in Scotland.
''Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists,'' he once told The Washington Post, while proclaiming that his ethics were unassailable and his true loyalties lay with ordinary Americans.
When sleazeball lobbyist and future felon Jack Abramoff got rolling in Washington, one of the first things he did was advise the Indian tribes that were his clients to give plenty of campaign contributions to John Boehner.
Later, after Abramoff got in trouble with the law, Boehner stammered and shuffled and insisted he'd only met the guy maybe once.
Watching Boehner at his press conferences, you'd never guess he was such a social butterfly. His delivery is so dull that he makes Bob Dole look like Jim Carrey.
Everybody must pay
Yet, according to Boehner's hometown newspaper, one of the hottest bashes at Republican conventions is known as the ''Boehner party,'' which is held nightly until the early hours by lobbyists schmoozing the congressman.
Never having invited Boehner on a Scottish golf vacation, or thrown a party for him, or mailed him even a nickel in campaign donations, I suppose I should be grateful that he's taken such an avid interest in my tax situation.
But here's the deal. If government is serious about rebooting the economy, reforming healthcare and improving public education, everybody's going to pay for it -- just like we're paying for this brilliant, trillion-dollar adventure in Iraq (which, by the way, Boehner thinks was a swell idea.)
The difference is that much of the money spent here at home will have a measurable impact on American children, college students, seniors, veterans, working families and small businesses.
As a taxpayer, I've got no problem with that. It makes more sense than starting a faraway war on a whim.
More-equitable law
Under Obama's plan, the Bush tax cuts that benefited the wealthy would be allowed to expire in a year or so, while couples earning less than $250,000 annually would receive an immediate reduction in their tax rates.
That means the vast majority of Americans would actually see their income taxes go down. My mother, for example, would pay less than she does now, which would be a good thing.
Under another of the president's proposals, some of the itemized deductions that I take on my tax returns would be pared in order to raise revenues for healthcare, and also to make the law more equitable.
The way it stands now is stacked in my favor. If Mom and I each donated $100 to the United Way, I'd get a better tax break for the contribution just because I'm in a higher bracket. The same is true for mortgage-interest deductions.
If Obama's revisions should pass, it won't mean that every tax dollar raised will be spent carefully and efficiently. Our government is too sprawling and clunky. Waste, ineptitude and corruption have been a plague since the founding of the republic.
Yet what good things the government can and must try to do require lots of money, and it has to come from somewhere. For those of us who are in better shape to take a hit than our parents or our kids, this is a no-brainer.
Golfing continues
You'd never know from listening to Boehner, but lots of people with money are willing to write the IRS a bigger check if it means easier times for folks we know who are struggling.
Boehner says any tax hike would be terrible for the economy, but not a soul at the top of those lofty brackets intends to stop spending their dough if the law changes.
And that includes the congressman's golf buddies
Paying higher taxes no fun -- but necessary
By CARL HIAASEN
If you're rich and think nobody loves you anymore, meet Rep. John Boehner.
He's the House minority leader from Ohio who is anchoring the opposition to President Barack Obama's proposed tax hikes on households making more than $250,000 a year.
Although my family falls into that category, I never asked Boehner to take up our cause. The idea of paying higher taxes doesn't make me want to turn cartwheels, but I understand why it's necessary. The math is pretty basic.
One of the richest guys on the planet, Warren Buffett, says he's totally cool with Obama's tax plan, even though it would personally cost him millions of dollars -- which he can afford.
We may safely assume that Buffett doesn't require, or want, any politicians out crusading on his behalf. Yet most rich people aren't as famous or influential as the iconic Omaha investor, and some of them are glad to have a friend in John Boehner.
And he's one friendly dude, if you've got money.
Corporate lobbyists adore the man, and the feeling is mutual. Boehner is well known for letting private interests fly him all over the place on golf excursions disguised as speaking gigs -- to Pebble Beach in California, Green Briar in West Virginia, St. Andrew's in Scotland.
''Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists,'' he once told The Washington Post, while proclaiming that his ethics were unassailable and his true loyalties lay with ordinary Americans.
When sleazeball lobbyist and future felon Jack Abramoff got rolling in Washington, one of the first things he did was advise the Indian tribes that were his clients to give plenty of campaign contributions to John Boehner.
Later, after Abramoff got in trouble with the law, Boehner stammered and shuffled and insisted he'd only met the guy maybe once.
Watching Boehner at his press conferences, you'd never guess he was such a social butterfly. His delivery is so dull that he makes Bob Dole look like Jim Carrey.
Everybody must pay
Yet, according to Boehner's hometown newspaper, one of the hottest bashes at Republican conventions is known as the ''Boehner party,'' which is held nightly until the early hours by lobbyists schmoozing the congressman.
Never having invited Boehner on a Scottish golf vacation, or thrown a party for him, or mailed him even a nickel in campaign donations, I suppose I should be grateful that he's taken such an avid interest in my tax situation.
But here's the deal. If government is serious about rebooting the economy, reforming healthcare and improving public education, everybody's going to pay for it -- just like we're paying for this brilliant, trillion-dollar adventure in Iraq (which, by the way, Boehner thinks was a swell idea.)
The difference is that much of the money spent here at home will have a measurable impact on American children, college students, seniors, veterans, working families and small businesses.
As a taxpayer, I've got no problem with that. It makes more sense than starting a faraway war on a whim.
More-equitable law
Under Obama's plan, the Bush tax cuts that benefited the wealthy would be allowed to expire in a year or so, while couples earning less than $250,000 annually would receive an immediate reduction in their tax rates.
That means the vast majority of Americans would actually see their income taxes go down. My mother, for example, would pay less than she does now, which would be a good thing.
Under another of the president's proposals, some of the itemized deductions that I take on my tax returns would be pared in order to raise revenues for healthcare, and also to make the law more equitable.
The way it stands now is stacked in my favor. If Mom and I each donated $100 to the United Way, I'd get a better tax break for the contribution just because I'm in a higher bracket. The same is true for mortgage-interest deductions.
If Obama's revisions should pass, it won't mean that every tax dollar raised will be spent carefully and efficiently. Our government is too sprawling and clunky. Waste, ineptitude and corruption have been a plague since the founding of the republic.
Yet what good things the government can and must try to do require lots of money, and it has to come from somewhere. For those of us who are in better shape to take a hit than our parents or our kids, this is a no-brainer.
Golfing continues
You'd never know from listening to Boehner, but lots of people with money are willing to write the IRS a bigger check if it means easier times for folks we know who are struggling.
Boehner says any tax hike would be terrible for the economy, but not a soul at the top of those lofty brackets intends to stop spending their dough if the law changes.
And that includes the congressman's golf buddies
Common sense goes up in smoke
Posted on Saturday, 04.04.09
Common sense goes up in smoke
By CARL HIAASEN
It's been a tough year for smokers, and now Florida lawmakers are considering a $1-a-pack tax on top of the new federal excise hike of 62 cents.
Supporters say the measure would raise $870 million to partially offset the $1.25 billion that it costs Florida taxpayers annually to subsidize extended healthcare for tobacco-related illnesses.
Just as significantly, a cigarette ''user fee'' would reduce the number of people smoking in Florida -- as it has in other states that passed similar taxes -- by making the habit too expensive.
That's what worries Ellyn Bogdanoff, the Fort Lauderdale Republican who chairs the Finance and Tax Committee in the House. She strongly opposes a cigarette tax because fewer smokers would be bad for business.
The woman is dead serious, folks.
In particular, Bogdanoff worries about the impact that a cigarette tax would have on convenience stores -- not exactly the bedrock of our economy, but these are the establishments where most young smokers buy their Marlboros and Camels.
''Twenty-two percent of all sales in convenience stores are cigarettes,'' Bogdanoff said. ``We need to look at everything. If they don't go in to buy cigarettes, they don't buy the Coke. They don't buy the chips.''
And if they don't buy the chips, then they don't buy the beef jerky! God help us!
The citizens of Broward County should feel proud to have a representative who bravely stands up for capitalism at all costs and says to hell with the public's health.
True, cigarettes cause lung cancer, throat cancer, mouth cancer, emphysema, heart disease and strokes. And sure, they're highly addictive.
But for all you smokers who might be thinking about quitting, don't be so darn selfish. Listen to Rep. Bogdanoff when she says that Florida's convenience stores really, really need your money.
Her pitch calls to mind a popular Christopher Buckley novel called Thank You for Smoking, which many readers enjoyed as blistering political satire. Bogdanoff obviously absorbed the book as a lesson plan.
There's much evidence that higher cigarette taxes discourage people from starting to smoke, and also cause hard-core smokers to stop cold turkey.
In New York City, where a pack of butts now costs between $9 and $10, health officials say there are 300,000 fewer adult smokers today than there were in 2002. Cigarette use among public high-school students dropped 52 percent during roughly the same period.
That might be good for the lungs and life spans of those ex-smokers, but it's bad for the retail outlets where they once bought their ciggies. In this troubled economy, we need every tobacco addict to stay addicted.
The Petroleum Marketers Association, which represents convenience stores during legislative sessions, won't go as far as Bogdanoff to publicly fret about a potential decline in cigarette sales. The lobby group says it opposes the $1-a-pack tax because smokers will get around the high price by purchasing cheaper cigarettes in other states, or from Internet sites run by Indian tribes, which are not subject to the tax.
On Thursday I went to a convenience store on A1A, and it was jammed. I didn't see a single customer walk out with cigarettes -- apparently they'd already hooked up with their Seminole connections.
Democrats in the Legislature have tried before to raise the cigarette tax, only to be thwarted by the powerful tobacco lobby. But now, in a shocking shift of allegiances, some top GOP lawmakers say the time has come.
Last week, a Senate committee unanimously voted in favor of hiking the state tax from 34 cents to $1.34 per pack, and $1 per ounce on cigars and smokeless tobacco products.
Bogdanoff's counterpart on the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, Republican Thad Altman of Melbourne, says the revenue is necessary to help bring down the high cost of funding Medicaid, which has been bloated with tobacco-related hospital care.
Altman contends that nonsmokers have borne an unfair share of the price for treating smokers who become chronically ill.
OK, so $870 million is a mountain of dough at a time when the state budget is in desperate straits. And, yes, fewer Floridians would take up the lethal habit if the price of Newports jumped by a buck, which means lives would be saved and public hospital beds could go to other patients.
But what would happen to your local 7-Eleven if cigarette sales dropped three or four percent? How could it possibly stay afloat by selling overpriced milk and beer and Pringles and Slurpees? The corner convenience store is an American institution, and we can all cough easier because of public servants such as Bogdanoff, who stand ready to fight for its profit margins. She's in a good position to kill the proposed cigarette tax, and it seems likely she will.
In the meantime, be a patriotic consumer. If you don't smoke, give it a try. If you do smoke, smoke more.
And don't forget to load up on the chips and Coke.
Common sense goes up in smoke
By CARL HIAASEN
It's been a tough year for smokers, and now Florida lawmakers are considering a $1-a-pack tax on top of the new federal excise hike of 62 cents.
Supporters say the measure would raise $870 million to partially offset the $1.25 billion that it costs Florida taxpayers annually to subsidize extended healthcare for tobacco-related illnesses.
Just as significantly, a cigarette ''user fee'' would reduce the number of people smoking in Florida -- as it has in other states that passed similar taxes -- by making the habit too expensive.
That's what worries Ellyn Bogdanoff, the Fort Lauderdale Republican who chairs the Finance and Tax Committee in the House. She strongly opposes a cigarette tax because fewer smokers would be bad for business.
The woman is dead serious, folks.
In particular, Bogdanoff worries about the impact that a cigarette tax would have on convenience stores -- not exactly the bedrock of our economy, but these are the establishments where most young smokers buy their Marlboros and Camels.
''Twenty-two percent of all sales in convenience stores are cigarettes,'' Bogdanoff said. ``We need to look at everything. If they don't go in to buy cigarettes, they don't buy the Coke. They don't buy the chips.''
And if they don't buy the chips, then they don't buy the beef jerky! God help us!
The citizens of Broward County should feel proud to have a representative who bravely stands up for capitalism at all costs and says to hell with the public's health.
True, cigarettes cause lung cancer, throat cancer, mouth cancer, emphysema, heart disease and strokes. And sure, they're highly addictive.
But for all you smokers who might be thinking about quitting, don't be so darn selfish. Listen to Rep. Bogdanoff when she says that Florida's convenience stores really, really need your money.
Her pitch calls to mind a popular Christopher Buckley novel called Thank You for Smoking, which many readers enjoyed as blistering political satire. Bogdanoff obviously absorbed the book as a lesson plan.
There's much evidence that higher cigarette taxes discourage people from starting to smoke, and also cause hard-core smokers to stop cold turkey.
In New York City, where a pack of butts now costs between $9 and $10, health officials say there are 300,000 fewer adult smokers today than there were in 2002. Cigarette use among public high-school students dropped 52 percent during roughly the same period.
That might be good for the lungs and life spans of those ex-smokers, but it's bad for the retail outlets where they once bought their ciggies. In this troubled economy, we need every tobacco addict to stay addicted.
The Petroleum Marketers Association, which represents convenience stores during legislative sessions, won't go as far as Bogdanoff to publicly fret about a potential decline in cigarette sales. The lobby group says it opposes the $1-a-pack tax because smokers will get around the high price by purchasing cheaper cigarettes in other states, or from Internet sites run by Indian tribes, which are not subject to the tax.
On Thursday I went to a convenience store on A1A, and it was jammed. I didn't see a single customer walk out with cigarettes -- apparently they'd already hooked up with their Seminole connections.
Democrats in the Legislature have tried before to raise the cigarette tax, only to be thwarted by the powerful tobacco lobby. But now, in a shocking shift of allegiances, some top GOP lawmakers say the time has come.
Last week, a Senate committee unanimously voted in favor of hiking the state tax from 34 cents to $1.34 per pack, and $1 per ounce on cigars and smokeless tobacco products.
Bogdanoff's counterpart on the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, Republican Thad Altman of Melbourne, says the revenue is necessary to help bring down the high cost of funding Medicaid, which has been bloated with tobacco-related hospital care.
Altman contends that nonsmokers have borne an unfair share of the price for treating smokers who become chronically ill.
OK, so $870 million is a mountain of dough at a time when the state budget is in desperate straits. And, yes, fewer Floridians would take up the lethal habit if the price of Newports jumped by a buck, which means lives would be saved and public hospital beds could go to other patients.
But what would happen to your local 7-Eleven if cigarette sales dropped three or four percent? How could it possibly stay afloat by selling overpriced milk and beer and Pringles and Slurpees? The corner convenience store is an American institution, and we can all cough easier because of public servants such as Bogdanoff, who stand ready to fight for its profit margins. She's in a good position to kill the proposed cigarette tax, and it seems likely she will.
In the meantime, be a patriotic consumer. If you don't smoke, give it a try. If you do smoke, smoke more.
And don't forget to load up on the chips and Coke.
Generics Good For Most
Generic medicines and their future
OUR OPINION: Laws covering these drugs need to be updated, expanded
If you have ever saved a few dollars -- or a lot -- buying generic drugs, give thanks to a law enacted 25 years ago that made it possible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. More billions are saved when hospitals use generics, according to government figures.
In 1984, two unlikely legislative allies -- Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. -- got together to push this ground-breaking law through Congress. The Hatch-Waxman Act was passed back when bipartisanship was not a dirty word and signed by President Ronald Reagan.
Greater market access
A legislative compromise gave brand-name innovators extension for their patents by restoring the time lost in the approval process. In return, generic-drug companies won greater access to the market for prescription drugs, giving consumers the benefit of cheaper medicines with equivalent quality.
The law is one of the biggest pro-consumer success stories of the era that promoted greater market competition. Today, according to an industry group, there are 9,000 generic drugs approved for use in the United States. By 2011, the generic producers say, patent protection will expire for brand-name pharmaceuticals with some $60 billion in sales, opening up greater avenues for savings by U.S. consumers.
Because of these savings and the enormous deficits facing Medicare and other healthcare programs, the government should encourage greater use of affordable generic medicines in plans funded by taxpayers. The producers of generic pharmaceuticals estimate that a 1 percent increase in the use of such drugs in Medicaid alone could yield a savings of nearly $500 million per year.
Produce biogenerics
Congress has a role to play as well. It should create a program that clears the way for biologic medicines -- currently exclusive to brand-name producers -- to become biogenerics.
Used to treat AIDS, stroke, diabetes and other life-threatening diseases, biologics are produced by living organisms and tend to be expensive because of the intricate science used in research and development. Herceptin, a treatment for breast cancer, costs about $12,000 yearly, according to the biogeneric industry.
Pharmaceutical companies rightly insist that these products be protected by stronger patents than those covering an earlier generation of medicines. But consumers should not be blocked from access to these affordable, life-saving drugs forever.
The introduction of biogenerics should be an integral part of the healthcare reform debate. Surely a compromise can be forged that protects manufacturers' investment and rewards innovation yet also ensures that the public has access to biogeneric versions.
OUR OPINION: Laws covering these drugs need to be updated, expanded
If you have ever saved a few dollars -- or a lot -- buying generic drugs, give thanks to a law enacted 25 years ago that made it possible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. More billions are saved when hospitals use generics, according to government figures.
In 1984, two unlikely legislative allies -- Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. -- got together to push this ground-breaking law through Congress. The Hatch-Waxman Act was passed back when bipartisanship was not a dirty word and signed by President Ronald Reagan.
Greater market access
A legislative compromise gave brand-name innovators extension for their patents by restoring the time lost in the approval process. In return, generic-drug companies won greater access to the market for prescription drugs, giving consumers the benefit of cheaper medicines with equivalent quality.
The law is one of the biggest pro-consumer success stories of the era that promoted greater market competition. Today, according to an industry group, there are 9,000 generic drugs approved for use in the United States. By 2011, the generic producers say, patent protection will expire for brand-name pharmaceuticals with some $60 billion in sales, opening up greater avenues for savings by U.S. consumers.
Because of these savings and the enormous deficits facing Medicare and other healthcare programs, the government should encourage greater use of affordable generic medicines in plans funded by taxpayers. The producers of generic pharmaceuticals estimate that a 1 percent increase in the use of such drugs in Medicaid alone could yield a savings of nearly $500 million per year.
Produce biogenerics
Congress has a role to play as well. It should create a program that clears the way for biologic medicines -- currently exclusive to brand-name producers -- to become biogenerics.
Used to treat AIDS, stroke, diabetes and other life-threatening diseases, biologics are produced by living organisms and tend to be expensive because of the intricate science used in research and development. Herceptin, a treatment for breast cancer, costs about $12,000 yearly, according to the biogeneric industry.
Pharmaceutical companies rightly insist that these products be protected by stronger patents than those covering an earlier generation of medicines. But consumers should not be blocked from access to these affordable, life-saving drugs forever.
The introduction of biogenerics should be an integral part of the healthcare reform debate. Surely a compromise can be forged that protects manufacturers' investment and rewards innovation yet also ensures that the public has access to biogeneric versions.
Miami Herald Today
Trim salaries of pork-laden municipalities
By JACKIE BUENO SOUSA
jsousa@MiamiHerald.com
A few years ago, former Miami Beach Mayor Neisen Kasdin, an attorney, was trying to hire an administrative assistant at his downtown law firm. Having found a good candidate, he made what he thought was a competitive offer, about $60,000 a year.
But the candidate turned it down; she had received a richer, $70,000-plus offer from another employer. The amount of the competing offer was surprising enough, but what really struck Kasdin was the identity of the employer: the city of Miami Beach.
''Government salaries are off-the-charts ridiculous,'' says Kasdin. ``The salaries are phenomenal and the pensions are even better.''
Once, working for the government meant you traded good pay for job security and a generous pension. But while the private sector has squeezed pay and reduced staff in a search for efficiency, the trend has been the reverse with many local governments.
The result is that taxpayers are funding overly generous pay and benefit packages even as their own income and benefits are fading. As cities and counties struggle with their budgets, it's time to scrutinize personnel costs, which typically account for about 70 percent of local-government expenses.
GLIMMER OF CHANGE
Already some cities are acknowledging the problem. The city of Miami last week announced a hiring freeze and told workers they could no longer compensate for overtime by taking days off. Such tactics may be just the start. The problem isn't just the number of employees, but also the compensation of those workers.
According to a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time employees of local governments throughout the country make an average of $25.16 an hour, out-earning every other employment category studied, including the private sector ($20.46), nonprofits ($21.68) and state governments ($23.77).
Few cities illustrate the trend better than Miami Beach, where a receptionist can earn upward of $50,000 a year and where a recent study revealed that annual wage increases are more than double the national average. Miami Beach now has among the highest-paid municipal workers in the country.
That's before accounting for the city's employee benefits, which include pension plans that allow many workers to continue collecting a large chunk of that generous income after retirement. This year the city is expected to spend about $34 million on pensions, with the cost expected to grow 20 percent next year to $40 million.
WE'RE NOT ALONE
Miami Beach's generosity with taxpayer dollars is hardly an anomaly, says Dominic Calabro, president of Florida Tax Watch, a nonprofit research institute. Florida's cities and counties have been particularly irresponsible when it comes to personnel, he says.
''They're out of touch with the realities of the marketplace,'' he says.
Historically, local governments have immediately cried that any cuts would come out of service delivery. But such a response holds less and less merit when there's so much fat on the payrolls.
As they consider changes, cities and counties should avoid making across-the-board cuts and, instead, focus on eliminating their least-performing workers. It may not be politically correct, but no organization, private or public, can afford to retain unproductive workers and lose good ones.
One solution, Calabro suggests, is for cities and counties to cut the lowest-performing 5 percent of their employees.
''And if they don't know who they are,'' he says, ``shame on them.''
By JACKIE BUENO SOUSA
jsousa@MiamiHerald.com
A few years ago, former Miami Beach Mayor Neisen Kasdin, an attorney, was trying to hire an administrative assistant at his downtown law firm. Having found a good candidate, he made what he thought was a competitive offer, about $60,000 a year.
But the candidate turned it down; she had received a richer, $70,000-plus offer from another employer. The amount of the competing offer was surprising enough, but what really struck Kasdin was the identity of the employer: the city of Miami Beach.
''Government salaries are off-the-charts ridiculous,'' says Kasdin. ``The salaries are phenomenal and the pensions are even better.''
Once, working for the government meant you traded good pay for job security and a generous pension. But while the private sector has squeezed pay and reduced staff in a search for efficiency, the trend has been the reverse with many local governments.
The result is that taxpayers are funding overly generous pay and benefit packages even as their own income and benefits are fading. As cities and counties struggle with their budgets, it's time to scrutinize personnel costs, which typically account for about 70 percent of local-government expenses.
GLIMMER OF CHANGE
Already some cities are acknowledging the problem. The city of Miami last week announced a hiring freeze and told workers they could no longer compensate for overtime by taking days off. Such tactics may be just the start. The problem isn't just the number of employees, but also the compensation of those workers.
According to a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time employees of local governments throughout the country make an average of $25.16 an hour, out-earning every other employment category studied, including the private sector ($20.46), nonprofits ($21.68) and state governments ($23.77).
Few cities illustrate the trend better than Miami Beach, where a receptionist can earn upward of $50,000 a year and where a recent study revealed that annual wage increases are more than double the national average. Miami Beach now has among the highest-paid municipal workers in the country.
That's before accounting for the city's employee benefits, which include pension plans that allow many workers to continue collecting a large chunk of that generous income after retirement. This year the city is expected to spend about $34 million on pensions, with the cost expected to grow 20 percent next year to $40 million.
WE'RE NOT ALONE
Miami Beach's generosity with taxpayer dollars is hardly an anomaly, says Dominic Calabro, president of Florida Tax Watch, a nonprofit research institute. Florida's cities and counties have been particularly irresponsible when it comes to personnel, he says.
''They're out of touch with the realities of the marketplace,'' he says.
Historically, local governments have immediately cried that any cuts would come out of service delivery. But such a response holds less and less merit when there's so much fat on the payrolls.
As they consider changes, cities and counties should avoid making across-the-board cuts and, instead, focus on eliminating their least-performing workers. It may not be politically correct, but no organization, private or public, can afford to retain unproductive workers and lose good ones.
One solution, Calabro suggests, is for cities and counties to cut the lowest-performing 5 percent of their employees.
''And if they don't know who they are,'' he says, ``shame on them.''
Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats'
BBC World Service
last updated at 12:33 GMT, Thursday, 21 May 2009 13:33 UK
Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats'
Abnormal noises could affect growth and feeding of the goats, officials say
A large number of goats in Taiwan may have died of exhaustion because of noise from a wind farm.
A farmer on an outlying island told the BBC he had lost more than 400 animals after eight giant wind turbines were installed close to his grazing land.
The Ministry of Agriculture says it suspects that noise may have caused the goats' demise through lack of sleep.
The power company, Taipower, has offered to pay for part of the costs of building a new farmhouse elsewhere.
A spokesman for the company said the cause of the goats' deaths still needed to be investigated, but that it doubted the goats died from the noise.
One night I went out to the farmhouse and the goats were all standing up; they weren't sleeping
Farmer Kuo Jing-shan
Before the wind farm was built about four years ago, farmer Kuo Jing-shan had about 700 goats.
Shortly after the electricity-generating turbines were installed, the 57-year-old says his animals started to die. He now has just 250 goats left.
"The goats looked skinny and they weren't eating. One night I went out to the farmhouse and the goats were all standing up; they weren't sleeping.
"I didn't know why. If I had known, I would've done something to stop the dying," he told the BBC's Cindy Sui in Taiwan.
Plausible
A local livestock inspector from the agriculture ministry said that Mr Kuo was the only farmer to have reported such large-scale deaths.
He said his claim was plausible because of all the farmers in the Penghu archipelago, his farm was closest to the wind turbines.
"Abnormal noises could affect the normal growth and feeding intake of animals and cause them to suffer sleep deprivation," Lu Ming-tseng said.
Mr Kuo said the power company had offered to help him move but that there would be no compensation for the loss of his goats.
"It's a pain to relocate, but what can I do. I can't survive with the wind turbines," he said.
last updated at 12:33 GMT, Thursday, 21 May 2009 13:33 UK
Wind farm 'kills Taiwanese goats'
Abnormal noises could affect growth and feeding of the goats, officials say
A large number of goats in Taiwan may have died of exhaustion because of noise from a wind farm.
A farmer on an outlying island told the BBC he had lost more than 400 animals after eight giant wind turbines were installed close to his grazing land.
The Ministry of Agriculture says it suspects that noise may have caused the goats' demise through lack of sleep.
The power company, Taipower, has offered to pay for part of the costs of building a new farmhouse elsewhere.
A spokesman for the company said the cause of the goats' deaths still needed to be investigated, but that it doubted the goats died from the noise.
One night I went out to the farmhouse and the goats were all standing up; they weren't sleeping
Farmer Kuo Jing-shan
Before the wind farm was built about four years ago, farmer Kuo Jing-shan had about 700 goats.
Shortly after the electricity-generating turbines were installed, the 57-year-old says his animals started to die. He now has just 250 goats left.
"The goats looked skinny and they weren't eating. One night I went out to the farmhouse and the goats were all standing up; they weren't sleeping.
"I didn't know why. If I had known, I would've done something to stop the dying," he told the BBC's Cindy Sui in Taiwan.
Plausible
A local livestock inspector from the agriculture ministry said that Mr Kuo was the only farmer to have reported such large-scale deaths.
He said his claim was plausible because of all the farmers in the Penghu archipelago, his farm was closest to the wind turbines.
"Abnormal noises could affect the normal growth and feeding intake of animals and cause them to suffer sleep deprivation," Lu Ming-tseng said.
Mr Kuo said the power company had offered to help him move but that there would be no compensation for the loss of his goats.
"It's a pain to relocate, but what can I do. I can't survive with the wind turbines," he said.
Solar Power International 2008 a Huge Success
Solar Power International 2008 a Huge Success
Almost 18,000 professional attendees registered to participate in this year`s conference and expo and another 5,700 members of the general public walked the show floor during our 3-hour "Public Night", bringing our grand total to more than 23,000 participants!
Arnold Schwarzenegger Delivers Surprise Speech
Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered a surprise speech at the Solar Power International conference on opening night, saying that the conference was, "without any doubt, the biggest and the best of the conferences in the United States." He called for a sustained commitment to clean technologies saying they can aid the country`s economic recovery. After touring the exhibit floor, Schwarzenegger spoke to solar industry professionals. "No matter where you look, there`s solar involved. It`s everywhere. It`s the future; it`s now. It can`t be stopped."
Almost 18,000 professional attendees registered to participate in this year`s conference and expo and another 5,700 members of the general public walked the show floor during our 3-hour "Public Night", bringing our grand total to more than 23,000 participants!
Arnold Schwarzenegger Delivers Surprise Speech
Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered a surprise speech at the Solar Power International conference on opening night, saying that the conference was, "without any doubt, the biggest and the best of the conferences in the United States." He called for a sustained commitment to clean technologies saying they can aid the country`s economic recovery. After touring the exhibit floor, Schwarzenegger spoke to solar industry professionals. "No matter where you look, there`s solar involved. It`s everywhere. It`s the future; it`s now. It can`t be stopped."
Wall Street Journal
NOVEMBER 16, 2008, 9:19 P.M. ET Consumers as Producers
When homeowners supply more energy than they need, they want to be paid for it. Not so fast, critics say.
By YULIYA CHERNOVA
When John Mazzani installed a solar-power system at his home in Hamptonburgh, N.Y., in April 2007, his goal was to cover all of his yearly electricity needs.
But his 10-kilowatt system did more, and the surplus power it sent to the electricity grid over the course of a year netted him a payment of $300 from the local utility.
If Mr. Mazzani lived in another state, however, that excess generation might have earned him much more, or perhaps nothing at all.
The Journal Report
See the complete Energy report.
The reason? While most people agree that financial incentives are needed to spur more solar development in the U.S., some lawmakers, regulators and utilities are at odds over whether homeowners should be reimbursed for sending more power to the grid than they buy over the course of a year.
Supporters call such payments a perk that spurs solar installations, encourages energy efficiency and helps relieve demand on the electricity grid at peak usage times. They also consider it simply the right of homeowners to get paid for the power they produce. But on the other side, some utilities and other critics argue that homeowners who already have received government- and ratepayer-funded subsidies to install solar panels shouldn't turn around and benefit even more. In addition, they say, residential solar generators aren't subjected to the same fees as independent wholesale power producers.
"Make no mistake, this comes down to money," says Molly Sterkel, manager of the solar program for the California Public Utilities Commission. "If people get paid for extra generation, they will start installing larger systems than they need."
The split over the issue has resulted in a patchwork of policies that vary, not just from state to state, but also from utility to utility. Some in the industry say the lack of a uniform approach stems from the Federal Energy Regulation Commission's decision that this is a billing issue, not a power-generation issue, and thus should be governed by states.
Net Metering
The majority of residential and small business solar-system owners connect to the electricity grid through a system called net metering. Under net metering, customers can effectively bank at least a portion of the electricity they generate during the day, when the sun is shining, and use it as credit toward the power they need to purchase at night or on cloudy days, when their solar systems aren't functioning.
Net metering is available in 41 states and the District of Columbia, according to Vote Solar, a nonprofit that works to develop policies in support of solar energy across the U.S. But the rules regarding how many credits a homeowner can collect, how much those credits are worth and whether customers should be reimbursed for unused credits after a certain time period vary significantly across the U.S.
Roughly 19 states, including California, don't force utilities to reimburse solar customers for exporting more power to the grid than they purchase, according to October figures from the nonprofit Interstate Renewable Energy Council. That means that while customers in these states are awarded solar credits and can use them to reduce the size of their electricity bills, they aren't guaranteed a cash payment if, at the end of the year, they have generated more power than they consumed. About 10 states, including New Jersey and New York, require regulated utilities to pay customers for surplus generation, usually at a wholesale rate. Other states either have no rules about excess generation, meaning they leave it up to the utilities, or approach it in other ways, such as allowing customers to roll over solar credits indefinitely, or, in the case of Rhode Island, donating solar credits to funds that sponsor renewable energy use in low-income housing developments.
"People who spend a lot of money to put solar on site have a problem when they're just giving energy to utilities for free," says Kevin Fox, an attorney with Keyes & Fox LLP, a Seattle-based law firm that specializes in distributed-generation law. "That's why [some states turn] the excess generation into a donation to a good cause. That's a lot easier for people to stomach."
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a utility serving northern and central California, doesn't reimburse customers for sending more power to the grid than they buy annually because it doesn't want "to encourage people to become energy producers," says Charles Hornbrook, senior manager of solar and customer generation for the San Francisco utility.
Not only do Californians get a rebate subsidized by the general pool of ratepayers per each watt of solar installed, he says, but the power they send to the grid is credited on their bills at retail rates, even though they don't maintain or own any of the transmission technology. In addition, participants in the California net-metering program are waived the interconnection charge, something that independent wholesale power producers must pay.
In a study of its solar customers conducted in March, PG&E says it found that 22% of them have credits on their bills even though just 7% of them are actually producing more power than they consume. That's because they send power to the grid during the day, when rates are high, and use power at night, when rates generally are lower.
"Retail net metering is a pretty fair deal for customers who've chosen to go solar," says Mr. Hornbrook.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Co., a utility that isn't regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and therefore sets its own rules, takes a different approach, buying surplus power from residential solar generators at a retail rate. The utility, which serves California's state capital, cites a variety of reasons for doing so, saying home solar systems produce power when demand for electricity is peaking, improving the performance and reliance of the grid, and that the utility can use the solar generation it purchases to help meet renewable-energy mandates.
"We see advantages to generating electricity near where the load is, so you don't have the losses associated with bringing power far," says Michael DeAngelis, manager of the alternative energy and distributed generation technology program at the municipal utility.
Spiting the Utility
Jared Huffman, a California assemblyman, is pushing a bill in the state legislature that would require utilities governed by the California Public Utilities Commission to pay for customers' surplus generation at a rate to be determined by regulators. He introduced the bill in February, but it wasn't voted on, so he plans to reintroduce it next year, he says.
If people end up with a surplus and don't get paid for it, "it discourages energy efficiency," says Mr. Huffman, explaining why he backs payments for excess solar generation. "Some people will put in Christmas lights and increase their electrical use just to spite the utility," he says.
Some California utilities and regulators complained that Mr. Huffman's bill would encourage homeowners to install power-plant-size solar systems in their backyards. To address those concerns, Mr. Huffman added an amendment to his proposal that caps the size of a solar system eligible for net metering.
It is too early to say which states, public utility commissions and individual utilities are getting it right when it comes to the issue of excess generation, says Mr. Fox, the lawyer who handles power-generation issues.
"It's hard for me to look at what Arizona is doing and what California is doing and say that one is better than the other. We need to wait a few years and see who installed the most solar at the lowest cost," he says.
For his part, Mr. Mazzani is planning to increase his electricity usage because the payment he received for his excess generation wasn't enough to significantly speed the return on his solar investment.
"I just bought an electric hot water heater and am pulling out my oil-fired one," says Mr. Mazzani. "I'll use that excess capacity of the solar system, so I get more bang for the buck than by receiving money back from the utility."
—Ms. Chernova is a staff reporter for Dow Jones Clean Technology Insight in Jersey City, N.J.
When homeowners supply more energy than they need, they want to be paid for it. Not so fast, critics say.
By YULIYA CHERNOVA
When John Mazzani installed a solar-power system at his home in Hamptonburgh, N.Y., in April 2007, his goal was to cover all of his yearly electricity needs.
But his 10-kilowatt system did more, and the surplus power it sent to the electricity grid over the course of a year netted him a payment of $300 from the local utility.
If Mr. Mazzani lived in another state, however, that excess generation might have earned him much more, or perhaps nothing at all.
The Journal Report
See the complete Energy report.
The reason? While most people agree that financial incentives are needed to spur more solar development in the U.S., some lawmakers, regulators and utilities are at odds over whether homeowners should be reimbursed for sending more power to the grid than they buy over the course of a year.
Supporters call such payments a perk that spurs solar installations, encourages energy efficiency and helps relieve demand on the electricity grid at peak usage times. They also consider it simply the right of homeowners to get paid for the power they produce. But on the other side, some utilities and other critics argue that homeowners who already have received government- and ratepayer-funded subsidies to install solar panels shouldn't turn around and benefit even more. In addition, they say, residential solar generators aren't subjected to the same fees as independent wholesale power producers.
"Make no mistake, this comes down to money," says Molly Sterkel, manager of the solar program for the California Public Utilities Commission. "If people get paid for extra generation, they will start installing larger systems than they need."
The split over the issue has resulted in a patchwork of policies that vary, not just from state to state, but also from utility to utility. Some in the industry say the lack of a uniform approach stems from the Federal Energy Regulation Commission's decision that this is a billing issue, not a power-generation issue, and thus should be governed by states.
Net Metering
The majority of residential and small business solar-system owners connect to the electricity grid through a system called net metering. Under net metering, customers can effectively bank at least a portion of the electricity they generate during the day, when the sun is shining, and use it as credit toward the power they need to purchase at night or on cloudy days, when their solar systems aren't functioning.
Net metering is available in 41 states and the District of Columbia, according to Vote Solar, a nonprofit that works to develop policies in support of solar energy across the U.S. But the rules regarding how many credits a homeowner can collect, how much those credits are worth and whether customers should be reimbursed for unused credits after a certain time period vary significantly across the U.S.
Roughly 19 states, including California, don't force utilities to reimburse solar customers for exporting more power to the grid than they purchase, according to October figures from the nonprofit Interstate Renewable Energy Council. That means that while customers in these states are awarded solar credits and can use them to reduce the size of their electricity bills, they aren't guaranteed a cash payment if, at the end of the year, they have generated more power than they consumed. About 10 states, including New Jersey and New York, require regulated utilities to pay customers for surplus generation, usually at a wholesale rate. Other states either have no rules about excess generation, meaning they leave it up to the utilities, or approach it in other ways, such as allowing customers to roll over solar credits indefinitely, or, in the case of Rhode Island, donating solar credits to funds that sponsor renewable energy use in low-income housing developments.
"People who spend a lot of money to put solar on site have a problem when they're just giving energy to utilities for free," says Kevin Fox, an attorney with Keyes & Fox LLP, a Seattle-based law firm that specializes in distributed-generation law. "That's why [some states turn] the excess generation into a donation to a good cause. That's a lot easier for people to stomach."
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a utility serving northern and central California, doesn't reimburse customers for sending more power to the grid than they buy annually because it doesn't want "to encourage people to become energy producers," says Charles Hornbrook, senior manager of solar and customer generation for the San Francisco utility.
Not only do Californians get a rebate subsidized by the general pool of ratepayers per each watt of solar installed, he says, but the power they send to the grid is credited on their bills at retail rates, even though they don't maintain or own any of the transmission technology. In addition, participants in the California net-metering program are waived the interconnection charge, something that independent wholesale power producers must pay.
In a study of its solar customers conducted in March, PG&E says it found that 22% of them have credits on their bills even though just 7% of them are actually producing more power than they consume. That's because they send power to the grid during the day, when rates are high, and use power at night, when rates generally are lower.
"Retail net metering is a pretty fair deal for customers who've chosen to go solar," says Mr. Hornbrook.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Co., a utility that isn't regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and therefore sets its own rules, takes a different approach, buying surplus power from residential solar generators at a retail rate. The utility, which serves California's state capital, cites a variety of reasons for doing so, saying home solar systems produce power when demand for electricity is peaking, improving the performance and reliance of the grid, and that the utility can use the solar generation it purchases to help meet renewable-energy mandates.
"We see advantages to generating electricity near where the load is, so you don't have the losses associated with bringing power far," says Michael DeAngelis, manager of the alternative energy and distributed generation technology program at the municipal utility.
Spiting the Utility
Jared Huffman, a California assemblyman, is pushing a bill in the state legislature that would require utilities governed by the California Public Utilities Commission to pay for customers' surplus generation at a rate to be determined by regulators. He introduced the bill in February, but it wasn't voted on, so he plans to reintroduce it next year, he says.
If people end up with a surplus and don't get paid for it, "it discourages energy efficiency," says Mr. Huffman, explaining why he backs payments for excess solar generation. "Some people will put in Christmas lights and increase their electrical use just to spite the utility," he says.
Some California utilities and regulators complained that Mr. Huffman's bill would encourage homeowners to install power-plant-size solar systems in their backyards. To address those concerns, Mr. Huffman added an amendment to his proposal that caps the size of a solar system eligible for net metering.
It is too early to say which states, public utility commissions and individual utilities are getting it right when it comes to the issue of excess generation, says Mr. Fox, the lawyer who handles power-generation issues.
"It's hard for me to look at what Arizona is doing and what California is doing and say that one is better than the other. We need to wait a few years and see who installed the most solar at the lowest cost," he says.
For his part, Mr. Mazzani is planning to increase his electricity usage because the payment he received for his excess generation wasn't enough to significantly speed the return on his solar investment.
"I just bought an electric hot water heater and am pulling out my oil-fired one," says Mr. Mazzani. "I'll use that excess capacity of the solar system, so I get more bang for the buck than by receiving money back from the utility."
—Ms. Chernova is a staff reporter for Dow Jones Clean Technology Insight in Jersey City, N.J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)