News aggregator
Watch as turbine is installed in one minute
From an article by Peter J. Devlin in the Door County Advocate:
The owner of a town of Egg Harbor business hopes to generate the majority of its electricity needs from the wind.
Saundra Phlubna owns and operates the Feathered Star Bed and Breakfast on Wisconsin 42, north of Carlsville, where a 110-foot-tall tower and wind turbine were erected last week.
“I'm hoping to get as close as possible to meeting all my electrical needs with the wind generator,” she said.
The turbine is not yet connected to her business. It needs to have adjustments made while the turbine is turning in moderate wind, Phlubna said. There hasn't been enough wind this week for the contractor to complete the project. Last week was too windy for the final adjusting, she said.
The turbine has been in the works for two years. A permit for the device was issued in December 2008 by Egg Harbor Town Chairman Paul Peterson. Other permits, including a Door County Wind Energy sighting permit, were approved before construction of the tower began last month.
A portion of the cost of the new structure and the generator came from grants, Phlubna said. The first two grants she sought were turned down. In reapplying, Wisconsin's Focus On Energy program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development grant program provided some of the funds needed.
Seventh Generation Energy Services, Madison, installed the 35 kilowatt V-15 turbine.
1998 Volkswagen Scirocco Powered by Coffee Granules
Today, the auto field is dominated by vehicles running on electricity or other alternative sources of energy but there is a team from the BBC1 science program “Bang Goes the Theory” who believe that coffee too is a good fuel. They have converted a 1998 Volkswagen Scirocco to run coffee granules, reaching a top speed of 60mph.
Arizona Legislature Considers Stuffing Used Tires into Abandoned Mines
Given the state of the economy you'd think they'd be pinching every penny but it appears that the State of Arizona has money to burn – perhaps literally. Last week the House voted in favor of a bill that would use old tires to fill abandoned mines. The bill's supporters cite the growing problem of used tire dumps, but apparently they don't keep up with the latest business news. Magnum D'Or and InfoSpi are just two of the rapidly growing number of companies that see the potential for recycling those tire dumps into real money – and creating more green jobs to boot.
Squandering an opportunity to make money is bad enough, but the Arizona bill does something much worse. Tires burn, right? Doesn't everybody know that? Tire fires are hard enough to put out when they're in open dumps. The idea of stuffing millions of tires into abandoned mines sounds a little less than common sensical… that is, if you know anything about underground mine fires…
(more…)Arizona Legislature Considers Stuffing Used Tires into Abandoned Mines
Given the state of the economy you'd think they'd be pinching every penny but it appears that the State of Arizona has money to burn – perhaps literally. Last week the House voted in favor of a bill that would use old tires to fill abandoned mines. The bill's supporters cite the growing problem of used tire dumps, but apparently they don't keep up with the latest business news. Magnum D'Or and InfoSpi are just two of the rapidly growing number of companies that see the potential for recycling those tire dumps into real money – and creating more green jobs to boot.
Squandering an opportunity to make money is bad enough, but the Arizona bill does something much worse. Tires burn, right? Doesn't everybody know that? Tire fires are hard enough to put out when they're in open dumps. The idea of stuffing millions of tires into abandoned mines sounds a little less than common sensical… that is, if you know anything about underground mine fires…
(more…)Google Plans New Solar Mirror Technology
Posted in: Ethanol
Book Review: Big Coal
One of the triumphs of modern life is our ability to distance ourselves from the simple facts of our own existence. - Jeff Goodell
Big Coal by Jeff Goodell is a book I have had on my reading list for a long time, but I only got around to reading it during my recent trip to Europe. It has taken me a very long time to finish this review for a number of reasons, but one is that I had a hard time deciding what to write. Normally, when I read a book I will dog-ear the pages that I want to revisit either because 1). There was something significant that I did not know; or 2). I want to reference a particular point in the book review. By the time I finished reading this book, I probably had 50 pages dog-eared.
My introduction to Jeff Goodell came a couple of years ago when he was writing an article for Rolling Stone about ethanol. He contacted me and we talked a few times, I got to know him a bit, and he published a pretty scathing article during the early days of the ethanol euphoria. For more on that episode, see Rolling Stone Article, Jeff Goodell Debates the Rolling Stone Article on CNBC, or Bob Dinneen Responds to Rolling Stone.
I wish I could write like Goodell. I really enjoy his writing style. I sometimes disagree with particular points, but in Big Coal he makes a very compelling argument that we don't come close to paying the societal costs of coal usage when we pay our electric bill.
Even though we don't often see it, coal is a part of daily life for most of us. It produces a great deal of our electricity. But we don't spend a lot of time thinking about the implications. As Goodell notes on the first page, "We love our hamburgers, but we've never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse." Isn't that the truth? I have always imagined the number of people who would become vegetarians if they ever saw the inner workings of a slaughterhouse.
When we fuel up our cars, we don't think (much) about the ramifications of our oil dependence. When we flip a light switch, we do not associate that with the coal-driven mountaintop removals in West Virginia. In this book, Goodell thrusts those associations right in your face.
The book is divided into three parts: Extraction, conversion to power, and the resulting emissions. He covers the history of the industry, tells the stories of the people in and around the business, and while most of the book is based on U.S.-happenings, he does spend a chapter on China.
I would imagine the coal industry was none too pleased with Big Coal, because it paints a really ugly picture of the industry. Goodell contrasts the coal industry with the individuals whose lives have been negatively impacted by coal in one way or another. He details corruption and politics that allowed the industry to delay implementation of pollution control equipment. And on a big picture level, he argues that continued usage of coal poses a serious threat to the earth's climate.
This book will leave you shaking your head, wondering why we use coal at all if the overall picture is as troublesome as Goodell suggests. I found myself wondering as well, which was actually what led to my post on the cost of various energy sources. There at the top of the list for the cheapest source of energy was Powder River Basin coal, which is why we continue to heavily use coal despite the issues Goodell spells out.
We humans aren't very good at willingly making sacrifices today in order to potentially improve the situation a few years down the line. We want instant gratification and coal fits the bill. (I would argue this is also why the U.S. is so deeply in debt and our personal savings rate is so low.)
I noted in my book review of Crude World that Peter Maass didn't present a balanced picture of the oil industry; it was all bad. His book was intended to highlight the negative aspect of our oil dependency. Big Coal is the same in that respect. It is hard to argue that coal hasn't improved the lives of a great many people around the world, and I know a number of people who would argue that these improvements outweigh the negatives. Further, it is fair to say that the coal industry has come a long way in cleaning up their emission profile over the past few decades.
But it is clear which side of that argument Goodell would come down on. To be honest, I come down on that side as well. I would like to see us limit our coal consumption and boost electricity generation from other resources. I know a great number of people who feel this way, but coal is like oil in that replacing it will likely entail economic sacrifices that individuals don't like to make. Coal produces half of the electricity in the U.S., and I would have a hard time arguing that anything - outside of nuclear power - can scale up and take on the role that coal currently plays.
The realist in me thinks that we will eventually use up all of our coal, as will China, Australia, India, and all of the other major coal producers. This is primarily why I sit out the debates on climate change; I can't realistically envision anything that will get the world to collectively NOT burn up all the coal. In an energy-constrained future, prices will rise and people who feel morally opposed to coal will suddenly find their moral fiber weakening as high energy prices bite into their budgets.
I don't discount that renewable energy can eventually make a bigger impact (I hope so, because that's what I am doing for a living), but it is starting from a very small basis compared to electricity generated from coal. While coal produces about half of the electricity in the U.S., renewables other than hydropower account for only about 3.5% (per the EIA).
So I think Big Coal will continue to be a very big part of our lives for many years to come - although with a strong political commitment the nuclear option could put a dent in our coal dependence.
Energy Business Leaders Getting Antsy, but Is the US Already Out of the Clean Energy Race?
At the Wall Street Journal's recent ECO:nomics conference, the “only CEO-level event focused on the relationship between the environment and the bottom line,” the CEOs of some major energy companies expressed their impatience at the US' slow and unclear movement to take action on climate change and clean energy.
Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Peter Voser said that the industry needs “certainty on the carbon price, certainty on legislation.” Shell is a member of the US Climate Action Partnership.
American Electric Power chairman Michael Morris, regarding climate change and clean energy legislation, said, “We need this done. America needs to lead the world [in clean technologies].”
And FPL Group chief executive Lew Hay reiterated, “We need some certainty about the economics.”
These top CEOs are getting impatient, and there is no question why. The bottom line is, if the US is going to lead the global economy (or even be a significant player in it), it needs to get cracking on clean energy legislation.
In a similar manner, the question the Center for American Progress (CAP) recently decided to pose is this: “Is the US already out of the clean energy race?”. They have just released a report on this topic.
Energy Business Leaders Getting Antsy, but Is the US Already Out of the Clean Energy Race?
At the Wall Street Journal's recent ECO:nomics conference, the “only CEO-level event focused on the relationship between the environment and the bottom line,” the CEOs of some major energy companies expressed their impatience at the US' slow and unclear movement to take action on climate change and clean energy.
Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Peter Voser said that the industry needs “certainty on the carbon price, certainty on legislation.” Shell is a member of the US Climate Action Partnership.
American Electric Power chairman Michael Morris, regarding climate change and clean energy legislation, said, “We need this done. America needs to lead the world [in clean technologies].”
And FPL Group chief executive Lew Hay reiterated, “We need some certainty about the economics.”
These top CEOs are getting impatient, and there is no question why. The bottom line is, if the US is going to lead the global economy (or even be a significant player in it), it needs to get cracking on clean energy legislation.
In a similar manner, the question the Center for American Progress (CAP) recently decided to pose is this: “Is the US already out of the clean energy race?”. They have just released a report on this topic.
