After listening to the lecture given by a representative from Constellation Energy, I am left with a few concerns about the proposed plan to install solar energy on the Washington College Campus.
1. Where is it really going to go? The magnitude of the solar power project is quite large. There are only a handful of places on this campus that I can think of to put solar panels and most of those are athletic fields. It could be that WAC owns more land than what I realize, but in order to generate 2 MW (which I believe was about what this project entailed, a large chunk of the campus that could be otherwise used for recreational activities, etc. will be required for this project?
2. Are they going to be safe? And by this question I am not referring to whether or not they will give off any toxic gases or be a detriment to the surrounding area. What I mean is, are they going to be safe from a bunch of drunk college kids on a Friday or Saturday night. This isn't a normal question you would probably ask with this project, but from personal experience, I don't think a large portion of the students who attend Washington College are mature enough to handle solar panels. I may be wrong, but I know in my dorm in particular (Sassafras), the brand new elevator was put out of service for several months because certain students would not stop breaking various pieces of it. I think that if we do install solar panels, especially ground panels, they will need to be fenced in (possibly a guard dog as well, haha).
3. Is Chestertown really a great locale for solar panels? It may just be me, but this town seems to be constantly under a rain cloud. Maybe it was just this year, but I feel like it has been raining four or five days out of the week this semester. With so much overcast, are solar panels going to be efficient?
4. Is it worth the price? I don't exactly recall the price of the project in total (somewhere in the 16 million dollar range maybe), but considering that when installed and working, the solar panels will only be used to meet roughly 15% of our energy demands it's hard to justify spending that amount of money to meet the energy demand of about a sixth of this campus.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Broken Promises?
There has been a very steady trend of disappointment throughout the United State's different presidents. Much of the projected plans and great ideas to improve our country that are promised during a president's election campaign are rarely put into action as swiftly as promised. Is the same happening to our new president?
An article published in the New York Times Yesterday reported on how Obama's big plans to tackle the climate change have already started to slow and fizzle. According to the article, while combating global climate change "remains a surefire applause line in his speeches here and abroad," his administration has taken a more passive role then initially promised. One of the programs discussed in his campaign speech was a cap and trade emission plan that would create a revenue of close to 650 billion dollars over 10 years. However, in the budget review in Congress last week, the plan was removed in order to put more dollars towards health care.
It seems like the executive branch is leaning more on congress to tackle the global warming issue while Obama focuses on getting the U.S. out of the economic crisis. It is still very early in the presidency though, so it should be interesting to see how much energy Obama puts towards this issue later on in his term.
For more on this article:
Obama Turns More Cautious
An article published in the New York Times Yesterday reported on how Obama's big plans to tackle the climate change have already started to slow and fizzle. According to the article, while combating global climate change "remains a surefire applause line in his speeches here and abroad," his administration has taken a more passive role then initially promised. One of the programs discussed in his campaign speech was a cap and trade emission plan that would create a revenue of close to 650 billion dollars over 10 years. However, in the budget review in Congress last week, the plan was removed in order to put more dollars towards health care.
It seems like the executive branch is leaning more on congress to tackle the global warming issue while Obama focuses on getting the U.S. out of the economic crisis. It is still very early in the presidency though, so it should be interesting to see how much energy Obama puts towards this issue later on in his term.
For more on this article:
Obama Turns More Cautious
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Carbon Neutral Entertainment
With the incoming 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, organizers are trying to plan the first ever carbon neutral games. officials predict that the winter games will be responsible for adding 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Sources of emissions include transportation bringing fans and athletes into Vancouver as well as the several years of venue construction leading up to the event.
In order to offset the emissions, VANOC (the 20 member team responsible for planning the carbon neutral Olympics) are trying t find sponsors to help pay for carbon credits which can cost any where between 8-16 dollars per ton. The offset credits themselves would come from investing in renewable energy projects.
The annual global CO2 emissions is a little over 27 billion metric tons so in the big scheme of things 300,000 tons really isn't that much. Also, instead of trying to reduce carbon emissions, VANOC is still emitting but just paying to be able to pollute. So in reality, this really isn't helping the problem because as long as companies can pay to pollute they will instead of paying more money to reduce their pollution.
In order to offset the emissions, VANOC (the 20 member team responsible for planning the carbon neutral Olympics) are trying t find sponsors to help pay for carbon credits which can cost any where between 8-16 dollars per ton. The offset credits themselves would come from investing in renewable energy projects.
The annual global CO2 emissions is a little over 27 billion metric tons so in the big scheme of things 300,000 tons really isn't that much. Also, instead of trying to reduce carbon emissions, VANOC is still emitting but just paying to be able to pollute. So in reality, this really isn't helping the problem because as long as companies can pay to pollute they will instead of paying more money to reduce their pollution.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
What's Plan B?
In the last couple decades, federal, state, and local governments have begun the push for cleaner, renewable energy. Sadly enough though, it seems that just about 99% of proposed plans have either failed or never even made it past the vote. In this blog post, I want to discuss a few such initiatives that I have come across that would do a considerable amount of good for this country and world but are now nothing but ideas.
1. The One Watt Initiative. Proposed in 1997 by the International Energy Agency, this initiative wanted to have all appliances with standby power of less than a Watt by the year 2010. Not only would this decrease the amount people are spending on electricity bills, but it would also decrease the amount of carbon dioxide emissions released into the air every year that would be the equivalent of taking 18 million cars off the road. 2010 is less than a year away so how are we doing? Very poorly. Televisions and computers still use any where from 1 Watt to 100 Watts in standby power. Fail.
2. The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC). This initiative was created in 1999 to give tax breaks to companies using renewable energy in their first ten years of operation. And how is this one doing. Three times now, Congress has allowed the PTC to expire and it is projected that funds for the PTC will become completely exhausted in 6 years. With such unreliability with the Tax Credit, companies don't really have an incentive to use renewables instead of cheap petroleum. Fail
3. The Renewable Fuel Standard. Passed in 2005 in the Energy Policy Act, the RFS mandates that a certain percentage of our fuels have to come from renewables. The standard for 2006 was suppose to be 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel and in 2012, it is suppose to be 7.5 billion gallons. For 2009, according to the initiative, fuels that companies use have to be 10%. After checking the official RFS page, it is easy to see that this standard has been revised numerous times. However, the standard does seem to be increasing which means less dependence on oil and cleaner fuels. Though recently the date was just pushed back to 2022. With proper funding, this initiative might actually succeed in promoting clean fuels. But for right now I am extremely skeptical. I'm on the fence about this one.
If you were to type in failed energy initiatives in the Google search bar, you will see a continuing trend and many key similarities. They include, lack of funds, lack of interest, and lack of regulation.
1. The One Watt Initiative. Proposed in 1997 by the International Energy Agency, this initiative wanted to have all appliances with standby power of less than a Watt by the year 2010. Not only would this decrease the amount people are spending on electricity bills, but it would also decrease the amount of carbon dioxide emissions released into the air every year that would be the equivalent of taking 18 million cars off the road. 2010 is less than a year away so how are we doing? Very poorly. Televisions and computers still use any where from 1 Watt to 100 Watts in standby power. Fail.
2. The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC). This initiative was created in 1999 to give tax breaks to companies using renewable energy in their first ten years of operation. And how is this one doing. Three times now, Congress has allowed the PTC to expire and it is projected that funds for the PTC will become completely exhausted in 6 years. With such unreliability with the Tax Credit, companies don't really have an incentive to use renewables instead of cheap petroleum. Fail
3. The Renewable Fuel Standard. Passed in 2005 in the Energy Policy Act, the RFS mandates that a certain percentage of our fuels have to come from renewables. The standard for 2006 was suppose to be 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel and in 2012, it is suppose to be 7.5 billion gallons. For 2009, according to the initiative, fuels that companies use have to be 10%. After checking the official RFS page, it is easy to see that this standard has been revised numerous times. However, the standard does seem to be increasing which means less dependence on oil and cleaner fuels. Though recently the date was just pushed back to 2022. With proper funding, this initiative might actually succeed in promoting clean fuels. But for right now I am extremely skeptical. I'm on the fence about this one.
If you were to type in failed energy initiatives in the Google search bar, you will see a continuing trend and many key similarities. They include, lack of funds, lack of interest, and lack of regulation.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Energy that's Suitable for Everyone
When I ponder the world's energy crisis, I usually picture large industrialized nations with selfish energy demands and power-wasting lifestyles. America, the nation responsible for consuming nearly 25% of the world's energy supply certainly tops that list. In addition to energy consumption, I also think about the same large nations when it comes to energy conservation. With so many renewable energy sources being studied and tested, the future of the dependence on oil seems bleak.
Being an American citizen myself, it's hard to think of the energy crisis as a global issue, and by global I am mostly referring to third-world and nonindustrial countries. Do countries that barely even have power and running water lose any sleep over the rest of the world's energy issues? Probably not.
That's why I was surprised to come across an article from Environmental News Network describing a successful study to determine the success of geothermal heating is some African Countries. The African Rift Geothermal Development Facility has spent the past several years have been developing plans to harvest heat energy located within the African rift, which has the capacity to generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity and bring power to the nearly 600,000,000 people with out it.
Funding for this project over the past few years has come from the Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, and the United Nations Environmental Program, and with a recent promised $18 million, the GEF can initiate geothermal facilities running through countries such as Mozambique, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, and Djibouti.
Here is a link to the article to read on:
East African Geothermal Tests Successful
Being an American citizen myself, it's hard to think of the energy crisis as a global issue, and by global I am mostly referring to third-world and nonindustrial countries. Do countries that barely even have power and running water lose any sleep over the rest of the world's energy issues? Probably not.
That's why I was surprised to come across an article from Environmental News Network describing a successful study to determine the success of geothermal heating is some African Countries. The African Rift Geothermal Development Facility has spent the past several years have been developing plans to harvest heat energy located within the African rift, which has the capacity to generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity and bring power to the nearly 600,000,000 people with out it.
Funding for this project over the past few years has come from the Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, and the United Nations Environmental Program, and with a recent promised $18 million, the GEF can initiate geothermal facilities running through countries such as Mozambique, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, and Djibouti.
Here is a link to the article to read on:
East African Geothermal Tests Successful
Monday, March 2, 2009
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel
So the last couple of weeks in Energy and the Environment, we have been learning about several renewable methods to generate energy. Those include wind energy, burning landfill gas, and geothermal heating. The main goal of these programs is to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the air.
What we haven't discussed though is ways of dealing with the immense levels of greenhouse gases that are already present in the atmosphere and causing global warming. During the past week I have been reading on some different ways scientists across the globe have proposed to handle this problem. One particular proposal that caught my eye discussed the possibility of simulating volcanoes.
The EPA's Frank Priciotta released an extensive report recently that highlighted the extent to which industrial CO2 emissions contributes to global warming. The report was called "Global Climate Change and the Mitigation Challenge." Not only did Priciotta gather extensive data on CO2 emissions but he also discussed the possibility of cooling down the earth's atmosphere by simulating the effects of an active volcano. According to the plan, enormous quantities of sulfate particles would be released into the stratosphere. This in turn would reflect incoming solar radiation and ultimately would lead to a reduction in the planetary atmosphere.
WHAT!?
It has taken 100 years of CO2 emitting to raise the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit. What quantity of sulfate is going to be required to reverse these effects? And how many years of sulfate emitting will be required before any noticeable effect occurs? I can't even begin to imagine. And where exactly are we going to get all of this sulfur from? It doesn't make since to me that the key to solving the effects of CO2 emissions is through emitting other chemicals into the air! I am very interested to see in the future is this plan will gain any merit. Considering that a top EPA scientist is a big proponent of this idea along with several other scientists, is it possible that our government would ever approve a plan this extreme? And if they ever did, would this actually be a positive solution to the problem, or would this just give industries an excuse to continue emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
I guess we are beginning to reach a critical stage in our planet's history, maybe desperate times call for desperate measures... but I can't imagine a point at which this option would make sense...
Here is the link to the report:
"Global Climate Change and the Mitigation Challenge"
The plan is mentioned on page 29 and 35 of the report.
What we haven't discussed though is ways of dealing with the immense levels of greenhouse gases that are already present in the atmosphere and causing global warming. During the past week I have been reading on some different ways scientists across the globe have proposed to handle this problem. One particular proposal that caught my eye discussed the possibility of simulating volcanoes.
The EPA's Frank Priciotta released an extensive report recently that highlighted the extent to which industrial CO2 emissions contributes to global warming. The report was called "Global Climate Change and the Mitigation Challenge." Not only did Priciotta gather extensive data on CO2 emissions but he also discussed the possibility of cooling down the earth's atmosphere by simulating the effects of an active volcano. According to the plan, enormous quantities of sulfate particles would be released into the stratosphere. This in turn would reflect incoming solar radiation and ultimately would lead to a reduction in the planetary atmosphere.
WHAT!?
It has taken 100 years of CO2 emitting to raise the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit. What quantity of sulfate is going to be required to reverse these effects? And how many years of sulfate emitting will be required before any noticeable effect occurs? I can't even begin to imagine. And where exactly are we going to get all of this sulfur from? It doesn't make since to me that the key to solving the effects of CO2 emissions is through emitting other chemicals into the air! I am very interested to see in the future is this plan will gain any merit. Considering that a top EPA scientist is a big proponent of this idea along with several other scientists, is it possible that our government would ever approve a plan this extreme? And if they ever did, would this actually be a positive solution to the problem, or would this just give industries an excuse to continue emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
I guess we are beginning to reach a critical stage in our planet's history, maybe desperate times call for desperate measures... but I can't imagine a point at which this option would make sense...
Here is the link to the report:
"Global Climate Change and the Mitigation Challenge"
The plan is mentioned on page 29 and 35 of the report.
Monday, February 16, 2009
This is Just Unecessary
If you're like me, you are tired of hearing about the 'trend' that is going green. It's not so much a revolutionary step towards repairing the damaging footprint on this earth anymore as it is a buzz word and marketing tactic used to appeal to the public interest.
However, there are some strict programs out there that offer some great benefits to companies that do 'go green.' If a building or company do truly want to make a positive contribution to the environment, the thing to do is to become LEED certified. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED is an extremely stringent certification program that recognizes the truly 'green' buildings throughout the U.S. I could go on and on describing the 74-page report on how a building can achieve the LEED certification, but that is not the topic of my post. The real purpose of this entry is to discuss a building that I would bet my life on the fact that it is not and probably will never be LEED certified. And that building or resort I will call it is the one that I am currently staying in while at a campus activities conference. The Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN is not what I would consider a normal hotel. More like a small country. With close to 3,000 guest rooms, over 600,000 square feet of ballrooms and meeting halls, and 9 acres of indoor gardens one can only imagine the incredible amount of energy needed to just keep the lights on here. And that is only the beginning...
Talking about all of the energy guzzling amenities offered here at the prestigious Gaylord Opryland Hotel would require a novel so I will just mention my favorites...
1. A 20,000 square-foot resort spa and fitness center...
- With 14 treadmills, 8 elliptical machines, 8 or so stationary bikes (each of these requiring around 1500 watts of power, and I saw at the most 4 people using these in my last three trips to the gym), heated indoor and outdoor pools, three hot tubs, steam rooms, and state of the art water filtration systems and dispensers, apparently living in the lap of luxury has little regard for energy use.
2. The indoor rainforest...
- If you were to take a 9 acre section straight out of the jungle and build a couple restaurants and stores inside of it, that would be the picture you get as you walk through the lobby and into the atrium. Yes the tropical orchids and palm trees are lovely, but I'm not so sure that the 2-story man made waterfall and 4 or 5 enormous water fountains are quite necessary. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of energy required to pump water and maintain the balmy 75 degrees in the atrium.
3. The hotel room...
- While I do appreciate a sleek and stylish hotel room (and this room is quite chic), upon closer inspection, you would be hard pressed to use the word efficient to describe any appliance in here. Large 36" High Def television, refrigerator, electronic safe, three lamps (each with 3 light bulbs), fresh towels and linens everyday, two sinks, and a high power massaging shower head are just a few of the energy-wasting commodities found in this standard two-bed room
I would shutter to begin to imagine the amount of energy and money required to run this hotel. But I'm sure they have now trouble being able to afford the electricity bill... after all, I did just have to cough up 5 dollars for a cup of coffee.
However, there are some strict programs out there that offer some great benefits to companies that do 'go green.' If a building or company do truly want to make a positive contribution to the environment, the thing to do is to become LEED certified. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED is an extremely stringent certification program that recognizes the truly 'green' buildings throughout the U.S. I could go on and on describing the 74-page report on how a building can achieve the LEED certification, but that is not the topic of my post. The real purpose of this entry is to discuss a building that I would bet my life on the fact that it is not and probably will never be LEED certified. And that building or resort I will call it is the one that I am currently staying in while at a campus activities conference. The Gaylord Opryland Hotel in Nashville, TN is not what I would consider a normal hotel. More like a small country. With close to 3,000 guest rooms, over 600,000 square feet of ballrooms and meeting halls, and 9 acres of indoor gardens one can only imagine the incredible amount of energy needed to just keep the lights on here. And that is only the beginning...
Talking about all of the energy guzzling amenities offered here at the prestigious Gaylord Opryland Hotel would require a novel so I will just mention my favorites...
1. A 20,000 square-foot resort spa and fitness center...
- With 14 treadmills, 8 elliptical machines, 8 or so stationary bikes (each of these requiring around 1500 watts of power, and I saw at the most 4 people using these in my last three trips to the gym), heated indoor and outdoor pools, three hot tubs, steam rooms, and state of the art water filtration systems and dispensers, apparently living in the lap of luxury has little regard for energy use.
2. The indoor rainforest...
- If you were to take a 9 acre section straight out of the jungle and build a couple restaurants and stores inside of it, that would be the picture you get as you walk through the lobby and into the atrium. Yes the tropical orchids and palm trees are lovely, but I'm not so sure that the 2-story man made waterfall and 4 or 5 enormous water fountains are quite necessary. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of energy required to pump water and maintain the balmy 75 degrees in the atrium.
3. The hotel room...
- While I do appreciate a sleek and stylish hotel room (and this room is quite chic), upon closer inspection, you would be hard pressed to use the word efficient to describe any appliance in here. Large 36" High Def television, refrigerator, electronic safe, three lamps (each with 3 light bulbs), fresh towels and linens everyday, two sinks, and a high power massaging shower head are just a few of the energy-wasting commodities found in this standard two-bed room
I would shutter to begin to imagine the amount of energy and money required to run this hotel. But I'm sure they have now trouble being able to afford the electricity bill... after all, I did just have to cough up 5 dollars for a cup of coffee.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
"Go Outside and Play"
I'm sure that you have heard this phrase shouted at you at least once from your parents as you sat transfixed in front of your Super Nintendo, Play Station, X-box, etc. While your mom was trying to prevent you from a life of laziness or from destroying your eye sight, little did she know that she was also saving a significant amount of money.
A very recent study conducted by the National Resource Defense Council shows that video game consoles are major energy hogs. Nearly 40% of all homes in America contain at least one video game console (and I can probably name at least 5 friends with three or more different gaming units). According to the report, video game consoles zap 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year, which is comparable to powering all of San Diego (NRDC, 2007).
The biggest problem however, is not in simply owning a PS3 or X-box, but leaving them on when not in use, and it is estimated that about 1/2 of American owners are guilty of this energy-waster. And they are definitely paying for it:
Microsoft X-Box 360 (introduced in 2005)
This console requires 119 watts of energy when turned on and if left on, it costs about $143 per year compared to only $14 dollars per year when simply turning it off.
Sony Playstation 3 (introduced in 2006)
An even greater energy hog, this console requires 150 watts when turned on and if left on, the average family can expect to pay $160 per year (compared to only $15 when turned off).
(Both Microsoft and Sony did release more energy-friendly models in 2007, but when left on, can still cost around $103 and $134, respectively)
The Nintendo Wii was the energy savior in this study. It requires only 16 watts in active mode and even when left on, it will contribute to just a $10 increase in the annual energy bill.
The difference between active and inactive mode is substantial as you can see. (and I am very happy to see that my boyfriend's X-box is currently turned off, and now if I can just persuade him to stop playing Halo, then we can save even more energy!!) So in our current energy-savvy mindset, video console developers should put time into creating systems not just with lower energy requirements but also with automatic turn-off mechanisms (after a certain length of inactivity) and one touch power down options. Even these simple options can contribute to an overall savings of over 1 billion dollars and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 7 million tons!!! (NRDC, 2007).
The facts and numbers I presented in this post only scratch the surface of this 30 page report. I encourage you to check out this very interesting analysis:
Lowering the Cost of Play
A very recent study conducted by the National Resource Defense Council shows that video game consoles are major energy hogs. Nearly 40% of all homes in America contain at least one video game console (and I can probably name at least 5 friends with three or more different gaming units). According to the report, video game consoles zap 16 billion kilowatt-hours per year, which is comparable to powering all of San Diego (NRDC, 2007).
The biggest problem however, is not in simply owning a PS3 or X-box, but leaving them on when not in use, and it is estimated that about 1/2 of American owners are guilty of this energy-waster. And they are definitely paying for it:
Microsoft X-Box 360 (introduced in 2005)
This console requires 119 watts of energy when turned on and if left on, it costs about $143 per year compared to only $14 dollars per year when simply turning it off.
Sony Playstation 3 (introduced in 2006)
An even greater energy hog, this console requires 150 watts when turned on and if left on, the average family can expect to pay $160 per year (compared to only $15 when turned off).
(Both Microsoft and Sony did release more energy-friendly models in 2007, but when left on, can still cost around $103 and $134, respectively)
The Nintendo Wii was the energy savior in this study. It requires only 16 watts in active mode and even when left on, it will contribute to just a $10 increase in the annual energy bill.
The difference between active and inactive mode is substantial as you can see. (and I am very happy to see that my boyfriend's X-box is currently turned off, and now if I can just persuade him to stop playing Halo, then we can save even more energy!!) So in our current energy-savvy mindset, video console developers should put time into creating systems not just with lower energy requirements but also with automatic turn-off mechanisms (after a certain length of inactivity) and one touch power down options. Even these simple options can contribute to an overall savings of over 1 billion dollars and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 7 million tons!!! (NRDC, 2007).
The facts and numbers I presented in this post only scratch the surface of this 30 page report. I encourage you to check out this very interesting analysis:
Lowering the Cost of Play
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Does Wind Power Pay?
Many figures and statistics that I have come across, suggest that harnessing the power of wind is not cheap. From wind industry.org, I found that the average cost of a commercial-scale wind turbine can range from 1.2 to 2.6 million per MW installed. The average commercial wind turbine is 2MW in size, which means that the cost of installing one of these energy producers is around 3.5 million (and these numbers describe on shore wind farms, off-shore would be much more expensive). So my question is, once a turbine is up in running, how long will it take until it actually pays for itself?
After a little research I came across an article out of TG Daily-Trendwatch about a proposed 659 million dollar on shore wind farm to be constructed by China Datang Corporation, which is China's second biggest electricity provider. Through some simple calculations, the writers of the article were able to calculate approximately how long it would take before the wind farm would essentailly pay for itself. Their calculations were as follows:
"$659,000,000 to generate 400,000,000 watts of power, or 400,000 kW. That's a constant income of $40,000 at $0.10 per kWh. Divide $659 million by $40K and it's 16,475 hours. Divide that by 24 and it's 686 days. Divide that by 365.25 and it's 1.9 years."
- TG Daily-Trendwatch
These calculations were based under the assumption that the farm would be continuously running at 400MW level. However, even if the wind farm were running at 2/3 power, it would still take around three years (TG Daily, 2008). So it's pretty incredible just how quickly the wind industry can turn a profit.
However, to those of you who are now strongly considering turning your back yard into a wind farm, you might want to reconsider. The cost of a small scale residential turbine can range anywhere from $35,000 - 50,000 for a 10 kilowatt turbine. So now, I try to find my calculator and do my own calculations based upon the same methods used in the above mentioned article:
For a turbine costing $50,000:
10kW x $.10 per kWh = $1.00
$50,000 / $1.00 = 50,000 hours
50,000 hours / 24 hours per day = 2084 days
2084 days / 365 = 5.7 years
This figure is again dependant upon the turbine operating at peak performance and the cost of maintenance and overall upkeep are not included. I have a feeling that it would most likely take much longer than 5.7 years to turn a profit on a residential wind turbine. It still does not mean though that harnessing the energy potential of this renewable resource is not a good, eco-friendly idea.
After a little research I came across an article out of TG Daily-Trendwatch about a proposed 659 million dollar on shore wind farm to be constructed by China Datang Corporation, which is China's second biggest electricity provider. Through some simple calculations, the writers of the article were able to calculate approximately how long it would take before the wind farm would essentailly pay for itself. Their calculations were as follows:
"$659,000,000 to generate 400,000,000 watts of power, or 400,000 kW. That's a constant income of $40,000 at $0.10 per kWh. Divide $659 million by $40K and it's 16,475 hours. Divide that by 24 and it's 686 days. Divide that by 365.25 and it's 1.9 years."
- TG Daily-Trendwatch
These calculations were based under the assumption that the farm would be continuously running at 400MW level. However, even if the wind farm were running at 2/3 power, it would still take around three years (TG Daily, 2008). So it's pretty incredible just how quickly the wind industry can turn a profit.
However, to those of you who are now strongly considering turning your back yard into a wind farm, you might want to reconsider. The cost of a small scale residential turbine can range anywhere from $35,000 - 50,000 for a 10 kilowatt turbine. So now, I try to find my calculator and do my own calculations based upon the same methods used in the above mentioned article:
For a turbine costing $50,000:
10kW x $.10 per kWh = $1.00
$50,000 / $1.00 = 50,000 hours
50,000 hours / 24 hours per day = 2084 days
2084 days / 365 = 5.7 years
This figure is again dependant upon the turbine operating at peak performance and the cost of maintenance and overall upkeep are not included. I have a feeling that it would most likely take much longer than 5.7 years to turn a profit on a residential wind turbine. It still does not mean though that harnessing the energy potential of this renewable resource is not a good, eco-friendly idea.
Friday, January 23, 2009
In the News
Looks like our southern neighbors are also looking to harness the power of a stiff breeze...
Mexico
- There seems to be a lot opposition towards this project, which is rightfully so considering that this project would most likely be constructed, maintained, and regulated by companies outside of Mexico, thus bringing few employment opportunities and little ownership to the Mexican population... But the potential for this enormous wind farm is interesting nonetheless
Mexico
- There seems to be a lot opposition towards this project, which is rightfully so considering that this project would most likely be constructed, maintained, and regulated by companies outside of Mexico, thus bringing few employment opportunities and little ownership to the Mexican population... But the potential for this enormous wind farm is interesting nonetheless
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Wind Industry Around the World
After reading "Wind-Power Politics" by Mark Svenvold which describe's the efforts of Bluewater Wind to develop a wind farm off the coast of Deleware, I became interested in the wind industry around the world and how much of an impact it has made in the energy market. To my amazement, wind farms across the globe are responsible for generating 94,000 megawatts of energy. The popularity and effectiveness of this particular form of energy is growing at a considerable rate (over 45% increase in the U.S. in just the past two years). So why haven't we heard more about this new frontier and where exctly does the U.S. fit among the world nations as far as the capacity to generate wind power?
Currently in the United States, 34 states use wind turbines to generate nearly 17 Gigawatts of power with the states of Texas, California, Minnesota, and Iowa leading the way. However, in the bigger picture, wind energy in the United States is responsible for only 0.4% of the total energy produced; seeminlgy insignificant when you consider the influence created by the energy giants such as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. This is likely to change however, as the the U.S. Depatment of energy is working towards a goal that invovles harnassing 20% of the total energy demand from wind power by the year 2030.
While the wind industry in the United States is growing at a considerably high rate, it is shadowed by Germany, although the U.S. is likely to surpass the European nation by the end of this decade. Other notable countries that are harnassing this renewable resource are Spain, India, and the People's Republic of China.
So even though oil, natural gas, and coal continue to blaze the trail in the production of electricity on our planet, the future for harnassing renewabe resources such as wind and water looks very promising.
- Information from this entry was obtained from industry.org
Currently in the United States, 34 states use wind turbines to generate nearly 17 Gigawatts of power with the states of Texas, California, Minnesota, and Iowa leading the way. However, in the bigger picture, wind energy in the United States is responsible for only 0.4% of the total energy produced; seeminlgy insignificant when you consider the influence created by the energy giants such as coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. This is likely to change however, as the the U.S. Depatment of energy is working towards a goal that invovles harnassing 20% of the total energy demand from wind power by the year 2030.
While the wind industry in the United States is growing at a considerably high rate, it is shadowed by Germany, although the U.S. is likely to surpass the European nation by the end of this decade. Other notable countries that are harnassing this renewable resource are Spain, India, and the People's Republic of China.
So even though oil, natural gas, and coal continue to blaze the trail in the production of electricity on our planet, the future for harnassing renewabe resources such as wind and water looks very promising.
- Information from this entry was obtained from industry.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)