Alternative Energy, what is the logical next step for America?

[G. David Felt]

Alternative Energy, what is the logical next step for America?

Join me as I write about the various forms of alternative energy and how I see them stacking up in today’s market place.

Green Fuel Ethanol / BioMass

Touted as the answer to our high gas prices, ethanol is an alcohol based fuel derived from fermenting and distilling crops that are broken down into simple sugars.Ethanol fuel is mainly produced in the US by a company called Archer Daniels Midland, an agricultural giant with years of experience and investment in the Ethanol industry. This industry is supported by Billions of approved tax dollars and the legal requirement that Oil Company MUST buys a percentage of Ethanol and mixes it into regular gas.Ethanol was touted as a cheaper form of fuel with an acceptable smaller amount of energy per gallon or BTU’s.The problem with Ethanol production or the issue is that ethanol production is supported by energy produced with Coal Power, which is the dirtiest form of energy. The question asked then is why is a clean fuel being hailed as such a wonder when it has to use the dirtiest form of energy production to produce it?The EPA has recently in the past few years had to tighten down restrictions on Ethanol plants due to the excessive spewing of chemicals that are dangerous to the environment and known to cause cancer in humans. Sadly the EPA since 2004 has Ethanol listed as a major source of Pollution. This has been pushed down into the bowls to be seen only by people driven to see testing results for alternative fuels production but the details are on the EPA web site.It is clear that in our search to move away from oil dependence and find new green fuels that we are polluting in new ways or at least other ways when it comes to production. So where do we stand when it comes to Ethanol? Does the subsidy really make sense to pay these companies billions to make a fuel that now on average costs $2.13 a gallon but without the subsidy would cost equal to gasoline and has less power and pollutes equal to if not greater when you factor in the coal power required to make it?This does not take into account the added cost put on Corn as a food source since a required amount of corn must be sold and used for production of Ethanol. Currently a bushel of corn is over $8 per bushel and a We have a problem on our hands and it is time we step up and truly move to an alternative form of Green Energy. Is it algae, fruit based ethanol, Biodiesel, CNG, Solar, Electric, Hydrogen (Cold Fusion), wind or just what is the next logical step for the US to take?

Over the next few months I will attempt to review both renewable and non renewable energy!

[regfootball]

solar > electricity > plug in and selling power back to the utlity companies (who got bought by big oil)

[riviera74]

Any type of fuel based on foodstuffs is patently stupid. This is even before the drought that is affecting farm yields here in the USA this year. Corn-based ethanol is stupid and the EPA should scrap the mandates that require it to be blended into our gasoline. If you want ethanol (read E85), then use something else that humans (and livestock) DO NOT consume. There are plenty of alternatives to corn. If ADM cannot adapt, that is their problem. Also, we should completely end all farm subsidies because they are a waste of money.

If it were cheap to convert all vehicles to natural gas, then it should be done. Or do we have to have all of our refineries shut down and/or on fire for that to happen? Current technology is designed to burn fossil fuels and nothing else. Short of a real game-changing technology, CNG is currently our best alternative.

[Drew Dowdell]

There are plenty of alternatives to corn, but many of them are still consumed by human. In the case of sugar, it is much more efficient to grow and produce fuel from than corn is. It's ok to use sugar even though humans and livestock still consume it.

[G. David Felt]

Interesting that some companies are focusing on using garbage and other sources for Ethanol productions rather than food stocks.

http://www.e-energymarket.com/news/single-news/article/bluefire-ethanol-ready-to-reach-ambitious-goals.html

Better yet is our own gov is showing that non-food based ethanol has a better energy rate and uses less supplied energy to create ethanol.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

Time to kill the corn subsidies and let the farmers fight it out in a free market.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well the Corn Ethanol Subsidy is expired as of January 2012

[regfootball]

in the interest of as many diversified energy sources as possible, i don't mind some corn ethanol....but i strongly disapprove of it being mandated in the fuel supply (like here in MN) and i am not huge on subsidizing corn if it means its for fuel.

ethanol blend is plain and simple an ag tax. i get 10-15% less mpg than the pure small engine gas, so i use more, that means i pay more for gas all around and it gums up my car. how is that good for me?

note: brazil thrives on sugar based ethanol.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't mind ethanol because the MPG hit is purely an issue of our relatively low compression engines. If GM offered an E85 only engine, that engine could be smaller displacement and match the horsepower of a larger FlexFuel engine. Down in Brazil, GM's 1 liter engines that run sugar alcohol put in 12:1 compression ratios which is equal to what the V10 in the M5 uses. Compare that to the 9.5:1 compression ratio you get in a Flexfuel pushrod Impala. A 3900 tuned to a higher compression ratio and running only E85 could be a 275 - 290 hp motor, gear it accordingly and you wouldn't suffer a mpg hit compared to the Impala that we actually got.

Simply put, E85 would let you run a smaller engine without the performance hit and thus save you mpgs that way.

[Z-06]

Fusion energy is a while to go - possibly even 15 years down the road. Bathtub nuclear fission reactors are a good small scale solution. With next generation breeder reactors, fission energy can satisfy needs of America - if 65 to 80% of power comes from nuke - for the next 10,000 years. There is enough fissile material existing in this world.

The problem of nuke is perception. Despite of nuke is a safe energy source, just the thought scares many.

[SAmadei]

There are plenty of alternatives to corn, but many of them are still consumed by human. In the case of sugar, it is much more efficient to grow and produce fuel from than corn is. It's ok to use sugar even though humans and livestock still consume it.

Well, its not like most humans can afford products made with sugar anymore... just HFCS... but seriously, ethanol from sugar has not happened here for one reason... it would make Cuba a major player in the US ethanol business. Unless Cuba's government changes radically, the US government will not play ball.

[PurdueGuy]

The issue with many of the renewables is that they can be contributors, but most or all of them just aren't capable of being energy *solutions*, and the cost per energy unit of things like solar is still far too high to make commercial sense without heavy subsidies. Some folks need to get their heads out of the clouds & realize that some of these techs are going to have to remain in small scale use for another 20 years before they're even worth looking at when talking about national scale needs. Of course, it would be unwise to get all our power from only one or two sources anyway. That's the beauty of electricity - there's so many ways to make it! Nuclear is really borderline between non-renewable and renewable, especially if breeding and recycling are on the table.

[riviera74]

Yes, electricity can come from anywhere. We should ditch coal for nuclear right now, particularly generation IV plants. Transpotation is the real issue of course. Currently, there is no energy source out there with the portability and energy density of petroleum and its distillates. Solve that and you can deliver the USA out of fossil fuel dependence, perhaps forever.

[Drew Dowdell]

Well I disagree on the nukes. Germany is getting 50% of their electrical needs from solar during the summer months. I don't see why we can't do the same, we have a lot more sunny days than they do and a lot lower latitude as well.

[G. David Felt]

The issue with many of the renewables is that they can be contributors, but most or all of them just aren't capable of being energy *solutions*, and the cost per energy unit of things like solar is still far too high to make commercial sense without heavy subsidies. Some folks need to get their heads out of the clouds & realize that some of these techs are going to have to remain in small scale use for another 20 years before they're even worth looking at when talking about national scale needs. Of course, it would be unwise to get all our power from only one or two sources anyway. That's the beauty of electricity - there's so many ways to make it! Nuclear is really borderline between non-renewable and renewable, especially if breeding and recycling are on the table.

Yet electric cars are still a commuter car only. Forget the Rich toy that has a supposedly 300 mile range, the current electric cars cannot take you on a cross country trip. End of story. We are at least 50 to 100 years away from a storage source for electric that can get you 500 miles on a charge and how to rapid recharge in minutes.

They are a niche vehicle.

[riviera74]

Well I disagree on the nukes. Germany is getting 50% of their electrical needs from solar during the summer months. I don't see why we can't do the same, we have a lot more sunny days than they do and a lot lower latitude as well.

I would say that in certain latitudes solar is good for electricity generation (especially down here in FL, as well as TX/AZ/CA/NM). The problem is that solar power is not good enough for baseline power. Only fossil fuels, geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric are good enough for baseline power to power entire cities. Solar can be good for an electric car, if said car has enough battery to handle long days without sunlight. (Also, can an electric car survive a Detroit winter?) How does Germany get its electricity during the dead of winter, when sunlight is relatively weak? Most likely nuclear power, which they should keep. Should more homes in the Sunbelt have solar power? Yes, because it makes economic sense, not because of some misplaced love of the environment.

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, Germany is supplying 50% of its electrical needs with solar, there is no reason we can't duplicate that. For the times the Sun isn't shining, you can used wide scale wind generation. For the amount of money we spent on Iraq and Afgahnistan, we could have deployed enough wind power in the US to power the US 3 times over. Triple electrical redundancy using conventional wind power. Now, there are newer developments called Wind Lenses that have already proven to double or triple output of a conventional turbine. and the equation changed in favor of wind even further.

The US mid-west is a wind power bonanza that makes the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia look like Jed Clampett's back yard.

I don't believe in "can't". We can power the US going forward and never build another conventional or nuclear electrical plant again while also decommissioning coal powered plants. We just need to get our priorities in order to do it. The State of New Jersey is already on this path as they have given up building new plants and are instead handing out grants to businesses and schools that put solar on the roof and sell back to the grid.

[G. David Felt]

Again, Germany is supplying 50% of its electrical needs with solar, there is no reason we can't duplicate that. For the times the Sun isn't shining, you can used wide scale wind generation. For the amount of money we spent on Iraq and Afgahnistan, we could have deployed enough wind power in the US to power the US 3 times over. Triple electrical redundancy using conventional wind power. Now, there are newer developments called Wind Lenses that have already proven to double or triple output of a conventional turbine. and the equation changed in favor of wind even further.

The US mid-west is a wind power bonanza that makes the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia look like Jed Clampett's back yard.

I don't believe in "can't". We can power the US going forward and never build another conventional or nuclear electrical plant again while also decommissioning coal powered plants. We just need to get our priorities in order to do it. The State of New Jersey is already on this path as they have given up building new plants and are instead handing out grants to businesses and schools that put solar on the roof and sell back to the grid.

I agree that before we build more plants that leave a destructive waste by product, we should invest in alternative green forms of power generation.

This thread could go very political, but the point being is the public needs to demand that our government stop overloading on overseas issues that really do not affect us and focus on rebuilding American infrastructure so that we can move towards dependance. This will require kicking the oil habit and there are many ways to kick that habit as I will cover in up coming alternative energy issues.

[Drew Dowdell]

The reality of it is that we will have to pay more to kick the oil and coal habit. In many areas you can buy up to green energy for just 2 cents more per kwh. You can buy blended green energy for less than that.

[PurdueGuy]

What is the current price per kwh for solar?

[Drew Dowdell]

What is the current price per kwh for solar?

For my area, I can get $0.0707/kwh for "100% clean energy" which is blended wind and hydro. With the employee discount I get through work, I can get "dirty energy" for $0.0679/kwh

[Z-06]

Following is the energy efficiency and range for cost of generation for respective sources. How can solar be that economical to sustain to be primary source of energy? Surface area is limited on this planet.

[Drew Dowdell]

PV costs are entirely based on the cost to produce the cells. Those prices have already plummeted and should continue to do so.

Roof surface area is a large untapped resource in this country.

[SAmadei]

Again, Germany is supplying 50% of its electrical needs with solar, there is no reason we can't duplicate that. For the times the Sun isn't shining, you can used wide scale wind generation.

Can you post the source of this info? I was totally unable to find a source coming close to this. I'm wondering if Germany is outsourcing the location of its solar power. As it was not long ago, I saw stats showing that it would require covering the entire US with solar cells to provide even a quarter of our needs.

PV costs are entirely based on the cost to produce the cells. Those prices have already plummeted and should continue to do so.

Roof surface area is a large untapped resource in this country.

It might be, but right now, the people who put in roof-loads of PVs are losing their shirts, as the SRECs are not covering the cost of the improvements. Not only that, I have been investigating putting PVs on my roof for 10 years now, and the end user pricing has not come down at all. Granted, I have not repriced in the last year, but last I checked, Harbor Freight's kit had the best watts per dollar.

[G. David Felt]

Check out the Solar Kits Costco sells, the pricing has come down greatly and these kits I believe will speed up the use of Solar on homes.

http://www.costco.com/Common/Search.aspx?whse=BC&topnav=&search=solar&N=0&Ntt=solar&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US

Happy Shopping.

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, Germany is supplying 50% of its electrical needs with solar, there is no reason we can't duplicate that. For the times the Sun isn't shining, you can used wide scale wind generation.

Can you post the source of this info? I was totally unable to find a source coming close to this. I'm wondering if Germany is outsourcing the location of its solar power. As it was not long ago, I saw stats showing that it would require covering the entire US with solar cells to provide even a quarter of our needs.

This article was from May, but over the summer it became such a routine thing for Germany that media no longer bothered to report it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

PV costs are entirely based on the cost to produce the cells. Those prices have already plummeted and should continue to do so.

Roof surface area is a large untapped resource in this country.

It might be, but right now, the people who put in roof-loads of PVs are losing their shirts, as the SRECs are not covering the cost of the improvements. Not only that, I have been investigating putting PVs on my roof for 10 years now, and the end user pricing has not come down at all. Granted, I have not repriced in the last year, but last I checked, Harbor Freight's kit had the best watts per dollar.

SRECs were never intended to cover the entire cost of the installation. The premise was that the owner would obtain long term financing and use the SRECs to help offset the cost of installation and they also got free energy for their home.

[G. David Felt]

Following is the energy efficiency and range for cost of generation for respective sources. How can solar be that economical to sustain to be primary source of energy? Surface area is limited on this planet.

Hydro Baby, that is why our electrical rates in Washington are so low in comparison to the rest of the country. We do have plenty of water to turn the generators.

Now to just keep the tree huger in check as we move to alternative energy like CNG as these tree hugers want to take down all the damns.

[Z-06]

See the problem with hydro is that almost all the strategic dams for large hydro projects are already in place. So the technology has reached saturation due to available space.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is still lots of room for smaller scale hydro. It doesn't all have to be hover damn size projects.

A high percentage of the dams and locks on the rivers around me are pushing 100 years old and are in danger of failing right now. When they are rebuilt, they could incorporate small scale hydro. Since we need to rebuilt them anyway, why not throw a few turbines in them to generate electricity?

[Z-06]

There is still lots of room for smaller scale hydro. It doesn't all have to be hover damn size projects.

A high percentage of the dams and locks on the rivers around me are pushing 100 years old and are in danger of failing right now. When they are rebuilt, they could incorporate small scale hydro. Since we need to rebuilt them anyway, why not throw a few turbines in them to generate electricity?

But at 100 years old it is still approx. 2 time more life-span than coal and nuke plants, and 3 to 4 times more life-span than estimated life of a solar plant.

The problem with addition of more turbines is location and is the dammed water capable to handle the capacity? You do not want the lake to be empty.

One thing to look at is regenerative turbines. I.e. placing turbines at two different elevations. So when turbine at higher elevation spits water out, it can be siphoned on to another smaller turbine sitting at a lower elevation.

I love hydro plants for their simplicity and efficiency. We were doing research on some old hydro dams and I was amazed to know that the actual operational efficiency of the turbines can be close to 98% with modern bearings, and lubes. That is unheard of in any other source.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is still lots of room for smaller scale hydro. It doesn't all have to be hover damn size projects.

A high percentage of the dams and locks on the rivers around me are pushing 100 years old and are in danger of failing right now. When they are rebuilt, they could incorporate small scale hydro. Since we need to rebuilt them anyway, why not throw a few turbines in them to generate electricity?

But at 100 years old it is still approx. 2 time more life-span than coal and nuke plants, and 3 to 4 times more life-span than estimated life of a solar plant.

The problem with addition of more turbines is location and is the dammed water capable to handle the capacity? You do not want the lake to be empty.

One thing to look at is regenerative turbines. I.e. placing turbines at two different elevations. So when turbine at higher elevation spits water out, it can be siphoned on to another smaller turbine sitting at a lower elevation.

I love hydro plants for their simplicity and efficiency. We were doing research on some old hydro dams and I was amazed to know that the actual operational efficiency of the turbines can be close to 98% with modern bearings, and lubes. That is unheard of in any other source.

These are river spillways so the water is flowing constantly. No more than a 15 foot drop, but most are lower than that. They sit every 5 to 15 miles along the rivers here. We're not talking about lighting up all of Pittsburgh with them, but it is energy that is literally passing us by.

[Z-06]

You mean overflow weirs. Honestly for optimal efficiency the drop should be close to 15 meters or more.Plus you need to channel the flow in that drop into much smaller cross section to increase the velocity of water for maximizing the output.

[PurdueGuy]

What is the current price per kwh for solar?

For my area, I can get $0.0707/kwh for "100% clean energy" which is blended wind and hydro. With the employee discount I get through work, I can get "dirty energy" for $0.0679/kwh

Yeah, cuz hydro is dirt cheap. You willing to pay 2-4x as much as you do for a large percentage of solar?

[CanadianBacon94]

My town has a hydro dam between it and the american town across the river, that's where our power comes from.

[Drew Dowdell]

What is the current price per kwh for solar?

For my area, I can get $0.0707/kwh for "100% clean energy" which is blended wind and hydro. With the employee discount I get through work, I can get "dirty energy" for $0.0679/kwh

Yeah, cuz hydro is dirt cheap. You willing to pay 2-4x as much as you do for a large percentage of solar?

Solar isn't an option for me here. I'll have to look up rates in NJ.

[G. David Felt]

There is still lots of room for smaller scale hydro. It doesn't all have to be hover damn size projects.

A high percentage of the dams and locks on the rivers around me are pushing 100 years old and are in danger of failing right now. When they are rebuilt, they could incorporate small scale hydro. Since we need to rebuilt them anyway, why not throw a few turbines in them to generate electricity?

Washington state has been approving small scale Hydro dames on rivers where fish could never really go up stream, perfect example is the latest new Hydro dam is on a river that falls into a 1500 foot tall falls. So since it does not block fish from going up stream, having a dam behind the falls allows us to capture the power and still keep the falls going and not affect the fish migration.