Some things bear repeating – more than once – and one of those is the statement of the honored Jacques Yves-Cousteau who warned, “Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.”
There are many, in all locations, in all walks of life and with the best of intentions who are attempting to “clean up the mess.” A major problem is the lack of coordination of these efforts with the result that cross-purposes often wind up making matters worse instead of better.
So we have to “unpollute” both the air and our water supply while still providing those services to humanity that requires the consumption of energy. Not so easy – but not impossible.
Here are some scenarios that promise clean energy and air at greatly reduced cost:
Where falling water exists near salt water (oceans/seas) hydropower can be generated and used for desalination processes as well a normal export of electricity
Where a supply of natural gas is within reasonable distance of the salt water electricity can be generated with the gas and the waste heat recovered to run a desalination process.
Where falling water exists inland, away from salt water, hydropower can be used to provide cleaning services for contaminated “fresh” water that is not usable for drinking, washing or normal human functions.
Where geothermal energy is available and falling water is not, “geo” can be used for generation, desalination and decontamination: - wherever a heat source is needed.
And where are all these Hydro- and Geo- sources and are they available to be used?
Well, for starts there are 159 hydroelectric power plants in 34 states. 78% are using man-made dams to develop falling water, and not nature’s waterfalls.
In 16 continental states there are 85 waterfalls from 3 to 10 times higher than Niagara. (Hawaii has 41 more – big ones). Of course the volume of water passed for power generation is directly related to the width of the waterfall. We are studying this.
In Canada the roles are reversed. In 7 provinces there are 42 major waterfalls many times larger than Niagara. And while there are 55 hydroelectric power plants only 34% of them use man-made dams for falling water.
Message: there is potential on both sides of the border.
As to geothermal potentials, the search for geothermal fields is on – and proceeding with great success. California’s success is famous; it currently has over 2,500 Megawatts of installed capacity.
Idaho has installed its first plant, as has New Mexico. Nevada has 17 power plants with a total output of 318 MW. And in late 2008 Associated Press reported the discovery of a “massive geothermal field” in Utah which is being developed as we speak.
You must have noted by now that all of the geothermal activity is in the West. In areas that mostly don’t have falling water.
Soon we will go into much greater detail regarding the life-saving processes enabled by nature’s replaceable water and earth’s rather large supply of heat.
After all, America is a work in progress
Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green energy. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
How Green Is Our Valley?
Green is many things to many people. - In fashion it may be the colour d’jour. - In energy it will be the color of the century.- In “Sesame Street” green is Kermit’s favorite color, or not, as he has said in the song, “It’s not easy being green.”
And it won’t be easy to convert all our energy use to green power to stop polluting the air – and primarily to cease creating those additions to the “Greenhouse Gases” that have been unduly increasing the temperature of our planet.
We’ve all seen the picture of the earth as a huge greenhouse. The atmosphere that surrounds it is the “glass” that keeps some heat from escaping. Green House Gases (GHG) are essential in determining the temperature of the Earth. Without them the world to be too cold for human habitation.
The most abundant greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere? In order,
Water vapor 36-70% (include cloud contributions)
Carbon dioxide 9-26%
Methane 4-9%
Ozone 3-7%
And there are many other contributors that provide smaller amounts.
So the current problem is not with basic greenhouse gases but with the impact that human activity has had in the last 200 years that is leading to what is called anthropogenic warming. It is this human contribution that has had a measureable effect on several climate factors including excess carbon dioxide and freshwater industries and food supply and health conditions.
The impact of human behavior comes from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, both leading to higher carbon dioxide; livestock and manure management; paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes; use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration systems and manufacturing; agricultural activities that lead to higher concentration of nitrous oxide.
There are seven sources of C02 from fossil fuel usage by humans:
Coal and other solid fuels 35%
Gasoline, oil and other liquid fuels 36%
Natural gas and similar fuels 20%
Cement production 3%
International “bunkers” of shipping and air transport 4%
Others with minor impact 2%
In coming days we will discuss the 91% of human fossil fuel damage and how much of that ecological peril is American-born. And how water can clean up the mess.
And it won’t be easy to convert all our energy use to green power to stop polluting the air – and primarily to cease creating those additions to the “Greenhouse Gases” that have been unduly increasing the temperature of our planet.
We’ve all seen the picture of the earth as a huge greenhouse. The atmosphere that surrounds it is the “glass” that keeps some heat from escaping. Green House Gases (GHG) are essential in determining the temperature of the Earth. Without them the world to be too cold for human habitation.
The most abundant greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere? In order,
Water vapor 36-70% (include cloud contributions)
Carbon dioxide 9-26%
Methane 4-9%
Ozone 3-7%
And there are many other contributors that provide smaller amounts.
So the current problem is not with basic greenhouse gases but with the impact that human activity has had in the last 200 years that is leading to what is called anthropogenic warming. It is this human contribution that has had a measureable effect on several climate factors including excess carbon dioxide and freshwater industries and food supply and health conditions.
The impact of human behavior comes from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, both leading to higher carbon dioxide; livestock and manure management; paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes; use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration systems and manufacturing; agricultural activities that lead to higher concentration of nitrous oxide.
There are seven sources of C02 from fossil fuel usage by humans:
Coal and other solid fuels 35%
Gasoline, oil and other liquid fuels 36%
Natural gas and similar fuels 20%
Cement production 3%
International “bunkers” of shipping and air transport 4%
Others with minor impact 2%
In coming days we will discuss the 91% of human fossil fuel damage and how much of that ecological peril is American-born. And how water can clean up the mess.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
What is Really Green?
GREEN ENERGY is the byword in the energy field today and we all know that it refers to sources of energy that are “environmentally friendly” and “renewable” and “non-hazardous” and the like. Basically we’re speaking of energy forms that do not pollute the air or earth and do not contribute to “Global Warming.”
But there is another side to this fascinating coin: GREEN COLOR OF MONEY
Economics has played and will continue to play a large part in the eventual development of what we hope will be energy sanity. So let’s take a look.
Solar All the fossil fuels used in the entire country could be replaced by solar cells contained in an area 300 miles square (90,000). That would be little larger than the state of Minnesota; and a little impossible. But solar panels are useful for homes and one- or two-story shopping centers and marts.
Prices range from $4 to $6 per watt and panel wattages range anywhere from 40w to over 200w. Prices do not include delivery or installation Comparative savings depend on local electric rates.
Ethanol Derived from corn its development is highly subsidized- more than $4 billion in 2006; plus another $3 billion at the pump which resulted in many billions in windfall profits. No wonder the politicians are for it. But if you don’t like global warming you certainly won’t like ethanol. As one critic put it, “It ain’t green – only the cash is.” And it takes more fossil fuels to make than it replaces.
Wind – It would take wind farm size of Colorado to serve northern California – Certainly it is an inexhaustible source of clean energy and one would think free of cost. But each wind generator has low energy production therefore many units are needed to provide meaningful output of electricity, heat or water movement and maintenance cost is quite high.
Hydrogen – must be liquefied – expensive – more explosive (See” Hindenberg”) than gasoline. Not readily available and the $1.2 billion the Fed has spent since Pres. Bush’s initiative to develop hydrogen infrastructure is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount necessary to meet the Bush goal of fossil replacement by 2040. More on this fuel later.
Geothermal – excellent where found –good for major loads, not homes – As Earth Policy Institute puts it, “World Geothermal Power Generation Nearing Eruption.” The fact is that the heat energy hidden in the top six miles of the earth’s crust is thousands of times greater than the energy contained in all the oil and gas reserves on earth. Moreover A number of countries with a total population of over 750 million people have enough geothermal energy sitting under them to replace all their electric generation from fossil or any other fuels.
There will be considerably more on this subject soon. Suffice it to say that while there appears to be a lot of geothermal energy available it is not known at this time whether it is self-replacing or finite in the long run. (A run which could be a thousand years)
WATER – HYDRO – cheap and very available where permitted by government regulations. We have already discussed the advantages of hydro power as it exists in the U.S. and Canada. Here again look for more in-depth coverage in the near future.
But there is another side to this fascinating coin: GREEN COLOR OF MONEY
Economics has played and will continue to play a large part in the eventual development of what we hope will be energy sanity. So let’s take a look.
Solar All the fossil fuels used in the entire country could be replaced by solar cells contained in an area 300 miles square (90,000). That would be little larger than the state of Minnesota; and a little impossible. But solar panels are useful for homes and one- or two-story shopping centers and marts.
Prices range from $4 to $6 per watt and panel wattages range anywhere from 40w to over 200w. Prices do not include delivery or installation Comparative savings depend on local electric rates.
Ethanol Derived from corn its development is highly subsidized- more than $4 billion in 2006; plus another $3 billion at the pump which resulted in many billions in windfall profits. No wonder the politicians are for it. But if you don’t like global warming you certainly won’t like ethanol. As one critic put it, “It ain’t green – only the cash is.” And it takes more fossil fuels to make than it replaces.
Wind – It would take wind farm size of Colorado to serve northern California – Certainly it is an inexhaustible source of clean energy and one would think free of cost. But each wind generator has low energy production therefore many units are needed to provide meaningful output of electricity, heat or water movement and maintenance cost is quite high.
Hydrogen – must be liquefied – expensive – more explosive (See” Hindenberg”) than gasoline. Not readily available and the $1.2 billion the Fed has spent since Pres. Bush’s initiative to develop hydrogen infrastructure is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount necessary to meet the Bush goal of fossil replacement by 2040. More on this fuel later.
Geothermal – excellent where found –good for major loads, not homes – As Earth Policy Institute puts it, “World Geothermal Power Generation Nearing Eruption.” The fact is that the heat energy hidden in the top six miles of the earth’s crust is thousands of times greater than the energy contained in all the oil and gas reserves on earth. Moreover A number of countries with a total population of over 750 million people have enough geothermal energy sitting under them to replace all their electric generation from fossil or any other fuels.
There will be considerably more on this subject soon. Suffice it to say that while there appears to be a lot of geothermal energy available it is not known at this time whether it is self-replacing or finite in the long run. (A run which could be a thousand years)
WATER – HYDRO – cheap and very available where permitted by government regulations. We have already discussed the advantages of hydro power as it exists in the U.S. and Canada. Here again look for more in-depth coverage in the near future.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Energy Independence
There have been an awful lot of statistics thrown around about where our energy comes from and where it goes. Where it goes is pretty much in our hands as a nation.
Where it comes from has become a problem because through it our national independence has become somewhat compromised.
So let’s look at where we’re at today:
Of all the energy we consume:
39.8 % is petroleum
23.6 % is natural gas
22.8% is coal
6.8% is renewable (including hydro power)
8.4% is nuclear
Now all these figures some from your government’s Energy Information Administration so it’s no surprise that the numbers add up to 101.4% !!!!!!
Anyway accepting the probability that the civil service is ALMOST competent, let’s continue:
Of all the petroleum we consume: 58% is imported
Of all petroleum we import: 37.9% is from OPEC!
Now the same EIA tells us that our consumption of energy is;
29.0% for transportation
21.4% for industrial use
10.6% for residential/commercial use
40.6% for electric power
Oh-oh, here’s that magic 101.4% again.
Oh well, we know the numbers are close to accurate and we continue….
And we are getting to a point – with apologies, because the numbers are very important!
So we arrive at the energy we use to make electricity.
Generation of electricity in the US:
48.6% burning coal (question of how clean) 21.5% burning natural gas (cleaner than oil or coal) 1.6% burning oil (mostly in the Northeast! 19.4% using nuclear fission
5.8% hydro generation
3.2% Renewables and other sources. What do you know – 100.0%
And hidden within all these numbers are the most logical solutions to enacting our:
Declaration of Energy Independence
So what do we do with all this technical information?
I think it was Kermit the frog who sang on “Sesame Street” a song entitled
“IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN……”
And that’s what we have to do – we have to examine the alternatives and make some serious changes.
Major increase in hydro-generation of electricity
Major decrease in use of coal to generate electricity
Major increase in use of liquified natural gas (LGN) for transportation
Major decrease in the use of petroleum for transportation
Major increase in the development of renewable resources
And how green is nuclear generation of electricity?
The “pros and cons”
For one thing there are no toxins expelled into the atmosphere – unless there is an explosion.
Once the uranium (U-235) is decayed beyond use for generation, the waste must be removed and stored-somewhere. Where is a question – in a mountain, outer space?
And it is reported that U-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years (thank you Wikipedia)
Thus Uranium is not renewable and not a candidate for Green.
So one more change required:
Major decrease in use of nuclear energy for power generation – or anything else
How much increase or decrease of all these items will be required to achieve our energy independence will be discussed in future blogs and we look forward to any suggestions you might wish to offer.
Where it comes from has become a problem because through it our national independence has become somewhat compromised.
So let’s look at where we’re at today:
Of all the energy we consume:
39.8 % is petroleum
23.6 % is natural gas
22.8% is coal
6.8% is renewable (including hydro power)
8.4% is nuclear
Now all these figures some from your government’s Energy Information Administration so it’s no surprise that the numbers add up to 101.4% !!!!!!
Anyway accepting the probability that the civil service is ALMOST competent, let’s continue:
Of all the petroleum we consume: 58% is imported
Of all petroleum we import: 37.9% is from OPEC!
Now the same EIA tells us that our consumption of energy is;
29.0% for transportation
21.4% for industrial use
10.6% for residential/commercial use
40.6% for electric power
Oh-oh, here’s that magic 101.4% again.
Oh well, we know the numbers are close to accurate and we continue….
And we are getting to a point – with apologies, because the numbers are very important!
So we arrive at the energy we use to make electricity.
Generation of electricity in the US:
48.6% burning coal (question of how clean) 21.5% burning natural gas (cleaner than oil or coal) 1.6% burning oil (mostly in the Northeast! 19.4% using nuclear fission
5.8% hydro generation
3.2% Renewables and other sources. What do you know – 100.0%
And hidden within all these numbers are the most logical solutions to enacting our:
Declaration of Energy Independence
So what do we do with all this technical information?
I think it was Kermit the frog who sang on “Sesame Street” a song entitled
“IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN……”
And that’s what we have to do – we have to examine the alternatives and make some serious changes.
Major increase in hydro-generation of electricity
Major decrease in use of coal to generate electricity
Major increase in use of liquified natural gas (LGN) for transportation
Major decrease in the use of petroleum for transportation
Major increase in the development of renewable resources
And how green is nuclear generation of electricity?
The “pros and cons”
For one thing there are no toxins expelled into the atmosphere – unless there is an explosion.
Once the uranium (U-235) is decayed beyond use for generation, the waste must be removed and stored-somewhere. Where is a question – in a mountain, outer space?
And it is reported that U-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years (thank you Wikipedia)
Thus Uranium is not renewable and not a candidate for Green.
So one more change required:
Major decrease in use of nuclear energy for power generation – or anything else
How much increase or decrease of all these items will be required to achieve our energy independence will be discussed in future blogs and we look forward to any suggestions you might wish to offer.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The First Hundred Years Were the Easiest
Hello,
My name is Richard Lorson. I’m the Managing Partner of Lorson Energy LLC
One hundred years – and two months – ago, my father, Frank E Lorson, Sr. started the first of a number of energy-related firms that have comprised the Lorson Group of companies.
Over the years the world has seen all of the developments in the use of energy from gas lighting in the streets to the generation of power using nuclear energy. We have witnessed the gamut: genius in action – and energy lunacy practiced by fools.
Our clients have been from the smallest to the biggest; the corner grocer to the world’s largest facility managers; and we are pleased to tell you that they all have benefitted from our knowledge and expertise.
But more important than who we are is the knowledge we have gained over these years that can be put to use by all in this time of increasing energy demands and decreasing petroleum reserves.
It is gratifying that today many of the warnings we have issued during our tenure are beginning to be heeded. Green energy has many facets and I will, in ensuing blogs, tell you about them and how each of us can make a meaningful contribution to what could be no less than the survival of our species.
Please let us know your questions and suggestions. We hope to anticipate some of them during this ongoing conversation, but I look forward to your input as we go along.
My name is Richard Lorson. I’m the Managing Partner of Lorson Energy LLC
One hundred years – and two months – ago, my father, Frank E Lorson, Sr. started the first of a number of energy-related firms that have comprised the Lorson Group of companies.
Over the years the world has seen all of the developments in the use of energy from gas lighting in the streets to the generation of power using nuclear energy. We have witnessed the gamut: genius in action – and energy lunacy practiced by fools.
Our clients have been from the smallest to the biggest; the corner grocer to the world’s largest facility managers; and we are pleased to tell you that they all have benefitted from our knowledge and expertise.
But more important than who we are is the knowledge we have gained over these years that can be put to use by all in this time of increasing energy demands and decreasing petroleum reserves.
It is gratifying that today many of the warnings we have issued during our tenure are beginning to be heeded. Green energy has many facets and I will, in ensuing blogs, tell you about them and how each of us can make a meaningful contribution to what could be no less than the survival of our species.
Please let us know your questions and suggestions. We hope to anticipate some of them during this ongoing conversation, but I look forward to your input as we go along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)