Alternative Energy -- Part Two

2001-10-21 03:47:00

Thanks for the references on alternative uses of sunflowers, Mindy. They cover the use of sunflower oil and the use of cast off hulls for fuel, but I couldn't find any site about using the whole dried sunflower as a fuel as I mentioned in my last post. As I said, this sounded very promising, but I haven't heard another thing about it since reading the article decades ago and there seems to be no site ion the web discussing it.

Dehara quotes my statement as follows:

"Solar Power. As far as being a clean energy solar power is a definite improvement over oil or coal. Some see it as free energy and completely pollution free, but this is not quite so."

And then she says:

"To my horror ... JJ's words, "but this is not quite so" appears to no longer be a true statement ... not after today, anyway."

I do not understand your horror here and cannot even find where you disagree with me. Perhaps you can explain.

You mention a company whose website is www.greenmountain.com as if their green energy policy somehow nullifies or contradicts my writing, but such is not the case.

I checked out their site and they do mention that solar energy is a source of power but do not claim to actually have any electricity from solar energy available. I think they throw in the solar energy graphic to deceptively increase sales to people who want to help the environment.

As far as wind power goes they say they supply electricity from windmills to 2500 homes in a select area of Pennsylvania. Apparently, if you do not live there, wind energy is not available.

If you do sign up with them and are willing to pay extra for the clean energy, it appears that you will receive electricity generated from natural gas or hydro electric.

This extra charge thrown in while stressing wind and solar (which seems to be not available) sounds deceptive and also expensive. You say they want to charge you $109.91 for 1001 kWh. Idaho power who supplies our electricity from similar clean energy (hydro electric) only charges us $52.74 for this same amount.

A thing to consider is that there is only a limited supply of natural gas and hydro power and all the electricity generated from these two sources will be sold. If we go out of our way and pay a surcharge for energy from one of these two sources it will not reduce power generated from other sources. It will merely mean that the guy who cannot purchase them will get his energy from some other source.

I mentioned that a drawback of ethanol is that it burns hot.

Chris sent me an interesting piece of information on this:

"A Company in Melbourne Australia has developed a Ceramic Automotive 'Propulsion Unit- which allows fuel to be burned 10 times hotter than the conventional Internal Combustion Engine - and contain the heat inside the engine [...] resolving all other problems.

"The first prototypes were built 10 years ago - specifically for the purpose of burning Ethanol produced in the Sugar Refining Process [...]

"A Major Oil Company provided some research capital in exchange for technology patent rights [...]

"And when the research was completed (several cars went on the road with this engine) the whole project was shelved.

"There are now moves afoot (and the project has been revived) to create a hybrid Ethanol/steam powered unit to overcome the locked up patent - but it has required the development of a new bio-impregnated ceramic.

"Needless to say that, even though we have another prototype, details are being closely guarded.

"However, the Government has stepped in to force a couple of oil companies to share research on the production of an Ethanol + Petrol fuel mix - as a result of the successful prosecution of one oil company for restrictive trade practices."

The next alternative of which to discuss the pros and cons is wind power.

Altogether renewable sources (namely wind & solar,) only supply about 2.4% of the electricity for the United States. Of these two, wind shows the most promise at present. When I first passed some windmills traveling through California I thought it was cool that they were making use of non-polluting wind power, but then as I passed by more of them the thought occurred to me that a few of these would be OK, but if they were everywhere (in an attempt to replace coal or nuclear) that which was pleasant to the view as a novelty would become quite an eyesore as they became ubiquitous.

One or two dandelions in a lawn can be charming, but a whole yard full of them can drive you crazy.

Even so, if windmills ever supplied more than 10% of our power needs, they would become a major source of eye pollution. I personally would be willing to put up with it if there were no reasonable alternative, but I would much prefer a source that does not clutter up thousands of acres of landscape.

On the positive side wind is probably the cleanest source of commercially viable power there is. It even beats solar, which has solar panels that use polluting cadmium compounds.

Even so it also has a number of drawbacks. One of them is very similar to solar in the fact that the materials for construction also require a considerable outlay of energy (probably from coal) to produce.

One of the greatest drawbacks is that there are a very limited number of areas where there is sufficient wind to make windmills economically feasible. We would then be limited in using this source even if we decided to move ahead full speed with it.

Another problem that limits locations for wind power is that if they are built in an area where there are many birds, the poor fowl tends to fly directly into the blades to their death. Windmills have destroyed numerous birds of prey and even some endangered species such as golden eagles. This problem has put the squeeze on available land for windmills. Now a windmill power station has to do a study of an area as to its impact on the bird life before they build.

Below is an informative web site that expands on this subject:

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/02/02092001/windbird_41856.asp

Another little known problem is noise pollution. When they have been built close to homeowners the sound of the whirling blades became so disruptive that numerous lawsuits resulted. If future windmill plants have to be built a distance from any homeowner to avoid litigation this will further restrict land selection.

Many think that when windmill construction is complete that the power plant is home free expense wise, but it turns out that repairs have been higher than projected. One will often see nonworking windmills because of some operating problem waiting for repairs.

A final problem is their unreliability. The wind does not blow consistently the same 24 hours a day and since electricity from wind power cannot be stored there will be gaps where power generated at one time may be only half as much as the day before. I would imagine that a community that uses wind power would have to have a backup source of power for windless days.

Some fairly large companies who have invested in wind power have later abandoned the project because of financial loss. But then there are other mostly smaller companies that persist in perfecting this source in the hope of a better cleaner world.

We wish them well.

-- End Of Part Two --

Go To:

Alternative Energy - Part Three

Ten Deceptions of Nuclear & Alternative Energy (Article Index)

Global Warming Enlightenment (Article Index)