As we enter the end of the Oil Age, it is more important than ever to evaluate the actual costs and benefits of the various energy options, and consequences of selecting some over or more so than others. On the surface, given its championing of wind power, the Pickens Plan sounds pretty darn good. On closer inspection, however, flaws become apparent. Perhaps Pickens will changes it before it gains momentum? Hope so, otherwise, it will probably have many unintentional negative side effects that the USA cannot afford (had enough of those, thank you very much). Or, perhaps someone else will come up with a better plan (see the sUSAn Plan post on this blog) that will receive as much national coverage (hint, hint, spread the word about it to your friends and family members).
The main flaw with the current version of the Pickens Plan is that it proposes replacing one expensive non-renewable fuel for cars with another - this time natural gas. What the heck? Okay, so there are a few natural gas powered buses and other public forms of transportaions, but when it comes to cars, we lack the infrastructure to do this right now, and besides, switching from gasoline to natural gas is short sighted, so why bother with this expensive and unnecessary step? Why not just phase over to hybrids now since we already have this type of car and the infrastructure to support it, and 100% plug-in electric as soon as feasible. One of the great things about plug ins is that they can be plugged in at night while electricity demand is low, and less expensive than in the day.
BioGas (from algae) might be another option - presumably, it is already compatible with the existing infrastructure, and it is (more or less) CO2 neutral. However, plug-ins seem to be the way to go because it will make our economy much more efficient to streamline energy to electric so that no one has to spend time and energy going to the gas station, and besides, Biogas and for a while yet, natural gas could be used to make electricity. Converting cars to natural gas is a side track that will allow other countries leap frog ahead of us when it comes to building and selling better autos.
In the near future, all cars in other countries (depending upon which lobbyist have their way, and in part on the economic and environmental math works out) will be all electric and/or use biofuels (from algae or inedible plant parts, not from corn or soy), water (by taking the H from H2O), and/or compressed air (all these already exist; see below or SAN).
Given the many options, it is absurd to go through the trouble and expense of natural gas fueled cars. If we in the USA do this, we will miss the boat on the many opportunities in the global auto market. Thus, before endorsing the Pickens Plan, please check the facts and do an analysis (and/or urge him to) so that the plan does not shoot the USA in both feet (domestically and internationally). If the concerns mentioned herein are misguided, please let me know. (Perhaps Pickens initially included this part of the plan to get people thinking, to help them understand that the days of gas guzzling cars, trucks & SUVs are coming to an end, or something like that?)
The second major flaw is that it appears overly focused on large windmill farms (and wind energy in general) and hardly mentions solar or other sustainable energy sources. The recent UT article, "Pickens pitches plans to shift U.S. away from oil" quotes Pickens as saying, "I know a little about wind and a lot about oil and gas, but nothing about solar." So, someone who knows nothing about solar is pushing wind power as the solution to the USA's energy crisis? Even if the quote is wrong (surely he knows something about solor, perhaps including that he is not as heavily invested in it as he is in natural gas and wind energy?), we need to compare the various types of wind and solar energy, and address the following concerns about large windmill farms before moving forward gun ho with wind energy. The USA needs to move forward with the best energy sources possible, both for its sake, and for that of the rest of the world. Offshore windmill generated powermight be okay if it produces as much power as the non-windmill designs (because out there, noise does not matter as much), High Altitude Wind Power looks promising, and many of the other new non-windmill designs are as well (see: the Wind Technology of Toby Kinkaid, the gotwind vawt design, Grahm Atty's (not sure of spelling) Small, Simple Roof Top Turbine, and my personal favorite, the Helix Wind Turbine because it is beautiful, relatively safe, and quiet too!)). However, there are too many concerns related to large land-based windmill farms to rush forward with them as the Pickens Plan appears to do. If even some of the concerns about windmill farms are valid (they are made by people worldwide, especially in Europe, where wind has been used for a long time), it seems the mix should much more diverse (more rooftop mounted, non-windmill wind turbines like the Helix and fewer windmills), better balanced, and/or maybe even a little more solar power than wind overall (the ratios for a given region would depend on how the math actually works out based on that area's resources).
Concerns include:
(Though visionary) THE PLAN IS MYOPIC: Once more people start jumping on Pickens' band wagon (as it is currently formed), it will be hard to convince them that if the USA becomes the leader in wind energy without also being in the lead on solar energy, we will miss the boat with regard to global markets and some our own future development potential. Better to get them on a better cart from the start. This is in part because providing solar power for villages in developing countries is a fast-growing market (apparently faster than large-scale wind farms given the time needed to build them and the power lines that connect them to the grid). Incidentally, some experts think that before a developing country's population growth can be reduced and its living conditions improved, its energy use needs to increase (see "Energy: Science, Policy and the Pursuit of Sustainability"), so developed countries have an incentive to help the developing regions who want more energy to increase it. Whereas millions of villages worldwide are without enough electric power for basic needs, the cost of extending utility grids to them is prohibitive (same is true for some places in the states). Solar power can be hooked up to grids, yet need not be – it can just provide energy for the building upon which it is located. The same is not true of large windmills that I understand are called for by the Pickens Plan (though small rooftop non-windmill wind turbines apparently do not need to be attached to a grid). Furthermore, more regions of the world are suited for solar power than for wind power (though some places are not very good for either).
LAND USE: Both wind and solar take more space than traditional power plants, yet rooftop solar panels reduce the amount of space needed for solar farms (as do rooftop wind turbines like the Helix). Currently, about 0.1 % of all land area in the US is covered by buildings. According to "Energy: Science, Policy and the Pursuit of Sustainability" if only 0.1 % of the world's land area (not including Antarctica) was covered with solar collectors (e.g., on rooftops) it would provide 4,000 (e) Mtoe/a of energy - enough to provide roughly 40% of all the power used in all countries in 1996 (see: pages 46-53). Why not start by putting solar panels and Helix Wind Turbines on at least 50% of all structures in the USA and building solar farms close to large cities? Solar farms can be located closer to cities than big windmill farms, so they do not require as many miles of new power lines (not only are power lines expensive, above-ground power lines are problematic because of accidents, fires, exposure to terrorism and their environmental footprint is not benign). Besides, why subject the government to all the expense and headaches of eminent domain (not to mention, put landowners through the misery of it), if it is not needed?
See "How Michael Shames installed Solar Power and declared independence from SDG&E in 48 hours." This approach has much more appeal to those of us who like our independence and the increased "safety" associated with it. Why not make money developing and installing solar & helix turbines on rooftops and at the same time, by giving people more independence and increased safety from terrorist attacks to the grid, natural disasters, etc. Also, see "Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet", "Wind-turbines-do-
INEFFICIENCIES: wind is intermittent and overall (in most places where it is practical), I understand there is less of it during the peak energy consumption months. In contrast, solar power is at its peak when energy use is at its peak (so its cost should be compared to the cost of peak hour energy, not the average cost of energy). During the daytime, solar systems can generate more electricity than a house needs, so the extra can flow out to the grid and the house/building's meter can spin backward. When the sun goes down, solar production (with some methods) stops, so electricity needs to come back from grid, which will spin the meter forward (yet not by much). Solar thermal facilities that use the sun to heat a liquid during the day can produce the power needed at night. Whereas solar is moving in the direction of providing energy 24/7, I have not heard the same about wind (not that it cannot, yet if it eventually develops along those lines). Even St James's Church in Piccadilly, London has a photovoltaic array installed on its roof! Gotta wonder, why don't more government buildings in the US do not already have photovoltaic cells incorporated into them? Oddly, as per www.ucan.org "a progress report reveals that fogbound homeowners in San Francisco and Northern California are rushing to "Go solar" at a much higher rate than residents in sunny San Diego and the rest of Southern California."
DUST IN THE WIND: Windmills kick up and spread dust and other airborne particulate matter. This is terrible for public health and probably not so good for local economies because the increased wind created by the windmill would no doubt increase the land's aridity and water evaporation, dust storms, soil erosion and related problems. These problems are not apparently associated with solar power (though a few manageable problems ones are). I often hear that wind farms can sustain other agricultural ventures, yet cannot imagine a farmer, cow, honeybee or even a blade of grass that would be happy about the extra dust (and noise) associated with wind turbines. This problem does not yet seem to have much coverage; however, one has to wonder - "just how much dust does a wind farm kick up?" As per "Particle Pollution Facts", "Particles come from different sources…. Larger particles also come from other sources, including agricultural practices or wind-blown soil and dust." Also, see: "Exposure to Fine Particle Air Pollution Linked with Risk of Respiratory" (available online). Windy areas are hard enough to live in, and the windmills would only make it worse. I know the Pickens Plan targets areas with sparse populations, yet someone has to live near the wind farms to take car of them, or it will take more energy for the workers to commute to them. Why not just put solar power farms in these regions instead?
WINDMILL NOISE: This concern is often discounted to our peril because even as people and other animals become accustomed to noise, "adverse physiological changes are nevertheless taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health" … "noise pollution is causing more deaths from heart disease than was previously thought,"(working group member Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology at University College in London; see Noise Pollution: The Sound Behind Heart Effects at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.
BIRDS, BATS, BEES & BUTTERFLIES: what is up with allowing so many bird & bat deaths (apparently many more than were killed by the Valdez spill!)? I understand that part of the problem is that wind farms "act as both bait and executioner - rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn their greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm" (CEED Study, p. 2-15). Perhaps the rodents can be stopped, yet how can the 'cuisinart' problem be abated when it seems inherent in the wind turbine's design?
FLYING ICE: wind turbines are built close to roads and/or agricultural sites to avoid long and expensive access roads for erection and maintenance. Thus, people passing by them and their cars are at risk of being hit by chunks of fast flying ice. This concern would be mitigated by building them offshore.
LIGHT: in the daytime, wind turbines create a shadow flicker that can be maddening to see (like light torture). At night, they have to be lit up to be visible from airplanes. How can this concern be mitigated?
Given the noise and rodent and ice and land problems, it seems best to keep wind farms offshore. I am not sure if the light would affect ocean life. They would still kill some birds (so might attract sharks), yet probably not as many as on land. Moreover, the noise would probably not bother marine plants or animals under the water since the water surface deflects sound and the turbines would create reefs, which could help fishing industries. Of course, offshore farms would cost more to maintain because of the saltwater, yet might cost less if the land did not need to be purchased or leased. Maybe existing non-productive oilrigs could be converted to wind farms? Also, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
DAMAGE: to wind turbines by high wind (which is rather ironic), tornadoes (which occur in the areas they would be located), hail storms, hurricanes, ice, lightning (which I understand to be common, and which will be more common as the climate crisis gets worse), etc. Given all these risks, it seems wind farms would cost more than solar farms to run, repair and maintain.
ACCIDENTS: See: http://www.caithnesswindfarms.
ROSENBLOOM: In "A Problem With Wind Power" (at www.aweo.org), Rosenbloom explains that "wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I] … that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II] … (and) that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]." Though he does not appear to give offshore windmills due consideration, I have not seen decent refutations of each of his points. Please refer me to some if you know of any.
The third major flaw has to do with the USA's national LEGACY and that wind is not the best energy source for every bio region of the country.
Why not improve our economy and do our part to protect the climate by becoming the Sun County instead of ending up as the world's biggest wind users? Energy from the sun includes wind energy, so being the Sun County can include wind farms (perhaps more windsea than windland farms).
The good news is that either the Pickens Plan can be updated in a way that resolves and/or addresses all these concerns or we can come up with a better plan (stay tuned).
Automobile Options (click links FMI)
"Air Cars" (WOW!)
Aptera has designed and built an aerodynamic passenger vehicle that is safe, comfortable, and more fuel-efficient (100 - 500 mpg) than anything produced to date. They are taking orders now - the car will have a msrp of about $30,000.
Revealed: Volkswagen's 69.9-MPG Diesel Hybrid
Take it slow and save big on gas "You can get 35 percent better fuel mileage out of your current vehicle by using a device most drivers already have." ... "That would be your right foot." (Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer).
Forget About 100-mpg Cars "If you raise a guzzler's fuel efficiency from 15 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon, you save almost four gallons per 100 miles. But boost a fairly efficient car from 35 mpg to 100 mpg, and you save less than two gallons in the same distance. More importantly, the technology for all cars to reach 35 mpg is already here." (Cliff Kuang at goodmagazine.com).
100 MPG compressed air / petrol hybrid already in testing from 3 companies Thanks to AMUD, for the following four links:
"India's Tata backs air-power car" Tata Motors (India) is developing a hybrid compressed air / petrol car that is already getting over 100 MPG.
Air-Powered Car Coming to U.S. in 2009 to 2010 at Sub-$18,000, Could Hit 1000-Mile Range (by Zero Pollution Motors, a New Paltz startup co).General Motors is developing a compressed air / petrol car with the University of California.
Our New Hydrogen Bomb
Bougainvilleans' generators and trucks are powered by coconut oil.
Mississippi State University Students Win GM and DOE Challenge X 2008 Competition; New ZEV-Based Competition To Begin
No comments:
Post a Comment