The city approves the loan, allowing the home owner to have solar panels installed
The home owner then pays back a portion the cost of the instillation when they pay their annual property taxes
The program is a win-win for both the city and residents. Residents are saving upwards of $500 on their electric bills, and the cost of the instillation can be passed onto future owners of the home should they chose to sell the residence. The city benefits from the program by reducing their carbon emission footprint (as is mandated by California law) without having to build a large scale, expensive municipal solar energy plant.
Palm Springs is a unique location in terms of energy consumption and production. It sits in the middle of a large desert, and extensive energy consumption from widespread and long-season air conditioning make the city something of an energy hog. It is also well suited for solar energy generation, as the city receives on average 350 days of sunshine and is at a relatively low latitude.
But public financing of solar power also has critics, who say government is essentially subsidizing and encouraging a form of energy production that would otherwise not be cost effective. Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley, who is concerned about the proliferation of the programs, said, “It would be better for local governments to do energy efficiency and skip the solar panels.
“If you count the full-interest cost without the tax subsidy, residential solar panels never pay for themselves,” he said. “We shouldn’t be making it a major public priority.”
Perhaps there would be more energy savings per dollar by improving energy efficiency, but if there ever was a place to try this solar experiment it is Palm Desert, CA. Furthermore this experiment seems to be uniquely American. Instead of undergoing a massive government program, it is driven by individuals and is voluntary. Such programs can be successful for people who don’t “think green” but rather are only concerned with the bottom line (of their energy bill).
Would such a program work in the New York Metro region? Absolutely not. There is too little sunshine on an annual basis to make the program manageable. The New York Metro region has tons of wind energy that could be harnessed, but at the present time wind energy cannot be feasibly generated in someone’s backyard. One could imagine municipal level initiatives being successful in terms of increasing home heating efficiency by improving oil/gas burners and home insulation. But home level alternative energy generation remains unlikely in the New York Metro region for the next few years.
Today we continue our look at the two presidential candidates' positions on environmental science issues. Yesterday we talked about their alternative energy proposals, and on Wednesday we spoke of their non-renewable energy proposals. Today we're talking about how they will fund science research, and next Monday we will conclude with their positions on climate change and my endorsement.
America has prospered in the recent decades due to scientific, technological and engineering advances. Since the Second World War, America has been home to the worlds most advance science research, a situation which is expected to change within the next decade as China and Europe pass the United States.
The Case for Science Education. America is no longer producing men and women educated in math and science in numbers necessary to run the engines of our economy and perform world class research. America is importing young scientists from foreign countries to perform research, many of whom get their education for free from America and then return to their home countries. It is important that we develop math and science programs in middle school, high school and college that produce students capable of contributing to the nation.
National Security. A strong national math and science program is needed to develop the engineers and scientists who work for national security programs, developing weapons and technology to keep American’s and America’s servicemen and women from harm.
Pride. America’s pre-eminence in the space program has been a point of pride for our nation, that has driven our technological advances and propelled many a great scientific career. Today the success of the United States space program is threatened both by government budget cuts and the rapid advances being made in China and Europe.
Recent History While the United States debt continues to spiral out of control, research funds for science have remained flat or declined in the past 15 years. I realize that web comics are generally not a great source for data, this comic taken from PhD comics is a well researched and properly cited reference.
Although there are a lot of lines on this chart, but a couple lines tell the picture. The blue and red lines represent genetic research and health research funding. Both begin increasing in federal support in the later half of the Clinton administration and continue growing through the first half of the Bush administration. At the same time the yellow, purple and pink lines, which represent space research, environmental research and energy research begin decreasing, and continue doing so to the present. The government has increased health research at the expense of science research. Military research which had declined from 1988 to 2000, has been increasing rapidly, exceeding the total research spent during the cold war.
So in general the government has decreased research funding to hard sciences, while increasing research funding to health and military.
Candidates Positions The candidates explained their positions on science research and innovation at Sciencedebate2008.com. Here are some highlights.
Philosophies. To those of you paying attention to the election the candidates perspective on science research follows along with the candidates economic plan. Senator McCain favors removing wasteful earmarks, and reallocating those funds to science and reducing government oversight to allow unfettered research. Senator Obama favors increasing research funds for the hard sciences, and promoting educational programs for young scientists. This is as close as you get to the stereotypical “Regan Limited Government Disciple” vs. “Liberal Tax and Spend” positions on the entire campaign.
McCain
• Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;
• Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;
• Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;
• Promote greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government;
• Ensure U.S. leadership in space by promoting an exploration agenda that will combine the discoveries of our unmanned probes with new technologies to take Americans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond;
• Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;
Senator McCain appears to continue the trend set by President Bush of funding health research. President Bush also gave NASA a mandate to increase the space exploration program, and land a manned vessel on Mars. While this is a noble goal, NASA ended up redirecting funds from Earth based environmental research into the Mars project, as no additional funds were allotted by the Predient or Congress. Senator McCain appears to support President Bush’s Mars mandate, and it is unclear if he will provided additional funds to NASA so that they can accomplish this without decreasing Earth based research.
Obama
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works – using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools – training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.
In 2005 I received an honorable mention in the NSF Graduate Fellowship program. I would have received three years of tuition and support, had the program been fully funded by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Instead I have been supported by teaching assistantships from the university, which has greatly slowed my academic progress as I have to teach in order to recieve my tuition and stipend. So, I understand first hand what the budget cuts to NSF have meant to young scientists. Hearing Senator Obama support this program, is heartening to me, although I am the first to admit that I am quite obviously biased about this issue.
Senator Obama also mentions that he would increase the support to the physical sciences, and increase support into new energy development, which is in my opinion greatly needed after years of funding cuts to these programs.
Conclusion I don’t think I can offer an objective analysis of the two positions. It will come down to voter preference of government philosophy, should the federal government step back and be a “small” government or should it increase funding of sciences and be a “large” government. Personally I feel that since if the government doesn’t fund this research, no one will, so we need to invest in science and engineering for the future of our nation. But I do respect the opinion of those who feel that the federal government is too large, and we need to cut spending and programs.
Senator Obama gives specific examples of programs that will encourage young scientists, and moreso than that also provide financial support that will ensure American Universities will continue to provide competent scientists and engineers to power our economy. As such I favor his position here, but must admit that I am badly biased. I would love to hear from you if you disagree.
What happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object?
“Drill, Baby, Drill” is the Republican rally call for extensive exploration of continental shelves for additional oil and natural gas resources, and eventually construction of offshore platforms to extract these fossil fuels from the depths. “Drill, Baby, Drill” is gaining traction nationally with many conservative and moderate voters who would like America to become energy independent, or non-reliant upon foreign nations for our energy needs.
Take a peek at the crowd response at this year’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Certainly energy independence is a great goal for the United States to achieve in the next 10 years. Drilling for offshore oil is obviously popular with the American people. But also popular with the American people are clean, beautiful oceans. Citizens of coastal regions are also quite protective of their ocean views, sometimes voting down offshore windfarm proposals that could reduce their property values. Will voters change their support for offshore oil and gas drilling when it’s their backyard ocean and harbors that are being drilled in?
There is precedence for such a switch in support. Environmentally minded folks refer to this phenomena as NIMBY, or Not In My BackYard.
The Philadelphia Inquirer looks into the possibility of offshore drilling off the coast of New Jersey. The results of their inquiries suggest that local residents are not suffering from a case of NIMBY when it comes to something that could* affect gas prices.
A 62 percent majority of likely New Jersey voters polled this month by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said they favored drilling in protected offshore areas.
An even higher percentage of Jersey Shore voters - 70 percent - supported lifting the ban, polling spokesman Pat Smith said. The poll released yesterday did not ask specifically about drilling off the New Jersey coast.
Look, I’m not here to argue the merits and flaws of offshore drilling**. All I’m trying to say here is that, people are really supportive of the idea, even those who would most likely be negatively affected by such activities. This strong sentiment, that of keeping gas prices as low as possible, regardless of the environmental costs is just something that people and politicians need to keep in mind.
* - You know it could affect gas prices, in like 10 years or so.
** - But just for the record, offshore drilling is in my opinion not worth the risk right now. We don’t yet know the environmental impacts of the construction of offshore oil rigs. We’ll have to invest a lot of resources into offshore exploration, to find the reserves. Then we will have to construct new infrastructure to extract the oil and natural gas. By the time we get a steady flow of oil and natural gas, it will be 10 years later, and oil prices will likely be outrageously high. Additionally, the amount of energy we get from such an endeavor will be very small compared to our consumption rate.
Additionally, if we do invest in offshore drilling infrastructure, we will be committing a tremendous amount of money into something that will probably only be viable for a short period of time. There is a limited amount of fossil fuels off the US coast, and it is not likely to meet our energy needs for a long duration of time. Instead, doesn’t it make sense to start investing in alternative energies, technology that will work for the US forever?
Last night's much anticipated debate had only a few minutes of climate and environmental policy discussion. But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at how each of the debaters did.
Clean Coal Technology Both candidates came out in strong favor of using clean coal technology to drive our energy policy in the next administration. Clean coal technology is an example of hard path energy policy, a policy that increases our use of fossil fuels in an attempt to meet energy demands.
Here is what Senator Biden had to say:
The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.
If Senator Biden is imply that clean coal technology will reduce greenhouse gas emission, he’s wrong – dead wrong. If anything increasing the United States use of coal, will greatly increase our greenhouse gas emissions.
So let’s spend a minute or two discussing clean coal technology. So I’ve heard, it’s useful to use metaphors to describe science to large audiences. Well, clean coal technology is like putting lipstick on a pig…um wait, no that one has been used. Clean coal technology is filthy. Clean coal burning still produces amazingly large quantities of green house gasses. Clean coal technology is only clean when compared to coal burning, which is horrendously bad for the environment.
* Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions * Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of green house gasses produced from burning coal * Clean coal technology does not reduce the impact of harmful strip mining for coal * Clean coal technology is not an alternative fuel *What clean coal technology does is reduce the quantity of fly ash and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced from the burning of coal * Fly ash is a major constituent of particulate matter, small solid particles that float in the air and are harmful to human health * Sulphur dioxide is a major constituent of acid rain * Clean coal technology may or may not reduce the quantity of mercury emitted from coal burning * Mercury is a toxic metal, which is quite harmful to human health
What clean coal technology is, is American. We have tons of coal. Literally, billions of tons of coal. It’s an energy supply that American has in spades. Too bad it’s dirtier than oil, dirtier than natural gas and not even in the same league as solar and wind power.
Climate Change Ms. Palin had a few interesting things to say when it came to the causes of climate change:
I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
Once again Ms. Palin goes on the record as doubting that climate change is the result of man’s continual emission of CO2 and methane. Ms. Palin states that she wants to “positively affect the impacts,” and to be clear the only way to do this is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses. But if you don’t believe that man has caused this problem by producing greenhouse gasses, how can you craft good policy to reduce said gasses?
Senator Biden follows up with a rather cogent point:
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
For contrast, what does Senator Biden accredit climate change to:
Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.
That he goes on to say that clean coal is a way to address climate change is only a minor deduction compared to the major fault of not being able to assert that climate change is driven by man.
Clean Green Natural Gas? Ms. Palin later refers to natural gas as “clean and green:”
They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.
Again, to clear up potential misconceptions, burning natural gas results in greenhouse gas emissions. Anytime you burn a fossil fuel; oil, coal or natural gas, you will produce greenhouse gasses. There is very little that is “green” about tapping into the Earth in environmentally sensitive ecosystems like the Arctic and sub-Arctic by drilling for oil and natural gas.
”Environmentally Friendly Drilling” The debate increased in its intensity as the debaters discussed off-shore drilling. Off shore drilling is a potentially disastrous exploitation of resources on under-studied continental shelves.
Ms. Palin was not impressed with the Biden-Obama position on off-shore drilling.
Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.
There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
There is a lot of hesitation to drill on continental shelves because we know far too little about these remote regions and their ecosystems to assess the impact that drilling would have on them. As a nation we have devoted precious little funding to ocean exploration and marine sciences research. I think this debate reminds us of how important it is to increase our knowledge of the oceans.
Oh and Ms. Palin, Senator Biden noted that there isn’t such a thing as clean coal because there is no such thing as clean coal. There is only slightly-less-filthy-but-still-loaded-in-greenhouse-gasses-coal.
Additional Resources and Transcript Here are some additional resources for those of you interested in learning more about what the debaters had to say. The times had a good running blog of each question and the response from each debater. The Times also links to a blog reporting on clean coal and caps, which I haven’t had a chance to read yet but greatly look forward to reading.
What follows here is Biden and Palin’s brief discussion of climate and energy, from the vice presidential debate last night. The full transcript can be found here.
IFILL: Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?
PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.
I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that. As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.
We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.
IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?
BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.
The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.
China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.
We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.
In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.
IFILL: Let me clear something up, Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.
BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.
IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.
PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets. Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.
There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?
PALIN: I do. I do.
IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?
BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one...
IFILL: Clean coal.
BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry.
IFILL: On clean coal.
BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.
But here's the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John -- and the governor says John is for everything.
Well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he's for everything as long as it's not helped forward by the government. Maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it. I don't know. But he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.
Wow! Zero comments on the last three posts. Okay, this will be the last post on wind power for the near future. We’ll see if we can get some other responses from more interesting topics.
It has taken the nation a long time to get to the point we are today dealing with alternative energies. Although available for a number of years, only now has “alternative energy” become a topic that both political parties are rallying towards. Imagine how much more the push will be towards alternative energies in ten years, when the price of oil has doubled, and American’s home energy bills are soaring. Imagine every state taking advantage of wind and solar potential, constructing turbines and panels along farms and sky scrapers alike. Now imagine, despite all this production, rolling brownouts and blackouts in far removed areas, because we can’t get energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. This is our likely future if the federal government doesn’t take swift action to address the rapidly ageing electrical grid, according to this article in the New York Times.
When the builders of the Maple Ridge Wind farm spent $320 million to put nearly 200 wind turbines in upstate New York, the idea was to get paid for producing electricity. But at times, regional electric lines have been so congested that Maple Ridge has been forced to shut down even with a brisk wind blowing.
Even today, progressive instillation of wind energy in Western and Central New York is being slowed by an antiquated electric grid. (And by the way, another point demonstrating how major this business is to the region, $320 million, yikes!).
I attended a seminar on the use of metaphors in explaining science to the public by Julia Mead last night, and this is an example of one used in the article, that I think is pretty solid (even if it is only a simile):
The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.
“We need an interstate transmission superhighway system,” said Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In short, the current system of electric grids is managed on the state level, and are often constructed with little to no interstate transmission of energy in mind. In the future, if we are to take advantage of the great solar potential in the desert Southwest or the great wind potential in the Great Plains, we will need a modern transmission system. In fact at present, our transmission system is limiting our ability to utilize this potential.
The grid’s limitations are putting a damper on such projects already. Gabriel Alonso, chief development officer of Horizon Wind Energy, the company that operates Maple Ridge, said that in parts of Wyoming, a turbine could make 50 percent more electricity than the identical model built in New York or Texas.
“The windiest sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers,” he said.
I’ll keep today’s post short and sweet, and conclude that an additional concern in the development of alternative energies is that we need a modern electricity transmission system or power grid developed before wide scale utilization of alternative energies is practical. An additional conclusion to be drawn from this point is that generation of energy from alternative sources in New York City is not only a trendy thing to do, but it’s a practical or almost perhaps necessary. Locally produced energy reduces the demand on the grid, and reduces the amount of energy that is wasted during its transmission.
Okay, today’s post will be much shorter than yesterday’s…that was too much text for any mere mortal to enjoy.
Big Turbines in the Big Apple? Yesterday we discussed why large, industry standard 1.5 mega Watt turbines would not work in New York City. Today we’ll talk about a proposal to have large, industry standard 1.5 mega Watt turbines in New York City. As we discussed yesterday wind turbines need a lot of space. They are massive structures. They create noise not suitable for residential locals, and they can throw ice chunks great distances. Where in New York City is there space enough for giant wind turbines? Answer according to the New York Times: the United States largest landfill; Fresh Kills in Staten Island.
Having spent decades persuading the city to close the giant Fresh Kills landfill, Staten Island officials are now arguing that the vast site would be the perfect home for the energy-creating windmills that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has proposed as a way to make New York City more sustainable.
Wow turning what the Staten Island Borough President refers to as “one of the country’s worst ecological nightmares” into New York City’s first wind farm would be quite an environmental coup. Unlike the failed Long Island offshore windfarm, this endeavor may be economically viable (much of the cost with the Long Island had to do with construction and maintenance of an offshore site, a land based construction would be much more economical.) Lost in the Times article is that the project is just part of a major rehabilitation process for the landfill, including the creation of large areas of parkland and nature preserves.
A question arises, will the public have access to parts of the park where the wind turbines are located? Short term exposure to the noise generated by the turbines is not a serious concern, so long as care is taken during icy periods to avoid ice throw, hopefully the public will have full access to the region.
Will Small Turbines Work? A second article in the Times discusses the utility of smaller turbines, the type that Mayor Bloomberg proposes to deploy across the city on rooftops, bridges and other structures. Do these small turbines produce enough energy for their expense?
These tiny turbines generate so little electricity that some energy experts are not sure the economics will ever make sense. By contrast, the turbines being installed at wind farms are getting ever larger and more powerful, lowering the unit cost of electricity to the point that they are becoming competitive with electricity generated from natural gas. The spread of the big turbines and a general fascination with all things green are helping to spur interest in rooftop microturbines, creating a movement somewhere on the border between a hobby and an environmental fashion statement.
The article seems to insinuate that at present the cost of instillation is not made up by the meager energy produced. Instead instillation is being driven by a desire to be green or be trendy. The article attempts to differentiate between smaller stand alone wind turbines and roof based, small turbines, noting that the smaller yet independent wind turbines do indeed produce enough energy to pay for themselves, whereas the roof based ones do not.
One assumes that technology will at some point overcome the technological and manufacturing challenges and produce inexpensive rooftop turbines. But the article notes that there are some major concerns with the urban wind environment in general.
But many experts caution that rooftops, while abundant, are usually poor places to harness the breeze. Not only are cities less windy than the countryside, but the air is choppier because of trees and the variation in heights in buildings. Turbulence can wear down a turbine and make it operate less efficiently. This is particularly problematic for houses with pitched roofs.
New York is a winder environment than most cities (windier in fact than the so called “Windy City” of Chicago), but the presence of sky scrapers does introduce a frictional drag decreasing the wind speed. The building induced turbulence is not a problem that technology will solve any time soon.
So the city faces major technological challenges to its desire to harness wind power upon rooftops. Only time and technology will show if this ambitious project is feasible.
(Aside: Thanks to everyone who has e-mailed me about Science Debate 2008. I am planning on writing a few posts about how this years crop of politicians have performed on issues relating to the environment in October. Until then, you can stop e-mailing me about this :-).)
Avid reader, master strategist and all around great guy Chris John noted this concern about implementing wind power in an urban environment:
If an art exhibit (Olaf Eliasson's [sp] waterfalls) under the Brooklyn Bridge almost killed two kayakers, I dread to think of the mess we're going to have to clean up from wind turbines.
So lets take a few minutes to address wind power, and to think about how well suited it would be for a major urban region like New York City.
A couple of years ago I was lucky enough to win the Evan R. Liblit Scholarship. I was honored to be chosen as the Evan R. Liblit Scholar, since Mr. Liblit was an environmental hero, championing the cause of recycling and responsible waste management on Long Island during the 1980’s and 1990’s. (People are so passionate about Evan Liblit, that they are even willing to row the length of the Yukon River to raise awareness and money). As part of the Scholarship I was to attend the New York State Solid Waste and Recycling Conference in Lake George. Admittedly, I wasn’t particularly excited about this – who wanted to spend a week learning about garbage? But my talk was well received, which was great and I got to see a presentation session on Wind Power in New York State, the content of which has stuck with me ever since.
As it turns out, wind power is becoming a big business in many parts of New York State, especially those regions that abut the Great Lakes. The regions downwind of the Great Lakes are (as we discussed before) in a region with great wind power potential, and also are suffering from a still stagnant economy that began its decline in the late 1980’s. As such many municipalities are investigating whether allowing utility companies to construct wind turbines on farmland and other open terrain would be beneficial to the communities. I can’t recall this with much certainty, but I do recall someone citing at the conference the example of a small town that had reduced its school and property taxes to zero by contracting with a major utility.
To me, one of the most surprising aspects of the wind power craze in Central and Western New York State, was the degree to which lawyers needed to be involved in the process. Here I will try to speak as simply as possible to avoid displaying my legal ignorance (much like Sarah Palin should avoid speaking in public about polar bears, global warming and ANWAR – ZING!). Small rural municipalities were very much so dependant upon two firms (one in Albany one in Buffalo) to draft complicated lease agreements with utilities as well as to craft appropriate zoning regulation that protected the health and welfare of residents along with allowing for economically reasonable utilization of wind energy. This process is much more involved than you think, due to the impacts of ice throw and noise pollution generated by wind turbines (actually it is so complicated that there is a legal blog dedicated to issues regarding wind power).
Ice Throw Ice throw occurs when wind turbine blades become coated in ice, generally from freezing rain or from freezing fog. As winds pick up after the storm, the blades begin to rotate and in the process the ice that has accumulated on the blade can be thrown over large distances. The figure to the right, taken from this non-peered reviewed source, shows the distance ice can be hurled. Along the ordinate (x-axis) is shown the width of the turbine blades in meters. The y-axis shows the distance that ice chunks have been thrown. The color of the dots show the mass of the hurled ice chunks. Smaller chunks of ice have been shown to be thrown lengths in excess of three football fields. Larger chunks of ice, coming in at about 1kg or 2.2 lbs have been shown to be thrown 25m! Well take those results with a grain of salt, since they don’t come from a peer reviewed source, but none the less it is evident that wind turbines cannot be sited in densely populated regions, or even in regions with large amounts of infrastructure. It doesn’t need to be said, but obviously chunks of ice flying off of 50 story buildings in Manhattan would probably be frowned upon by local residents.
It should be noted that by my recollection, none of the speakers at the conference considered ice throw to be a major issue. They noted that technology was improving, reducing the capacity of ice to be thrown and that the amount of ice accumulation was relatively small in general and limited to short periods of the year. They also pointed out the lack of observed injuries related to ice throw, suggesting that either this is not a serious issue or that people have done a good job citing turbines.
Noise Pollution A second major concern that requires the attention of zoners, is that of noise generation. Turbines when operational generate a low frequency humming noise. Although not altogether an unpleasant sound, the volume (which gets higher as the turbines speed up) accumulated over time can injure local residents long term hearing.
Here is a video of a large industrial wind farm, documenting the noise that the giant turbines make:
The amount of noise will vary based on the design of each turbine, the wind speed and local topography. Each community needs to assess how much noise each turbine in their town is expected to put out, and make zoning regulations that make sense for local resident’s health. In the case of New York City, it is unclear whether or not a wind turbine would produce noise in excess of the current noise levels. Massive wind turbines, like those shown on the above video are also not possible in an urban environment. One imagines that a smaller turbine built for rooftop use would have a much smaller noise impact.
Aesthetic impacts The visual presence of wind turbines is thought to have a potential negative aesthetic impact. This is true in many pristine environments, but in other environments some folks actually enjoy the way the wind turbines look. I wish I had a reference to back this up, but I heard once that in Europe property values of locations with wind turbines.
In the case of the Long Island Windpark, concerns over property value were paramount. Additionally folks were very worried about the impact of wind turbines on the view from regional beaches and tourism.
Bird deaths To be frank, I think that this issue is overstated. The number of birds killed by feral cats at Stony Brook University outnumbers the total number of birds killed by wind turbines in all of New York State I would guess. This issue seems to be something of an “ecco-myth” and probably stems back to antiquated technology. Some new wind turbines come equipped with “whistles” that emit sound on a wavelength that birds can hear (humans however cannot hear the sound) and find annoying.
Birds have a large number of threats to their well being to be sure, high tension wires, high rise buildings, automobiles, domesticated invasive species – I’m not so sure that wind turbines are of the order of impacts as the previously listed problems.
Yikes this post is getting long, probably past the point that anyone is still reading. So let me conclude with a wildcard. Everything we have been discussing so far has pertained to the traditional wind turbine. Colossal, gigantic, tall, massive – these are all adjectives that could be used to describe the turbines. These are not the sorts of turbines that would be practical in New York City.
Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said that turbines on buildings would likely be much smaller than offshore ones. Several companies are experimenting with models that look like eggbeaters, which the Bloomberg administration says could be integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings. “”You can make them so small that people think they are part of the design,” Mr. Aggarwala said. “If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city,” he said. “We have a lot of tall buildings.”
Such new turbines would have to be designed to not produce any icethrow, and regardless of the size of the particles or how far they are thrown, ice chunks falling from sky scrapers would not be acceptable. Noise concerns must be taken into account, but I’m not entirely confident that wind turbines would be appreciably louder than air conditioner units currently housed on many rooftops, nor would they be louder than the ambient city noise levels. Bird kill in New York City may be a serious problem as many birds congregate on city rooftops. Furthermore, birds in New York City are notoriously stupid and their termination may be a blessing in disguise…just kidding.
Back at blogcentral today, working very hard on producing some utterly useless data (shown above). So far the past two days, 14 hours in the lab, zero chucks of useful data. I am told this is how the isotope cookie crumbles on a daily basis, so I had better get used to it.
Anyway, I wanted to discuss what exactly “alternative energy” and “renewable energy” means because I think the media often muddles the two expressions, and the definition is lost in the resulting fracas.
An alternative energy source is one that comes from a non-fossil fuel source.
A renewable energy source is one that the fuel or energy source is rejuvenated quicker by natural processes than we consume the fuel.
Let’s look at a few examples of energy sources and try to categorize them in terms of the definitions above.
Coal
Alternative: Coal is not an alternative fuel, as it is a fossil fuel. Renewable: Coal is not renewable. Even though it is slowly regenerated, it is produced on a timescale much slower than we consume it. Environmental Impact: Coal burning is a leading cause of emission of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen bearing compounds to the atmosphere. The process of mining coal is also quite damaging to the environment, and generally to human health.
Natural Gas and Oil
Alternative: Natural gas and oil are not an alternative fuels, as they are fossil fuel. Renewable: Natural gas and oil are not renewable. Environmental Impact: Natural gas burning and oil consumption are the leading cause of emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burning of natural gas and oil produces also generally produces volatile organic compounds and releases nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere. The process of extraction is damaging to the environment, and is expected to become moreso when we extracting oil shale and tar for oil.
Nuclear Energy
Alternative: Nuclear energy is an alternative fuel since it does not consume fossil fuels. Renewable: Nuclear energy is not renewable. Uranium and plutonium ore are a limited resource. Environmental Impact: Nuclear waste is an obvious concern. Retrieval of uranium and plutonium for refinement by means of strip mining can be quite damaging to the environment. Accidental releases, contrary to public opinion, from nuclear power plants are not a legitimate concern given significant advances in nuclear technology over the past 30 to 40 years.
Biofuels
Alternative: Biofuels are alternative fuels as they are not fossil fuel derived. Ethanol produced from corn should be considered a fossil fuel as significant quantities of fossil fuels are required to produce it. Renewable: The major draw of biofuels is that is renewable. To be truly renewable in the long run, sustainable farming practices must be developed. Environmental Impact: Varies strongly from biofuel to biofuel. Biofuels include wood, ethanol from corn or sugarcane, manure and vegetable oils. Some are relatively low impact, others like corn based ethanol are environmentally irresponsible and cause significant harm.
Solar
Alternative: Yes. Solar power is an alternative to fossil fuel. Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a sun, we have solar power available. Environmental Impact: The major challenge with solar power is improving the technology of converting sunlight to useable energy. Short of conversion of natural terrain to solar farms, the impacts of solar technology on the environment is minimal.
Hydro-Electric
Alternative: Yes. Hydro-electric is an alternative to fossil fuel. Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a rain and the tides, hydro-electric power available. Environmental Impact: Varies from application to application. The use of hydro-electric dams can impact rivers and lakes. The use of tidal dams or tidal turbines is somewhat less damaging.
Wind
Alternative: Yes. Wind is an alternative to fossil fuel. Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a sun creating heating thermal imbalances on the Earth, we have wind power available. Environmental Impact: Wind power is the most promising alternative energy source because wind is abundant and cheap. The challenge is placing wind turbines in the appropriate location. Chris J brought up some interesting thoughts regarding the viability of wind turbines in an urban environment that I will address in a future post.
Hopefully that clears up the difference between an alternative energy source and a renewable energy source. Next time we’ll pick up with alternative energy production in urban in the New York environment. We’ll try to tackle the question, what are the challenges and opportunities associated with each type of energy?
Great article in the New York Times yesterday about how New York City aims to provide renewable energy to the city in the next few years.
In a plan that would drastically remake New York City’s skyline and shores, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is seeking to put wind turbines on the city’s bridges and skyscrapers and in its waters as part of a wide-ranging push to develop renewable energy.
….
“When it comes to producing clean power, we’re determined to make New York the No. 1 city in the nation,” Mr. Bloomberg said as he outlined his plans in a speech Tuesday night in Las Vegas, where a major conference on alternative energy is under way.
Sounds good. My initial response to this news is that even though this plan may never see the light of day, it’s great that New Yorkers are hearing that alternative energies can be generated in their backyards. It’s important that New Yorkers put their money where their mouth is, and try to develop energy sources locally, rather than importing energy from California and Arizona. Mayor Bloomberg agrees:
“In New York,” he said in his speech, “we don’t think of alternative power as something that we just import from other parts of the nation.”
Oh but Mr. Bloomberg good sir, I’m afraid we do. A similar project, although smaller in scope, was proposed off the south shore of Long Island. It was rejected handily by Long Islanders mostly due to cost considerations (i.e. it would be really expensive per watt of energy produced), but there was also sizeable objections to obscurations to the view off of Jones Beach.
So what makes the mayor so confident that building wind turbines off of Queens and on top of the George Washington Bridge will not face similar challenges?
Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said that turbines on buildings would likely be much smaller than offshore ones. Several companies are experimenting with models that look like eggbeaters, which the Bloomberg administration says could be integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings. “”You can make them so small that people think they are part of the design,” Mr. Aggarwala said. “If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city,” he said. “We have a lot of tall buildings.”
Well it’s a start I guess. Certainly less visible turbines would be easier for New Yorkers. who are quite proud of their skyline, to accept.
But if New York State has any source of alternative energies, it is wind power. As the figure above shows, the waters off of Long Island and Lake Ontario are considered to be near the highest classification of wind power. Likewise on shore, the Southern Tier, Tug Hill Plateau and nearly all lands downwind of the Great Lakes are good spots for wind turbines as well (not shown).
Contrast that with solar energy. As you can tell from this figure (taken from this fantastic textbook by Botkin and Keller), New York State as a whole ranks very poor in terms of potential solar energy. Of course any one who’s lived here for a winter could tell you that just as easily without a fancy picture -- but none the less solar energy as a future power source in New York will be dependent upon technological advances.
New York City has long done well in thinking ahead of environmental problems and Bloomberg’s administration has been no exception (in fact Mayor Bloomberg has espoused some rather progressive environmental views, at other points during his tenure.). New York City has adopted an aggressive policy of purchasing and preserving land surrounding their extensive reservoir system in an attempt to control water quality. As a result, the city is saving money long term by avoiding the high costs of energy and chemicals for water purification. As an affective bonus this land is preserved from development and adds to the impressive quantity of land preserved in the Catskill State Preserve. But the achievements in the Catskills would be dwarfed by the prospect of the United States largest city developing alternative energies enough to power itself.
Owen Doherty is a Ph.D. student at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at Stony Brook University, having previously received his masters at Stony Brook and his bachelors of science in Atmospheric Science from Cornell University. Owen is doing his research on the transport of small particles (primarily dust) in the atmosphere over long distances.
Finding non-biased information about the environment, specifically on environmental issues affecting the New York metropolitan region can be a challenge. Many groups issuing statements on key issues do so with a political goal in mind, highlighting facts and figures that support only their point of view, and in the process the real science behind the issues can be lost and never explained to the public. At the Metro Environmental Blog, we seek to explain the issues with as little spin as possible, focusing on the science, explaining the issues in as simple a manner as possible.
Here we will discuss environmental issues on a national and global scale, focusing on issues affecting the New York metropolitan region as much as possible. Interesting research results, scientific peer-reviewed journal articles, and media stories will be analyzed and their results presented here.
This endeavor is supported by the Schubel Fellowship but the opinions expressed on this blog are not necessarily the views of the Friends of SoMAS, the School of Marine and Atmospheric Science or Stony Brook University.
Posts
